British MPs slam £25billion nuclear power station plan
MPs attack ‘desperate’ £25bn Hinkley nuclear power station plan http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3298926/MPs-attack-desperate-25bn-Hinkley-nuclear-power-station-plan.html By NEIL CRAVEN, FINANCIAL MAIL ON SUNDAY, 1 November 2015 A group of MPs have slammed a plan to build a £25billion nuclear power station, as opposition to the Government’s nuclear energy policy gathers steam.
An Early Day Motion that calls the plan to build at Hinkley Point, in Somerset, as ‘an act of desperation’ has been signed by 16 MPs in just 10 days.
Paul Flynn, MP for Newport West, which lies across the Bristol Channel from the planned site, has tabled the motion.
It says that similar reactors in France and Finland have suffered ‘catastrophic delays and financial losses’.
Experts also say the plan could cost billions more than expected and produce electricity that is far more expensive than market rates.
French energy firm EDF and China Nuclear Power Corporation agreed last month to build the plant. But criticism has come from all sides.
Chancellor George Osborne’s father-in-law Lord Howell of Guildford described the scheme as ‘one of the worst deals ever’ for British consumers and industry.
Urgent need for transparency on South Africa’s Integrated Energy Plan (IEP)
IEP 2015 must be tabled urgently: DA http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/iep-2015-must-be-tabled-urgently-da-1.1938828#.Vjab-dIrLGg November 1 2015 By ANA Reporter Cape Town – The Democratic Alliance on Sunday urged Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Petterson to urgently table the integrated energy plan (IEP) 2015 so that it can be scrutinised in Parliament.
The IEP 2015 presently before Cabinet indicated that government planned not one but up to three R1 trillion nuclear deals by 2050, all the while acknowledging that procurement of nuclear could in fact be delayed until at least 2020, if not later, DA spokesman Gordon Mackay said in a statement.
“The DA therefore calls on Energy Minister Joemat-Petterson to table this IEP as a matter of urgency and allow Parliament to scrutinise this document and address the key issues within this plan.”
According to reports in the Sunday Times on Sunday morning, the proposed IEP nuclear-generating capacity would be expanded to between 12 and 20 times South Africa’s current installed nuclear capacity of 1830 MW, he said.
This effectively meant the energy department envisioned a series of large-scale nuclear deals over the next 20 years, despite ongoing and significant concerns on affordability by National Treasury and uncertainty as to the impact on the cost of electricity for ordinary South Africans, particularly the poor.
The purpose of the IEP was to provide a roadmap of the future energy landscape for South Africa to guide future energy infrastructure investments and policy development by providing a thorough analysis of competing technologies for the provision of sustainable and cost-effective electricity.
“Far from being a thorough assessment of competing technologies however, the IEP is nothing more than a slavish confirmation of the inevitability of the nuclear new build program and is the product of political interference by the ANC government into the terrain of energy planning,” Mackay said.
The IEP therefore failed to provide an assessment of a potential energy mix which excluded nuclear, despite the international energy landscape where major nuclear nations, such as Germany, France, and the US, were all reducing their reliance on nuclear in favour of cleaner and cheaper renewables and gas.
Further, the IEP argued for an energy mix biased towards a combination of large scale nuclear and large scale decentralised renewables, despite general international consensus that the two technologies were largely incompatible due to the variable nature of renewables electricity generation. “Furthermore, the scope for gas in the IEP has deliberately been limited in order to produce a ‘nuclear heavy’ energy roadmap. The IEP is way too conservative on the scope of gas within in the energy mix. Internationally, a number of gas producers are coming online and numerous new gas finds are being made across Africa. This will result in an increased availability of natural gas and the subsequent decrease in the price of natural gas,” he said.
Government should have used the IEP to aggressively pursue gas as an alternative energy form, which was far safer, cleaner, cheaper, and more job friendly compared to the use of the potentially politically motivated and unaffordable nuclear build programme.
