In a landmark vote for Europe’s climate and energy policies, the European Parliament on Wednesday endorsed labeling some gas and nuclear energy projects as “green,” allowing them access to hundreds of billions of euros in cheap loans and even state subsidies.

The decision placed the European Union’s heavy thumb on the scale of a global debate about how and how quickly major industrialized economies can move from their heavy reliance on fossil fuels — and it immediately proved controversial, prompting boos from opponents inside and outside the parliamentary building in Strasbourg, France.

Critics said it would lock in and prolong Europe’s reliance on fossil fuels, while the measure’s proponents, including in the European Commission, the EU executive arm that drafted it, said it was part of a pragmatic approach to the transition to renewable energy, especially as Europe seeks to wean itself off Russian fuel imports in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine.

The measure had been in the works even before Russia’s tanks crossed the border, but it gained urgency as the European Union responded to the invasion by banning Russian energy sources, including most coal and oil. Left untouched has been Russian gas, on which Europe remains heavily dependent.

The Russian invasion presented European countries with an urgent choice: to get gas from anywhere other than Russia, or double down on renewable sources like wind and solar.

Wednesday’s vote signaled Europe’s intention to prolong its reliance on gas — the principal component of which is methane, which speeds up global warming.

The choice could undermine a competing European imperative to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by more than half by 2030. E3G, an energy research group, said it was “at odds with the overall direction the EU is taking.”

The amendment the Parliament backed Wednesday was part of a broader EU effort to give banks and other organizations tools to evaluate which projects deserve loans and funds on the basis of being environmentally friendly.

WATCH |&nbsp;What is greenwashing, the practice major companies are accused of engaging in?&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/what-is-greenwashing-the-practice-major-companies-are-accused-of-engaging-in-494559/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The policy, known as the “taxonomy,” is meant to stop “greenwashing,” the pervasive practice of mislabeling energy projects as environmentally friendly, and it could determine where hundreds of billions of dollars in investments will flow in coming decades.

But critics of the proposal contend the classifying gas and nuclear projects as sustainable is in itself “greenwashing” and runs counter to European efforts to slash carbon emissions by 55% by 2030 and to reach carbon neutrality by 2050, while also increasing the risks of nuclear accidents.

Greta Thunberg, the Swedish climate activist, called Wednesday’s decision hypocrisy.

“This will delay a desperately needed real sustainable transition and deepen our dependency on Russian fuels. The hypocrisy is striking, but unfortunately not surprising,” she wrote on Twitter after the vote.

The classification of gas and nuclear power as “green” was contentious even beyond environmental circles, with its opponents in the European Parliament spread across the political spectrum, including from the right.

“Billions of euros in ‘green’ financing now risk being diverted into polluting energy sources that are far from being harmless and temporary, at the expense of energy efficiency and renewables,” the European Environmental Bureau, a Pan-European environmental lobby group, said in a statement shortly after the vote, calling it an “act of institutional greenwashing.”

But the measure eventually succeeded with strong backing from Germany and France, Europe’s two leading economies, and it will help both of them sustain their energy policies and industries.

In the aftermath of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear catastrophe in Japan, Germany moved away from nuclear energy entirely, pledging to shift to renewable energy sources. But it has remained hugely reliant on Russian gas as a “bridge” and fallen back on the use of coal especially during shortfalls.

France, by contrast, gets 70% of its energy from aging nuclear plants, which have been plagued by problems and shutdowns in recent years. It recently announced a blueprint budgeted at 51.7 billion euros — more than $53 billion — to build up to 14 next-generation reactors by 2035.

While nuclear energy generation does not directly produce carbon emissions, the specter of nuclear accidents has left many wary of it on a continent still traumatized by the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986.

The European Commission has said that it knows that gas and nuclear are not perfectly aligned with environmental goals and carry risks, but that it still considers them important in Europe’s transition from its current energy mix toward a carbon-neutral future that will be mostly built around renewables. It calls gas a “low emission” fuel, which is only accurate when compared to coal, which is very polluting, but not compared to wind and solar.

“This vote is important recognition of our pragmatic and realistic approach in helping many member states on their transition path towards climate neutrality,” the commission said in a statement shortly after the vote.

“Climate neutrality is our objective and legal obligation. We are committed to using all available tools to move away from high carbon-emitting energy sources,” it added.

These goals, and the means to achieve them over the next few decades, are key to Europe’s efforts to lead the world on climate policy. But Europe’s decision to classify gas and nuclear energy as “green” is now likely to reverberate widely and could also undercut European efforts to coax other countries, like China, to rein in their own emissions, analysts said.

The new classification for gas is likely to make it far harder to meet a climate goal championed at the last international climate negotiations: cutting methane.

Methane is more potent in its ability to warm the planet than carbon dioxide emissions, although it breaks down in the atmosphere sooner. Over 20 years, it can create 80 times as much warming as the same amount of carbon dioxide.

In short, cutting methane emissions would slow down warming more quickly, which is the argument that the European Union itself used when it joined the United States in November in announcing a global pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30% by 2030.

Prominent nongovernmental organizations including WWF and Greenpeace said they planned to litigate against the EU labeling of gas and nuclear, and European lawmakers are also expected to sue the European Commission over its handling of the policy.

But apart from a divergence from its environmental goals, the step Wednesday also constitutes a strategic error in dealing with Russia, other critics said.

So far EU nations have banned Russian coal and most will phase out even the import of Russian oil in response to the Ukraine invasion, but they remain especially dependent on Russian gas for electricity and heating.

Russia has used its gas exports to Europe as a lever to exert pressure on the European Union. The bloc is trying to get gas from other sources, such as Africa, the Middle East and the United States, but is far from banning the Russian imports because it needs them too much.

By doubling down on longer-term gas investments, the European Union practically locks in higher global demand for the fuel longer term, even if it doesn’t buy it from Russia itself. That will mean that Russia can continue selling its gas to other countries at high prices, perpetuating a vital revenue stream.

Some Ukrainian experts and lawmakers decried the decision.

“Vladimir Putin is rubbing his hands with glee today,” Inna Sovsun, a Ukrainian deputy, said in emailed comments. “Europe just handed him a huge present by classifying gas and nuclear as sustainable. A gift that will channel billions into his pockets and further boost his war chest.”

In a landmark vote for Europe’s climate and energy policies, the European Parliament on Wednesday endorsed labeling some gas and nuclear energy projects as “green,” allowing them access to hundreds of billions of euros in cheap loans and even state subsidies.

In a landmark vote for Europe’s climate and energy policies, the European Parliament on Wednesday endorsed labeling some gas and nuclear energy projects as “green,” allowing them access to hundreds of billions of euros in cheap loans and even state subsidies. The decision placed the European Union’s heavy thumb on the scale of a global debate about how and how quickly major industrialized economies can move from their heavy reliance on fossil fuels — and it immediately proved controversial, prompting boos from opponents inside and outside the parliamentary building in Strasbourg, France. Critics said it would lock in and prolong Europe’s reliance on fossil fuels, while the measure’s proponents, including in the European Commission, the EU executive arm that drafted it, said it was part of a pragmatic approach to the transition to renewable energy, especially as Europe seeks to wean itself off Russian fuel imports in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine. The measure had been in the works even before Russia’s tanks crossed the border, but it gained urgency as the European Union responded to the invasion by banning Russian energy sources, including most coal and oil. Left untouched has been Russian gas, on which Europe remains heavily dependent. The Russian invasion presented European countries with an urgent choice: to get gas from anywhere other than Russia, or double down on renewable sources like wind and solar. Wednesday’s vote signaled Europe’s intention to prolong its reliance on gas — the principal component of which is methane, which speeds up global warming. The choice could undermine a competing European imperative to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by more than half by 2030. E3G, an energy research group, said it was “at odds with the overall direction the EU is taking.” The amendment the Parliament backed Wednesday was part of a broader EU effort to give banks and other organizations tools to evaluate which projects deserve loans and funds on the basis of being environmentally friendly. WATCH | What is greenwashing, the practice major companies are accused of engaging in? × The policy, known as the “taxonomy,” is meant to stop “greenwashing,” the pervasive practice of mislabeling energy projects as environmentally friendly, and it could determine where hundreds of billions of dollars in investments will flow in coming decades. But critics of the proposal contend the classifying gas and nuclear projects as sustainable is in itself “greenwashing” and runs counter to European efforts to slash carbon emissions by 55% by 2030 and to reach carbon neutrality by 2050, while also increasing the risks of nuclear accidents. Greta Thunberg, the Swedish climate activist, called Wednesday’s decision hypocrisy. “This will delay a desperately needed real sustainable transition and deepen our dependency on Russian fuels. The hypocrisy is striking, but unfortunately not surprising,” she wrote on Twitter after the vote. The classification of gas and nuclear power as “green” was contentious even beyond environmental circles, with its opponents in the European Parliament spread across the political spectrum, including from the right. “Billions of euros in ‘green’ financing now risk being diverted into polluting energy sources that are far from being harmless and temporary, at the expense of energy efficiency and renewables,” the European Environmental Bureau, a Pan-European environmental lobby group, said in a statement shortly after the vote, calling it an “act of institutional greenwashing.” But the measure eventually succeeded with strong backing from Germany and France, Europe’s two leading economies, and it will help both of them sustain their energy policies and industries. In the aftermath of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear catastrophe in Japan, Germany moved away from nuclear energy entirely, pledging to shift to renewable energy sources. But it has remained hugely reliant on Russian gas as a “bridge” and fallen back on the use of coal especially during shortfalls. France, by contrast, gets 70% of its energy from aging nuclear plants, which have been plagued by problems and shutdowns in recent years. It recently announced a blueprint budgeted at 51.7 billion euros — more than $53 billion — to build up to 14 next-generation reactors by 2035. While nuclear energy generation does not directly produce carbon emissions, the specter of nuclear accidents has left many wary of it on a continent still traumatized by the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986. The European Commission has said that it knows that gas and nuclear are not perfectly aligned with environmental goals and carry risks, but that it still considers them important in Europe’s transition from its current energy mix toward a carbon-neutral future that will be mostly built around renewables. It calls gas a “low emission” fuel, which is only accurate when compared to coal, which is very polluting, but not compared to wind and solar. “This vote is important recognition of our pragmatic and realistic approach in helping many member states on their transition path towards climate neutrality,” the commission said in a statement shortly after the vote. “Climate neutrality is our objective and legal obligation. We are committed to using all available tools to move away from high carbon-emitting energy sources,” it added. These goals, and the means to achieve them over the next few decades, are key to Europe’s efforts to lead the world on climate policy. But Europe’s decision to classify gas and nuclear energy as “green” is now likely to reverberate widely and could also undercut European efforts to coax other countries, like China, to rein in their own emissions, analysts said. The new classification for gas is likely to make it far harder to meet a climate goal championed at the last international climate negotiations: cutting methane. Methane is more potent in its ability to warm the planet than carbon dioxide emissions, although it breaks down in the atmosphere sooner. Over 20 years, it can create 80 times as much warming as the same amount of carbon dioxide. In short, cutting methane emissions would slow down warming more quickly, which is the argument that the European Union itself used when it joined the United States in November in announcing a global pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30% by 2030. Prominent nongovernmental organizations including WWF and Greenpeace said they planned to litigate against the EU labeling of gas and nuclear, and European lawmakers are also expected to sue the European Commission over its handling of the policy. But apart from a divergence from its environmental goals, the step Wednesday also constitutes a strategic error in dealing with Russia, other critics said. So far EU nations have banned Russian coal and most will phase out even the import of Russian oil in response to the Ukraine invasion, but they remain especially dependent on Russian gas for electricity and heating. Russia has used its gas exports to Europe as a lever to exert pressure on the European Union. The bloc is trying to get gas from other sources, such as Africa, the Middle East and the United States, but is far from banning the Russian imports because it needs them too much. By doubling down on longer-term gas investments, the European Union practically locks in higher global demand for the fuel longer term, even if it doesn’t buy it from Russia itself. That will mean that Russia can continue selling its gas to other countries at high prices, perpetuating a vital revenue stream. Some Ukrainian experts and lawmakers decried the decision. “Vladimir Putin is rubbing his hands with glee today,” Inna Sovsun, a Ukrainian deputy, said in emailed comments. “Europe just handed him a huge present by classifying gas and nuclear as sustainable. A gift that will channel billions into his pockets and further boost his war chest.”

