Sweden’s Non Government Organisations want the government to reject nuclear repositary plans, on safety grounds
The new Minister of Climate and Environment Annika Strandhäll at a press
conference on December 8 presented a timetable for a decision on the
planned repository for spent nuclear fuel in Forsmark, and a decision on
the extension of the current repository for short-lived radioactive waste
(SFR 2).
The nuclear fuel repository decision will be taken on January 27,
2022, and the SFR 2 decision already on December 22. The Swedish Society
for Nature Conservation, the Swedish Friends of the Earth and the Swedish
NGO Office for Nuclear Waste Review (MKG) want the government to say no to
both repositories.
The organisations are of the opinion that it has still
not been shown that the spent nuclear fuel repository is safe enough and
believe that the LOT experiment can, if necessary, be used to develop more
knowledge about copper as a canister material before a decision is made.
If the government intends to say yes to the start of construction repository,
the decision should follow the Swedish Council for Nuclear Waste’s proposal
to condition an approval to more research and that a separate decision
under the Environmental Code be given separately to start operation when
that time.
MKG 8th Dec 2021
Protesters denounce French push to label nuclear as sustainable energy
Protesters denounce French push to label nuclear as sustainable energyReuters PARIS, Dec 14 (Reuters) – Demonstrators unfurled a banner declaring “Gas & nuclear are not green” outside France’s foreign ministry on Tuesday in protest at a government drive to label nuclear energy and fossil gas as sectors for climate-friendly investment……………
Protesters denounce French push to label nuclear as sustainable energy, Reuters PARIS, Dec 14 (Reuters) – Demonstrators unfurled a banner declaring “Gas & nuclear are not green” outside France’s foreign ministry on Tuesday in protest at a government drive to label nuclear energy and fossil gas as sectors for climate-friendly investment……………
The European Union is preparing a rulebook on climate friendly investments, which from next year will define which activities can be labelled as green in sectors including transport and buildings.
The EU’s aim is to restrict the green investment label to climate-friendly activities, steer cash into low-carbon projects and stop companies or investors making unsubstantiated environmental claims.
The French government hopes that having the sustainable energy label could boost France’s struggling nuclear energy industry, which was bailed out by the state in 2017 following construction delays and cost overruns.
“By taking the lead of the toxic alliance between fossil gas and nuclear (energy) at a European level, Emmanuel Macron clearly sides with the polluters’ camp. Nuclear is not a green energy: it produces radioactive waste that piles up across the country”, said Nicolas Nace, a member of environmentalist group Greenpeace.
Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said last month that one of the priorities of France’s six-month EU presidency, starting on Jan. 1, would be to include nuclear power in Europe’s sustainable finance taxonomy.
Some EU countries, including Germany, do not agree with this policy.
France generates about three quarters of its electricity in nuclear reactors operated by state-owned utility EDF. https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/protesters-denounce-french-push-label-nuclear-sustainable-energy-2021-12-14/
Prominent Indian activist Medha Patkar urges Tamil Nadu’s Chief Minister to close down Kudankulam nuclear power station.
Medha Patkar urges Stalin to close nuclear plant at Kudankulam https://www.dtnext.in/News/TamilNadu/2021/12/14043718/1333730/Medha-Patkar-urges-Stalin-to-close-nuclear-plant-at-.vpf
Dec 14,2021 Noted activist Medha Patkar met Chief Minister M. K. Stalin in Chennai on Monday and urged him to shut down the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant
Chennai: “Radiation causes serious impact on human beings as well as aquatic species, and when there are over four nuclear plants (at Koodankulam nuclear plants) close to the sea, it is even more destructive,” said social activist Medha Patkar, while discussing environmental issues in Tamil Nadu, at Chennai press club on Monday.
Even as the opposition to the two units of nuclear power plants was continuing, they have started the construction of 3, 4, 5 and 6 units. In this situation, they are planning to begin the seventh and eighth unit and reprocessing plant said the national convener of the National Alliance of People’s Movement.Chennai: “Radiation causes serious impact on human beings as well as aquatic species, and when there are over four nuclear plants (at Koodankulam nuclear plants) close to the sea, it is even more destructive,” said social activist Medha Patkar, while discussing environmental issues in Tamil Nadu, at Chennai press club on Monday.
Even as the opposition to the two units of nuclear power plants was continuing, they have started the construction of 3, 4, 5 and 6 units. In this situation, they are planning to begin the seventh and eighth unit and reprocessing plant said the national convener of the National Alliance of People’s Movement.
Opposition to small nuclear reactor project for Oyster Creek
Small Nuclear Reactor Might Be Built At Oyster Creek, Jersey Shore Online, 10 Dec,
”……………….Janet Tauro, who serves as New Jersey Board Chair of Clean Water Action, told The Southern Ocean Times that her organization was not in favor of the idea. “The last thing we need is another nuclear reactor at a site that has millions of gallons of waste material still in their fuel pool.”
She expressed concerns of where Oyster Creek’s current nuclear waste would end up, noting that Holtec’s application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a consolidated interim storage facility that would be based in New Mexico has not been approved and is facing resistance by residents and officials of that state.
“Nothing is happening any time soon – if at all – and we don’t want to saddle other people with other state’s nuclear waste.” She noted spent nuclear fuel rods on site at Oyster Creek must be removed from their storage casks every 20 years and put into new containers.
“This is a bad idea. Ocean County shouldn’t be a test case for unproven technology. Oyster Creek is the first nuclear power plant that Holtec has decommissioned. It is needless to expose Ocean County to that risk. Spent fuel rods should be nowhere near another nuclear reactor,” she added.
Nuns against nuclear weapons
Nuns against nuclear weapons – Plowshares protesters have fought for disarmament for over 40 years, going to prison for peace, https://theconversation.com/nuns-against-nuclear-weapons-plowshares-protesters-have-fought-for-disarmament-for-over-40-years-going-to-prison-for-peace-169918December 9, 2021 Carole Sargent Carole Sargent is a Friend of The Conversation. Literary Historian, Georgetown University In July 2012 Sister Megan Rice, an 82-year-old Catholic nun, and two men walked past multiple broken security cameras and into the heart of a high-security nuclear complex. Y-12 in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, was the birthplace of the atomic bomb and now stores enriched uranium for nuclear warheads. Although thanked by Congress for exposing astoundingly lax contractor security, the three were also convicted and served two years in prison.
Rice, who died in October 2021, was part of a protest tradition called Plowshares. Since 1980, there have been over 100 Plowshares actions in the U.S., the U.K. and Europe. The name comes from the books of Isaiah and Micah in the Bible: “They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” Isaiah and Micah are accepted as Scripture by Christians, Jews and Muslims.
Civil resistance, not disobedience
Rice’s journey with Plowshares began when she retired after four decades teaching science and math in schools founded in Nigeria by her religious order, the Society of the Holy Child Jesus. At Baltimore’s Jonah House, a faith-based activist peace community, she met Sister Anne Montgomery, a Society of the Sacred Heart nun and the daughter of a prominent World War II naval commander. Montgomery became Rice’s Plowshares mentor.
Montgomery helped develop Plowshares’ legal strategies, such as attempting to put nuclear weapons on trial. This means explaining to juries that nukes have been internationally illegal since the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and even its 1968 predecessor – and also how their use violates the Geneva Conventions and other binding treaties.
When testifying, these nuns do not describe their actions as “civil disobedience,” because that would mean they did something illegal. Instead, they prefer “civil resistance,” which Montgomery called “divine obedience” to higher principles of peace.
One of Plowshares’ most effective strategies is to represent themselves in court, known as pro se, which in Latin means “for oneself.” It allows protesters, including these nuns, to discuss humanitarian law, the necessity defense – meaning you broke a small law to stop a large crime – and the U.S. 1996 War Crimes Act. Lawyers cannot discuss these issues because judges limit cases to mere trespassing or property damage. Using pro se, activists speak freely in ways that might get a real lawyer professionally reprimanded. Lawyers often do, however, stand by as advisers.
Sabotage charges
Rice wasn’t the first nun to be convicted of sabotage. Ten years earlier, Dominican Sister Ardeth Platte, who inspired the nun character on the popular Netflix prison series “Orange is the New Black,” went to prison in Danbury, Connecticut, on the same charge. Platte (pronounced Platty) spent her retirement years engaging in Plowshares and other protests at weapons sites.
In 2002, along with fellow Dominican nuns, Sister Carol Gilbert and Sister Jackie Hudson, Platte breached an intercontinental ballistic missile facility in Colorado. The three poured blood in the shape of a cross to remember victims of war. Then they rapped on the blast lid with a household hammer. The small hammers do not damage such massive weapons in any significant way. The three were accused of preventing the United States from attacking its enemies or defending itself, which is the definition of sabotage.
Just like Rice’s group and many other Plowshares activists, the three nuns carried rosaries, Bibles and other objects in small black bags. Explosives experts, however, thought they might have bombs. Attack helicopters swooped in as they sang and prayed. Police pointed semiautomatic rifles at them and shut down a nearby highway. This was an unusual reaction, since Plowshares protesters are usually stopped and arrested with far less fanfare, and it may be why the prosecutors won a sabotage conviction.
Rice’s prosecutors brought up Platte’s case during her trial, in which she and her companions were also convicted of sabotage. However, two years later an appeals court overturned it, admonishing that “no rational jury could find” they actually injured the national defense.
Just like Rice’s group and many other Plowshares activists, the three nuns carried rosaries, Bibles and other objects in small black bags. Explosives experts, however, thought they might have bombs. Attack helicopters swooped in as they sang and prayed. Police pointed semiautomatic rifles at them and shut down a nearby highway. This was an unusual reaction, since Plowshares protesters are usually stopped and arrested with far less fanfare, and it may be why the prosecutors won a sabotage conviction.
Rice’s prosecutors brought up Platte’s case during her trial, in which she and her companions were also convicted of sabotage. However, two years later an appeals court overturned it, admonishing that “no rational jury could find” they actually injured the national defense.
Taiwanese Group walks for 30 hours to protest nuclear power
SYMBOLIC MARCH: The demonstrators represented the number of boroughs that would be evacuated if there were a disaster at the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant
- By Yang Mian-chieh / Staff reporter, with CNA A group of 21 people demonstrating against nuclear power completed their march in Taipei yesterday after beginning it in New Taipei City’s Gongliao District (貢寮) the day before.
They were joined by supporters as they reached their destination on Ketagalan Boulevard in front of the Presidential Office Building after nearly 30 hours of walking.
Organized by the National Nuclear Abolition Action Platform, the event was aimed at encouraging people to vote “no” in a referendum on Dec. 18 that asks whether the government should restart construction on the mothballed Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in Gongliao District.
The 21 demonstrators represented the 21 boroughs within an 8km radius of the power plant that would be required to evacuate in the event of a nuclear disaster: 11 boroughs in Gongliao District, eight in New Taipei City’s Shuangsi District (雙溪) and two in Yilan County’s Toucheng Township (頭城), the National Nuclear Abolition Action Platform said.
Separately yesterday, a group rallied in front of the Legislative Yuan in Taipei, urging people to vote “yes” for the referendum question on whether a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal project should be relocated to protect algal reefs off Taoyuan’s Guanyin District (觀音).
They called for the government to review the nation’s energy policy rather than resort to “emotionally blackmailing the public with fears of a power shortage.”
Environmentalists have said that the algal reef took at least 5,000 years to form and is the largest of its kind in the world.
It also has rich biodiversity, and is home to the endangered coral species Polycyathus chaishanensis and hammerhead sharks that are listed on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species, they said…….
…….. The Democratic Progressive Party has launched a promotional campaign urging people to vote “no” on all four items,…. https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2021/12/06/2003769106
Protest against plan for nuclear waste dump in West Cumbria, close to National Park
NEW NUCLEAR DUMP FOR HIGHER ACTIVITY WASTES AT DRIGG LOW LEVEL WASTE REPOSITORY? NIREX REBRANDED? From Lakes Against Nuclear Dump to the Lake District National Park Authority. 28 Nov 21, A letter of alarm regarding plans for an Intermediate Level Nuclear Waste Dump for the UK’s Low Level Waste Repository at the village of Drigg. The UKs LLWR is 250 metres from the National Park Boundary at the nearest point. The following letter has been sent to local and national media and mainstream NGOs have been alerted.
Dear Member of the Lake District National Park Authority,
Congratulations on the 70th anniversary of the Lake District National Park. In the original Lake Counties is another 70th anniversary. The Windscale Piles. Which from 1951 produced plutonium for Britain to make its own atomic and hydrogen bombs until the Windscale Fire of 1957. Unfortunately lessons were not learnt. The nuclear experiment continues despite no final solution to the problem of what to do with the escalating wastes from 70 years of military and civil nuclear reactors. Our own view as a nuclear safety group is that the wastes should not be buried out of sight and out of mind but should be closely monitored and repackaged when necessary.
NIREX REBORN AT DRIGG? – Intermediate Level Nuclear Wastes for Burial approximately 250 metres from the National Park?
We have been alerted by locals in the Drigg area to a plan which is running in tandem with that for a deep Geological Disposal Facility which Government say: “will be available to receive the first waste in the 2040s” However the plan for Near Surface Disposal (10s of metres below ground) “could be available within the next 10 years.” This plan, for which the Low Level Radioactive Waste Repository at Drigg is under active consideration, is for the disposal/dumping of Intermediate Level Wastes of the type that were rejected by the NIREX inquiry for deep GDF disposal at Longlands Farm, Gosforth in 1997. Exploratory boreholes have already been drilled at Drigg for the Near Surface Disposal of Intermediate Level Nuclear Wastes, presumably under “permitted development.”
Just like the early days of the Windscale Piles this plan has been put in motion under the radar of public attention. There has not been any debate or vote at Local, Borough or County Council level nor, we assume, any discussion by the Lake District National Park despite the Low Level Waste Repository being only 250 metres from the Lake District National Park boundary. Intermediate Level Nuclear Wastes, according to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, “exceeds the upper boundaries for Low Level Waste but does not generate a significant amount of heat. ..The major components of ILW are nuclear reactor components, graphite from reactor cores and sludges from the treatment of radioactive liquid effluents.”
The NIREX dump entrance proposal for Intermediate Level Wastes was rejected in the 1990s because the nuclear industry had no idea how much and how fast the planned dump would leak. They still have no idea. Furthermore for a shallow dump the leaks would be even faster…………
The fundamental conclusion of the expert Assessor and myself was that the Proposed Repository Zone had been chosen for these studies in an arbitrary manner, without conforming to internationally agreed, geological criteria
Earlier in a letter to “The Guardian” of June 28,’07 the NIREX Inquiry Inspector had stated : “The relevant geology in west Cumbria is apparently now claimed to be ‘stable, although imperfect’.…the imperfection consists of simply failing to meet the internationally agreed criteria on the suitability of rocks for nuclear waste deposit. The site should be in a region of low groundwater flow, and the geology should be readily characterisable and predictable, whereas the rocks there are actually of a complex volcanic nature, with significant faulting. Also, the industry was relying on an overlying layer of sedimentary strata to dilute and disperse any groundwater leakage, when the international criteria require such a layer to act instead as a barrier…The site is not suitable and investigations should be moved elsewhere…”.
And: “The site selection process was flawed, not treating safety as the most important factor, and irrationally affected by a strong desire to locate close to Sellafield.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jun/28/nuclear.uk
The latest process to deliver a GDF (with Cumbria STILL in the frame), Radioactive Waste Management, is now in partnership with the LLWR at Drigg. These bodies along with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority are all advised by the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management which is in turn taking “invaluable” advice on construction and delivery of deep (GDF) and not so deep (NSD) dumping/disposal from West Cumbria Mining’s CEO Mark Kirkbride. Kirkbride compiled CoRWMs Annual Report No 3724 which details the push for Near Surface Disposal: “advice in the last year have been in relation to the concept of Near Surface Disposal (NSD) for intermediate level waste which is being explored by NDA as a potential solution for the disposal of specific intermediate level waste materials, reducing the volume of certain elements of the inventory into a GDF.
The Lake District National Park Authority surely cannot ignore this. If Intermediate and heat generating High Level nuclear waste is brushed under the Lake District fringes and abandoned, then the World’s Nuclear Heritage Site will soon become the World’s Nuclear Sacrifice Zone. This could happen within a decade for the Intermediate Level Wastes at Drigg. Please protect the Lake District and its fringes, tomorrow is too late to say “This Far and No Further.”
yours sincerely
Marianne Birkby
Lakes Against Nuclear Dump – a Radiation Free Lakeland campaign
https://www.lakesagainstnucleardump.com/ https://www.lakesagainstnucleardump.com/post/new-nuclear-dump-for-higher-activity-wastes-at-drigg-low-level-waste-repository-nirex-rebranded
The “brigands” regroup in Basilicata
Italians reunite in the face of a renewed radioactive waste dump threat
The “brigands” regroup in Basilicata — Beyond Nuclear International 28 Nov 21,
”………………………………………… between November 13 and 27, 2003, just weeks before we arrived. An unprecedented and dramatic 15 days of protest had unfolded in Scanzano Jonico, culminating in the defeat of a plan by the Italian government, then led by Silvio Berlusconi, to dump all of Italy’s high-level radioactive waste at a single site at Terza Cavone, a few kilometers from Scanzano, in salt rock at a site just 200 meters from the shoreline.
The dump decision had been taken at night, without local consultation, the news deliberately buried in the papers, eclipsed by a headline-garnering suicide bombing that had killed 18 Italian service members at the Nasiriyah Carabinieri barracks in Iraq during that ill-waged war.
But the Lucani noticed the announcement right away. The news struck “like a lightning bolt” Tonino Colucci of the local World Wildlife Fund chapter told me later as we walked into that surprise press conference.
Before the ink was even dry, they had set up a base camp at Terza Cavone — where we were now. They had rallied people from all walks of life to protest, occupy stations, and block highways. The whole region declared itself a nuclear-free zone. Berlusconi’s own members of parliament in the area opposed the deal. By November 23, the ranks of protesters had swelled to 100,000. After fifteen days, the radioactive waste dump was canceled.
The protest garnered widespread coverage, including in the New York Times, and even spawned academic papers, one such describing the remarkable victory as having “cut across lines of locality, age, social class and political affiliation, mobilizing the populace with various symbols, including references to brigandage, postwar struggles for land, and the Madonna of Loreto.” I wrote up my own experiences in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
Along with the expected objections — the unsuitability of the site so close to the sea; the damage to agriculture and the tourism trade —outrage was also expressed at the desecration of an area so steeped in ancient history. Pythagoras had fled to Basilicata from Greece. He made his table here. He died at Metaponto, just 16 kilometers from the proposed radioactive waste dump site. It was unthinkable to build a nuclear waste dump in such a venerable place!
So here we were at Terza Cavone having a press conference even though the victory had already been won. The site remained occupied. Passions still ran high (encapsulated later as they broke into brigand songs around what was now a roaring camp fire). There was plenty to talk about; plenty still to learn. But I learned more that night from listening — to farmers will the precious dirt of Basilicata still beneath their finger-nails; from union representatives; from mothers and vintners — than talking.
And that vigilance persists today as, once again, the Italian government has fingered Basilicata as a place “ideally suited” to a high-level radioactive waste dump. The protesters haven’t gone away, remaining on guard against just such a day when they might once again be targeted.
Only this time, Basilicata is not alone.
The news first broke in January 2021, that Sogin — the Italian state-owned company responsible for reactor decommissioning and radioactive waste management —had released a map identifying 67 potential sites in five zones that it considered suitable for a high-level radioactive waste repository. The selected sites included 17 in Basilicata and neighboring Puglia. Fifty more, in Piedmont, Tuscany-Lazio, Sardinia and Sicily, comprised the rest.
Italy’s high-level radioactive wastes are the product of just four now closed commercial reactors, one of which was already shut down when a 1987 national referendum, just a year after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, recorded a stunning vote of more than 80% of Italians opposed to the continued use of nuclear power. (With bafflingly daft timing, a 2011 Berlusconi government ran the referendum again three months after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in March. This time, 93% of Italians said they opposed a nuclear re-start.)
Italy’s radioactive waste is currently stored in about 20 temporary sites, none of which have been deemed suitable as final repositories. Reports on the inspections of the 67 sites identified by Sogin are due in December. A new shortlist of sites is expected in January 2022.
The Lucani, still organized under the mantel they established in 2003, Scanziamo le Scorie — which loosely translates as ‘we reject the wastes’ — are hoping to reignite the same momentum that brought them victory the first time. They participated in the National Seminar carried out by Sogin between September 7 and November 24 this year, and have prepared their own comments (in Italian) on the so-called criteria for suitable sites.
So far, the Sogin proposal has been met with vehement rejection. A spokesperson from Sardinia called it “an act of government arrogance, yet another outrage”. Puglia signaled its “firm and clear opposition”.
As Scanziamo le Scorie’s spokesperson, Pasquale Stigliani — who was there in 2003 — recently wrote to me, “the nightmare is back”. But, he added, “the mobilization continues!” https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2021/11/28/the-brigands-regroup-in-basilicata/
Bellona signs open letter to prevent nuclear energy and fossil gas from being labelled as green
(Signed by 129 reputable European and international organisations)
Granting nuclear and fossil gas the label of sustainability would undermine the EU’s climate targets, divert much-needed investments in the green transition and jeopardize the credibility of the entire European Green Deal. Olaf ScholzFederal Minister of Finance
and Vice Chancellor
11016 Berlin
Germany
Dear Federal Minister,
We are extremely concerned by the announcement of the European Commission’s President, Ursula von der Leyen, to likely label both nuclear energy and fossil gas as sustainable in the context of the EU’s taxonomy. According to media coverage, it was the absence of a strong German voice against nuclear in the European Council on 21/22 October that directly contributed to this decision. In your role as current finance minister and future Chancellor, we call on you to swiftly and decisively confirm the German veto against labelling nuclear as a sustainable form of energy and highlight that the Commission’s attempt to shape this discussion during the sensitive time of a new government being formed in Germany is not acceptable.
The EU taxonomy regulation is meant to provide guidelines for the necessary future-oriented investments for Europe’s economic transition. Nuclear energy, however, is unsustainable due to severe safety risks, environmental pollution and the unsolved waste problem. Fossil gas emits large quantities of climate-damaging greenhouse gases, especially methane, along its extraction and transport chain. Granting nuclear and fossil gas the label of sustainability would undermine the EU’s climate targets, divert much-needed investments in the green transition and jeopardize the credibility of the entire European Green Deal.
Dear Federal Minister, Germany has embarked upon a clear path to phase out nuclear power by the end of next year. NGOs from across Europe count on you to take an equally clear stance against nuclear energy but also fossil gas at the European level. more https://bellona.org/news/climate-change/2021-11-bellona-signs-open-letter-to-take-action-to-prevent-nuclear-energy-and-fossil-gas-from-being-labelled-as-green
These 129 reputable European and international organisations have signed up to letter opposing inclusion of nuclear and gas as being ”sustainable” and ”green”.
| France Nature Environnement, France CEE Bankwatch Network European Environmental Bureau (EEB) The Green Tank, Greece Umanotera – Slovenian Foundation for Sustainable Development, Slovenia Umweltinstitut München e.V., Germany Socio-ecological union international Climate Strategy Group Andy Gheorghiu Consulting, Germany Green Liberty, Latvia 10 BürgerBegehren Klimaschutz Bürgerbewegung Finanzwende, Germany AnsvarligFremtid, Denmark Klimabevægelsen i Danmark (350 Denmark), Denmark Naturschutzbund Deutschland e.V., Germany BirdLife Europe uranium-network.org, Germany eco-union, Spain Mouvement Ecologique (FoE-Luxembourg), Luxemburg urgewald, Germany 20 .ausgestrahlt, Germany 350.org Europe Deutscher Naturschutzring, Germany Stowarzyszenie Pracownia na rzecz Wszystkich Istot, Poland Legambiente, Italy Carbon Market Watch Health and Environment Justice Support (HEJSupport) Counter Balance ZERO – Association for the Sustainability of the Earth System, Portugal Clean Air Action Group, Hungary 30 Alofa Tuvalu, Tuvalu Réseau pour la transition énergétique CLER, France Creatura Think & Do Tank, Finland Women Against Nuclear Power, Finland Women for Peace, Finland The Alliance of the Associations Polish Green Network, Poland FMKK – The Swedish Anti Nuclear Movement, Sweden Polish Ecological Club Mazovian Branch, Poland Stowarzyszenie Ekologiczne EKO-UNIA, Poland Stowarzyszenie Ekologiczno-Kulturalne “Wspólna Ziemia”, Poland 40 Arbeitskreis Indianer Nordamerikas, Austria EuroNatur Stiftung, Germany Our Fish E3G – Third Generation Environmentalism Bioland e.V., Germany Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V., Germany Germanwatch e.V., Germany Fair Finance International National Society of Conservationists – Friends of the Earth Hungary, Hungary Nucléaire Stop Kernenergie – Belgium 50 Tegengas/Dégaze – Belgium IPPNW (International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War), German affiliate, Germany Urgenda Foundation, The Netherlands Focus Association for Sustainable Development, Slovenia Milieudefensie, The Netherlands Za Zemiata/Friends of the Earth Bulgaria, Bulgaria Fair Finance Guide, Sweden Corporate Europe Observatory Jihočeské matky, z.s., Czech Republic | WEED e.V. – World Economy, Ecology and Development, Germany 60ShareAction Global Witness Reclaim Finance, FranceFossielvrij NL, The Netherlands Bürgerinitiative “Kein Atommüll in Ahaus” e.V., GermanyThe Peace Movement of Orust, Sweden Global Nature Fund, Germany Climate Action Network International Transport & Environment NewClimate Institute gGmbH, Germany 70 Miljöringen lovisa Finland Réaction en chaîne humaine pour l’arrêt du nucléaire France Calla – Association for Preservation of the Environment, Czech republic Réseau “Sortir du nucléaire”, France BI “Stoppt Temelin”, Germany GLOBAL 2000 – Friends of the Earth Austria, Austria Suomen luonnonsuojeluliitto (Finnish Association for Nature Conservation), Finland Forum Ökologie & Papier, Germany Plattform gegen Atomgefahren Salzburg (PLAGE), Austria Gas Free Pensions, Europe 80 Réseau Action Climat France PSR / IPPNW Switzerland (Physicians for Social Respon sibility /International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War) Greenpeace Begegnungszentrum für Aktive Gewaltlosigkeit, Austria Hiilivapaa Suomi, Finland Food & Water Action Europe, Europe International Network for Sustainable Energy – Europe ReCommon, Italy Inter-Environnement Wallonie, Belgique 90 Campagna “Per il Clima Fuori dal Fossile”, Italy Movimento No TAP/SNAM Brindisi, Italy Redazione emergenzaclimatica.it, Italy BankTrack, the Netherlands TerraBlu, Italy Bellona Europa, Belgium Bellona Deutschland, Germany Forum Ambientalista O.d.V., Italy Climate Action Network, Europe Associazione Tarantola Rubra, Italy 100 Friends of the Earth, Europe Trivelle Zero Molise, Italy Environmental Coalition on Standards, Belgium Collettivo No al Fossile Civitavecchia, Italy WWF Forlì-Cesena, Italy Coordinamento ravennate Fuori dal Fossile, Italy The Swedish Anti-Nuclear Movement, Branch Gävle, Sweden NOAH Friends of the Earth Denmark Wiener Plattform Atomkraftfrei, Austria Parents For Future Vienna, Austria 110 Trivelle Zero Marche, Italy Parents for Future Gütersloh, Germany A Sud, Italy European Alliance for the Self-determination of Indigenous Peoples, Austria/France/Germany/Switzerland Mom Loves Taiwan Forum Ökologisch-Soziale Marktwirtschaft e.V., Germany WISE Netherlands atomstopp_atomkraftfrei leben!, Austria Freistädter Mütter gegen Atomgefahr, Austria Grandparents For Future Austria 120 Parents For Future Oberösterreich, Austria Frauen für den Frieden Schweiz Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND) e.V – Friends of the Earth Germany, Germany nternational Commission for the Protection of the Alps (CIPRA International), Liechtenstein Rete “Legalità per il clima”, Europe Collectif anti-nucléaire Ouest, France Fédération anti-nucléaire Bretagne, France GasExit Greenpeace, Russia 129 |
No greenwashing in Europe to save the nuclear industry!
No “greenwashing” to save nuclear power! While several states of the
European Union support atomic energy, a collective of associations
dismantles clichés on nuclear power and reminds us that in 2020, renewable
energies (excluding hydraulic) have exceeded the nuclear energy production.
Liberation 19th Nov 2021
In Wales, strong opposition to UK plan for small nuclear reactors – too slow, dangerous, super costly compared to quick cheap renewables.
Nuclear set to return to Wylfa and Trawsfynydd as Rolls-Royce secures funding for mini-reactors. Nuclear power looks set to return to Wales after Rolls-Royce secured £450m for a venture to build mini nuclear reactors. Trawsfynydd and Wylfa are understood to be two of the sites being lined up for the multi-billion pound mini-power stations.The company hopes to build five by 2031, and then another eleven in the years that follow.
The UK Government have announced that they will match a £245m investment made by a consortium made up of Rolls-Royce, BNF Resources and the US generator Exelon Generation with £210 of their own. Rolls-Royce has previously said that there was a “pretty high probability” Trawsfynydd could house the first reactor by the early 2030s.
Plans for new nuclear reactors have however already attracted opposition in Wales. Anti-nuclear groups have already criticised the plans, saying that the emphasis should be placed on green renewable energy instead. Dylan Morgan of PAWB (People Against Wylfa B) said last month: “We have an immediate crisis now. Building huge reactors at a nuclear power station take at least 15 years. “Nuclear power is slow, dangerous and extortionately expensive.
It will do nothing to address the current energy crisis, neither will it be effective to counter climate change.
“The UK and Welsh governments should divert resources and support away from wasteful and outdated nuclear power projects towards developing renewable technologies that are much cheaper and can provide faster and more sustainable solutions to the energy crisis and the challenges of climate change.”
Nation Cymru 9th Nov 2021
https://nation.cymru/news/nuclear-set-to-return-to-wylfa-and-trawsfynydd-as-rolls-royce-secures-funding-for-mini-reactors/
How Bodega Head almost ended up with a nuclear power plant – but a resistant commmunity won.
How Bodega Head almost ended up with a nuclear power plant, https://www.sonomacountygazette.com/sonoma-county-news/how-bodega-head-almost-ended-up-with-a-nuclear-power-plant/. TOM AUSTIN. November 8, 2021 Bodega Bay, and nearby Bodega, have deeper histories than most Sonoma County towns. Being a pristine, protected natural harbor will do that for you. Bodega Bay was nearly the landing spot for Sir Francis Drake, although recent finds have pretty conclusively held that Drake’s Bay in nearby Pt. Reyes is properly named. Bodega Bay was named after Juan Francisco de la Bodega y Quadra, an explorer for the Spanish Navy –except where HE landed was nearby Tomales Bay. And of course both seaside hamlets are famous for being the locale for the classic Hitchcock thriller “The Birds.”
However, the most significant happening in Bodega Bay is of much more modern vintage. In 1958, four full years before Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” ignited the modern environmental movement, PG&E was planning the world’s first commercially viable nuclear power plant. In an absolutely characteristic example of Big Power’s public instincts, they had chosen scenic Bodega Head as the location for this Atomic Age wonder. “What could go wrong?” they chirped. “Nuclear power is clean, safe and limitless!”
Of course, it wasn’t just scenic wonder at stake here. Bodega Head, as most people know, is within spitting distance of the San Andreas Fault (running along the shoreward side of the bay), and even closer to two smaller faults straddling Bodega Head itself.
The full story of the fight over the Bodega Head nuclear plant would be book-length, so please pardon my brevity here. The cast of characters are timeless: on the “pro” side: PG&E itself, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, and nuclear advocates across political spectra (at the time, nuclear was considered by many environmentalists to be less damaging than, for example, hydroelectric power from dams). On the “con” side was the whole spectrum: The Sierra Club (or at least factions within it) was concerned about the loss of a wild and scenic place: the local ranchers and fishermen were concerned about the dangers to their livelihood; the nascent New Left that started gaining steam in the early ‘60s were concerned about the antidemocratic nature of the pro-business, pro-development organizations pushing for the plant.
The fight was long, protracted and dirty. From 1958 to 1962, as opposition was just coalescing, PG&E continued planning and started building, getting a series of approvals and permits from apparently compliant state and local governments. The building for the main reactor, located on the harbor side of the Head, included a 70-foot-deep circular pit. As construction continued, the opponents were educating far and wide about the dangers of nuclear power, the earthquake danger, the thermal effects on local fisheries and more. In 1962, “Silent Spring” was published, and the environmental movement grew ever faster: musicians were performing at benefits and writing anti-nuclear songs. However, it was the earthquake danger that eventually served as the deal-breaker: UC Berkeley Conservation Editor David Pesonen, one of the leaders of the opposition, hired Geologist Pierre Saint-Amand to consult on the suitability of the proposed plant site. Saint-Amand found a “spectacular” earthquake fault slicing directly through the deep pit. His testimony that “a worse foundation condition… would be difficult to envision.” His argument was the tipping point, as political supporters started peeling away from PG&E, who at length threw in the towel and suspended construction in October 1963.
What remains at the site today is a quiet spot favored by songbirds. Rainwater filled the pit and turned it into a pond. The rest, you know: when you spot whales at the Head, or walk the trails nearby. If you venture a little bit north, you find the Kortum trail, named after local environmentalist Bill Kortum (1927-2014), one of many citizen leaders of the fight. The reverberations are still being felt today.
High time to rid Wales of plans for costly, risky Small Modular Nuclear Reactors
Leanne Wood: My column in The National two weeks ago argued for a transition away from manufacturing weapons of war to firing up our greeneconomy. Isn’t it also high time we rid Wales of the scourge of nuclear
power and redirect resources into clean, renewable energy? We have that opportunity now. Wales is a nuclear-free zone but for how much longer?
Plans to resurrect Wylfa B are effectively dead, even though some politicians continue to tout the idea. Attention has turned, instead, to the Trawsfynydd site where Rolls Royce is proposing a Small Modular Nuclear Reactor (SMNR), the latest experiment in nuclear fission technology. Except the old problems of safety and cost of storage and waste disposal haven’t gone away.
The first SMNR to be approved last year in the US was met by fierce criticism from notable scientists, including Professor MV Ramana of the University of Columbia who described the project as “risky and expensive”. Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, highlighted ‘safety gaps’ in the design. Still
the Welsh Government, with the backing of Westminster, continues with costly feasibility studies.
The National (Wales) 10th Oct 2021
https://www.thenational.wales/news/19637359.wales-needs-forget-nuclear-power-forever/
Nuclear is Not Green – campaigners from Suffolk travel to COP26
Campaigners from Suffolk have travelled to COP26 host city Glasgow to
protest over Sizewell C, which they say is not the solution to the climate
emergency. Stop Sizewell C, two Suffolk Coastal 2019 General Election
candidates and local supporters unfurled a “Nuclear is Not Green” banner in
the centre of the city.
East Anglian Daily Times 2nd Nov 2021
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/stop-sizewell-c-protest-at-cop26-in-glasgow-8458020
1 This Month
29 Jan. Thursday 7-8 p.m. Webinar – World’s Largest Nuclear Station in Port Hope, ON?
31st January – Challenging the War Machine – a DECLASSIFIED UK SUMMIT
Website of the Week
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (246)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
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 