Planners recommended against nuclear plant in 2019 citing fears for Welsh language

the inspectors’ report concluded that “the matters weighing against the proposed development outweigh the matters weighing in favour of it” and that despite planned mitigations the project could “adversely affect tourism, the local economy, health and wellbeing and Welsh language and culture”

Industry figures say fate of Anglesey facility to have been built by Hitachi shows problems with planning system

Guardian, Eleni Courea 7 Feb 25

Planning inspectors recommended against a Hitachi-built nuclear power plant in Anglesey on the basis that it could dilute the island’s Welsh language and culture, it has emerged.

Hitachi scrapped plans to build a £20bn nuclear power plant at Wylfa in 2020 over cost concerns after failing to reach a funding agreement with UK ministers.

Keir Starmer’s government has vowed to make it easier to build major infrastructure projects by reforming the planning system and stopping campaigners from launching “excessive” legal challenges.

The prime minister unveiled plans for a historic expansion in nuclear power this week, vowing to “push past nimbyism” and make sites across the country available for new power stations.

Nuclear industry figures believe that the fate of Hitachi’s proposed plant at Wylfa demonstrates the problems with the UK’s planning system.

Planning inspectors appointed by the UK government recommended that the project be rejected in 2019, warning of its impact on biodiversity, the local economy, housing stock and the Welsh language.

The inspectors’ 906-page report said the additional workers required by the project would put pressure on local housing and schools and that “given the number of Welsh-speaking residents, this could adversely affect Welsh language and culture”.

Hitachi carried out a Welsh language impact assessment as part of its application, which found that the project would need to bring 7,500 workers from outside the area. Anglesey has 70,000 residents and one of the highest concentrations of Welsh speakers in the country.

The impact assessment concluded the extra workers “could have a major adverse effect on the balance of Welsh and non-Welsh speakers” in the area and “could adversely affect the use and prominence of the Welsh language within communities”.

But the assessment also found that by creating high-skilled jobs for young people, the project would help preserve the Welsh language on the island. It would have created more than 2,000 local construction jobs for nine years, and about 85% of the plant’s workforce would be local under the plans.

Nevertheless, the inspectors’ report concluded that “the matters weighing against the proposed development outweigh the matters weighing in favour of it” and that despite planned mitigations the project could “adversely affect tourism, the local economy, health and wellbeing and Welsh language and culture”

It also found that the developers had not put forward enough evidence to demonstrate that the arctic and sandwich tern populations around the Cemlyn Bay area, where the plant was going to be built, would not be disturbed by construction. There were fears that the birds would abandon the area as a result.

The last Conservative government revived plans for a large-scale nuclear power station at Wylfa and bought the site from Hitachi for £160m. In its election manifesto, Labour pledged to “explore the opportunities for new nuclear at Wylfa”………………………………..

Linda Rogers of the campaign group People Against Wylfa B said Hitachi withdrew “because the government wasn’t able to provide adequate funding as far as they were concerned”.

She added: “[The plans] broke environmental regulations – which this present government is laughing at, at a time when we need to increase biodiversity – and affected very much the local wildlife, particularly terns. And it was bad for the Welsh language. There were a lot of issues why it was not appropriate to build at Wylfa.” https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/07/planners-recommended-against-nuclear-plant-in-2019-over-welsh-language-and-cultural-concerns-hitachi

February 10, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

The twelve ideal sites for mini nuclear reactors, according to an expert.

The Government might be pushing SMRs hard and they may be based on existing technology but they are still unproven.

A new generation of smaller nuclear reactors could be based on
decommissioned sites, speeding up the process considerably, a Government
adviser argues. The first generation of new mini nuclear reactors planned
by the government could be built on the sites of previous decommissioned
nuclear power stations, a leading expert has said.

The stations include 12
of the earliest nuclear sites in the UK, some of which date back to the
1960s and were much smaller than later nuclear power stations. Using a type
of reactor called Magnox, these first-generation nuclear sites were found
in counties such Gloucestershire, Essex, Kent, Oxfordshire, Dumfriesshire
in Scotland and Snowdonia in Wales – and are well placed to be used again
for so-called small modular reactors (SMRs), according to Dr Simon
Harrison, a member of the Government’s new advisory commission on hitting
its net zero target.

SMRs, or small nuclear reactors, are typically about a
tenth or a quarter of the size of a traditional nuclear power plant –
roughly the size of a school bus but six stories high.

The Government might be pushing SMRs hard and they may be based on existing technology but they are still unproven. While they are being promoted as quick and cheap there
is a risk that they could end up running over time and budget.

There are also questions over how SMRS could be financed, given that SMR projects
around the world need financial support from governments. The UK is
expected to use a ‘funding framework’, known as a regulated asset base
(RAB) model, which puts part of the upfront cost on to household energy
bills before the plants start generating electricity, effectively putting
households on the hook for any delays.

The Government is to loosen planning
regulations to allow SMRs to be built in the countryside, with Starmer
insisting he would use Labour’s massive majority to push through the
changes. Dr Harrison, of the Mott MacDonald engineering consultancy, told
The i Paper: “To get the first small modular reactors deployed quickly I
would expect there to be a focus on the old Magnox sites in the first
instance. Dr Harrison said the amount of space available on some of these
Magnox could limit the size of the SMR deployed. And he pointed out
“there has also been interest in old coal power station sites”, meaning
the list can’t be taken to represent the 12 best options. Which sites are
ideally suited to small nuclear reactors. Berkeley, Bradwell, Chapelcross
Dungeness, Harwell, Hinkley Point A, Hunterston A, Oldbury, Sizewell,
Trawsfynydd, Winfrith and Wylfa.

 iNews 6th Feb 2025 https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/sites-mini-nuclear-reactors-experts-3522717

February 9, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

  Starmer’s “anti-democratic” push to put Nuclear Reactors incommunities without consultation

 Starmer has announced plans to reform the
planning system around nuclear power. Under plans proposed on Wednesday,
nuclear development will not be restricted to the eight current designated
nuclear sites, but opened up to the general planning process.

Starmer, speaking in the commons, vowed to “break through” resistance by
utilising the party’s majority to ensure there is no dissent. These plans
are part of a package announced to encourage AI datacentres to be
established in the UK, with SMRs (small modular nuclear reactors) to power
them.

SMRs are an unproven technology sold as an alternative to massive
reactor sites such as those currently being built in Hinkley Point C and
proposed at Sizewell C. SMR development is often reliant on government
funding to do the R&D and eventual construction work – often funded by
“nuclear levies” via the RAB (Regulated Asset Base) on local
communities.

Communities charged by RAB models are often promised returns
in the form of lower bills, a claim hotly disputed. Research in Going
Nuclear, a book by CND Cymru chair Mabon ap Gwynfor MS shows that when
Trawsfynydd was operational in Gwynedd, the area paid some of the highest
per-unit cost of electricity anywhere in Britain. CND Cymru has already
recently raised concerns about inappropriate nuclear development in
Bridgend.

Last Energy, a US-based company, is currently consulting on a bid
to build 4 SMnRs in a site on the old Llynfi Power Station. CND Cymru
National Secretary, Dylan Lewis-Rowlands, said “If the proposals from
Westminster are to be believed, then not only could plans similar to this
pop up anywhere in Wales or England, but could also be pushed through
against community will from the UK Government.

The current ultimaten planning authority for projects under 300MW of generation, which includes this proposal, currently lies with Welsh Government Ministers – are the
plans here also a proposal to run roughshod over devolution?”

CND Cymru
vice-chair, Brian Jones, added: “This is not just a question of nuclear
development, but of democracy. The intention of this move by Starmer seems
to be something that the nuclear power and weapons industry has only dreamt
of before – the ability to ignore communities wishes and focus their vast
lobbying budgets on getting the central government to allow them to build
wherever they want, without opposition. It is fundamentally putting profit
before people and planet, and turning Britain into a nuclear power test
site for SMRs. It is, in one word, anti-democratic”.

 CND Cymru 6th Feb 2024  Starmer has announced plans to reform the
planning system around nuclear power. Under plans proposed on Wednesday,
nuclear development will not be restricted to the eight current designated
nuclear sites, but opened up to the general planning process. Starmer,
speaking in the commons, vowed to “break through” resistance by
utilising the party’s majority to ensure there is no dissent. These plans
are part of a package announced to encourage AI datacentres to be
established in the UK, with SMRs (small modular nuclear reactors) to power
them. SMRs are an unproven technology sold as an alternative to massive
reactor sites such as those currently being built in Hinkley Point C and
proposed at Sizewell C. SMR development is often reliant on government
funding to do the R&D and eventual construction work – often funded by
“nuclear levies” via the RAB (Regulated Asset Base) on local
communities. Communities charged by RAB models are often promised returns
in the form of lower bills, a claim hotly disputed. Research in Going
Nuclear, a book by CND Cymru chair Mabon ap Gwynfor MS shows that when
Trawsfynydd was operational in Gwynedd, the area paid some of the highest
per-unit cost of electricity anywhere in Britain. CND Cymru has already
recently raised concerns about inappropriate nuclear development in
Bridgend. Last Energy, a US-based company, is currently consulting on a bid
to build 4 SMnRs in a site on the old Llynfi Power Station. CND Cymru
National Secretary, Dylan Lewis-Rowlands, said “If the proposals from
Westminster are to be believed, then not only could plans similar to this
pop up anywhere in Wales or England, but could also be pushed through
against community will from the UK Government. The current ultimate
planning authority for projects under 300MW of generation, which includes
this proposal, currently lies with Welsh Government Ministers – are the
plans here also a proposal to run roughshod over devolution?” CND Cymru
vice-chair, Brian Jones, added: “This is not just a question of nuclear
development, but of democracy. The intention of this move by Starmer seems
to be something that the nuclear power and weapons industry has only dreamt
of before – the ability to ignore communities wishes and focus their vast
lobbying budgets on getting the central government to allow them to build
wherever they want, without opposition. It is fundamentally putting profit
before people and planet, and turning Britain into a nuclear power test
site for SMRs. It is, in one word, anti-democratic”.

 CND Cymru 6th Feb 2024  Starmer has announced plans to reform the
planning system around nuclear power. Under plans proposed on Wednesday,
nuclear development will not be restricted to the eight current designated
nuclear sites, but opened up to the general planning process. Starmer,
speaking in the commons, vowed to “break through” resistance by
utilising the party’s majority to ensure there is no dissent. These plans
are part of a package announced to encourage AI datacentres to be
established in the UK, with SMRs (small modular nuclear reactors) to power
them. SMRs are an unproven technology sold as an alternative to massive
reactor sites such as those currently being built in Hinkley Point C and
proposed at Sizewell C. SMR development is often reliant on government
funding to do the R&D and eventual construction work – often funded by
“nuclear levies” via the RAB (Regulated Asset Base) on local
communities. Communities charged by RAB models are often promised returns
in the form of lower bills, a claim hotly disputed. Research in Going
Nuclear, a book by CND Cymru chair Mabon ap Gwynfor MS shows that when
Trawsfynydd was operational in Gwynedd, the area paid some of the highest
per-unit cost of electricity anywhere in Britain. CND Cymru has already
recently raised concerns about inappropriate nuclear development in
Bridgend. Last Energy, a US-based company, is currently consulting on a bid
to build 4 SMnRs in a site on the old Llynfi Power Station. CND Cymru
National Secretary, Dylan Lewis-Rowlands, said “If the proposals from
Westminster are to be believed, then not only could plans similar to this
pop up anywhere in Wales or England, but could also be pushed through
against community will from the UK Government. The current ultimate
planning authority for projects under 300MW of generation, which includes
this proposal, currently lies with Welsh Government Ministers – are the
plans here also a proposal to run roughshod over devolution?” CND Cymru
vice-chair, Brian Jones, added: “This is not just a question of nuclear
development, but of democracy. The intention of this move by Starmer seems
to be something that the nuclear power and weapons industry has only dreamt
of before – the ability to ignore communities wishes and focus their vast
lobbying budgets on getting the central government to allow them to build
wherever they want, without opposition. It is fundamentally putting profit
before people and planet, and turning Britain into a nuclear power test
site for SMRs. It is, in one word, anti-democratic”.

 CND Cymru 6th Feb 2024 https://www.cndcymru.org/en/about-us2/

February 8, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Starmer pledges to ‘build, baby, build’ as green groups criticise nuclear plans

Greenpeace says PM has ‘swallowed industry spin whole’ after plans unveiled to expand in England and Wales

Peter Walker and Matthew Taylor, Guardian 6th Feb 2025

Keir Starmer has channelled his inner Donald Trump and promised to “build, baby, build” in his push for more nuclear power stations, despite warnings from environmental groups about the industry’s record for soaring costs and long delays.

A day after the prime minister unveiled his plans to revamp planning rules to bring in a series of small modular reactors (SMRs) across England and Wales, Greenpeace said Starmer had “swallowed the nuclear industry spin whole”, and Friends of the Earth described the plans as “overblown, costly hype”.

Formally announcing the plans on Thursday, however, Starmer insisted the recent glacial pace of nuclear power development was precisely why things had to change.

Asked if, much like Trump’s pro-fossil fuels mantra of “drill, baby, drill”, he now advocated “build, baby, build”, Starmer replied: “I say: build, baby, build. I say: we’re going to take on the blockers so that we can build.”………………………………………………………………………………………………..

However ambitious, the project faces obstacles, including likely local opposition, despite hints from Starmer that people could get lower bills if they lived near a new reactor. The technology also remains untested, there is not a single commercial SMR operating in the world, and the sector is heavily reliant on government support.

Dale Vince, a green electricity entrepreneur and a major donor to Labour under Starmer, said even large nuclear power stations made “the most expensive power known to mankind”, adding: “And the widely understood and experienced concept of economies of scale is all about things getting cheaper as they get bigger. The opposite is true in the other direction – miniaturisation always costs more.”

Doug Parr, Greenpeace UK’s policy director, said Starmer’s plan was unrealistic. “The Labour government has swallowed nuclear industry spin whole, seemingly without applying so much as a pinch of critical scrutiny or asking for a sprinkling of evidence,” he said.

“They present as fact things which are merely optimistic conjecture on small nuclear reactor cost, speed of delivery and safety, which is courageous – or stupid – given that not a single one has been built, and with the nuclear industry’s record of being over time and over budget unmatched by any other sector.”

Mike Childs, the head of policy for Friends of the Earth, said nuclear power was “extremely expensive and creates a legacy of radioactive waste that lasts for thousands of years”.

“The Hinkley C nuclear plant in Somerset, which is a decade late and almost £30bn over budget, makes HS2 look like a runaway success,” he said. “If ministers want to build a clean, affordable and energy-secure future they should focus on renewables, such as wind and solar, and better energy storage – not the overblown, costly hype offered by the nuclear industry.” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/06/starmer-pledges-to-build-baby-build-as-green-groups-criticise-nuclear-plans

February 8, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Somerset Green councillor slams Sir Keir Starmer over Hinkley Point C comments

Why should UK environmental protection be sacrificed for the profit of the French nationalised electricity industry?”

Sir Keir Starmer is trying to make it harder to oppose major infrastructure projects

By Daniel Mumby, Local Democracy Reporter,  Somerset Live 28th Jan 2025, https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/somerset-green-councillor-slams-sir-9900421
The leader of the Green Party on Somerset Council has attacked the prime minister following his recent comments on Hinkley Point C. EDF Energy has courted controversy over plans to create new saltmarshes in the Severn estuary to offset the environmental impact of Somerset‘s new nuclear power station.

In an article for Mail Online, prime minister Sir Keir Starmer lambasted efforts to block major infrastructure projects, singling out opposition to the acoustic fish deterrent which EDF had originally proposed for Hinkley Point C. These comments have drawn the ire of Councillor Martin Dimery, who warned Mr Starmer that his stance would lose him support across the south west.

Mr Starmer’s comments came as the government announced reforms to the judicial review system, restricting the grounds on which such reviews could be lodged to “stop blockers getting in the way” of infrastructure projects. He said in his article: “There are countless examples of nimbys and zealots gumming up the legal system often for their own ideological blind spots to stop the government building the infrastructure the country needs……………………………………

In an open letter to Mr Starmer, he said: “I wish I was joking when I point out that the sonar device due to be installed at Hinkley Point C was agreed from the outset to avoid the mass carnage of fish being sucked into the reactor’s mechanism, thus destroying huge quantities of the Bristol Channel’s fish stock. Fish remnants can also cause blockage and mechanical failure in nuclear power plants.

“Last year, EDF applied to Somerset Council to scrap the sonar device in an attempt to cut construction costs. As chairman of the climate and place scrutiny committee, I refused to sign off this appalling attempt to disregard the natural environment and the region’s fishing industry for the sake of EDF’s profits. Why should UK environmental protection be sacrificed for the profit of the French nationalised electricity industry?”

Reports recently resurfaced in the national press that Mr Starmer stated “I hate tree-huggers” at a shadow cabinet meeting in July 2023, at which current net zero secretary Ed Miliband MP unveiled new energy policies to combat climate change.

Mr Starmer denied using this phrase, telling BBC correspondent Laura Kuennsberg that his comments about green energy had been taken out of context.

Mr Dimery added, in direct reference to these claims: “‘Tree hugger’ I may be, prime minister, but if you’re so appalled at the prospect of individuals standing for the environment and against disreputable business practice, then you may find you lose a great deal of support from elected councillors of all political persuasions.”

January 31, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Heysham power station debate sparks questions on safety and incidents

By Robbie Macdonald, Lancaster Guardian 24th Jan 2025

Heysham nuclear power station safety, public health, waste, jobs, clean energy and the roles of councillors, from scrutiny to enthusiastic support, were raised in a Lancaster City Council debate.

It followed a recent announcement by the government and EDF about extending the generating lives of Heysham’s two nuclear reactors and the possibility of smaller reactors being there in the future.

Labour Coun Phillip Black, the former city council leader who resigned in November, put forward a motion backed by others, welcoming the news about extending Heysham 1’s and Heysham 2’s generating lives to 2027 and 2030.

Labour councillors and some others also wanted the council to state it had ‘confidence’ in the safety considerations underpinning the date extensions. And they also wanted the council to state support for new nuclear’ activity at Heysham in future.

However, others including many Greens, said Labour was irresponsible with the motion, given the wide spectrum of responsibilities councillors were supposed to consider.

Green Coun Gina Dowding said: “It’s really irresponsible to bring these two issues into one motion. Both are really important and deserve separate consideration.

“I recently asked a qualified architect, who has spent her working life on nuclear issues, about this. She said it would be deeply irresponsible for the council to ‘welcome’ the extensions. Extending the operating dates beyond the sites’ lifetimes should be questioned by the council – that is our role,” she emphasised. “These buildings were built in the 1980s based on reactor designs in the 1970s.”

She added: “We should also look at anomalies, such as an unforeseen circumstances , which are increasingly happening. There have been unplanned shut-downs. There was one last week. A loud bang was heard and a cloud seen, which concerned residents and the fire brigade was called.”

She also highlighted the proximity of the Heysham nuclear site, along with one at Hartlepool in the north-east, to areas with populations of over 100,000. She added: “At Heysham, the majority of people would be down-wind of any incident. So any motion saying this is ‘great for the future’ is not appropriate. Just because nothing has happened so far does not mean it couldn’t happen in future.

“Of course, there are skills and jobs in nuclear energy. But there are also skills and jobs in the decommissioning stages. Also in renewable energy, along with the potential to create more jobs and generate electricity for less cost.”

…………………………………….Fellow Green Tim Hamilton-Cox said. “Small modular reactors are still beyond the horizon and we have not yet got a permanent solution for nuclear waste. Some councillors have been against having that discussion. Speaking personally, I am not against nuclear power per se. But there are still many considerations and still no permanent solution for waste.”

Lib-Dem Peter Jackson, a member of the city council’s new cabinet, said: “I invite Labour councillors to bring forward a separate discussion about future Heysham questions as soon as possible.”

Morecambe Bay Independent Martin Bottoms, also on the new cabinet, also argued the extensions and any future developments should be treated separately. New modular reactors would not be on the horizon until at least 2025……………………………………

But Labour councillors opposed separating current and future topics. https://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/news/national/heysham-power-station-debate-sparks-questions-on-safety-and-incidents-4958881

January 27, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Legal challenges to infrastructure plans to be blocked in Starmer growth push

Dr Ruth Tingay, a prominent environmental campaigner and a co-director of Wild Justice, said: “It sounds like Starmer is auditioning for a role in Trump’s cabinet.

Prime minister hopes his plan to ‘take the brakes off Britain’ will send a message to business to build more

Pippa Crerar, Kiran Stacey, Sandra Laville and Patrick Barkham. Guardian 23rd Jan 2025

Legal challenges to infrastructure plans to be blocked in Starmer growth push

Prime minister hopes his plan to ‘take the brakes off Britain’ will send a message to business to build more

Pippa Crerar, Kiran Stacey, Sandra Laville and Patrick BarkhamThu 23 Jan 2025 11.01 AEDTShare

Campaigners will be blocked from “excessive” legal challenges to planning decisions for major infrastructure projects including airports, railways and nuclear power stations as part of the government’s drive for economic growth.

High court judges will be given the power to rule that judicial reviews on nationally significant projects that they regard as “totally without merit” – and which can currently be brought to the courts three times – will be unable to go to appeal.

Keir Starmer said the change would “take the brakes off Britain” by reforming the planning system, sending a message to business to build more national infrastructure, as ministers desperately pursue opportunities to improve the economy.

“For too long, blockers have had the upper hand in legal challenges – using our court processes to frustrate growth,” he said.

“We’re putting an end to this challenge culture by taking on the nimbys and a broken system that has slowed down our progress as a nation.”

It is one of a range of measures being considered by the government as part of an all-encompassing dash for growth, which has caused alarm among environmental groups.

With GDP figures barely moving since the election, Rachel Reeves is looking at proposals from airport expansion to widespread deregulation in an effort to improve the UK’s economic outlook.

Government sources said the chancellor was “deeply unimpressed” with the pro-growth ideas presented by a number of the country’s biggest regulators when she met them last week, and has since instructed them to improve their plans………………………………………………………………………….

However, some environmentalists have expressed unease with the government’s drive to curtail legal challenges to infrastructure projects, of which they have promised to deliver 150 this parliament………………….

​In February 2020, Starmer tweeted “congratulations to the climate campaigners” when plans for a third runway at Heathrow airport were ruled illegal by the court of appeal after a judicial review.

“There is no more important challenge than the climate emergency. That is why I voted against Heathrow expansion,” he said then…………………………………

The current first attempt – known as the paper permission stage – will be scrapped. Primary legislation will be changed so that where a judge in an oral hearing at the high court deems the case “totally without merit”, it will not be possible to ask the court of appeal to reconsider. A request to appeal second attempt will be allowed for other cases………………………………….

Green groups also have voiced concerns over plans to overrule environmental protections to free up the planning system with a new Nature Restoration Fund which, the government said, would not allow protected species such as newts and bats to be deemed more important than homes or infrastructure.

Niall Toru, senior lawyer at Friends of the Earth, said: “No one is above the law, not even the government.

“Friends of the Earth only brings cases we think are strong and necessary to protect people and nature from unlawful harm – and considering our string of recent legal wins, so do the courts.

“It is deeply concerning that Labour is attempting to scapegoat claimants. If ministers don’t want to be challenged in the courts, they should act within the law, because already cases aren’t allowed to proceed unless they have merit.”

Dr Ruth Tingay, a prominent environmental campaigner and a co-director of Wild Justice, said: “It sounds like Starmer is auditioning for a role in Trump’s cabinet.

“This proposal doesn’t make any sense whichever way you look at it. First, campaigners can only take judicial reviews if their case does have merit, as judged by the high court.

“So to then allow another judge to block an appeal on the basis that the case is ‘totally without merit’ is nonsensical and will lead to problems of accountability and lack of scrutiny.

“Second, and more importantly, economic growth based on environmental and climate degradation is a loser’s game, and we’ll all be paying the price of that.” https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/23/legal-challenges-to-infrastructure-projects-to-be-blocked-in-push-for-growth

January 25, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Suffolk Coastal MP said priority to hold Sizewell to account.

24th January, By Dominic Bareham,  East Anglian Daily Times

A Suffolk MP has written to the developers of the new Sizewell C nuclear power station expressing concerns raised by her constituents about the current construction.

Jenny Riddell-Carpenter, MP for Suffolk Coastal, said her priority was to hold Sizewell C to account on its “social valuable and charitable investments, employment opportunities and environmental actions”.

Campaigners from action group Together Against Sizewell C (TASC), which is opposed to the power station, have written to her asking her to call a halt to the project due to the “huge amount of environmental damage being inflicted by the project”.

………………………………………………………………In the letter, TASC raised concerns works associated with the Sizewell C project were causing environmental damage, including a new link road, access road, five roundabouts and park and ride sites.

It said: “These projects have resulted in the felling of thousands of trees, grubbing out miles of hedging and covering vast areas under concrete and tarmac, devastating the biodiversity-rich environment, Heritage Coast and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty landscape in the process.

“This amounts to wholesale environmental vandalism, especially when the project still not only lacks a final investment decision but also a final design of the all-important sea defences, has no guaranteed sustainable supply of potable water essential for its 60 years of operation and with the nuclear site’s ground stabilisation trials remaining unfinished.”  https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/24876996.suffolk-coastal-mp-said-priority-hold-sizewell-account/

January 25, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Labour Minister concedes no new nuclear power stations will be built in Scotland

Michael Shanks said the SNP Government’s opposition to new nuclear would see plants blocked

Paul Hutcheon, Political Editor, Daily Record, 21st Jan 2025

The UK Energy Minister has said there will be no new nuclear plants in Scotland because they would be blocked by the SNP Government. Michael Shanks said he disagreed with the Edinburgh administration’s position but said their stance was “legitimate”.

Shanks made his comments in an evidence session to Holyrood on the Labour Government’s plan for GB Energy. The publicly-owned company will be headquartered in Aberdeen and is aimed at spearheading a clean energy revolution.

But nuclear appears to have no future in Scotland as the SNP Government is opposed and can exercise a veto through the planning system.

………..“They’ve set a very clear statement that there will be no new nuclear in Scotland. I might disagree with that but that is the landscape they operate in and therefore there is no plans, there will be no engagement on that issue because it is very clear that those applications would be blocked by the Scottish Government and that is the legitimate position that the Scottish government [takes] on planning matters.”

He added that there was no “confrontation” and said GB Energy has to comply with the rules, regulations and planning statements in each part of the UK.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/labour-minster-concedes-no-new-34522820

January 24, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

It is only a matter of time before nuclear development at Bradwell falls by the wayside.

Energy and the role of nuclear power

7 January 2025, Andrew Blowers, Emeritus Professor of Social Sciences, Open University and Chair of BANNG considers this topic in the January 2025 column for Regional Life magazine

At the beginning of 2024, the Conservative Government published its Civil Nuclear: Road Map to 2050, proclaiming its commitment to recovering the UK’s global leadership in nuclear power. The Road Map was gung-ho for big nuclear at Hinkley Point C (still unfinished) and Sizewell C (still looking for investors just to get started); plus a fleet of Small (in fact rather large) Modular Reactors chosen by competition (still awaiting the winning design); and the (vanishingly) distant prospect of a raft of Advanced Modular reactors, including fusion (that tantalisingly evanescent Holy Grail of nuclear fulfilment)

It was the accompanying New approach to siting beyond 2025 which most attracted our attention. The Government proposed a developer-led approach, in effect a market free-for-all where developers are invited to find suitable sites for new nuclear power stations. At the same time, six sites identified back in 2011, including Bradwell, were carried forward as having ‘inherent positive attributes’ potentially suitable for consideration.

BANNG commented that developers would be unlikely to ‘identify sites beyond those that are being dangled in front of them already’. Yet again, we were at pains to stress that the Bradwell site is simply unsuitable and does not possess any of these ‘positive attributes’, least of all widespread public support. At a meeting with the then Minister for Energy, I made it crystal clear that there is widespread deep and extensive opposition from the local communities around the Blackwater.

A change of Government brought no change in nuclear policy; if anything Labour is even more effusive in its support for nuclear as essential in providing clean, stable and reliable power.

Once again, BANNG took up the challenge. With Stephen Thomas, Emeritus Professor of Energy Policy at Greenwich University, I wrote a paper exposing the ‘Great British Nuclear Fantasy’ which formed the basis of a discussion with the Minister for Energy, Lord Hunt.

We stressed that any expansion of nuclear power would be ‘too expensive, unrealistic but above all, simply unachievable’. There were no sites yet available for nuclear projects, least of all Bradwell. In response Lord Hunt reassured us that we were not ‘blockers’ and had presented a reasoned, professional argument which, to give him credit, he listened to.

Climate Change
As the impacts of Climate Change (CC) are becoming more evident it is ever more obvious that sites like Bradwell are wholly unsuitable for major infrastructures like nuclear power stations or big transformers. During the year BANNG helped to lead a series of workshops with the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), responsible for the safety of nuclear plants, on the implications of CC for nuclear regulation.

The ONR confirmed that our work had been a significant influence on its understanding of CC. BANNG asserted that CC makes Bradwell the least suitable of all the sites currently in the ring for nuclear development. BANNG has urged the Chief Executive of ONR ‘to resist the presumption that Bradwell is an acceptable site and to declare that it should be withdrawn from further consideration’.

BANNG ended the year with a further challenge, this time to Great British Nuclear
(GBN), the body responsible for pushing forward nuclear development, inviting
it to confirm that any proposals ‘will be subject to scrutiny and consultation through
the open, democratic and participative processes of public engagement.’

Our conclusion is that despite all the rhetoric, the nuclear programme is stuttering
and Climate Change may well seal its fate. It is only a matter of time before
nuclear development at Bradwell falls by the wayside.

January 23, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Over time, over budget… will our new nuclear plants ever be built?

A damning report on EDF, the French company aiming to construct Sizewell C,
has thrown the project into doubt, while Hinkley Point C faces soaring
costs and delays.

The cost of nuclear power in the UK came roaring back
into the headlines last week after reports that the final bill for Sizewell
C, the planned new power station on the Suffolk coast, would be £40
billion — twice what was initially expected. This was followed by a
damning report on EDF, the French state-backed company that is proposing to
build Sizewell, which laid bare its financing problems, raising questions
about whether the plant will be built at all.

Hinkley is running years late and is massively over budget, prompting critics to wonder whether this is a model we should be copying. EDF had originally envisaged that [Hinkley]
would be in operation by this year; its most optimistic scenario now puts
the start date for the first of its two reactors at 2029. Meanwhile,
Hinkley’s original £18 billion cost on the eve of its construction has
ballooned to up to £35 billion in 2015 prices — or £46 billion in
today’s money.

Unfortunately, the financing for both plants is far from
settled. It is estimated that cost overruns at Hinkley mean it needs to
find another £5 billion to finish the work. This shortfall has been
exacerbated by EDF’s partner in the project, China General Nuclear Power,
refusing to put in more money after being excluded from Sizewell on
national security grounds.

Alison Downes of the Stop Sizewell C campaign
said: “We’ve no faith this project is being looked at objectively, so
it’s vital that the Office for Value for Money [the new government
agency] launches an immediate inquiry before ministers sleepwalk into a
disastrous decision.”

Having allocated £5.5 billion to Sizewell in the
budget, most observers expect Labour to give the green light at the
spending review. Some argue that the “sunk-cost fallacy” — a
reluctance to abandon projects in which a lot of money has been invested,
even if that would ultimately be a more cost-effective option — has
kicked in, and that cancelling it now would trigger a large and galling
write-down for the government. Nor are there obvious alternative vendors of
large nuclear projects — at least not yet. Bull, of Manchester
University, said axing Sizewell would send a terrible signal: “I think
the real cost of not doing Sizewell C is that we end up with another failed
project, and investors start to think we are just not serious.”

 Times 19th Jan 2025 https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/companies/article/whats-happening-with-britains-nuclear-plants-and-when-will-they-be-built-tr6v0986f

January 20, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment