Europe’s Just Transition Mechanism excludes nuclear from the European Green Deal
|
Nuclear ‘excluded’ from EU’s new Just Transition Fund, By Beatriz Rios reporting from Strasbourg | EURACTIV.com, Jan 15, 2020 The EU’s regional policy Commissioner Elisa Ferreira revealed on Tuesday (14 January) details of the €100 billion Just Transition Mechanism, a key financial component of the European Green Deal that should make the bloc climate neutral by 2050.
“Nuclear energy is excluded from the Just Transition Mechanism,” Ferreira told a small group of journalists ahead of the college meeting of the European Commission that approved the proposal for the fund aimed at supporting poorer EU regions achieve climate neutrality. EU leaders agreed in December on a bloc-wide objective of reaching climate neutrality by 2050. In order to convince Hungary and the Czech Republic to sign up, they also reaffirmed the right of countries to decide on their own energy mix, including nuclear. Poland refused to sign up, saying it needed more EU funding to help phase out coal. The Just Transition Fund is intended to support regions that will be particularly affected by the changes brought by ‘greening’ the economy. Ferreira confirmed “no country or region” will be excluded but the objective is to concentrate on those areas facing the most dramatic challenges. The Commission will, therefore, take into account the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions of the industrial sector compared to the EU average and the impact in terms of employment of the transition for these industries. The relative prosperity of the country will also be considered. ……… The fund in detail The Fund will provide financial aid to countries in their work towards climate neutrality. Within a wider mechanism, the Commission aims to provide technical assistance and ease state aid rules for green investments. The fund will be based on €7.5 billion of “fresh money”, to be topped up with financing from the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund Plus, both part of the EU’s cohesion policy, but its use will be limited to a 20% of the total allocation. Ferreira admitted the money is not huge but hoped it could help leverage up to €100 billion for the period 2021-2027 in investments through the support of private investors. …….. https://www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/news/nuclear-excluded-from-eus-new-just-transition-fund/ |
|
|
The highly controversial question of how to fund UK’s nuclear build
|
Momentum Builds for UK Government to Self-Fund New Nuclear Plants https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/momentum-builds-for-uk-government-to-fund-new-nuclear-itself
The U.K. government wants new nuclear capacity. How it will be funded remains a highly contentious question. JOHN PARNELL JANUARY 15, 2020 When the U.K. government unveiled its contract for difference with EDF’s 3.2-gigawatt Hinkley Point C nuclear power station in 2012, it proudly proclaimed that the arrangement proved new nuclear did not need direct subsidy.
Since then, three other U.K. projects have been put on an indefinite pause after Hitachi and Toshiba said their respective ventures had failed to attract investors. While the 35-year contract for difference (CFD) awarded to EDF is considered generous at £92.50 ($120) per megawatt-hour, the French energy giant is on the hook for overrun costs — no small concession. A 2014 study found that of a global sample of 180 nuclear power plants, 97 percent ended up over budget. There is an acceptance in the nuclear industry and at the government level that the CFD approach won’t be used for nuclear again in the U.K. Yet all but one of the country’s 15 working reactors are going offline by 2030, and the process of replacing them is behind schedule. A new approach is needed — and quickly. Sizewell C is the next active nuclear project in the U.K. pipeline. It will be a carbon copy of EDF’s Hinkley C, offering project savings and a readymade supply chain. The plan is to switch the workforce from one site to the other. How Sizewell C will be funded, however, remains an open question. The government launched a consultation in July 2019 on a new method that could be used for Sizewell C. That process closed in October, but between Brexit and an election, there has been no response from the government since. EDF has reportedly become twitchy about the timeline, telling the government it needs to know how Sizewell C will be funded by the end of the year if it’s to have any chance of starting construction in 2022. The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy told GTM it would follow up on the consultation’s responses “in due course.” RAB: Nuclear’s next top model?The government is seeking feedback on one possible new approach for Sizewell C known as regulated asset base (RAB), which is already in use for other big infrastructure projects. The RAB model basically gives the project developer a means to recover its investment through consumer bills under the watchful gaze of a regulator — including payments during the construction phase. It’s the model used by the country’s water monopolies to pay for their infrastructure. But pipes and pumps are generally simpler and cheaper than new nuclear. The biggest RAB deal in the U.K. so far is the £13.5 billion extension of Heathrow Airport. The most conservative estimate for Sizewell C is £20 billion ($26 billion). (Its forerunner Hinkley Point C is sitting at £22 billion and counting.) Taking this approach would be a first for the energy sector and a first for RABs. An entirely new entity, within or outside current regulator Ofgem, would have to step up to monitor how funds were being recouped from bills. EDF and other nuclear developers wouldn’t be paid if projects never make it to financial close, potentially leaving them exposed to the predevelopment costs. But clarity is still needed on which entities would be exposed to various other risks, and there is danger that in the event of project costs rising, billpayers would be stuck with the tab. Another option: State-backed nuclear funding?Meanwhile, a number of respondents to the government’s consultation say the government should