The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Japan lifts evacuation order for city near nuclear plant


 Minamisoma is one of the most contaminated places in Fukushima. Decontamination is never permanent. Some places already have been decontaminated up to 5 times already, but the contamination always coming back gradually to the pre-decontamination levels thanks to the ruisseling rain and the wind bringing it from the forested hills where it has accumulated. Fukushima prefecture is 80% forested hills/mountains, all heavily contaminated.

The Japanese Government insists on perpetuating the decontamination lie, pushing the people to return to live in the previously evacuated areas, hammering in the media that low-radiation exposure is not harmful to health. Economic priorities prevailing above people lives.

Quoting Bo Jacobs: “This is entirely about removing legally obligated compensation. When you are forced to evacuate, the government is liable for the costs. When the government says that the radiation in your community is acceptable, then there is no more legal obligation to compensate you for living someplace that is safe. “



Tokyo: The Japanese government on Friday lifted an evacuation order for the entire city of Minamisoma, located near the disabled nuclear plant in Fukushima.

The decision, which is awaiting approval from the local council, will allow the return of 12,000 people to the municipalities included in the restricted area around the plant due to the nuclear disaster in 2011.

Minamisoma, with a population of 46,000, is located north of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, and the southern and western part of the city is still under the evacuation order, affecting around 11,700 people.

The government has decided to lift the restriction after completing the decontamination work in the residential and surrounding areas, a government spokesperson told state broadcaster NHK.

From next month onwards, Japan intends to allow evacuees to return to the Katsurao and Kawauchi villages too, which means that around 1,480 and 1,040 people will be able to return to their homes respectively.

The last municipality where the evacuation order was completely lifted was Naraha in September 2015, although the inhabitants have returned in small batches due to fear of persisting radiation, a shattered local economy and scarce availability of services.

Around 74,200 citizens throughout the Fukushima prefecture remain evacuated as a result of the earthquake and tsunami of March 11, 2011, out of which only around 4,500 have returned to the areas where the evacuation order has been lifted, according to the local government in February.


May 14, 2016 Posted by | Fukushima 2016 | , , , | Leave a comment

School to close in Fukushima as too few children able to attend


Graduates and local residents attend the last athletic meet at Iwaisawa Elementary School in Tamura, Fukushima Prefecture, on May 14.

TAMURA, Fukushima Prefecture–Despite a proud 140-year history, the Iwaisawa Elementary School here has to close–as not enough children come to classes any more due to the 2011 nuclear disaster.

The school held its last annual athletic meet on May 14. It will merge with another school after this academic year ends next March.

The school currently has 19 pupils, down from 52 before the disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

In the lead-up to the athletic meet, the school, located in the Miyakoji district of Tamura, Fukushima Prefecture, sent out about 500 invitation letters to its graduates and local residents. About 150 people turned up.

After the nuclear accident, residents in the district were forced to evacuate to other areas. Although the evacuation order was lifted in April 2014, many of them opted to stay where they were while keeping their resident registries in the district.

As of the end of April this year, 2,564 people were officially registered as residents in the district. But of that number, only 1,600 or so actually lived there.

After the nuclear accident, pupils at Iwaisawa Elementary School temporarily took classes using classrooms of a different school in central Tamura, which had been already closed. In April 2014, they returned to their original school.

But only 29 came back, compared with the pre-accident figure of 52. The number has since further declined to 19. Because of that, it was decided the school will be merged with another school next spring.

May 14, 2016 Posted by | Fukushima 2016 | , , , , | Leave a comment

Sendai Nuclear Plant Against All Odds



On May 8, 2016 already more than 3 weeks have passed since the start of the earthquakes in Kumamoto and Kumatomoto prefecture, or they are still continuing. Below are the numbers from 14 to 28 April 2016. In just 14 days 1026 earthquakes from various magnitudes.


kumamoto 14 to.jpg


The Sendai nuclear plant in Satsumasendai, Kagoshima prefecture is just 147kms southward from Kumamoto. The whole Kyushu island is earthquake prone due to a main fault.


main fault


There is also a nice very active volcano in the vicinity, Sakurajima volcano, 72 kms from the Sendai nuclear plant, that is not counting the other eight volcanos on the island.