“The DA remains fundamentally opposed to costly, secretive nuclear deals which have the real potential to destroy any prospects of future economic growth and job creation, and as such will not support government’s latest and unimpressive solution to the energy crisis in the form of the integrated energy plan,” Mackay said.
South Africa’s flawed and problematic Nuclear Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
New nuke build: EIA problematic and flawed http://gctca.org.za/new-nuke-build-eia-problematic-and-flawed/BY GAVIN, ON OCTOBER 28TH, 2015 As South Africa contemplates building nuclear power stations along the coast, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) consultants, GIBB, are holding public meetings to discuss their recently released draft report. The proposed nuclear builds are in Thyspunt (80 km outside Port Elizabeth) and Duynefontein (next to Koeberg, 30 km outside Cape Town).
“Thyspunt is the preferred site for Nuclear 1,” says Gary Koekemoer from NoPEnuke, “and no public meetings were scheduled for the Nelson Mandela Bay area thereby excluding 1.1-million citizens from this process. Further, it is our view that the current EIA process is fundamentally flawed with key information excluded.”
This EIA is the third draft published over eight years and was made available for scrutiny by GIBB consultants at the end of September. “The draft is a 40,000 page document and a quick count of words in the appendices making up the specialists’ reports alone showed that one would have to read around 90,000 words a day just to skim read it all before the public meetings were held,” says Peter Becker from the Koeberg Alert Alliance.
Widespread dissatisfaction has been expressed from many stakeholders around the limited time period allowed for public participation.
At the meetings, GIBB condensed their findings into a simplified scoring system for risks with ratings of Low, Moderate, High, or Fatally Flawed. “The scoring system is inadequate,” says Dr. Piet Human, project leader at the Bantamsklip Organisation. “The scores do not have a scientific or quantitative basis; what is ‘high’ for one may be ‘medium’ for another scientist. This subjectivity is then further compounded by the scores given by GIBBS.”
Becker describes a hypothetical scenario: “If the consultants found that there was a 51% chance that the new nuclear plant would explode catastrophically in the first year of operation, this would not result in a scoring of Fatally Flawed. Their recommendation in this case would be ‘Project can be authorised but with strict conditions and high levels of compliance and enforcement’.”
Bantamsklip was one of the three proposed nuclear sites alongside Thyspunt and Duynefontein but has now been excluded from this Nuclear 1 EIA. However, it remains a viable site for subsequent nuclear builds. A petition of over 10,000 signatures opposing the nuclear build was handed to the GIBB consultants at the Gansbaai meeting.
“We have only had time to look at one specialist report thus far,” continues Dr. Human, “and we reviewed the Social Impact Assessment which is problematic. The technical, scientific and professional credibility of the report is questionable as it uses outdated data, excludes HIV and Gender Related Issues (a new requirement for all large-scale EIA’s in South Africa), and does no comparative analysis of the three sites nor uses recent experiences with large projects such as Medupi.”
The biggest concerns of those in attendance at the meetings included the risk of a catastrophic nuclear accident and the evacuation plan, the environmental impact of radiation leaks into the sea, land or groundwater, the economic impact to the regions concerned owing to the negative perceptions of a nuclear facility in proximity to large-scale business concerns, costs (and the accompanying corruption), political instability and the risk of terrorism, and the massive problem of accumulating high level nuclear waste.
“The decision to build a nuclear plant must be taken with extreme care,” says Koekemoer. “We are concerned that in the gold rush of unsubstantiated promises of development and jobs we have been blinded to Thyspunt’s true value and potential as a significant local and global heritage area.
“Nuclear is not necessary,” he continues. “Renewables are making a significant contribution to our region. In our haste we are only servicing vested interests and it is a decision our grandchildren would shake their heads at.”
Becker concludes, “The GIBB consultants have a legal responsibility to put all the pertinent facts before the decision makers in a complete, unbiased and quantified way in the EIA report. Failing to do so can lead to criminal prosecution in their personal capacities.” There is concern from stakeholders that GIBB is trying to push through this flawed EIA with only token public participation.
The Sea Vista meeting for public participation in St Francis Bay will take place in early November, dates are not yet finalised. The Humansdorp meeting has been rescheduled due to public demand for more time needed and meetings in Nelson Mandela Bay have also been requested but are unconfirmed at this stage.
Submissions may be emailed to nuclear1@gibb.co.za. The full draft EIA report can be found at http://projects.gibb.co.za/en-us/projects/eskomnuclear1reviseddrafteirversion2 and more information can be found at http://koebergalert.org, http://bantamsklip.org andhttp://noPEnuke.co.za.
The Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) – Hinkley Point C nuclear agreement wrong, and not finalised
21st October 2015 NFLA notes only a participation agreement between China, UK and EDF is being agreed today for Hinkley Point C. Many hurdles still remain. NFLA calls instead for investment in renewables and decentralised energy. The Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) notes with dismay the announcement to sign an initial participation agreement between the Chinese and UK Governments and EDF over the proposed construction of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point, and future plans for new nuclear reactors at Sizewell and Bradwell.
0161 234 3244 or 07771 930196.2016 GOP presidential field is a hotbed of science denial
Watch 2 GOP Presidential Candidates Call Out Their Party for Denying Science http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/10/graham-pataki-climate-change-cnbc-debate Real talk on 
climate change and vaccines. —By Jeremy Schulman | Wed Oct. 28, 2015 The
—especially when it comes to the most high-profile candidates. Jeb Bush once called himself a global warming “skeptic.” According to one prominent climate scientist, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s declaration that the planet has stopped warming is “a load of claptrap…absolute bunk.” And then there’s Donald Trump, who has called climate change a “hoax” and also used last month’s GOP debate to falsely suggest that vaccines cause autism.
Still, Graham took a thinly veiled shot at President Barack Obama’s climate policies. “I just want a solution that would be good for the economy, that doesn’t destroy it,” he said. (Watch his statements above.)
Trident nuclear deterrent – Scottish Labor to vote on this
Scottish Labour to vote on abolishing Trident nuclear deterrent, Guardian, Severin Carrell, 31 Oct 15
Delegates back potentially divisive debate at conference on Sunday, as Jeremy Corbyn attacks SNP record The Scottish Labour party is to vote on abolishing Britain’s nuclear deterrent after delegates voted heavily in favour of a debate on the Trident missile system.
The decision to debate cancelling Trident’s replacement at Scottish Labour’s annual conference this weekend came as activists applauded calls from Jeremy Corbyn for the party to embrace “the sunshine of socialism”.
On Friday, delegates overwhelmingly backed calls from constituency parties to hold a potentially divisive vote on Trident’s renewal on Sunday: the party’s leadership is split on the issue, with unions and MSPs at loggerheads.
In his first speech to Scottish Labour as leader of the UK party, Corbyn attacked the Scottish National party’s track record in government in the runup to next May’s Holyrood elections, insisting only Labour had a vision for a more equalScotland……..
The Scottish Labour debate on Trident will present party leaders with a significant political challenge whichever way it goes, so they are putting heavy emphasis on the merits of the party reaching an open, democratic decision…….
While delegates to Labour’s UK conference saw Trident as a less important issue, and failed to debate it, scrapping Trident has risen much further up the political agenda on the Scottish left.
Voting to scrap Trident would appeal to many Scottish leftwing voters, helping Labour take on the SNP in the Holyrood elections,……
The wording of the Trident motion will not be finalised until Saturday and it remains unclear whether delegates to the Perth conference will vote to abolish it, but party leaders are bracing themselves for a heavy vote against Trident’s renewal……http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/30/scottish-labour-conference-votes-debate-trident-nuclear-deterrent-renewal
USA environmental groups demand changes to Trans Pacific Partnership
They demanded that the enforcement mechanisms be strong and meaningful and that the rights of foreign investors to challenge domestic environmental laws be struck out.