take another, more controversial route: stepping in to build new nuclear itself, then quickly selling completed plants to the private sector. The U.K. government celebrated the fact that it wasn’t sinking state money into Hinkley Point C when the CFD was awarded. But after all, that project is being developed by two other state-run companies, albeit ones from France and China. In its response to the government’s consultation on funding options, the independent Nuclear Energy Consulting Group called for a new nuclear Crown Corporation, a state-backed investment vehicle, to step in to build nuclear projects. “This new entity would act as an owner or funder of new [nuclear power] projects from inception to commercial operation, with project risks and benefits during development and construction remaining with [HM government],” write authors Edward Kee, Ruediger Koenig, Paul Murphy and Xavier Rollat. In an email to GTM, Edward Kee, the CEO of Nuclear Energy Consulting Group, shared the group’s reservations about the RAB model. “We have doubts that developing and implementing a nuclear power RAB framework would happen fast enough. It is also unclear that the RAB approach would deliver the needed nuclear power investment, even when put into place,” said Kee. The International Project Finance Association, whose members include the World Bank, the U.S. Treasury and many major investors, agreed that the U.K. government should consider funding nuclear projects. “An alternative structure would be for government to procure construction on the balance sheet (so that the government would own the project and pay for construction as the costs are incurred), and then look to sell the project to the private sector once operational,” the IPFA suggested in its response. Energy Systems Catapult, a not-for-profit innovation center established by the government itself, also backs using the national balance sheet to build new nuclear at the lowest cost. The potential funding pool for new nuclear in Europe shrank in December when the EU published a definitive list of what can be considered for “sustainable finance.” Nuclear power did not make the grade, and nuclear won’t be financed as part of the EU’s recently announced Green Deal. Whether financial institutions follow the EU’s lead remains to be seen. The government declined to comment on its position toward directly funding and owning new nuclear power assets. “New nuclear has an important role to play in providing reliable, low-carbon power as part of our future energy mix as we aim to eliminate our contribution to climate change by 2050,” a spokesperson said. “However, we are clear that any energy project must offer value for money for consumers.” Does the U.K. need new nuclear at all?Other influential groups remain open or even supportive of the RAB model for funding new nuclear. The union Unite is receptive to a RAB framework but began its own response by saying it “favors a policy of state ownership of the energy sector.” The union also warned against letting what it views as inevitable cost overruns be passed on to energy-intensive consumers, which might then take their operations and jobs elsewhere. Trade body EnergyUK said it supports the development of an RAB model but added that it views a levy on consumer bills as a more regressive approach to funding than using general taxation. At the same time, other groups are questioning the government’s commitment to new nuclear. Citizens Advice, the powerful consumer watchdog, said it does not believe RAB would deliver good value. The union Unite is receptive to a RAB framework but began its own response by saying it “favors a policy of state ownership of the energy sector.” The union also warned against letting what it views as inevitable cost overruns be passed on to energy-intensive consumers, which might then take their operations and jobs elsewhere. Trade body EnergyUK said it supports the development of an RAB model but added that it views a levy on consumer bills as a more regressive approach to funding than using general taxation. At the same time, other groups are questioning the government’s commitment to new nuclear. Citizens Advice, the powerful consumer watchdog, said it does not believe RAB would deliver good value. “Several of the government’s own advisors, including both the Committee on Climate Change and the National Infrastructure Commission, are less definitive on the case for new nuclear than it is,” the group states in its response to the consultation. “If new nuclear is an option rather than a necessity, its economics come more sharply into play, and they are challenging when compared to a range of other low-carbon options.” Citizens Advice said it wants to see a detailed business case for new nuclear prior to any contracts being signed. It claims the value-for-money assessment on Hinkley C was published after the deal was legally binding and was only three pages long. The group also pointed out the elephant in the room: Brexit. To date, the investor pool for new U.K. nuclear has been largely populated by firms backed by foreign governments, including those that we may need to strike trade deals with in the coming years, meaning that there are political as well as economic considerations at play,” it wrote. “These factors would make it extremely hard for any regulator to take any steps that might result in the abandonment of a new nuclear project, even if costs were to escalate significantly. This would dilute their ability to act in consumers’ best interests.” |
|
The injustice of the prosecution of Julian Assange
The international witch-hunt of Julian Assange, World Socialist Website, Eric London and Thomas Scripps, 14 January 2020 The prosecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at London’s Westminster Magistrates Court is a travesty of justice that will forever stain the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Sweden and Ecuador, as well as all the individuals involved.Appearing alongside Assange in court Monday morning, Assange’s attorneys revealed that they had been given only two hours to meet with their client at Belmarsh prison to review what lawyer Gareth Peirce called “volumes” worth of evidence.
Expressing the practiced cynicism of British class justice, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser said this was “not an unreasonable position,” citing a lack of space in the prison interview room. With the bang of her gavel, Baraitser sent Assange back to his dungeon at Belmarsh, where he awaits his February extradition hearing under conditions UN Rapporteur Nils Meltzer has called “torture.”
At this stage in the near decade-long international witch-hunt of Assange, nobody should be surprised by such shameless lawlessness on the part of the world’s most powerful governments. Ever since Swedish, British and American prosecutors conspired in 2010 to issue a warrant for Assange’s arrest in connection with an investigation into bogus sexual misconduct allegations, these “advanced democracies” have trampled on their own laws and traditions, subjecting the journalist to a pseudo-legal process that would have been deemed unfair even by the standards of the Middle Ages.
Monday’s mockery of justice is an escalation of the attack on Assange’s right to counsel. It takes place after the Spanish newspaper El País published a detailed account of how a security firm, UC Global, secretly spied on Assange’s privileged discussions with his lawyers and fed the illegally obtained surveillance to the CIA. UC Global also shared footage from cameras it installed throughout the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where Assange was forced to seek refuge from 2012 to 2019 to avoid US extradition. El País’ reporting showed that UC Global recorded every word Assange spoke and live-streamed these conversations to the CIA.
o 2019 to avoid US extradition. El País’ reporting showed that UC Global recorded every word Assange spoke and live-streamed these conversations to the CIA.
Despite the support of a criminally compliant media, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the US and British governments to downplay the profoundly anti-democratic precedents they intend to set through the Assange prosecution.
In an opinion article published Monday in the Hill, titled “Will alleged CIA misbehavior set Julian Assange free?” American attorney James Goodale wrote a scathing attack on the CIA’s spying on Assange’s privileged attorney-client communications.
Goodale is among the most prominent and well respected attorneys in the US, best known for representing the New York Times when the newspaper was sued by the Nixon administration for publishing the Pentagon Papers in 1971. The Pentagon Papers were leaked by RAND Corporation analyst Daniel Ellsberg, who has also called for the release of Assange and whistleblower Chelsea Manning.
The Pentagon Papers revealed how the US government for years lied to the public in expanding the Vietnam War, which led to the deaths of 55,000 US soldiers and 3 million Vietnamese people. Their publication triggered an explosion of public anger and fueled anti-war protests.
Goodale wrote: “Can anything be more offensive to a ‘sense of justice’ than an unlimited surveillance, particularly of lawyer-client conversations, livestreamed to the opposing party in a criminal case? The alleged streaming unmasked the strategy of Assange’s lawyers, giving the government an advantage that is impossible to remove. Short of dismissing Assange’s indictment with prejudice, the government will always have an advantage that can never be matched by the defense.”
Goodale explained that “the Daniel Ellsberg case may be instructive.”
Ellsberg, like Assange, was prosecuted under the Espionage Act for leaking documents to the Times and the Washington Post. During the trial, Nixon’s “plumbers” broke into the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist and wiretapped his phone. In that case, Judge William Matthew Byrne ruled that the surveillance had “incurably infected the prosecution” and dismissed the charges, setting Ellsberg free.
Goodale wrote that “for similar reasons, the case against Assange should be dismissed.”……https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/01/14/pers-j14.html
Climate change increases the risk of wildfires confirms new review
Climate change increases the risk of wildfires confirms new review https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200114074046.htm, January 14, 2020, Source: University of East Anglia
- Summary:
- Human-induced climate change promotes the conditions on which wildfires depend, increasing their likelihood — according to a review of research on global climate change and wildfire risk.
-
In light of the Australian fires, scientists from the University of East Anglia (UEA), Met Office Hadley Centre, University of Exeter and Imperial College London have conducted a Rapid Response Review of 57 peer-reviewed papers published since the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report in 2013.
All the studies show links between climate change and increased frequency or severity of fire weather — periods with a high fire risk due to a combination of high temperatures, low humidity, low rainfall and often high winds — though some note anomalies in a few regions.
Rising global temperatures, more frequent heatwaves and associated droughts in some regions increase the likelihood of wildfires by stimulating hot and dry conditions, promoting fire weather, which can be used as an overall measure of the impact of climate change on the risk of fires occurring Observational data shows that fire weather seasons have lengthened across approximately 25 per cent of the Earth’s vegetated surface, resulting in about a 20 per cent increase in global mean length of the fire weather season.
The literature review was carried out using the new ScienceBrief.org online platform, set up by UEA and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. ScienceBrief is written by scientists and aims to share scientific insights with the world and keep up with science, by making sense of peer-reviewed publications in a rapid and transparent way.
- Dr Matthew Jones, Senior Research Associate at UEA’s Tyndall Centre and lead author of the review, said: “Overall, the 57 papers reviewed clearly show human-induced warming has already led to a global increase in the frequency and severity of fire weather, increasing the risks of wildfire.
“This has been seen in many regions, including the western US and Canada, southern Europe, Scandinavia and Amazonia. Human-induced warming is also increasing fire risks in other regions, including Siberia and Australia.
“However, there is also evidence that humans have significant potential to control how this fire risk translates into fire activity, in particular through land management decisions and ignition sources.”
At the global scale, burned area has decreased in recent decades, largely due to clearing of savannahs for agriculture and increased fire suppression. In contrast, burned area has increased in closed-canopy forests, likely in response to the dual pressures of climate change and forest degradation.
Co-author Professor Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts Research at the Met Office Hadley Centre and University of Exeter, said: “Fire weather does occur naturally but is becoming more severe and widespread due to climate change. Limiting global warming to well below 2?C would help avoid further increases in the risk of extreme fire weather.”
Professor Iain Colin Prentice, Chair of Biosphere and Climate Impacts and Director of the Leverhulme Centre for Wildfires, Environment and Society, Imperial College London, added: “Wildfires can’t be prevented, and the risks are increasing because of climate change. This makes it urgent to consider ways of reducing the risks to people. Land planning should take the increasing risk in fire weather into account.”
Further information: https://sciencebrief.org/topics/climate-change-science/wildfires
Over 32,000 potassium iodide pills ordered in 2 days after Pickering nuclear power plant alert error
|
Typically, between 100 and 200 orders are placed per month, CBC News · January 15 Tens of thousands of people have placed orders for free potassium iodide pills in the days following a false alert from the province about an incident at a nuclear plant in Pickering, Ont. Sunday’s alert, which was sent to mobile phones across Ontario, shocked those within a 10-kilometre radius of the Durham Region plant and even those living farther away. About an hour after the 7:24 a.m. ET alert, Ontario Power Generation (OPG), the plant’s operator, tweeted without explanation that the warning “was sent in error.” The Ontario government also later acknowledged the mistake, blaming human error, and issued an apology. Although the mistake left some people fuming, others stepped up their planning for a real emergency. Between Sunday morning and Monday afternoon, 32,388 orders were placed for potassium iodide tablets through Durham Region’s Prepare To Be Safe website, which is jointly managed by the City of Toronto and OPG. Typically, OPG says, between 100 and 200 orders are placed per month. ……https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/potassium-iodide-pills-nuclear-power-plant-pickering-1.5426044 |
|
The world is planning next step for renewables, while Australia looks backwards — RenewEconomy
It is an avoidable tragedy that the only presence Australia had at the world congress on renewables was as a harbinger of the planet’s worst case scenarios. The post The world is planning next step for renewables, while Australia looks backwards appeared first on RenewEconomy.
via The world is planning next step for renewables, while Australia looks backwards — RenewEconomy
European Parliament endorses $1.6 trillion investment plan for Green New Deal — RenewEconomy
EU parliament endorses €1 trillion investment plan to accelerate efforts to decarbonise economy and support a just transition to a zero carbon economy. The post European Parliament endorses $1.6 trillion investment plan for Green New Deal appeared first on RenewEconomy.
via European Parliament endorses $1.6 trillion investment plan for Green New Deal — RenewEconomy
1 This Month.
5 January -Webinar-What is Trump’s Golden Dome?
REGISTER AT Massachusetts Peace Action Education
New book – https://www.amazon.com/dp/1923372157?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- December 2025 (301)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
- January 2025 (250)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 