Europe calls gas and nuclear energy ‘Green’

Iran may soon have enough Uranium to make a nuclear weapon. A latest report by UN nuclear watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has stated that Iran has uranium quality slightly above the significant levels.

Rise in Iran's enriched Uranium alarms western nations

Scientists at Oxford University have come up with Fusion energy which is a clean, sustainable form of energy by the company First Light Fusion. It is an alternative to the existing nuclear power plants around the world

Oxford Scientists come up with Fusion energy, a clean alternative to Nuclear energy

Iran's supreme leader vowed on Thursday that his country would ramp up the development of its civilian nuclear program, as major world powers continued delicate talks in Vienna to revive Tehran's landmark nuclear deal.

In a televised speech, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei urged the importance of nuclear energy for Iran, while again asserting that it had no interest in nuclear weapons. Khamenei's remarks seemed clearly aimed at the countries involved in the Vienna talks.

"Enemies are making cruel moves against our nuclear energy issue, (putting) sanctions on nuclear energy that they know is peaceful," he said. "They do not want Iran to achieve this great and significant progress."

The accord, which former President Donald Trump abandoned nearly four years ago, granted Iran sanctions relief in exchange for curbs on its atomic program.

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Bagheri Kani, tweeted late Wednesday that the parties were "closer than ever" to an agreement.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
After weeks of intensive talks, we are closer than ever to an agreement; nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, though. 
Our negotiating partners need to be realistic, avoid intransigence and heed lessons of past 4yrs. 
Time for their serious decisions. <a href="https://t.co/kRnSte9Bzu">https://t.co/kRnSte9Bzu</a>
— علی باقری‌کنی (@Bagheri_Kani) <a href="https://twitter.com/Bagheri_Kani/status/1494035061007650818?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 16, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

But talks have repeatedly stalled in recent months as Iranian negotiators press hard-line demands, exasperating Western diplomats.

Khamenei, who so far has largely stayed silent on the ongoing negotiations, called claims that Iran was pursuing a bomb "nonsense," saying they were meant to deprive Iran of its legitimate right to nuclear power.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
They know Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful. But they make absurd, senseless claims on how close Iran is to making a bomb. We seek peaceful use of nuclear energy. They know this, but they want the Iranian nation to face difficulties when it needs nuclear energy in the future.
— Khamenei.ir (@khamenei_ir) <a href="https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1494235034580049922?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 17, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"If we do not pursue (peaceful nuclear energy) today, tomorrow will be late," he said. Iran long has insisted its nuclear program is peaceful. But the country's steps away from its obligations under the 2015 accord have alarmed its archenemy Israel and world powers.

Tehran has since started enriching uranium up to 60% purity — a short technical step from the 90% needed to make an atomic bomb, and spinning far more advanced centrifuges than those permitted under the deal.

Iran's supreme leader vowed on Thursday that his country would ramp up the development of its civilian nuclear program, as major world powers continued delicate talks in Vienna to revive Tehran's landmark nuclear deal.

Iran's supreme leader vowed on Thursday that his country would ramp up the development of its civilian nuclear program, as major world powers continued delicate talks in Vienna to revive Tehran's landmark nuclear deal. In a televised speech, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei urged the importance of nuclear energy for Iran, while again asserting that it had no interest in nuclear weapons. Khamenei's remarks seemed clearly aimed at the countries involved in the Vienna talks. "Enemies are making cruel moves against our nuclear energy issue, (putting) sanctions on nuclear energy that they know is peaceful," he said. "They do not want Iran to achieve this great and significant progress." The accord, which former President Donald Trump abandoned nearly four years ago, granted Iran sanctions relief in exchange for curbs on its atomic program. Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Bagheri Kani, tweeted late Wednesday that the parties were "closer than ever" to an agreement. After weeks of intensive talks, we are closer than ever to an agreement; nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, though. Our negotiating partners need to be realistic, avoid intransigence and heed lessons of past 4yrs. Time for their serious decisions. https://t.co/kRnSte9Bzu — علی باقری‌کنی (@Bagheri_Kani) February 16, 2022 × But talks have repeatedly stalled in recent months as Iranian negotiators press hard-line demands, exasperating Western diplomats. Khamenei, who so far has largely stayed silent on the ongoing negotiations, called claims that Iran was pursuing a bomb "nonsense," saying they were meant to deprive Iran of its legitimate right to nuclear power. They know Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful. But they make absurd, senseless claims on how close Iran is to making a bomb. We seek peaceful use of nuclear energy. They know this, but they want the Iranian nation to face difficulties when it needs nuclear energy in the future. — Khamenei.ir (@khamenei_ir) February 17, 2022 × "If we do not pursue (peaceful nuclear energy) today, tomorrow will be late," he said. Iran long has insisted its nuclear program is peaceful. But the country's steps away from its obligations under the 2015 accord have alarmed its archenemy Israel and world powers. Tehran has since started enriching uranium up to 60% purity — a short technical step from the 90% needed to make an atomic bomb, and spinning far more advanced centrifuges than those permitted under the deal.

Iran supreme leader Khamenei urges nuclear energy progress amid talks

For more than two decades, promoters and purveyors of nuclear energy felt shunned at UN climate change conferences.

At the COP26 summit underway in Glasgow, however, they have been welcomed with open arms, the UN's top nuclear regulator told AFP.

The spectre of Chernobyl and Fukushima, along with the enduring problem of nuclear waste, kept energy generated by splitting atoms on the sidelines, even if that energy was virtually carbon free.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/greta-thunberg-calls-cop26-climate-summit-a-failure-427044">Greta Thunberg calls COP26 climate summit 'a failure'</a>

But as the climate crisis deepens and the need to transition away from fossil fuels becomes urgent, attitudes may be shifting.

"Nuclear energy is part of the solution to global warming, there's no way around it," said Rafael Mariano Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in an interview.

It already accounts for a quarter of "clean" -- that is, carbon-free -- energy worldwide, and Grossi said this COP26 is the first where it has "had a seat at the table".

"The winds are changing."

To have even a 50/50 chance of capping global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels -- the threshold for dangerous tipping points that could trigger runaway warming -- global greenhouse emissions must be slashed by almost half within a decade, scientists say.

But things are still moving in the wrong direction: a report on Thursday said emissions in 2021 are approaching record levels.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has warned they could hit new heights by 2023.

That is helping refocus attention on nuclear.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/5-takeaways-from-the-first-days-of-the-climate-summit-427300">5 takeaways from the first days of the climate summit</a>

"At the 2015 COP in Paris, nuclear wasn't welcome," said Callum Thomas, head of a recruitment firm for the nuclear industry, who was spotted at COP26 sporting a T-shirt saying "Let's Talk Nuclear".

"There was a belief it was not needed. Now many countries are looking at the feasibility, especially with the rise in gas prices."

<h2>'Never stops'&nbsp;</h2>

From the time he took the IAEA's helm nearly two years ago, Grossi, an Argentine diplomat, has been a tireless advocate for the industry.

At his first COP in Madrid he "went in spite of the general assumption that nuclear would not be welcome".

On the contrary in Glasgow, where nearly 200 countries are still trying to put flesh on the bone of the 2015 Paris Agreement, he said "nuclear is not only welcome, but is generating a lot of interest".

Grossi argues that the technology can not only speed the transition away from fossil fuels, but also power research on technologies needed for adapting to climate impacts, from finding drought-resistant crops to eradicating mosquitos. &nbsp;

He acknowledges that it carries serious risks. &nbsp;

The meltdown of three reactors at Japan's Fukushima power plant in 2011 following an earthquake and a tsunami profoundly shook confidence in nuclear.

The industry also has yet to find a way to dispose of nuclear waste, which remains highly radioactive for thousands of years.

But Grossi said these issues are not disqualifying, arguing that statistically the technology has fewer negative consequences than many other forms of energy.

It could also be a complement to renewables.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/indonesia-calls-cop26-deforestation-pledge-unfair-says-development-wont-stop-in-the-name-of-emissions-426834">Indonesia calls COP26 deforestation pledge ‘unfair’, says development ‘won’t stop in the name of emissions</a>’

"Nuclear energy goes on and on for the entire year, it never stops," he said.

Even so, with prolonged construction times, many argue that it is too late to build enough nuclear capacity to effectively join the battle against global warming.

But Grossi said he thinks part of the answer lies in keeping existing reactors up and running.&nbsp;

<h2>100-year-old reactors?&nbsp;</h2>

Many power plants designed to run for 40 years are now licensed for 60 years under strict national safety standards supervised by the IAEA, he said.

"What could be more efficient than a facility that you build that gives you energy for close to 100 years?" he said.

He acknowledged that plants running that long might be a "bit of a provocation".

"But it still might be possible."

In their projections on how to limit the rise in global temperatures and satisfy a growing global demand for energy at the same time, the IEA takes all non-carbon sources on board.

The UN's climate science advisory panel, the IPCC, has also given a place to nuclear in its models, even as it says that its deployment "could be limited by social preferences."

Indeed, attitudes towards nuclear power vary sharply across nations.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/you-might-as-well-bomb-us-says-president-of-palau-at-cop26-climate-summit-426376">'You might as well bomb us,' says president of Palau at COP26 climate summit</a>

While New Zealand and Germany are opposed, India is in discussions with French energy giant EDF to build what would be the largest nuclear power plant in the world.

Meanwhile, both Canada and the United States are developing so-called "small modular reactors", although only Russia has put into operation a floating reactor using this technology.

Price is also not the barrier it used to be, said Grossi.

"Countries see in smaller units a very interesting alternative, which is not in the range of billions but of hundreds of millions," he said. "When it comes to energy projects, this is quite affordable."

For more than two decades, promoters and purveyors of nuclear energy felt shunned at UN climate change conferences. At the COP26 summit underway in Glasgow, however, they have been welcomed with open arms, the UN's top nuclear regulator told AFP.

For more than two decades, promoters and purveyors of nuclear energy felt shunned at UN climate change conferences. At the COP26 summit underway in Glasgow, however, they have been welcomed with open arms, the UN's top nuclear regulator told AFP. The spectre of Chernobyl and Fukushima, along with the enduring problem of nuclear waste, kept energy generated by splitting atoms on the sidelines, even if that energy was virtually carbon free. Also Read | Greta Thunberg calls COP26 climate summit 'a failure' But as the climate crisis deepens and the need to transition away from fossil fuels becomes urgent, attitudes may be shifting. "Nuclear energy is part of the solution to global warming, there's no way around it," said Rafael Mariano Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in an interview. It already accounts for a quarter of "clean" -- that is, carbon-free -- energy worldwide, and Grossi said this COP26 is the first where it has "had a seat at the table". "The winds are changing." To have even a 50/50 chance of capping global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels -- the threshold for dangerous tipping points that could trigger runaway warming -- global greenhouse emissions must be slashed by almost half within a decade, scientists say. But things are still moving in the wrong direction: a report on Thursday said emissions in 2021 are approaching record levels. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has warned they could hit new heights by 2023. That is helping refocus attention on nuclear. Also Read | 5 takeaways from the first days of the climate summit "At the 2015 COP in Paris, nuclear wasn't welcome," said Callum Thomas, head of a recruitment firm for the nuclear industry, who was spotted at COP26 sporting a T-shirt saying "Let's Talk Nuclear". "There was a belief it was not needed. Now many countries are looking at the feasibility, especially with the rise in gas prices." 'Never stops' From the time he took the IAEA's helm nearly two years ago, Grossi, an Argentine diplomat, has been a tireless advocate for the industry. At his first COP in Madrid he "went in spite of the general assumption that nuclear would not be welcome". On the contrary in Glasgow, where nearly 200 countries are still trying to put flesh on the bone of the 2015 Paris Agreement, he said "nuclear is not only welcome, but is generating a lot of interest". Grossi argues that the technology can not only speed the transition away from fossil fuels, but also power research on technologies needed for adapting to climate impacts, from finding drought-resistant crops to eradicating mosquitos. He acknowledges that it carries serious risks. The meltdown of three reactors at Japan's Fukushima power plant in 2011 following an earthquake and a tsunami profoundly shook confidence in nuclear. The industry also has yet to find a way to dispose of nuclear waste, which remains highly radioactive for thousands of years. But Grossi said these issues are not disqualifying, arguing that statistically the technology has fewer negative consequences than many other forms of energy. It could also be a complement to renewables. Also Read | Indonesia calls COP26 deforestation pledge ‘unfair’, says development ‘won’t stop in the name of emissions’ "Nuclear energy goes on and on for the entire year, it never stops," he said. Even so, with prolonged construction times, many argue that it is too late to build enough nuclear capacity to effectively join the battle against global warming. But Grossi said he thinks part of the answer lies in keeping existing reactors up and running. 100-year-old reactors? Many power plants designed to run for 40 years are now licensed for 60 years under strict national safety standards supervised by the IAEA, he said. "What could be more efficient than a facility that you build that gives you energy for close to 100 years?" he said. He acknowledged that plants running that long might be a "bit of a provocation". "But it still might be possible." In their projections on how to limit the rise in global temperatures and satisfy a growing global demand for energy at the same time, the IEA takes all non-carbon sources on board. The UN's climate science advisory panel, the IPCC, has also given a place to nuclear in its models, even as it says that its deployment "could be limited by social preferences." Indeed, attitudes towards nuclear power vary sharply across nations. Also Read | 'You might as well bomb us,' says president of Palau at COP26 climate summit While New Zealand and Germany are opposed, India is in discussions with French energy giant EDF to build what would be the largest nuclear power plant in the world. Meanwhile, both Canada and the United States are developing so-called "small modular reactors", although only Russia has put into operation a floating reactor using this technology. Price is also not the barrier it used to be, said Grossi. "Countries see in smaller units a very interesting alternative, which is not in the range of billions but of hundreds of millions," he said. "When it comes to energy projects, this is quite affordable."

Climate crisis could give nuclear energy a second wind

With an aim to get nuclear power recognised as a sustainable energy source, the government of Finland is looking to lobby in the European Union (EU). The development comes after a&nbsp;secret decision. &nbsp;

Although the EU has already declared wind and solar as sustainable, it is yet to make a decision on gas and nuclear.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-rust-belt-province-warns-of-more-shortages-in-energy-crisis-419929" hreflang="en">China rust-belt province warns of more shortages in energy crisis</a>

Currently, nuclear energy is considered a low-carbon energy source in comparison to the emissions caused by mining and transport. This is even when plants are emission-free. &nbsp;

While Finland already has four nuclear plants, another one is nearing completion after several years of postponements due to technical complexities. So, the future of nuclear energy is critical for the country. &nbsp;

By 2035, Finland looks to becoming carbon neutral, and its industry is also highly energy-intensive. &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-set-to-achieve-450-gw-renewable-energy-installed-capacity-by-2030-centre-420061" hreflang="en">India set to achieve 450 GW renewable energy installed capacity by 2030: Centre</a>

As of now, 30% energy in Finland is produced by nuclear energy. &nbsp;

The government’s alignment to lobby nuclear as a sustainable source is a complete U-turn for the Green Party sitting in the current five-party cabinet, reported Finnish Broadcasting Company (YLE). &nbsp;

Traditionally, the party is anti-nuclear and had resigned from previous governments over the issue. &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

With an aim to get nuclear power recognised as a sustainable energy source, the government of Finland is looking to lobby in the European Union (EU). The development comes after a secret decision.

With an aim to get nuclear power recognised as a sustainable energy source, the government of Finland is looking to lobby in the European Union (EU). The development comes after a secret decision. Although the EU has already declared wind and solar as sustainable, it is yet to make a decision on gas and nuclear. Also Read: China rust-belt province warns of more shortages in energy crisis Currently, nuclear energy is considered a low-carbon energy source in comparison to the emissions caused by mining and transport. This is even when plants are emission-free. While Finland already has four nuclear plants, another one is nearing completion after several years of postponements due to technical complexities. So, the future of nuclear energy is critical for the country. By 2035, Finland looks to becoming carbon neutral, and its industry is also highly energy-intensive. Also Read: India set to achieve 450 GW renewable energy installed capacity by 2030: Centre As of now, 30% energy in Finland is produced by nuclear energy. The government’s alignment to lobby nuclear as a sustainable source is a complete U-turn for the Green Party sitting in the current five-party cabinet, reported Finnish Broadcasting Company (YLE). Traditionally, the party is anti-nuclear and had resigned from previous governments over the issue. (With inputs from agencies)

In EU, Finland lobbies to get nuclear energy labelled as sustainable source  

Iran agreed to allow the UN nuclear watchdog to install new memory cards into surveillance cameras at its sensitive nuclear sites. The announcement was made by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) after a meeting with the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Iran allows IAEA to service nuclear monitoring cameras after talks

The British government is investigating ways to block China's state-owned Nuclear energy company from all future power projects including CGN's plan to build a GBP20-billion Sizewell nuclear power station in Suffolk.

UK mulling banning Chinese Nuclear energy company

The impact of nuclear tests undertaken by France between 1960s-1990s may have been underestimated all this time, a study says. Based on declassified French documents and other records, the study attempted to reconstruct the impact of French nuclear tests.

The study found that a shocking number of people, mostly concentrated in French Polynesia were directly affected by the nuclear fallout. Think this is scary? Turns out, almost all of the population of French Polynesia (over 110,000) was exposed to radioactive air.

French Polynesia is a territory consisting hundreds of islands, and was the site of multiple nuclear tests decades ago.

In Pics:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/decade-after-one-of-worlds-worst-nuclear-disasters-what-is-happening-in-fukushima-369080">Decade after one of world's worst nuclear disasters, what is happening in Fukushima?</a>

To reach their conclusion, researched assessed over 2,000 military documents and attempted to retrace the impact of French nuclear tests in terms of contamination. The most dangerous tests were overseen between 1966-1974. Disclose (a news website), a British firm called Interprt, and researchers from Princeton University worked on the project together.

The test conducted on July 17, 1974 over Mururoa Atoll caused a lot of fallout. Two days after the test, the inhabitants of the region were exposed to unprecedented radiation.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/water-leaks-indicate-new-damage-at-fukushima-nuclear-plant-364890" hreflang="en">Water leaks indicate new damage at Fukushima nuclear plant</a>

The investigation shows that the real impact of radiation was over ten times higher than what was revealed in an official report by the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) in 2006.&nbsp;Researchers claim that this was owing to the CEA failing to take officially consider&nbsp;contamination that took place through drinking water.

The study is being used to ascertain whether people affected by radiation are eligible for compensation.

The impact of nuclear tests undertaken by France between 1960s-1990s may have been underestimated all this time, a study says. Based on declassified French documents and other records, the study attempted to reconstruct the impact of French nuclear tests.

The impact of nuclear tests undertaken by France between 1960s-1990s may have been underestimated all this time, a study says. Based on declassified French documents and other records, the study attempted to reconstruct the impact of French nuclear tests. The study found that a shocking number of people, mostly concentrated in French Polynesia were directly affected by the nuclear fallout. Think this is scary? Turns out, almost all of the population of French Polynesia (over 110,000) was exposed to radioactive air. French Polynesia is a territory consisting hundreds of islands, and was the site of multiple nuclear tests decades ago. In Pics: Decade after one of world's worst nuclear disasters, what is happening in Fukushima? To reach their conclusion, researched assessed over 2,000 military documents and attempted to retrace the impact of French nuclear tests in terms of contamination. The most dangerous tests were overseen between 1966-1974. Disclose (a news website), a British firm called Interprt, and researchers from Princeton University worked on the project together. The test conducted on July 17, 1974 over Mururoa Atoll caused a lot of fallout. Two days after the test, the inhabitants of the region were exposed to unprecedented radiation. Also read: Water leaks indicate new damage at Fukushima nuclear plant The investigation shows that the real impact of radiation was over ten times higher than what was revealed in an official report by the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) in 2006. Researchers claim that this was owing to the CEA failing to take officially consider contamination that took place through drinking water. The study is being used to ascertain whether people affected by radiation are eligible for compensation.

French nuclear tests exposed entire Polynesian population to radiation, new study reveals

French President Emmanuel Macron said that Nuclear power will remain a key part of country's energy needs, in a show of support for the industry even as he looks to reduce nuclear's dominance as a power source.

Macron says nuclear energy will remain France's major source

Japan's Tohoku Electric Power said on Wednesday it has won initial regulatory approval to restart a reactor at its Onagawa power plant, more than eight&nbsp;years after it was damaged in the earthquake and tsunami that caused the Fukushima disaster.

Tohoku Electric said in a statement it has received a first green light from Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority to restart the No&nbsp;2 reactor at Onagawa, subject to a public consultation period.

Onagawa was the closest among Japan's nuclear stations to the epicentre of the magnitude-9 quake in March 2011, which triggered a tsunami that killed nearly 20,000 people, as well as causing the worst atomic disaster since Chernobyl in 1986.

The station was swamped by the tsunami, but survived with its cooling system intact, saving its reactors from the threat of meltdowns similar to those that occurred at Tokyo Electric Power's Fukushima Daiichi station to the south.

Further approvals will be required before the restart, along with the consent of local authorities, which is not guaranteed.

The reactor is a boiling water reactor (BWR) with the same basic design as those that melted down in the Fukushima crisis.

The Fukushima disaster led to the eventual shutdown of the country's then-54 operational reactors, which once provided nearly a third of Japan's electricity. All had to be relicensed under new standards after the disaster highlighted operational and regulatory failings.

While the approval will be a boost for <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pope-francis-leaves-japan-after-trip-centred-on-anti-nuclear-message-264572">Japan's resurgent nuclear industry</a>, the sector will still miss a government target of providing at least a fifth of the country's electricity by 2030, an analysis by Reuters showed last year.

Nine reactors have been restarted, all of them pressurized water reactors located far from Tokyo, while the stigma of Fukushima still hangs over use of the older BWR technology.

The issue of nuclear safety in Japan was highlighted again earlier this week when Pope Francis - who met victims of the Fukushima nuclear disaster while in Japan over the weekend - said nuclear energy should not be used until there are ironclad guarantees that it is safe for people and the environment.

Japan's Tohoku Electric Power said on Wednesday it has won initial regulatory approval to restart a reactor at its Onagawa power plant, more than eight years after it was damaged in the earthquake and tsunami that caused the Fukushima disaster.

Japan's Tohoku Electric Power said on Wednesday it has won initial regulatory approval to restart a reactor at its Onagawa power plant, more than eight years after it was damaged in the earthquake and tsunami that caused the Fukushima disaster. Tohoku Electric said in a statement it has received a first green light from Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority to restart the No 2 reactor at Onagawa, subject to a public consultation period. Onagawa was the closest among Japan's nuclear stations to the epicentre of the magnitude-9 quake in March 2011, which triggered a tsunami that killed nearly 20,000 people, as well as causing the worst atomic disaster since Chernobyl in 1986. The station was swamped by the tsunami, but survived with its cooling system intact, saving its reactors from the threat of meltdowns similar to those that occurred at Tokyo Electric Power's Fukushima Daiichi station to the south. Further approvals will be required before the restart, along with the consent of local authorities, which is not guaranteed. The reactor is a boiling water reactor (BWR) with the same basic design as those that melted down in the Fukushima crisis. The Fukushima disaster led to the eventual shutdown of the country's then-54 operational reactors, which once provided nearly a third of Japan's electricity. All had to be relicensed under new standards after the disaster highlighted operational and regulatory failings. While the approval will be a boost for Japan's resurgent nuclear industry, the sector will still miss a government target of providing at least a fifth of the country's electricity by 2030, an analysis by Reuters showed last year. Nine reactors have been restarted, all of them pressurized water reactors located far from Tokyo, while the stigma of Fukushima still hangs over use of the older BWR technology. The issue of nuclear safety in Japan was highlighted again earlier this week when Pope Francis - who met victims of the Fukushima nuclear disaster while in Japan over the weekend - said nuclear energy should not be used until there are ironclad guarantees that it is safe for people and the environment.

Japan approves restarting nuclear reactor closest to epicentre of 2011 quake

The United States announced Monday it would <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/irans-guards-warn-protesters-of-decisive-action-if-unrest-continues-262988">halt sanctions waivers for Iran's Fordow plant</a>, likely ending a key component of a landmark nuclear deal after Tehran said it had resumed enrichment activities.

Piling pressure as protests hit Iran, the move is intended to discourage work led by Russia's state-owned nuclear company Rosatom at the once-secret site, which was supposed to be transformed into a civilian research centre&nbsp;under the 2015 agreement.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pointed to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's announcement of renewed activity at Fordow, one of a series of steps taken by Tehran as it presses Europeans to make good on sanctions relief promised for compliance.

"Therefore the United States will terminate the sanctions waiver related to the nuclear facility at Fordow effective December 15, 2019," Pompeo told a news conference.&nbsp;

"The right amount of uranium enrichment for the world's largest state sponsor of terror is zero," Pompeo said.

"There is no legitimate reason for Iran to resume enrichment at this previously clandestine site. Iran should reverse its activity there immediately," he said.

President Donald Trump last year withdrew from the denuclearisation accord and reimposed sweeping sanctions on Iran, aiming to inflict economic pain and reduce the Shiite clerical regime's influence in Arab countries.

But the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-developed-vast-influence-in-iraq-spy-agency-leaks-say-262919">Trump administration</a> has still granted waivers to let other nations implement the nuclear deal, which was negotiated under former President Barack Obama, without facing penalties in the United States.

Critics of Trump have said that the waivers proved the administration saw the benefits of the deal, which sharply expanded access for international inspectors. Iran had been in compliance before the US withdrawal.

US waivers remain in place for other nuclear sites including Bushehr, a nuclear power plant off the Gulf coast being developed with Russia under safeguards.

Hawkish Republicans have been pressing on Pompeo to end the waivers. Senator Tom Cotton praised the decision as he pointed to the weekend protests in Iran over gas price hikes.

"The mullahs are playing with atoms in an underground bunker at Fordow instead of helping their own people, who are demonstrating in the street," he tweeted.

Latest step by Iran

Iran, which insists its nuclear program is exclusively peaceful, has taken a series of measures that fall well short of developing a nuclear weapon but are meant to put pressure on European powers.

The UN's nuclear watchdog said Monday that Iran's stock of heavy water for reactors had crossed the level agreed upon in the 2015 accord for the first time.

Iran's stock of heavy water, which can be used to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons as an alternative to enriched uranium,&nbsp;was 131.5 tonnes, above the 130-tonne limit, said a spokesperson for the agency in Vienna.

At Fordow, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-condemns-us-show-of-support-for-rioters-262870">Iran</a> said it began feeding uranium hexafluoride gas into mothballed enrichment centrifuges.

Britain, France, Germany and the European Union said Iran's decision was "inconsistent" with the nuclear deal.

Iran has accused European nations of hypocrisy over the nuclear deal and also attacked the United States for its statements of support for protesters.

Major roads have been blocked, banks torched and shops looted since Friday's abrupt hike in gas prices.

Pompeo again voiced solidarity with the protesters, saying: "The world's watching."

"The Iranian people will enjoy a better future when their government begins to respect basic human rights, abandon its revolutionary posture and its destabilizing foreign policy in the region, and behaves simply like a normal nation," he said.

The United States announced Monday it would halt sanctions waivers for Iran's Fordow plant, likely ending a key component of a landmark nuclear deal after Tehran said it had resumed enrichment activities.

The United States announced Monday it would halt sanctions waivers for Iran's Fordow plant, likely ending a key component of a landmark nuclear deal after Tehran said it had resumed enrichment activities. Piling pressure as protests hit Iran, the move is intended to discourage work led by Russia's state-owned nuclear company Rosatom at the once-secret site, which was supposed to be transformed into a civilian research centre under the 2015 agreement. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pointed to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's announcement of renewed activity at Fordow, one of a series of steps taken by Tehran as it presses Europeans to make good on sanctions relief promised for compliance. "Therefore the United States will terminate the sanctions waiver related to the nuclear facility at Fordow effective December 15, 2019," Pompeo told a news conference. "The right amount of uranium enrichment for the world's largest state sponsor of terror is zero," Pompeo said. "There is no legitimate reason for Iran to resume enrichment at this previously clandestine site. Iran should reverse its activity there immediately," he said. President Donald Trump last year withdrew from the denuclearisation accord and reimposed sweeping sanctions on Iran, aiming to inflict economic pain and reduce the Shiite clerical regime's influence in Arab countries. But the Trump administration has still granted waivers to let other nations implement the nuclear deal, which was negotiated under former President Barack Obama, without facing penalties in the United States. Critics of Trump have said that the waivers proved the administration saw the benefits of the deal, which sharply expanded access for international inspectors. Iran had been in compliance before the US withdrawal. US waivers remain in place for other nuclear sites including Bushehr, a nuclear power plant off the Gulf coast being developed with Russia under safeguards. Hawkish Republicans have been pressing on Pompeo to end the waivers. Senator Tom Cotton praised the decision as he pointed to the weekend protests in Iran over gas price hikes. "The mullahs are playing with atoms in an underground bunker at Fordow instead of helping their own people, who are demonstrating in the street," he tweeted. Latest step by Iran Iran, which insists its nuclear program is exclusively peaceful, has taken a series of measures that fall well short of developing a nuclear weapon but are meant to put pressure on European powers. The UN's nuclear watchdog said Monday that Iran's stock of heavy water for reactors had crossed the level agreed upon in the 2015 accord for the first time. Iran's stock of heavy water, which can be used to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons as an alternative to enriched uranium, was 131.5 tonnes, above the 130-tonne limit, said a spokesperson for the agency in Vienna. At Fordow, Iran said it began feeding uranium hexafluoride gas into mothballed enrichment centrifuges. Britain, France, Germany and the European Union said Iran's decision was "inconsistent" with the nuclear deal. Iran has accused European nations of hypocrisy over the nuclear deal and also attacked the United States for its statements of support for protesters. Major roads have been blocked, banks torched and shops looted since Friday's abrupt hike in gas prices. Pompeo again voiced solidarity with the protesters, saying: "The world's watching." "The Iranian people will enjoy a better future when their government begins to respect basic human rights, abandon its revolutionary posture and its destabilizing foreign policy in the region, and behaves simply like a normal nation," he said.

United States ends sanction waivers for Fordow nuclear plant in Iran

The United States plans to allow Russian, Chinese and European companies to continue&nbsp;work&nbsp;at&nbsp;Iranian nuclear facilities to make it harder for&nbsp;Iran&nbsp;to develop a nuclear weapon, two&nbsp;sources&nbsp;familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.

The Trump administration, which last year pulled out of the 2015&nbsp;Iran&nbsp;nuclear deal and re-imposed <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-iran-tensions-ratchet-up-further-despite-un-efforts-252293">sanctions on&nbsp;Iran</a>, will let the&nbsp;work&nbsp;go forward by issuing&nbsp;waivers&nbsp;to sanctions that bar&nbsp;non-US&nbsp;firms from dealing with the Atomic Energy Organization of&nbsp;Iran&nbsp;(AEOI), said the&nbsp;sources&nbsp;on condition of anonymity.

While the&nbsp;waivers'&nbsp;renewal would allow&nbsp;non-proliferation&nbsp;work&nbsp;to continue at the Arak heavy water research reactor and the Fordow fuel enrichment plant, which AEOI oversees, it may also signal that Washington is leaving the door open to diplomacy.

Under the 2015 deal between&nbsp;Iran&nbsp;and six world powers - Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States - Tehran agreed to limit its nuclear program in return for the lifting of economic sanctions that had crippled its economy.

When&nbsp;US&nbsp;President Donald Trump unilaterally abandoned the deal in May 2018, he <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-says-new-us-sanctions-target-iranians-access-to-food-medicine-250961">re-imposed&nbsp;US&nbsp;sanctions</a> in a "maximum pressure" campaign designed to force&nbsp;Iran&nbsp;to return to the negotiating table.

Trump wants a broader deal that would also limit&nbsp;Iran's missile program as well as its regional activities;&nbsp;Iran&nbsp;has demanded the United States first resume complying with the 2015 deal called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

France, in particular, has sought to bring the two into a wider dialogue but has so far failed, suggesting neither is yet willing to abandon core elements of policy: the&nbsp;US&nbsp;belief that pressure will bring&nbsp;Iran&nbsp;to its knees, and&nbsp;Iran's refusal to capitulate to&nbsp;US&nbsp;duress.

Under the 2015 deal, the Arak reactor was to be redesigned to render it unable to make bomb-grade plutonium under normal operation, while the Fordow plant was to stop enriching uranium and be converted into a nuclear, physics and technology center.

Chinese state-owned China National Nuclear Corp has done&nbsp;non-proliferation&nbsp;work&nbsp;at Arak, and Russia's Rosatom has done it at Fordow. Rosatom has also provided uranium fuel for&nbsp;Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant.

The&nbsp;US&nbsp;State Department had no immediate comment. Rosatom did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A China National Nuclear Corp spokesman told Reuters on Thursday by email that it was "starting to cooperate with the&nbsp;Iranian side under guidance from Beijing on seeking a positive solution to the&nbsp;Iran&nbsp;nuclear problem". It did not provide further details.

The United States plans to allow Russian, Chinese and European companies to continue work at Iranian nuclear facilities to make it harder for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, two sources familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.

The United States plans to allow Russian, Chinese and European companies to continue work at Iranian nuclear facilities to make it harder for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, two sources familiar with the matter said on Wednesday. The Trump administration, which last year pulled out of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and re-imposed sanctions on Iran, will let the work go forward by issuing waivers to sanctions that bar non-US firms from dealing with the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), said the sources on condition of anonymity. While the waivers' renewal would allow non-proliferation work to continue at the Arak heavy water research reactor and the Fordow fuel enrichment plant, which AEOI oversees, it may also signal that Washington is leaving the door open to diplomacy. Under the 2015 deal between Iran and six world powers - Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States - Tehran agreed to limit its nuclear program in return for the lifting of economic sanctions that had crippled its economy. When US President Donald Trump unilaterally abandoned the deal in May 2018, he re-imposed US sanctions in a "maximum pressure" campaign designed to force Iran to return to the negotiating table. Trump wants a broader deal that would also limit Iran's missile program as well as its regional activities; Iran has demanded the United States first resume complying with the 2015 deal called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. France, in particular, has sought to bring the two into a wider dialogue but has so far failed, suggesting neither is yet willing to abandon core elements of policy: the US belief that pressure will bring Iran to its knees, and Iran's refusal to capitulate to US duress. Under the 2015 deal, the Arak reactor was to be redesigned to render it unable to make bomb-grade plutonium under normal operation, while the Fordow plant was to stop enriching uranium and be converted into a nuclear, physics and technology center. Chinese state-owned China National Nuclear Corp has done non-proliferation work at Arak, and Russia's Rosatom has done it at Fordow. Rosatom has also provided uranium fuel for Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant. The US State Department had no immediate comment. Rosatom did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A China National Nuclear Corp spokesman told Reuters on Thursday by email that it was "starting to cooperate with the Iranian side under guidance from Beijing on seeking a positive solution to the Iran nuclear problem". It did not provide further details.

US to renew waivers allowing non-proliferation work with Iran: Report

China's first white paper places equal emphasis on nuclear energy development and safety, and advocates all countries to shoulder the responsibility of nuclear safety, according to a China Media Group (CMG) commentary published on Tuesday.

China shares responsibility for global nuclear safety: commentary

PM Modi remembers India's Nuclear Energy Pioneer Homi Bhabha in France. Watch more to know.

WION Gravitas: Why PM Modi remembered Homi Bhabha  in France

WION Fineprint: Recalling India's Nuclear Energy Pioneers

It was in 1942 that the great physicist Enrico Fermi successfully built the first ever nuclear reactor under a sports ground at the University of Chicago. Yet, already by 1946, within just four years of that pioneering breakthrough, India, a nation on the other side of the world still under the shackles of colonial rule and considered backwards and destitute, had nevertheless set up an Atomic Research Committee to explore nuclear energy possibilities.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/homi_jehangir_bhabha_1960s-20171030065247.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
Dr Homi Jehangir Bhabha (Others)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

This was years ahead of many &quot;advanced&quot; nations of the time. Soon thereafter, in 1948, India&rsquo;s Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was set up. These farsighted steps are owed both to Jawaharlal Nehru and to leading scientists of the country, notably M.N. Saha, S.S. Bhatnagar and Homi Bhabha, who had been closely following nuclear developments around the world.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Dr Bhabha&rsquo;s vision and skill as a builder of institutions and as a diplomat in establishing India&rsquo;s due role in the international nuclear community were quite remarkable.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Dr Bhabha?s vision and skill as a builder of institutions and as a diplomat in establishing India?s due role in the international nuclear community were quite remarkable." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

But the primary credit for taking the entire enterprise forward and developing it belongs to Dr Bhabha, who was named the first Chairman of AEC and Secretary to&nbsp;the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). Using his international stature as a physicist and his easy access to Prime Minister Nehru (both Cambridge men), Bhabha set about building the vast nuclear empire which today consists of over 50 different institutions working variously on civilian energy, nuclear weapons as well as pure scientific research.

For a person who had started his career as a theoretical physicist, Dr Bhabha&rsquo;s vision and skill as a builder of institutions and as a diplomat in establishing India&rsquo;s due role in the international nuclear community were quite remarkable. Equally impressive were his aesthetic and artistic tastes. The Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, another of Dr Bhabha&rsquo;s creations, not only had numerous original paintings in its lobby but also the best lawns (and the cleanest toilets) among all our scientific organisations.

