I’ve decided to migrate my regular newsletter from Mailchimp to Substack. Having done that, it seems worthwhile to try out Substack as a blogging platform. For the moment, I’ll post here at johnquiggin.com in parallel with the Substack blog.

My first substantive post is over the fold. I’m hoping for good discussion, so it would be great if commenters here could also take part at Substack.

Read More »

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has upended all kinds of certainties, created new possibilities, and closed off old ones. We can certainly see this in relation to nuclear power. Here are a few developments related to the war

• Russia’s capture of the Chernobyl plant, and the associated fire, have raised new concerns about nuclear safety
• Belgium has announced that its planned closure of a nuclear plant will be deferred, possibly until 2035, in order to reduce reliance on Russian oil and gas. There have been hints that Germany might do something similar
• Finland has cancelled its proposed Fennovoima nuclear plant which was to be built using Rosatom’s VVER technology. Coincidentally, a few days ago, the Olkiluoto EPR plant was connected to the grid, twelve years late and way over budget

My guess is that the need to wean Europe off Russian gas over the next few years will outweigh enhanced concerns about safety.

On the other hand, the implications for new nuclear power are unambiguously bad. Projects started now can’t come in time to help with the transition from Russian gas, and the safety concerns will add to cost

Looking ahead, no one will want to deal with Rosatom any time soon, and Chinese proposals are also coming under more scrutiny. The cost over-runs on EPR plants create huge difficulties there also. These come together in Hinkley C (EPR) where hte UK government is trying to push China’s CGN out of the project, but having trouble attracting private finance to replace it.

The great remaining hope is Small Modular Reactors, most notably those proposed by Nuscale. But this hope has been around for a long time, with the arrival date always about 8 years in the future.

Here’s my semi-regular newsletter, and a followup with links to a couple of recent articles about climate change and the disastrous floods in eastern Australia.

I’ve been using Mailchimp to send out the newsletter, but it’s mostly oriented to marketers. So, I’ve decided to move to Substack, which quite a few commentators have already done. One option is to move the blog there. That would be a big shift for me, as I’ve had the current site for most of the nearly 20 years I’ve been blogging. The main difference for readers would be the option of getting email alerts when new posts go up. If you like or dislike the idea, say so in comments

Over the page the followup email with links:

Read More »

I had a couple of article come out today on the flood disaster. Amazingly, the Courier-Mail ran a piece pointing out the link to global heating and the fact that the costs of climate disasters far outweigh our earnings from coal.

Also, a piece in The Conversation, explaining why terms like “1 in 1000 year flood” need to be retired in favor of probabilities, updating using Bayesian reasoning.

And an interview here with Chinese agency Xinhua on implications of Putin’s war on Ukraince (hopefully this won’t put me on any watch lists)

I plan to write my own thoughts on this topic soon, but I’d be interested to read yours. Usual rules apply.

Before the invasion of Ukraine, there was a clear consensus on the limitations of economic sanctions. They would take a long time to organize and even longer to have any effect. Just about every commentary I read anticipated Russian tanks in Kiev long before sanctions could have any effect.

That judgement now looks way off the mark. Despite some limited advances in the south of Ukraine, Putin’s invasion seems to have stalled. Meanwhile sanctions, both official and unofficial, have raced ahead.

Read More »