What you think, isn’t it the perfect place to build a nuclear plant?


Des dommages énormes pour la vie à Kumamoto

May 14, 2016 Posted by | Japan | , , , | Leave a comment

Russia joins the throng desperate to sell nuclear radioactive trash to Britain

Russian-Bearflag-UKRussia’s state-owned nuclear group keen to break into UK market Rosatom understood to be hoping to revive plans to build reactors in Britain if EDF proposals for Hinkley Point C fail, Guardian, , 14 May 16,  A Russian nuclear group is hoping that the potential meltdown of French plans to build new European pressurised reactors at Hinkley Point could offer an opportunity to break into the British nuclear market.

Deeper concerns about the future of the Somerset scheme were raised by the French energy minister, Ségolène Royal, who warned of the “colossal” cost, which EDF admitted could be £18bn or even £21bn.

Recent talks have been held between state-owned Russian nuclear group Rosatom and the UK’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) despite the chilly political relations between London and Moscow over Ukraine, Moscow sources claimed.

These discussions centred on whether Russia could help Britain with removal of uranium from old reactors – but Rosatom is understood to have a wider agenda of trying to resuscitate earlier plans to build its own reactors in Britain.

“There is still an appetite to enter the UK market,” said a senior Russian nuclear industry source who claimed Rosatom’s London-based representatives still maintained contacts with the Department ofEnergy and Climate Change…….

The Russians accept that sanctions and other political considerations make it difficult for such a plan to progress, but they point out that Rosatom still supplies uranium to UK and US nuclear plants.

The NuDA confirmed that it had held a series of talks with Rosatom. “We have met with them. We are a recognised global authority and we meet with a lot of organisations,” said a spokesman……..

China wants to use Britain as a showcase for its Hualong technology and agreed to take a third share in EDF’s Hinkley scheme in return for being allowed to proceed with Chinese-owned technology at Bradwell……..

Those worries were given extra weight with Royal’s comments in an interview with the Financial Times in which she said: “I am wondering if we should go ahead with the project. The sums involved are colossal.”

And they added to fears about the future of the Somerset project earlier this week when the company’s management was pilloried by shareholders at its annual general meeting and credit agency Moody’s downgraded EDF debt.

John Sauven, Greenpeace’s executive director, said the downgrading was just “a long line of massive red flag warnings” the UK government had received over the Hinkley nuclear project. He added: “Hinkley power station must not become ‘too big to fail’ because of politicians’ egos that are too big to back down.”

May 14, 2016 Posted by | marketing, Russia, UK | Leave a comment

No one knows where the Fukushima nuclear reactor melted cores are

Reporter: Many experts now believe Fukushima’s melted fuel burned through the concrete floors and has gone down into the groundwater — “No one yet knows how deeply those 3 cores melted into the ground… No one knows where the cores are” (AUDIO) 42:00 in — Linda Moulton Howe, Regional Emmy Award-winning reporter: “Five years later now in March 2015, no one yet knows how deeply those three cores melted into the Fukushima ground.”

At 44:30 — Howe: “In the first days of the March 2011 catastrophe, [nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen] told media that Fukushima was ‘Chernobyl on Steroids’. Arnie meant that the Fukushima disaster would turn out to be much worse than the April 1986 core explosion at the Ukraine’s Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Many experts believe now that the three missing Fukushima cores have melted right through the concrete floors, and are contaminating any water that reaches them — going down, perhaps touching, the groundwater.”

At 45:30 in — Arnie Gundersen, nuclear engineer: “Scientists and engineers knew exactly where the nuclear core was at Chernobyl a year later, but at Fuksuhima we’ve got three nuclear cores that are in direct contact with groundwater. Now that mean the containment broke and water is coming in and is contaminating the groundwater — so clearly the liquid releases from Fukushima are way, way more severe than Chernobyl.”

At 57:30 in — Howe: “The concept is… when water from mountain run-off reaches the ice wall, it will freeze or flow around the frozen ground out to the Pacific Ocean without passing by the highly radioactive melted cores. But everybody says, ‘How do you know that’s going to work because no one knows where the cores are, or how deep they are in the ground right now?’”

At 1:16:45 in — Howe: “[Fukushima] is a cleanup challenge that is now expected to take decades more, into the end of the 21st century — re-enforcing what Arnie Gundersen said five years ago in that very first week, that ‘Fukushima is Chernobyl on steroids’. And so far over these five years, it appears that he has been right.”

From March 2016: Reuters: Fukushima fuel melted through containment vessels and is “spewing radiation” — Nuke Expert: Fuel has “scattered all over the place” — Gov’t: Fuel may have burned out into environment — Tepco Official: Fuel could have flowed out “like lava in a volcano” (VIDEOS)

Full broadcast available here

Coast to Coast AM – ‘Fukushima & Nuclear Issues, Mar 31, 2016 (emphasis added):

May 14, 2016 Posted by | Fukushima 2016 | 2 Comments

Indigenous residents of Yellowknif, Canada, send Terrestrial Energy nuclear salesmen packing

Protest-No!flag-canada‘Go home!’ N.W.T. residents tell Ontario nuclear power advocate, Presentation met with hostile responses Thursday night in Yellowknife By Mitch Wiles, CBC News  May 13, 2016 A Thursday evening forum in Yellowknife about bringing nuclear energy to Canada’s North quickly turned hostile, with local aboriginal people telling one presenter to “Go home!”

Robin Rickman of Oakville, Ont.-based Terrestrial Energy attempted to present a new design of a nuclear reactor to a packed room of N.W.T. residents interested in lowering the cost of energy, but he was repeatedly shouted down.

“Where are the chiefs?” yelled Dehcho region resident Roxanne Landry. “You are not welcome on Dene land!”……

Frame Lake MLA Kevin O’Reilly was at the presentation and says too many questions were left unanswered. “There are still lots of issues of what do you do with the waste,” he said. “It’s nowhere near a feasibility stage. None of these facilities have been built anywhere. I don’t know where the financing would come from. Lots of problems.”

O’Reilly said he doubted whether the project could be safely regulated.That concern was echoed by Landry. She pointed to the contaminated Giant Mine site, just outside of Yellowknife, as a hard lesson in putting too much trust in the industry or regulators……..

May 14, 2016 Posted by | Canada, opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

Renewable energy, energy efficiency cheaper options for South West England than Hinkley nuclear power

renewable-energy-pictureAlternatives to Hinkley nuClear News No 85 May 2016  If there is anywhere between 4 and 18 months before a final investment decision on Hinkley is made what alternative proposals can be promoted over that time?
The Power to Transform the South-West In April 2015, Molly Scott Cato, the Green MEP for South energy-efficiency-manWest England, published a study which showed how the South-west’s energy needs could be met with renewable energy.  The report focussed on dealing with the baseload question and the economic impact of a renewable energy transition. It concluded that the South West has the renewable energy resources to meet more than 100% of its total energy needs, including replacement of liquid fuels and electrifying railways.
The South West has the potential to generate an estimated 18,935 MWe of electrical and 12,869 MWth of thermal energy. This equates to 102.6% of total future energy needs for South West assuming a 40% powering down due to energy efficiency measures by 2050. The recommendation from the study is that 12,000 MW (12GW) of energy capacity with 24,000 MWhrs of energy storage be developed in parallel with renewable energy resources. This storage would have the ability to charge and discharge twice per day providing 48,000MWhrs of daily energy from storage yielding 40% of the regions daily energy demand. In total this represents an investment of £8,780M in grid resilience and substantial future proofing from future energy price rises for the region.
Providing the South West with renewable energy and a local smart grid with energy storage and flexibility to meet spikes and drops in demand are estimated at around £60bn compared with around £82.5bn to provide all of the South West’s energy needs with nuclear.
Intergenerational Foundation More recently a report from the Intergenerational Foundation has calculated that Britain could save up to £40bn by going for renewable alternatives that would generate the equivalent power to Hinkley over the plant’s planned lifetime
The report called “Toxic Time Capsule” by Andrew Simms  says onshore windfarms would cost £31.2bn less than Hinkley, and solar photovoltaic power £39.9bn less over 35 years to build and run. The estimate is based on both the value of subsidies paid by the taxpayer for the electricity and the cost of building the infrastructure. The analysis is based on the government’s ‘contracts for difference’ subsidy levels for the technologies and projections by Bloomberg for how the cost of wind and solar power will fall in the future.

Continue reading

May 14, 2016 Posted by | renewable, UK | Leave a comment

Sparks flew at Electricite de France’s AGM: EDF has €37 billion of debt

AREVA EDF crumblingnuClear News No 85 May 16“…….Sparks were flying at EDF’s Annual General Meeting on 12th May as EDF employees were given a chance to air their views and grill the company’s board, which remains divided on whether to go-ahead with HPC. In the run up to the meeting EDF announced that the contingency needs of HPC could increase the cost by about £3bn to £21bn.
“It’s clear that EDF’s top management and the French government are still backing the project,” Yves Marignac, director of WISE-Paris, an energy research group, said, “but neither has the means to solve all of the problems and push it forward.”
EDF has €37 billion of debt. Add to this the problems caused by the collapse of energy prices, which pushed earnings down 68% in 2015, and we are left with a company in a very precarious financial situation. EDF also needs to spend €50 billion upgrading its network of 58 ageing reactors by 2025. EDF requires a bailout so it is scrambling to sell €4 billion ($4.5 billion) of new shares and €10 billion of assets to strengthen its balance sheet. About the last thing that it needs is a new €15 billion millstone around its neck. But that is what it appears destined to get. France’s Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron, is insisting that Hinkley will be approved in September. (11) The French government is planning to sell shares in some of the country’s largest companies to pay for a €3bn aid package that will help EDF build Hinkley. Shares in Renault and Safran are likely to be sold this year, along with the airports in Nice and Lyon, in order to ensure that there will be no extra cost to taxpayers for the investments by the majoritystate owned utility group. (12) This will all take time, as will a separate, €5 billion bailout of Areva, the bankrupt developer of the EPR technology, in which EDF is expected to participate by taking a 75 per cent stake. With French presidential elections due in a year’s time, big decisions may become increasingly difficult to make, adding to the likelihood of further delay. “They are likely to postpone the decision again,” says Yves Marignac. He believes that a final decision is unlikely before the end of 2017.
Now Greenpeace and Ecotricity have warned that the European commission needs to approve further planned support from the French state. A legal opinion given to Greenpeace by three competition barristers from Monckton Chambers says plans for state help from France’s government to enable EDF to continue with the reactor scheme could break European competition rules….

May 14, 2016 Posted by | business and costs, France | 1 Comment

Reasons NOT to back Britain’s Hinkley nuclear power project

text Hinkley cancellednuClear News No 85 May 16“…… there is anywhere between 4 and 18 months to develop the argument for an alternative to building HPC.
It has been a very couple of months for the crisis-ridden project. The Stop Hinkley Campaign has listed some of the events and problems which arose between the beginning of March and midApril here:
These included, for instance Martin Young, an energy analyst at investment bank RBC Capital Markets, saying that for EDF to proceed with such a costly plan would be “verging on insanity”.
One of the highlights perhaps was a comment on DECC’s five reasons why it is backing Hinkley Point C by independent energy consultant, Mike Parr. Writing in Energy Post, Parr called the list “a mix of truth, unprovable assertions and omissions which could also be construed as lies”. The DECC statement assumes that the problem of intermittent generation plus storage will not be solved any time soon. He asks whether DECC has read the interview with Steven Holliday, CEO of National Grid, who said in September last year that “the idea of large coal-fired or nuclear power stations to be used for baseload is outdated” and we “…have the intelligence available in the system to ensure power is consumed when it’s there and not when it’s not there.”
The Stop Hinkley Campaign also published five reasons for NOT backing the new nuclear reactors here:
On 19th April the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Amber Rudd, released a letter she had sent to MPs on the energy and climate change select committee. The committee had asked what contingency plans were in place if Hinkley is delayed or cancelled. She said: “While we have every confidence the deal will go ahead, we have arrangements in place to ensure that any potential delay or cancellation to the project does not pose a risk to security of supply for the UK. I am clear that keeping the lights on is non-negotiable.”
So the lights will not go out if Hinkley is cancelled. She also said that if Hinkley is delayed there could be a risk of the UK missing its targets to cut carbon emissions, and that alternatives could cost more but would not represent a “significant increase” in cost in the short term.
Yet a report from the government’s National Infrastructure Commission in March found that “smart power – principally built around three innovations, interconnection, storage, and demand flexibility – could save consumers up to £8bn a year by 2030, help the UK meet its 2050 carbon targets, and secure the UK’s energy supply for generations.”
The Stop Hinkley Campaign pointed out that Ministers have been caught misrepresenting how close the solar industry is to being able to build subsidy-free projects (17) and refusing to extend the grace period for onshore wind farms with planning permission hit by the early closure of the Renewables Obligation (RO). (18) And yet we know that Hinkley Point C will cost around £99/MWh over 35 years at today’s prices compared with £67/MWh currently being paid to newly installed onshore wind farms for only 15 years. (19) And solar with storage and flexibility would cost roughly half the cost of Hinkley Point C over its 35 year lifetime.
Stop Hinkley Spokesperson Roy Pumfrey said: “This Government seems to make up whatever nonsense it feels like to support its nuclear ambitions. (21) Yet the reality is that scrapping Hinkley Point C and going for renewable power instead would save the UK tens of billions of pounds. (22) Now Rudd says Hinkley could be abandoned without risking power cuts. The answer is obvious – time the Government stopped depending on this failed French reactor for our electricity supplies and climate targets and got on with promoting renewables.”
Meanwhile, also on 19th April a group of EDF managers wrote to the Company’s board of directors warning they could all face legal action if the company pushes ahead with Hinkley and this leads to the “destruction of the value” at the group, its directors could be held personally responsible. (23) And EDF’s workers committee, which includes representatives from the biggest unions, voted to take legal action should the company fail to consult employees on Hinkley.
This forced EDF to delay the final investment decision until at least September. The Board of Directors has agreed to undertake discussions with the company consultative council before taking a decision.
Now plans for Hinkley have been thrown into yet more chaos, according to The Times (26) after the admission that engineers have falsified vital safety tests on parts supplied to reactors in France and possibly the UK. Power Magazine says France’s nuclear sector has been rocked to its core.
Stop Hinkley Spokesperson Roy Pumfrey said: “What little credibility France’s nuclear sector had left has now completely evaporated. Surely now an end to Hinkley Point C is inevitable. If the Government doesn’t call a halt to this soon we will become the laughing stock of Europe.”
A French state-owned factory – the Areva plant in Le Creusot, Burgundy – which has manufactured key components used in more than half of France’s 58 nuclear reactors, may have falsified safety reports on some of those components. Unverified components may also have been installed by EDF at some of the 15 reactors it owns in Britain. The falsified documents have come to light because ASN ordered Areva to carry out an audit after it detected a “very serious anomaly” in the reactor pressure vessel at Flamanville – a nuclear plant being built in Normandy which is the same model as the ones planned for Hinkley Point C. Flamanville is currently 6 years late and around €7.2bn over budget. Another reactor under construction, which is the same design, at Olkiluoto in Finland is expected to be almost 10 years late and €5.5bn over budget. Hinkley Point C was originally expected to be generating ‘in time to cook Christmas dinner in 2017’.
Stop Hinkley Spokesperson, Roy Pumfrey, said: “As Albert Einstein is thought to have said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. At the stroke of a pen David Cameron could launch projects sufficient to save or generate the same amount of electricity as Hinkley Point C which are capable of delivering long before 2025.”

May 14, 2016 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | 1 Comment

Unexpectedly, California Public Utilities Commission re-opens case of ratepayers funding Dan Onofre nuclear shutdown

text-my-money-2san-onofre-deadfPublic Utilities Commission reopens San Onofre case,  Admits they “undermined public confidence in the agency”, San Diego reader By May 9, 2016  In a surprise move, the California Public Utilities Commission today (May 9) reopened the 2014 agreement by which ratepayers got stuck with $3.3 billion of costs related to the sudden closing of the San Onofre nuclear plant. It became known as “the rape of the ratepayer” because management errors, such as those causing the San Onofre shutdown, should be charged to shareholders, not ratepayers.

The utilities regulator also banned all ex parte (one-sided) meetings with decision-makers or commissioners. As representatives of ratepayers expressed shock, past secret meetings between brass of Southern California Edison and commissioners came to light, clearly showing that the decision to plunk the burden of paying for San Onofre on ratepayers was reached through a series of clandestine, unreported meetings.

Up to now, ex parte meetings have been permitted as long as they were quickly revealed to all parties. The announcement today referred to the most infamous of those meetings — a Warsaw, Poland, huddle between former CPUC president Michael Peevey and Edison executive Stephen Pickett at which Peevey essentially sketched the strategy for fleecing ratepayers. The secret huddle was in 2013 and Edison did not report it until 2015. The commission in December noted eight such violations by Edison. This clandestine coziness “undermined public confidence in the agency,” said the commission today — a laughably euphemistic way of stating the situation…….

May 14, 2016 Posted by | business and costs, politics, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

Governments and individuals can prevent banks from investing in nuclear weapons

piggy-bank--nuke-sadGovernments are talking about divestment, and it’s something you can do too. 
If you have a bank account, find out if your bank invests in nuclear weapon producing companies. You can either look at our website and see if your bank is listed, or you can ask your bank directly. We found that a few people, asking the same bank about questionable investments, was enough to get that bank to adopt a policy preventing them from having any relationship with nuclear weapon producing companies.

Nuclear Weapons Are Scary — But We Can Do Something About Them The World Post, Susi Snyder Nuclear Disarmament Programme Manager for Pax in the Netherlands 05/13/2016  Nuclear weapons are scary. The risk of use by accident, intention or terror. The climate consequences. The fact that they are designed and built to vaporize thousands of people with the push of a button. Scary. Fortunately, there is something we can do.

We know that nuclear weapons are scary, but we must be much louder in defining them as unacceptable, as illegitimate. By following the money, we can cut it off, and while this isn’t the only thing necessary to make nuclear weapons extinct, it will help.

That’s why we made Don’t Bank on the Bomb. Because we want to do something about nuclear weapons. Investments are not neutral. Financing and investing are active choices, based on a clear assessment of a company and its plans. Any financial service delivered to a company by a financial institution or other investor gives a tacit approval of their activities. To make nuclear weapons, you need money. Governments pay for a lot of things, but the companies most heavily involved in producing key components for nuclear warheads need additional investment — from banks, pension funds, and insurance companies — to sustain the working capital they need to maintain and modernize nuclear bombs.

We can steer these companies in a new direction. We can influence their decision making, by making sure our own investments don’t go anywhere near nuclear weapon producing companies. Continue reading

May 14, 2016 Posted by | 2 WORLD, business and costs, opposition to nuclear, weapons and war | Leave a comment

How Margaret Thatcher’s nuclear dream has turned into UK’s Hinkley nightmare

text-historyflag-UKNuclear dream becoming nightmare over Hinkley Point C By WMN_MartinF  May 13, 2016 By ALLAN JEFFERY  Some dreams come true; others turn into nightmares. Hinkley Point C nuclear power station has been a dream to many politicians. Is it about to come true?


Margaret Thatcher was one of the first to dream of building Hinkley C. It was to be the second of 10 nuclear power stations she would build, to rescue the country from the menace of those socialist, coal-dependent generators, providing most of the UK’s electricity and too often holding the country to blackout ransom.

Her dream started well! At public inquiry, at Cannington in 1988/89, despite the hundreds of people and organisations arguing against the build, the inspector gave permission to build Hinkley C.

But her dream turned sour as her privatisation of the nation’s nuclear electricity production bankrupted British Nuclear Energy. The government had to bail out the privatised company. Even worse, the world’s largest nuclear accident at Chernobyl occurred, and the radioactive pollution spread over many countries in Europe. Mrs Thatcher gave up on her nuclear dream. Nuclear was too risky and dangerous and too expensive.

The dream passed to the French government. The dream was to sell all around the world hundreds of a new-generation nuclear reactors, of French design: the EPR. Areva designed the reactor and offered the first one to a group of energy hungry companies in Finland, STK.

It would be built in four years, for 3 billion euros.The dream continued well, the French government were going to build another two EPRs in France, China said they would build two, and many other countries showed interest, even the UK.The French then sold the dream to Labour’s prime minister, Tony Blair, convincing him that building the new French-designed EPR reactors would solve all the UK’s energy problems.

A new nuclear renaissance dream started, though this time there would be no long public inquiries. New national energy policy papers would make sure there would be no planning hold-ups, and allow EDF to build the first two EPR reactors at Hinkley.

There councillors were sold on the dream promises of thousands of jobs and the huge amounts of investment spent in the local economy. EDF ploughed on as quickly as it could; delays would increase costs. Local residents would not be allowed to question the dangers of nuclear power.

The councillors started to notice the environmental problems of such a gigantic building project. Lacking the power to challenge, they started to promote it as a dream for the local economy. They encouraged local firms to prepare for the good economic future, and young people a dream future in Hinkley apprenticeships.

Problems then started to occur with the building of this untried and untested new design of reactor. First at Olkiluoto in Finland and then at Flamanville in France, construction problems multiplied, causing long delays and causing costs to double and then treble. Energy companies in Italy, America and the UK pulled out from investing in this disastrous reactor. Western banks and investment funds all started to advise their clients not to invest in Hinkley C.

They realised that the costs of renewables are falling rapidly; the costs of nuclear are rising fast.The nightmare of problems for the funding of the most expensive power station on earth continued. The UK government, lacking Western private investments, reluctantly accepted that Hinkley has to be subsidised. Whether this financing arrangement is legal under European free-market rules is being strongly challenged in the courts.

EDF cannot fund its share of the building cost of Hinkley C, even though the Chinese government is providing a third of the investment building costs. The energy company has large debts and huge cost commitments of its own.Will EDF finally agree to finance the building of Hinkley C? The growing number of problems, constructional, technical, legal, environmental and financial, of building Hinkley C are beginning to change the dream into a nightmare.

The nuclear dreams of many people will turn to disaster, whatever EDF decides on the final investment decision.If the decision is yes, France could lose its national electricity generator and the French taxpayers will rue the day they tried to follow the nuclear dream.If EDF says no, the UK’s energy policy is in tatters leaving the hopes and dreams of politicians, councillors, aspiring businesses and some British trade unions regretting the day they put all their eggs into one nuclear basket, following the Hinkley C dream.

My dreams are coming true. All around the world I see rapidly growing investment into a decentralised, renewable, truly sustainable future for our children.This is article has been abbreviated. The full version can be read at  Allan Jeffery is assistant co-ordinator at Stop Hinkley

May 14, 2016 Posted by | history, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Maps show the devastation of Europe, if nuclear bomb dropped there

see-this.wayWas YOUR home at risk? Terrifying maps reveal the devastation America’s cold war nuclear arsenal would have wreaked on Europe’s largest cities [EXCELLENT PHOTOS]

Map shows what the terrible effects of nuclear fallout might look it if a bomb was to be dropped on European cities
Estimates number of fatalities and injuries in cities such as Warsaw and Berlin, for example
Other maps show result of 1,100 targets being hit simultaneously in a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia


The image of the atomic bomb and accompanying devastation in Hiroshima is seared into many people’s minds.

Now there’s a collection of maps that show what the terrible effects of nuclear fallout might look it if a similar bomb was to be dropped on cities in Europe.

The researchers used data from a declassified list of US nuclear targets compiled in 1956 in the midst of the Cold War, while a second map shows what would happen if all 1,100 of the US’ targets – across China, Europe, Russia and North Korea – were hit by nuclear bombs at once.

To use the interactive tool visit the Future of Life Institute’s website

The terrifying maps, showing a potential nuclear exchange between the US and Russia, were created by the Future of Life Institute (FLI) and

Stevens Institute of Technology researcher Alex Wellerstein, who previously created the ‘NukeMap’

The two superpowers are thought to possess 93 per cent of the world’s nuclear arsenal, with Europe potentially caught in the crossfire.

For example, it shows detonating a 1,200 kiloton (kt) bomb in the centre of Berlin would probably result in 160,830 fatalities and 1,354,400 injuries, as well as flattening iconic landmarks such as the Brandenburg Gate and the Fernsehturm.

Similarly, if France’s largest warhead – a 300kt bomb was dropped on Moskva, Russia, it would result in 611,190 fatalities and 1,861,240 injuries.

The Institute notes volatile weather could cause devastation in a neighbouring country to that of the target.

A second map depicts a fortunately unlikely scenario that would see all 1,000 targets hit by nuclear bombs between 50kt and 10,000kt in size on a certain day, showing how local weather patterns push the fallout away from its target.

A third set of maps show the impact of a bombs being dropped on three consecutive days in April this year.

The aim of the maps is to remind of the ongoing threat of nuclear weapons and whether it is a good idea for powerful countries to stockpile nukes, when others will be caught in the crossfire if they are ever used.

 Alarmingly, the FLI says today’s target list probably don’t look too different to the one compiled in the Cold War, when people feared nuclear fallout daily.

It said the US has around 1,900 nuclear warheads deployed on missiles and bombers, with thousands in reserve, which could be launched at a moment’s notice to hit targets within 30 minutes.

‘This unstable situation is extremely risky and has repeatedly come close to triggering nuclear war by accident,’ the Institute explained.

And today’s bombs would have even more catastrophic consequences than Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

The FLI said that enough bombs were dropped and a ‘nuclear winter’ sparked, most of the Earth’s seven billion people would die as winds spread soot across the sky to block the sun

May 14, 2016 Posted by | Resources -audiovicual | Leave a comment

EDF desperate for business? trying to quickly sell 6 nuclear reactors to India

AREVA EDF crumblingflag-indiaEDF to propose deal for six nuclear reactors in India by year-end  By Reuters | 12 May, 2016 PARIS: EDF will deliver a proposal to theIndian government by year’s end to build six nuclear reactors, an executive at the French utility said on Thursday, in what could be the world’s biggest nuclear deal.

EDF in January announced a preliminary agreement with Nuclear Power Corp of India LtdBSE 1.29 % to build six EPR nuclear reactors at Jaitapur in western India. …….
Ursat said EDF’s planned 18-billion-pound ($26 billion) Hinkley Point project, which he described as probably the biggest industrial project in Europe, is crucial for EDF and the French nuclear industry.

“Hinkley Point will help us continue our activities and preserve our skills base and jobs,” he said. ……..

He added that by the time Hinkley is completed, it will be time for EDF to start renewing France’s fleet of 58 reactors, which were built largely in the 1980s and 1990s and have a 40-year lifespan.

Chief Executive Jean-Bernard Levy told shareholders that EDF needs growth in international markets because European power markets are stagnant.

May 14, 2016 Posted by | France, India, politics, politics international | Leave a comment

China General Nuclear Power Corporation denies plan to take over Hinkley nuclear project build

flag-UKflag-ChinaChina nuclear company will not build Hinkley alone if EDF drops out CGN, which is helping French energy company with Hinkley Point C scheme, denies it will build reactors independently, Guardian, , 13 May 16, The Chinese company helping EDF with plans to build new nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset has flatly dismissed the idea it would go it alone if the largely state-owned French company dropped out.

“As a partner to EDF supporting the Hinkley Point project, CGN [China General Nuclear Power Corporation] has no independent plans to build reactors at Hinkley Point C,” it said in a statement.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change reiterated the message with its own statement, which said: “There is no proposal for the Chinese to build a reactor at Hinkley.”

The denials come after George Osborne’s father-in-law, Lord Howell, told the House of Lords that the Chinese were working on a “plan B” to step in if, as some expect, EDF abandons the controversial scheme…….

May 14, 2016 Posted by | China, politics, politics international, UK | Leave a comment