Bad News For Bush

Business as usual in Iraq. Surge or not.

Iraq has failed to meet all but three of 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for political and military progress, according to a draft of a Government Accountability Office report.

"While the Baghdad security plan was intended to reduce sectarian violence, U.S. agencies differ on whether such violence has been reduced," it states. While there have been fewer attacks against U.S. forces, it notes, the number of attacks against Iraqi civilians remains unchanged. It also finds that "the capabilities of Iraqi security forces have not improved." "Overall," the report concludes, "key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds," as promised.

Iraq needs $100-150 bln for reconstruction: Finance minister

AMMAN (Reuters) - Iraq needs at least $100 billion to rebuild its shattered infrastructure after four years of violence and lawlessness following the U.S.-led invasion of 2003, Finance Minister Bayan Jabor said on Monday.

"The country is devastated and we are in need of at least $100 billion to $150 billion to restore infrastructure -- from sewerage to water to electricity to bridges and basic needs of the country," he told Reuters in Amman.

He said about $4 billion had been spent on infrastructure projects so far this year, more than in all of 2006, when internal violence and the limited capacity of the Iraqi private sector meant only about 40 percent of $6 billion allocated in the budget was used.

"What happened last year was ... a failure in the government's ability to execute," Jabor said.

Health and humanitarian crisis in Iraq

The billions of dollars planned for reconstruction are going unspent as the situation on the ground has spelled suspension for reconstruction efforts. While the coalition forces had not predicted the downward spiral that ensued - predicting a peaceful transition from one regime to another - investments have been mainly made in reconstruction efforts and in comparison, next to nothing, has been set aside for humanitarian assistance.

Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction

July 30, 2007 Quarterly and Semiannual Report to Congress (Highlights, All Sections and Appendices)

Asset Transfer
SIGIR produced another audit on the asset-transfer process,
looking at how completed projects are transferred to
Iraqi control. During the course of the audit, SIGIR found
that the Government of Iraq (GOI) has failed to accept a
single U.S.-constructed project since July 2006. Although
local Iraqi officials have accepted projects, the national
government has not. Moreover, SIGIR learned that the U.S.
government is unilaterally transferring projects to Iraq. The
failure of the asset-transfer program raises concerns about
the continuing operation and maintenance of U.S.-constructed
projects.

First Focused Financial Review
This quarter, SIGIR completed the first in a series of
focused financial reviews of large contracts funded by
the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund (IRRF). These
reviews will meet the “forensic audit” requirement
that the Congress imposed upon SIGIR last December
through the Iraq Reconstruction Accountability Act of
2006.

This initial review examined the work performed
by Bechtel under its Phase II IRRF contract. SIGIR’s
findings from the Bechtel audit are emblematic of
the many challenges faced by contractors in the Iraq
reconstruction program, including insufficient oversight,
descoping, project cancellations, cost overruns,
and significant delays in completing projects. SIGIR has
announced the next round of focused financial reviews,
which will audit the largest contracts in the Iraq reconstruction
program over the next year.

Anti corruption
The Embassy made progress on several fronts to address the endemic corruption in Iraq, which SIGIR views as a “second insurgency.” This quarter saw the inception of the Iraqi-created Joint Anti-Corruption Council (JACC), comprising the three main anticorruption organizations in Iraq, as well as other governmental representatives. A SIGIR audit this quarter identified continuing challenges to the implementation of a coherent anticorruption effort, including the absence of a program manager with the authority to coordinate the overall anticorruption effort and the lack of a comprehensive plan that ties anti corruption programs to the U.S. Embassy’s Iraq strategy.

Officer overseeing Iraq reconstruction projects urges patience

Brig. Gen. Michael J. Walsh, commander of the Corps of Engineers' Gulf Region Division in Baghdad since Oct. 14, 2006, is responsible for overseeing the bulk of U.S.-funded reconstruction projects in Iraq. Earlier this summer, Government Executive senior correspondent Katherine McIntire Peters interviewed Walsh when he was in Washington during a brief leave from Iraq. The following is an edited transcript:

Q: You've been in Iraq more than eight months now. How have things gone with reconstruction during that time?

A: The security issue had an impact on about 12 percent of our projects when I got there, and now it's up to about 19 percent. Certainly part of the requirements in building, whether in the United States or Iraq, is to make sure you get the skilled labor, the equipment and the materials you need. In Iraq, you also need to make sure the security piece is taken care of, and then make sure the politics are OK with the local tribes and the provincial leadership. If any one of those four or five things is not in alignment, then you have to slow down or stop a project.

About 60 percent of our contracts are now with Iraqi firms. If an Iraqi principal or an Iraqi senior worker receives a cell phone call threatening him or his wife, he may not come to work. That's what we call an impact to the construction schedule. There also have been some attacks on particular project sites. Some small percentage have been damaged beyond repair. So far, we've completed 3,200 projects. I would say probably less than 1 percent of those have been destroyed. It's a very small percentage.

Troops Confront Waste In Iraq Reconstruction

Maj. Craig Whiteside's anger grew as he walked through the sprawling school where U.S. military commanders had invested money and hope. Portions of the workshop's ceiling were cracked or curved. The cafeteria floor had a gaping hole and concrete chunks. The auditorium was unfinished, with cracked floors and poorly painted walls peppered with holes.

Whiteside blamed the school director for not monitoring the renovation. The director retorted that the military should have had better oversight. The contract shows the Iraqi contractor was paid $679,000.

Americans who report Iraq corruption pay a price

Corruption has long plagued Iraq's reconstruction. Congress approved more than $30 billion to rebuild Iraq, and at least $8.8 billion of it has disappeared, according to a government reconstruction audit.

Yet there are no noble outcomes for those who have blown the whistle, according to a review of such cases by The Associated Press.

William Weaver, a professor of political science at the University of Texas-El Paso and a senior adviser to the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, said, "If you do it, you will be destroyed."

Investigating an Outsourced War

The United States government detained Donald Vance just outside Baghdad for 97 days. They hooded him, interrogated him ruthlessly, and blasted his cell with heavy metal music. He was accused of selling weapons to terrorists. His real crime appears to be telling the FBI about corrupt contracting practices in Iraq. Vance is among a select group of state enemies: whistleblowers.

We know this because of an Associated Press story that uncovered Vance’s ordeal. Vance, suspicious that the contractor he worked for was supplying weapons to insurgents, started supplying information to the FBI back in the States. But he was soon detained by Army Special Forces and brought to Camp Cropper for his 97-day stay.

The story also reported the fate of other whistleblowers who have tried to halt the massive boondoggles still ongoing in Iraq: they have been “vilified, fired, and demoted.”

Bunnatine Greenhouse, a high-ranking civilian in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who testified about the corrupt practices of a Halliburton subsidiary now “sits in a tiny cubicle in a different department with very little to do and no decision-making authority, at the end of an otherwise exemplary 20-year career.” Julie McBride testified about the same Halliburton company’s cost exaggerations and skimming. What happened? “Halliburton placed me under guard and kept me in seclusion. My property was searched, and I was specifically told that I was not allowed to speak to any member of the U.S. military. I remained under guard until I was flown out of the country.”

Pentagon auditors investigating alleged Iraq contract fraud
Mike Rosen-Molina at 7:13 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Department of Defense will send an investigative team headed by Pentagon Inspector General Claude M. Kicklighter to Iraq to probe allegations of fraud and corruption related to military contracts, a DOD spokesman said Tuesday. The team will concentrate on incongruities concerning weapons and supplies bought by the US and intended for the use of Iraqi forces. As of last week, 73 criminal investigations were underway into contracts valued at more than $5 billion, Army spokesman Col. Dan Baggio said Monday; 20 military and civilian figures, including an officer who worked closely with Gen. David Petraeus , have already been indicted. The New York Times reported Tuesday that multiple federal agencies, including the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are conducting their own investigations into the matter.

The Rip-off in Iraq: You Will Not Believe How Low the War Profiteers Have Gone

Operation Iraqi Freedom, it turns out, was never a war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. It was an invasion of the federal budget, and no occupying force in history has ever been this efficient. George W. Bush's war in the Mesopotamian desert was an experiment of sorts, a crude first take at his vision of a fully privatized American government. In Iraq the lines between essential government services and for-profit enterprises have been blurred to the point of absurdity -- to the point where wounded soldiers have to pay retail prices for fresh underwear, where modern-day chattel are imported from the Third World at slave wages to peel the potatoes we once assigned to grunts in KP, where private companies are guaranteed huge profits no matter how badly they fuck things up.

Humanitarian disillusions

On August 28th, Al-Jazeera English broadcast a report that the Salvadorian contingent of the MNF-I will be renewed in Iraq, highlighting their “reconstruction and humanitarian assignment”. It’s not the first misuse of the humanitarian concept. Everyone is aware of the existence of Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps fewer people know that some Private Security Companies (PSCs), that are often compared to mercenary companies, justify their presence through “humanitarian” reasons.

For example, the British Aegis, well known in Iraq for the video broadcast by its personnel showing them firing at civilian vehicles with Elvis Presley as accompanying background music. As one of the largest PSC worldwide they have created the “Aegis Foundation”, which has been active across Iraq since 2004 and “has completed a wide range of projects assisting communities in urgent need, from providing clean drinking water for schools and inoculations against water-borne diseases to supplying hospitals and medical clinics with generators and essential equipment.” The International Peace Operation Association (IPOA), which, at the exact opposite of what its name suggest is a trade association of some of the most prominent PSC and has rules of engagement in its Code of Conduct, doesn’t hesitate to talk about the “benefits of military in humanitarian role” in its newsletter.

SEE:

Military Industrial Complex

The Cost of War

U.S. Supplies Iraqi Insurgents With Weapons

Surge Blackout

What He Didn't Say

Iraq; The War For Oil

Look In Your Own Backyard

Iraq Inspector General

Another Privatization Failure

Conservative Nanny State

Another Privatization Myth Busted

Halliburton

Privatization of War

Privatization


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Iraq, contractor, privatization,
Bush, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, USA, war, KBR, Halliburton
Corruption, Halliburton, Bechtel,
Politics, SOTU, State of the union, President Bush,
infaltion, recession, USeconomy, USA, economy, banks, war, costofwar, Iraq, Afghanistan, military, deficit, debt, Bush, WhiteHouse, economics, Halliburton, Bechtel,
Inspector-General, USA, Iraq, insurgency, Iran, IED, GAO, crony-capitalism, subsidies, war-profiteering, taxpayers,

Business As Usual

US Senator Elizabeth Dole likes to say in defense of the US invasion of Iraq that it is bringing the poor oppressed people there "Free Market Democracy". Truly American enteprize and business have taken over Iraq;

Judge Radi Hamza Radi, head of the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity set up in 2004, says corruption has “exploded" since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003.

US auditor lists failures in rebuilding of Iraq

The top auditor of the US reconstruction effort in Iraq yesterday detailed a series of failures, including a $218.5 million emergency radio network that doesn't work, a hospital that is turning out to be twice as expensive as planned, an oil pipeline that is spewing lakes of crude oil onto the ground, and a prison that was meant to hold 4,400 inmates but can house only about 800.

Stuart Bowen Jr. , the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, cited multiple causes for the failures at a Senate hearing yesterday, among them the growth of the Iraqi insurgency, poor planning by the US government, and corruption in the Iraqi government.

But he also took aim at the ``cost-plus" contracts given to American construction firms -- including Bechtel, part of the consortium that oversaw Boston's Big Dig -- which guaranteed profits on top of the cost of the project, even with huge overruns.

Thats Iraq now ask yourselves what is happening in Afghanistan? Same thing.

"Everybody complains about corruption in government administration, especially with the judiciary," Hazami told The Associated Press.

Mission Impossible?

NATO faces a culmination of challenges aside from the Taliban military threat. The poppy culture of the south runs the local economy and serves the interests of the Taliban. It is run by tribes that live on both sides of the border with Pakistan, forging stronger ties amongst themselves and pushing any allegiance with Kabul further away. The area is dominated by a Pakistani sphere of influence; politically, economically and socially. Many businesses trade the Pakistani rupee as a means of legitimate currency and cross border trading and businesses are only second to opium production as the most profitable commercial activity in the area. This is a tough challenge for international troops to overcome as they try to prop up a central government’s control where it is already widely mistrusted and unwanted.

NEWS ANALYSIS: Rogue States Within States Pose Growing Threat

Although the United States largely destroyed al Qaeda's haven in Afghanistan, the terrorist network remains the world's most feared -- and probably the hardest to contain -- transnational group.

"The only thing that we found works is if we can convert (groups like al Qaeda) ... isolate them in a state, so that it looks more or less like a state threat," said Chet Richards, a former U.S. Air Force Reserve air attache to Saudi Arabia, who has written extensively about nontraditional enemies the United States is likely to face in the 21st century.

"We did it in Afghanistan. But once ... you've taken down their main state basis, they become basically organized crime."

Although it lost control of Afghanistan in 2001, the Taliban has returned -- this time, as a nonstate actor, which in recent months appears to have gone from strength to strength, launching incursions into Afghanistan out of the tribal provinces of western Pakistan, where the Pakistani government has been unable -- or, some experts say, unwilling -- to rein it in.

Also See:

Iraq

Afghanistan


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Iraq, Afghanistan, Corruption, Halliburton, Bechtel, USA, Dole, Free-markets, democracy, bribery, opium, Taliban, Pakistan, Kazami

The Incompetence of Masters of War

Western defense giants tout cutting-edge tech, but their “state-of-the-art” systems often fall short in asymmetrical warfare. From faulty missile defense systems to overpriced carriers, the only thing that consistently works is the profit machine.

By Samuel Geddes

August 12, 2024

Source: Jacobin


USS Dwight D. Eisenhower



The ineffectiveness of “cutting-edge” military technology shown in Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the spillover conflicts undermines the notion that the military-industrial complex aims to win wars. Instead, it reveals its true objective: profiting from ongoing conflicts.

Since its crushing victory in the 1967 Six-Day War, one of Israel’s primary functions as a US-European client state has been that of a weapons laboratory. Throughout eight decades of repressing, invading, and annexing the territory of regional countries, it has served as a proving ground for arms manufacturers.

This continuous opportunity for such demonstration has enabled Israel, starting in the 1980s, to develop its own highly globalized military-industrial complex. From tanks to drones, “Israel” became a byword for the technical superiority and unbeatable effectiveness of western hard power over those on its receiving end.

Since the turn of the millennium, however, and especially since the Hamas-led Palestinian offensive against Israel on October 7, the region has become a weapons lab of a very different kind. It now showcases the armaments of its enemies and their ability, for a fraction of the cost and technical complexity, to render its space-age technology uneconomical and, by extension, obsolete.

The spread of cheap, cost-effective arms among asymmetric opponents of the West has significantly blunted the power of conventional weapons systems. The rational thing to do is accept this and redirect these hundreds of billions of wasted dollars to social programs and infrastructure. Almost anything would be more defensible than the status quo.

Costly Defense, Cheap Defeat

By no means is this the first time the efficacy of Western armaments has been called into question. A near-identical situation unfolded more than three decades ago during the US-led war on Iraq over its occupation of Kuwait. Official outlets gloried in the technical prowess of the weaponry brought to bear against the Ba’athist armed forces, with the media marveling at the proclaimed effectiveness of the Patriot missile defense system. Its success rate at shooting down Iraqi ballistic missiles was almost immediately challenged. A subsequent US government study into the Patriot system’s performance revised the initial claims of an 80 and 50 percent interception rate in Saudi Arabia and Israel respectively to 70 and 40 percent. The report further notes that, according to the “strongest evidence,” the overall success rate of the Patriot system during Desert Storm dwindled to 9 percent.

In the intervening three decades, Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor emeritus Theodore Postol has been one of the most consistent critics of missile defense systems, compellingly arguing they routinely fail to intercept their targets and are regularly known to misfire. A stark example of this occurred on April 13 of this year, when, after bombing the Iranian consulate in Damascus and killing several senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commanders, Israel faced the largest combined drone and missile barrage in history as Iran and its regional allies responded.

Although Israel claimed to have intercepted “99 percent” of the ordnance, the Iron Dome system relied heavily on the support of US, French, British, Saudi, and Jordanian militaries to prevent Iranian munitions reaching their targets. Despite this, and despite Tehran’s warnings that a strike was imminent, some missiles evaded the combined Israeli air defenses and struck critical military targets such as the Nevatim air base in the Negev desert. The total cumulative cost of this seemingly impressive feat of missile defense (assuming we take Israel at its word) has been estimated at more than $1 billion for all of the interceptor munitions fired, whereas the cost of the Iranian operation was at most $80 to $100 million — one-tenth of the price.

In a related theater of the conflict, the Yemeni political and military movement Ansar Allah began launching drones and missiles at commercial ships in the Bab al-Mandeb channel, in solidarity with Gaza. Instead of addressing the Houthis’ stated objectives, the West responded with armed force. Anticipating a US-led blitzkrieg against Yemen, one of the poorest Arab countries, online hawks warned Yemenis that they were “about to find out” why Americans “don’t have universal healthcare.” After eight months of the fiercest naval combat experienced since World War II, the unintended truth of that hollow bluster is more apparent than its authors could ever have intended.

Billion-Dollar Blunders

In June, the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, a supreme example of American hard power, was withdrawn from the Red Sea waters bordering Yemen. Conflicting reports emerged as to whether Ansar Allah had in fact successfully struck and damaged the vessel or whether it had simply exhausted its interceptors against the relentless barrage of disposable Shahed drones launched by the Yemeni movement. Regardless of the exact reason, the situation demonstrated that fielding the most powerful navy in history — and potentially losing its most powerful vessel — was prohibitively more expensive, in pure monetary terms, than the cost to its opponents of attacking it.

A relatively “low-tech” drone with a sufficient payload needs only to evade a carrier’s defenses and hit its target once, whereas these dollar defense systems must be successful every time. Comparing the cost of an interceptor missile (ranging from a minimum of $2 million apiece to as much as $28 million) to that of a Shahed drone ($20,000 to $50,000), this is a losing proposition in the long run. On top of this, the presence of this overwhelming firepower has done nothing to prevent Ansar Allah from strangling maritime traffic through the Red Sea and imposing yet another supply chain crisis on the global economy.

It may even be that the current spike in tensions between Israel and Hezbollah, possibly presaging a full-scale war, was brought on by exactly the kind of technical malfunction that Professor Postol has warned of. Israel’s July 30 assassination of the lead Hezbollah commander Fu’ad Shukr, which is expected to prompt imminent retaliation from Hezbollah, was claimed by Tel Aviv to have been in response for a missile strike on July 27 that killed twelve children in Majdal Shams in the occupied Golan Heights.

This claim overlooks the fact that the area is Israeli-occupied Syrian territory and its residents have refused Israeli citizenship along with the “sympathy” of the Benjamin Netanyahu regime. Furthermore, the narrative surrounding this “attack” quickly buried suspicions that the missile involved was an Iron Dome interceptor that veered wildly off course, striking the very territory it was supposed to be shielding. If this hypothesis proves true, then the potentially calamitous war that may result will have been triggered by an errant missile fired by a prohibitively expensive and dangerously unreliable missile defense system.

Squandering Public Supports

If all this technical wizardry isn’t meant to win wars, one wonders about its purpose. It’s reminiscent of Boeing’s plea deal with the US government to avoid legal consequences for substandard manufacturing, which at its worst, killed more than three hundred passengers in two separate crashes. The priority is to sell planes, not to make sure they stay in the air.

One of the few sectors seemingly impervious to the stock market crash at the start of this August has been the defense industry. Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and General Dynamics have all been in a sustained uptrend over the past year, spiking very conspicuously around October 7. Clearly the large-scale and repeated demonstration of their products’ ineffectiveness is no obstacle to long-term profitability.

The most notorious example of wastefulness in military spending is undoubtedly the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jet. From the program’s inception in 2006 to the present, the F-35 was projected to cost over $1.7 trillion over its lifetime. Persistent cost overruns and development woes have angered even the Pentagon itself, which opened the program up to competitive bidding in 2012. More than a decade later, the rapid spread of drone technology has made it possible for unmanned craft, sometimes referred to as “loitering munitions,” to perform many of the tasks traditionally handled by fighter jets — with little overengineering and none of the risk to an actual pilot. That the total budget of this program could eradicate all American student loan debt or cover half the cost of a national health system only adds to the obscenity of it all.

It is well-known that the military-industrial economy is dependent on public subsidy. The technology in mobile phones, computers, and the internet — essential to modern life —was not “invented” by figures like Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates, but was instead developed by public investment. The initial funding came from decades of American taxpayer dollars.

Capitalism is not designed to be ethically consistent, but if it were, companies whose business model depends on state supports would be paying out dividends to every single American as a return on their initial investment.

In 2024, the US military budget reached an incredible $841 billion. If even a fraction of these funds were to be spent on restoring the education system to a level befitting the richest country on earth, canceling university tuition debt, or creating a national health system, it would achieve far greater benefits. While $1 trillion might not result in effective missile shields, it is very likely capable of creating a functioning health or educational system.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY 

 

Americans Are Paying a Massive Price To Maintain the Empire

by Matthew Hoh Posted onJanuary 25, 2024

Two press reports stood out to me this morning: the release of the names of two US Navy SEALs who drowned two weeks ago in the Arabian Sea and the Air Force’s production authorization for the B21 Raider bomber. Both stories symbolize an imperial inertia that defines American national security policies, an inertia that is damaging our democracy and jeopardizing futures.

The SEALs died taking part in a blockade mission against Yemen, a mission that dates back nearly a decade and is part of a two-decade-long history of US military action against Yemen (the US first launched a drone strike in Yemen in 2002). US policy towards Yemen is part of the larger, failed and counterproductive Global War on Terror, which itself is part of a larger, failed and counterproductive US Middle East policy. US Middle East policy, in its current form, goes back to the 1970s and is part of a larger, failed and counterproductive US militarized foreign policy. Can anyone go to the families of those two SEALs killed carrying out those policies and explain what their deaths were for without resorting to grotesque and false tropes of freedom and security, the same aspirational and patriotic fairy tales that have been used to justify 250-plus military operations by the US since 1991?

The other story relates to the authorization of production of the B21 Raider, which is set to replace the B1 and B2 bombers but not the 70-year-old B52s. That the youngest B52 was produced in 1962 and won’t be replaced, but the bombers built in modern times must be replaced, tells you a great deal about the strategy of the American weapons industry. This fleecing of the American taxpayers by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) is nothing new. Both political parties have hollowed out the American economy to the benefit of weapons makers. If any citizen has the gall to ask their members of Congress why our living standards are so far below those of the world’s other wealthy nations, the answers come back as some variation of “we can’t afford those things.”

What’s new about the B21 is that the cost for years was classified, even to members of Congress. Budget figures, as well as contract details, production schedules and test results, are still being kept hidden. Reports say Northrup Grumman will produce 100 of the planes, and, with an estimated total program cost of more than $200 billion, keeping quiet about the price tag of $2 billion airplanes is a politically savvy move if not a democratic one.

Alongside the story of the B21 was a reference to the nation’s new intercontinental ballistic missile, the LGM-35 Sentinel, exploding in cost and years behind schedule. Both the Raider and the Sentinel are part of the $2 trillion modernization of American nuclear weapons begun during the Obama Administration. Cynically it is understandable why both the Pentagon and the weapons makers want to keep the B21 program hidden. MIC officials often speak of the lessons learned from the gross cost overruns, lengthy delays and failed testing of weapons systems like the F35, the Littoral Combat Ship and the Future Combat System, among many, many others, and those lessons seem to be: don’t let anyone know what’s going on. The roster of weapons that don’t work and have cost us trillions is seemingly infinite and, in a sanely functioning and non-corrupt democracy, Pentagon budgets would be decreasing, generals would be fired and defense industry share prices would be labeled as SELL. It would be far easier to write about the weapons the US taxpayers have funded that have performed as advertised and stayed within budget, but that would probably only amount to a tweet or two.

The only thing more likely than more American families continuing to lose loved ones to failed and counterproductive overseas wars will be a lack of any effective congressional resistance to US Middle East policy, most urgently Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people. Likewise, the only thing more likely than the B21 being another poorly performing MIC cash cow will be the lack of meaningful political opposition to the overall MIC gravy train. The inertia of both a militarized foreign policy that, through its actions, creates a circular reality that justifies continued military action and a military-industrial complex that now says the American people don’t have the right to know how much our weapons cost demonstrate a dangerous reality of American democracy and a terrible path ahead.

Reprinted with permission from Matt’s Thoughts on War and Peace.

Matthew Hoh is the Associate Director of the Eisenhower Media Network. Matt is a former Marine Corps captain, Afghanistan State Department officer, a disabled Iraq War veteran and is a Senior Fellow Emeritus with the Center for International Policy. He writes at Substack.

$778 Billion and Counting: Who's Paying for All This Pentagon Waste? (Hint: It's You)

It can't be emphasized enough just how many taxpayer dollars are now being showered on the Pentagon.


Antiwar protesters gathered in front of City Hall in downtown Philadelphia for an emergency rally demanding America not further entrench itself in the Syrian conflict and that American forces be pulled out of all middle east countries on April 14, 2018. (Photo: Cory Clark/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

WILLIAM HARTUNG

February 3, 2022

2021 was another banner year for the military-industrial complex, as Congress signed off on a near-record $778 billion in spending for the Pentagon and related work on nuclear warheads at the Department of Energy. That was $25 billion more than the Pentagon had even asked for.

It can't be emphasized enough just how many taxpayer dollars are now being showered on the Pentagon. That department's astronomical budget adds up, for instance, to more than four times the cost of the most recent version of President Biden's Build Back Better plan, which sparked such horrified opposition from Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) and other alleged fiscal conservatives. Naturally, they didn't blink when it came to lavishing ever more taxpayer dollars on the military-industrial complex.

Without a significant change of course, 2022 will once again be a banner year for Lockheed Martin and other top weapons makers at the expense of investing in programs necessary to combat urgent challenges from pandemics to climate change to global inequality.

Opposing Build Back Better while throwing so much more money at the Pentagon marks the ultimate in budgetary and national-security hypocrisy. The Congressional Budget Office has determined that, if current trends continue, the Pentagon could receive a monumental $7.3 trillion-plus over the next decade, more than was spent during the peak decade of the Afghan and Iraq wars, when there were up to 190,000 American troops in those two countries alone. Sadly, but all too predictably, President Biden's decision to withdraw U.S. troops and contractors from Afghanistan hasn't generated even the slightest peace dividend. Instead, any savings from that war are already being plowed into programs to counter China, official Washington's budget-justifying threat of choice (even if outshone for the moment by the possibility of a Russian invasion of Ukraine). And all of this despite the fact that the United States already spends three times as much as China on its military.

The Pentagon budget is not only gargantuan, but replete with waste—from vast overcharges for spare parts to weapons that don't work at unaffordable prices to forever wars with immense human and economic consequences. Simply put, the current level of Pentagon spending is both unnecessary and irrational.

Price Gouging on Spare Parts

Overcharging the Pentagon for spare parts has a long and inglorious history, reaching its previous peak of public visibility during the presidency of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Then, blanket media coverage of $640 toilet seats and $7,600 coffee makers sparked public outrage and a series of hearings on Capitol hill, strengthening the backbone of members of Congress. In those years, they did indeed curb at least the worst excesses of the Reagan military buildup.

Such pricing horror stories didn't emerge from thin air. They came from the work of people like legendary Pentagon whistleblower Ernest Fitzgerald. He initially made his mark by exposing the Air Force's efforts to hide billions in cost overruns on Lockheed's massive C-5A transport plane. At the time, he was described by former Air Force Secretary Verne Orr as "the most hated man in the Air Force." Fitzgerald and other Pentagon insiders became sources for Dina Rasor, a young journalist who began drawing the attention of the media and congressional representatives to spare-parts overcharges and other military horrors. In the end, she formed an organization, the Project on Military Procurement, to investigate and expose waste, fraud, and abuse. It would later evolve into the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), the most effective current watchdog when it comes to Pentagon spending.

A recent POGO analysis, for instance, documented the malfeasance of TransDigm, a military parts supplier that the Department of Defense's Inspector General caught overcharging the Pentagon by as much as 3,800%—yes, you read that figure right!—on routine items. The company was able to do so only because, bizarrely enough, Pentagon buying rules prevent contract officers from getting accurate information on what any given item should cost or might cost the supplying company to produce it.

In other words, thanks to Pentagon regulations, those oversight officials are quite literally flying blind when it comes to cost control. The companies supplying the military take full advantage of that. The Pentagon Inspector General's office has, in fact, uncovered more than 100 overcharges by TransDigm alone, to the tune of $20.8 million. A comprehensive audit of all spare-parts suppliers would undoubtedly find billions of wasted dollars. And this, of course, spills over into ever more staggering costs for finished weapons systems. As Ernest Fitzgerald once said, a military aircraft is just a collection of "overpriced spare parts flying in formation."

Weapons This Country Doesn't Need at Prices We Can't Afford

The next level of Pentagon waste involves weapons we don't need at prices we can't afford, systems that, for staggering sums, fail to deliver on promises to enhance our safety and security. The poster child for such costly, dysfunctional systems is the F-35 combat aircraft, a plane tasked with multiple missions, none of which it does well. The Pentagon is slated to buy more than 2,400 F-35s for the Air Force, Marines, and Navy. The estimated lifetime cost for procuring and operating those planes, a mere $1.7 trillion, would make it the Pentagon's most expensive weapons project ever.

Once upon a time (as in some fairy tale), the idea behind the creation of the F-35 was to build a plane that, in several variations, would be able to carry out many different tasks relatively cheaply, with potential savings generated by economies of scale. Theoretically, that meant the bulk of the parts for the thousands of planes to be built would be the same for all of them. This approach has proven a dismal failure so far, so much so that the researchers at POGO are convinced the F-35 may never be fully ready for combat.

Its failures are too numerous to recount here, but a few examples should suffice to suggest why the program minimally needs to be scaled back in a major way, if not canceled completely. For a start, though meant to provide air support for troops on the ground, it's proved anything but well-designed to do so. In fact, that job is already handled far better and more cheaply by the existing A-10 "Warthog" attack aircraft. A 2021 Pentagon assessment of the F-35—and keep in mind that this is the Department of Defense, not some outside expert—found 800 unresolved defects in the plane. Typical of its never-ending problems: a wildly expensive and not particularly functional high-tech helmet which, at the cost of $400,000 each, is meant to give its pilot special awareness of what's happening around and below the plane as well as to the horizon. And don't forget that the F-35 will be staggeringly expensive to maintain and already costs an impressive $38,000 an hour to fly.

In December 2020, House Armed Services Committee Chair Adam Smith finally claimed he was "tired of pouring money down the F-35 rathole." Even former Air Force Chief of Staff General Charles Brown acknowledged that it couldn't meet its original goal—to be a low-cost fighter—and would have to be supplemented with a less costly plane. He compared it to a Ferrari, adding, "You don't drive your Ferrari to work every day, you only drive it on Sundays." It was a stunning admission, given the original claims that the F-35 would be the Air Force's affordable, lightweight fighter and the ultimate workhorse for future air operations.

It's no longer clear what the rationale even is for building more F-35s at a time when the Pentagon has grown obsessed with preparing for a potential war with China. After all, if that country is the concern (an exaggerated one, to be sure), it's hard to imagine a scenario in which fighter planes would go into combat against Chinese aircraft, or be engaged in protecting American troops on the ground—not at a moment when the Pentagon is increasingly focused on long-range missiles, hypersonic weapons, and unpiloted vehicles as its China-focused weapons of choice.

When all else fails, the Pentagon's fallback argument for the F-35 is the number of jobs it will create in states or districts of key members of Congress. As it happens, virtually any other investment of public funds would build back better with more jobs than F-35s would. Treating weapons systems as jobs programs, however, has long helped pump up Pentagon spending way beyond what's needed to provide an adequate defense of the United States and its allies.

And that plane is hardly alone in the ongoing history of Pentagon overspending. There are many other systems that similarly deserve to be thrown on the scrap heap of history, chief among them the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), essentially an F-35 of the sea. Similarly designed for multiple roles, it, too, has fallen far short in every imaginable respect. The Navy is now trying to gin up a new mission for the LCS, with little success.

This comes on top of buying outmoded aircraft carriers for up to $13 billion a pop and planning to spend more than a quarter of a trillion dollars on a new nuclear-armed missile, known as the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, or GBSD. Such land-based missiles are, according to former Secretary of Defense William Perry, "among the most dangerous weapons in the world," because a president would have only minutes to decide whether to launch them on being warned of an enemy nuclear attack. In other words, a false alarm (of which there have been numerous examples during the nuclear age) could lead to a planetary nuclear conflagration.

The organization Global Zero has demonstrated convincingly that eliminating land-based missiles altogether, rather than building new ones, would make the United States and the rest of the world safer, with a small force of nuclear-armed submarines and bombers left to dissuade any nation from launching a nuclear war. Eliminating ICBMs would be a salutary and cost-saving first step towards nuclear sanity, as former Pentagon analyst Daniel Ellsberg and other experts have made all too clear.

America's Cover-the-Globe Defense Strategy

And yet, unbelievably enough, I haven't even mentioned the greatest waste of all: this country's "cover the globe" military strategy, including a planet-wide "footprint" of more than 750 military bases, more than 200,000 troops stationed overseas, huge and costly aircraft-carrier task forces eternally floating the seven seas, and a massive nuclear arsenal that could destroy life as we know it (with thousands of warheads to spare).

You only need to look at the human and economic costs of America's post-9/11 wars to grasp the utter folly of such a strategy. According to Brown University's Costs of War Project, the conflicts waged by the United States in this century have cost $8 trillion and counting, with hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, thousands of U.S. troops killed, and hundreds of thousands more suffering from traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder. And for what? In Iraq, the U.S. cleared the way for a sectarian regime that then helped create the conditions for ISIS to sweep in and conquer significant parts of the country, only to be repelled (but not thoroughly defeated) at great cost in lives and treasure. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, after a conflict doomed as soon as it morphed into an exercise in nation-building and large-scale counterinsurgency, the Taliban is now in power. It's hard to imagine a more ringing indictment of the policy of endless war.

Despite the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, for which the Biden administration deserves considerable credit, spending on global counterterror operations remains at high levels, thanks to ongoing missions by Special Operations forces, repeated air strikes, ongoing military aid and training, and other kinds of involvement short of full-scale war. Given the opportunity to rethink strategy as part of a "global force posture" review released late last year, the Biden administration opted for a remarkably status quo approach, insisting on maintaining substantial bases in the Middle East, while modestly boosting the U.S. troop presence in East Asia.

As anyone who's followed the news knows, despite the immediate headlines about sending troops and planes to Eastern Europe and weapons to Ukraine in response to Russia's massing of its forces on that country's borders, the dominant narrative for keeping the Pentagon budget at its current size remains China, China, China. It matters little that the greatest challenges posed by Beijing are political and economic, not military. "Threat inflation" with respect to that country continues to be the Pentagon's surest route to acquiring yet more resources and has been endlessly hyped in recent years by, among others, analysts and organizations with close ties to the arms industry and the Department of Defense.

For example, the National Defense Strategy Commission, a congressionally mandated body charged with critiquing the Pentagon's official strategy document, drew more than half its members from individuals on the boards of arms-making corporations, working as consultants for the arms industry, or from think tanks heavily funded by just such contractors. Not surprisingly, the commission called for a 3% to 5% annual increase in the Pentagon budget into the foreseeable future. Follow that blueprint and you're talking $1 trillion annually by the middle of this decade, according to an analysis by Taxpayers for Common Sense. Such an increase, in other words, would prove unsustainable in a country where so much else is needed, but that won't stop Pentagon budget hawks from using it as their North Star.

In March of this year, the Pentagon is expected to release both its new national defense strategy and its budget for 2023. There are a few small glimmers of hope, like reports that the administration may abandon certain dangerous (and unnecessary) nuclear-weapons programs instituted by the Trump administration.

However, the true challenge, crafting a budget that addresses genuine security problems like public health and the climate crisis, would require fresh thinking and persistent public pressure to slash the Pentagon budget, while reducing the size of the military-industrial complex. Without a significant change of course, 2022 will once again be a banner year for Lockheed Martin and other top weapons makers at the expense of investing in programs necessary to combat urgent challenges from pandemics to climate change to global inequality.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.



WILLIAM HARTUNG

William D. Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy. He is the author of "Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex" (2012) and "How Much Are You Making on the War Daddy?: A Quick and Dirty Guide to War Profiteering in the Bush Administration" (2003). He is the co-editor of "Lessons from Iraq: Avoiding the Next War "(2008).

SEE PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY

 More Nuclear Reactors? Deceptive Tunes from the Pied Piper of Vienna

by M. V. Ramana - Jixiang Wang

 July 26, 2024
Facebook

TwitterRedditEmail

Image by Lukáš Lehotský.

Rafael Grossi, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Director General, has been busy over the last few years. The media has often reported on his efforts to highlight “the risk of a major nuclear accident” at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. Grossi has also met with Russian President Vladimir Putin twice to discuss the situation at Zaporizhzhia, arguing that a “severe nuclear accident…would recognize no borders” and “we must do everything possible to prevent” such an accident.

But Grossi has also simultaneously been increasing the risk of accidents, albeit inadvertently, by calling for building more nuclear reactors. This advocacy takes many forms. He has written op-eds in prominent outlets like Foreign Affairs. He has been trying to canvas countries to start nuclear power programs. For example, in March 2024. he went to Baghdad and committed to working with Iraq to help build a nuclear reactor “for peaceful purposes”. And as a way to deal with the unaffordable costs of nuclear reactors, he has pushed the World Bank and Asian Development Bank to provide funding for building nuclear plants.

None of this make sense. When viewed as investment advice to banks, Grossi’s promotion of nuclear power does not meet the laugh threshold. According to Grossi, the banks’ lack of funding for nuclear energy is “out of date, out of step with what is happening”. But it is Grossi’s advocacy that is out of step with happening to nuclear energy in the real world.

When nuclear energy is evaluated through how much it contributes to the world’s electricity production, the technology has been declining continuously for over 25 years, from 17.5 percent in 1996 down to 9.2 percent in 2022. For reasons discussed later, this trend will likely continue. In other words, the importance of nuclear energy is diminishing. Investing more money into a technology that some scholars argue is “destined for decline” makes little sense.

When analyzing Grossi’s advice to these development banks, one should remember what these institutions are supposed to do. The World Bank’s mission is “to end extreme poverty and boost prosperity on a livable planet”. And the Asian Development Bank has a similar mission, with a regional focus on Asia and the Pacific. The World Bank’s mission, in particular, mentions the multiple, intertwined crises we are confronting and emphasizes both the need for “affordable energy” and how quickly these crises should be addressed, stating “time is of the essence”. Nuclear energy fails on both counts.

Expensive and Slow

Electricity from nuclear reactors is costly and does not provide affordable energy, especially when compared to other low-carbon, renewable sources of energy. During the same period mentioned earlier, the share of all electricity generated by modern renewables has risen from just over 1 percent of in 1996 to 15.9 percent in 2023. Today, it is utility-scale solar photovoltaic power that provides the least costly option for generating electricity plants in many countries. This is why, in 2020, the International Energy Agency dubbed solar “the new king of the world’s electricity markets”. Money spent on nuclear reactors by banks would only divert funds away from investing in renewables and associated technologies and infrastructures.

Nuclear reactors have also almost never been on time. An astonishing 89 percent of all reactors that were connected to the grid between 2020 and 2022 were delayed: just two reactors in China were on schedule. In the United States, the two AP1000 reactors that just started operating in the state of Georgia ended up costing nearly $35 billion. In 2011, when the utility company building the reactor sought permission from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it projected a total cost of $14 billion, and “in-service dates of 2016 and 2017” for the two units. These cost escalations and delays are even more extreme than the historical pattern identified in an academic study that examined 180 nuclear power projects and found that 175 had exceeded their initial budgets, by an average of 117%, and took 64% longer than initially projected

That is not all. Around the world, 92 nuclear projects have been cancelled or suspended, usually after hundreds of millions, if not billions, have been spent. In the United States, the latest such cancellation was a project involving a small modular reactor from NuScale that the company advertised as “smaller, safer, and cheaper”. Cheaper, it certainly wasn’t, with a final cost estimate that was around 250% more than the initial per megawatt cost for the Vogtle project in Georgia. The earlier cancellation, of the V. C. Summer project involving two AP1000 reactors in South Carolina, was canceled after over $9 billion was spent—electricity consumers in the state will be paying for decades for this bad investment.

Necessary Conditions for Nuclear Power

It is not as though development banks have not considered nuclear energy. Back in 1959, the World Bank did invest in a nuclear project in Italy, based on a set of conditions, most importantly the unavailability of other cost-competitive alternatives. That project was not a success. More important for the present discussion is that with the reduced cost and increasing availability of solar and wind power, nuclear power no longer meets these conditions to be cost-effective.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB), too, undertook an analysis of various technologies and published an Energy Policy paper in 2009 that highlighted a number of barriers confronting nuclear power development, including “public concerns related to nuclear proliferation, waste management, safety issues, high investment costs, long lead times, and commercial acceptability of new technologies”. Thanks to these concerns, the paper declared that “ADB will maintain its current policy of non-involvement in the financing of nuclear power generation”. None of these barriers have disappeared.

The challenge of ensuring safety was reinforced just two years after the ADB’s paper when multiple reactors at the Fukushima Daichi nuclear plant melted down spreading radioactive materials widely, and posing difficult technical, socio-political and economical challenges: including an estimated future bill of 35 to 80 trillion yen (around $322 to $736 billion). Fukushima served as a reminder that the nature of nuclear technology ensures “the inevitability of accidents”.

The Unlearned Lessons of Zaporizhzhia

A different route to a severe nuclear accident is on display at the Zaporizhzhia power plant—and Grossi has been eloquent about how such an accident will “have ripples and reverberations all over the world”. But instead of considering Zaporizhzhia as a wake-up call to reflect on whether the world should continue to build more nuclear power plants, Grossi has taken recourse to advocating for five principles of nuclear safety and security. Unfortunately for him these rules are unlikely to be widely accepted—as evidenced by the many attacks on the Zaporizhzhia plant.

This is not for lack of precedence. Well before Russia occupied Zaporizhzhia, Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 and, then in 2007, bombed the Al-Kibar nuclear facility where Syria was building a reactor. Iran and the United States have also attacked Iraq’s nuclear facilities. None of the attackers faced any consequences.

Grossi’s principles and calls for new regimes might also contradict other imperatives. In a recent paper published in The Nonproliferation Review, two scholars have examined the history of such attacks in detail and concluded that “attacks on nuclear facilities endure as a feature of the global nonproliferation regime because the international community—or at least some of the most influential members of the community—deem them a necessary option for the maintenance of that regime”. In other words, Zaporizhzhia is unlikely to be the last nuclear plant at risk of being attacked.

None of this information is new but they don’t appear to play any part in Grossi’s advocacy for nuclear energy. When advising the World Bank to invest in nuclear power, he doesn’t explain that the tens of billions of dollars the Bank might invest in a nuclear reactor could, within a matter of minutes, be converted into a cleanup project that would cost hundreds of billions. Or explaining to Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni that the small modular reactors he recommended that Italy build could be blown up and the result might, as with Zaporizhzhia, cause “enormous suffering”.

Grossi’s silence about this risk should be troubling at the best of times. But it is particularly inexcusable when he is, in parallel, emphasizing the risks of suffer a major accident at the Zaporizhzhia power plant. When he went to Iraq recently, he actively downplayed the legitimate concerns in that country thanks to its nuclear reactors being bombed by Israel and the United States. Grossi’s prescription is to simply call for “turning the page on this complex past”. Can he genuinely and credibly assure Iraq that such an attack will not happen again?

The deeper problem is a conflict of interest. As the head of the International Atomic Energy, Rafael Grossi, like his predecessors, tasked with two separate objectives: “to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world” and to “ensure, so far as it is able, that assistance provided by it or at its request or under its supervision or control is not used in such a way as to further any military purpose”. The case for promoting nuclear energy was never very strong and has completely collapsed in recent years. It is past time to simply abandon the first objective and focus on the second.

M. V. Ramana is the Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security and Professor at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia. He is the author of The Power of Promise: Examining Nuclear Energy in India (Penguin Books, 2012) and “Nuclear is not the Solution: The Folly of Atomic Power in the Age of Climate Change” (Verso books, 2024). Jixiang Wang works at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia, Vancouver and is a policy analyst at the BC Council for International Cooperation. She can be reached on LinkedIn.

The ADVANCE Act: a Bipartisan Surrender to the Nuclear Lobby

by Mays Smithwick - Jacqui Drechsler

July 26, 2024Facebook

TwitterRedditEmail

Image by Viktor Kiryanov.

With the passing of the ADVANCE Act (S870, section B), or the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act, the nuclear lobby has seized our democratic processes and co-opted the climate movement with pervasive lies and profit grabbing. The bipartisan support of the bill arose through widespread corruption, coupled with a nearsighted fantasy of innovation. The already-underregulated nuclear industry has now obtained the legislative means to sacrifice a survivable future for all living things.

Senate Bill 870 was passed “to authorize appropriations for the United States Fire Administration and Fire Fighter Assistance grant programs, [and] to advance the benefits of nuclear energy”. It is evident that the latter clause, and the 93 page ADVANCE Act, was included in the non-contentious 3 page Fire Grants and Safety bill because as a stand-alone bill, it did not garner widespread support. The ADVANCE Act irresponsibly changed the NRC’s regulatory emphasis of public health, safety and environmental protection to a promotional emphasis; “fast tracking” commercial reactors and “updating” reactor licensing regulations which “do NOT limit civilian use (of nuclear power).” With little debate and without public testimony, this nuclear energy legislation passed the Senate by a vote of 88-2 and passed the House by a vote of 393-13. The imprudent decision to pass this bill is unconscionable for reasons detailed here.

1. The decision to combine incompatible mission statements into one agency is bureaucratically and financially untenable. While the Advance Act purports to preserve the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) existing mission of protecting public health, safety and the environment, the act contradicts that mission by mandating the NRC to promote nuclear energy and to “fast track” nuclear licensing regulations. This double mission of protection and promotion is paradoxical and illogical. This conflict is why, in 1974 the U.S. dissolved the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and created the NRC as an independent agency to regulate commercial nuclear power, with oversight of public health, safety and the environment. Nuclear promotion and advancement was delegated to the Department of Energy (DoE). These conflicting missions were unacceptable in 1974 and are still unacceptable today.

2. The ADVANCE Act ignores the crisis of pervasive radioactive contamination impacting our country and the imminent threat of widespread catastrophe. It is indisputable that building more nuclear reactors correlates to higher contamination and nuclear disasters. The NRC ought to enforce stringent regulatory processes, but it does not enforce regulations to ensure that existing nuclear energy infrastructure can withstand the increase in natural hazards as a result of climate change. This gap in regulatory standards will be compounded with the consequences of changing the NRCs mission to “advance the benefits of nuclear energy” as the agency will face insufficient funding and infrastructure.

No entity in the United States has the resources to administer a response to a nuclear disaster. On July 1, 2024, the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) signed a Memorandum of Understanding that exonerates the NRC from responsibility to respond to a nuclear disaster. However, FEMA does not currently have a nuclear response division, and it has already faced budget cuts and staff shortages, all while natural disasters continue to increase at an alarming rate. Additionally, the recent 40 year extension to the Price-Anderson Act (PAA) does not hold the nuclear industry comprehensively liable for a nuclear disaster. According to Beyond Nuclear, “PAA renewal limits the nuclear industries collective cost to just over $16 billion per accident – leaving federal taxpayers liable for the remaining compensation costs.” For comparison, the cost of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster is estimated to exceed $200 billion. No insurance company has adequate fiscal reserves to offer coverage to homeowners for nuclear disasters. Thus, in addition to threatening the survival of all living things, the ADVANCE Act places the economic burden of a nuclear catastrophe onto the public.

Due to the entire life cycle of producing nuclear energy—including uranium mining, milling, conversion to HF6, centrifuge enrichment, deconversion, fuel fabrication, reactor operations, decommissioning, and spent fuel storage—there have been and continue to be widespread adverse health outcomes. The nuclear industry is an affront to our existing water crisis which will become worse if there is an increase in nuclear power facilities. Nuclear reactors are typically sited on lakes, rivers, and oceans. Water cooled reactors consume between 30 million to 3 billion gallons of water per day, and routinely discharge and release thermal pollution (hot water and hot radioactive particles) into these waterways, devastating marine and ocean ecosystems. Tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, is the most common element routinely released by nuclear power plants in the form of tritiated water and tritiated vapor (which can result in radioactive rainfall). Between 1990-2017, radioactive leaks were found at 70% of nuclear power plants in the United States. These leaks included cesium-137, which causes radiation sickness and cancer, strontium-90, (nicknamed “bone seeker”) which causes bone cancers, and tritium which causes cancers and birth defects. The impending bioaccumulation of tritium and other radioactive isotopes in U.S. waterways will also result in economic loss, in particular for fishing and agriculture dependent communities. Regardless of any reactor models, without the rigorous oversight of a federal regulatory entity, this industry will continue to harm our environment and livelihoods on a daily basis.

3. Research shows that radiation impacts are gender disproportionate. According to biologist Mary Olson, with equal exposure, girls between the ages of birth to five years suffer from cancer at a rate seven times higher than adult men. Fetuses, and pregnant people are also at heightened risk. When ingested as water, tritium can penetrate a placenta and cause miscarriages and birth defects. However, current NRC standards do not take into consideration non-cancer causing harms to a pregnant person and the fetus when determining regulatory standards. The NRC determines the threshold level of radiation exposure based on “Reference Man”, an adult Caucasian male whose height, weight, anatomy and physiology place “him” in the prime of life. This ideal excludes the majority of Americans, placing more vulnerable individuals and populations at risk and ignoring Tribal Sovereignty, racial and gender equity. Expanding the nuclear industry and accelerating deployment of new reactor technologies will necessarily release more radioactive effluents, create more waste, and worsen contamination burdens and health effects. Those who do not fit within the Reference Man category, in particular children and disadvantaged genders, will bear the brunt.

4. The ADVANCE Act undermines the self-determination of Tribal Nations and creates sacrifice zones in already underserved communities. Low-income, Hispanic, and Indigenous peoples have been disproportionately harmed for generations by private and federal nuclear activities. Author Traci Brynne Voyles writes, in her book Wastelanding, that “patterns of environmental racism tell us that race has become a primary way by which those landscapes of extraction and pollution… are excluded from or ignored by the regulatory protection of the state”. Facilities that constitute the entire nuclear fuel chain are commonly situated nearby communities that are already disadvantaged— the rendering of certain bodies and places as dispensable and pollutable will be amplified through the programs in the ADVANCE Act.

The nuclear industry has committed egregious infractions on the self-determination of Tribal Nations through the entire fuel chain. This criminal and genocidal behavior is evident in the staggering amounts of deaths and illnesses faced by the Native Peoples as a result of the federal and private uranium mining operations: according to Leona Morgan, co-founder of the Nuclear Issues Study Group, “on the Navajo Nation alone, there are over 1100 uranium waste sites associated with approximately 520 abandoned uranium mines”. The Pinyon Plain Mine, which is situated within Havasupai Tribal Lands, reopened in 2024 due to demand by the nuclear industry, despite the Tribe’s unequivocal opposition.

The beginning of the nuclear fuel chain precludes a future with clean water. It is especially egregious to mine uranium during a water crisis in the Southwest which impacts all living things. According to a study conducted by the University of New Mexico’s Native American Budget and Policy Institute, “uranium extraction in and of itself requires vast amounts of water, and even more concerning, no uranium mining operation has ever successfully protected nearby ground or surface water from contamination.” Uranium contamination has disproportionately impacted Tribal Nations; uranium has been found in 85% of homes in the Navajo Nation, and the same study found that the bodies of every single person, including babies, had traces of uranium in their blood. This legacy compounds with the 1979 Church Rock Uranium Mill Tailings Spill which released 94 million gallons of liquid waste and 1100 tons of solid waste into the Puerco River which is the primary source of water for Diné (Navajo) Tribal Members downstream.

The U.S. has had a shameful history of genocide of Indigenous peoples: for the past 700 years Indigenous Peoples have been denied land and water rights, and for the past 60 years many have been poisoned, exploited, and manipulated by the nuclear industry. The harmful consequences of the ADVANCE Act will undoubtedly fall on the Tribal Nations whose sovereignty, spiritual systems and health have already been decimated due to nuclear extraction, exploitation, and contamination. Funding experimentation with new SMR technologies undermines the responsibility of the federal government to remediate harms, particularly as it coincides with the recent expiration (2024) of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), the outcome of the 2023 Arizona vs Navajo Nation Supreme Court ruling which denied water rights to the Navajo Nation, along with the refusal by the United States to ratify the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The compounding outcomes of these legislative failures will continue to compromise the self-determination of Tribal Nations.

5. The ADVANCE Act commits the NRC to promote and sell a myth—Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and so-called “advanced” reactors are unproven and nonexistent. If these experimental SMR designs were developed, they would create high-level radioactive waste (in the form of spent fuel) that is more lethal than the waste already produced by conventional commercial reactors. There is no solution for the permanent isolation and disposal of high-level radioactive waste. SMR designs are proposed to run on high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) fuel which would be enriched to slightly less than 20 weight percent U-235 — just below the internationally recognized value for nuclear weapons potential. Experts have pointed out that enriching reactor fuel to this level overcomes the hardest technological barrier of transforming uranium into nuclear weapons capable material, thereby increasing the likelihood of nuclear proliferation and consequently threatening global security. According to a paper written by five nuclear proliferation experts, HALEU production would “[eliminate] the sharp distinction between peaceful and nonpeaceful nuclear programs,” and would therefore dismantle the entire legal framework for nonproliferation and disarmament. The mass-production of SMRs and HALEU fuel as a result of the ADVANCE Act would diminish the credibility of the United States to uphold nonproliferation standards, and would possibly inspire a Cold War-like race to develop this dangerous and untenable technology.

HALEU would also create more lethal spent fuel and pose serious nuclear proliferation and terrorism risks. Nuclear waste expert Lindsey Krall, in a study co-authored with former NRC Chair Allison MacFarlane, wrote, “our results show that most small modular reactor (SMR) designs will actually increase the volume of nuclear waste in need of management and disposal, by factors of 2 to 30 per unit of energy generated for the reactors in our case study.” SMR’s will necessarily increase environmental and health risks, burdens and impacts from radioactive waste which will build up across generations and threaten not only those of us alive now, but future generations of Americans.

6. The massive subsidies the ADVANCE Act and other recent policies bestowed on the nuclear industry put the financial burden for extension and expansion of the nuclear industry on US taxpayers and ratepayers. The nuclear industry is selling a fantasy of economic growth as a means to harvest subsidies, extracting enormous profits with no mercy, and no federal oversight. The cost overruns at Georgia’s new Vogtle plant reactors are resulting in a 10% increase in monthly electricity bill costs for ratepayers. The total spending on the Vogtle project has already exceeded $35 billion, an astounding increase from the initial $14 billion budget, and the excess in spending is falling on customers.

Ratepayer-financed Decommissioning Trust Funds (DTF) are intended to be used for the safe dismantling of closed nuclear power plants yet are routinely misused for non-decommissioning activities, including promotional spending, restarting shuttered reactors, and preparing decommissioned plant sites for re-nuclearization in particular by Holtec International, LLC. Holtec International has already faced charges of criminal conspiracy, extortion, and bribery, in addition to raiding DTFs. However, in response to the Office of Inspector General’s Audit of the NRC’s Oversight of the Adequacy of Decommissioning Trust Funds, the NRC claimed it is unable to hold the nuclear industry accountable (including Holtec International) for upholding agreements and investment restrictions in 10 CFR 50.75. This self-admitted refusal by the NRC to to develop and implement procedures for oversight into trustee compliance is evidence of existing infrastructural incompetence. The ADVANCE Act will enable the appropriation of what could be hundreds of billions of dollars from the public by means of accelerating the licensing of costly and unproven reactor designs (with expected cost overruns), and the inevitable weakening of oversight as a result of the NRC’s changed mission. The overhaul in the NRC’s commitment to protect public health, safety, and the environment will put Americans at risk while reaching into their pockets.

7. Nuclear energy is NOT clean energy— it is the dirtiest, most dangerous, and hottest energy source. The ADVANCE Act endorses a profound lie that climate change can be solved by expediting licensing to expand the nuclear industry, encourage re-nuclearization of decommissioned sites, and “fast track” unproven reactor designs (Title II, No.4 “accelerated review process to site and construct reactors at existing nuclear sites”). To the contrary, nuclear reactors accelerate climate change through the release of Carbon 14, a radioactive isotope that reacts with oxygen in the atmosphere to create CO2, a greenhouse gas. Nuclear power will also worsen climate disruption through diverting funds away from true clean energy solutions. The White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council has concurred that nuclear power should not be included in the green energy transition.

Conventional commercial nuclear reactors take between 10 and 20 years to bring on line. We are decades away from any possible commercialization of SMRs, SMR projects have already failed, and production will not materialize before 2030. Money the DoE awards to the nuclear industry to pursue unproven SMR designs would be better allocated to truly clean renewable energy sources as a more reliable means to respond to the already-here climate crisis. The passing of the ADVANCE Act reflects a deplorable habit of capitulating to nuclear lobbyists and misdirecting public funding to the nuclear industry. This is an egregious expropriation and will impede an urgent and legitimate clean energy transition.

8. There is no existing solution to the permanent storage and disposal of radioactive waste. The Yucca Mountain Deep Geological Waste Repository project was canceled in 2010 after widespread public opposition as it is located on the Western Shoshone Nation and is prone to seismic and volcanic activity. After the closure of Yucca, the NRC was forced into a moratorium on licensing of nuclear reactors as it could not confidently presume a solution to safely storing waste. Consequently, the NRC developed a revised Waste Confidence policy to streamline licensing and relicensing of nuclear reactors which alleges that irradiated spent nuclear fuel waste may be stored at nuclear reactor sites indefinitely, which contradicts its own admissions that existing on-site storage casks will leak. The NRC Waste Confidence policy ignores the distinct characteristics of individual reactor sites and analyzes environmental impacts through sweeping generalities. It also neglects to consider the aforementioned heightened risk of natural hazards due to climate change. Despite the NRC’s claims to the contrary, high-level radioactive waste cannot remain indefinitely on environmentally unsuitable reactor sites (on potable and ecologically-vulnerable surface water, and in areas prone to earthquakes, erosion, and unstable soil conditions). The ADVANCE Act will result in the production of more waste, and more lethal waste despite the unsolved issue of identifying a permanent, site-specific, scientifically sound, and safe solution to its storage.

The NRC continues to work towards licensing centralized interim storage (CIS) facilities (temporary radioactive waste dumps) sited in eastern New Mexico and West Texas, home to already disproportionately overburdened communities. The construction of CIS sites would be illegal under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which requires that the United States identifies a permanent solution for storing high-level waste prior to any construction of a temporary site. These proposed storage facilities are the subject of a current federal court challenge. Transporting spent nuclear fuel to the proposed CIS facilities would entail thousands of shipments through unfit transportation infrastructure. In 2022 alone, there were 952 Class I freight train derailments; a single derailment of radioactive waste could result in widespread catastrophe.

A proposed solution to the waste issue endorsed by the ADVANCE Act is to reprocess nuclear waste; a chemical process to extract plutonium from spent reactor fuel. The reprocessing of fuel does not decrease the total volume of waste, it actually increases the total amount of irradiated materials that will need to be isolated and disposed of. The cost of reprocessing is also exorbitant, both in terms of the price of separating usable fissile materials, and also in terms of the inherent public health and environmental hazards. Reprocessing of spent fuel results in the stockpiling of plutonium (the primary element used in nuclear weapons), thereby increasing the aforementioned threats of proliferation.

Leaving our future generations with the existing task of dealing with over 90,000 metric tons (and growing) of nuclear waste is unconscionable. The ADVANCE Act will exacerbate the impossible: the safe, environmentally just, and permanent storage of high-level radioactive waste which will be lethal for millions of years in the future.

9. The ADVANCE Act would allow foreign entities to buy, build and operate nuclear power reactors here in the United States, and would encourage the export of American nuclear technology. Title III, No 1. of the ADVANCE Act authorizes that “rules will be modernized to reduce restrictions on international investment and issuing reactor licenses to certain foreign corporations and entities.” This compromises our resilience to the climate crisis by empowering an industry that is sincerely committed to corruption to extract uranium, expand harmful technologies, and produce radioactive waste across the globe.

Foreign licensing of nuclear reactors is unacceptable on global security grounds and it increases risks of terrorism and proliferation inherent in SMR and HALEU production. Every nuclear facility can become a target of an attack—the planes that struck the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 flew directly above the Indian Point Nuclear Reactor, awakening fear that a nuclear disaster can be the result of intentional, politically fueled violence. The vulnerability of reactors—and their link to militarism—has been made evident more recently as threats of a full-scale attack on the Zaporizhzhia Power Plant in Ukraine linger. Israel’s near-miss of two nuclear facilities in Iran in April, 2024, laid bare how any site with radioactive materials is a military strike zone. Foreign licensing of reactors and sharing of nuclear materials will no doubt be perceived as expansionist and antagonistic. The provocative intent to achieve nuclear supremacy with coalition nuclear states is hardly different from the Cold War arms race with inevitable outcome: harm to human health and the environment, and an increased threat to national and global security.

What can we do?

The ADVANCE Act will undermine the climate movement, place humans and the environment at a heightened risk, and disproportionately impact overburdened communities. There are viable, sustainable, and more just ways for the United States to inaugurate a robust and earnest commitment to climate change. Survival is not political and is not optional. In the words of the Nuclear Energy Information Service; “nothing more needs to be invented; just implemented.” The only solution to preventing nuclear reactor accidents, unsolvable waste issues, and increased threat of proliferation is to rapidly phase out nuclear power and direct resources to legitimate clean energy resources like wind and solar, energy efficiency, energy storage; all of which are cheaper, reduce carbon emissions, produce no radioactive wastes, are not vulnerable to meltdowns, and do not threaten global and national security. We need to look critically at the hidden agenda behind the so-called “nuclear revival,” and collectively refute the normalization of legislative corruption, militarism, and greenwashing.

While the ADVANCE Act may look like the final nail in the coffin, we still have the opportunity to unearth a sense of collectivity, and foreground environmental justice in the climate movement. Every piece of legislation that sustains the vestiges of human liberties and environmental protection in the United States have been enacted as a result of popular movements. Increasing public awareness of nuclear issues is a key building block to inspiring a larger movement. Environmental organizations ought to hold themselves accountable for taking a strong position against extraction and pollution of all varieties, and call for a carbon-free AND nuclear-free future.

This article was drafted through the collaborative efforts of the National Radioactive Waste Coalition (NRWC). The NRWC is a campaign of over 45 member organizations working to build a collective voice for environmental justice in national radioactive waste policy that foregrounds the needs of affected communities, and emphasizes the self-determination of Indigenous Peoples.

Mays Smithwick is a PhD student of American Studies at Yale University, and a Graduate Fellow of Environmental Humanities at the Whitney Center for the Humanities. They work with the National Radioactive Waste Coalition and the New York Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. Mays’s research and practice is informed through methods for environmental justice. Their work aims towards the total abolition of nuclear technology and more broadly, the dismantling of imperialism.

Jacqui Drechsler has been involved in environmental and human activism for the past 40 years. Jacqui is a classical flutist (who has played with folk singers Susan Reed and Pete Seeger). When her parents moved to Rockland County on the shores of the mighty and beautiful Hudson River in 1958, they had no idea a nuclear power plant was being planned at Indian Point. They were involved in the fight against nuclear power (the bomb, military and commercial nuclear power) and Jacqui carries on their legacy.

Nuclear Risks on the Rise

by Karl Grossman

July 26, 2024

Facebook

TwitterRedditEmail

Naomi Zoka delivers ICAN statement to the NPT PrepCom. Photo: ICAN | Seth Shelden

“Nuclear risks are on the rise. The chance of nuclear weapons use [is] higher than at any time in my—and many others in this room’s—lifetime,” said Naomi Zoka at a meeting this week of the Preparatory Committee for the Eleventh Nuclear Non-Proliferation Review Conference.

“The path to a world without nuclear weapons lies through the TPNW [Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons],” said Zoka delivering to diplomats from around the world the statement of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).

“Nuclear-armed states are launching threats faster than they are test-launching delivery systems, resulting in a less stable, less secure and more dangerous world,” said Zoka at the meeting June 23rd in Geneva, Switzerland. She is a member of Belgium’s Pax Christi Flanders.

“With Russia’s stationing of weapons in Belarus, and the continued U.S. deployment of [nuclear] weapons in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Türkiye, the NPT [Nuclear Anti-Proliferation Treaty] is failing to meet its first principles,” the ICAN statement continued.

The TPNW was adopted in 2017 by the UN General Assembly with 122 nations in favor. It bans the development, testing, production, stockpiling, stationing, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons. Some 163 nations have now either formally signed or ratified the TPNW.

“Let’s eliminate these weapons before they eliminate us,” Secretary-General Guterres has said of the TPNW, a treaty “toward our shared goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.”

In 2017, ICAN received the Nobel Peace Prize with cited its major work leading to the passage of the TPNW.

ICAN declares on its website: “Nuclear weapons are the most inhumane and indiscriminate weapons ever created. They violate international law, cause severe environmental damage, undermine national and global security, and divert vast public resources away from meeting human needs. They must be eliminated urgently.”

The so-called nuclear-armed states, which include the United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom, have, however, not signed on to the TPNW.

“The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty opened for signature in 1968….A total of 191 states have joined the treaty, including the five [then acknowledged] nuclear-weapon states,” notes the website of the UN’s Office for Disarmament Affairs. More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the treaty’s significance.”

The NPT declares: “Considering the devastation that would be visited upon all mankind by a nuclear war and the consequent need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war and to take measures to safeguard the security of peoples, Believing that the proliferation of nuclear weapons would seriously enhance the danger of nuclear war, In conformity with resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly calling for the conclusion of an agreement on the prevention of wider dissemination of nuclear weapons.”

The ICAN statement delivered by Zoka at NPT review meeting continued: “Despite their commitments under NPT’s Article VI, the nuclear-armed states in the NPT spent $86 billion dollars on their [nuclear] arsenals in 2023. U.S. spending accounts for 54% of the global total, at $51.5 billion, while China and Russia also spent exorbitant amounts at $11.8 billion and $8.3 billion respectively. The UK increased spending by 17% from the previous year. Across the board, every nuclear-armed state increased the amount spent on their arsenals. Meanwhile the profit-seeking private industry hires powerful lobbyists to secure billion dollar contracts to develop these weapons of mass destruction.”

It went on: “Runaway nuclear spending is increasing the risks of nuclear weapons use—as are the applications of emerging technologies to nuclear weapons command, control, communications and delivery systems. We are entering an era of AI assisted information gathering to facilitate decision making.”

“That is not the world in which we want to live. We cannot abide by policies in which one—or nine [now the number of acknowledged nuclear-armed states]…are allowed to hold the rest of the world hostage through weapons of mass destruction, because the use of those weapons knows no borders. A conflict involving nuclear weapons thousands of miles from this conference room will still cause chaos and catastrophe to all of us, our families, and our future.”

“Yet, the nuclear-armed countries are recklessly embarking on a new nuclear arms race. Every year, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, ICAN, exposes the unacceptable nuclear weapons.”

What needs to be done? Indeed, as the ICAN statement said, the “the path to a world without nuclear weapons lies through the TPNW,” and added to that was: “we invite all states to join us as we move closer to it without delay.”

Can the atomic genie be put back in the bottle? Anything people have done other people can undo. And the prospect of massive loss of life from nuclear destruction is the best of reasons.

There’s a precedent: the outlawing of chemical warfare after World War I when its terrible impacts were horrifically demonstrated, killing 90,000. The Geneva Protocol of 1925 and the Chemicals Weapons Convention of 1933 outlawed chemical warfare and to a large degree the prohibition has held.

ICAN executive director Melissa Parke has said: “Despite sceptics saying nuclear-armed states will not eliminate their nuclear weapons, it has happened before so it can happen again. South Africa got rid of its nuclear arms and is now one of the leading TPNW countries. Other states, including Brazil, Sweden, and Switzerland, had programs to develop nuclear weapons that they decided would not bring them security and abandoned them.”

There are some in the U.S., in Russia, and elsewhere who think nuclear war is winnable.

Journalist Robert Scheer wrote a book published in 1982: With Enough Shovels: Reagan, Bush & Nuclear War. The title was from T.K. Jones, a deputy undersecretary of defense, who said that with a shovel, anyone could dig a fallout shelter—”a hole in the ground with a door over the top.”

Nuclear weaponry today—79 years after the atomic-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—involves yet more gigantic destructive power.

Take the Ohio-class U.S. ballistic missile submarines. As The National Interest describes them: “If you do the math, the Ohio-class boats may be the most destructive weapon system created by humankind. Each of the 170-meter-long vessels can carry twenty-four Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles which can be fired from underwater to strike at targets more than seven thousand miles away…As a Trident II reenters the atmosphere at speeds of up to Mach 24, it splits into up to eight independent reentry vehicles, each with a 100- or 475-kiloton nuclear warhead. In short, a full salvo from an Ohio-class submarine—which can be launched in less than one minute-could unleash up to 192 nuclear warheads to wipe twenty-four cities off the map. This is a nightmarish weapon of the apocalypse.”

As CNN reported this May: “President Vladimir Putin has ordered Russian forces to rehearse deploying tactical nuclear weapons, as part of military drills to respond to what he called ‘threats’ by the West. Since invading Ukraine in 2022, Putin has repeatedly made veiled threats to use tactical nuclear weapons against the West.”

“UN Secretary-General Guterres also has said: “Today, the terrifying lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are fading from memory….In a world rife with geopolitical tensions and mistrust, this is a recipe for annihilation. We cannot allow the nuclear weapons wielded by a handful of states to jeopardize all life on our planet. We must stop knocking at doomsday’s door.”

Abolition of nuclear weapons globally has long been a top priority of the UN. Indeed, in 1946 its first resolution—Resolution 1—adopted by consensus, called for the creation of a commission to “make specific proposals…for the elimination from national armaments of nuclear weapons.”

Karl Grossman, professor of journalism at State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, and is the author of the book, The Wrong Stuff: The Space’s Program’s Nuclear Threat to Our Planet, and the Beyond Nuclear handbook, The U.S. Space Force and the dangers of nuclear power and nuclear war in space. Grossman is an associate of the media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion.

NextEra eyes restart opportunity for shuttered Iowa plant

26 July 2024

Four years after it shut down, NextEra Energy is looking into restarting the Duane Arnold nuclear power plant, CEO John Ketchum has confirmed.

Duane Arnold pictured before its closure in 2020 (Image: NextEra Energy)

The single-unit 615 MWe boiling water reactor plant in Iowa was taken out of service in 2020 after over 45 years of operation. The plant was the only operating nuclear unit in Iowa and had been producing around 9.2% of the state's electric generation and 19% of its emission-free electricity, but the decision to close it was made in 2018 when utility Alliant Energy and owner NextEra Energy Resources agreed to shorten their existing power purchase agreement by five years, ending in 2020 rather than 2025. The plant had been scheduled to shut in October 2020, but did not return to service after a severe storm in August that year damaged its cooling towers. The reactor itself was not damaged.

"I think there would be opportunities and a lot of demand for the market if we were able to do something with Duane Arnold," CEO John Ketchum told investors in response to questions during the company's second quarter results announcement on 24 June, although bringing a nuclear plant back into service would need "a lot of thought" and assessment of risks, he added.

"So sure, we're looking at it," he said. "We would only do it if we could do it in a way that is essentially risk free with plenty of mitigants around the approach. There are a few things that we would have to work through, but yes, we are. We are looking at it."

The reactor has been defuelled - all of its fuel is now in an on-site dry storage facility - but the buildings are not scheduled to be demolished until 50 years have passed. This deferred approach to decommissioning, with the facility placed into a safe storage configuration with eventual dismantling and decontamination activities taking place after residual radioactivity has decayed, is sometimes referred to as SAFESTOR.

The threat of premature closure of US nuclear generating capacity - and the resulting loss of its carbon-free generation attributes - has led to policy reforms and support mechanisms at the state and federal level to ensure that plants that might otherwise shut down can continue to operate.

Of those plants that have already closed, one - Palisades, in Michigan - is being prepared for a restart by now-owner Holtec International, with support from federal loan guarantees. Palisades is set to be the first power reactor to be returned to commercial operation after its being declared shut down, but may not be the last: Constellation Energy CEO Joe Dominguez also did not rule out a restart of the shut-down unit 1 at the Three Mile Island, which closed in 2019 in comments to investors earlier this year.

Tailwinds

NextEra Energy owns Florida Power & Light Company, the USA's largest electric utility, and NextEra Energy Resources, which it describes as the world's largest generator of renewable energy from wind and solar. It also, through its subsidiaries, generates power from seven commercial nuclear power units in Florida, New Hampshire and Wisconsin.

NextEera Energy Resources' renewables and storage backlog increased by more than 3000 MW during what had been the company's second-best-ever quarter, including 860 MW from agreements with Google to meet its data centre power demand, Ketchum said.

Researched and written by World Nuclear News