nuclear-news

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

Canada’s Bruce County Council postpones voting on nuclear waste bunker plan

November 7, 2020 Posted by | Canada, politics, wastes | Leave a comment

Covid-19 divides and weakens the nuclear sector in South Africa

November 7, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, health, politics, South Africa | Leave a comment

Texas governor wants Trump to oppose nuclear waste dump plan

Gov. Abbott Asks Trump for Help with Nuclear Waste in West Texas, Sanangelo Live, MATT TRAMMELL, NOV 6, 2020, ANDREWS, TX – Governor Greg Abbott sent a letter to President Trump last week urging him to put a stop to storing high levels of nuclear waste in rural West Texas.

In the letter sent to President Trump, on Sep. 29, Abbott gave a number of reasons for his opposition.

The main concerns the Governor has is the risk the nuclear material will bring to the Permian Basin.

Here is the full letter: [ but extract only posted here]

Dear Mr. President:  Thank you for all you do to ensure a prosperous economy and strong energy industry in the United States. I write to express my opposition to the license applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the consolidated interim storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste at proposed sites within the state of Texas and within the state of New Mexico, close to the Texas border. A stable oil and gas industry is essential to the economy, and crucial to the security of our great nation. Allowing the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel and high- level nuclear waste at sites near the largest producing oilfield in the world will compromise the safety of the region.

The proposed facilities would be sited in the Permian Basin Region, which is the largest producing oilfield in the world ……..the Permian Basin is a significant economic and natural resource for the entire country, and the proposed storage facilities would place America’s recovering economy and energy security at great risk.

The NRC is currently evaluating issuance of a 40-year license to Interim Storage Partners (ISP) for a consolidated interim storage facility in west Texas as well as issuance of a 40-year license to Holtec International for such a facility in southeastern New Mexico. As proposed, the ISP facility would store commercial spent nuclear fuel and reactor-related materials, presenting a radiological risk greater than currently authorized for storage and disposal in Texas. ISP has also indicated it may seek to renew the license for an additional 20 years, which would result in an operating life of 60 years, or until a permanent facility is established.  ……..https://sanangelolive.com/news/politics/2020-11-06/gov-abbott-asks-trump-help-nuclear-waste-west-texas

November 7, 2020 Posted by | politics, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

UK govt’s spin to Scotland, promoting nuclear submarines – but the Scots are nae sae daft

We cannot defeat our real enemies by using nuclear weapons,   https://www.thenational.scot/news/18850915.cannot-defeat-real-enemies-using-nuclear-weapons/, Jim Taylor, Edinburgh, 6 Nov 20

INTRIGUED, I tuned in on Wednesday to Channel Five’s programme “On Board Britain’s Nuclear Submarine: Trident” to be met with little more than a UK Government propaganda piece.
What transpired was a description of this weapon system with repeated use of the term “deterrent”. No-one wants to deploy it so it is somehow acceptable and necessary. The crew, like Captain Darren Mason, are just doing their job, so that must be right then – while ignoring that mutually assured destruction, wreaking global devastation, would end human life as we know it, probably totally.

Yet they are prepared to follow orders, without any real concern for the potential consequences of their actions. A position well claimed through many conflicts by war criminals perpetrating heinous acts against humanity. How is widespread death and destruction from nuclear obliteration any less than another even more heinous act, just because we would be committing it on the diktat of our Prime Minister? Particularly given the potential of one held in such poor public regard as the current one. Have we learned nothing from centuries of conflict?

At the conclusion of the programme, Rear Admiral John Weale tells us that no-one really wants nuclear weapons … but “we are planning to have them for the next 50 years”.

So it’s a done deal, whether we Scots support it or not. Our UK Union membership means we will be forced against our will to be party to this inhumane weapon system, and the increased danger it puts us in with its continued location at Faslane.

Trident’s replacement is currently reckoned to cost around £200 billion, before any expected design, construction, operational cost overruns and other usual ongoing cost increases. With the potential for a further cycle of replacement during the next 50 years, going forward, the cost to the nation will rise exponentially.

And all while we have children going to school hungry, precarious employment prospects, widespread poverty with even the working poor using food banks, and we know our real enemies are lunatic terrorists, pandemic and climate change that nuclear weapons can’t protect us from. Shouldn’t tackling these be our real priorities?

Clearly the Royal Navy took the unprecedented step to permit this programme being made at the behest of the UK Government trying to warm our feelings about nuclear weapons, recognise a “need” for them and in the hope this will drive a wedge in Scotland’s drive to call upon its Claim of Right and independence.

Isn’t the UK Government’s mistake assuredly that Scots are nae sae daft?

November 7, 2020 Posted by | politics, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear now costs twice the price of renewables and the gap is growing. No need for Hinkley C, Sizewell, Bradwell etc

No need for nuclear power, Craven Herald and Pioneer By Lesley Tate, Senior Reporter, 6 Nov 20, Cllr David Noland, Skipton North writes, 

” ………The Green Party have been arguing for many years in recognition of the work by Friends of the Earth, the Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) in Wales and many others, that we do not need ‘further expansion of nuclear and gas turbines’ but to be far more clever about our energy use, easy to do now that renewables are cheaper than nuclear and new gas.

CAT has been at the forefront of development of research on renewable technology and Green building for some 50 years.

Their latest report ‘Zero Carbon Britain (Rising to the Climate Emergency)’ clearly demonstrates that the UK has the tools and technology to efficiently power this country with 100 per cent renewable technology (read the executive summary, it’s only eight pages long).

By using energy more efficiently we can power down by 60 per cent with particularly large savings in heating buildings and transport.

There is absolutely no need for nuclear power in our energy mix and we cannot afford it, let alone pay for cleaning up the sites at the end which taxpayers always end up paying for.

Nuclear now costs twice the price of renewables and the gap is growing.

How many Herald readers know that the electricity from the Hinkley Point nuclear reactor will cost UK consumers £92.50 per Kwh (the most recent offshore wind turbine fields are half of this)?

The deal was signed by (former Prime Minister) Theresa May and supported by Labour and Lib Dems.

The profits are going to the Chinese government which will run it for 40 years. The French firm (EDF) that has been building Hinkley Point and wants to build more nuclear reactors in the UK wants to cushion the financial blow of future nuclear power stations in this country by charging electricity customers a few extra pounds every month on their bill even now.

This is referred to as a new funding model, I’d call it a rip-off. Are people really happy to put billions of pounds into the coffers of the Chinese government and EDF rather than invest, as part of a Green New Deal, in insulation and draught-proofing of UK homes to keep us warmer, take over two and a half million households out of fuel poverty and permanently reduce everyone’s fuel bills.  https://www.cravenherald.co.uk/opinion/opinion_letters/18824349.letter-no-need-nuclear-power/

November 7, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | 1 Comment

Nuclear power – simply unaffordable for the Philippines

November 7, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, Philippines, politics | Leave a comment

A new nuclear power plant at Sizewell is the wrong choice for a zero carbon Britain

November 7, 2020 Posted by | climate change, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Poland’s nuclear energy plans not likely to be supported by the European Commission

Nuclear power is not considered environmentally sustainable, and there is little hope this approach will change. Therefore, the possibilities for bankrolling nuclear energy are very limited.

Brussels’s impact on Poland’s nuclear project,   https://biznesalert.com/brusselss-impact-on-polands-nuclear-project/ : Paweł Wróbel, @Pawrobel   4 Nov 20,  Poland’s nuclear power plant constrsuction program has been riddled with ambiguity for many years. Neverthele, among the few certainties remains the necessity to abide by the EU law on granting state aid. The project cannot happen without Brussels. Investments in nuclear energy are one of the most expensive in the energy sector, which is why building a nuclear plant in Poland will not be possible without state support. Therefore, the European Commission will have to approve the selected financing model – Paweł Wróbel, CEO of Gate Brussels, writes for BiznesAlert.pl.

Recently in a reaction to the plans made by Warsaw, Frans Timmersmans, Executive Vice President of the European Commission for the European Green Deal, has stressed that the EC would not stand in the way of building nuclear power plants (NPPs) in member states. This assurance was also offered to the prime minister of the Czech Republic, who announced before the last EU summit, that his country would support the increase in CO2 reduction target to 55 percent by 2030, only if the EC did not interfere with nuclear programs. Timmermans really wants all the member states to support the increased CO2 emissions reduction target. Even though it is Margrethe Vestager, another EC Executive Vice President, who is responsible for competition, Timmerman’s voice will be very important when it comes to the decision process.
Timmermans is a seasoned diplomat, a former foreign minister of Holland, so it is worth paying attention to the entirety of his statement to learn what he thinks about these kinds of investments in the energy sector. In his opinion, nuclear power had “serious disadvantages”, e.g. the necessity to import uranium and handle radioactive waste. He also pointed out that nuclear power was “very expensive”, which is why long-term state involvement was crucial. “… [I]f you invest in it, you’re stuck with it for a very, very long period of time,” he stressed.
Still, Timmermans did not openly admit that the European Commission did not bet on nuclear power, even in the context of the 2050 climate neutrality target. However, this approach is visible in the Union’s main strategies, which determine the target energy transition model. The strategies were adopted last July and are titled: the EU Strategy for Energy System Integration and the Hydrogen Strategy. Neither of the documents suggests that nuclear energy will play a significant role in the European Green Deal
The EC has been consistent in its push for renewable energy sources (RES) as the basis for energy generation in the EU, and the most cost-efficient option. Renewables will make it possible to electrify heat generation and transport. While hydrogen will play a complementary role, especially when it comes to industrial processes and heavy transport. This approach is reflected in the ongoing revisions of the main legislation for the energy sector. The goal of this strategy is to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. Nuclear energy is not an important part of this model.
The situation is similar when it comes to EU funding mechanisms and regulations on public and private entities on financial markets in EU states, e.g. in taxonomy. Nuclear power is not considered environmentally sustainable, and there is little hope this approach will change. Therefore, the possibilities for bankrolling nuclear energy are very limited. The availability of options is a lot smaller than in case of RES or hydrogen. Of course, the EC respects the principle of “technological neutrality”, so it cannot deprive states of their ability to invest in nuclear energy, especially that some of them do bet on this kind of power generation. However, this means it is necessary to find a model that will be in line with EU law.
One of the biggest challenges is to prepare a financing model for the investment that will comply with EU rules for state aid. The EC has stressed its role is to limit as much as possible any interference with competition on the energy market that state aid may cause. During its inquiries into state aid plans, e.g. with regard to nuclear energy, the EC holds talks with governments that plan such investments. The EC then determines what conditions need to be met for it to approve the aid. This happened, e.g. in 2017 when Hungary wanted to expand its Paks II NPP. The Hungarian government had to take on considerable commitments for the EC to agree the investment was in line with EU rules.
Those included the following: (1) profits could only be used to pay off debt to the state, or to cover the NPP’s operational costs, (2) Paks II could not be formally linked with other entities on the energy market, including the existing Paks power plant, which meant it had to survive on the market on its own, (3) at least 30 percent of the production had to be sold on the open energy market, whereas the remainder via an open auction system. Especially the last condition could be too difficult to meet, as nuclear energy is one of the most expensive when it comes to new investments.
In case of Poland an EC consent will not be unconditional either. The process usually takes a dozen or so months. In case of Paks II it took 3 years. These are one of the most difficult and one of the longest cases. The final conditions that the EC will set, will determine not just the construction process, but mostly the terms on which the NPP will have to function on the market.

November 5, 2020 Posted by | EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

Sizewell C – Britain walking into a trap that benefits only the nuclear industry

Sizewell C – Britain walking into a trap that benefits only the nuclear industry, Sizewell C: Dodgy deals and obscure decision-making  https://eciu.net/blog/2020/sizewell-c-dodgy-deals-and-obscure-decision-making  By Jonathan Marshall, Head of Analysis@JMarshall_ECIU, 02 November 2020  This weekend the BBC reported that the Government was close to reaching a deal with EDF to construct a new nuclear power station at Sizewell in Suffolk. Sizewell C is expected to be a carbon-copy of the plant under construction at Hinkley Point, and will help fill the gap left as Britain’s existing nukes retire.

There is little point in re-hashing the well-worn arguments about whether we need new nuclear in the UK. No changing of minds on either side looks likely, nor is there much point trying to counter the six-or-so lines from either side about why nuclear is a good or bad choice.

What is worth scrutiny, though, is how the Government appears to be making another hash of agreeing terms and penning a contract.

Just three years ago the National Audit Office delivered a stinging rebuke of the deal with EDF for Hinkley Point C, saying it has ‘locked consumers into a risky and expensive project with uncertain strategic and economic benefits’; that efforts to ensure value for money had been overlooked; and that there remained a risk that the developer would come cap-in-hand for more cash before the project was finished, at which point the Government would not be in the strongest position to say no.

Backroom dealings

Based on current reports, it seems that one of the major failures from Hinkley – that the deal was concluded bilaterally, behind closed doors, and with no downward pressure on costs through competition – is being repeated.

And it is hard to see how the Government has let itself be backed into this corner, allowing EDF to present itself as ‘the only option’ for the new nuclear it is no doubt saying is essential to reach net zero.

Sizewell has even received public backing from those usually in favour of a small state and as little Government intervention as possible, a position miles away from what is seemingly imminent.

Endless stalling on policy decisions and lack of support for other plants has seen other proposals evaporate, changing economics have seen developers pull out globally (Japan, for example, has said it will get to net zero without new nuclear), and a constant drumroll of political support for the as-yet-to-exist Small Modular Reactors rather than traditional large plant have left EDF as the only player in town.

The Government, well aware of the benefits of pitting projects against each other, has been lauding the successes of doing exactly that in auctions for offshore wind, in the capacity market and in a host of nascent markets for flexible power. Yet, nuclear remains exempt.

And while there are some factors that would make an auction system more difficult – high project start-up costs, lengthy safety sign-offs, etc, it is surely not beyond the wit of ministers and their advisors, and the civil service, to force something into place.

The only winners from the current behind-closed-doors set-up are the nuclear industry, which is not an effective way to make policy.

Time-Limited Backstop

The desperation to bring costs down for nuclear mean British electricity users are set to be on the hook for the costs of building Sizewell before it starts generating.

This situation would raise eyebrows in many instances, but for a scheme based on projects currently running wildly over budget and embarrassingly behind schedule, this seems like madness.

There are few guarantees in British media, but stories about rising energy bills are about as close as one can get. Extra costs on households to pay back investors, rather than for actually producing energy, mean this deal could be a toxic legacy for years to come.

It remains to be seen what protections from overrunning costs are put in place for consumers, and what guarantees that the cost agreed through a Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model will not increase as the project inevitably runs over budget. Both of these are pretty essential for allaying concerns that the public is being sold another white elephant.

Going Blind

Backing Sizewell raises as many questions as it answers, on which clarity from Government would help onlookers understand their decision-making.

On finances, the latest BEIS assessments of generation costs didn’t include nuclear, apparently for commercial confidentiality reasons. We should now expect these to be updated, especially as the latest iteration included the associated ‘system costs’ of different technologies. Doing this for nuclear (which of course imposes other costs on the power grid due to its inflexibility) is now vital.

Where are the assessments of how new nuclear can fit into increasingly smart and flexible power grids? Churning out a constant stream of electrons is good for keeping the country running, but it would be more useful if there was some data to show how it impedes on the rest of the grid.

What thought has been given to location? The Suffolk coast is set to be the landing point for a huge amount of offshore wind capacity – is it the best place for a new nuclear plant? Or just the only place still in the running?

How could the power output from Sizewell be used most effectively? What are the economics behind building an electrolyser nearby to convert excess power into hydrogen? Can the waste heat be made use of?

Providing answers to these sort of questions (just a few of many more) would help us to have a more grown up debate around nuclear, and would help understand the reasons for signing what, at first sight, looks like another dodgy deal.

Theresa May’s decision to sign off Hinkley was met with widespread dismay, for the reasons above and for many more. Without more clarity on Government thought, it appears our current Prime Minister could be walking into the same trap.

November 5, 2020 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

UK nuclear weapons making to be run by the Ministry of Defence

Public Technology 3rd Nov 2020, The government has claimed that bringing the manufacturing of nuclear
warheads back in house will enable it to better “invest in technology”.
Since 1993, the Atomic Weapons Establishment – which is responsible for
developing, manufacturing, and managing the UK’s arsenal of nuclear
weapons – has operated as a private company, under contract from the
government.

Hunting-BRAE held the contract until 1999, at which point a
25-year deal was awarded to AWE Management Ltd, a joint venture led by 51%
shareholder Lockheed Martin, supported by Serco and Jacobs Engineering.
Defence secretary Ben Wallace announced in parliament this week that,
following a review, the “Ministry of Defence has concluded that AWE will
revert to a direct government ownership model”. From as early as next
summer, the nuclear agency will become an arm’s-length government body,
wholly owned by the ministry.

https://www.publictechnology.net/articles/news/government-claims-bringing-nuclear-warheads-house-will-enable-investment-technology

Basingstoke Gazette 3rd Nov 2020, THE government will take control of a nuclear weapons manufacturer in
Aldermaston. AWE, which also has a site in Burghfield, is to be taken over
by ministers to “simplify and further strengthen” the relationship between
the operator and the Ministry of Defence. It means that Lockheed Martin,
which owns 51 per cent of AWE Management Ltd, and Serco, which owns 24.5
per cent, will be stripped of their control of the base when the lucrative
25-year contract comes to an end, with Sky News reporting that it could be
as soon as next year.

https://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/news/18842320.awe-aldermaston-taken-government/

November 5, 2020 Posted by | politics, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Warning to UK government on Sizewell nuclear power project – is it value for money?

November 5, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

The world needs, and awaits, a reasonable and decent American Presidency, under Joe Biden

I am hopeful that Joe Biden and the Democratic Party will win this American election.

Christina Macpherson’s websites & blogs

What has this got to do with this website, which is dedicated to issues of nuclear and cimate?

Everything!

That is because the human race has got to solve these global horrors – with reasonableness, decency and fairness. That demands thoughfulness, considerateness of others, co-operation, and global effort.

The United States of America used to be  a global leader –   up until recently, when  it has been cursed with the presidency of a narcicisstic bully, Donald Trump.  Four years of a government run by this sociopath have impeded the world’s effort to slow, preferably to stop, global heating.  Trump has  been a willing servant of the nuclear weapons industry , indeed an investor, profiting from it. He contines to foster distrust, hatred, and division among people.

I have not been a great fan of Joe Biden.  But he does bring a decency and reasonableness to politics –   qualities that are essential for America and the world to face the big problems. The Democratic Party does bring a mode of co-operation, and an intelligent respect for fair and legal processes.

 

November 4, 2020 Posted by | Christina's notes, politics | 7 Comments

A historic moment of threat to American democracy

Don’t underestimate the threat to American democracy at this moment  Corey Brettschneider  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/04/american-democracy-election-threat-trump–5 Nov 20

November 4, 2020 Posted by | politics, USA | 1 Comment

No guarantee that Britain’s £20 billion Sizewell nuclear project will actually go ahead

Planet Radio 1st Nov 2020, No one should assume Sizewell C is now a foregone conclusion’. Campaign group Stop Sizewell C say there are still many obstacles to overcome, following reports that the Government is ‘close’ to giving the project the green light. The group say they’ve written to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary of State, Alok Sharma, to seek assurances about the due process behind the Sizewell C project.
Alison Downes, who’s from the campaign group, said: “No one should assume Sizwell C is now a foregone conclusion. “There are numerous obstacles, including very serious concerns from DEFRA agencies like Natural England, which says it would not be lawful to permit the project as proposals stand, and no guarantees that £20 billion can be found or the RAB funding model legislated for.
“By the time these issues are resolved – if indeed they can be – our energy landscape will have changed yet again and Sizewell C will be shown as too slow and expensive to help our climate emergency. Meanwhile opposition is strong and growing, encompassing a wide range of stakeholders.”

https://planetradio.co.uk/greatest-hits/norfolk/news/sizewell-not-a-forgone-conclusion/

November 3, 2020 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Before the UK’s govt White Paper, approval to be given for Sizewell nuclear development

November 3, 2020 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »