Latest news with #Chernobyl
Associated Press
2 days ago
- Politics
- Associated Press
An AP photographer captures the moment a Russian drone dives into a residential district in Kyiv
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Efrem Lukatsky has worked for The Associated Press, based in Kyiv, for more than 30 years. He covered the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and wars in Transnistria, Chechnya, Georgia, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gaza Strip. From Ukraine, he covered the 2014 Revolution of Dignity, the Russia-Ukraine war of 2014 and Russia's full-scale invasion since 2022. Here's what he had to say about this extraordinary this photo? Russian attacks on Ukrainian cities have become more concentrated and systematic, and even Kyiv, the capital and one of the most protected cities in Ukraine, cannot fully handle the volume of simultaneous attacks. In addition to drone barrages that can involve 500 or more Iranian-designed Shahed drones, raids are often accompanied by heavy missile strikes. Many of these drones and missiles simply crash into residential buildings. That's what happened on Tuesday, June 17, when a ballistic missile made a direct hit with an apartment building in the city's Solomianskyi district, punching through every floor from the ninth down to the basement. While I was photographing the damage, another drone barrage hit the area, and I was able to get this I made this photo At 2:30 a.m., my house started shaking from explosions across the city. I rushed out to find a good vantage point to see the smoke rising when I heard about the rocket strike on the apartment building. I went there immediately. Rescue workers were putting out fires and digging through the rubble of the collapsed building to find the injured, but the rescuers ran from the site when the new round of drones hit. You couldn't see them, but you could hear the piercing whine as they accelerated just before impact. I ran toward a blast down the street when suddenly I heard the sound of another incoming drone. I looked up and clearly saw its flight path. I should've taken cover, but the street was wide and empty — no shelter, only the pavement. I needed two seconds to get a sharp this photo works We later learned that 23 people were killed in that building while they slept in their beds. For me, it's vital to find the words and make the photographs that might bring this madness closer to its end, and this photo of a deadly drone careening into a residential area expresses the terror Ukrainian civilians face every day of this war. For more extraordinary AP photography, click here.
DW
2 days ago
- Politics
- DW
Controversial German-Brazilian nuclear agreement turns 50 – DW – 06/27/2025
On June 27, 1975, Germany and Brazil signed a treaty on cooperation in the field of nuclear energy. Despite Germany's nuclear phase out, it still applies today. The agreement on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, which almost nobody in Germany knows about, will be half a century old at the end of June. It has defied the German anti-nuclear movement, survived the nuclear disasters of Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011, and even the nuclear phase-out in 2023 with the shutdown of Germany's last three nuclear power plants. The treaty aimed to construct eight nuclear power plants, a uranium enrichment plant and a nuclear reprocessing plant in Brazil by Siemens, including training for scientists. The signatories were the German coalition government of the center-left Social Democrats (SPD) and neoliberal Free Democrats (FDP) under Chancellor Helmut Schmidt on the one side, and the Brazilian military dictatorship headed by President Ernesto Geisel on the other. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video "It was celebrated in 1975 as the biggest technology agreement of the century, the enthusiasm was huge on both sides," recalls 73-year-old German-Brazilian sociologist Luiz Ramalho in an interview with DW. Ramalho is chairman of the Latin America Forum in Berlin and has been a critic from the very beginning. He has made terminating the treaty, which is only possible every five years, his life's work. At the end of 2024, he thought he had almost reached his goal with the center-left government the SPD, environmentalist Greens and FDP. There were talks in the ministries at the time, and a termination was examined, especially in view of the notice period on November 18. But then the government fell apart in November 2024. The Green Party has long wanted to end the German-Brazilian nuclear agreement. After all, the Greens are the party that evolved from the anti-nuclear protests in the 1980s. In 2004, the then-Green Federal Environment Minister Jürgen Trittin tried unsuccessfully to convert the nuclear agreement into one for renewable energies. Ten years later, the Greens' urgent motion in opposition to terminate the nuclear agreements with Brazil and India failed due to resistance from the coalition government of the conservative Christian Democrats, its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU), and the SPD, under Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU). For Harald Ebner, member of the Bundestag for the Greens, the outcome of the cooperation is sobering. "Even at the drawing board, six of the eight nuclear power plants stipulated in the agreement failed. But the other two are also anything but a success: Angra-3 became a 40-year unfinished construction site, and a single block, Angra-2, was finally connected to the grid in 2000 after 24 years of construction as the world's most expensive nuclear power plant at the time," he wrote to DW. However, Angra-2 is susceptible to earthquakes, landslides and flooding, while more and more hazardous nuclear waste is accumulating on the site, for which there is no solution, says Ebner. In other words, there is nowhere to store the nuclear waste produced there. His conclusion: "Brazil and Germany were both on the wrong track with the agreement, which failed in many respects." For Ebner, nuclear power belongs in the past, but not everyone sees it that way. On the contrary: it is experiencing a renaissance worldwide. According to a study by the International Energy Agency (IEA), more than 40 countries are striving to expand nuclear power in order to meet the growing demand for electricity. In Brazil, nuclear power accounts for just 3% of electricity generation. However, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who used to be rather critical of nuclear energy, expressed great interest in Russia's experience with small nuclear power plants at a meeting in Moscow with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, a few weeks ago. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video And even in Germany, the debate on the use of nuclear energy, which was thought to be dead, has picked up speed again. Although former Chancellor Angela Merkel pushed through the German nuclear phase-out in 2011 shortly after the nuclear reactor disaster in Fukushima, Japan, during the last Bundestag election campaign, Bavarian Prime Minister Markus Söder, among others, called for the reactivation of three decommissioned nuclear power plants. The new Minister of Economic Affairs, Katharina Reiche from the CDU, also appears to be open to the use of nuclear power. She recently met with colleagues from the so-called European Nuclear Alliance, an association of countries such as France, Sweden and Poland that are committed to greater use of nuclear energy. What does this mean for the German-Brazilian nuclear agreement? Thomas Silberhorn, CDU member of the German Bundestag and long-time member of the German-Brazilian parliamentary group, told DW: "The agreement is an early example of technological partnership and therefore a milestone in our bilateral relations. Today, the focus of cooperation is on hydrogen and renewable energies. But openness to new technologies and energy policy independence remain relevant for Brazil and have also regained importance in Germany and throughout Europe." However, the future of the half-century-old nuclear agreement could depend on the SPD in government. Nina Scheer, energy policy spokesperson for the SPD parliamentary group in the German Bundestag, wrote to DW: "The coalition agreement provides for an intensification of the strategic partnership with Brazil. Due to the importance of the energy transition for strategic and sustainable development potential, this also involves replacing the German-Brazilian nuclear agreement with partnerships in the transition to renewable includes ending the nuclear agreement." Miriam Tornieporth will undoubtedly be happy to hear that. She works for the German anti-nuclear organization "ausgestrahlt e. V.", which was founded in 2008 and has been campaigning for the termination of the German-Brazilian nuclear agreement for years. "This cooperation is simply totally out of date and does not include, for example, any safety aspects that should be included from today's perspective," Tornieporth told DW. The controversial agreement has become particularly explosive due to the latest geopolitical developments, more specifically the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. This is because the French nuclear company Frematome produces fuel rods for nuclear power plants in Lingen, Lower Saxony, in cooperation with Rosatom. The state-owned Russian nuclear industry company has, in turn, concluded an agreement with Brazil for uranium supplies in 2022. "We assume that Russian material is processed both at the Gronau uranium enrichment plant in North Rhine-Westphalia and in Lingen and sent from there to Brazil. In contrast to other forms of energy, the Russian nuclear industry is also exempt from sanctions," says Tornieporth. "As Germany has shut down its nuclear power plants, it would be logical also to shut down the plants in Gronau and Lingen to complete the nuclear phase-out."While you're here: Every Tuesday, DW editors round up what is happening in German politics and society. You can sign up here for the weekly email newsletter, Berlin Briefing.
The Irish Sun
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- The Irish Sun
‘Chernobyl levels of toxic' rant Love Island fans as they beg bosses to boot girl out of villa
LOVE Island fans have begged bosses to boot one girl out of the villa. Previous episodes of the long-running ITV2 dating show have seen chaos erupt within the villa. 5 Some fans think Megan Forte Clarke should be booted out of the villa Credit: Shutterstock Editorial 5 She left Tommy Bradley in tears after a huge row Credit: Shutterstock Editorial 5 She shared multiple snogs with Conor Phillips on the terrace Credit: Shutterstock Editorial The main source of friction on Love Island has focused on the sleepover twist where four islanders were presented with the ultimate test, new bombshells in a secluded area. However, in the main villa, This was after Events culminated in a huge row as READ MORE ON LOVE ISLAND The Sun later revealed that the pair spent a night in The Hideaway - and things got steamy. Now, one fan took to social media forum site Reddit with an essay in a dedicated thread titled 'Meghan's lies are nuts.'. They wrote: "Her whole entire rampage against Harry is about her allegedly being giddy in response to Connor saying he'd pick her in a recoupling and how it wasn't as one sided as she made it out to be to is 1000% the truth "All she had to say was that she took it as a compliment, liked it, and Tommy is still her priority. Most read in Love Island "But instead she went on a full on rampage about Tommy not trusting her for even having the audacity to consider what Harry what Harry was saying and she decide to berate Tommy and say it's too late. The fan continued: "Her entire justification for treating him how she has is based on such a minuscule situation that she chose to lie about instead. Love Island shock as TWO couples split up and shocked Emily finds out about Conor's kiss with Megan "She's Chernobyl level of Toxic and want to see her come crawling back and him reject her." The fan added: "We don't even know if she's more into Connor. She's just been into the ego boost of Connor pulling her Infront of everyone and him going out of his way to get to know her. "Now Tommy has moved on there's no risky element to her interactions with Connor." "Her crying to Meg (after her basically calling her untrustworthy to Toni which is a whole other thing) is an indication of where this thing will go and it'll be satisfying to watch if it happens." Love Island 2025 full lineup : A 30-year-old footballer with charm to spare. : A 22-year-old Manchester-based model, ready to turn heads. : A payroll specialist from Southampton, looking for someone tall and stylish. : International business graduate with brains and ambition. : A gym enthusiast with a big heart. : A Londoner with celebrity connections, aiming to find someone funny or Northern. : An Irish actress already drawing comparisons to Maura Higgins. : A personal trainer and semi-pro footballer, following in his footballer father's footsteps. : A towering 6'5' personal trainer. : A 25-year-old Irish rugby pro. : Love Island's first bombshell revealed as sexy Las Vegas pool party waitress. : The 24-year-old bombshell hails from London and works as a commercial banking executive. : Pro footballer and model entering Love Island 2025 as a bombshell. Giorgio Russo : The 30-year-old will be spending his summer in the sun, potentially his sister Alessia's successful tournament at the Euros in Switzerland. Departures : : Axed after an arrest over a machete attack emerged. He was released with no further action taken and denies any wrongdoing. : A model and motivational speaker who has overcome adversity after suffering life-changing burns in an accident. : A boxer with striking model looks, seeking love in the villa. : A teaching assistant from Broxbourne, Hertfordshire, who entered Love Island 2025 as a bombshell . : Works as a scaffolder day-to-day and plays semi-pro football on the side. Poppy Harrison: The bombshell broke up with her boyfriend after finding out she would be in the villa Will Means : The fourth fittest farmer in the UK according to Farmers' Weekly in 2023 entered the villa as a bombshell Other fans seemed to completely agree as they took to the comments section below. One fan exclaimed: "A 'Chernobyl level of Toxic' is too funny to me." A second suggested: "She is a red flag but unfortunately red flags make for great tv." "If it was the other way round, we wouldn't be hearing the end of it," noted a third user. While a fourth viewer added: "She has gone way down in my books in the last couple of episodes. I hope Tommy hits it off with someone new." 5 Megan Forte Clarke and Tommy Bradley were a strong couple till recently Credit: Shutterstock Editorial 5 Tommy declared that he did not want to be in a triangle as Conor cracked on with her Credit: Shutterstock Editorial Love Island continues on ITV2 and is available to stream on ITVX.
Zawya
4 days ago
- Business
- Zawya
Here's why Africa should develop nuclear energy?
Across the continent, a staggering 600 million people remain without access to electricity, a number that translates into significant energy poverty, particularly in rural Africa, where 70-80 million need to gain access yearly to be on track to meet the 2030 universal access to electricity target. While our continent accounts for 17 percent of the world's population, we generate less than 3 percent of global electricity. This 'power poverty' stifles industrialisation, limits healthcare outcomes, and constrains economic transformation even as Africa exports uranium and other critical minerals to power many parts of the world. Although there is remarkable progress across countries on the continent, the overall pace of progress is slow, requiring an ambitious shift towards nuclear energy, tailored to Africa's unique needs and opportunities. Critics are right to debate questions of safety, malice, accidents, cost and potential harmful effects on the environment. Many argue that investing in renewables is sufficient. Furthermore, the public is unlikely to forget Chernobyl and Fukushima and the constant threat of nuclear war. Yet, South Africa's Koeberg plant has operated safely for 40 years, proving nuclear energy works on the continent. In addition, experts note that nuclear energy has the lowest death rate per kWh of any major energy source, safer than wind and solar when accounting for manufacturing risks. Modern reactors such as Westinghouse's AP1000 have passive safety systems that shut down automatically. With its 25 reactors, South Korea has gone from energy importer to nuclear energy exporter and has a target of providing 30 percent of its electricity while cutting emissions by 2030. Similarly, France generates 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear, achieving Europe's lowest electricity prices and a clean grid. Bangladesh, with GDP per capita -- similar to Kenya's -- is building its first reactor with Russian support, proving nuclear energy can be accessible to developing countries. And there are more encouraging developments closer home. Egypt is constructing four 1,200MW reactors at El Dabaa—a $30 billion bet on nuclear as an industrial catalyst. Ghana has partnered with NuScale Power to explore Small Modular Reactors - SMRs that could power mines and cities simultaneously. Furthermore, countries that fall under the Tier 1 category - Egypt, Rwanda, Ghana, Uganda, South Africa, Nigeria and Zambia - are starting or expanding their nuclear energy programs. Governments in Niger, Kenya, Tunisia, Morocco, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Namibia, DR Congo, Senegal, Algeria and Zimbabwe are working towards the role of nuclear energy in their future electricity supply systems. Read: Uganda sets 2031 target for nuclear energyThe International Energy Agency estimates that growth in Africa's industry, commerce and agriculture will require electricity demand to grow by 40 percent by 2030. The United Nations Economic Commission for Africa assesses that the African Continental Free Trade Area electricity needs will account for 8 percent of the total continental electricity capacity by 2035, and 14percent by 2040, requiring additional investment of $22.4 billion between 2025 and 2040. Furthermore, by 2040, due to rapid population and economic growth in Africa, the electricity supply must expand by more than four times. Furthermore, Africa is facing sectoral transformations due to frontier technologies. Data centres to store big data and power frontier technologies require a significant energy supply. The gradual transition of Africa's transport system to electric vehicles will also increase the demand for electricity generation on the continent. Read: Kenya electric vehicles uptake goes up five-foldAfrica can no longer risk crawling its way out of energy insecurity. As we say in Africa, we can sing and dance at the same time. As we invest in renewable energy resources, we can also advance nuclear energy development. Egypt's El Dabaa will deliver 4,800MW for $6.25 billion. With an over 40-year lifespan, nuclear makes it cost-competitive. But what about the nagging question of nuclear waste? Current innovations are proving that new reactor designs consume nuclear waste as fuel. Waste management systems have also developed to offer safer options for disposal. Countries such as Niger with large deposits of uranium could power reactors for centuries while solving waste challenges. Namibia could achieve energy independence and power the rest of Africa for decades to come – after all, Africa controls 20 percent of global uranium reserves. The path ahead is clear. We must harness nuclear energy's potential and adopt a bold political commitment backed by a clear national roadmap, including target dates for operational plants and long-term capacity-building initiatives. The potential is enormous and could result in creating thousands of skilled jobs and transforming Africa's energy system towards greater energy security. Governments need to tap into the reliability of nuclear power. With a 90 percent capacity factor, plants enjoy up to 45 years of economic life. While large-scale reactors provide stable baseload power, low-hanging fruit should focus on deploying SMRs first (20-300MW) to power mines and industries, before scaling up to gigawatt plants. To address the financing hurdle, which requires high upfront costs (70–85 percent fixed), countries can draw lessons from Africa's 6.4GW renewable energy projects, such as South Africa's procurement programme and global nuclear public-private partnership financing models. Africa's regional power pools, such as the Southern African Power Pool and the upcoming regional electricity market in the East African Power Pool, could amplify investment by pooling demand. The African Single Electricity Market (Vision 2040) aims to integrate continental grids, boosting nuclear power's viability. Creating an African nuclear alliance can pool resources, negotiate better technology transfer deals and training programs and reform energy financing in partnership with Africa's financial institutions to de-risk projects. The African Union and regional blocs must lead this charge to secure Africa's energy future. The time is now to move from potential to action. If done right, Africa could be a leader in this sector. Nuclear energy offers a bright future. But we must act deliberately and have the courage to embrace it. Claver Gatete is Executive Secretary of UN Economic Commission for Africa. © Copyright 2022 Nation Media Group. All Rights Reserved. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (
NDTV
4 days ago
- Business
- NDTV
Why The Word 'Nuclear' Shouldn't Scare Us So
Geopolitical instability and volatility are altering the global policy landscape - shifting the dynamics of trade, manufacturing, energy, and the clean transition agenda. On Sunday, the United States bombed three nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan. These attacks on nuclear facilities cast a shadow on the nuclear sector, raising fears of a renewed global slowdown in nuclear development. Nuclear energy, which had only recently begun to regain momentum after a long lax period, may be the next unintended casualty of this geopolitical volatility. A Fine Line Public policy is sensitive to political economy, and decisions are often shaped not just by scientific evidence but by how technology is framed and perceived. Historically, the nuclear energy industry has been driven as much by public perception and political narratives as by technical and economic feasibility. While nuclear technology for power generation holds immense potential to drive the global energy transition, it has always been haunted by its dual-use nature, as there is a very fine red line between the civilian and military use of nuclear energy. The same reactors that promise clean, low-emission, round-the-clock baseload power are symbolically - and often politically - entangled with developing nuclear weapons. As the world struggles to meet the twin challenges of energy security and decarbonisation, especially in developing countries like India, nuclear power offers a compelling solution by producing low-carbon, stable, 24/7, baseload energy, independent of weather conditions, making it an appropriate complement to renewables, as countries gradually shift away from fossil fuels. 3 Events That Changed Everything Also, nuclear power is one of the safest forms of energy generation. The fatalities per unit of electricity produced (TWh) are roughly 350 times more for coal and 250 times for gas, as compared to nuclear energy. Yet, nuclear power is still viewed with scepticism. This scepticism is due to safety concerns, particularly regarding accidents, radioactive waste disposal and the potential for nuclear proliferation. In the past, incidents like Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986), and Fukushima (2011) dramatically altered public opinion and policy. These disasters did not just shake public confidence; they fundamentally reshaped the regulatory landscape, adding layers of compliance, inflating costs, and delaying projects worldwide. Post Three Mile Island, although there were no casualties, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission introduced sweeping reforms-chiefly, enhanced operator training, emergency planning, and stricter design requirements-that added $5 billion in retrofit costs across plants and extended construction timelines significantly. Chernobyl, which caused 31 immediate deaths and widespread transboundary contamination, intensified these effects. Countries like Austria and the Netherlands suspended nuclear plans, while the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) initiated global safety protocols, including early warning systems and the Operational Safety Review Team (OSART) programme for plant inspections. The accident prompted major design overhauls, raising construction costs further. Fukushima, despite no direct deaths from radiation, led Japan to shut down its entire nuclear fleet and pushed Germany to commit to a full nuclear phase-out. In the US, Fukushima forced costly reassessments of flood risks, even for plants already under construction, like Vogtle 3 and 4, delaying them by years. Post-Fukushima, the IAEA downgraded its growth projections for the global nuclear energy sector by 7- 8%. Across all three events, regulation shifted from permissive to risk-averse, escalating costs and undermining investor confidence. As a result, while nuclear safety improved markedly, the industry became slower, costlier, and less attractive for private investment. Threat To Progress After decades of stagnation, nuclear energy was witnessing a global revival recently. A new wave of interest - driven by the urgency of climate goals, technological innovation, and a renewed appetite for energy security - was taking shape. Countries are investing once again, not just through state-led initiatives but increasingly by unlocking private capital. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that in a rapid growth scenario, annual investments in nuclear power will need to double to around $120 billion by 2030. This scale of expansion cannot be shouldered by public funding alone. Encouragingly, the private sector is beginning to see nuclear energy as a credible investment. Predictable cash flows - enabled through supportive policy frameworks and long-term power purchase agreements - are key to reducing financing costs. Major technology firms, such as Google and Meta, are already signing agreements with nuclear developers to power data centres and artificial intelligence operations, recognising nuclear energy's value as a firm, clean source. But just as the sector was gaining momentum, geopolitical instability threatens to derail this progress. The spectre of a nuclear strike on a nuclear facility, in the case of Iran, revives old fears that nuclear technology, no matter how well-intentioned, is inseparable from strategic vulnerability. Such developments not only stir public anxiety but also raise serious questions about the security of nuclear infrastructure, especially about the international safety mechanisms to protect the nuclear infrastructure. Let Not Fear Rule Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has declared its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. Yet, it was attacked by the US and Israel. If such internationally safeguarded nuclear sites are vulnerable to attack, will states, along with the private players, have confidence in a multilateral non-proliferation regime that cannot guarantee protection? The consequences of this can be far-reaching. A renewed perception of nuclear energy as a high-risk, high-stakes technology could once again tighten regulatory frameworks, dampen investor confidence, and slow down project approvals. In short, the fragile resurgence of nuclear power could be compromised not by technical shortcomings or financial barriers, but by the re-emergence of fear, perception, and politics. If the world is serious about achieving net-zero targets while ensuring energy security, nuclear energy must be allowed to grow under a stable and predictable policy and regulatory environment. A clear distinction between the civil and military nuclear facilities should be maintained, with the IAEA making necessary provisions for the safety of the civil nuclear facilities under its safeguards. The bottom line is that the recent threats against the nuclear infrastructure could undermine the nascent global momentum toward nuclear power, at a time when it is most needed. Policymakers, investors, and the public must guard against allowing fear to overtake fact, to avoid the risk of derailing a critical pillar of the clean energy future.
