nuclear-news

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

Opposition to new small nuclear power plants in south Wales

There are plans for four “micro” nuclear reactors in the Llynfi Valley, Bridgend.

WalesLOnline, By Lewis Smith, Local Democracy Reporter, 21 FEB 2025Green Party members in Bridgend have said they are opposed to plans for a nuclear power plant project in the Llynfi Valley describing it as “unnecessary, unwanted and unsafe”.

The multi-million proposals could eventually see the creation of a facility with four micro modular nuclear power plants on the site of the former coal-powered Llynfi Power Station, if given the go-ahead……………

 the Bridgend branch of the Green Party have now issued a statement opposing the potential power station, raising concerns over safety with what they say is an “untested” design planned for the site.

……………… Part of the statement added: “This is a new design which if built will be the first of its kind. So the design is untested in the real world. Locals, including local Green Party members have several credible reasons for concern.

“The Green Party questions the need for a nuclear power plant, when Wales has the natural resources required to produce all its energy from a mixture of solar power, onshore and off-shore wind generation.”

“The risk of nuclear leaks, from the on-site nuclear waste storage is not acceptable. Who will pay for future nuclear waste storage? There is a risk that no other region of the UK will be willing to store the nuclear waste, and that this area will become a long term nuclear waste storage site. The consequences of accidental leakage and terrorist targeting has not been fully considered………………… https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/opposition-new-small-nuclear-power-31047639

February 25, 2025 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

Opposition mounts to planned nuclear plant as Starmer confirms new policy of ‘Build, baby, build’

Martin Shipton Nation Cymru 9th Feb 2025

Opposition to a proposed nuclear energy plant in Bridgend is mounting, with the local Green Party saying it is “unnecessary, unwanted and unsafe”.

But doubts about the proposal come as Keir Starmer confirmed that the UK Government intends to change the planning system to make it easier for such projects to go ahead.

An American-owned company called Last Energy intends to build the SMR (small modular reactor) plant next to the River Llynfi, just to the north of Bridgend.

The Green Party argues that If the development goes ahead, it will be funded by venture capitalists who are not likely to be citizens of Wales. The nuclear power plant will operate for profit, as a private enterprise.

Untested

A party spokesperson said: “It is based on a new design which if built will be the first of its kind. So the design is untested in the real world. Locals, including Green Party members, have several credible reasons for concern.

“The Green Party questions the need for a nuclear power plant, when Wales has the natural resources required to produce all its energy from a mixture of solar power, onshore and off-shore wind generation.

“It is true that people need secure energy supplies which can be quickly restored, and that Wales needs investment in improving the grid infrastructure. But nuclear power is not the solution to Wales’ energy needs.

“As was proved in the December 2024 storm, we desperately need improvements to our energy resilience – such as the ability to restore power after severe climate events, and this should be the focus of any energy investment.

“Do locals want a nuclear power plant in Bridgend? Last Energy has hosted two community consultations, one in Bettws and one in Pencoed. Debra Cooper, the Green Party Chair for Bridgend, attended both events and asked how the locals had been invited to these meetings, given that many were unaware that they were taking place.

“The speaker gave a vague reply that Facebook had been used, and that Last Energy had outsourced the invitations. More consultation events are planned, and we demand that Last Energy genuinely seeks to invite the community to their consultations.

“Is nuclear power safe? The risk of nuclear leaks from the onsite nuclear waste storage is not acceptable.

“Who will pay for future nuclear waste storage? There is a risk that no other region of the UK will be willing to store the nuclear waste, and that this area will become a long term nuclear waste storage site. The consequences of accidental leakage and terrorist targeting have not been fully considered.”

Nuclear waste

Brian Jones, CND Cymru Vice Chair, said: ““Last Energy, despite having never built a nuclear reactor, is proposing to build four nuclear reactors near Bridgend which, like all nuclear reactors, will produce nuclear waste which needs to be safely contained and monitored for thousands of years. Nuclear power stations have consistently cost more and taken longer to build than originally proposed.”

Tony Cooke, who leads on Wales energy policy development for the Green Party, said: “Green Party policy is clearly opposed to any new nuclear power stations. The developers haven’t actually built any to their proposed design and they don’t have a design licensed by the UK Office for Nuclear Regulation which would be required.  Their website claims more than 300 are operating globally – but this is misleading – there are more than 300 pressurised water reactors), but PWR refers to a generic ‘family’ approach to design – not a specific one.  Licensing is not likely to be quick.  (years not months)

“The developers are presumably targeting an ex coal fired power station site because it has a now unused grid connection. These are valuable, given the time lag in getting new grid connections.  The site should be prioritised for battery storage, which is needed and complements renewable generation.  Because of the small scale of the proposal it is in the powers of the local authority to reject it.  We should lobby for them to do so.”

Planning approvals

Richard Outram, secretary of the Britain / Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities group said:  “Nuclear energy can never be 100% safe and is never ‘clean’ whatever the industry claims. Last Energy has a long way to go before securing the necessary regulatory or planning approvals to begin its project by 2027. The Office for Nuclear Regulation said this was ‘very ambitious’. And Last Energy does not even appear to have any working reactors – just mock ups! Nuclear at Bridgend would be more Lost Energy – renewables are the future.”

Last Energy says it hopes the pressurised water reactors will supply power to “mid-size manufacturers throughout the region, providing 24/7 baseload power and putting the local economy on a path toward industrial decarbonisation”.

It says the project will not need taxpayer cash, with the company estimating it would be making a £300m investment, £30m of which would benefit the local economy, excluding business rates collected by Bridgend County Borough Council. It also expects to create at least 100 local full-time jobs.

Last Energy UK CEO Michael Jenner said: “Last Energy’s Llynfi project will not only transform a vacant coal site into a hub for clean energy production, it will also create economic opportunity for companies throughout South Wales.

“The benefits of nuclear power speak for themselves, so our focus must be on delivering those benefits on time and on budget. Last Energy’s emphasis on mass-manufacturability allows us to deliver significantly smaller plants in under 24 months with purely private financing.

“We look forward to engaging with the public, meeting local suppliers, and being an active partner in south Wales’ path towards energy security and industrial decarbonisation.”

Nato

In June 2024, Last Energy announced it was working with Nato to research opportunities for the future deployment of micro-nuclear power technologies at military installations.

The partnership between Last Energy and Nato Energy Security Centre of Excellence (Ensec Coe) will see the two parties research military applications for the micro-reactors and look into potential deployment.

In October 2024, independent nuclear experts told New Civil Engineer magazine that SMRs could be used to produce weapons-grade material, but various practical, legal and moral challenges made this unlikely to be done in reality.

On February 6 Prime Minister Keir Starmer pledged to “build baby build”, as he announced plans to make it easier to construct mini nuclear power stations in England and Wales.

He told the BBC the government was going to “take on the blockers” and change planning rules so new reactors could be built in more parts of the country.

Sir Keir said he wanted the country to return to being “one of the world leaders on nuclear”, helping to create thousands of highly skilled jobs and boosting economic growth. https://nation.cymru/news/opposition-mounts-to-planned-nuclear-plant-as-starmer-confirms-new-policy-of-build-baby-build/

February 12, 2025 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

CND Cymru warns against Starmer’s ‘anti-democratic’ push for mini-nuclear reactors

 Morning Star 7th Feb 2025 https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/cnd-cymru-warns-against-starmers-anti-democratic-push-mini-nuclear-reactors

CND CYMRU has blasted Sir Keir Starmer’s “anti-democratic” push to put nuclear reactors in communities without consultation.

The Prime Minister announced planning reforms this week that will see “archaic” rules slashed to allow more power plants approved across England and Wales.

Clearing a path for so-called small modular reactors (SMRs) to be built for the first time, the government said growth will be prioritised ahead of so-called Nimbys.

A set list of eight sites where mini-nuclear power stations can be included in planning rules and the expiry date on nuclear planning rules will be scrapped.

CND Cymru national secretary Dylan Lewis-Rowlands said: “If the proposals from Westminster are to be believed, then not only could plans similar to this pop up anywhere in Wales or England, but could also be pushed through against community will from the UK government.”

CND Cymru vice-chairman Brian Jones added: “This is not just a question of nuclear development, but of democracy.

“The intention of this move by Starmer seems to be something that the nuclear power and weapons industry has only dreamt of before — the ability to ignore communities wishes and focus their vast lobbying budgets on getting central government to allow them to build wherever they want, without opposition.

“It is fundamentally putting profit before people and planet, and turning Britain into a nuclear power test site for SMRs. It is, in one word, anti-democratic.”

Concerns were also raised regarding the intention of these proposals to power AI datacentres, with Mr Lewis-Rowlands warning: “The industry always try and co-opt any reason to push development and secure the lucrative government money that allows them to pay their shareholders.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer (centre) and Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary Ed Miliband (right) meet staff at the new decontamination and decommissioning lab during a visit to Springfields (Preston Lab), National Nuclear Laboratory facility in Preston, Lancashire, as the Government is pledging to create thousands of highly skilled jobs by reforming planning rules to make it easier to build new nuclear reactors. Picture date: Thursday February 6, 2025

February 12, 2025 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

Sizewell C campaigners slammed “clueless” Government

By Dominic Bareham,  East Anglian Daily Times 9th Feb 2025

Campaigners opposed to the new Sizewell C nuclear power station have slammed prime minister Sir Keir Starmer’s backing for nuclear energy as “appalling”.

On Thursday, the Labour leader pledged to “build, baby, build” as part of an effort to create thousands of highly skilled jobs and boost economic growth in the UK.

This included plans to “fast forward on nuclear” by tackling “blockers” and changing planning rules so more reactors could be built in more parts of the country.

But Jenny Kirtley, chair of action group Together Against Sizewell C (TASC), said: “Starmer’s statement is appalling, full of soundbites fuelled by the pro-nuclear lobbyists – many of whom already have their ‘snouts in the trough’ – spouted by a clueless government blaming ‘blockers’ to divert attention away from the evidence that nuclear is not cheap, quick to deploy, homegrown, nor clean.”

In response to the prime minister’s suggestion that legal actions brought by campaign groups had delayed construction projects, she said Sizewell C had not been blocked by campaigners, but by “incompetent planning”.

In particular, she highlighted locating the reactor on a “fast eroding coastline” and in the UK’s driest, most drought-prone region with “no guaranteed sustainable supply of mains water”.

Instead, she said the UK government should be looking to develop renewable energy.

She added: “With renewables, we already have technologies that are cheaper, quicker to deploy and cleaner than nuclear, yet Labour favours slow nuclear, meaning that fossil fuels will burn for longer.”……………………….. https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/24919434.sizewell-c-campaigners-slammed-clueless-government/

February 12, 2025 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

TASC urge Chief Secretary to the Treasury to cancel Sizewell C.


 Essex TV 5th Feb 2025, https://essex-tv.co.uk/tasc-urge-chief-secretary-to-the-treasury-to-cancel-sizewell-c/

Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) have written the attached letter to Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Darren Jones, urging government to cancel Sizewell C, saying TASC are “pleased to acknowledge your recent statement to Parliament affirming that you will ”undertake a zero-based review of every pound of public expenditure” as this will enable HM Treasury to carry out a full appraisal of the billions of public funds that the government are sleepwalking into committing to the Sizewell C project”

TASC claim “Sizewell C is a project progressing by stealth, spending money aggressively and at pace, with long lead items being ordered, acting, with taxpayer money, as if a final investment decision has already happened, even though without full financial backing Sizewell C will not be built. There has been no regard to the environmental cost if Sizewell C is not completed.”

TASC took the opportunity to remind Darren Jones of his statement reported in 2022[1] regarding the Sizewell C project “The review will probably conclude that the state can’t take on the capital risk of paying for the majority of the costs of Sizewell C, because private finance was not forthcoming. Nuclear is costly and risky…”

TASC concluded their letter saying, “Sizewell C, is a Boris Johnson vanity project[2] that was recklessly approved by the then Secretary of State, Kwasi Kwarteng, against the recommendation of the five expert planning inspectors”. TASC urge “HM Treasury not to throw more taxpayers’ money at this expensive, risky project that will raise energy bills during its lengthy and problematic construction and announce the cancellation of Sizewell C.”

February 11, 2025 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

Opponents of mini nuclear power station question lacklustre consultation

Greens oppose Llynfi power station plans; say Last Energy aren’t doing enough to seek local views.

  Oggy Bloggy 5th Feb 2025, by Owen Donovan, https://oggybloggyogwr.com/2025/02/opponents-of-mini-nuclear-power-station-question-lacklustre-consultation/

Although we’re still a long way away from anything official – planning-wise – groups are beginning to organise against a proposed 80MW modular “mini” nuclear power station in the Llynfi Valley.

The proposal by American start-up, Last Energy, arrived out of the blue in October 2024 and has certainly generated lots of interest, both in favour and against.

In the last few days, the Bridgend branch of the Green Party issued a statement opposing the power station.

The Greens have questioned the need for a nuclear power plant, the potential safety and waste risks and the untested technology proposed at the site.

Last Energy has been hosting public meetings in the area about the project. The Greens say that two local meetings – one held in Bettws, one in Pencoed – were poorly advertised and poorly attended. Two meetings for potential suppliers were held in Cardiff and Swansea.

Last Energy has a proposed programme of further public meetings and outreach sessions, many of which are yet to be scheduled.

The next public meeting is set to be held at Coytrahen Community Centre on Monday 17th February 2025, starting at 6:15 pm.

February 11, 2025 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

Fury over switch of possible nuclear waste dump site to village land near Louth

A previous survey revealed that 85 per cent of local residents were against the dump, which would store nuclear waste beneath up to 1,000 metres of solid rock until its radioactivity naturally decayed.

By Richard Silverwood, 3rd Feb 2025,

The bombshell news that a nuclear waste dump could now be built on greenfield land close to Louth has been greeted with dismay by campaigners and the town’s MP.

East Lincolnshire has long been identified as one of three potential locations for the dump, known as a GDF (geological disposal site).

And the government agency, Nuclear Waste Services (NWS), charged with finding a suitable area, has focused its attention on the former gas terminal site, operated by Conoco, within the coastal village of Theddlethorpe.

But now NWS has announced that it is looking inland and “beyond Theddlethorpe”. Instead, it is “prioritising” largely agricultural land to the north of the A157 road, between the villages of Gayton le Marsh and Great Carlton and south-west of Gayton Wind Farm.

A network of underground vaults and tunnels would transfer shipments of waste to a sealed storage area under the seabed which would extend 22 kilometres from the coast.

NWS insists nothing has been decided and has promised to keep all residents informed. A series of webinars and public drop-in events is already under way and will continue throughout February.

However, opponents of the dump, led by Conservative MP Victoria Atkins, are furious and are calling for a public vote on the entire scheme.

Ms Atkins said: “I have opposed the threat of a nuclear waste dump on the Lincolnshire coast since the proposal came to light several years ago.

“In that time, residents have had to live with the uncertainty, worry and financial costs of having this monstrous carbuncle threatened in their area.

“People have been left in limbo and have had their house prices severely impacted by these proposals.

“This latest news will be very distressing for the residents in and around the area. Rest assured, I will be meeting NWS in the coming week to continue to put pressure on them to move their focus away from Lincolnshire entirely………………………

The campaign group, Guardians Of The East Coast, has also lambasted the latest proposal, claiming the switch has been made because the Theddlethorpe site would not be large enough.

Chairman Mike Crookes said the fresh site would span 900 acres of agricultural land, including at least one farm. He called on Lincolnshire County Council to withdraw their apparent engagement with the dump scheme process.

“The council has expressed its outrage at agricultural land being taken for solar farms and pylons by National Grid,” Mr Crookes said.

“But it seems perfectly happy with a square mile of agricultural land being used to bury high-level nuclear waste, including weapons-grade plutonium.

“When the project was first announced, the council said it was policy to make use of ‘brownfield’ sites such as the gas terminal.

“But if it has a policy of opposing the industrial use of agricultural land, why is it apparently facilitating this project?”

Another group firmly against the nuclear waste dump is the Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA), whose secretary Richard Outram described the fresh site as “worse than the original”.

“The news will have come as a tremendous shock to the residents of Gayton le Marsh and Great Carlton, where the threat of a dump suddenly appears writ large.

“Those residents are already up in arms and, doubtless in the coming days, new protest groups will be formed to represent the people affected.

“It is important to emphasise that the decision on the final site for a GDF is still a long way off. There is still time to organise and fight back.”

Coun Travis Hesketh, who represents the ward of Withern and Theddlethorpe on East Lindsey District Council, said residents were demanding a public vote – and this year, not in 2027 as previously promised.

A previous survey revealed that 85 per cent of local residents were against the dump, which would store nuclear waste beneath up to 1,000 metres of solid rock until its radioactivity naturally decayed.

However, NWS is hoping to win people over and has set up a community partnership group to fully explain the scheme.

February 7, 2025 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Make your State a Nuclear Free Zone

Nuclear Energy Is a Recipe for Disaster

A rebirth of nuclear power is threatened in the United States. It stems from a combination of factors, including the U.S. government’s refusal to seriously address actually clean energy, the political and propaganda power of the nuclear weapons and nuclear energy industries, the poor quality of U.S. education, the sad state of corporate media, and the rise of a tech-firm oligarchy.

Click here to tell your state legislators and governor to make NY a nuclear free zone.

In the absence of actual intelligence, Amazon, Microsoft, and Google are making grand plans to use nuclear energy to power their Artificial Intelligence installations. Even the site of the most famous (even if never properly understood) U.S. nuclear disaster, Three Mile Island, is making plans for courting new disasters, despite strong local opposition.

Why is nuclear power a bad idea?

The top six reasons might be these:

1. There is no solution whatsoever to the indisputable problem of nuclear waste disposal.
2. There is no solution to the risk of more Three Mile Island- , Chernobyl- , Fukushima-like disasters — or, if there is, it has not persuaded any private insurance companies to take the risk of insuring nuclear power plants. The people of the United States will foot the bill (not to mention the cancer deaths) from the next catastrophe — whether accidental or caused by an attack (nuclear plants being prime targets for terrorism/war).

3. Nuclear energy is not “green,” but slow, dangerous, expensive, and inefficient.
4. Solar, wind, and tide energy solutions have been progressing even faster in reality than has nuclear energy in propaganda. While the solution of lower energy use has always been staring us in the face, the solution of energy that is cleaner, safer, faster, and cheaper is now well established.
5. Drone warfare has predictably spread far and wide, turning every nuclear power plant into a self-imposed nuclear weapon.
6. The nuclear energy and weapons industries rise or fall together. The energy technology is used as a stepping stone to the weapons. The energy waste is used as material for Depleted Uranium weapons. Nuclear energy powers the submarines that carry the weapons. And military contractors are working to give the world the marvelous gift of portable nuclear reactors that can be brought into war zones — in an apparent effort to win a prize for the worst idea ever.

But dozens of U.S. cities and counties are nuclear-free zones.

No nuclear weapons or energy allowed. There is no reason that U.S. states cannot take the same step.Click here to tell your state legislators and governors, that now is a time for independence and wisdom: Tell them to make NY a nuclear-free zone.


February 2, 2025 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, USA | Leave a comment

Anti-Nuclear War Activists Roll Out Counter Version of Doomsday Clock: The Peace Clock

CounterPunch News Service, January 29, 2025,  https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/01/29/anti-nuclear-war-activists-roll-out-counter-version-of-doomsday-clock-the-peace-clock/

Multiple Cities – On January 27, antiwar and anti-nuclear weapons organizations will launch The Peace Clock, a new alternative to the Doomsday Clock. The launch of this new tracking system is set to coincide with the 2025 Doomsday Clock time announcement — a metaphorical warning from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists about how close we are to destroying our world with dangerous technologies of our own making.

The Peace Clock campaign was developed after witnessing years of the Doomsday Clock’s dire warnings fall on deaf ears. Recognizing that people are not motivated to make changes when they feel hopelessness and despair, the Peace Clock aims to make clear that by implementing antiwar proposals and climate justice initiatives, we can significantly reverse course.

By providing an outline of evolving steps toward real, long-lasting peace, the Peace Clock hopes to change the conversation from doom to hope. It will track proposals that are guaranteed to bring us a respite from the growing terror, proposals, and policies that can slow down or even reverse the race towards midnight and the end of the world.

“We are at a turning point in history. It is time to change the conversation with bold new proposals. Proposals that are guaranteed to bring us a respite from the growing terror. Proposals that will bring a shift in planetary consciousness allowing us to respond cooperatively to the impending cataclysmic climate disaster down the road” explained Peace Clock organizer Alice Slater. Slater serves on the Board of World BEYOND War and is a UN NGO Representative of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

While the goal of the Doomsday Clock is to show how each year, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, disruptive technologies like artificial intelligence, war, bio-threats, and the continued climate crisis advance us closer to the world’s end, the Peace Clock is designed to keep track of actions and opportunities that can turn back time from the complete destruction of people and planet.

For more information about the campaign, please visit https://www.codepink.org/peaceclock

January 30, 2025 Posted by | opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

 Campaigners accuse government of ‘lack of transparency’ over Sizewell C value.

A campaign group has urged the NAO to review the UK government’s
spending assessment for the nuclear power project in Suffolk. A campaign
group has written to the National Audit Office (NAO) calling for a review
of the government’s value assessment for the controversial Sizewell C
nuclear power station.

Campaign group Together Against Sizewell C (TASC)
has written to the audit office calling for a review of the government’s
value-for-money assessment, which underpinned £8bn of public spending on
the nuclear power station. It claims there has been a lack of transparency
over the government’s audit of spending on the nuclear project, which
unlocked billions of pounds of subsidies before a final investment decision
(FID) has been made.

“It is worth recalling that when EDF first proposed
Sizewell C, they budgeted the costs to get to FID to be £458 million,”
the campaign group said in its latest letter to the NAO. “With a £2.5
billion spend by the previous Tory government, £5.5 billion authorised by
this government under the Devex Scheme and an estimated £700 million
invested by EDF, the cost of getting to FID is approximately 1,900% of the
original budget.”

TASC called the underbudgeting by French energy
supplier EDF “staggering”. According to its registration document in
2020, EDF had “planned to pre-finance the development up to its share of
an initial budget of £458 million”. “There has been no explanation as
to why these costs are so astronomically higher than the original estimate,
how such increases have been justified and how much more public funding is
likely to be assigned to what many observers are calling ‘Labour’s
HS2’,” it said in the letter.

 Energy Voice 8th Jan 2025 https://www.energyvoice.com/renewables-energy-transition/565210/campaigners-accuse-government-of-lack-of-transparency-over-sizewell-c-value/

January 11, 2025 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

Japan’s fishing town of Suttsu faces nuclear waste dilemma amid population decline

Residents of Suttsu worry that, despite potential economic benefits, a nuclear waste facility will harm the community and leave a legacy of radioactive waste

Jonathan Vit 29 Dec 24, https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3292482/japans-fishing-town-suttsu-faces-nuclear-waste-dilemma-amid-population-decline

It was a place Kyoko Tsuchiya could finally call home. As a child, her father was frequently transferred across Japan for his job at the national phone company. Later, as an adult, Kyoko fell in love with a man who worked for the post office. After they married, she continued to move around, rarely staying long enough in one place to truly feel at home.

Suttsu, with its unique charm, was different. This small town, nestled among scenic landscapes, is where Kyoko’s husband, Kazuyuki, grew up. Now in retirement, the couple decided to return to provide care and support for his elderly father.

Located on Hokkaido, Japan’s ruggedly beautiful northern island, the seaside fishing town hugs the windswept western coast. There, they opened a small inn called “Pension Mellow” which sits perched on a quiet hilltop overlooking the sea.

Kazuyuki could watch the fishing boats through binoculars from the kitchen window. When he spotted a friend’s boat, he would buy fresh seafood for his guests. One evening, he proudly served octopus sashimi made from a large octopus pulled from the frigid sea earlier that day.

“I was finally able to put down roots here,” Kyoko said. “I wanted a place where I could settle down and live a relaxed life. That’s how it was until 2020. Now, I don’t know …”

On Thursday, August 13, 2020, residents of this small town found themselves at the centre of a national controversy that attracted news helicopters and television crews to their usually sleepy streets.

Japan’s Nuclear Waste Management Organisation (Numo) was searching for a town willing to host a large underground facility to store the country’s nuclear waste.

However, there were stipulations: it could not be near a seismically active fault line or a volcano, could not contain valuable natural resources like coal or aquifers, and had to be within 20km (12.5 miles) of the coast for safe waste transport.

Any town meeting these requirements could volunteer to undergo studies to evaluate its suitability for the nuclear waste facility.

“In Japan, we have been using nuclear power for over half a century,” said Kenji Yamashita, a press officer with Numo. “As long as we have nuclear power plants, waste will always be produced. So, in every country, it is necessary to find a place to dispose of it.”

Japan currently sends its nuclear waste to a facility in Aomori, the prefecture just south of Hokkaido. The construction of that reprocessing and temporary storage centre has faced delays due to protests from local residents and anti-nuclear activists.

Finding a long-term storage site has been equally challenging. Some towns withdrew their interest due to local opposition before studies could start.

The study is non-binding, meaning a town can start the process without completing it. Additionally, the study is accompanied by substantial subsidies – up to 9 billion yen (US$57.6 million) paid out over the course of the investigation.

This offer was too attractive for Suttsu’s mayor, Haruo Kataoka, to ignore. Like many other towns across Japan, Suttsu has seen a dramatic population decline over the past half-century, having lost more than half of its residents since the 1970s. Nearly half of Suttsu’s population is 65 or older. The local junior school is so small that entire grades fit into a single classroom. A mere seven students make up the school’s first-grade class.

“There’s no doubt this is an ageing town,” Kazuyuki said.

Mayor Kataoka declined to speak with This Week in Asia for this story, but local residents said the six-term mayor has repeatedly tried to find new ways to revitalise the town’s shrinking economy.

Suttsu is home to a large wind energy farm – white windmills dot the landscape and are now featured on signs greeting visitors as they drive into town. It also built a modern town centre, a museum showcasing local history and an elderly care home on a bluff overlooking the town. Few projects delivered the promised financial returns for Suttsu, explained Takashi Saito, a former town council member and relative of the mayor.

“There are a lot of public buildings around town,” Saito said. “It costs a lot of money to maintain and manage them. When you pull back the lid on it, the town has a lot of debt.”

Saito explained that, although he opposes the construction of a nuclear waste facility in town, he understood the mayor’s reasons for pursuing the studies. Suttsu had changed greatly since his childhood, with empty streets and many businesses in the shopping district permanently closed.

“There’s no one walking around the town today,” Saito said. “The town feels lonely now.”

December 31, 2024 Posted by | Japan, opposition to nuclear, PERSONAL STORIES | Leave a comment

What didn’t happen in 2024 – Success on the ground and in court for the nuclear-free movement.

from Beyond Nuclear 30 Dec 24
For the anti-nuclear movement, success is often measured by what didn’t happen; what got delayed or stopped. These wins don’t necessarily make for an exciting story, but they are no less important.

When we delay, derail or prevent yet another dangerous, expensive and unnecessary nuclear project, it’s a result not only of our own persistence but also your steadfast support. A few of those “wins” in 2024 include:

Still no sign of SMRs! The much hyped and subsidized small modular reactors remain idle boasts on paper, with none built and no hope of any answering the climate crisis effectively or in time. We continue to promote the safer, faster, cheaper renewable energy alternatives.

Still no dumps in W. Texas and New Mexico! Our court battles continue as we support besieged communities in the Southwest who don’t want the country’s high-level radioactive reactor waste dumped where they live, supposedly as an “interim” measure but more likely permanently.

NRC busted on climate! License extension proceedings for currently operating reactors — out to 60 and even 80 years — have stalled as even a US Nuclear Regulatory Commission judge sided with our view that the agency is failing to consider the impact of the worsening climate crisis on a technology unsafe at any age.

There is much more to do in 2025 when we will continue to support community resistance and to face battles in court

December 30, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

Villagers oppose proposed nuclear plant in Arasinkeri

 Hindustan Times,By Coovercolly Indresh, Bengaluru, Dec 21, 2024,
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/villagers-oppose-proposed-nuclear-plant-in-arasinkeri-101734721956152.html
The residents of Arasinkeri village in Karnataka’s Koppal district have vowed not to surrender their land for the proposed establishment of a nuclear power plant near their village.

The central government’s initiative to set up a nuclear power plant in the region has caused significant apprehension among the villagers. The Department of Atomic Energy has reportedly directed local authorities to identify at least 1,200 acres of land surrounding Arasinkeri for the project. Revenue department officials have started surveying the area to locate suitable sites.

On December 13, the villagers made an official plea to Koppal deputy commissioner Nalini Atul, urging the government to abandon the project. They warned that failure to address their concerns could result in intensified protests.

“Arasinkeri is already burdened by pollution from over a hundred factories, including steel plants. Living conditions are already difficult. The majority of residents here depend on agriculture and forestry. Adding a nuclear power plant will destroy our livelihoods and pose irreversible risks to our health and the environment,” said M Veerabhadrappa, a local farmer. He is one of the 2,500 villagers who have refused to surrender their land.

The proposed site reportedly includes over 400 acres of forest land in Survey No 80 and another 100 acres in Survey No 9, areas critical to both the local community and biodiversity. Villagers fear the project will disrupt the fragile balance of their environment while threatening their safety and well-being.

On December 13, officials from NTPC (National Thermal Power Corporation) visited Koppal district and conducted an inspection in Arasinkeri village. “The project is still in its preliminary stages. If the site is approved, farmers will be provided with suitable compensation for their land. A technical team from Delhi is expected to visit soon to finalise the location,” Koppal sub-divisional magistrate Mahesh Malagati told Hindustan Times.

Despite these assurances, anxiety among villagers continues to grow. Their primary concern lies in the health risks associated with having a nuclear power plant in close proximity. They worry about potential contamination and other hazards that could affect both people and the environment.

“The government needs to understand that a nuclear power plant near a densely populated area is unacceptable,” said another villager. “We will continue to oppose this project with all our might.”

December 29, 2024 Posted by | India, opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

New generation must take up fight against nuclear weapons, Nobel laureate group says

 Young people must take up the fight for a nuclear-free world, with such
weapons many times more powerful than in the past, a representative for
this year’s Nobel Peace Prize laureate, an atomic bomb survivors’ group,
said Tuesday. Nihon Hidankyo, a grassroots movement of survivors of the
1945 nuclear bombings of Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is
campaigning for a world free of nuclear weapons using witness testimony.


The average age of Japan’s atomic bomb survivors is now 85, Terumi Tanaka,
a co-chair of the group, said when accepting the prize at a ceremony held
at Oslo City Hall attended by Norway’s King Harald, Queen Sonja and other
dignitaries.

 VOA News 10th Dec 2024 https://www.voanews.com/a/new-generation-must-take-up-fight-against-nuclear-weapons-nobel-laureate-group-says/7896005.html

December 12, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

Consultation, full disclosure, and an environmental audit: Nuclear Free Local Authorities’ triple demand of Australian government over nuke sub waste dump down under

the NFLAs have raised our fundamental objections to any siting of nuclear powered, and possibly nuclear armed, submarines at Garden Island as a violation of Australia’s legal commitments as a signatory to the Treaty of Rarotonga, which established a South Pacific nuclear free zone. The proposal will increase military tensions with China and make Rockingham a target for a counterstrike should war break out.

a White House paper states that Australia ‘has committed to managing all radioactive waste generated through its nuclear-powered submarine program, including spent nuclear fuel, in Australia’.

NFLA 22nd Nov 2024

With an international outlook and solidarity in mind, in response to a consultation by the Australian Federal Government, the UK / Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities have posted their objections to plans to station nuclear-powered subs and establish a waste dump in Western Australia.

As part of the AUKUS military pact established between Australia, the United Kingdom and United States, Australia intends to acquire a fleet of nuclear powered submarines, powered by reactors built by Rolls-Royce in Derby, as well as permitting Royal Navy and United States Navy nuclear submarines to operate from Australian naval bases.

In March 2023,the AUKUS Nuclear-Powered Submarine Pathway was announced by the three partners centred on the HMAS Stirling Naval Base on Garden Island in Western Australia’s Cockburn Sound. The Australian Government has allocated AUS $8 billion for base improvements.

Under the AUKUS ‘Force Posture Agreement’, from 2027, US Virginia Class submarines are to be stationed here, with British Astute submarines joining them on rotation in the 2030’s. Around this time, the base will also become the home port of Australia’s first nuclear powered submarines, with three and up to five Virginia Class submarines being purchased from the US (subject to Congressional approval).

The Federal Government has passed new legislation to allow for the domestic storage of nuclear waste from all these submarines, and in July after a limited consultation the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) issued a licence to the Australian Submarine Agency to prepare a nuclear waste storage site at the base. Without it, visiting United States and British nuclear-powered submarines could not undertake maintenance in Australia, so the nuclear dump is seen as essential to the pact.

The extent and nature of the waste to be stored, and for how long it would be stored, remains unclear. The Conservation Council of Western Australia (CCWA) complained to the regulatory authorities that: ‘The consultation documents provided no details about the volume of waste or how long it would be stored at the island. They also made confused and misleading claims about the types of low-level waste that would be accepted’.

Whilst regulators insist that it would be low-level waste, this claim has been refuted by critic Australian Green Senator David Shoebridge who said the Federal legislators were told in a Senate Estimates Hearing by the Australian Submarine Agency that it would include intermediate waste. It is also contradicted by a White House paper which states that Australia ‘has committed to managing all radioactive waste generated through its nuclear-powered submarine program, including spent nuclear fuel, in Australia’.

This waste would include US Virginia-class submarine reactors, which each weigh over 100 tonnes and contain over 200 kilograms of highly enriched uranium. Ian Lowe, an expert on radiation health and safety, told The Conversation in March 2023 that when the first three AUKUS submarines are at the end of their lives — 30 years from when they are commissioned — Australia will have 600 kilograms of ‘spent fuel’ and ‘potentially tonnes of irradiated material from the reactors and their protective walls’. The fuel being weapons-grade will require ‘military-scale security’.

Australian campaigners have also complained bitterly that the submarine base and the storage site are located in the wrong place.

Mia Pepper, Campaign Director at the CCWA, said that ‘Garden Island in one of the most pristine and diverse environments in the Perth region’ and that ‘This plan for both nuclear submarines and nuclear waste storage will inevitably impact access to parts of Cockburn Sound and Garden Island’.

And when responding to ARPANSA, the CCWA stated that the facility is ‘within an area of dense population’ and in the vicinity of ‘important and diverse heavy industrial facilities, including a major shipping port’. The CCWA also raised the ‘unaddressed community concerns regarding an accident’ on the site and complained about the ‘lack of transparency and rigour’ throughout the regulatory process.

Nor is there any long-term solution to storage. Garden Island would be seen as a temporary store, but it is unclear for how long. A Federal Government proposal to establish a nuclear waste dump at Kimba was resisted by local Indigenous people who launched a successful legal challenge to defeat the plan.

In its response to the consultation being conducted by the Australian Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, the NFLAs have raised our fundamental objections to any siting of nuclear powered, and possibly nuclear armed, submarines at Garden Island as a violation of Australia’s legal commitments as a signatory to the Treaty of Rarotonga, which established a South Pacific nuclear free zone. The proposal will increase military tensions with China and make Rockingham a target for a counterstrike should war break out.

We also called on the Federal Government to conduct a proper consultation and make a full disclosure of the facts, and requested that officials conduct a full environmental audit of the likely impact of the waste storage site…………………………………………. https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/consultation-full-disclosure-and-an-environmental-audit-nflas-triple-demand-of-australian-government-over-nuke-sub-waste-dump-down-under/

November 25, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »