Kazakhstan's Nuclear Referendum Faces Growing Opposition

By RFE/RL staff - Aug 25, 2024

• Kazakhstan is holding public hearings on a proposed nuclear power plant, but critics say the events are staged and pro-nuclear.
• 
  
• The government claims nuclear power is needed to address energy shortages, but opponents cite safety concerns and Russia's potential involvement.
• 
  
• Anti-nuclear activists have been detained and silenced, and a referendum on the issue is expected to be held soon.
• 
  

The world's largest uranium producer is another step closer to building a nuclear power plant.

Last week, the Kazakh capital, Astana, hosted the last of 20 public hearings staged around the country ahead of a national referendum in the fall on whether to start producing nuclear power.

The format differed little from the discussions held in other cities.

Official presentations focused only on the perceived advantages of nuclear power, while those wishing to ask questions were allocated just two minutes to speak.

After that time had elapsed, the microphone was turned off and those who continued speaking were ushered away.

Some critics never even made it to the venue.

Antinuclear activist Meiirkhan Abdimanapov was fined 129,000 tenges ($270) after being detained in Almaty on August 19 ahead of his trip to Astana.

The official reason for the detention was his participation in an unsanctioned rally six months before.

But he argued that the real reason was to prevent him from repeating his performance at the public hearing in Kazakhstan's largest city on August 16, when he decried the exercise as "an advert for a nuclear power plant."

Then there was the struggle witnessed by journalists from RFE/RL's Kazakh Service inside the Radisson Hotel in Astana, where the August 20 hearing was held.

"What is it that you were saying about speaking freely while at the same time not letting people in?" complained activist Nagizhan Toleubaev as minders at the event tried to bar him from entering the event's main room.

"Didn't the president himself want the issue to be put to public discussion? How do you explain your actions?"

Despite these apparent attempts to manage attendance, the hearings that began last year on the shores of Lake Balkhash -- near the prospective nuclear facility's likely location -- have still witnessed plenty of emotional speeches.

Toleubaev, who was eventually admitted into the question-and-answer session, warned authorities that "future generations will damn you" if the nuclear power plant goes ahead. He was subsequently dragged from the mic by well-built men standing nearby.

And opposition will surely only grow louder as the referendum, which pro-nuclear President Qasym-Zhomart Toqaev has not yet set a date for, gets closer.

But why is his administration heading down this contentious path?

An apparently widening energy deficit is certainly one reason. But another might be nudging from its overbearing ally Russia, which many view as a shoo-in to build the plant.

Rosatom: First Among Equals?

As government-affiliated experts at the public hearings argued, nuclear power is a cleaner form of power generation than the coal-heated and often aging thermal power plants that most Kazakh cities still rely on.

Yet it is also more controversial, and not just because of renewed anxieties around nuclear power in general, after the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan in 2011.

For four decades during the Soviet Union, the northeastern part of Kazakhstan hosted regular, Moscow-directed nuclear tests.

The human and environmental consequences of those tests can still be seen today.

Another source of anxiety, referenced by at least one speaker at the Astana event, is the danger posed by a nuclear power plant in a potential conflict scenario.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine saw Russian forces surround and occupy the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant -- Europe's largest -- in eastern Ukraine early in the war.

In this sense, the territorial threats issued regularly against Kazakhstan by Russian politicians and pundits after Astana failed to support Moscow's invasion have done little to make the idea of a Russian-built nuclear facility appealing.

"A country whose military illegally occupies the nuclear facilities of another sovereign state and creates unprecedented nuclear risks cannot be seen as a reliable partner in the nuclear field," nuclear politics expert Togzhan Kassenova told RFE/RL.

That along with the complications that Western sanctions against Russia could pose to a Russian-led nuclear project in Kazakhstan mean that its nuclear energy giant, Rosatom, "should be a nonstarter for political and practical reasons," argued Kassenova, who is the author of the book Atomic Steppe: How Kazakhstan Gave Up The Bomb.

Tet the government has suggested otherwise.

In 2023 -- before Toqaev said a referendum on the construction of a nuclear plant would be held – the Kazakh Energy Ministry said Rosatom was one of four contractors whose reactors were under consideration for the plant, with EDF of France, the China National Nuclear Corporation, and South Korea's Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power the other three.

In the past, Kazakh authorities have floated the rather hopeful idea of an international consortium to build the potential plant.

But skeptics of the idea that Russian leadership of the project is not inevitable don't have to look far.

In next-door Uzbekistan, then-Energy Minister Zhurabek Mirzamahmudov stated in November that Uzbek authorities were examining the "experience and technology" of other countries and not just Russia, with whom Uzbekistan had already held talks on building a nuclear power plant.

But Tashkent and Moscow subsequently reached an agreement for a Russian-built, small nuclear power plant (SMR) when Russian leader Vladimir Putin visited the Central Asian country for talks in May.

In Kazakhstan, Moscow and Astana are already cooperating in the nuclear realm in higher education.

Among the young supporters of nuclear power in Astana last week was a collective of students and graduates of the Almaty branch of the National Research Nuclear University (NRNU).

The NRNU opened an affiliate on the grounds of the Al-Farabi Kazakh National University in 2022 -- more than a year before Toqaev said the nuclear power plant plan would be put to a national vote.

'A Test Of Patriotism’

Few doubt that the Kazakh referendum will deliver a "yes," despite visible opposition.

The campaign in favor of nuclear power enjoys the resources of the state.

Naysayers, meanwhile, complain they have been repeatedly refused permission from city councils to hold protests against the proposed plant.

Yet for many citizens, there are some compelling arguments in favor of nuclear power.

In Ulken, where the first public hearing on the project was held in August 2023, some residents expressed enthusiasm for the plant's capacity to generate local jobs for a depressed region, even as Balkhash fishermen raised alarm over the future of their industry.

Nationally, and especially in the provinces, power shortages are a growing problem with high consumption in the densely populated south taking a heavy toll on the national grid.

Last year, Kazakhstan's state-run Samruk Energy company projected the national power deficit could double to reach 3 gigawatts by 2029.

Kazakhstan's future nuclear power plant is projected to be significantly larger in terms of capacity than Uzbekistan's in-progress 330-megawatt version -- a downsize on the plant that Tashkent had originally intended to build.

At an event held by antinuclear activists in Almaty in September, speakers acknowledged that villagers who suffer regular outages might be easily convinced of the benefits of nuclear power.

What the government has not done, they said, is present the population with viable and clean alternatives to the plant, such as ramping up of wind and solar production.

The referendum moved a step closer on August 27, when Energy Minister Almasadam Satkaliev issued a proposal for a presidential decree on holding a nationwide vote at a government meeting, which was backed unanimously.

Toqaev, who earlier promised that the referendum would be held in the fall, is expected to name a date imminently.

Blaming "independent bloggers" and media for stirring up criticism of the nuclear plans, Satkaliev said a Kazakh citizen's position on nuclear power was a "test" of "intellect…patriotism…decency," with opponents apparently failing on all three counts.

Nuclear power was needed for "the next frontier, for the development of the economy and science, so that the country reaches a new civilizational level of development," Satkaliev added.

By RFE/RL 

 

Looming Atlantic Current Collapse Threatens Northern Europe's Climate

By Kurt Cobb - Aug 26, 2024

• Two recent studies predict the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) could collapse by mid-century due to climate change.
• 
  
• This collapse would drastically lower temperatures in Northern Europe, causing significant disruptions.
• 
  
• The primary cause is the influx of freshwater from Greenland's melting ice sheet, which disrupts the AMOC's flow.
• 
  
• Despite the urgency, current global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are insufficient to prevent this potential catastrophe.
• 
  

In recent years scientists have been watching and measuring the flow of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, (AMOC), what Americans often refer to as the Gulf Stream though that flow is only part of this vast ocean current. For a long time the belief was that the AMOC—which transports heat from the tropics to Greenland, Iceland and northern Europe and makes them much warmer than they would otherwise be—would continue to flow with no discernible end date.

But two recent studies suggest that the current could not just slow, but stop altogether sometime around mid-century thereby lowering temperatures dramatically in northern Europe. The earlier study from 2023 suggests a collapse could occur sometime between 2025 and 2095, a wide interval, but actually the blink of an eye in geologic time. The more recent study released this year used a more sophisticated model and narrowed the window from 2037 to 2064. Both studies put the most likely date of collapse at mid-century (either 2050 or 2057).

Rising temperatures due to climate change are resulting in vastly increased meltwater coming from the the Greenland ice sheet—which on average is over one mile thick. This meltwater is being dumped into the North Atlantic where it reduces the salinity of the ocean water, thus making the water less dense. This reduced density appears to be slowing the current where it dives deep into the ocean, a dive that is essential for the current to continue to flow.

Meanwhile, business as usual continues in northern Europe and the rest of the world, too. Greenhouse gases are now accumulating in the atmosphere at a record pace. Far from addressing our climate crisis, we as a species are behaving as if it doesn't exist (even though in many places leaders give lip service to doing something while they do nothing commensurate with the danger we face).

Cheerleaders for the so-called energy transition love to talk about how carbon dioxide emissions have "decoupled" from economic growth. By this they generally mean that per capita emissions are declining compared to per capita economic growth. And, while some countries have shown actual declines in the RATE of emissions, that does NOT mean that they are at zero emissions. They continue to contribute to the stock of carbon in the atmosphere at prodigious rates. And, the world as a whole still needs to burn ever increasing amounts of carbon to grow.

That makes me believe that the deep freeze in the North Atlantic will more likely than not arrive on schedule. We have no plan to avert it and simply wearing warmer clothing is not going to address the myriad problems that societies unprepared for sudden climate change will suffer.

By Kurt Cobb via Resource Insights 

 

Why Coal is Still a Cornerstone of the Global Energy Mix

By ZeroHedge - Aug 29, 2024

• In 2023, global coal consumption reached a record 164 exajoules, driven primarily by the Asia Pacific region, where coal provides 83% of energy needs.
• 
  
• China alone consumed 56% of the world's coal, increasing its usage despite global efforts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
• 
  
• Coal remains a significant player in the global energy mix, contributing 26% of the world's energy in 2023, more than all non-fossil fuel sources combined.
• 
  

Despite many nations transitioning away from fossil fuels, in 2023, world coal consumption reached a staggering 164 exajoules (EJ) of energy, a record high for any year. 

For this graphic, Visual Capitalist's Alan Kennedy has partnered with Range ETFs to explore the role coal plays in the global energy mix and determine which regions still consume large quantities of coal. 

The Role of Coal in Global Energy

Coal is a significant player in the global energy mix, contributing 26% of the world’s energy in 2023, more than all non-fossil fuel sources combined. The only energy source that contributed more to the global energy mix was oil.

Here’s how that consumption breaks down by region:

Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. *Commonwealth of Independent States

Coal consumption has decreased in many regions. For example, both North America and Europe reduced their energy consumption from coal by 16% in 2023. However, a heavy reliance on coal in the Asia Pacific region has led to global coal consumption remaining essentially the same over the past 10 years.

In 2023, China increased its coal consumption from 88 EJ to nearly 92 EJ—totalling 56% of global coal consumption. This contributed significantly to Asia Pacific leading the world with a staggering 83% of global coal consumption. 

The Importance of Coal

Easy access to existing infrastructure and reasonable prices have not only sustained global coal consumption over the last 10 years, but also paved the way for potential growth. Many developing nations are now expanding their coal consumption, presenting potential opportunities in the coal market.

For example, as per the Statistical Review of World Energy 2024, between 2022 and 2023, Bangladesh and Colombia saw double-digit percentage increases in year-over-year coal consumption: 41% and 53%, respectively.

Coal continues to play a critical role in the global energy mix, especially in the developing world, where its affordability makes it the current energy source of choice.

By Zerohedge.com

 

Why Brand Loyalty Takes a Backseat for American Car Buyers

By ZeroHedge - Aug 28, 2024

• Nearly half of Americans are likely to change their car make on their next purchase, despite expressing high satisfaction with their current brand.
• 
  
• This trend suggests that Americans are more interested in trying new car types than remaining loyal to a specific carmaker.
• 
  
• Brand loyalty is stronger for banks, smartphones, and internet providers, with fewer consumers indicating a likelihood to switch.

In a recent survey by Statista Consumer Insights, almost half of Americans said that they were likely or very likely to change their car make on the next possible occasion. Consumers appeared more loyal to their primary bank, smartphone brand, mobile carrier, home and car insurance as well as internet provider, with only around 30 percent saying they were likely to make a switch when it was next possible. At 27 percent, the internet provider was the least likely to be changed.

You will find more infographics at Statista

As part of the same survey, 86 percent said they were actually satisfied or very satisfied with their car make, showing that switching up carmakers has less to do with dissatisfaction and more with trying new types of cars. 80 percent also said they were satisfied with their internet provider. Almost half of respondents said they wanted to purchase a new or used car in the 12 months after the survey. The most commonly owned brands in the United States were Chevrolet and Ford, followed by Toyota, BMW and Honda, according to the survey. 

By Zerohedge.com

 

Visualizing the Renewable Energy Landscape Across G20 Countries

By ZeroHedge - Aug 27, 2024

• Brazil leads the G20 in renewable electricity generation with 89% of its power coming from renewable sources, primarily hydro, solar, and wind.
• 
  
• Canada and Germany follow Brazil with 66% and 58% of their electricity generated from renewables, respectively.
• 
  
• Most G20 nations have passed their peak power sector emissions, with Brazil's emissions 38% below 2014 levels.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist's Bruno Venditti, shows how much electricity is generated from renewable sources among G20 countries.

The data is based on Ember’s yearly and monthly electricity reports as of 2023. Data for Saudi Arabia is not available.

Brazil Leading in Renewable Energy

The global average for renewable electricity is 30%, but nearly half of the G20 countries fall below this average.

Brazil leads the G20 in renewable electricity, with 89% of its power generated from renewables in 2023. The country’s high share of renewables is due to its robust hydroelectric base and rapid expansion of solar and wind energy.

Canada, in second place, generates 66% of its electricity from renewables, primarily hydropower.

Germany, in third place, has the highest proportion of wind and solar in its energy mix.

G20 Economies Past the Peak of Fossil Power

The majority of G20 economies are at least five years past their peak power sector emissions.

At the top of our list, Brazil’s power sector emissions peaked in 2014 at 114 million tonnes of CO2 (MtCO2). By 2023, nine years after the peak, its power sector emissions were 38% below 2014 levels, at 70 MtCO2.

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic showing emission reduction targets by country in 2024.

By Zerohedge.com

 

Oil Dominates the $5 Trillion Global Commodity Market

By ZeroHedge - Aug 26, 2024

• Oil and its products represent 30% of global commodity exports, valued at $1.5 trillion annually.
• 
  
• The energy sector, including natural gas, electricity, and coal, contributes 40% to the value of global commodity exports.
• 
  
• Agricultural exports, valued at $1.9 trillion, rank second only to energy, with crops and forestry leading the category.
• 
  

This chart, via Visual Capitalist's Pallavi Rao, categorizes over $5 trillion in global commodity exports by sector and the value of material exported.

Data was averaged between 2019–2021 to represent an annual estimate. Source figures can be found at The State of Commodity Dependence 2023 published by UN Trade & Development.

Commodity Exports with the Highest Value

Oil and its products account for 30% of global commodity exports on average, valued at $1.5 trillion annually.57U.S Grid Faces Tough Test as Heat Wave Hits Midwest

Figures rounded.

When including natural gas, electricity, and coal exports, the energy sector contributes 40% to the value of global commodity export per year ($2 trillion). Agricultural exports ($1.9 trillion) rank second and are higher in value than mineral exports ($1.4 trillion).

Within agriculture, crops and forestry has the lion’s share of value at $1.2 trillion. This category includes everything from wheat to wood exports.

Meanwhile, the minerals sector is more equally divided between base metal exports (like copper, iron, and aluminum) and precious metals and stones (gold, silver, diamonds).

Not pictured in this graphic is how international the commodity trade tends to concentrate in just a few countries on the exports side. For example, one-fourth of all copper produced in 2023 came from Chile.

The flip side of this means some of these major resource exporters have a significant amount of commodity dependence. And relatedly, many of them are low or middle income countries. When international prices for the commodity exported decline, the likelihood of financial crises and reduced public spending increases, further entrenching economic challenges in these regions.

Oil’s export value closely mirrors its consumption as a primary energy source. Check out “What Powered the World in 2023?” to see the world’s energy mix.

By Zerohedge.com

 GREENWASHING 

Big Oil’s Carbon Credit Strategy Faces Scrutiny

By Irina Slav - Aug 26, 2024

Last month, the United Nations targeted carbon credits, also called carbon offsets, as an overused tool for emission reduction.

 

Both big oil and big tech firms have used carbon credits to reduce their scope 3 emissions instead of moving to physically reduce those emissions

 

Climate activists have been vocal about the goal of carbon credits, stating that their use would give oil companies a 'carte blanche' to continue business as usual.

• 
  

Just a year ago, carbon credits were all the rage. Companies struck deal after deal in a market that analysts said would grow at breakneck speed. Then, it all started unwinding. Because Big Oil was using carbon credits, too. Apparently, it wasn’t supposed to go this way.

Back in 2022, Shell said it would invest some $100 million in developing what are commonly called carbon sinks or ecosystems that absorb more carbon dioxide than they emit—if they emit any at all. The supermajor then planned to turn those sinks into a business, issuing carbon credits to sell to other companies in need of decarbonization.

In September last year, however, Shell dropped those plans. The change of heart followed an investigation carried out by The Guardian and Die Zeit that revealed as much as 90% of the carbon credits verified as legitimate by the largest carbon credit certification company at the time were essentially worthless.

The revelation made some noise and cast doubt over the usefulness of carbon credits in the energy transition. Some critics have even called the indulgences modeled on the Medieval practice that the Catholic church had of selling forgiveness for sins. And the biggest sinner of them all is, of course, the oil and gas industry.

The oil and gas industry has no other way to decarbonize except by offsetting the emissions related to its operations through carbon credits. It is no accident that Occidental, the first oil and gas company to make an emissions commitment in the U.S. oil patch, is investing heavily in direct air capture, which it would tie to the issuance of a version of carbon credits to sell to big emitters.

It is no accident that every energy company with decarbonization plans has carbon credits included in these plans—because the only other way for oil and gas companies to cut their emissions is by essentially committing suicide. And they are far from the only ones.

Related: Russia Launches 200 Missiles at Ukrainian Energy Installations

Last month, the United Nations targeted carbon credits, also called carbon offsets, as an overused tool for emission reduction when companies should actually be cutting their real emissions, the FT reported at the time. Indeed, the UN drafted a document recommending that companies do not use credit offsets at all outside government-regulated programs such as the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme.

“I would hope and I would expect that serious organisations that are committed to protecting ecosystems . . . don’t shut down an avenue for channelling that carbon finance,” the head of BP’s carbon trading business unit said in comments on the UN document at the time.

Now, Bloomberg is reporting that Big Oil has become the ultimate winner from that carbon credit market that the UN so dislikes. Calling the energy industry “the main perpetrators of the global climate disaster,” the report states that Big Oil is using carbon credits in order to reduce its Scope 3 emissions instead of physically reducing these emissions.

Yet there is a twist: Big Oil is far from the only industry doing this. Big Tech, a massive emitter that is only getting even more massive by the data center, is doing exactly the same thing—because there is no way Big Tech can source 100% of the electricity it needs from wind, solar, and batteries, not without carbon credits. Neither can any other industry that needs a reliable supply of energy around the clock.

Climate activists, however, have a problem exclusively with Big Oil, even though some involved in the transition have argued that Big Oil using carbon credits to offset their emissions is, in fact, part of the transition and, as such, a positive. Activists have argued—correctly—that carbon credits would help the oil and gas industry to survive for longer, implying their ultimate goal is the demise of that industry as the final solution to the climate change problem, regardless of the cost.

Businesses, meanwhile, have continued using carbon credits, with institutions emerging to make sure they are not worthless, as the Guardian/Zeit investigation revealed. The most influential of these, the Science Based Targets initiative, became the site of a scandal focused on those troublesome Scope 3 emissions earlier this year when it did an about-turn on its original policy, announcing it would, from now on, let companies count credits towards Scope 3 emission reductions.

The announcement caused an uproar among the SBTi’s employees, so the organization had to do another about-turn and go back to its original stance on Scope 3 emissions and credits. The reason for the uproar was the same reason that Bloomberg laments Big Oil’s position as what it called a big winner of the carbon credit system as a whole: not enough actual emission reductions.

Critics of the system are certainly right to point that out. From another perspective, however, the transition is about net zero rather than absolute zero. If carbon credits work as advertised, they should be contributing to an overall reduction in emissions. Also, it should not matter which industry uses these if the ultimate goal is to lower emissions of carbon dioxide.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com