Scotttish politicians slam the danger, secrecy, of hazardous air transport of nuclear wastes
There’s no safe way to move nuclear waste’: Scottish Politicians slam nuke flight that needed armed cop convoy http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/gun-cop-8859315, 18 SEP 2016 BY JIM LAWSON Green MP John Finnie and Caithness MP Paul Monaghan among those to voice concerns about flying nuclear waste to the US. THE first flight believed to be carrying British nuclear waste to America took off from Wick Airport amid tight security yesterday.
Scots politicians and anti-nuclear campaigners have slammed the deal, brokered by David Cameron and Barack Obama, to move the waste.
The airport was closed from early morning as armed police patrolled the perimeter.
Twenty miles away in Thurso, more armed officers escorted a lorry from the 
Dounreay nuclear plant through the town. It was carrying two heavily reinforced containers.
At 11.40am, a police convoy brought the containers on to the runway.
A US Air Force transport plane landed 10 minutes later and loading began almost immediately. The plane took off two-and-a-half hours later.
The plan to transport highly enriched uranium from Dounreay to the US emerged late last year.
Dounreay bosses won’t confirm or deny the scheme, but Cameron revealed after talks with Obama earlier this year that uranium from the plant would be moved to South Carolina.
Other types of uranium will be sent to Europe in exchange and used to make medical isotopes. But Dr Richard Dixon, director of Friends of the Earth, said: “There is no truly safe way to move this waste.”
Caithness MP Paul Monaghan said the deal was “morally reprehensible” and Green MP John Finnie said people would be stunned that nuclear waste was being transported by plane.
Nuclear expert John Large said: “The risk in transport by air is the fuel being engulfed in fire, the packages breaking down and the fuel igniting.”
The runways at Wick have been extended at a cost of £18million to take the US planes, and Highland Council have published an order allowing local roads to be closed for five hours at a time until March 2018.
Police refused to comment on yesterday’s operation for security reasons.The first flight believed to
be carrying British nuclear waste to America took off from Wick Airport amid tight security yesterday.
Scots politicians and anti-nuclear campaigners have slammed the deal, brokered by David Cameron and Barack Obama, to move the waste.
The airport was closed from early morning as armed police patrolled the perimeter.
Twenty miles away in Thurso, more armed officers escorted a lorry from the Dounreay nuclear plant through the town. It was carrying two heavily reinforced containers.
At 11.40am, a police convoy brought the containers on to the runway.
A US Air Force transport plane landed 10 minutes later and loading began almost immediately. The plane took off two-and-a-half hours later.
The plan to transport highly enriched uranium from Dounreay to the US emerged late last year.
Dounreay bosses won’t confirm or deny the scheme, but Cameron revealed after talks with Obama earlier this year that uranium from the plant would be moved to South Carolina.
Other types of uranium will be sent to Europe in exchange and used to make medical isotopes. But Dr Richard Dixon, director of Friends of the Earth, said: “There is no truly safe way to move this waste.”
The runways at Wick have been extended at a cost of £18million to take the US planes, and Highland Council have published an order allowing local roads to be closed for five hours at a time until March 2018.
Police refused to comment on yesterday’s operation for security reasons.
South Africa’s Democratic Alliance (DA) demands truth on secretive nuclear contract
DA DEMANDS ANSWERS OVER NUCLEAR CONTRACT http://ewn.co.za/2016/09/17/DA-demands-answers-over-nuclear-contract The party has called on the Energy Ministry to answer questions about an apparent nuclear contract. Gia Nicolaides | a day ago
JOHANNESBURG – The Democratic Alliance (DA) says the Energy Ministry needs to answer questions about an apparent nuclear contract that has left South Africans in the “dark”.
The Mail & Guardian is reporting that Shantan Reddy, the son of President Jacob Zuma’s friend Vivian Reddy, clinched a contract worth R171 million for the procurement of a nuclear build programme management system.
It’s been listed on the Energy Department‘s website under the “awarded bids” section, despite Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa recently saying that a final decision to proceed with a nuclear build programme will only be made once there’s been a request for proposals.
The DA’s energy spokesperson Gordan Mackay says, “Since the president made the announcement in 2014 about the nuclear build programme, not a single document has surfaced in Parliament. We have submitted questions again three weeks ago, which she has declined on the basis that the information was sensitive.”
Empire Technology appears to have clinched the multi-million rand contract. (Edited by Shimoney Regter)
Serious questions about South Africa’s nuclear power tender process
Energy department to co-operate with Treasury on nuclear deal, BUSINESS NEWS / 18 September 2016, Pretoria – The energy department will fully co-operate with National Treasury regarding the nuclear new build programme, Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson insisted on Saturday……………….
The awarding of the contract to Reddy’s company was highly irregular considering that both Joemat-Pettersson and Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa had been at pains to assure South Africans that no deal had been concluded.
“If there is in fact no nuclear deal yet, why the need to procure a R171-million system to manage it?” Mackay asked.
Alarmingly, the contract with Reddy was awarded on the back of an as yet unidentified tender in the Free State and not publically advertised on the department’s website, as was standard practice. That notwithstanding, the deal with Reddy was personally signed off by the department’s director general.
“This raises serious questions surrounding the tender process that was followed, not least of which is what knowledge the minister had of the deal with Reddy.”
The DA would submit parliamentary questions to Joemat-Pettersson to ascertain, among other things, the reasons for the deviation from the department’s standard procurement process and the basis on which Reddy’s company, an entity with no experience in the nuclear field, was awarded the contract.
Also, whether the minister had any involvement in, or knowledge of the contract and why a contract for the management of the new build programme had been awarded if, by the minster’s account, no deal had been concluded.
“The move is premature at best and once again suggests that protestations by government are a smokescreen to hide the fact that the nuclear new build is a done deal. Moreover, the development ads to the growing body of evidence suggesting that the primary motivation being Zuma’s pursuit of the ill-advised and unaffordable nuclear deal is to enrich his cronies and fund his patronage network.
“The DA has long maintained that the nuclear deal has potential for corruption the likes of which South Africa has never seen. One thing is increasingly clear – the only really beneficiary of the nuclear deal will be Zuma Inc at the expense of an already highly indebted and fragile South African economy,” Mackay said.
African News Agency (ANA) http://www.iol.co.za/business/news/energy-department-to-co-operate-with-treasury-on-nuclear-deal-2069549
Britain’s nuclear gamble will cost every UK family an extra £1,000
The £18bn Hinkley gamble: Nuclear deal will cost every UK family an extra £1,000 as May signs off on the plans to protect Britain’s national security
- Prime Minister approved plans after restricting influence of Chinese state
- Britain will guarantee EDF £92.50 per megawatt hour, up on current market price of £38.91
- Tory MP Zac Goldsmith said the plant would generate ‘most expensive energy in the history of energy generation’
By JASON GROVES DEPUTY POLITICAL EDITOR FOR THE DAILY MAIL, 16 Sept 16
Electricity bill-payers will be forced to make up the difference once the plant in Somerset comes on stream in the 2020s.
The National Audit Office has warned these subsidies will add almost £30billion to electricity bills over the project’s lifetime. That is an extra £30 for the average annual bill over 35 years – totalling more than £1,000 per household.
Last night Tory MP Zac Goldsmith said by the end of the project ‘this new power plant will have generated the most expensive energy in the history of energy generation’.
And former Tory chancellor Lord Lawson said every independent energy expert believed the Hinkley project was a ‘thoroughly lousy deal’. He said EDF was ‘hopelessly behind schedule’ on similar plants in France and Finland and called on ministers to pull the plug if it encountered similar problems here……..
Last year, the French nuclear safety authority found weaknesses in the steel used to construct the pressure vessel at the heart of the reactor. These faults could mean that either the plant would have to operate at a much-reduced capacity, or the reactor would have to be rebuilt – or worse abandoned.
In extremis, if the vessel fails critics fear it could lead to a catastrophic nuclear accident on the scale of the Chernobyl disaster.
It is the same reactor design EDF plans to use for Hinkley, a so-called European Pressurized Reactor (EPR). This is similar to the Sizewell nuclear power station on the Suffolk coast, but on a larger scale and with extra safety features.
However, the British government has agreed to pay EDF much, much more for the electricity the Hinkley version would produce than the French government has for the electricity from Flamanville.
Controversially, the Cameron government guaranteed EDF a fixed price of £92.50 per megawatt hour over a period of 35 years, whereas EDF will charge the French government only €64 (£54) per megawatt hour for the electricity it hopes to produce in Normandy……….. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3791895/The-18bn-Hinkley-gamble-nuclear-deal-cost-UK-family-extra-1-000-signs-plans-protect-Britain-s-national-security.html
At least 4 years before UK’s Bradwell nuclear plan could be approved
China must wait four years for decision on Bradwell nuclear plant
After Hinkley Point C go-ahead, Essex reactor would be even more significant for China – and more controversial for UK, Guardian, Graham Ruddick and Tom Phillips, 17 Sept 16 China faces at least a four-year wait to find out whether its plans to build a nuclear power station in Essex will be approved.
If it got the go-ahead, Britain would be relying heavily on Chinese investment for its future energy supply after the government approved the construction of an £18bn nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset, which will be 33% owned by China General Nuclear (CGN).
Theresa May pushed through the Hinkley Point C project despiteopposition from MPs and the public over its cost and the involvement of China. However, the project in Bradwell, Essex, is even more controversial because it would be majority owned and designed by China………
Under the deal, CGN agreed to invest £6bn inHinkley Point C in return for leading its own power plant project at Bradwell.
The Bradwell plant is considered vital by the state-owned company because it would be the first Chinese nuclear reactor to be built in a developed country and an opportunity to promote China’s technological expertise.
CGN plans formally to submit its plan for a nuclear reactor at Bradwell within weeks. However, it would take at least four years for the Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR) to assess the proposals and possibly approve them. This means that despite the government having approved Hinkley Point C, the shape of Britain’s future energy supply will remain unresolved for some time……..
The process for the Chinese company would be the same as for other new reactors and would take around four years, as long as the group met the timetable for submissions and provided sufficient detail…….
CGN would own two-thirds of the Bradwell B project, with the French energy company EDF owning the rest. This is the reverse of Hinkley Point C, which is two-thirds owned by EDF and of a French design…….
Johnny Hon, a Sino-British entrepreneur and vice-president of the 48 Group Club, which promotes trade links between the countries, said: “Although the news is most welcome from China’s perspective, their most anticipated deal is the third potential reactor in Bradwell in Essex – whose details are yet to be confirmed.
“This reactor would be the first in a developed country to use Chinese technology and [would] be a breakthrough in establishing China as a global leader in nuclear power.”…….
General Electric, the US industrial giant, has confirmed it is in line to receive $1.9bn (£1.5bn) by building steam turbines and generators for the power plant. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/16/china-must-wait-four-years-for-decision-on-bradwell-nuclear-plant
Climate Change Think Tank sets out 10 serious mistakes in Hinkley nuclear decision
HINKLEY GREEN LIGHT A MASSIVE STRATEGIC MISTAKE, SAYS CLIMATE CHANGE 
THINK TANK http://tomburke.co.uk/2016/09/15/hinkley-green-light-a-massive-strategic-mistake-says-climate-change-think-tank/ September 15, 2016 by tomburke Following reports today that the Government is about to give the green light to the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station, E3G, a leading climate change think tank said it would be a hugely expensive strategic mistake, using expensive 20th century technology that would soon be obsolete.
E3G Chairman, Tom Burke said: “It is a 20th Century solution to 21st Century problems. Bigger is no longer better. There are faster, cheaper, cleaner and smarter ways to deliver affordable, secure, low carbon electricity to Britain’s consumers.
Nothing about this deal is good for Britain’s hardworking families. They will pay the bill for decades but the jobs will go abroad. It is bad for consumers, bad for the climate and bad for the country.
The Prime Minister is missing a real opportunity to set Britain on course to a more productive and secure future. Instead she has committed us to an expensive and anachronistic energy policy that will leave Britain further behind in a rapidly changing world.”
- E3G sets out below ten reasons why this is a bad deal for British consumers and documents the range of cheaper, smarter, options for low carbon energy security that are better value for money.
HINKLEY POINT : The 10 Mistakes
The Investor Agreement that Greg Clark will sign with EDF is an irrevocable index-linked ‘take or pay’ contract to purchase 35 years’ worth of electricity from EDF at more than twice the current wholesale price. This will cost British consumers £37 billion in subsidy, four times that originally forecast[1]
- This deal binds future governments as well as the current Government. It will prevent Britain’s consumers buying cheaper electricity if it would displace that from EDF.
- It means Britain’s electricity consumers will pay more than £1 billion/year in subsidy to EDF for 35 years.
- The business case for this Agreement has never been subject to informed public scrutiny. The arguments for HPC and the rest of the nuclear programme have never been stress tested.
- The National Audit Office has already raised doubts that it represents value for money in the light of developments, including significant reductions in electricity demand forecasts, since it was first proposed[2].
- The National Infrastructure Commission has identified a package of other measures that could provide affordable, secure, low carbon electricity at lower cost.
- The National Grid has cut its forecast of the need for new centralised generation capacity in Britain by more than 50%, announcing its estimate of growth for decentralised generation was 50 times too low[3]
- EDF’s unions will argue in the French Courts that delaying a Hinkley decision until 2018 would allow for a design review to be completed that would reduce the subsidy needed from £92.50/MWh to £75/MWh[4].
- State Aids clearance for the UK subsidy is under challenge by the Austrian Government and others in the European Court. A further State Aids challenge is likely to the French Government’s re-financing of EDF. If either is successful the deal will fall.
- Hinkley will not produce electricity until 2030. There are cheaper, faster, cleaner and more reliable options available to deliver affordable, secure, low cost electricity to British consumers. These include:
- energy efficiency has reduced electricity demand by 25TWh ( 7% – the same as Hinkley will produce ) since 2010. A McKinsey report for the Government estimates that by 2030 demand could be reduced by a further 23% while reducing consumers bills;
- the National Infrastructure Commission reports that additional interconnectors could supply 2-3 Hinkleys by 2025;
- another National Infrastructure Commission report proposed investment in storage and smart grids that would provide the equivalent of 4 Hinkleys by 2030 and save £8 billion.
- Dong Energy, the world’s largest wind energy company, could replace all Hinkley’s electricity sooner and at lower cost. Offshore wind costs are continuing to fall.
- electricity from solar power is now also cheaper than Hinkley, having fallen by half in the last five years. From almost no solar panels in the UK, a third of a Hinkley has been added since 2010. Half of that was delivered in just 18 month.
- E3G is an independent global think tank, working to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy. E3G specializes in climate diplomacy, climate risk, energy policy and climate finance.
- In 2016, E3G was ranked the number one environmental think tank in the UK by the Go To Think Tank Index, second in Europe and sixth in the World.
Chaotic planning in South Africa: nuclear power not necessary
Nuclear power call is based on outdated plans, warns Yelland, BD Live South Africa
BY CHARLOTTE MATHEWS, 16 SEPTEMBER 2016, SA DID not need to commission huge new inflexible nuclear power capacity because the government’s chaotic planning meant there was a big chance the country would have a surplus of electricity in the next few years, Chris Yelland, the MD of EE Publishers, said on Thursday.
“SA does not have an energy crisis, it has a management crisis,” he said.
Yelland was speaking at the launch of Powermode’s monitoring portal, shortly after Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson said a request for proposals for 9,600MW of nuclear power would be issued on September 30.
Yelland said government figures released in Parliament this week showed electricity demand since 2011 had trended significantly lower than in the low-growth scenario in the outdated 2010 Integrated Resource Plan, and its 2013 update. Flagging demand reflected slow global growth in recent years and an economy moving towards lower energy intensity.
“Government cannot forecast correctly for five years, let alone 50. If SA moves to nuclear newbuild, it is committing to one vendor for 9,600MW, based on 2010 estimates, which are clearly wrong.”………..
Members of the Energy Intensive Users Group, SA’s biggest power consumers, were installing more solar power to reduce their reliance on Eskom.
As Eskom’s market share was shrinking, its unit costs were rising, requiring ever-higher tariffs, which in turn forced more customers to become self-sufficient. Yelland said Eskom’s next application to recover costs was likely to be for a R22bn clawback, double what it was allowed in 2016.
In the past decade, Eskom’s tariffs have risen fourfold in nominal terms and were now increasing at double its historical average, adjusted for inflation.
Yelland said SA had to move away from centralised planning to a market-driven model for power-generation and create more distributed generation rather than generating most of its power on the Highveld. It needed a greater mix of different sources, not a large amount of new nuclear power. All this would provide the flexibility to meet changing demand patterns.http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/energy/2016/09/16/nuclear-power-call-is-based-on-outdated-plans-warns-yelland
South Africa: Jacob Zuma’s disastrous nuclear deal
Zupta’s nuclear deal: either we end it or it ends us, Politics Web, 16 Sept 16, Jacob Zuma’s nuclear deal will be disastrous for South Africa. It will literally bankrupt us, diverting billions of rands from poverty reduction projects, while producing a nuclear white elephant in two decades’ time. But it will make a lot of money for Zuma, the Guptas and ANC cronies in the short-term and they will be long gone by the time we feel the real pain.
In Parliament last week, Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson confirmed that government is going ahead with the nuclear procurement process and Public Enterprises Minister Lynne Brown confirmed that information on the process will not be made public. In other words: “We’re going to tie you into far more debt that you can ever repay, but this is none of your business.”
This morning, a DA-assisted Mail and Guardian investigation has revealed the first concrete signs of corruption associated with the nuclear deal. A R171 million contract for the “Nuclear New Build Programme Management System” has been issued, potentially irregularly, to the son of Vivian Reddy, a close friend and ally of President Jacob Zuma.
South Africans should be deeply concerned about the government’s nuclear project. Let’s be clear. It is in no way motivated by a genuine desire to secure South Africa’s energy future in the most cost effective and sustainable way. Rather, this huge project is going ahead because Zuma, the Guptas and other ANC elites stand to make millions in bribes and tenders.
Like the Arms Deal, Nkandla and the President’s new jet, there is no intention to use state resources judiciously in order to derive the maximum public benefit. And like these ill-conceived projects, the nuclear deal will have the ultimate effect of stealing from all of us, but particularly the poor, in order to enrich a small group of connected ANC cadres……….
In forging ahead with this ill-conceived plan, our hapless government is locking SA into an over-priced, outdated technology within Eskom’s monopoly, while blocking the development of renewables which are dynamic, increasingly cost-effective and more job-creating. It is no coincidence that Eskom is refusing to sign any new contracts with independent power producers…………http://www.politicsweb.co.za/opinion/zuptas-nuclear-deal-either-we-end-it-or-it-ends-us
Theresa May, under pressure from France and China caves in on Hinkley C nuclear go-ahead
The UK’s energy department, BEIS, today announced the go-ahead for the controversial Hinkley Point C (HPC) nuclear power plant in Somerset.
Only weeks ago Theresa May’s government delayed the signing of the deal with EDF to confirm its subsidy package which is likely to cost UK energy users anywhere from £30 billion to over £100 billion for 35 years after it opens.
The surprise move was widely welcomed due to a broad range of concerns about the HPC project, including:
- its very high cost, more than double the current wholesale power price and far more than the current cost of even high-cost renewable power from offshore wind;
- security concerns over China’s involvement in core UK infrastructure;
- the lack of any single example of a working EPR reactor anywhere in the world;
- the severe delays, cost overuns and technical problems at all EPR construction sites;
- and the low value of HPC’s contribution to UK energy supply in the new decentralised ‘smart grid’ era.
Pre-announcement spin indicated that the HPC deal would be subject to a number of“significant conditions” that would address these problems. But in the event energy secretary Greg Clarke is giving the go-ahead for HPC to almost precisely the same deal that was on the table before.
Ther only difference to be found in the energy department announcement is that arrangements have been put in place to allow the Government to “prevent the sale of EDF’s controlling stake prior to the completion of construction, without the prior notification and agreement of ministers.”
In particular the price remains unchanged……….
And as far as China is concerned, the UK is desperate to reach a trade deal with what is now by some measures the world’s largest economy and a major exporter to the UK. In particular the UK is seeking tariff-free access to the fast-gowing Chinese economy for UK manufactures, and the powerful financial services industry.
We can be sure that both countries leaders and ministers put the frighteners onto Theresa May and her entourage at the recent G20 summit to go ahead with HPC – and that she succumbed to that pressure at enormous cost to the UK, failing to win even the smallest concession on price.http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2988131/hinkley_c_nuclear_goahead_may_caves_in_to_pressure_from_france_and_china.html
Nuclear industry will grind to a halt, if no waste disposal solution
Progress on waste issue key to support for nuclear: US senator Washington (Platts)–15 Sep 2016 US Senator Dianne Feinstein of California said at an appropriations subcommittee hearing Wednesday that she cannot continue to support nuclear power if there is “no strategy for the long-term storage of the waste.”
Feinstein, the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, criticized the nuclear power industry in her opening statement on what she called its failure to speak with “one voice” on the need for interim storage of utility spent fuel. The country, she said, “should be working to establish interim [spent fuel] storage far away from reactors and population centers.” The hearing was scheduled to look at the future of nuclear power.
The lesson of the Yucca Mountain repository project is “any solution to nuclear waste needs to be voluntary,” Feinstein said. She and subcommittee chairman Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, and Senators Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican and chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Maria Cantwell of Washington, the ranking Democrat on the energy committee, have introduced legislation that would, among other things, establish a consent-based siting process. The bill has not moved out of committee, however.
Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz told the subcommittee that a voluntary siting process is needed and that DOE will discuss during at a public meeting Thursday in Washington input the department received during eight public meetings held across the US on what a consent-based siting process should involve this year.
Support for a nuclear waste facility has to be aligned on the community, state and federal levels to avoid “bad surprises later on,” Moniz said.
In response to a question from Feinstein, Moniz said DOE’s general counsel has said the department has the authority, although not specifically stated, to use a private-sector facility to store utility spent fuel. He said DOE could move forward on setting up contracts with such facilities.
Currently, private-sector efforts are underway in Texas and New Mexico to site consolidated interim storage facilities that would have DOE as its only customer. http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/washington/progress-on-waste-issue-key-to-support-for-nuclear-21519625
Hillary Clinton’s role in the Fukushima nuclear disaster cover-up. Illegal hiding of emails
I am dumping these screen captures of all the Fukushima emails that I reviewed. I have all the PDFs downloaded and stored and backed up.
But I want to get this out there now, so you can view. Of this $400B dollar a year industry (nuclear), how much do you think they funneled to Hillary or some Super-Pac?
First off, she knew of the dangers of Fukushima, and the precautions that should have been taken, the next 3 graphics are from 1 email, March 12, 2011
Hillary Clinton — Very Sick Person, Very Dangerous Person, Proof That She Is Willing to Kill Americans For Her Power http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com.au/2016/09/hillary-clinton-very-sick-person-very.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+NukeProfessional+(Nuke+Professional)
Read below, this really spells it out very clearly. Hillary Clinton Threw American’s Under The Bus, Doubtless Costing Many Lives and Painful Diseases
Her emails, and lack of emails proves this clearly.
Here is the breakdown:
- Clinton was Secretary of State at the Time
- She was clearly briefed on the dangers of Fukushima
- She was getting several emails a day on Fukushima updates
- People in government were pushing her hard to make a trip to Japan even though she was very tired and overworked
- These same people were imploring her to “Go talk to Kissinger” about strategies for the Japan/Fukushima deal
- Hillary went and got a strategy from Kissinger, and decided to make the trip to Japan to meet one on one with top officials.
Now, with a big trip to a world super power and close allie, after the worst industrial accident in history, you know that there would be a lot of emails to coordinate the trip.
But after that meeting with Kissinger there was not a single Japan or Fukushima related email in what she turned over. Not one. They were all disappeared. Under penalty of contempt of court, a jailable offense, or worse, she had all those emails purged.
Why would anyone take a risk this large just to coverup a trip and discussion with one of our closest allies? 60 other top secret emails were released to the FBI (not disappeared), BUT the coverup of the Fukushima story was so important that Clinton and her group committed a felony by removing these from the record.
What is known and what is the most likely story that makes sense.
Uncertainty about Hinkley nuclear project, despite UK govarnment’s approval
An amber light for China in UK nuclear power https://www.ft.com/content/40dbd3fa-7b2f-11e6-ae24-f193b105145e
Uncertainty about the £18bn Hinkley project survives a review After unexpectedly announcing a review at the end of July, the UK government has given the go-ahead for construction of the nuclear power station at Hinkley Point. This is the most important strategic decision since Theresa May became prime minister — one that has a bearing not only on the UK’s future competitiveness, but on its relations with China and France.
Regrettably, Mrs May has eschewed the chance to amend the commercial terms of the project, to be built at the gargantuan cost of £18bn by EDF, the French utility, with co-investment from the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) and China Guangdong Nuclear Power. She has, though, announced a plan for new rules governing foreign investment in critical infrastructure. The impact of these on the nuclear programme is uncertain. If sufficiently stringent they could yet put the Hinkley project in doubt.
When it was first conceived a decade ago as part of plans to kick-start a nuclear “renaissance” as old coal-fired plants become obsolete, the Hinkley project was a more attractive proposition. Expected to be competitive with other power sources, it would also help Britain meet ever tougher emissions targets. A decade on — and at a time when the costs of wind power, solar energy and natural gas have all been falling — the price built into the deal is nearly four times higher. The French utility will receive more than double the present UK wholesale power price, indexed and guaranteed for 35 years. Questions therefore remain as to whether the project marries Britain’s energy needs with emission reduction targets in the most cost-effective way.
Mrs May ordered the review to assess concerns over the cost, the unproven technology involved and the role of Chinese investors in a plant that is due to meet about 7 per cent of domestic electricity demand. Her amendments all focus on national security. As part of a new, as yet unclear, legal framework for foreign investment in critical infrastructure, the government will in future hold a golden share in all nuclear power projects. Unexceptionally, this ensures that significant stakes cannot be sold without UK consent.
Of more concern potentially to Beijing is the additional security scrutiny to which the government plans to subject future nuclear projects. Again, the principle is sound from a UK perspective, but the details remain obscure.
China’s objective in putting £6bn into Hinkley Point was to be able to build its own reactors in the UK. During the “golden era” of Sino-UK relations proclaimed by the previous government of David Cameron when President Xi Jinping visited London last year, Beijing envisaged Hinkley as a springboard for its nuclear industry seeking other deals worldwide.
Both EDF and the Chinese have welcomed Mrs May’s decision to go ahead with the project. At least publicly, Beijing sees no obstacle towards its other planned investments with EDF. However, uncertainty over the long-delayed project has survived the review in important respects. Should additional regulatory scrutiny get in the way of Beijing’s other nuclear ambitions in the UK, notably a planned power plant at Bradwell, it could jeopardise the rationale for Chinese investment at Hinkley Point. EDF has warned that, without Chinese money, it may not proceed with the Hinkley scheme.
The last word on Hinkley may not have been written. Mrs May has addressed the concernsof security chiefs with a compromise that avoids an outright block. But she has deferred greater clarity on the extent to which she sees China playing a strategic role as an investor in the UK.
Hinkley nuclear station still might never happen
Hinkley C nuclear go-ahead: May caves in to pressure from France and China, Ecologist Oliver Tickell 15th September 2016 It still might never happen
But despite today’s announcement there remains considerable uncertainty as to whether HPC will actually be built – among them legal challenges in the European Court to the unbelievably generous subsidy package for the project which appears to be incompatible with the EU’s ‘state aid’ regulations.
In addition both EDF and CGN, poised to take a 33.5% share in HPC, are unlikely to commit significant further capital to HPC until the Flamanville situation is resolved, and there is at least one working EPR to demonstrate that the design is constructable and operable – something that is still years away.
The highly risky (if potentially very profitable) project is also widely opposed within EDF as if it fails to ever generate power, or to operate reliably, it is likely to bankupt EDF. Also the company has yet to to line up the £16 billion (or more) it will need to finance its share of the project.
“This decision is unlikely to be the grand finale to this summer’s political soap opera”, said Greenpeace executive director John Sauven. “There are still huge outstanding financial, legal and technical obstacles that can’t be brushed under the carpet.
“There might be months or even years of wrangling over these issues. That’s why the Government should start supporting renewable power that can come online quickly for a competitive price.”
Richard Black, director of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), added:“Despite this being called a ‘final decision’ to build Hinkley C, other hurdles, including technical and legal challenges, may well lie ahead for the project.
“French trade unions don’t like it, nor do some of the likely candidates for the French Presidential Election next year, EDF’s finances are not the healthiest, and the French nuclear regulator is examining flaws in steel used for a similar reactor being built in France. So it may turn out not to be quite as ‘final’ as it looks now.
“Although China is reportedly happy with the new position, questions also remain over its main ambition – building its own nuclear reactors at Bradwell in Essex as a route into the Western market. The Chinese reactor hasn’t even begun the process of gaining UK safety approval, which usually takes four years, so negotiating a contract for Bradwell would fall to the next UK Government, not this one.
“And by then, electricity from other sources might look a whole lot cheaper than it does now.” http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2988131/hinkley_c_nuclear_goahead_may_caves_in_to_pressure_from_france_and_china.html
New safeguards for Hinkley Point C nuclear power station “just window dressing”
Hinkley Point C nuclear power station gets government green light Labour and environmental groups say new safeguards for foreign investment are merely “window dressing”, Guardian, Rowena Mason, Simon Goodley, 16 Sept 16, Theresa May has been accused of backing down on security concerns about Chinese involvement in nuclear power after she gave the go-ahead to the £18bnHinkley Point C plant following a six-week review.
The government insisted the new plant in Somerset was only being approved with “significant new safeguards” to make sure China and other foreign investors could not own stakes in British nuclear plants without UK government approval.
However, Labour and environmental groups said the new security measures were merely “window dressing” and “hot air” that changed very little about the project, as the price remains the same and the new security powers already exist in law.
Under the proposals, EDF, the French firm building the plant with a £6bn investment from a Chinese state nuclear firm, will not be able to sell on its ownership without permission. For future projects, the UK government will own a “special share” that means it will have a veto over owners if there are national security concerns.
In a sign the new requirements do not appear to be overly stringent, both EDF and China General Nuclear said they were delighted by the approval, which they claimed will let them proceed with Hinkley and their wider plans for nuclear construction in the UK in future.
The Chinese are keen to proceed with a new plant at Bradwell in Essex in particular because it will be their own design built under the UK’s tough safety regulations, allowing the company to use it as a showcase to the rest of the world………
John Sauven, the Greenpeace executive director, also said the government’s review “appears to have been a lot of hot air”.
“The prime minister has baulked at the political embarrassment of irritating the French and offending the Chinese. Consequently, even if EDF manages to get the technology to work, the UK will pay the price by saddling themselves until 2060 with an out of date, flawed and expensive technology,” he said.
Clark, the business and energy secretary, said the new security restrictions were an improvement, claiming EDF would have been at liberty to sell its stake on without the revised contract.
His Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy confirmed that this was the only new security requirement for Hinkley to proceed.
The controversial scheme in Somerset was approved six weeks after May unexpectedly placed the project under review, causing tensions with Beijing.
Following the review, the government is keeping a guaranteed price of £92.50 to EDF for every megawatt hour of electricity generated, despite concerns that is far higher than the market rate.
Chinese officials have previously given a series of veiled warnings that a decision by Britain to halt their investment in UK nuclear would be seen as a snub and would put at risk a supposed golden era of relations between the two countries.
The decision means Hinkley will be the first new nuclear reactor built in Britain in two decades……….https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/15/hinkley-point-c-nuclear-power-station-gets-go-ahead
Hinkley nuclear and Brexit b- a bad deal for everyone concerned
How Hinkley delivers a bad deal for everyone http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2016/09/15/how-hinkley-delivers-a-bad-deal-for-everyone/ By John Foley
The economics of building Hinkley Point C for 18 billion pounds haven’t changed since last year, but they’re still not good. British energy users will effectively pay the difference between what operator EDF has been promised per megawatt hour, and the going market price. In September the UK government put that at 37 billion pounds over the contract’s 35-year life, or 15 billion pounds in today’s money.
It’s not much better for the French group. Should all go to plan, EDF could make a return on investment of around 9 percent a year, it says. But similar plants underway in France and Finland have run wildly over time and over budget.
Britain loses in another way too, because the new government is using Hinkley to launch a wide-ranging review of its authority to intervene in foreign takeovers of “critical infrastructure”. Over a decade ago, lawmakers deliberately took politics out of mergers. Interventions have been limited to matters of national security, media plurality and the stability of the financial system. The government now points out that other “major economies” have more stringent controls on foreign investment in infrastructure projects. That misses the point that Britain’s appeal has been that it is more open than places like France, China and the United States.
Why go ahead with such an unappealing project? The answer is Brexit. Voters’ decision to leave the European Union means Britain needs friends prepared to sign favourable trade deals. Scrapping Hinkley would poison the water for future talks with China, which is putting up a third of the cost of the project. Meanwhile, since almost half of Britain’s gas comes from continental Europe, developing more home-grown nuclear power may strengthen Britain’s hand ahead of negotiations over access to the single market.
Seen that way, going ahead with Hinkley may deliver a short-term benefit in the next couple of years, as Britain’s post-Brexit arrangements are hammered out. But the long-term disadvantages and financial costs will, like nuclear waste, contaminate the country for decades
1 This Month
Protect Sazan Island from the Trump family! https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/protect_sazan_island_from_the_trump_family_loc/?bqFCVab&v=174511&cl=22707147157&_checksum=5e9dde668860e8231c33699735e16a1fbf22ab2cb01da50c999fe8732b9775ef&utm_source=email&utm_medium=blast_email&utm_campaign=174511
25 June- THE PUKE ON NUKES
Thursday, June 25, 2026
7pm Central Time (8pm ET, 6pm MT, 5pm PT) UTC – 5
From NRC & DOE Deregulation to Techno-Fascist Billionaires Going Nuclear, Plus a Few Songs from Atomic Cabaret REGISTER
26 June – Radiation Trainwreck at the NRC / Join the Protect Better Campaign – https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/4ZlZ5_qLSHGiLSCg8FF6Bg#/registration
Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State
PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees”
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- June 2026 (138)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 