$9 Billion Nuclear Scrapyard: New Aerial Photos of SCE&G’s Abandoned V.C. Summer Nuclear Project Reveal Disarray
Reactor Building and Components Left Unprotected; Most Cranes Removed, Friends of the Earth, 27 Sept 17 COLUMBIA, S.C. – Newly obtained aerial photographs of the abandoned V.C. Summer nuclear reactor construction site reveal that there is no protection of installed reactor components from the weather. (See notes on original for links to photos.)
The photos provided to Friends of the Earth are being released in the middle of the political firestorm in South Carolina about the terminated project. It has become clear that South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) and its partner, Santee Cooper, withheld key information for years about the faltering project and were finally forced to simply walk away from on-going construction with no site shut-down plan in place.
The photos of the debacle, on which $9 billion was wasted, confirm that when work was abruptly halted on July 31, no preparation had been made to protect buildings and key components associated with reactor units 2 and 3. One existing reactor, visible in the photos, has operated at the site since 1982.
The photos, taken on September 18, reveal that nuclear reactor modules installed inside the open containment vessels are exposed to the weather. The partially finished ‘shield buildings,’ in which the reactors are located, lack roofs and sit fully exposed to the elements. Construction was only about 37% complete when the work was halted and had been continuing at a snail’s pace.
“Almost two months after the project was halted the V.C. Summer reactor construction site still looks like it was abruptly abandoned with no shut-down plan,” said Tom Clements, senior adviser to Friends of the Earth. “Not only was SCE&G grossly negligent during construction of the project, but the photos of the site reveal that the company also exhibited imprudent behavior in abandoning the project without proper closure plans. The forlorn site looks like a nuclear ghost town best suited for a Hollywood movie set,” added Clements. (Duke Energy’s abandoned nuclear reactor project in Cherokee County, South Carolina, was used as a set for the science fiction film The Abyss in 1989.)
Years of weathering will ravage the unprotected reactor components and partially constructed shield buildings and turbine buildings, according to Friends of the Earth. The turbine buildings, located adjacent to the reactors, sit without roofs and with open walls. A large number of white tent-like temporary buildings are visible and, according to information provided by site workers to Friends of the Earth, protect unused components. The short lifespan of the shelters will necessitate long-term plans if components are to be retained and not sold off.
The push now is for the industry to receive special subsidies to remain economically viable
Nuclear power has been doomed by cost escalation, while gas, efficiency, and renewables continue to get cheaper. And subsidizing nuclear plants isn’t popular in the states where ratepayers would have to foot the bill
Simply put, political intervention in the U.S. electric power system distorts the market and is bad energy policy.
The “nuclear renaissance” that we have long waited for is falling short. In the wake of the 2011 Fukushima disaster, the number of new projects has drastically dropped. Among other things, they’ve been plagued by huge cost overruns, lower cost competitors, public fear, an aging workforce, rare required materials, and often unmanageable waste problems.
According to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, the number of construction starts of nuclear reactors worldwide has sunk from a high of 15 in 2010, to 10 in 2013, to 8 in 2015, to 3 in 2016, and to just 1 in the first half of 2017. And most tellingly, premature nuclear shutdowns are occurring in even the richest nations.
Here in the U.S., a massive supply of low cost natural gas from shale, established low and stable cost coal fleets, and mushrooming wind and solar farms have left many nuclear plants unprofitable. Down from 104 just a few years ago, there are now 99 nuclear reactors in the country. It’s a rapidly aging fleet, with the average age for a U.S. nuclear plant now 36 years. This is obsolete by modern technology standards and closing in on the end of 40-year operating licenses. In fact, nearly 20% of our nuclear fleet is over 42 years old.
On March 29, 2017, Westinghouse, the only company that was actually building nuclear plants in the country, declared bankruptcy. And in July, after $9-10 billion had already been spent on construction, two South Carolina utilities abandoned two new Westinghouse reactors that were just 40% complete.
Even the two states proudest of their anti-CO2 agenda, which as I document here and hereare inevitably turning to more natural gas, are joining in. California has shuttered San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in the South, and Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in the north will close by 2025. New York will shut down the Indian Point nuclear plant near NYC by 2021.
The push now is for the industry to receive special subsidies to remain economically viable. The idea really started in Illinois, where Exelon said that without subsidies, it would have to shutter three nuclear plants after the company lost $700 million in the last few years operating the plants.
And Exelon has also threatened to close other nuclear units in New York and its Three-Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania, which became infamous with a partial meltdown in 1979. It’s become uncompetitive: Three-Mile Island didn’t clear PJM capacity auction in May and has lost $300 million over the last eight years.
Legislatures in New York and Illinois have approved as much as $10 billion in special subsidies through zero-emission credit programs to keep older nuclear plants operational. Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, and Connecticut are considering similar special subsidies.
Naturally, competitors have filed lawsuits claiming that nuclear subsidy schemes intrude on federal authority over wholesale energy prices. Subsidies give an unfair, seemingly manufactured advantage to nuclear generators in regional wholesale markets. Zero-Emission Credits distort energy price formation and increase uncertainty.
And we know that state and/or federal governments “choosing winners and losers” through direct subsidies bring higher utility bills for our homes and businesses. One study here finds that higher utility costs from the nuclear subsidy program in Illinois would eliminate 43,000 jobs in the state by 2030 and slash state revenues by $420 million.
All across our energy space, American homes and businesses win when there’s more free market competition, not less. This helps explain why at 12-13 cents per kWh, we enjoy some of the lowest power rates in the world and why nearly two-thirds of the states have deregulated electricity and/or natural gas in recent years. While gas will continue to remain abundant with low prices (I document that here), nuclear subsidies could continue to grow as plants inevitably age: U.S. nuclear capacity has been flat in the 105 gigawatt range since 1990.
Nuclear power has been doomed by cost escalation, while gas, efficiency, and renewables continue to get cheaper. And subsidizing nuclear plants isn’t popular in the states where ratepayers would have to foot the bill. Recent headlines tell the story:
“Subsidies for Nuclear Reactor Projects Waste Taxpayer Money,” U.S. News & World Report, August 17, 2017 (here)
“Poll: Overwhelming majority of Pennsylvanians oppose nuclear bailout by Legislature,” The Beaver County Times, August 16, 2017 (here)
“Nuclear Subsidies Distort Competition And Increase Power Prices,” Investors.com, May 31, 2017 (here)
“Manufacturers oppose proposed $7 billion nuclear power subsidy,” Albany Business Review, August 1, 2016 (here)
Simply put, political intervention in the U.S. electric power system distorts the market and is bad energy policy. Carnegie Mellon University’s Electricity Industry Center has documented this fact for years, here. Now our main source of electricity, the fast growing incremental market share of gas is mostly why U.S. CO2 emissions are at their lowest levels in decades (here). Since 2000, gas has about doubled its total generation to 1,200 TWh, while nuclear has stagnated in the 750-800 TWh range. Indeed, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s mission to be “fuel neutral” speaks against nuclear subsidies. This would support gas because it’s the most affordable of the most reliable sources (see Figure below on original ).
Trump govt offers nuclear plant $3.7B support Market Watch : Sept 29, 2017The Trump administration on Friday offered an additional $3.7 billion in loan guarantees to a troubled nuclear power plant project in Georgia that is billions over budget and years behind schedule, raising the total federal loan guarantees to $12 billion.
Energy Secretary Rick Perry said it was important for the U.S. government to support the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, which would be the first new nuclear reactors built in the country in more than three decades…….
It is the only remaining nuclear plant under construction in the U.S., after Scana Corp. in July pulled the plug on a similar project using Westinghouse reactors in South Carolina. That facility also encountered delays and cost increases, which raised its projected completion costs above $25 billion…….http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-govt-offers-nuclear-plant-37b-support-2017-09-29
Cheap Offshore Wind Won’t Make UK Give Up on Nuclear, Nukes to play “an important role for many years to come,” says the government. Greentech Media, by Jason DeignSeptember 29, 2017 A pricing record for offshore wind this month won’t change Britain’s nuclear plans, government sources confirmed.
“We need a diverse energy mix to ensure that demand for energy can always be met, and both nuclear and renewables will play an important role in this for many years to come,” a spokesperson for the U.K. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy said.
The statement follows widespread speculation about the future of the U.K.’s new nuclear program in the wake of an auction that saw offshore wind prices drop to just £57.50 (USD $76.34) per megawatt-hour.
That’s almost 38 percent below what the U.K. government has agreed to pay for nuclear generation at Hinkley Point C, a contentious 3.2-gigawatt plant slated for construction in Somerset, southwest England.
The project, which has already been criticized for increasing costs, was called into question after the renewables auction result, which awarded 11 competitive projects that ranged from offshore wind to waste-to-energy conversion.
As renewable energy becomes more affordable, the government’s decision on the new nuclear project may come under additional scrutiny,” Bloomberg reported.
Since Hinkley Point C was approved in September 2015, developer Électricité de France has increased the cost estimate for the project from £18 billion ($24 billion) to more than £20 billion ($27 billion), said Bloomberg.
In contrast, said Giles Dickson, CEO of industry body WindEurope: “Offshore wind has now shown it provides excellent value for taxpayers’ money.”
“In light of these latest price reductions, we call on the U.K. and other European governments to make ambitious commitments on future deployment volumes for offshore wind. To sustain these cost reductions, the industry needs to be able to plan ahead,” said Dickson.
Caught off-guard by the auction result, the nuclear industry hit back against the narrative…….
It remains to be seen whether Hinkley Point C will make it into that [energy] mix. The project, based on a French design which has seen cost and schedule overruns in France and Finland, has been beset by other problems.
National Assembly for Wales (accessed) 28th Sept 2017,
Petition “We call on the National Assembly for Wales to urge the Welsh
Government to direct Natural Resources Wales to suspend the licence it has
granted to NNB Genco, which permits up to 300,000 tonnes of radioactively
contaminated material, dredged from the seabed at the Hinkley Point Nuclear
power station site, to be dumped into Welsh inshore waters.
We further request that the suspension of the licence is used to ensure that a full
Environmental Impact Assessment, complete radiological analysis and core
sampling are carried out under the auspices of Natural Resources Wales, and
that a Public Inquiry, a full hearing of independent evidence and a Public
Consultation take place before any dump of the Hinkley sediments is
permitted.” https://www.assembly.wales/en/gethome/e-petitions/Pages/petitiondetail.aspx?PetitionID=1243
Politics Home 28th Sept 2017, A powerful trade union has labelled Clive Lewis “anti-working class” after
he launched an extraordinary attack on their defence of the nuclear
industry. The GMB said the former Shadow Cabinet member’s remarks were
“offensive to our members”.
Speaking at a fringe event at the Labour party
conference, Mr Lewis said the unions, and the GMB in particular, had become
“the voice of big business”. He also accused them of fighting “to the
bitter end” for the arms industry, but failing to speak up for the
renewable energy sector because it didn’t generate union members.
The Labour MP for Norwich South said: “One of the problems with where trade
unions are at the moment is that they have been so weakened that I think
they have become, and have been used by big business as, a voice for big
business.
“Because big business understands that if you have a unionised
workforce they also become spokespeople for you. They create a situation
where you have a wide and broad spectrum politically of people supporting
your particular position.
Reuters 29th Sept 2017, Britain’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has given a notice of
termination to Cavendish Fluor Partnership (CFP) for its management and
decommissioning of the country’s 12 Magnox nuclear power reactors and
research sites, it said on Friday.
The termination notice was effective
from Sept. 1 and allows for a 24-month notice period, ending CFP’s
contract on Aug. 31, 2019.
Reuters Staff, PARIS (Reuters) 27 Sept 17, – The French government plans to invest 20 billion euros in an energy transition plan, including 9 billion euros towards improved energy efficiency, 7 billion for renewables and 4 billion to precipitate the switch to cleaner vehicles.
The environment-related investments, drafted by economist Jean Pisani-Ferry and presented by Prime Minister Edouard Philippe on Monday, are part of a 57 billion-euro investment plan to run from 2018 to 2022.
Buildings are responsible for 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, so the government plans a 9 billion-euro thermal insulation programme that will focus on low-income housing and government buildings, the government said in a statement.
“The number of badly insulated low-income housing and social housing will be divided by two, and a quarter of government buildings will be renovated in line with environmental norms,” it said.
The programme aims at financing the renovation of 75,000 dwellings per year, or 375,000 over the government’s five-year term.
The government will also invest 7 billion euros ($8.31 billion) to boost the growth of French renewable energies by 70 percent over the next five years.
Poll: Far more trust generals than Trump on N. Korea, while two-thirds oppose preemptive strike, WP, By Scott Clement and Philip RuckerSeptember 24, 17, Two-thirds of Americans oppose launching a preemptive military strike against North Korea, with a majority trusting the U.S. military to handle the escalating nuclear crisis responsibly but not President Trump, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.
Roughly three-quarters of the public supports tougher economic sanctions on North Korea in an attempt to persuade it to give up its nuclear weapons, while just about one-third think the United States should offer the isolated country foreign aid or other incentives.
The Post-ABC poll finds 37 percent of adults trust Trump either “a great deal” or “a good amount” to responsibly handle the situation with North Korea, while 42 percent trust the commander in chief “not at all.” By comparison, 72 percent trust U.S. military leaders, including 43 percent saying they trust them “a great deal.”
A scant 8 percent of Americans surveyed think North Korean leader Kim Jong Un can act responsibly.
The large gap in confidence between Trump and the U.S. military, as measured in the new poll, comes as Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and other national security officials have emphasized a diplomatic approach to North Korea. Although Mattis has made clear that the United States is prepared and willing to retaliate to any attack with overwhelming force, he also has shied away from the rhetorical bombast employed by his boss……The large gap in confidence between Trump and the U.S. military, as measured in the new poll, comes as Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and other national security officials have emphasized a diplomatic approach to North Korea. Although Mattis has made clear that the United States is prepared and willing to retaliate to any attack with overwhelming force, he also has shied away from the rhetorical bombast employed by his boss………https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-far-more-trust-generals-than-trump-on-n-korea-while-two-thirds-oppose-preemptive-strike/2017/09/23/5cc4377c-9fbb-11e7-8ea1-ed975285475e_story.html?utm_term=.3996af118419
No2 Nuclear Power 25th Sept 2017, A new report by Emeritus Professor of Energy Policy, Steve Thomas, says it
is time to cancel Hinkley Point C. EDF and the French and UK governments
may try to suggest that it’s too late to stop and will talk up the costs
which have already been incurred. But the start of construction, when the
first structural concrete is poured, is still between 2 and 4 years away.
Preliminary works are conspicuous but relatively cheap. EDF Energy will
have incurred expenses since signing the deal with the UK Government in
October 2016 and some of these may be compensatable. But these costs would
be dwarfed by the costs of going ahead. http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/campaign-update/time-to-cancel-hinkley-point-c/
BBC 22nd Sept 2017, Labour would consider scrapping the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant, if it
won power. Critics of the deal have warned of escalating costs, including
in the so-called “strike price” – the guaranteed amount that consumers will
pay for the electricity generated. The UK government has guaranteed EDF a
fixed price for the electricity it produces for 35 years.
Asked whether Britain’s new nuclear power station should go ahead, Mr Corbyn said: “You
have to look at the strike price, you have to look at the long term
implications of it. “The government has not yet concluded on that.”
However, asked whether he would pull the plug if Labour came to power after
the station had been built, he said: “If it’s already built and in
operation then of course not.”But I do want to see, I must say, a much
greater diversity of energy generation.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41359590
But in reality, the Trump administration is changing many of the nitty-gritty but vital things the federal government does that affect the quality of life of anyone living or working in the United States. As became clear during Trump’s first 100 days, the administration is systematically dismantling consumer, labor, and environmental protections, as well as de-funding studies that might make the case for new rules. In July it said that it plans to suspend, discontinue, or change 860 rules and regulations, many of which were proposed at the tail-end of Barack Obama’s presidency.
A new onslaught may be on the way. Yesterday (Sept. 21), Trump appointed a new head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC): Dana Baiocco, a lawyer who built her career on defending companies against lawsuits on asbestos deaths and airline crashes. The commission’s former head, Eliot Kaye, had refused to follow an early White House order to eliminate two regulations for every new one passed, because it “would be counter to our safety mission.” If Trump’s past appointees are an indicator, Baiocco, who starts her new job on Oct. 27, is less likely to have such qualms……..
As the changes pile up, we’re keeping track of what’s been rolled back and what seems in danger of being weakened or eliminated. Here are the most important changes so far.
Worker protections…..
Fair wages…….
Health and safety……..
Consumer protections…..
Environmental Protections…….
Polluting the air. In March, Trump repealed Obama’s “Clean Power Plan,” which required states to slash carbon emissions from power plants. (He did this after naming coal industry-backed lawyers and talking heads to his cabinet.) The plan was crafted to prevent climate change, but it would also have prevented thousands of premature deaths due to air pollution, the EPA calculated, and prevented 90,000 asthma attacks a year.
America’s ‘doomsday’ plane will be Donald Trump’s HQ if nuclear war breaks out with North Korea, news.com.au , 21 Sept 17 TAKE a look on board the “doomsday” plane which will protect Donald Trump’s team if nuclear war becomes a reality. THESE incredible photos reveal the inner workings of the ‘Doomsday’ planes — America’s secretive set of jets designed to wage nuclear war from the skies.
The specially-designed aircraft follow President Donald Trump wherever he travels in Air Force One in case nuclear war erupts, reports The Sun.
Known officially as National Airborne Operation Centres, they allow US leaders and wartime hawks to issue directives and wage war from the sky.
The Boeing E-4Bs costs around $A311 million each to create and $A201,000 per hour to operate.
They also feature a vast array of defence mechanisms, including the ability to withstand electromagnetic pulses.
The jets’ crews also use traditional analog flight instruments to navigate as they are less susceptible to cyber attack.
De Smog Blog, By Itai Vardi September 19, 2017 President Trump’s nominee to head the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has, as a corporate attorney, personally represented a host of energy and utility companies, many of which do business that is directly impacted by FERC’s decisionmaking. According to Kevin McIntyre’s financial disclosure — obtained by DeSmog and published here for the first time — these include major utilities, fracking companies, pipeline builders, and international energy corporations.
McIntyre is a lawyer who co-leads the global energy practice for the legal and lobbying firm Jones Day, and is currently awaiting final Senate confirmation of his appointment to the nation’s top energy regulatory body. That confirmation may come as soon as this week.
McIntyre’s financial disclosure, submitted recently to the Office of Government Ethics, reveals that in the past two years alone he has represented various energy and utility companies. Some of these companies are regulated by FERC or have projects seeking FERC approval.
The list includes the following entities:
Ameren Corporation, a St. Louis, Missouri-based utility and power generation company. Ameren delivers electricity and distributes gas to over 1 million customers in Missouri and Illinois. The company owns several power-generating plants running on coal, gas, and oil. It also operates nuclear, hydroelectric, and renewable facilities.
American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEP), a large Columbus, Ohio-based electric utility supplying customers throughout the Midwest and Southwest US. The company owns about 60 power generating facilities, of which coal-fueled plants account for approximately 47 percent of AEP’s generating capacity, while natural gas represents 27 percent and nuclear 7 percent.
Lakeside Energy LLC, a Chicago-based energy holding firm that targets independent power generating and renewables industries.
Navajo Transitional Energy Company, a Farmington, New Mexico-based coal mining company owned by the Navajo Nation. The company supplies coal to the nearby Four Corners power plant.
SCANA Corporation, a Cayce, South Carolina-based energy holding company engaged primarily in electric and gas utility operations in the Carolinas and Georgia. The company also owns nuclear, hydroelectric, coal, and renewable power generating facilities.
TECO, a Tampa-based electric and gas utility providing services to customers in Florida and New Mexico. TECO is a subsidirary of Canadian energy and services giant Emera, which owns $29 billion in assets in North America and the Caribbean.
Traverse Midstream Partners, an Edmond, Oklahoma-based pipeline company with stakes in the Rover pipeline and Ohio River System pipeline. In both pipelines, Traverse partners with Energy Transfer Partners, the company behind the Dakota Access pipeline.
Ascent Resources, an Oklahoma City-based oil and gas exploration and production company that focuses on fracking in the Utica and Marcellus shales in Ohio and West Virginia.
Enable Midstream Partners, an Oklahoma City-based oil and gas gathering, processing, and transmitting company with operations in Oklahoma and Arkansas. One of Enable’s current proposed pipeline projects, the Central Arkansas Pipeline Expansion (CAPE), will require FERC approval.
EDF Energy Services LLC, a Houston-based subsidiary of French utility EDF, the company provides electricity, natural gas products and services to large-scale, energy-intensive commercial and industrial consumers in the US and Canada.
PT. Xintia Indonesia, an Indonesian company providing drilling equipment and services to the oil and gas industry.
SOCAR Trading S.A., a Geneva Switzerland-based company which is the marketing and development subsidiary of SOCAR, the state oil company of Azerbaijan. SOCAR Trading markets the bulk of Azeri crude exports.
Total Petrochemical & Refining USA, Inc., a Houston-based subsidiary of French oil and gas major Total involved in the production of various petrochemical materials with facilities in Texas and Louisiana.
Iberdrola Renovables Mexico S.A. de C.V., a Mexican subsidiary of Spanish electric utility giant Iberdrola, focusing on renewable energy investments in Mexico.
Concern Over Industry Ties
After a number of resignations and term expirations, as of this past June the FERC‘s bench had dwindled down to one single commissioner. The Trump administration has nominated four new candidates to restore the quorum needed for FERC to make key decisions.
Industry representatives lauded the reestablishment of a quorum on the commission, which can now approve the logjam of pending energy projects.
Critics, however, have sounded the alarm about some of the new appointees’ industry ties. Protesters with the group Beyond Extreme Energy had disrupted two Senate confirmation hearings in recent months.
They’ve pointed out that the newest FERC appointees Neil Chatterjee and Rob Powelson have ties to fossil fuel companies and utilities. While Chatterjee previously worked as an energy policy advisor to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Powelson developed a close relationship with the industry as a state utilities regulator.
Kevin McIntyre’s financial disclosure adds fuel to these concerns. McIntyre did not respond to a request for comment.
Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program at the government watchdog group Public Citizen, says the disclosure is cause for further concern. “I do think FERC has had problems of not accommodating the public interest as much as is spelled out in its statutory requirements,” Slocum says. “And McIntyre’s list of clients does not appear to include public interest clients, whereas today there is much opportunity for lawyers to represents such clients as well.”
Slocum adds that as co-lead of Jones Day’s energy practice, McIntyre is probably privy to other kinds of key information about energy clients, beyond those entities listed as the ones he personally represented at the firm.
“This complicates the question of potential conflicts beyond the list he provided in the disclosure since there’s uncertainty as to that kind of information he may hold,” Slocum says.
Theresa May under growing pressure to sign UN anti-nuclear treaty
Campaigners urge the Prime Minister to back global treaty calling for the total ban of nuclear weapons, Inde[endent Lizzy Buchan Political Correspondent, 17 Sept 17 Pressure is mounting on Theresa May to sign up to a UN treaty calling for the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons.
More than 120 nations endorsed the global treaty at a summit in July, which warns that a complete ban is the only way to prevent the “catastrophic humanitarian consequences” of the use of nuclear weapons.
Britain and other nuclear nations opposed the move, but critics have called on the Prime Minister to change course this week when the treaty will be opened for signatures at the UN’s annual general assembly.It comes amid escalating tensions between the US and North Korea, after a string of nuclear tests from the pariah state and war-like rhetoric from Donald Trump.
Anti-nuclear campaigners called on Britain to take the lead on disarmament, or risk offering a “blank cheque” to other nations seeking to boost their nuclear arsenal.
The UK and other nuclear powers support a non-proliferaton treaty, which prevents the spread of nuclear weapons – but the pact has previously attracted criticism for being ineffective.
Green Party co-leader Caroline Lucas said the Government had “utterly failed” in its commitment to nuclear disarmament, and urged the Prime Minister to back the UN treaty, in which signatories agree not to develop, test, buy or possess nuclear weapons………
Andrew Smith, of the Campaign Against Arms Trade, said: “For far too long, UK foreign policy has been guided by an unbending commitment to militarism and interventionism. Trident has been right at the heart of it.
“Despite this, there is a growing international consensus against nuclear weapons.
“It’s time for Trident-owning countries like the UK to take a lead, and take a crucial step towards a nuclear-free world.
“To continue doing otherwise will only provide an excuse and a blank cheque for every other country that seeks nuclear proliferation.”
nuclear-news 