On the one hand, these costs do not appear large in comparison to the fixed cost of keeping a nuclear plant open (insurance, employees, and so on). Indeed, this is why some analysts believe the US nuclear industry is at risk.
[…]
Overall, we find that the cost of electricity generation in California increased because of the closure by about $350 million during the first twelve months. This is a large change, equivalent to a 13% increase in total in-state generation costs; yet it went almost completely unnoticed because of a contemporaneous offsetting decrease in natural gas prices.
[…]
As it turns out, these plants were operated through a tolling agreement with JPMorganChase, and they were investigated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for market manipulation between 2010 and 2012 (FERC 2013). While our analysis cannot be used to prove withholding or other market manipulation, it does serve as a useful diagnostic tool for unusual plant behaviour.
[…]
Over this period, we find that the closure of San Onofre increased carbon dioxide emissions by 9 million tons, implying a social cost of almost $320 million per year. A large fraction of the world’s nuclear plants are beginning to reach retirement age, and it is important to take these external costs into account as decisions are made about whether or not to extend the operating lives of these plants.
[…]
Despite the high cost of the San Onofre closure, the decision to shutter the plant appears to have been optimal from the operator’s perspective. The plant’s annual operations and maintenance expenditures were substantial – around $340 million per year.
Just as free trade in goods offers opportunities for efficiency gains, electricity transmission infrastructure facilitates exchange in electricity markets. The first-order effects of geographic integration in electricity markets are straightforward – allocation of production across firms is improved, so lower cost generating resources can be used to meet demand.
In addition, some unusual features of the electricity market make transmission particularly valuable. Storage of electricity, unlike most goods, is prohibitively expensive. As a result, supply must meet demand on a continual basis. Moreover, demand is both price-inelastic and highly variable. As a result, the market typically clears on the supply side, and large price swings are possible whenever supply is inelastic. Geographic integration can smooth this volatility by expanding the number of potential suppliers.
Finally, adequate transmission has important implications for competition in deregulated electricity generation markets. The combination of inelastic demand and lack of storage means these markets are susceptible to the exercise of market power. Because it increases the number of relevant competitors, adequate transmission is necessary for competitive generation markets to function well (Borenstein, Bushnell, and Stoft 2000, Wolak 2012, Ryan 2013).
While the qualitative importance of transmission is well understood, the ability to quantify the benefits is still important for policymakers, because transmission investments are not made in a competitive marketplace. Transmission is a natural monopoly, so it has traditionally been price-regulated; in addition, new investments face a suite of overlapping economic and environmental regulations (CEC 2009). Transmission has also been at the heart of policy discussions on incentivising the expansion of renewable generation (DOE 2009, CAISO 2014).
Quantifying the benefits of transmission is tricky. Ex-ante simulations must rely on simplifying assumptions that can only approximate how generators and system operators behave in real time. Ex-post calculations are difficult because building a credible counterfactual is not always possible; investments in transmission capacity are endogenous responses to changes in market conditions, and they are planned years in advance. Previous studies of transmission constraints in electricity markets have either used stylised theoretical models (Cardell, Hitt, and Hogan 1997, Joskow and Tirole 2000), or Cournot simulations (Borenstein, Bushnell, and Stoft 2000, Ryan 2013).
Calculating the benefits of transmission
In new work, we use a different approach. We take advantage of a natural experiment to calculate ex-post the value of electricity transmission (Davis and Hausman 2014). In 2012, the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in California was closed unexpectedly because of safety concerns. The plant had been a large resource, generating enough electricity to supply 2.3 million households – about 8% of all electricity generated in the state. Moreover, it was located near two large demand centres (Los Angeles and San Diego) in an area with limited transmission capacity. As a result, its closure caused transmission constraints to bind, substantially increasing the cost of meeting demand.
We use data from the year and a half leading up to the San Onofre closure to construct a supply curve for a hypothetical world in which San Onofre had not closed. We then compare this counterfactual to observed generation outcomes following the closure, calculating the increased cost required to meet demand. Overall, we find that the cost of electricity generation in California increased because of the closure by about $350 million during the first twelve months. This is a large change, equivalent to a 13% increase in total in-state generation costs; yet it went almost completely unnoticed because of a contemporaneous offsetting decrease in natural gas prices.
We further decompose the cost increase into two effects. The first effect is simply the cost of using higher cost natural-gas plants to fill in for the lost nuclear generation. Like other nuclear power plants, San Onofre produced electricity at very low marginal cost. When the plant closed, this generation had to be made up for by operating other, more expensive generating resources. The second effect is the additional cost attributable to transmission constraints. The binding transmission constraints meant that it was not possible to meet all of the lost output from San Onofre using the lowest cost available generating resources. We calculate that the transmission effect totalled around $40 million in the first twelve months following the closure.
With this estimate of $40 million, we find that several transmission projects would have payback periods of less than ten years. Indeed, the California Independent System Operator has been working since 2012 to implement several projects to relieve the congestion caused by the San Onofre closure.
Plant-level impacts
In addition to state-wide estimates of changes in generation, we look at effects at the individual plant level. We document two important outliers: plants that would have been expected to substantially increase their generation following the San Onofre closure, but whose average generation remained essentially unchanged. As it turns out, these plants were operated through a tolling agreement with JPMorganChase, and they were investigated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for market manipulation between 2010 and 2012 (FERC 2013). While our analysis cannot be used to prove withholding or other market manipulation, it does serve as a useful diagnostic tool for unusual plant behaviour.
Environmental implications
In addition to the value of electricity transmission, several other policy implications emerge from our analysis. We document that the closure of San Onofre had important environmental implications, in addition to the generation costs described above. While California currently has a cap and trade program for carbon dioxide emissions, the program was not yet in place in 2012. Over this period, we find that the closure of San Onofre increased carbon dioxide emissions by 9 million tons, implying a social cost of almost $320 million per year. A large fraction of the world’s nuclear plants are beginning to reach retirement age, and it is important to take these external costs into account as decisions are made about whether or not to extend the operating lives of these plants.
Despite the high cost of the San Onofre closure, the decision to shutter the plant appears to have been optimal from the operator’s perspective. The plant’s annual operations and maintenance expenditures were substantial – around $340 million per year. Thus even though San Onofre had a much lower marginal cost than natural gas plants, its profitability was questionable. Indeed, the impact of low natural gas prices on wholesale electricity prices is jeopardising the balance sheets of many US nuclear plants.
Concluding remarks
Having adequate transmission helps electricity markets to run more efficiently and reliably. The closure of the San Onofre plant in California is important in this context – it shows how the unexpected closure of just one resource can have large economic costs. Our research finds that closing the plant increased the cost of generation by $350 million per year, and that $40 million of this is attributable to transmission constraints. Additionally, the closure led to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions worth $320 million annually.
On the one hand, these costs do not appear large in comparison to the fixed cost of keeping a nuclear plant open (insurance, employees, and so on). Indeed, this is why some analysts believe the US nuclear industry is at risk.
On the other hand, the costs could potentially have been much higher. If a particularly hot summer had led to spikes in demand, if natural gas prices had been higher, or if a substantial amount of market power had been exercised, the cost of the San Onofre closure (including the cost of transmission constraints) would have been significantly larger.
We believe there are many current and former nuclear weapons workers living in southern New England who are eligible for monetary compensation and medical benefits, but who have yet to file a claim. Our goal is to inform these individuals about the program and to assist them with obtaining the compensation and medical benefits to which they are entitled
The U.S. Department of Labor will host a town hall meeting on Thursday, June 19, at the Courtyard by Marriott, 4 Sebethe Drive, Cromwell, to notify current and former nuclear weapons employees who worked at 33 covered facilities in southern New England about the benefits available to them under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act.
“We believe there are many current and former nuclear weapons workers living in southern New England who are eligible for monetary compensation and medical benefits, but who have yet to file a claim. Our goal is to inform these individuals about the program and to assist them with obtaining the compensation and medical benefits to which they are entitled. We encourage anyone interested in filing a claim or learning more about the EEOICPA to attend the upcoming town hall meetings or contact our New York Resource Center at 800-941-3943,” said Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Director Rachel P. Leiton.
The program, which is administered by the DEEOIC, part of the department’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, provides lump-sum compensation and medical benefits to eligible U.S. Department of Energy nuclear weapons workers, including employees, former employees, contractors and subcontractors. Survivors of qualified workers may be entitled to benefits. Officials will present an overview of Parts B and E of the EEOICPA and discuss the medical benefits available to approved claimants.
Covered facilities in Connecticut include the following: American Chain and Cable Co., Bridgeport; Anaconda Co., Waterbury; Bridgeport Brass Co., Havens Laboratory, Bridgeport; Combustion Engineering, Windsor; Connecticut Aircraft Nuclear Engine Laboratory, Middletown; Dorr Corp., Stamford; Fenn Machinery Co., Hartford; Machlett Laboratories, Springdale; New England Lime Co., Canaan; Seymour Specialty Wire, Seymour; Sperry Products Inc., Danbury; and Torrington Co., Torrington.
Staff from DEEOIC’s Cleveland District Office and New York Resource Center will be available for extended hours on June 18-19 to assist individuals with filing new claims under the EEOICPA and to provide updates on existing claims. These meetings are open to the public and preregistration is not required.
Extremely high density of Tritium was detected from groundwater of deep layer.
Tepco has started building the frozen water underground wall. In order to investigate the groundwater contamination outside of the wall, Tepco took sample from 25m underground.
As a result, 3,100,000 Bq/m3 of Tritium was measured from the sample taken near reactor2. The sampling date was 5/28/2014. From Fukushima Diary’s research, this is the highest reading since they started measuring.
They measured Strontium-90 from the same deep layer beside reactor4 last November.
There is a possibility that contaminated water is traveling under the sea bottom of Fukushima port to come up offshore.
(Highest density of Tritium detected from 25m underground / 3,100,000 Bq/m3 [URL])
From Tepco’s follow-up report on 6/13/2014, the Tritium density increased again and it reached 4,700,000 Bq/m3 in the same from the same sampling well (Location is on the map above).
Tepco hasn’t made any explanation on this increase in Tritium density. From Fukushima Diary’s research, this is the highest reading since Tepco started measuring groundwater 25m underground. There is a possibility that the frozen water wall is spreading contamination underground.
As I climbed the steep stairs to the Yamatsumi shinto shrine from the entrance gateway at the bottom of the mountain, the view over the beautiful Iitate village surrounded by the rich nature appeared in front of me. There was once a rumor, based on a TV program, that Yamatzumi shrine blocked the wave of radiation, shielding the village. I asked about the rumor, but the person living in the shrine laughed my question down saying, “Oh, I have heard about it!” Maybe the TV clues wanted to create an emotional episode that a shinto shrine protected the village from radiation.
As soon as we met, Hosokawa started saying, “This country is going mad. There is something seriously wrong going on”. He led us to the ranch after quick exchange of greetings. According to him, horses have fallen ill one by one within these short weeks. Among his 34 horses, four were unable to stand up anymore.
One of the four, a white miniature horse, had the worst condition. Its skin was badly damaged. The veterinarian doctor who accompanied us saw it and indicated the symptoms of damaged liver although he did not know the reason. It had jaundiced eyes. The doctor was wondering why its knees were so wobbly. Hosokawa stroked the lying horse, saying, “I think it can’t make it through this month. Poor thing….”
A wild boar rushed down beside the ranch, as we were talking.
15 foals have been born since the beginning of this year, but 14 of them died within a month, sometimes within a week.
“I have lived with horses since I was a kid, but I have never seen anything like this. It’s not normal. I think radiation is responsible for this”.
Hosokawa stresses the effect of radiation as a cause. Of course he doesn’t have proper scientific grounds to support his idea, but his long relationship with horses gives him the instinctive feeling.
The media have reported that many cows had died in the evacuation area, because people who fed them left the village, and the cows didn’t get sufficient nutrition to survive. However, the horses on Hosokawa’s ranch have been getting sufficient feed, if not plenty.The horses without symptoms did not look skinny and seemed to have appetite.
First death of a USS Ronald Reagan sailor hit by radiation from Fukushima Daiichi while on the humanitarian aid Operation Tomodachi. Information just released today by the legal team representing the USS Reagan sailors in their billion dollar lawsuit against TEPCO.
Military honors for the late Theodore A. Holcomb, formerly of the USS Ronald Reagan and one of the sailors represented in the billion dollar lawsuit against TEPCO. FEATURED – VOICES FROM JAPAN:
Laura and Giichi Inoue run Komoro Homestay, a program which sponsors Fukushima families with small children to come to the relative safety of the Komoro/Nagano region to alleviate the stress of their daily lives . They provide educational materials and the chance to speak honestly about their fears and stresses – a rarity in Japan. To contact Komoro Homestay, go to: https://www.facebook.com/groups/299490890226766/
For those who wish to share practical radiation-related material with Komoro Homestay, send an email to: LauraJane713@gmail.com.
NUMNUTZ OF THE WEEK:
Canadian Nuclear “Safety” Commission has the gall to produce report saying that while the rest of the world’s radioactive materials may cause cancer, their s**t don’t stink and their radiation won’t hurt you… unless… well sometimes… maybe… but not very often… no, really (said Pinnochio as his nose grew longer…).
PLUS:
NRC needs to “duck and cover” as Sen. Barbara Boxer demands accountability and Sen. Ed Markey blows the lid off NRC reprisals against employees who stand up for safety;
Sen. Boxer On Fire re: Wild Fire Within 1/2 mile of San Onofre Nuke Plant – a video by Myla Reson
Vermont Yankee critics use laugh track on NRC and Entergy spokesmodels;
Radioactive groundwater spikes under Indian Point NPP;
TEPCO admits it hasn’t a clue what’s happening with the melted core or the water leaks at Fukushima;
Japan forgets to report on its hidden stash of 80-bombs-worth of weapons grade plutonium – OOPS!
Midwest activists unveil media campaign against new Fermi 3 nuke in Michigan:
Jiro Ishimaru, host: They don’t even know where the melted fuel is. What is the current situation of the melted fuel?
Hiroaki Koide, professor at Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute: Nothing has been done. I don’t think the melted fuel is sitting in one piece as TEPCO and the government imagine. Probably, many pieces are scattered everywhere in the reactor vessel. For example, there are pieces stuck to the wall, I think. If, for example, they somehow can collect 50 pieces of debris they can’t collect the other 50; if many workers are forced to be exposed to radiation to do this ineffective job, I think it’s better to just contain it like the Chernobyl sarcophagus.
Ishimaru: It is going to be a long road to decommissioning…
Koide: The government says it will take 40 years, but that is not going to be enough at all. When they finish, I will have been dead for a long time.
The U.S. is pushing the CSC because its nuclear industry needs new markets, said Tom Vanden Borre, a researcher in nuclear liability law at the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium.
Countries with plans to build nuclear power plants are important because the U.S. hasn’t had a new atomic plant begin service since 1996, he said.
“It’s merely to protect the American industry and nothing more.”
The treaty, known as the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage or CSC, will encourage experienced U.S. companies to assist in the cleanup and decommissioning at the Fukushima atomic accident site, Japan’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement today.
Protection from accident claims is needed because of the dangers and risks that remain at Fukushima, said U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel Poneman in an interview in Tokyo yesterday. The plant has three melted reactors and thousands of tons of radioactive water.
“The important thing is to do everything that we can to facilitate the cleanup and decontamination of the Fukushima site,” Poneman said. The CSC is a means to support U.S. companies in that role, he said.
Poneman was in Tokyo to attend a meeting of the U.S.-Japan Bilateral Commission on Civil Nuclear Cooperation, which was established after the March 2011 accident at Tokyo Electric Power Co. (9501)’s Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant.
The CSC puts all liability for accidents at a nuclear power plant on the operator of the facility. To cover potential damage claims, CSC member countries would each contribute the equivalent of about $465 million. An atomic plant operator would have access to that fund after paying out an equivalent amount itself.
CSC Critics
Critics of nuclear power, environmental group Greenpeace among them, say the CSC acts as a subsidy for atomic power plant makers, such as GE, Toshiba Corp.’s Westinghouse unit and Areva SA of France, by shielding them from accident claims. Continue reading →
Individual Shareholders of Japan Nuclear Power Plants Want Reduced Reliance on Nuke Energy – Report International Business Times, By Esther Tanquintic-Misa | June 13, 2014 Individual shareholders of Japan‘s nuclear power plants want the government to review the country’s current energy mix to rely less on nuclear energy, a report by the Asahi Shimbun said. Shareholders of Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) want the company to evaluate and examine its Comprehensive Special Business Plan.
The report noted individual shareholders of Japan‘s nine electric utilities with nuclear power plants had also submitted proposals to strengthen their call ahead of the June 26 annual general shareholders’ meetings of the power companies.
It was the first time that individual shareholders joined in the fray to push for a withdrawal of Japan’s dependence on nuclear power.
However, Asahi Shimbun believed their calls for major changes in policy would fall on deaf ears. These individual shares, when gathered, make up only a small number of total shares.
“We’re both very close and very far” from a deal with the five permanent U.N. Security Council member nations and Germany, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Thursday. The sides are seeking terms to lift sanctions on Iran and to impose long-term limits on its atomic efforts, which are seen by Washington and its allies as a cover for pursuing a nuclear-bomb capability.
“We all want to get the job done by July 20,” Araqchi added, referring to the expiration date for an interim accord that his nation reached in November with China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Washington on Thursday also reaffirmed its goal to finalize a successor agreement by the cutoff date.
“Our focus remains on the July 20 deadline and that has not changed,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters.
Analysts, though, warned that a renewal of the short-term deal appears to be a growing possibility, Agence France-Presse reported on Thursday.
“I doubt that an extension is being formally discussed, because that would be to admit failure to meet the July 20 deadline,” former U.S. State Department official Mark Fitzpatrick said. “But some discussion of it must be underway informally.” Western powers may only agree to an extension if Tehran indicates it “will make substantial concessions and come down from hard-line positions,” said Mark Hibbs, a nuclear expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
He added, though, that the sides “have been drafting documents in preparation for an eventual extension for a long time.”
Traditional Owners of Muckaty Station are maintaining the rage about plans to build a nuclear waste dump there.
Some are fighting for it, many others are fighting against it.
The legalities of which clans own what parts of the station and whether the Northern Land Council has done the right thing in nominating the dump site is being fought in court.
The Ronald Reagan spent a couple months at sea after being dosed off with radiation, trying to clean itself up; then, according to a lawyer for the sailors claiming injury, it was decontaminated at port in Washington State for another year and a half before returning to service.
Germany says no more credit guarantees for nuclear exports BERLIN, June 12 (Reuters) – Germany’s government has decided to stop issuing credit guarantees for exports of equipment used for nuclear power generation because the risks to public safety are too great, the Economy Ministry said on Thursday.
The guarantees offer security to exporters and banks who do business in emerging markets where there is a risk of non-payment.
For years, critics have called for a halt to Germany’s so-called Hermes guarantees for nuclear exports, such as those used in atomic plants in Brazil. China and India also want new nuclear plants to help fulfil their energy needs.
“Germany has moved away from nuclear energy because it is linked to significant, uncontrollable risks. These risks exist in equal measure abroad,” Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel said…….
French nuclear more costly than renewables by 2020 – Greenpeace PARIS, June 12 Thu Jun 12, 2014 (Reuters)– Electricity produced by onshore wind and solar plants may become more competitive with power generated by upgraded nuclear plants in France by the end of this decade, a study by environmental group Greenpeace showed on Thursday.
The study comes a week before Energy Minister Segolene Royal presents the broad lines of a much-delayed framework energy law that aims to spell out how France will cut the share of atomic energy to 50 percent from the current 75 percent by 2025.
The rising cost of France’s nuclear energy is a concern and the government should set up independent expert institutions to help it plan long-term energy investments, a parliamentary committee said in a report published on Tuesday.
According to the Greenpeace study, the investment needed to upgrade French utility EDF’s 58 nuclear reactors to bring them close to the safety level of a new-generation EPR reactor would raise median production costs to 133 euros ($180) per megawatt-hour (MWh). That estimate, based on an extension of the lifespan of current reactors by 10 years to 50 years and 4.4 billion euros worth of work per reactor, would make nuclear energy less competitive than onshore wind power around 2015, the study said.
Greenpeace also sees the cost of photovoltaic power falling to less than 134 euros/MWh around 2019 from more than 250 euros/MWh today, making it competitive with the renovated French nuclear plants by that time……
French regulator ASN is expected to give a first opinion on whether reactors can be granted life extensions in 2015 and decide reactor by reactor in 2018-2019. ($1 = 0.7345 Euros) (Reporting by Michel Rose; Editing by James Macharia, Larry King) http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/06/12/france-nuclear-idINL5N0OT2LN20140612
Vessel a radiological hazard The scientific community in Russia has been unified, repeatedly underscoring to Russian media that the unloaded spent nuclear fuel aboard the ship poses a major environmental danger to the Arkangelsk Region, where Zvezdochka is located
Long-time push to dismantle huge Soviet nuclear battle cruiser again put off The long struggle to dismantle the Soviet era nuclear missile cruiser Admiral Ushakov – which has been out of active duty for the past 17 years following a machinery accident – has been put off for another year over cost concerns, raising environmental and radiological concerns, the b-port news portal in Murmansk reported. Bellona, June 11, 2014 by Charles Digges
The long struggle to dismantle the Soviet era nuclear missile cruiserAdmiral Ushakov – which has been out of active duty for the past 17 years following a machinery accident – has been put off for another year over cost concerns, raising environmental and radiological concerns, the b-port news portal in Murmansk reported.
A spokesman for Zvezdochka ship repair yard where the vessel is moored, yesterday told b-port that dismantlement works on the enormous vessel would not begin until 2016 at the earliest.
Russia’s state nuclear corporation Rosatom has included in its 2015 budget costs for drawing up engineering schematics for its dismantlement, but by all accounts, the project is running late and short on cash.
The financial crunch to dismantle the Admiral Ushakov comes as a bad time. The majority of international aid flowing to nuclear submarine dismantlement and radiological waste security via the G-8 Global Partnership plan has already been committed, laying the burden for securing the vessel on the Russian government.
Unilateral funding from the United States’ Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program has also reached its conclusion, and tensions between the West and Russia over the simmering crisis in Ukraine make it difficult for Moscow to find donors.
What’s more, the costs for dismantling nuclear battleships and cruisers run as much as 10 times more than dismantling the largest nuclear submarines, experts say, mostly because the expertise for nuclear battleship and cruiser deconstruction in Russia is in short supply, and international assistance almost a necessity, officials told b-port. This could become a problem with as many as three older nuclear battleships still on the Russian Navy’s registers.
For its part, the Russian Navy is instead pouring a mint into developing new submarine technologies at the expense of cleaning up legacy waste, said Nils Bøhmer, Bellona’s general manager and nuclear physicist
‘The Russian navy is currently spending millions on new submarines which is diverting funding from cleaning up radiological challenges left over from the past,” said Bøhmer. “To have this vessel lying around for 17 years with spent fuel is a dangerous and uncertain situation.”…….
Exclusive: UK to step up collaboration with US over nuclear warheads Documents released under FoI reveal ‘enhanced collaboration’ plans, raising questions over independence of UK deterrentRichard Norton-TaylorThe Guardian, Friday 13 June 2014Britain is stepping up its cooperation with the US over the design of nuclear warheads, raising new questions about the independence of the UK deterrent, according to documents disclosed after a freedom of information request.
Increased cooperation on warhead design and the exchange of material crucial in the manufacture and stockpiling of nuclear weapons will be sealed in a pact being drawn up by senior officials from the two countries.The pact, renewing the 1958 mutual defence agreement (MDA) between the UK and US, is expected to be signed in a discreet ceremony in Washington in the next few weeks. It does not have to be debated or voted on in parliament. Though the agreement is incorporated in US law, it has no legal status in Britain.
A document prepared for a visit by a senior American nuclear official to the Aldermaston atomic weapons establishment (AWE) refers to “enhanced collaboration” on “nuclear explosive package design and certification”, on “maintenance of existing stockpiles”, and the “possible development of safer, more secure, warheads”.The partially censored document refers to a letter Tony Blair wrote to George Bush in 2006 asking for US help in maintaining Britain’s “nuclear delivery system” and the white paper of the same year, which gave the green light for replacing the existing fleet of Trident nuclear missile submarines.
One document describes the MDA as an agreement that enables Britain and the US “nuclear warhead communities to collaborate on all aspects of nuclear deterrence including nuclear warhead design and manufacture”.
A briefing paper drawn up for ministers and Ministry of Defence officials argues that physical “movements under the MDA do not involve nuclear weapons or devices” and therefore the agreement does not contravene the letter of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT).
Most of the documents now released were drawn up at the time of the last renewal of the MDA in 2004. They make it clear Whitehall did not welcome a debate in parliament about the mutual defence pact……
Peter Burt of Nuclear Information Service, who obtained the papers, told the Guardian: “The UK and US are setting a dreadful example to the rest of the world by renewing the MDA, and are seriously undermining the credibility of international efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.”
He added: “If Iran and North Korea had signed a similar agreement for the transfer of nuclear weapons technology, the UK and US would be branding them pariah nations and screaming for the toughest of international sanctions to be imposed.”
Renewing the MDA showed the “worst kind of two-faced hypocrisy” and demonstrated that neither nation was serious about meeting its legal obligations under the NPT, Burt said.
nuclear-news 