How well has Dr Bhabha&#39;s nuclear dream been realised? This is not the appropriate place to discuss the nuclear weapons part of the program. But the civilian reactor program has, sadly, not progressed anywhere nearly as far as had been hoped, in spite of the considerable financial support and bureaucratic freedom DAE enjoyed. At the turn of the century, over 50 years after it was set up, the DAE could deliver only 2.77 GW (gigawatts) of nuclear power.

Worse still, the DAE brass kept announcing targets that were getting pushed further and further away into the future, as results on the ground fell well short of the projections. There were several reasons behind this. One was the tragic death of Dr Bhabha in 1966 in an air crash over the Alps. He was just 56 years old then. It is possible that if he had been alive longer to guide the program, he would not have let it drift and slide so much. One also suspects that he would have refrained from making the tall claims and unrealistic promises that the nuclear agency periodically indulged in.

The other factor was the imposition of nuclear sanctions by the international community after we had conducted the first nuclear test at Pokhran in 1974. This prevented all nuclear commerce with the outside world, including technical collaboration and the import of equipment and uranium fuel. The sanctions were further extended when we conducted more nuclear tests in 1998.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The plans that the current government announced in the aftermath of the Paris Climate Agreement, of generating 63 GW of nuclear energy by 2032, is extremely unlikely to be realised.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The plans that the current government announced in the aftermath of the Paris Climate Agreement, of generating 63 GW of nuclear energy by 2032, is extremely unlikely to be realised.
" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

Things began to improve in the new millennium. The Indo-US nuclear Deal in 2008 lifted the sanctions against us allowing us to import Uranium fuel as well as collaborate with other countries to build bigger modern reactors for us. But once again, actual progress has belied much of the hype. At the time of writing, we still have only 7 GW of nuclear energy, less than 3 per cent of the current total energy capacity. Even this improvement is largely because of the two reactors the Russians have built at Kudangulam. Partnerships with French and US reactor suppliers, under negotiation since 2008, are yet to bear fruit.

In view of this, the plan that the current government announced in the aftermath of the Paris Climate Agreement, of generating 63 GW of nuclear energy by 2032, is extremely unlikely to be realised. 
&nbsp;

India's current progress in creating nuclear energy calls into a question the current government, who aims to generate 63 GW of nuclear energy by 2032

It was in 1942 that the great physicist Enrico Fermi successfully built the first ever nuclear reactor under a sports ground at the University of Chicago. Yet, already by 1946, within just four years of that pioneering breakthrough, India, a nation on the other side of the world still under the shackles of colonial rule and considered backwards and destitute, had nevertheless set up an Atomic Research Committee to explore nuclear energy possibilities. Dr Homi Jehangir Bhabha (Others) × This was years ahead of many "advanced" nations of the time. Soon thereafter, in 1948, India’s Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was set up. These farsighted steps are owed both to Jawaharlal Nehru and to leading scientists of the country, notably M.N. Saha, S.S. Bhatnagar and Homi Bhabha, who had been closely following nuclear developments around the world. Dr Bhabha’s vision and skill as a builder of institutions and as a diplomat in establishing India’s due role in the international nuclear community were quite remarkable. × But the primary credit for taking the entire enterprise forward and developing it belongs to Dr Bhabha, who was named the first Chairman of AEC and Secretary to the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). Using his international stature as a physicist and his easy access to Prime Minister Nehru (both Cambridge men), Bhabha set about building the vast nuclear empire which today consists of over 50 different institutions working variously on civilian energy, nuclear weapons as well as pure scientific research. For a person who had started his career as a theoretical physicist, Dr Bhabha’s vision and skill as a builder of institutions and as a diplomat in establishing India’s due role in the international nuclear community were quite remarkable. Equally impressive were his aesthetic and artistic tastes. The Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, another of Dr Bhabha’s creations, not only had numerous original paintings in its lobby but also the best lawns (and the cleanest toilets) among all our scientific organisations. How well has Dr Bhabha's nuclear dream been realised? This is not the appropriate place to discuss the nuclear weapons part of the program. But the civilian reactor program has, sadly, not progressed anywhere nearly as far as had been hoped, in spite of the considerable financial support and bureaucratic freedom DAE enjoyed. At the turn of the century, over 50 years after it was set up, the DAE could deliver only 2.77 GW (gigawatts) of nuclear power. Worse still, the DAE brass kept announcing targets that were getting pushed further and further away into the future, as results on the ground fell well short of the projections. There were several reasons behind this. One was the tragic death of Dr Bhabha in 1966 in an air crash over the Alps. He was just 56 years old then. It is possible that if he had been alive longer to guide the program, he would not have let it drift and slide so much. One also suspects that he would have refrained from making the tall claims and unrealistic promises that the nuclear agency periodically indulged in. The other factor was the imposition of nuclear sanctions by the international community after we had conducted the first nuclear test at Pokhran in 1974. This prevented all nuclear commerce with the outside world, including technical collaboration and the import of equipment and uranium fuel. The sanctions were further extended when we conducted more nuclear tests in 1998. The plans that the current government announced in the aftermath of the Paris Climate Agreement, of generating 63 GW of nuclear energy by 2032, is extremely unlikely to be realised. × Things began to improve in the new millennium. The Indo-US nuclear Deal in 2008 lifted the sanctions against us allowing us to import Uranium fuel as well as collaborate with other countries to build bigger modern reactors for us. But once again, actual progress has belied much of the hype. At the time of writing, we still have only 7 GW of nuclear energy, less than 3 per cent of the current total energy capacity. Even this improvement is largely because of the two reactors the Russians have built at Kudangulam. Partnerships with French and US reactor suppliers, under negotiation since 2008, are yet to bear fruit. In view of this, the plan that the current government announced in the aftermath of the Paris Climate Agreement, of generating 63 GW of nuclear energy by 2032, is extremely unlikely to be realised.

India's Nuclear Program: HJ Bhabha's dream remains unfulfilled

The UK Department of Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy has released figures while auctioning for offshore winds.&nbsp;

Two firms were willing to build offshore wind farms for a subsidy of 57.50 pounds per megawatt hour compared to the new nuclear plant that will be set up for 92.50 pounds per megawatt hour in 2022-23.&nbsp;The auction is&nbsp;awarded&nbsp;to the&nbsp;lowest bidder.&nbsp;

The figures are considered a milestone in the advancement of renewable energy.&nbsp;

A BBC report quoted Emma Pinchbeck, from the wind energy trade body Renewable UK showing her surprised reaction over the figures.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Offshore Wind just delivered the closest thing to an energy sector mic drop: offshore, onshore wind and solar are cheaper than gas &amp; nukes
&mdash; Emma Pinchbeck (@ELPinchbeck) <a href="https://twitter.com/ELPinchbeck/status/907126683425263616">September 11, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&quot;We still think nuclear can be part of the mix - but our industry has shown how to drive costs down, and now they need to do the same,&quot; she added.&nbsp;

The price of energy from offshore entity has reduced to half in the past five years.&nbsp;

According to Energy analysts, the UK government policy is responsible for lowering of this price. The policy has provided special incentives to upcoming industry and then pushing them to bid in an auction for their subsidies.&nbsp;

Though the massive reduction in the cost of the offshore wind is considered a huge boost to the renewable industry, the nuclear industry said that nuclear energy will still be needed.

It stated that wind power is irregular and therefore nuclear energy will be required.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Two firms were willing to build offshore wind farms for a subsidy of 57.50 pounds per megawatt hour compared to the new nuclear plant that will be set up for 92.50 pounds per megawatt hour in 2022-23

The UK Department of Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy has released figures while auctioning for offshore winds. Two firms were willing to build offshore wind farms for a subsidy of 57.50 pounds per megawatt hour compared to the new nuclear plant that will be set up for 92.50 pounds per megawatt hour in 2022-23. The auction is awarded to the lowest bidder. The figures are considered a milestone in the advancement of renewable energy. A BBC report quoted Emma Pinchbeck, from the wind energy trade body Renewable UK showing her surprised reaction over the figures. Offshore Wind just delivered the closest thing to an energy sector mic drop: offshore, onshore wind and solar are cheaper than gas & nukes — Emma Pinchbeck (@ELPinchbeck) September 11, 2017 × "We still think nuclear can be part of the mix - but our industry has shown how to drive costs down, and now they need to do the same," she added. The price of energy from offshore entity has reduced to half in the past five years. According to Energy analysts, the UK government policy is responsible for lowering of this price. The policy has provided special incentives to upcoming industry and then pushing them to bid in an auction for their subsidies. Though the massive reduction in the cost of the offshore wind is considered a huge boost to the renewable industry, the nuclear industry said that nuclear energy will still be needed. It stated that wind power is irregular and therefore nuclear energy will be required.

Offshore wind energy cheaper than nuclear power: UK report

Ukraine is still suffering from the trauma of the world&#39;s worst civil nuclear accident at Chernobyl but has nonetheless turned the hazardous fuel into the backbone of its energy portfolio.

The crisis-torn country now uses atomic power for more than half of its electricity needs as it struggles through a coal shortage sparked by a three-year war against Russian- backed insurgents in the separatist east.

And that figure shot up to nearly three-quarters of all power consumed during natural gas price disputes with its eastern arch foe and energy superpower Russia from 2014 to 2016.

Ukraine Wednesday marked 31 years since the disaster in which thousands died with the country extending the lifespan of its communist-era nuclear reactors and turning atomic power into a workhorse that will be around for generations to come.

The Chernobyl plant&#39;s fourth reactor in the north of former Soviet Ukraine exploded in 1986 after a safety test went horribly wrong at 1.23 am on April 26.

Some Ukrainians remain worried that a similar catastrophe could hit their country again.

&quot;The main risk in using nuclear energy in Ukraine is associated with reactors that have exhausted their lifespans,&quot; says Iryna Golovko of the National Ecological Centre of Ukraine&#39;s energy projects department.

&quot;Today six of Ukraine&#39;s 15 operating reactors have surpassed their designed service lives,&quot; she told AFP. &quot;And by 2020, there will be 12 of them.&quot;

Ukraine enjoys abundant coal reserves that happen to lie mostly in regions controlled by Russian insurgents.

Kiev spent nearly three years in the uncomfortable position of fighting the rebels while enriching them by buying their anthracite coal to keep its thermal power plants pumping.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko bowed to public pressure and banned all trade with the separatist east on March 15.

Energy Minister Igor Nasalyk said shortly after Poroshenko&#39;s decision that nuclear power&#39;s share of total electricity production had jumped to 62 from around 55 percent.

It had stood at 46 percent before Ukraine was riven by war and economic crises in 2013.

The government has since allowed regional power companies to impose blackouts in case of weather-related surges in demand.

Ukraine is also negotiating a coal purchase agreement with the United States that Kiev hopes could fulfil two-thirds of its annual needs.

But energy analyst Viktor Logatskiy of the Razumkov Centre research institute still thinks that the service lives of all 15 of Ukraine&#39;s existing reactors will be extended by 2030 as a long-term power source backup.&nbsp;

(AFP)

The crisis-torn country now uses atomic power for more than half of its electricity needs as it struggles through a coal shortage

Ukraine is still suffering from the trauma of the world's worst civil nuclear accident at Chernobyl but has nonetheless turned the hazardous fuel into the backbone of its energy portfolio. The crisis-torn country now uses atomic power for more than half of its electricity needs as it struggles through a coal shortage sparked by a three-year war against Russian- backed insurgents in the separatist east. And that figure shot up to nearly three-quarters of all power consumed during natural gas price disputes with its eastern arch foe and energy superpower Russia from 2014 to 2016. Ukraine Wednesday marked 31 years since the disaster in which thousands died with the country extending the lifespan of its communist-era nuclear reactors and turning atomic power into a workhorse that will be around for generations to come. The Chernobyl plant's fourth reactor in the north of former Soviet Ukraine exploded in 1986 after a safety test went horribly wrong at 1.23 am on April 26. Some Ukrainians remain worried that a similar catastrophe could hit their country again. "The main risk in using nuclear energy in Ukraine is associated with reactors that have exhausted their lifespans," says Iryna Golovko of the National Ecological Centre of Ukraine's energy projects department. "Today six of Ukraine's 15 operating reactors have surpassed their designed service lives," she told AFP. "And by 2020, there will be 12 of them." Ukraine enjoys abundant coal reserves that happen to lie mostly in regions controlled by Russian insurgents. Kiev spent nearly three years in the uncomfortable position of fighting the rebels while enriching them by buying their anthracite coal to keep its thermal power plants pumping. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko bowed to public pressure and banned all trade with the separatist east on March 15. Energy Minister Igor Nasalyk said shortly after Poroshenko's decision that nuclear power's share of total electricity production had jumped to 62 from around 55 percent. It had stood at 46 percent before Ukraine was riven by war and economic crises in 2013. The government has since allowed regional power companies to impose blackouts in case of weather-related surges in demand. Ukraine is also negotiating a coal purchase agreement with the United States that Kiev hopes could fulfil two-thirds of its annual needs. But energy analyst Viktor Logatskiy of the Razumkov Centre research institute still thinks that the service lives of all 15 of Ukraine's existing reactors will be extended by 2030 as a long-term power source backup. (AFP)

Coal shortage forces Ukraine to turn to nuclear power despite Chernobyl trauma

Switzerland&#39;s ageing nuclear reactors will keep running for the foreseeable future, after voters Sunday rejected a call to speed up the phaseout of the plants.

A full 54.2 percent of voters and an overwhelming majority of Switzerland&#39;s 26 cantons voted against an initiative which would have forced three of the country&#39;s five nuclear reactors to close next year, according to final results.

Just a few months after Japan&#39;s Fukushima nuclear plant was destroyed in the March 2011 tsunami disaster, Switzerland decided to gradually close its nuclear plants, but did not set a clear timeline.&nbsp;

The government&#39;s plan is to decommission five ageing reactors, which today produce around a third of the country&#39;s electricity, as they reach the end of their safe operational lifespan. But since all of Switzerland&#39;s nuclear plants have open-ended operating licences, there is no clear cut-off date determining when they should be shut down.

Pointing out that Switzerland already counts one of the oldest nuclear parks in the world and warning that allowing the reactors to run indefinitely posed a safety risk, the Green Party wanted the reactors to operate for no longer than 45 years.

The party gathered more than the 100,000 signatures needed to put any issue to a popular vote in Switzerland as part of the country&#39;s famous direct democratic system.

If the &quot;Nuclear Withdrawal Initiative&quot; had passed, it would have entailed the final closure next year of Beznau, which has been operating in the northern Swiss canton of Aargau, near the German border, for 47 years.

That plant, which has two reactors currently undergoing repairs, became the world&#39;s oldest functioning commercial nuclear plant after Britain&#39;s Oldsbury reactor closed in 2012.

The Muhlberg plant, which opened in Bern canton in 1972, would also have needed to close next year if the Greens had gotten their way, while Gosgen in Solothurn would have shut by 2024 and, finally, Leibstadt in Aargau by 2029.

Security of supply

The Swiss government supports gradually shutting down the plants, but it forcefully opposed the initiative. It insisted that much has been invested in keeping Switzerland&#39;s reactors safe, and cautioned that premature closures could &quot;undermine the security of supply&quot;.

The Swiss parliament has also opposed the initiative, along with all the right-leaning parties, while the Greens have the backing of the left-leaning factions. In the end, 20 of Switzerland&#39;s 26 cantons rejected the initiative, with the strongest opposition seen in the central canton of Schwyz, where more than 68 percent voted &quot;no&quot;.

Only a handful of mainly French-speaking cantons backed the initiative, with Basel-Town showing strongest support with more than 60 percent of voters there casting their ballot in favour, followed by Geneva, where nearly 59 percent voted &quot;yes&quot;.&nbsp;

Voter participation across Switzerland stood at around 44 percent, which is within the normal range for recent votes. The populist rightwing Swiss People&#39;s Party (SVP) voiced hope that the vote indicated the people shared its opposition to the government&#39;s entire energy strategy, including the gradual phaseout of nuclear power.

SVP has launched an initiative to be voted on next year to overturn the government&#39;s 2050 energy strategy, which aims to increase the reliance on hydraulic power as well as renewables like solar and wind in order to help replace its nuclear plants.

&quot;The logical consequence (of Sunday&#39;s vote) is &nbsp;now to accept the referendum against this ill-conceived strategy,&quot; SVP parliamentarian Celine Amaudruz told the ATS news agency.

While voicing disappointment at Sunday&#39;s result, the left-leaning parties meanwhile insisted that with a full 45.77 percent of voters eager for a speedy exit from nuclear power, the government should have plenty of support for its overall strategy.

And Socialist Party parliamentarian Roger Nordmann stressed that the battle to close the oldest plants would continue. &quot;We will in any case fight for the immediate closure of Beznau 1 and 2,&quot; he told the ATS news agency, insisting the two reactors &quot;are too dangerous&quot;.

(AFP)

If the "Nuclear Withdrawal Initiative" had passed, it would have entailed the final closure next year of the Beznau nuclear plant

Switzerland's ageing nuclear reactors will keep running for the foreseeable future, after voters Sunday rejected a call to speed up the phaseout of the plants. A full 54.2 percent of voters and an overwhelming majority of Switzerland's 26 cantons voted against an initiative which would have forced three of the country's five nuclear reactors to close next year, according to final results. Just a few months after Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant was destroyed in the March 2011 tsunami disaster, Switzerland decided to gradually close its nuclear plants, but did not set a clear timeline. The government's plan is to decommission five ageing reactors, which today produce around a third of the country's electricity, as they reach the end of their safe operational lifespan. But since all of Switzerland's nuclear plants have open-ended operating licences, there is no clear cut-off date determining when they should be shut down. Pointing out that Switzerland already counts one of the oldest nuclear parks in the world and warning that allowing the reactors to run indefinitely posed a safety risk, the Green Party wanted the reactors to operate for no longer than 45 years. The party gathered more than the 100,000 signatures needed to put any issue to a popular vote in Switzerland as part of the country's famous direct democratic system. If the "Nuclear Withdrawal Initiative" had passed, it would have entailed the final closure next year of Beznau, which has been operating in the northern Swiss canton of Aargau, near the German border, for 47 years. That plant, which has two reactors currently undergoing repairs, became the world's oldest functioning commercial nuclear plant after Britain's Oldsbury reactor closed in 2012. The Muhlberg plant, which opened in Bern canton in 1972, would also have needed to close next year if the Greens had gotten their way, while Gosgen in Solothurn would have shut by 2024 and, finally, Leibstadt in Aargau by 2029. Security of supply The Swiss government supports gradually shutting down the plants, but it forcefully opposed the initiative. It insisted that much has been invested in keeping Switzerland's reactors safe, and cautioned that premature closures could "undermine the security of supply". The Swiss parliament has also opposed the initiative, along with all the right-leaning parties, while the Greens have the backing of the left-leaning factions. In the end, 20 of Switzerland's 26 cantons rejected the initiative, with the strongest opposition seen in the central canton of Schwyz, where more than 68 percent voted "no". Only a handful of mainly French-speaking cantons backed the initiative, with Basel-Town showing strongest support with more than 60 percent of voters there casting their ballot in favour, followed by Geneva, where nearly 59 percent voted "yes". Voter participation across Switzerland stood at around 44 percent, which is within the normal range for recent votes. The populist rightwing Swiss People's Party (SVP) voiced hope that the vote indicated the people shared its opposition to the government's entire energy strategy, including the gradual phaseout of nuclear power. SVP has launched an initiative to be voted on next year to overturn the government's 2050 energy strategy, which aims to increase the reliance on hydraulic power as well as renewables like solar and wind in order to help replace its nuclear plants. "The logical consequence (of Sunday's vote) is now to accept the referendum against this ill-conceived strategy," SVP parliamentarian Celine Amaudruz told the ATS news agency. While voicing disappointment at Sunday's result, the left-leaning parties meanwhile insisted that with a full 45.77 percent of voters eager for a speedy exit from nuclear power, the government should have plenty of support for its overall strategy. And Socialist Party parliamentarian Roger Nordmann stressed that the battle to close the oldest plants would continue. "We will in any case fight for the immediate closure of Beznau 1 and 2," he told the ATS news agency, insisting the two reactors "are too dangerous". (AFP)

Switzerland voters reject speedy phase-out of nuclear reactors

Pakistan&#39;s top diplomat at the United Nations has said that the country had&nbsp;taken &quot;exemplary measures&quot; to establish nuclear safety and must thus be&nbsp;included in the 48-member Nuclear Suppliers Group. 
 
Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan&#39;s permanent representative to the UN, on Tuesday said&nbsp;that the country had implemented an export control regime and also&nbsp;participated in the Nuclear Security Summit process, the Dawn reported. 
 
Pakistan had also ratified the 2005 amendment to the Convention on Physical&nbsp;Protection of Nuclear Material and reinforced that it was keen on a bilateral&nbsp;arrangement on non-testing with India. 
 
The NSG is a group of nuclear suppliers that regulate global trade in nuclear&nbsp;technology. 
 
&quot;Pakistan is fulfilling its responsibility toward non-proliferation of nuclear&nbsp;weapons with utmost dedication,&quot; she was reported saying. 
 
&quot;We expect that a non-discriminatory, criteria-based approach is followed for&nbsp;extending NSG membership which strengthens the non-proliferation regime,&quot;&nbsp;she added. 
 
&quot;Differences in state capacities compounded challenges to addressing the&nbsp;proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,&quot; she said. 
 
Pakistan and India are the two non-NPT States aspiring for the membership of&nbsp;the elite group. 
 
(WION with inputs from agencies)

Pakistan and India are the two non-NPT States aspiring for the membership of?the elite group

Pakistan's top diplomat at the United Nations has said that the country had taken "exemplary measures" to establish nuclear safety and must thus be included in the 48-member Nuclear Suppliers Group. Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan's permanent representative to the UN, on Tuesday said that the country had implemented an export control regime and also participated in the Nuclear Security Summit process, the Dawn reported. Pakistan had also ratified the 2005 amendment to the Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and reinforced that it was keen on a bilateral arrangement on non-testing with India. The NSG is a group of nuclear suppliers that regulate global trade in nuclear technology. "Pakistan is fulfilling its responsibility toward non-proliferation of nuclear weapons with utmost dedication," she was reported saying. "We expect that a non-discriminatory, criteria-based approach is followed for extending NSG membership which strengthens the non-proliferation regime," she added. "Differences in state capacities compounded challenges to addressing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," she said. Pakistan and India are the two non-NPT States aspiring for the membership of the elite group. (WION with inputs from agencies)

Pakistan diplomat at UN pitches for inclusion in NSG

French energy giant EDF yesterday approved a contested plan to build Britain&#39;s first nuclear power station in decades but the British government said it would wait before taking a final decision. 
 
Britain&#39;s business and energy minister Greg Clark said the government would review the nuclear project, shortly after EDF&#39;s board backed a project which critics fear could bankrupt the French utility. 
 
&quot;The UK needs a reliable and secure energy supply and the government believes that nuclear energy is an important part of the mix,&quot; Clark said.&nbsp;&quot;The government will now consider carefully all the component parts of this project and make its decision in the early autumn.&quot; 
 
Before the deal can go ahead it must be approved by Prime Minister Theresa May. 
 
EDF&#39;s directors had been deeply divided over the planned construction of two nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in southwest England for $23.8 billion. 
 
&quot;At its meeting on 28 July 2016, EDF&#39;s board of directors made the final investment decision,&quot; the company said in a statement. 
 
Ten members of the board voted in favour of the deal, while seven voted against, a source told AFP. 
 
Upping the tension, one board member resigned just before the crunch meeting, saying he disagreed with the plan, reducing the board of directors to 17. 
 
Unions seek delay 
 
The Sizewell B nuclear power plant was the last to go online in Britain, starting generation in 1995. 
 
The plan to build the latest generation EPR reactors, signed in 2013, is to be carried out by EDF with Chinese partner CGN, but has hit several snags since.&nbsp;The reactors are due to go online from 2025. 
 
Weighing on its viability is the decision of French nuclear company Areva to drop out because of financial difficulties and the subsequent takeover of Areva&#39;s obligations by EDF at the behest of the French government, which owns 85 per cent of EDF. 
 
This pushed EDF, which was already struggling under a debt mountain of $41.4 billion at the end of last year, to go further into the red, leading some to question the group&#39;s ability to juggle all its liabilities, including the renovation of France&#39;s nuclear operations and the takeover of Areva&#39;s reactors amid falling energy prices. 
 
Unions fear for EDF&#39;s financial survival and have asked for a delay of at least three years of any decision on the British nuclear plans, even waging a court battle to stop the momentum. 
 
EDF chief financial officer Thomas Piquemal resigned in March over the threat the project represents to the company&#39;s finances, and CEO Jean-Bernard Levy has acknowledged that the company&#39;s &quot;financial trajectory is taut&quot;. 
 
EPR reactors, developed mostly by France&#39;s Areva, are the latest generation of nuclear reactors and among the most powerful in the world, and according to Areva, the safest.&nbsp;There are only two other ongoing EPR reactor projects in Europe, one in Normandy in France and the other in Finland, and both have been plagued by delays and cost overruns. 
 
&#39;Too big to fail&#39; 
 
The French government has been doggedly determined to get Hinkley Point approved as it sees the project as crucial for the long-term viability of France&#39;s nuclear industry, which employs 220,000 people. 
 
Previous British governments have also been in favour because the reactors will cover up to seven per cent of Britain&#39;s electricity needs while helping the government meet its CO2 emissions targets because of relatively low carbon emissions from nuclear energy.&nbsp;But British support is not unanimous, and criticism focuses on the growing difference between an electricity price guarantee for EDF, subsidised by the British taxpayer, and current falling energy prices. 
 
EDF would be guaranteed &pound;92.50 per megawatt hour produced by Hinkley Point over 35 years, giving it an estimated nine percent of return on its capital.&nbsp;But Britain&#39;s National Audit Office has warned that the potential cost of this subsidy had risen to &pound;29.7 billion from a 2013 estimate of &pound;6.1 billion because of the drop in energy prices. 
 
There have also been environmental concerns.&nbsp;Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said the power station was &quot;terrible value for money&quot;. 
 
The EDF decision &quot;just shows the Hinkley deal became too big to fail in the eyes of British and French politicians,&quot; he said. 
 
(AFP)

Britain's business and energy minister Greg Clark said the government would review the nuclear project and make its decision in early autumn

French energy giant EDF yesterday approved a contested plan to build Britain's first nuclear power station in decades but the British government said it would wait before taking a final decision. Britain's business and energy minister Greg Clark said the government would review the nuclear project, shortly after EDF's board backed a project which critics fear could bankrupt the French utility. "The UK needs a reliable and secure energy supply and the government believes that nuclear energy is an important part of the mix," Clark said. "The government will now consider carefully all the component parts of this project and make its decision in the early autumn." Before the deal can go ahead it must be approved by Prime Minister Theresa May. EDF's directors had been deeply divided over the planned construction of two nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in southwest England for $23.8 billion. "At its meeting on 28 July 2016, EDF's board of directors made the final investment decision," the company said in a statement. Ten members of the board voted in favour of the deal, while seven voted against, a source told AFP. Upping the tension, one board member resigned just before the crunch meeting, saying he disagreed with the plan, reducing the board of directors to 17. Unions seek delay The Sizewell B nuclear power plant was the last to go online in Britain, starting generation in 1995. The plan to build the latest generation EPR reactors, signed in 2013, is to be carried out by EDF with Chinese partner CGN, but has hit several snags since. The reactors are due to go online from 2025. Weighing on its viability is the decision of French nuclear company Areva to drop out because of financial difficulties and the subsequent takeover of Areva's obligations by EDF at the behest of the French government, which owns 85 per cent of EDF. This pushed EDF, which was already struggling under a debt mountain of $41.4 billion at the end of last year, to go further into the red, leading some to question the group's ability to juggle all its liabilities, including the renovation of France's nuclear operations and the takeover of Areva's reactors amid falling energy prices. Unions fear for EDF's financial survival and have asked for a delay of at least three years of any decision on the British nuclear plans, even waging a court battle to stop the momentum. EDF chief financial officer Thomas Piquemal resigned in March over the threat the project represents to the company's finances, and CEO Jean-Bernard Levy has acknowledged that the company's "financial trajectory is taut". EPR reactors, developed mostly by France's Areva, are the latest generation of nuclear reactors and among the most powerful in the world, and according to Areva, the safest. There are only two other ongoing EPR reactor projects in Europe, one in Normandy in France and the other in Finland, and both have been plagued by delays and cost overruns. 'Too big to fail' The French government has been doggedly determined to get Hinkley Point approved as it sees the project as crucial for the long-term viability of France's nuclear industry, which employs 220,000 people. Previous British governments have also been in favour because the reactors will cover up to seven per cent of Britain's electricity needs while helping the government meet its CO2 emissions targets because of relatively low carbon emissions from nuclear energy. But British support is not unanimous, and criticism focuses on the growing difference between an electricity price guarantee for EDF, subsidised by the British taxpayer, and current falling energy prices. EDF would be guaranteed £92.50 per megawatt hour produced by Hinkley Point over 35 years, giving it an estimated nine percent of return on its capital. But Britain's National Audit Office has warned that the potential cost of this subsidy had risen to £29.7 billion from a 2013 estimate of £6.1 billion because of the drop in energy prices. There have also been environmental concerns. Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said the power station was "terrible value for money". The EDF decision "just shows the Hinkley deal became too big to fail in the eyes of British and French politicians," he said. (AFP)

France's EDF gives green signal for nuclear plan, UK defers

nuclear-energy

Nuclear Energy, News on Nuclear Energy, stories on Nuclear Energy, articles on Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Energy stories at Wion, Nuclear Energy news, Nuclear Energy latest news