nuclear-news

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

Climate Noise Has Obscured Nuclear Dump Cronyism and Nuclear Impacts of Coal Mine – Why Bother With Traffic Light System for Induced Earthquakes? — RADIATION FREE LAKELAND

Originally posted on Keep Cumbrian Coal in the Hole: The following letter has just been sent to the Coal Mine Planning Inspector Mr Stephen Normington following a letter from the Rt Hon Greg Hands, Minister of State for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (this Govnt department appointed the coal mine boss as “invaluable” nuclear…

Climate Noise Has Obscured Nuclear Dump Cronyism and Nuclear Impacts of Coal Mine – Why Bother With Traffic Light System for Induced Earthquakes? — RADIATION FREE LAKELAND

Excerpts –  ”……………………..should the coal mine be approved by government, then a seismic Traffic Light System at least as stringent as that for the oil and gas industry should be part of the conditions imposed.   The empirical evidence (presented by Radiation Free Lakeland at the Planning Inquiry) is unequivocal in its findings that coal mining produces earthquakes of far greater magnitude and frequency than that of fracking.  Despite this Greg Hands MP states that there will be no Traffic Light System for the coal mine.

In tandem with the absence of a seismic Traffic Light System is the outrageous allowance of 6mm/s Peak Particle Velocity as agreed by the Inquiry’s Rule 6 Parties and Developer for ground movements as a result of the deep mining proposed.   As you will be aware the PPV at which “receptors”  will make complaints is 1mm/s.

An observer of the bulk of the Planning Inquiry would have had no idea of the uniquely dangerous sense of place regarding the planned coal mine.  If this same coal mine was anywhere in the world the climate impacts would be the same.  

……….   But this coal mine is not anywhere in the world.  It is five miles from Sellafield, the worlds riskiest nuclear waste site,  under the arguably most radioactively contaminated sea in the world and directly beneath the radioactively contaminated Cumbrian Mud Patch………

 our concerns lay with the undeniable connections/cronyism between the coal mine and the proposed Geological Disposal Facility.

The Government’s refusal to consider a seismic Traffic Light System for the earthquake inducing coal mine is a case in point. 

Mark Kirkbride the CEO of West Cumbria Mining was appointed in 2019 as an “invaluable” adviser to the Government (Committee on Radioactive Waste Management) on the digging of big holes for a Geological Disposal Facility for Heat Generating Nuclear Wastes and for shallower Near Surface Disposal of Low and Intermediate Level Nuclear Wastes.   

We are painfully aware, as no doubt is government nuclear dump advisor Mark Kirkbride, that a seismic Traffic Light System for an earthquake inducing deep undersea coal mine would also impact negatively on the facilitation of an even deeper hole for a GDF. The Irish Sea area adjacent to the coal mine is in the frame for a GDF.

……..  which is far more than the sum of its (more widely reported) climate/jobs parts.   Should this coal mine go ahead the people and environment of Cumbria and the planet WILL be exposed to deep radiological, immediate and irreversible impacts that will make the more widely reported and not to be sneezed at climate impacts pale into insignificance.

The whole thing feels like a massive stitch up in which the climate issues have been used as a smoke screen to hide the nuclear impacts of this coal mine.  If Leonardo DiCaprio (of “Don’t Look Up” fame)  thinks climate campaigners have it bad he should walk a mile in the shoes of nuclear safety campaigners!  https://keepcumbriancoalinthehole.wordpress.com/2022/01/03/climate-noise-has-obscured-nuclear-dump-cronyism-and-nuclear-impacts-of-coal-mine-why-bother-with-traffic-light-system-for-induced-earthquakes/

January 4, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Britain’s National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) advises government against new nuclear power projects.

UK NIC backs alternatives to nuclear,   Renew Extra Weekly, 2 Jan 21, The UK Government asked the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) for its advice on whether an additional new nuclear plant, beyond the proposed Sizewell C project, was needed to deliver the UK’s sixth Carbon (reduction) Budget, due in 2035. In response, the NIC said no, it was not needed or viable for 2035, since new nuclear was slow to deploy. It asserted that ‘it is highly unlikely that a new large scale nuclear plant is deliverable in the next 15 years; trying and failing would jeopardise delivery of the sixth Carbon Budget’. Instead it backed renewables, hydrogen and low/negative carbon technology- which is said could be deployed faster.
It noted that ‘since 1990, nuclear projects have faced significant delays all around the world. Even just in Europe around half of all plants have faced at least a 50% delay in construction, and 1 in 4 plants have faced at least a 90% delay in construction’. So it said that ‘any nuclear project schedule estimate should be expected to take at least 50% longer than planned. If a new project began development next year and took the same amount of time as the Hinkley Point C project is expected to take to complete, it would not come online until at least the mid 2040s’. So that put it well outside the 2035 timeframe.

Small Modular/advanced reactors might be a faster option, but the NIC said ‘relying on significant capacity being deployed before 2035 would be risky’. It pointed out that ‘no SMR has gone through the Generic Design Assessment process and some developer proposals are conditional on government support to progress project development. There are no SMRs in operation in countries similar to the UK.

To fill the same capacity gap illustrated in the BEIS modelling, at least six SMRs would be needed by 2035, if not more. This would require compressing the normal delivery timeline and doing things in parallel rather than in sequence, significantly increasing the risk of delays. Delivery success will also be dependent on the capability of the developer.’

Alternatives  likely to be faster 

Instead of these nuclear options, for delivery within the timeframe to 2035, it backed ‘renewables with a combination of gas power plants with carbon capture and storage, hydrogen fired gas plants and bioenergy with carbon capture & storage’. It said ‘these alternatives are more likely to be deliverable at scale in the next 15 years’. …………………..

even without costing analysis, it said its analysis clearly demonstrated ‘that a third new nuclear plant is not necessary to reach the 2035 emissions target and that more gas CCS, hydrogen powered gas plants, and BECCS could be deployed instead. Whilst these technologies are yet to be deployed at scale, the Commission considers them to be a lower delivery risk than nuclear.’ And it claimed that its proposed alternative technology mix was supported by analysis previously conducted for the Commission and by other bodies such as National Grid ESO & the Climate Change Committee. …………………

It’s odd that the NIC plunge into CCS and Hydrogen, rather than talking about renewables more. Maybe they are taken for granted. But if, led by wind and solar, they could be expanded much faster than BEIS and NIC envisage, then maybe we could forget about fossil CCS, BECCS and also Sizewell C. That might be helped if tidal stream technology could also get going- with CfD help, it ought to be able to by 2030. Geothermal too, for heat and power. All NIC says is that, from the BEIS analysis, it’s clear that ‘significant volumes of renewables are needed to deliver a low carbon power system by 2035. This is supported by previous analysis for the Commission and others. Rapid cost reductions and short and reliable build profiles mean that renewables will be the backbone of any future GB power system’. OK, fine, but we need details & plans now for faster expansion, along with a much improved commitment to energy saving!  https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2022/01/uk-nic-backs-alternatives-to-nuclear.html

January 3, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Bitcoin miners in Kazakhstan will rely on government building new nuclear power plant

Kazakhstan bitcoin miners could use nuclear energy as gov’t might build power plant, Kazakhstan’s government is discussing a plan to build a nuclear power plant, which might boost the country’s Bitcoin (BTC) and crypto mining industries in the long run. Micky.com By Jet Encila -January 2, 2022…….. construction might take up to 10 years……..

Since September’s crackdown, an estimated 88,000 mining rigs have been smuggled across the border from China, increasing electricity demand in many places, based on multiple sources.

Not only in Central Asia, but also in the United States and Europe, the cooperation between mining and nuclear energy providers is deepening. 

In the United States, a handful of miners have already begun getting power from nuclear reactors, while in Ukraine, the national nuclear energy supplier has been collaborating with miners at Europe’s largest nuclear plants in an attempt to mitigate financial losses.
—https://micky.com.au/kazakhstan-bitcoin-miners-could-use-nuclear-energy-as-govt-might-build-power-plant/

January 3, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, Kazakhstan, politics | Leave a comment

France’s electricity consumers face curbs as EDF struggles with problems and shutdowns


French electricity consumers face curbs on their electricity supplies
following shutdowns at four of EDF’s nuclear power plant. France is
highly reliant on its nuclear power plants, obtaining around 70 per cent of
its electricity from nuclear on an annual basis.

This, along with other
various examples of nuclear unreliability, must seriously question the
British Government’s determination to plough on with its programme of new
nuclear power plant. The four nuclear plants have been shut down ‘after
the detection of anomalies in the emergency injection circuits‘.

France’s Grid Operator, RTE, has warned consumers that limitations on
supplies may be necessary soon. France has been struggling with its nuclear
sector and EDF’s efforts to build another nuclear plant at Flamanville
have been hobbled by very long construction delays and massive cost
overruns.

 100% Renewables 31st Dec 2021

 https://100percentrenewableuk.org/french-electricity-consumers-face-brownouts-and-even-power-cuts-after-nuclear-power-plant-shutdowns

January 3, 2022 Posted by | France, politics | Leave a comment

Risky for UK to plan for small and advanced nuclear reactors

New nuclear technologies, such as small and advanced nuclear reactors, may
have a role to play in the long term. But relying on significant capacity
being deployed before 2035 would be risky. They will face both the
challenges of being first of a kind plants and being a nuclear technology.

 National Infrastructure Commission (Accessed) 1st Jan 2022

Click to access Advice-on-nuclear-power-plant-deployment.pdf

January 3, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Hard to swallow the manipulations going on in nuclear waste decisions on UK’s Geological Disposal Facility


‘GDF flies in face of past decisions on storing nuclear waste’ https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/19816090.gdf-flies-face-past-decisions-storing-nuclear-waste/ David Kirkwood, 2 Jan 22,
Penrith  ON December 20, I received an email informing me that Allerdale Borough Council leadership had held a meeting on November 24 and voted in favour of progressing the nuclear Geological Disposal Facility in Allerdale.

This statement was released amid the Omicron virus and Christmas festivities simply to bury the controversial news. It flies in the face of the two previous decisions rejecting the burying of nuclear waste material anywhere in Cumbria.

One of the main reasons was that the geology in Cumbria was unsuitable for a repository. Secondly, the most important reason was the population did not want it.

It is obvious why this decision has been reached, quite simply the local government reorganisation was engineered to try and invalidate the previous decisions taken by the soon-to-be-dismantled County Council.

Perhaps, someone from the Radioactive Waste Management can explain why a company called Genr8 North Ltd can be involved with both Allerdale Borough Council and Copeland Borough Council, if as they say they have no commercial interest in a nuclear geological disposal facility being built?

I find this very hard to believe.

This is just an attempt by a few individuals to brainwash the majority into acceptance. I’m certain in years to come the radioactive nuclear waste will be buried in Cumbria irrespective of the wishes of the resident population.

January 3, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Will the European Commission buy into the lie that nuclear power is clean and green?

Just who will be making this decision? The global nuclear lobby is desperate to get tax-payer funding , to keep its expensive, dirty, dangerous product going.

Pro nuclear stooges, like Ursula von der Leyen (at left) are keen to get Europe to decide that nuclear power is necessary for climate change.

They keep calling nuclear “zero’ or ”low carbon” – ignoring the full chain of carbon-emiitting processes involved in nuclear structures and in fuelling rectors.

Also ignored , the delays in gettting the industry going – too late to be of any use.

nuclear: Fate of EU green taxonomy ‘now in the hands of von der Leyen’.

 The taxonomy text will need approval from a majority of EU member states and members of the European Parliament. 

Brussels proposes green label for nuclear and natural gas
European Commission paves way for investments despite concerns over waste and CO2 emissions , Ft.com, Mehreen Khan in Brussels, 1 January 2022.

Brussels wants to recognise nuclear power and forms of natural gas as “green” activity as part of a landmark EU classification scheme to help financial markets decide what counts as sustainable investment. In long-awaited plans, the European Commission has paved the way for investment in new nuclear power plants for at least the next two decades and natural gas for at least a decade, under a green labelling system known as the “taxonomy for sustainable finance”.  The labelling system, which will cover industries that generate about 80 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the EU, is the first attempt by a major global regulator to decide what counts as truly sustainable economic activity and help stamp out so-called greenwashing in the financial sector.  

A draft legal text, seen by the Financial Times, says the EU’s green label should be awarded to controversial energy sources including nuclear power and natural gas under certain circumstances. The decision was taken after a vocal group of pro-nuclear countries, led by France, and pro-gas governments in southern and eastern Europe, demanded the taxonomy should not punish energy sources that provide a bulk of their power generation….

The draft taxonomy text says nuclear power should be considered a sustainable economic activity as long as EU countries that host power stations can safely dispose of toxic waste and meet a criteria to cause “no significant harm” to the environment. The construction of new nuclear plants will be recognised as green for permits granted until 2045, says the text.  ……….

https://www.ft.com/content/7872a05f-9e38-4740-9b1b-4efc69ca316c

January 1, 2022 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

State of New Mexico demands federal investigation into Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) and federal nuclear programs.

State of New Mexico demands feds investigate WIPP, federal nuclear programs

New Mexico Environment Department joins call from Congress for oversight, Adrian Hedden, Carlsbad Current-Argus , 31 Dec 21,  

State concerned out-of-state waste prioritized over New Mexico’s

WIPP officials says waste shipments prioritized by availability
Congressional committee worried for ongoing “challenges” at DOE

Stronger oversight of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant could be coming as the federal government was called on by New Mexico officials and members of Congress to address alleged problems with the U.S. Department of Energy’s environmental cleanup operations.

New Mexico Secretary of the Environment James Kenney expressed concerns for operations at WIPP in a letter to the federal Government Accountability Office (GAO), calling for the federal office to increase its oversight of the nuclear waste repository near Carlsbad.

Low-level transuranic (TRU) waste from around the country is disposed of at WIPP via burial in an underground salt deposit about 2,000 feet underground. It is owned and operated by the DOE and its Office of Environmental Management (EM) but is permitted and regulated by the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) headed by Kenney.

In his Dec. 22 letter to the GAO, Kenney said the Office should review nuclear programs in New Mexico, including the prioritization of nuclear waste shipments to WIPP from facilities outside New Mexico.

He said first priority should be given to waste from Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in northern New Mexico as the DOE intends to increase the production of plutonium pits.

“The WIPP is subject to an NMED operating permit and must adhere to the requirements of the permit in order to remain operable in New Mexico and in service to the nation,” Kenney wrote. “Yet, the DOE EM has entered into legally binding settlement agreements with states to prioritize waste shipments to WIPP at the expense of shipments from other states, including New Mexico.

“This is problematic for both the clean-up of legacy waste at LANL and new waste from pit production at LANL.”

Before the DOE entered into such agreements, as it had with the State of Idaho for cleanup at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in 1995, Kenney said the agency should have first engaged with New Mexico stakeholders he said would bear the impacts of moving out-of-state nuclear waste into their state……………

“The practice of DOE EM solely managing waste shipments to WIPP from around the U.S. without first discussing with New Mexico stakeholders – including NMED as its regulator – now merits immediate congressional oversight,” Kenney wrote…………..

Kenney also voiced reservations about DOE officials allegedly seeking to “expand” the kinds of waste accepted at WIPP.

A recent DOE proposal sought to redefine high-level waste to consider the radiation level as opposed to the current method that considers where the waste was generated, potentially leading to more waste coming to WIPP, Kenney said.

Another concern, Kenney wrote, was a DOE-proposed “dilute and dispose” program that would see high-level plutonium processed to lower its radioactivity so it could meet WIPP requirements for TRU waste.  https://www.currentargus.com/story/news/local/2021/12/30/state-new-mexico-demands-feds-investigate-wipp-doe-nuclear-programs/9034953002/

January 1, 2022 Posted by | politics, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

South Korea presidential contender vows to seek nuclear-powered submarines, months after Australia’s Aukus deal.

South Korea presidential contender vows to seek nuclear-powered submarines, months after Australia’s Aukus deal, Guardian, 31 Dec 21,

Lee Jae-myung aims to counter North Korea threats and pledges to restart stalled talks between Pyongyang and Washington

South Korea’s ruling party presidential candidate said he will seek US support to build nuclear-powered submarines to better counter threats from North Korea and proactively seek to reopen stalled denuclearisation talks between Pyongyang and Washington.

In an interview with Reuters and two other media outlets, Lee Jae-myung also pledged to put aside “strategic ambiguity” in the face of intensifying Sino-US rivalry, vowing pragmatic diplomacy would avoid South Korea being forced to choose between the two countries………………

Lee said he will persuade the US to win diplomatic and technology aid to launch nuclear-powered submarines, which can operate more quietly for longer periods, amid renewed calls for building one in the military and parliament after North Korea test-fired a new missile from a submarine in October.

Lee cited the deal Australia struck under a trilateral security partnership with the US and Britain in September to build its own nuclear-powered submarines…………………………… https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/30/south-korea-presidential-contender-vows-to-seek-nuclear-powered-submarines-months-after-australias-aukus-deal

January 1, 2022 Posted by | politics, South Korea, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Scottish MP slams UK plans to increase nuclear arsenal.

Kirsten Oswald slams plans to increase nuclear arsenal   https://www.barrheadnews.com/news/19817662.kirsten-oswald-slams-plans-increase-nuclear-weapons/By William Brown

East Renfrewshire’s MP has hit out at plans by the UK Government to increase Britain’s nuclear arsenal.

Kirsten Oswald was speaking in her role as chair of Parliamentary CND – a cross-party group of MPs and Peers which supports the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

The UK Government announced earlier this year that it will increase Britain’s nuclear arsenal by more than 40% but legal opinion obtained by CND states that this puts Britain in breach of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

Ms Oswald said: “The decision to announce an increase in the UK’s nuclear arsenal, in contravention of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, is a worrying example of this Tory government’s contempt for international law.

“There is no place in Scotland for nuclear weapons and the importance of working together to achieve nuclear disarmament worldwide has never been clearer.

“Our priorities should lie in supporting communities through the Covid pandemic, not in stockpiling weapons of mass destruction in contravention of international law.”

January 1, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Kazakhstan may build nuclear power plant to provide electricity for energy-guzzling Bitcoin mining.

Kazakhstan Mulls Nuclear Power to Deal With Electricity Shortages Blamed on Crypto Miners,  Bitcoin.com, 31 Dec 21,  The government in Kazakhstan is considering building a nuclear power plant to overcome an electricity deficit allegedly caused by the booming crypto mining industry. Problems with power supply are driving away miners that saw the Central Asian country as a new home when China recently cracked down on the industry.

NPP Project Revived Amid Short Supply of Energy for Crypto Mining Sector in Kazakhstan

Authorities in Kazakhstan are now thinking of implementing a decade-old plan to construct a nuclear power plant (NPP) in order to solve the country’s pressing issues with a growing electricity deficit. With capped tariffs and a crypto-friendly attitude, the former Soviet republic attracted a throng of Chinese miners chased away by Beijing’s offensive against the crypto industry launched in May of this year. However, some of them are now leaving the country as their hardware is idling.

Two locations are currently under consideration as potential sites for a nuclear station, Kazakhstan’s Energy Minister Magzum Mirzagaliev revealed this week. These are the village of Ulken in the Alma-Ata region and the city of Kurchatov in the East Kazakhstan region………… https://news.bitcoin.com/kazakhstan-mulls-nuclear-power-to-deal-with-electricity-shortages-blamed-on-crypto-miners/

January 1, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, Kazakhstan, politics | Leave a comment

UK govt delays final decision on Sizewell nuclear project

 The Government has agreed to a six-week extension to the final decision on
proposals for two nuclear reactors to be built on the Suffolk coast. As a
result of the Business Secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng, agreeing to the
extension, the Planning Inspectorate now has until February 25 to produce a
report on the project proposals. However, it appears that Mr Kwarteng was
not overly happy to extend the deadline by six weeks and has asked the
Planning Inspectorate to “ensure that future timetables, including the
reporting stage, are adhered”.

 Suffolk Live 30th Dec 2021

https://www.suffolklive.com/news/sizewell-c-nuclear-power-station-6418440

January 1, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Q&A: Why is Germany phasing-out nuclear power and why now?   

Q&A: Why is Germany phasing-out nuclear power and why now?
   28 Dec 2021, 10:18 Kerstine Appunn

Content

Facts of the German nuclear phase-out.……………..

How did the nuclear phase-out come about in Germany?…………….

Why the nuclear phase-out was the enabler of the energy transition………………..

What do different stakeholders in Germany think about the nuclear exit?………………..

Is there still a debate to continue the use of nuclear power and could its proponents succeed?………….

Why isn’t Germany phasing out coal before nuclear?………….

Will Germany emit more CO2 because of the nuclear phase-out?……………

No nuclear, no coal: Will the lights stay on?……………..

How does Germany want to make net-zero happen without nuclear?………………..

Why doesn’t Germany get an energy system with both renewables AND nuclear?………….

Will Germany become dependent on (nuclear) power imports from abroad?…………..

What’s more expensive – renewables or nuclear?…………

Nuclear power in the EU taxonomy and Germany’s position………….

Shouldn’t Germany – like other countries – embrace and support the use of new small modular reactors? …………………

What is different in Germany compared to other countries in Europe which embrace nuclear as a CO2-free solution?………………

Facts of the German nuclear phase-out

The last nuclear power plant in Germany will cease operation in December 2022. This definitive end-date is part of the 2011 Nuclear Energy Act (Atomgesetz) which withdrew the authorisation to operate nuclear reactors for power generation according to a phase-out schedule. From having a share of 22.2 percent in total electricity generation in 2010, the contribution of nuclear decreased to 11 percent in 2020. At the same time, renewables such as wind, solar PV and biogas provided around 45 percent of power generation in 2020.  After three out of six remaining reactors are shuttered in December 2021 (Grohnde, Gundremmingen C and Brokdorf), only three (with a combined capacity of 4 GW) will remain in service throughout 2022 (Isar 2, Emsland and Neckarwestheim 2).

…………………………………..   What do different stakeholders in Germany think about the nuclear exit?

Ever since the latest nuclear phase-out was decided by a large majority in the federal parliament (Bundestag) in 2011, the public has remained supportive of exiting nuclear power for good.

The German government since 2011 has remained steadfast in its decision despite going through a difficult process of securing the money from reactor operators to ensure their safe deconstruction and storage of radioactive waste, initiating the search for a permanent waste storage facility, and weathering the legal proceedings following the not-quite constitutional compensation regulations in the nuclear exit law.. SPD environment minister Svenja Schulze said at the 2021 anniversary of the Fukushima accident that “nuclear power is neither safe nor clean” and could not be a part of a low-carbon power production. Angela Merkel reiterated in her last summer press conferences before the end of her chancellorship, that “the nuclear phase-out is the right thing to do for Germany”, adding that this could be seen differently by other countries and activists who push for climate neutrality. “I don’t think nuclear energy is a sustainable form of energy in the long term,” Merkel said.

The new German government of Social Democrats (SPD), Green Party and Free Democrats (FDP) which took office in December 2021 wrote in its coalition treaty “we stand by the nuclear phase-out”. The new (Green Party) environment minister Steffi Lemke said in December 2021: “Nuclear power would make our energy supply neither safer nor cheaper. A technology that has no solution for the disposal of toxic waste cannot be sustainable.” Climate and economy minister Robert Habeck (Green Party) said on 28 December: “The nuclear phase-out in Germany has been decided, clearly regulated by law and is valid. Security of supply in Germany continues to be guaranteed. Now it is important to consistently push ahead with the transition of our energy supply.”…………

Energy utilities and operators of Germany’s remaining nuclear power stations are adamant that there will be no extension of the reactors’ runtime. The large German utilities have – after years of struggling – embraced a renewable future and the planning security that the end of nuclear power gives them. They also point out that all the legal (compensation) issues of the nuclear phase-out have been resolved, operating licenses are scheduled to expire and difficult to re-obtain, contracts with suppliers and other service companies have been terminated, staff has been reassigned and there is no longer enough fuel…………….
It is “completely out of the question” that German nuclear power plants will get another lifetime extension, said Rainer Baake. “Because the operators don’t want it. Because there is no serious force in politics that is pursuing a lifetime extension, and the topic played no role in the coalition negotiations. Voters have not forgotten Chernobyl and Fukushima and know that there are better alternatives.”…………

Will Germany emit more CO2 because of the nuclear phase-out?……………

Economists of the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) conclude in a recent paper that “the decline in nuclear power will temporarily lead to a higher use of fossil energies and imports, which will increase CO2 emissions in the short term. However, these should be quickly reduced by the accelerated expansion of renewable energies.” In the short term, nuclear power will indeed be substituted by fossil power plants and via imports. Imports increase by 15 terawatt-hours (TWh), emissions will be around 40 million tonnes CO2 higher, according to the DIW. Other research shows that in the context of the overall cap of the European Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), rising emissions in Germany would be compensated by lower emissions in other countries, therefore keeping overall emissions stable and, at the same time, seeing a slight rise in the price for CO2 allowances.

Overall, renewables are now better placed to prevent carbon emissions than nuclear, physicist Amory B. Lovins, adjunct professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University concludes in an op-ed for Bloomberg Law: “Renewables swelled supply and displaced carbon as much every 38 hours as nuclear did all year. As of early December, 2021’s score looks like nuclear –3 GW, renewables +290 GW. Game over.”……………..

How does Germany want to make net-zero happen without nuclear?

Germany’s energy transition in the electricity sector has turned into a comprehensive plan to decarbonise the entire economy and reach net-zero greenhouse gases in 2045. With nuclear power and coal out of the picture by the end of the decade, the new government – which is adhering to the previous government’s climate targets – is putting the focus on renewables growth. Its aim is to reach a share of 80 percent renewables in electricity demand (which is envisaged to grow). Several “Germany net-zero” studies have shown that a system based on renewables is possible……………………

What’s more expensive – renewables or nuclear?

One of the reasons why it is an obvious choice for Germany to make wind and solar its main power source rather than nuclear, is that new renewable installations have become cheaper than all other electricity sources – especially where a CO2 price is applied.

According to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2021 and Institute for Applied Ecology (Öko-Institut), the energy costs for nuclear power generation are currently 15.5 cents per kilowatt hour, compared to 4.9 cents for solar energy and 4.1 cents for wind power.

The British government has given a price guarantee of 11 cents per kilowatt-hour for 35 years to the nuclear power plant project Hinkley Point C. In Germany, feed-in tariffs for onshore wind and solar PV are between 6-7 ct/kwh or, in some tenders, even lower. Offshore wind parks are now being built without any government support.

New reactor projects often turn out to be much more expensive than envisaged. The costs for a new “Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR)“ in Flamanville, France, have risen from 3.4 billion to more than 19 billion euros, while the project will likely take at least 11 years longer than planned. Similar price hikes and delays have occurred in the UK, Finland and the U.S.

“Nuclear technology has had negative learning rates, which means that new projects became more expensive instead of cheaper. If we take current investment costs as a basis, then it is clear that the cheapest power system is one that is fully based on renewables,” Simon Müller said. The global market situation shows that renewables dominate investments. The 2050 long-term projections by the International Energy Agency (IEA) see nuclear energy supplying about 10 percent of electricity. “For the transformation, we need to thus look to renewables,” Müller said.

As many new nuclear projects also take considerably longer to construct than planned, the Öko-Institut concludes that it would also be faster to build a system based on renewables……….  https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/qa-why-germany-phasing-out-nuclear-power-and-why-now

December 30, 2021 Posted by | Germany, politics | Leave a comment

USA is examining its ”nuclear declaratory policy”, while Biden considers how to reduce the role of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear declaratory policy examined as Biden eyes curbing nukes, By Ryohei Takagi, KYODO NEWS , 26 Dec 21,  The United States is examining its “declaratory policy” on the use of nuclear arms under President Joe Biden’s commitment to seeking to reduce the role of such weaponry, the State Department’s top arms control official Bonnie Jenkins said recently.

Her remarks came as focus is increasing on whether the Biden administration will declare the “sole purpose” of U.S. nuclear forces is to deter or respond to nuclear attacks in its upcoming nuclear posture review, a guideline for American nuclear policy for the coming years………….

The U.S. nuclear declaratory policy has so far centered on what is known as “strategic ambiguity” regarding the exact circumstances that might lead to a nuclear response, though efforts have been seen in the past to offer clarification.

Former President Barack Obama, who pledged in 2009 to pursue a world free of nuclear weapons, considered adopting a “no first use” policy, which would mean limiting the U.S. use of nuclear weapons only in response to nuclear attacks on itself or allies.

But his administration gave up the idea in the face of objections from some allies including Japan.

The Financial Times reported early this month that U.S. officials have reassured allies in Europe and Asia that Biden, who was vice president during the Obama administration, will not adopt a “no first use” policy. The officials will provide the president with options for a “sole purpose” declaratory policy, the newspaper said.

The sole purpose posture could leave open the possibility of using nuclear weapons first, if it were the only way to preempt an imminent nuclear attack by a country such as North Korea, pundits say.

Still, it could demonstrate a more restrained approach toward the use of U.S. nuclear weapons compared with the 2018 nuclear posture review compiled under Biden’s predecessor Donald Trump. Under the former leader, the possibility remained nuclear weapons could be used not only against nuclear attacks but against “significant” non-nuclear attacks…………………………   https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2021/12/3b69a0d35603-nuclear-declaratory-policy-examined-as-biden-eyes-curbing-nukes.html

December 27, 2021 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Finland’s Olkiluoto EPR nuclear reactor starting up, 12 years late

 Nuclear: start-up of the Finnish EPR 12 years late. The EPR nuclear
reactor in Olkiluoto, Finland, started up overnight for the first time.
Between delays and financial problems, the work started in 2005 was strewn
with pitfalls for the French Areva. The EPR must supply 15% of the
consumption of the Nordic country.

 Les Echos 21st Dec 2021

https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/energie-environnement/nucleaire-demarrage-de-lepr-finlandais-avec-12-ans-de-retard-1374027

December 24, 2021 Posted by | Finland, politics | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »