nuclear-news

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

Indonesia’s nuclear ambitions could prove disastrous for the Southeast Asian region

More dangerously, Indonesia’s nuclear stakeholders have traditionally run into trouble selling the idea of nuclear energy to their constituents given widespread fear over Indonesia being prone to earthquakes and volcanic activity given its unique position within the Pacific’s ‘Ring of Fire’.

January 7, 2021 Posted by | Indonesia, politics | Leave a comment

British tax-payers’ £ 132 billion cost for 120 years of nuclear decommissioning

Brinkwire 4th Jan 2021, It has been warned that a “perpetual” lack of information about the condition of the nuclear facilities in Britain means that decommissioning for 120 years would not be complete and cost billions of pounds.

The decommissioning of UK civil nuclear power plants, including the Torness power plant in East Lothian and the Hunterston B power plant in Ayrshire, would cost the taxpayer about £ 132 billion, according to a new estimate, and will not be finished for 120 years.

The Public Accounts Committee blames the U.K. in its sober analysis. Government for a “sorry saga” of massively ineffective contracts, “weak” government monitoring and a “persistent” lack of awareness of the condition of nuclear  installations. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has left decades of inadequate information on the status and location of dangerous and
radioactive materials with a history of a lack of awareness about the condition of the sites it is responsible for safeguarding, the study warned. The NDA recognizes that it still does not have a complete understanding of the condition of the 17 sites in its custody, including the 10 former Magnox power plants, the report from the committee said.

According to the latest NDA figures, the decommissioning of UK civilian nuclear power plants would cost an incredible £ 132 billion for current and future generations of British taxpayers, and the work will not be finished for 120 years, with a huge effect on the lives of people living
near the plants, the study said.

https://en.brinkwire.com/environment/the-unexplained-state-of-nuclear-facilities-in-britain-has-contributed-to-the-sad-saga/

January 7, 2021 Posted by | politics, UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Astounding failure by Ohio Republican leadership to repeal nuclear bailout law

Rep. Bill Seitz At Forefront Of Key Points In Nuclear Bailout Law HB 6,  Cincinnati Public Radio 6 Jan 21,    By KATHIANN M. KOWALSKI • Documents made available last week show how House Majority Floor Leader Bill Seitz, R-Cincinnati, championed gutting Ohio’s clean energy standards in the state’s 2019 coal and nuclear bailout law. He has since served as a force against repeal.

Claims in a federal complaint released in July indicate that the law was at the heart of an alleged corruption scheme involving roughly $60 million. Former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder, R-Glenford, and others were arrested last summer.

Failure to repeal the law in 2020 was “an astounding failure by Republican leadership,” said Rep. David Leland, D-Columbus, as the legislature adjourned last month……..

Allegations in the federal criminal case indicate that FirstEnergy and FirstEnergy Solutions — now known as Energy Harbor — provided most of the funding for an alleged scheme to elect favorable lawmakers and then to pass and defend HB 6.  …….

Rulings from the Ohio Supreme Court and the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas have temporarily postponed collection of the nuclear plant subsidies anyway. Meanwhile, FirstEnergy benefits from the 2019 law’s revenue guarantee provision. Consumers pay subsidies for the old coal plants. And provisions that gutted Ohio’s renewable energy and energy efficiency standards are in full force…….

FirstEnergy Solutions paid money to Generation Now. The dark money group is a defendant in the criminal case.

And while Seitz maintained that “no alleged corruption infected all of HB 6,” others such as Rep. Mike Skindell, D-Lakewood, have stressed that “all of it — not just part of it” is tainted by the alleged corruption.

“To suggest we can parse out which pieces of the bill were not the product of corruption is wishful thinking,” Leppla said. “There is an ongoing FBI investigation, with more shoes likely to drop, so we won’t know the full extent of the corruption for some time.”

Although a FirstEnergy Solutions officer provided brief testimony on HB 6 in 2019, the company has not provided financial materials in any hearings to back up its alleged need for funding. Asked why he wouldn’t make Energy Harbor provide such sworn testimony now, Seitz said the proposed regulatory audit would be “much better than any testimony at this point.”

“Pushing it off to a closed-door audit that won’t be made fully public is a convenient way for legislators to avoid public scrutiny and outrage at forking over Ohioans’ hard-earned money to bail out a company that doesn’t need it,” Leppla said.

“I can’t think why the legislature would not want this information,” Brown said. Indeed, an option approach would tell Energy Harbor that it could draw on a slush fund if it is too incompetent or too inefficient to compete. In his view, the whole approach is “beyond crony capitalism.”………

“What we do know,” Leppla said, “is that HB 6 was a widely disliked bill that will raise Ohioans’ bills, pollute our air, and send us backward in the fight against climate change — and yet, it passed anyway.” https://www.wvxu.org/post/rep-bill-seitz-forefront-key-points-nuclear-bailout-law-hb-6#stream/0

January 7, 2021 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Ohio lawmakers still don’t know what to do about corruptly instituted nuclear bailout law

Still no plan on future of nuclear bailout law        ‘……..Toledo Blade 
COLUMBUS 6 Jan 21, — Still on the plate of lawmakers as they start a new two-year session is the unfinished business of what to do with the $1 billion bailout of two nuclear power plants at the heart of a $61 million bribery scandal.

The courts have taken some of the heat off by temporarily blocking the start of consumer surcharges this month to fuel the $150 million that would be used to subsidize the plants’ operations, but the law now considered to be the fruits of corruption remains on the books.

“We have a new General Assembly, so we have 20 new members,” House Speaker Bob Cupp (R., Lima) said Monday. “We will continue to work to find a solution that the House, the Senate, and the governor can all agree on…It is still a high priority on our agenda to find a solution.”

New Senate President Matt Huffman (R., Lima) said he and the speaker have been talking about how to proceed.

January 7, 2021 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Grand Gulf nuclear plant in Mississippi raises concerns about nuclear power 

Miss. plant raises concerns about nuclear power   EE News, Edward Klump and Kristi E. Swartz, E&E News reportersPublished: Wednesday, January 6, 2021  Chronic downtime at the largest single-unit U.S. nuclear power station is raising questions about the electric industry’s argument that aging reactors provide critical reliability and help decarbonize the grid.The Grand Gulf plant in Mississippi was at reduced or zero power about 74% of the time in 2020, daily reactor status reports show. The reasons included refueling, maintenance and unplanned outages at the aging 35-year-old plant.

That means Entergy Corp., which is the plant’s main owner, and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, which operates the regional grid, often have to rely on other generation to fill the gap — possibly costing more and boosting greenhouse gas emissions if fossil fuel sources are tapped.

“The same rule applies to Grand Gulf as applies to coal, to gas, to any resource that we know we’re paying more for than we’re getting from,” said Logan Atkinson Burke, executive director of the New Orleans-based Alliance for Affordable Energy. “And the question is, who’s profiting from that, and who is being burdened by it?”

Experience at Grand Gulf suggests regulators and plant operators may need to consider new approaches and closer oversight of aging reactors, which face an uncertain future if they become too expensive to repair and maintain, observers say. This could have national implications as the electricity industry tries to transition away from fossil fuels and aims to rely more heavily on carbon emissions-free nuclear power.

The industry says nuclear plants are performing well broadly and companies are making investments to keep them operating. But Grand Gulf shows that a reactor that often goes offline can be expensive and undermine climate goals. An examination of New Orleans, for example, provided a snapshot in the past, estimating that a multiday unplanned outage at Grand Gulf in late 2018 resulted in higher costs of more than $1 million for New Orleans ratepayers, according to data from the city.

Aging and troubled nuclear reactors in competitive markets also occupy shaky ground because cheaper options like renewables have been able to undercut them economically, and there isn’t always a customer base to prop them up. Grand Gulf operates in a regulated territory, so it has protection, said Paul Patterson, a utility analyst with Glenrock Associates LLC. But he added that keeping plants alive isn’t a given.

“If the stars aren’t aligned politically to support these plants, it’s not going to happen,” he said………

Grand Gulf finished last among U.S. reactors at 68.8% capacity…….

At the same time, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently questioned the site’s operators about mislabeling of waste tied to the plant. And the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has been reviewing complaints around Grand Gulf’s financial structure that could lead to a refund for customers……..

Nuclear reactors are designed to act as baseload power plants, which means they aren’t usually turned on and off frequently. It also takes time to take a nuclear plant offline, unless there’s an emergency that automatically trips the reactor for safety reasons.

But downtime at Grand Gulf has plagued the plant for years, as E&E News reported in 2018 (Energywire, Dec. 4, 2018). …….  its performance tanked in 2020, as it was at zero on about 39% of the days. This stemmed largely from the refueling and upgrades Entergy undertook — and issues that followed.

Safety concerns could lead to more time that Grand Gulf is not operating, according to observers.   Edwin Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists ticked off a list of statistics for Grand Gulf that he said concern him. The reactor is in Column 2 of the NRC’s so-called Action Matrix, meaning its performance has declined. It has a number of “green” or low-level safety issues that may trigger additional inspections and reviews, and it has a “white” finding, which is more severe.

“That’s showing a troubling trend in management and safety control,” said Lyman, nuclear power safety director at UCS…..

Lyman questioned whether there is stringent oversight by federal regulators of basic procedures such as replacing and maintaining equipment, following guidelines and continuing education. Management needs to follow through on overseeing maintenance activities, he said.

“All of these seem to be challenging the safety of the plant,” he said.

The NRC looks for so-called cross-cutting issues, which are something that affects most or all safety cornerstones. This is as broad as having a “safety conscious work environment” and can be as specific as human behavior and identifying and solving problems. But the agency has been under pressure to weaken its oversight, which means such patterns may be missed, Lyman said…….

Colby Cook, a spokesperson for the Louisiana Public Service Commission, said a directive last year authorized LPSC staff to initiate a complaint at FERC regarding Grand Gulf’s operations. He said the complaint hasn’t been filed yet. But it could involve other jurisdictions that have an interest in how the plant performs.

And regulators in various states are watching federal agencies for potential decisions related to Grand Gulf………

Lyman of USC acknowledged bipartisan support in Congress for nuclear power. He said it’s up to the Energy Department to promote nuclear as a climate solution, but said the reactors need to be running safely if that’s the case. This is where the NRC comes in.

“The people who you need to depend on to make sure the plants are running safely are not doing their jobs now,” Lyman said…….

Lyman called for a more detailed grading system at the NRC so the public has a better sense of safety problems. That could lead to public pressure on the staff and management at certain plants, which also are dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic.

“I’m concerned generation with the operating reactor fleet especially when they are under economic pressure, especially now with COVID,” Lyman said……

Burke of the Alliance for Affordable Energy in Louisiana said she has no reason to be confident that Grand Gulf will have a great future performance. When the plant is offline, she said, Entergy and MISO likely depend on gas-fueled generation in the region. Burke also worried that new natural gas-fired units could be proposed to replace Grand Gulf at some point….

Burke said utilities and regulators need to plan with credible data.

“If we’re honest about what this plant is costing us all, then this plant shuts down and we finally get to plan for the future,” she said.  https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063721867

January 7, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Canada vocal about nuclear disarmament, but silent about the Treaty for Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

January 7, 2021 Posted by | Canada, politics, weapons and war | Leave a comment

France’s declining nuclear production

Les Echos 4th Jan 2021, Nuclear: EDF production at its lowest for nearly thirty years. The year
2020 was marked by extremely low nuclear production, very slightly above
335 TWh. The impact of the Covid-19 crisis on the maintenance of power
plants and the extent of the work already in progress explain this
situation, which should continue in 2021 and 2022.

https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/energie-environnement/nucleaire-la-production-dedf-au-plus-bas-depuis-pres-de-30-ans-1278018

January 7, 2021 Posted by | France, politics | Leave a comment

Nuclear Command and Control: Session 3 of the Congressional Study Group

Nuclear Command and Control

Session 3 of the Congressional Study Group,   Wednesday, December 30, 2020  https://www.brookings.edu/research/nuclear-command-and-control/

Editor’s Note:The following is a summary of the third session of the Congressional Study Group on Foreign Relations and National Security, a program for congressional staff focused on critically engaging the legal and policy factors that define the role that Congress plays in various aspects of U.S. foreign relations and national security policy.

On May 7, 2020, the Congressional Study Group on Foreign Relations and National Security convened online to discuss the question of the command and control of U.S. nuclear weapons. At present, the president has the unilateral authority to choose to use nuclear weapons, and many assume that this is a result of his Article II powers under the Constitution. But is this assumption correct? Are there ways Congress can limit when and how the president uses nuclear weapons?

To discuss this topic, the working group was joined by three outside experts Professor Mary DeRosa of Georgetown University Law Center, a former legal advisor to the National Security Council; Chris Fonzone, a partner at Sidley Austin and another former legal advisor to the National Security Council; and Professor Matt Waxman of Columbia Law School, who is also an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and has previously held senior positions in the National Security Council and U.S. Department of State. Prior to the session, the study group received several written pieces as background reading, including:

In addition, the study group coordinator Scott R. Anderson also circulated a handout (download here) on relevant legal authorities for the attendees to reference.
DeRosa began the conversation with a discussion of the constitutional authorities behind the use of nuclear weapons. While there is some debate about the exact line between congressional and presidential authority, she noted that most scholars agree that Congress could choose to exclude or limit the availability of nuclear weapons and perhaps even set some limits on how nuclear weapons are used. Moreover, congressional authorization is arguably constitutionally required for uses of nuclear weapons that are not in self-defense, particularly where outside the context of an existing armed conflict. Nuclear weapons–and particularly the first use of them–also implicate the United States’s international legal obligations, as their use necessarily raises questions about compliance with principles of distinction and proportionality. That said, while there are strong arguments in support of the conclusion that Congress can set some limits on the use of nuclear weapons–including first use–these limitations are more likely to face  constitutional issues the more they try to micromanage the president’s strategic and tactical decisions regarding the use of the armed forces.

Waxman then shifted focus to ways that Congress might be able to shape the executive branch process for deciding when and how nuclear weapons are used. While few are likely to argue with the president’s ability to use nuclear force in response to a nuclear attack, Waxman identified three problematic scenarios that might emerge in a case of nuclear first use: that the president would pursue such an action without due deliberation; that a president might give such an order, but that it is not obeyed by military personnel who believe it to be unlawful or unwise; and that a third party might try to interfere with the system to inhibit a response or trigger an unauthorized launch.

A better defined process–for example, one that requires that an order to use nuclear weapons be certified as valid by the Secretary of Defense and lawful by the Attorney General–could reduce all three of these risks by putting some limits on the president’s unilateral authority, encouraging a more deliberative and justified process that is less likely to trigger reservations, and creating a process with multiple safeguards less subject to external manipulation. Such a process could be implemented by the president by executive order or by Congress, though the latter may raise constitutional objections in some corners and runs the risk of being disregarded by administrations who maintain it is constitutional. That said, by leaving the decision-making within the executive branch, such approaches are less likely to incur constitutional objections than outright statutory prohibitions, which may make them more effective in the long run.

 

Finally, Fonzone stepped in to discuss the military chain of command, specifically in reference to the oft-discussed possibility that military personnel might disregard an impetuous order to use nuclear weapons as unlawful. The operational chain of command, he noted, runs from the President through the Secretary of Defense down to the military ranks, and is defined in substantial part by statute in addition to executive branch guidelines. While the Secretary of Defense might be removed from office for disobeying a presidential order, members of the military can face criminal sanctions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That said, this duty of obedience does not extend to “patently” or “manifestly” illegal orders, which military personnel are obligated not to follow. This bar, however, is extremely high and requires clear knowledge on the part of the servicemember. As many major policy decisions, including the use of nuclear weapons, occur on contested and complex constitutional and legal terrain, even unlawful orders are not likely to be seen as “patently” or “manifestly” illegal. Hence, one should not rely on the lawfulness exceptions to the chain of command alone as a meaningful safeguard against such conduct.

From there, the study group went into open discussion, where they raised issues and addressed questions relating to: the civilian control of nuclear technology and weapons development; international legal and policy restraints on the use of nuclear weapons; and in what circumstances the use of nuclear weapons should properly be left to the president’s unilateral authority (e.g., self-defense).

 

Visit the Congressional Study Group on Foreign Relations and National Security landing page to access notes and information on other sessions.

January 4, 2021 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Bechtel, Westinghouse and Southern Company’s hopeless case to save shambolic Wylfa nuclear project

People Against Wylfa B 31st Dec 2020,  On the last day of troubled 2020, the Westminster Government has deferred a decision on a Development Consent Order for a nuclear power station at Wylfa until the end of April 2021. This is the fourth time this has happened, and the second time in a row for Duncan Hawthorne, chief executive Horizon, to ask for a deferral.
****
The attempt to build Wylfa B has been shambolic from the start. It’s high time to abandon the foolish dream that has paralyzed Anglesey’s development since 2006. As we approach the 10th anniversary of the Fukushima disaster, the latest to be mentioned as
‘saviours’ of the radioactive poisoning project that would threaten the health of everyone on the island and beyond are three US companies.
                                                                                              ****
Here they are: Bechtel Corporation, Westinghouse and Southern Company. Here are some of the trio’s transgressions: Bechtel – recently fined nearly $58million for financial fraud with another company over a 10-year period at Hanford Nuclear Reservation, the most radioactively contaminated site in the United States. This followed a fine of $125million for low quality work on the same site in 2016.
****
Much more could be said about Bechtel. Westinghhouse and Southern Company – Westinghouse went bankrupt while trying to build Vogtle Power Station in the state of Georgia. The two AP1000 reactors of the type destined for Wylfa are five years behind Schedule, have doubled in cost to $25billion, and there is no guarantee that the power station will ever be completed. Another of their projects
was the V C Summer nuclear plant in South Carolina. It was abandoned
unfinished in 2017, and is still being paid for by taxpayers.   https://www.stop-wylfa.org/news/

January 4, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

With all the costs and delays – why not scrap the Wylfa nuclear project right now?

January 4, 2021 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

New delay in planning decision for £16bn Wylfa nuclear development on Anglesey

Business Live 31st Dec 2020, A planning decision on Wylfa Newydd has been delayed for another four
months for talks with potential new investors to continue. Japanese
multi-national Hitachi announced in September they were pulling out of
funding the £16bn nuclear development on Anglesey. At that point BEIS
Secretary of State Alok Sharma delayed the Development Consent Order (DCO)
decision for the application to December 31. Now following a letter from
Duncan Hawthorne, chief executive of Wylfa developer Horizon Nuclear Power,
that date has been extended to April 30.

https://www.business-live.co.uk/economic-development/wylfa-newydd-planning-decision-delayed-19543446.amp

January 2, 2021 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Cover-up! how consumers will be forced to pay for cost-overruns for Sizewell C nuclear construction

December 31, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, politics, secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

Avril Haines is unfit for Director of National Intelligence, with her history of coverup of tortures.

December 31, 2020 Posted by | politics, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

Scotland wants no part in the Tories’ latest nuclear energy folly

December 31, 2020 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

In so many ways, Sizewell C nuclear plan is a bad deal for Britain, and especially for climate action

Why Sizewell C is a bad deal for the UK public and our net zero goals
https://bhesco.co.uk/blog/stop-sizewell-c-nuclear-power by Dan Curtis on 21/12/2020   It has been a tumultuous few weeks for the UK’s energy policy, with the Prime Minister’s Ten Point Plan for achieving Net Zero by 2050 followed swiftly by the Government’s long overdue Energy White Paper.

Then, the news broke that the UK Government has begun discussions with French utility EDF for the development of a new nuclear reactor at Sizewell, “C” in Suffolk, basically scrapping their 10 year policy that “there will be no levy, direct payment or market support for electricity supplied or capacity provided by a private sector new nuclear operator, unless similar support is also made available more widely to other types of generation”.

The site at Sizewell contains two existing nuclear power facilities, Sizewell A (decommissioning and site restoration until 2098 at taxpayers’ cost) and Sizewell B (still active). The new proposals are to build an extension to the site, implementing the same reactor design as that Hinkley Point “C” in Somerset.

Defenders of the project invariably claim that expanding the UK’s nuclear fleet will contribute to the decarbonisation of the energy supply, ensure energy security, while providing consumers with long-term affordable electricity – all arguments which fail to stand up to scrutiny, as we shall demonstrate.

Nuclear power does not provide good value for money

It takes a phenomenal amount of money to develop new nuclear power stations, before we even begin to consider the additional cost of storing and managing the radioactive waste material.

Hinkley C was originally estimated to cost £18 billion but the project has been mired in delays and is now vastly over-budget, predicted to cost up to £3 billion more than initially forecast – a quite remarkable overspend.

 

To address this vulnerability to financial losses for the project developers EDF and Chinese firm CGN, who are considering withdrawing their investment, the UK Government are considering investing directly in Sizewell C, shifting risk and cost to the British taxpayer.

This is in addition to a suggestion of implementing a “regulated asset base” financing model which would enable EDF to charge energy customers for the cost of construction as well as the cost of electricity generation (thereby exposing both customers and taxpayers to the risk of project cost overruns).

Adding to the financial nonsense of new nuclear power is the sky-high cost of the electricity that is produced to the end user. The government has granted a guaranteed, inflation linked price of £92.50 per megawatt hour for the electricity to be produced by Hinkley Point C.

Compare this to the cost of offshore wind, which under a 2019 contract for difference auction, saw prices come in at £39.65 per megawatt hour – less than half the cost of energy from Hinkley.

In contrast to the ever-increasing costs of nuclear (Sizewell C has an estimated starting price tag of £20 billion, which will no doubt balloon), the cost of solar and wind power continue to fall year on year, with solar costs having declined by an astonishing 87% since 2010.

A primary motivation for nuclear power is its value for military applications

The astronomical construction and decommissioning costs of nuclear power does not make financial sense when looking at it from a UK taxpayer/ consumer viewpoint.  It is only when considering the wider potential applications of a nuclear programme that we can begin to understand why successive UK governments have been so supportive of the industry.

 

Researchers at the University of Sussex found compelling evidence that the UK’s domestic nuclear power programme is only supported by the Government because of its value in contributing towards the military nuclear weapons programme, which would otherwise be financially unviable without such subsidised support from domestic energy customers.

Prof Andrew Stirling of the university’s Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) said:

”The exclusion of these issues from the consultation remit reflects a serious military-driven bias in UK Government attachments to nuclear power. This is not only making carbon emissions reductions slower and more expensive, but also impeding possibilities for the UK post-COVID economic recovery”.

We believe that the arguments in favour of nuclear power are disingenuous. Backers of nuclear power should be honest that they want to build more nuclear plants not because they will provide energy security or a good deal for customers, but because they are necessary for maintaining the UK’s fleet of nuclear submarines, and all of the sabre rattling ‘seat at the table’ geo-political bravado that goes along with retaining our position as a nuclear power.

New nuclear power takes too long to build to have any meaningful role in tackling the urgent climate crisis

Wherever new nuclear power stations are being built we see long delays and broken promises.

Hinkley Point C has suffered setbacks and complications ever since development began in 2017 and it is not expected to come online until 2025. It’s the same story at other locations where this type of reactor is being built, such as in Flamanville in France which is seven years overdue and the Olkiluoto plant in Finland which is ten years late!  There is only one EPR nuclear reactor operational in the world. This is the Taishun plant in China, built on the same sea where Fukishima exploded in 2011.

Clearly, new nuclear power plants will not address the issue of urgent and radical carbon emissions reductions needed to be achieved by 2030 if we are to avoid irreversible climate breakdown.

It is also worth noting the gigantic carbon footprint that would result from the construction of Sizewell C. When considering the pros and cons of nuclear power, it is vital to honestly account for the enormous quantities of cement (which has a huge carbon footprint) and other hazardous materials required to build the facility in the first place.

Adding insult to the assertion that Sizewell C will be a long-term benefit to the environment is the fact that the site is to be located adjacent to an RSPB nature reserve Minsmere, a AONB site that EDF has already started demolishing.

Nuclear power produces nuclear waste which lasts for thousands of years

The by-product of nuclear fission is hazardous nuclear waste which remains radioactive for thousands of years. This presents an extraordinary liability and storage risk to future UK taxpayers and residents.

The current liability cost of decommissioning and safely storing our existing nuclear waste is estimated to be in the region of £232 billion – a truly eye-watering sum, and one that will only continue to increase as more nuclear reactors such as Hinkley and Sizewell contribute additional toxic waste materials for every year that they are operational.

 

The UK already has the largest stockpile of radioactive plutonium in the world, estimated to be between 112 and 140 tons, stored in an area of outstanding natural beauty in Cumbria. Future generations will not think kindly of us if we continue to add to this dangerous legacy with more hazardous nuclear waste that costs billions each year to manage to avert disaster.

The UK does not need Sizewell C or any other nuclear power stations – we can meet our energy needs with 100% clean renewable energy

We already have the means at our disposal to meet our heat and power needs through a combination of renewable energy and energy storage technologies.

Combine this with a comprehensive programme to reduce demand through energy efficiency improvements and we can conclude with confidence that there is no reason to develop new nuclear power stations in the UK.  In fact, the alternatives will deliver lower energy prices for the consumer and better taxpayer value over the long term.

A common defence for nuclear power is the need for a steady supply of ‘base load’ power in the event that intermittant renewables cannot meet demand.

But this way of thinking is obsolete. Our future energy supply in the UK will be based on dynamism and flexibility, where consumers adapt their behaviour in sync with variable generation output. As Steve Holliday, former CEO of National Grid said in 2015:

“The idea of baseload power is already outdated. I think you should look at this the other way around. From a consumer’s point of view, baseload is what I am producing myself. The solar on my rooftop, my heat pump – that’s the baseload.”

The Government’s recent announcement that it is entering into talks with EDF regarding Sizewell C is, we are told, the beginning of a long consultation process which will consider the long-term costs and benefits of such a project before reaching a conclusion on whether to give it the go ahead.

These talks are by no means a ‘green-light’ to the project. We hope that it is not naïve to believe that due diligence will be done, that the information will be honest and transparent, and that logical, rational thinking for the benefit of all residents of our small island will prevail.

But this way of thinking is obsolete. Our future energy supply in the UK will be based on dynamism and flexibility, where consumers adapt their behaviour in sync with variable generation output. As Steve Holliday, former CEO of National Grid said in 2015:

“The idea of baseload power is already outdated. I think you should look at this the other way around. From a consumer’s point of view, baseload is what I am producing myself. The solar on my rooftop, my heat pump – that’s the baseload.”

The Government’s recent announcement that it is entering into talks with EDF regarding Sizewell C is, we are told, the beginning of a long consultation process which will consider the long-term costs and benefits of such a project before reaching a conclusion on whether to give it the go ahead.

These talks are by no means a ‘green-light’ to the project. We hope that it is not naïve to believe that due diligence will be done, that the information will be honest and transparent, and that logical, rational thinking for the benefit of all residents of our small island will prevail.’

Sources ……

December 31, 2020 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »