Britain is to embark on building its first nuclear power station for two decades on Monday as the coalition hands a multibillion subsidy to France’s EDF with help from a state-owned Chinese firm.
The two planned pressurised water reactors at Hinkley Point C, Somerset, are the first to start construction in Europe since Japan’s Fukushima disaster and the first in the UK since the Sizewell B power station came online in 1995.
The new reactors, which will cost £14bn, are due to start operating in 2023 if constructed on time and will run for 35 years. They will be capable of producing 7% of the UK’s electricity – equivalent to the amount used by 7m homes.
After months of delay, the news came as the coalition has come under intense pressure over rising electricity bills. British Gas and SSE have both announced price rises for customers of close to 10% and Ed Miliband’s promise to freeze energy bills has struck a chord with voters. There are expected to be further rises announced by the big six energy companies this week.
“They have control because they sell something everyone has to buy. We have no choice about buying it,” he told the Mail on Sunday. “With that amount of power comes huge responsibility to serve society.”
The guaranteed subsidies promised by the government for Hinkley Point C will lead to accusations that ministers are loading a further cost on spiralling energy prices by again requiring British taxpayers to subsidise nuclear power. The coalition counters that similar subsidies are going to other carbon-free industries such as renewables and that the country needs the energy security and steady base load that nuclear provides. Gas prices, although relatively low, are predicted to rise.
Britain is taking a sharply different route to Germany, which has decided to phase out nuclear power, and Italy, which has scrapped a planned nuclear programme. France, traditionally the nuclear enthusiast, has pledged to cut atomic power to 50% of its electricity mix from 75% today.
The strike price – the guaranteed rate to be paid for electricity produced at the Somerset site – will be announced on Monday, following two years of complex negotiations. Industry sources have put the price at around £89-£93 per megawatt – nearly twice the market price of energy. The price is guaranteed for 35 years and will rise in line with inflation.
EDF was thought to have started negotiations demanding a figure of £100, with the Treasury’s gambit being £80.
Ireland has received a letter from the United Nation’s seeking information about Irish public consultation over the proposed UK nuclear plant at Hinckley Point in Somerset.
Under UN ‘ESPOO Convention’ on transboundary environmental impact assessment the UK Government formally notified Ireland of its proposal. Ireland in turn was then required to ‘provide an opportunity to the public in areas likely to be affected to participate in the relevant EIA procedures regarding proposed activities equivalent to that provided to the public of the Party of origin’.
The nuclear Plant, which will be the first of its kind built since the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant accident n 1986, is intended to supply 7% of England’s electricity needs and contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It will cost $22 billion and employ 5,000 people in construction.
The Committee had received complaints from members of the Austrian and German Parliaments and from the Irish environmental NGO [non–governmental organisation] Friends of the Irish Environment [FIE] about the failure to consult citizens in their member states.
At it the 28th session, held in Geneva on 12 September, the Committee accepted the three complaints and wrote to all three Governments seeking copies of the correspondence between the three states and the United Kingdom.
FIE Director Tony Lowes explained that ‘The United Kingdom concluded that no neighbouring state would be affected by a nuclear accident at the plant on the grounds that “the likely impacts determined through a thorough EIA do not extend beyond the county of Somerset and the Severn Estuary”.’
‘While the Minister for the Environment Phil Hogan stated in a written Parliamentary Reply on 16 April 2013 that Ireland was notified in early 2012 of the proposed development at Hinkley Point, the Irish Government failed to consult with the Irish public as required under this international convention.’
Minister Hogan commissioned the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland [RPII] to examine the issue for the Government. The Report detailed the undeniable impact which a serious nuclear accident in Somerset could have on Irish agriculture.
‘Food controls and agricultural protective measures would be required if any of these accidents occurred to ensure that food on sale in Ireland was safe to eat,’ the RPII Report stated. ‘In the case of the most severe accident scenario examined in the study, short–term measures such as sheltering would also be required.’
‘The issue here is not anti or pro nuclear – simply the right to be consulted,’ said Tony Lowes.
According to the letters received by Ireland from the UN Committee and published on the FIE website, the United Kingdom and the three Governments are required to provide their correspondence and assessment of the risks by 25 November for a meeting on 10 December, 2013.
ENDS
Verification and comment: Tony Lowes 027 74771 / 087 2176316
Britain’s energy secretary Ed Davey MP: An Taisce is challenging the legality of the permission he granted for a new nuclear power station in Somerset. Photograph: Jeff Overs/BBC via Getty Images.
The Government has been asked by the United Nations whether it has considered the risks that will be created for Ireland by the construction and operation of a new multibillion euro nuclear power station in England.
A deal on the construction of the €16 billion Hinkley Point in Somerset – backed by €100 billion in subsidies over 35 years from the British taxpayer – will be signed today.
However, the British government did not consult with the Irish Government over the “transboundary” risks from nuclear power before it granted approval earlier this year.
UN committee
The UN’s Implementation Committee of the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context wrote to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government earlier this month.
Irish officials were asked to confirm whether the British government had contacted Dublin in advance about the plans and whether the Irish Government had responded.
…..Within NSG, for example, countries such as Austria, Ireland and New Zealand, which vociferously opposed an exemption to India, have not even whimpered against the China-Pakistan deals. The ultimate enforcers of nuclear commerce, the US and Russia are either too distracted or are simply powerless to act against China. If these two reactors are sold then more countries will be emboldened to break the rules. Iran is on the threshold, North Korea is another candidate and there will be more in the years ahead….
Illegitimate nuclear cooperation between China and Pakistan is a well-known fact. In the 1980s and 1990s, China secretly supplied technology and material in defiance of accepted norms. Since then, it has become far more brazen: entire atomic power plants are now for sale to a nuclear pariah. It is safe to say that South Asia will be the graveyard of the global nuclear order and China has the wrecking ball.
In recent weeks, reports have emerged that China plans to sell two more nuclear power plants to Pakistan. These will be located in Karachi. This sale is in addition to that of two other plants at Chashma in Punjab. None of the four are covered by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. This means that Islamabad is free to divert nuclear materials—fuel and spent fuel—from these plants for military purposes. As it is, the country has one of the fastest growing stockpiles of fissile material and nuclear weapons. Pakistan has also blocked all efforts to pass the Fissile Material Cut-Off treaty.
We have made our position pretty clear. We need to see how the whole liability issue is addressed. The way the liability clause currently stands, we are not comfortable.
Six months after taking charge, GE India President and Chief Executive Banmali Agrawala, a sort of outsider at the helm, having joined GE in December 2011 after stints in Tata Power and Wartsila India, tells Sudipto Dey the iconic US conglomerate is looking at India with a new approach. Edited excerpts:
Given the size of GE, do you feel in India you are far from realising the potential?
Yes, and that is not as much about GE but as a country. We need to appreciate this from GE’s perspective. We are a fairly large company and our globalisation strategy is not playing in one, two or three core markets in the world but playing across 150 markets across the world at the same time. Last year, we got business from 164 countries. Nineteen countries gave us more than a billion dollars of business each.
Forty countries gave us more than $400 million. And, when you play the whole world on this scale, there are pockets of opportunity that have come from so many places, be it Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America or East Europe. In a global context, there are other options that are fairly attractive from the GE perspective. The rate at which things happen in India and the pace at which our business is growing doesn’t frankly meet our expectations of a market or country the size of India — by population or economy — and the need for infrastructure that there is. We certainly feel this market should offer us a lot more in terms of infrastructure.
So, has India become less for GE?
I would say, yes. No matter what you say, a country the size of India, with a billion-plus people and a sizeable economy, will always remain attractive. But I would also say there are other markets that are catching up, are doing very well and in the short period, clearly have taken off. And, here you (India) have got to compete for attention and investment. For a global company, it’s wherever the opportunities are.
Have you made up your mind on the nuclear business? Are you not going to play in India, given the current state of nuclear liability laws?
We have made our position pretty clear. We need to see how the whole liability issue is addressed. The way the liability clause currently stands, we are not comfortable. The point we have made even earlier is that there is a global construct of how liabilities are divided among players. That is the way the global nuclear regime works and we would urge that the same practices are followed in India. The global way that GE works, we work on the same practices that are followed in India as well. That’s what we want to see happening.
One recurring theme in GE India in the past four years has been localisation. What is the current level of localisation and how does the road ahead look?
The year 2013 would see the fructification of our localisation drive. Wind, water, measurement and control, and healthcare are our most localised businesses. For us, localisation means how we design products that are suitable for the market here and are also eventually relevant to many other parts of the world. This is what we are practicing in healthcare and a few other businesses. However, we need to appreciate that everything cannot be localised.
For instance, aviation turbine cannot be localised and also, oil and gas. The whole approach, which we call the super value approach, is how you innovate products at disruptive prices without compromising with efficacy. We have gotten into a process of finding the right opportunity, making a product that meets the right price, manufacturing it and taking it to the market. The idea is to come out with a range of products at regular intervals. We see lot of promise in the healthcare business and want to make the most of it.
For the supply chain, we have a facility in Pune, where we assemble wind turbine parts. We do the complete erection of wind turbines in India. It’s a local business for us. We will be expanding and growing this as we set up our new facility at Chakan (Maharashtra).
As far as a multi-modal facility is concerned, we feel this is the right time to step up our efforts in local manufacturing and local sourcing not just for India but also for feeding our global supply chain.
So, is the multi-modal facility at Chakan also a local innovation?
This is the first time GE would be doing something like this in the world and we are eagerly waiting to look at the outcome.
We are waiting for it to fire, because if it succeeds it gives a template for how things can be for GE in other parts of the world. Another dimension of globalisation is almost every country and market around the world would insist on us to set up local manufacturing facilities, create jobs locally.
Our approach toward manufacturing has been different. When we make investments in a machine, say for instance fabrication. The pay back on that machine, if I were to just have one product would be very difficult but if I were to pass five different products through that machine and make sure the utilization is high, I get a payback on that investment. Normally, you would not pass different products through the same machine because you need different settings, fixtures etc. but we challenged ourselves that we want to do it.
Once Chakan becomes operational do you expect a major drive in exports out of India?
Yes, we expect a major ramp up in exports out of India. Even as we speak we have a fairly good idea of what we will manufacture, how much will go out, where and when. As a matter of speaking let me say whatever we will make in Chakkan in Phase I is kind of sold out. We already have commitments from our global supply chain and we are working towards growing that.
You are one of the few companies in India that shrunk business, then cleaned up, re-focussed with country-specific P&L, rolled-out a localization drive. So do you now have renewed set of targets for India?
We look at different businesses in different manner. In certain businesses we can be completely local and approach the market directly. We have competitive technology. In those businesses – such as healthcare, wind, water, etc – we will shoot for profitable growth. There is another bunch of businesses that are dependent largely on government policy – such as gas, coal, oil, transportation. Whenever the deals happen we will ensure that our market share is intact. There is different approach to different businesses. What is important for us is to get our due share.
Profitability is important. And we kind of keep innovating. We are not just chasing one number we have to get to. We also look at what India can contribute to larger GE.
The government will clarify its medium- to long-term policy of maintaining the share of nuclear power at a certain level in Japan’s energy mix on condition that its safety is secured, according to informed sources.
By the end of the year, the government plans to revise the current basic energy policy, which was drawn up in 2010, to reflect lessons learned from the accident at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s <9501> Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant, which was damaged in the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami.
A subcommittee of the industry ministry’s Advisory Committee for Natural Resources and Energy will start full-fledged work on the revision next month, the sources said.
At a meeting on Wednesday, members of the subcommittee stated their opinions about nuclear power.
Kyoto University Prof. Hajimu Yamana said that nuclear power is important from the viewpoint of energy security.
“For the FIRST time since WW2 The Red Cross will be handing out food parcels in Britain this winter…….Within 12 months it will be blankets and tents……..WHAT A FUCKING DISGRACE BRITAIN HAS BECOME.”
October 24, Thursday, 9:30AM to noon at Baha’i International Community, 866 UN Plaza, Suite 120, NYC VIDEO OF EVENT WILL BE POSTED AFTER THE EVENT AT: WWW.PSR.ORG
Human Rights Experts call for immediate action to protect the right to health of citizens affected by the nuclear accident in Fukushima.
Doctors Say UN Science Report Systematically Underestimates
Health Impact of Fukushima Catastrophe
Admission is free. UN pass is NOT required. Pre-registration is required. Please send a list of crew members, contact info and affiliation to: HRNNY1024@gmail.com. Physicians for Social Responsibility & Human Rights Now present:
WHAT: Two conflicting reports on Fukushima – one by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health and the other by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) that will be presented to the UN General Assembly on October 25 at the 3rd and 4thCommittees respectively.
Mr. Grover, the Special Rapporteur, will speak about his report, and Dr. Rachow will discuss a PSR/IPPNW critique of the UNSCEAR report and how it can be strengthened. Ms. Inoue will discuss the human rights concerns regarding conditions in Japan. The global implications of these reports will be highlighted.
Since the March 2011 nuclear disaster in Fukushima, individuals and communities in Japan continue to be exposed to dangerous levels of radioactivity. There are serious concerns about consequent health effects for citizens in contaminated areas. Residents have a right to live in a safe and healthy environment, however, sufficient protective measures and support are not being provided. The right of access to medical treatment and the medical data about one’s own body are being seriously denied. Experts will speak about how two UN reports impact policy regarding the lives and health of citizens currently affected after the nuclear disaster, and what should be done to provide immediate relief to protect their fundamental rights.
Q&A session will follow the presentations.
WHO:
Mr. Anand Grover, Esq.
Mr. Anand Grover, appointed by UN Human Right Council at its eighth session in June 2008, is the UN Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. The position is honorary and he is not a staff of the United Nations nor paid for his work. He is also a practicing attorney in the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court of India.
From November 15 to 26, 2012, Mr. Grover was on a country mission to Japan to conduct an independent investigation on issues related to the enjoyment of the right to health, including availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality of health services, goods and facilities. Additional aspects investigated are, the underlying determinants of health in Japan within the context of the Great East Japan Earthquake, the events leading to it (including emergency response, recovery and mitigation with a particular focus on challenges and actions taken in response to them), as well as lessons learned and good practices. The mission involved meetings with Japanese government officials, non-governmental organizations, and local citizens affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake, tsunami and the nuclear disaster in Fukushima. Mr. Grover’s report on his findings and recommendations was submitted to the Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in May 2013, and will be reported to the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly in New York on October 25, 2013.
Dr. John Rachow, Ph.D., M.D.
Dr. Rachow is a practicing physician, Board Member & Chair of the Radiation and Health Committee, and Past President (2011) of Physicians for Social Responsibility, Washington, DC. He is also an Assistant Clinical Professor of University of Iowa, Department of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Mari Inoue, Esq., is a practicing lawyer and New York representative of Human Rights Now, Tokyo, Japan.
CO-SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS: HUMAN RIGHTS NOW & PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
(NaturalNews) In an ironic twist of fate, the former head of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power facility in eastern Japan has died, according to new reports. After battling a bout of throat cancer that emerged just months after the stricken plant was overrun by a historic tsunami and subsequent earthquake, 58-year-old Masao Yoshida died at a Tokyo hospital from a condition that many others will likely also develop in the years to come as a result of Fukushima radiation poisoning.
The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), which owns the facility where at least three nuclear reactors either partially or fully melted down, insists that Yoshida’s cancer and eventual death were not the result of radiation poisoning from the plant. It would take at least five years, the company has claimed, for radiation from the plant to develop into full-fledged cancer.
But the circumstances surrounding the timing of Yoshida’s cancer diagnosis and his work at the plant following the disaster seem to tell a different story. Unlike many other TEPCO officials, Yoshida remained onsite at the failed plant in the days and weeks following the disaster, putting himself at serious risk of developing chronic illness. According to the U.K.’s Telegraph, Yoshida led efforts to get the Fukushima plant under control following the disaster, even though aftershocks and a cascade of plant failures threatened to its undoing.
In November 2011, however, just eight months after the initial disaster occurred, Yoshida was admitted to the hospital and diagnosed with esophageal cancer. Not long after, he underwent surgery for this cancer, and subsequently developed a brain hemorrhage, which resulted in him having to have another operation nearly one year later. And less than one year after this second surgery, Yoshida died.
“Yoshida is believed to have prevented the world’s worst atomic accident in 25 years after the Chernobyl catastrophe in 1986,” reads an RT.com piece about Yoshida’s work at the plant. “It was Yoshida’s own decision to disobey HQ orders to stop using seawater to cool the reactors. Instead, he continued to do so and saved the active zones from overheating and exploding. Had he obeyed the order, the whole of north eastern Japan would possibly have been uninhabitable for decades, if not centuries.”
Fukushima radiation levels high enough to have triggered Yoshida’s throat cancer
In its arbitrary pronouncement that Yoshida’s cancer was unrelated to Fukushima radiation, TEPCO failed to acknowledge a key aspect of the disaster — radiation levels were unusually high as a result of all the meltdowns, melt-throughs, and explosions. Of course, TEPCO has long denied the severity of all this, so it is to be expected that the company would also deny that radiation from the plant could have been a cause of Yoshida’s cancer.
But it does not take a rocket scientist to connect the dots. Being in insanely close proximity to untold levels of ionizing radiation for all those months was sure to have had an accelerated effect on Yoshida’s health, not to mention the health of other onsite workers. This would explain why adults and especially children living in nearby areas of Japan are also developing cancers and other health problems at a much higher rate than normal.
“Even 70 millisieverts is 70 times the yearly dose considered ‘safe’ for humans,” wrote one commenter on an ENENews.com article, referring to TEPCO’s downplaying of the radiation dose received by Yoshida in the aftermath of the disaster. “This was not even a whole year. And generally TEPCO’s estimates can be multiplied by 10. He was ‘nuked’ for sure.”
SOMA, Japan — For much of his life, Koichi Matsumoto, 58, happily slipped out of bed in the dead of night to work on a fishing trawler.
But these days, his catch is tree branches, tires and other rubble still adrift since the massive earthquake and tsunami that shook Japan more than two years ago.
“It feels as if we’re right back where we were after the disaster,” which struck March 11, 2011, said Matsumoto, a third-generation fisherman and head of the trawl boat unit at the 1,000-member Soma-Futaba fisheries cooperative.
The lives of Matsumoto and about 1,500 other fishermen in the Fukushima region are back in flux because of the discovery in August that 300 tons of radioactive wastewater was pouring into the ocean each day from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
It’s unclear how long the massive volume has been leaking from underneath the damaged reactors and emergency wastewater tanks constructed nearby. It’s also uncertain how long it will take for the flow to be halted.
What is clear is that the leakage has proved a major setback for fishery operators, who had been slowly resuming work since mid-2012. At that time, they began test operations that allowed them to sell their catch — worth about $100 million in annual profit before the magnitude 9 earthquake — after screening it for radiation. More than 37 miles off the coast, they caught fish that didn’t show detectable levels of radioactive particles.
But now they are back to square one, their hope for a steady recovery dashed by the problems at the nuclear plant.
To make ends meet, Matsumoto and others have taken to using their trawlers for tasks such as rubble collection and radiation monitoring. The rubble pickup is paid for by the Japanese government. Some fishermen have also been hired to help at the nuclear plant by its owner, Tokyo Electric Power Co., or Tepco.
“We can’t fish as much, so we’ve been doing many public works projects,” Matsumoto said.
The earthquake and towering tsunami that ensued took the lives of 101 fishermen in Matsumoto’s cooperative. Many family members were also swept out to sea as the tsunami swallowed large portions of the coast, including Matsumoto’s home.
After grieving and adjusting to life in rental housing about 30 miles from the crippled reactor, Fukushima fishermen, including Matsumoto, sought to restart operations in July 2011. But the fish contained unacceptably high levels of radiation.
When the levels finally came down and the test operations began, many shoppers continued to avoid Fukushima-area food products.
Things had started to look up only recently.
“Consumers were finally feeling comfortable buying our fish,” Matsumoto said with a sigh.
Then came news of the massive leaks, followed by little assurance that a quick and reasonable response was possible.
Tepco spokesman Ryo Shimizu says there are about 1,000 tanks of various sizes holding radioactive wastewater on the property. About 350 of the tanks held together by bolts are the ones that have been found to be leaking, he said. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, whose government has become increasingly hands-on in the recovery process, has ordered the tanks replaced.
Tepco has also increased the number of leak-detection workers from nine to 90, Shimizu said.
But swapping out tanks will be time-consuming because it means exposing the radioactive water and finding space for new tanks, experts say.
“You have to remember that these workers are in a hostile environment with very high radioactive levels, and so doing work is challenging,” said Kenji Araki, a nuclear engineering guest professor at the Fukushima National College of Technology.
With radioactive underground water also running into the ocean, Tepco’s plan is to freeze the soil and complete an underground wall by 2015.
….Britain’s government and main opposition parties support nuclear power and anti-nuclear sentiment among the population is muted by comparison with other parts of Europe….
First new nuclear contracts in Europe since Fukushima
* China’s CGN to help fund, build 14 billion pound project
* Project’s state aid needs clearance from EU competition body
* Critics warn of risks in fixing power price decades ahead
By Karolin Schaps and Geert De Clercq
LONDON/PARIS, Oct 20 (Reuters) – Britain is set to sign a deal with France’s EDF for the first nuclear plant to start construction in Europe since Japan’s Fukushima disaster raised safety concerns worldwide, at a cost estimated at around $23 billion.
Under the deal, expected to be announced on Monday, the French utility will lead a consortium, including a Chinese group, to construct two European Pressurised Water Reactors (EPRs) designed by France’s Areva.
Industry estimates, based on other nuclear projects, put the
cost at around 14 billion pounds or more than 16 billion euros.
EDF’s long-time partner China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN), possibly in combination with China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), is expected to have a 30 to 40 percent stake in the consortium, with Areva taking another 10 percent, according to newspapers including France’s Les Echos and Britain’s Sunday Telegraph.
EDF and the British prime minister’s office declined to comment on the media reports.
nuclear-news 