Several green groups outline demands for Pacific trade pact, The Hill,
By Timothy Cama and Vicki Needham – 10/29/15 More than a dozen environmental and conservation groups on Thursday laid out eight pages of demands that they say lawmakers must use to judge the strength of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement.
The groups, led by the Sierra Club, are sending a letter to members of Congress well in advance of an expected vote on the sweeping Asia-Pacific deal that was completed nearly a month ago with 11 other nations, according to the document first obtained by The Hill. The groups are urging a “no” vote on the 12-nation deal if the TPP doesn’t address their concerns.
The letter is a last-ditch effort from environmentalists, who feel that significant parts of what they demanded in TPP were not incorporated into the deal, despite the Obama administration’s efforts to highlight protections for wildlife and conservation.
The White House has said it would release the TPP text within 30 days of TPP’s conclusion, a deadline that is fast approaching.
But a vote on the TPP isn’t expected until at least early next year. Once the text is released there will be a 60-day period before President Obama can sign the deal, which covers 40 percent of global growth. …..
The greens’ demands are meant to allay their concerns about the agreement, chiefly that it would give foreign corporations too much power to challenge U.S. environmental protections and that international trade of fossil fuels would be greatly increased.
Negotiators included a chapter in the agreement to protect the environment, but as the detailed text of the pact has not been released publicly and only outlines have, greens said they cannot fully judge if their concerns have been met.
“The environment chapter should be judged by whether its provisions are strong enough to have a meaningful impact on the ground in TPP countries and whether the obligations will be enforced,” the groups wrote in their Thursday letter.
“We are also concerned that any potential benefits of the environment chapter will be overwhelmed by the negative impacts of other provisions in the pact,” they said, referring to their concerns about the agreement’s provisions on foreign investment, plant and animal food safety and coherence to regulations, among other pieces.
Green groups’ initial reaction to the agreement has been very negative, aligning with how environmentalists generally view free-trade agreements.
“The Trans-Pacific Partnership would empower big polluters to challenge climate and environmental safeguards in private trade courts and would expand trade in dangerous fossil fuels that would increase fracking and imperil our climate,” Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said in a statement when the initial details were released in October.
“The TPP’s environment chapter might look nice on the surface but will be hollow on the inside, and history gives us no reason to believe that TPP rules on conservation challenges such as the illegal timber or wildlife trade will ever be enforced,” he said…..
They demanded that the enforcement mechanisms be strong and meaningful and that the rights of foreign investors to challenge domestic environmental laws be struck out.
Additionally, the groups want the agreement to avoid invalidating current United States rules on subjects like restricting exports of fossil fuels, product labeling or environmental protections. http://thehill.com/policy/finance/258539-greens-outline-demands-for-pacific-trade-pact
South Africa’s govt questioned on costs of nuclear power programme
Nuclear build programme under fire http://www.iol.co.za/business/news/nuclear-build-programme-under-fire-1.1936163#.Vi_xstIrLGg October 27 2015 By Siyabonga Mkhwanazi Johannesburg – Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson faces another round of tough questions in Parliament today on the nuclear build programme.
Joemat-Pettersson has hardly escaped questions on the nuclear build programme in Parliament since it was announced by President Jacob Zuma three years ago.
She will be part of the economics cluster of ministers responding to questions on a range of issues, including nuclear, in the National Council of Provinces in the next two days.
Tomorrow Economic Development Minister Ebrahim Patel will also answer questions on South Africa’s controversial nuclear programme.
The opposition parties have been asking Joemat-Pettersson to come clean on the project.
One of the key questions has been on the funding for nuclear power when the government has not given an indication where the money will come from.
In his medium-term budget policy statement last week, Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene was non-committal on the funding for nuclear energy.
However, he told journalists ahead of the statement that preparatory work had started, but did not indicate the detailed work that had been undertaken.
He said R200 million had been committed to the preparatory work.
A few weeks ago the Department of Energy said the procurement process had been postponed to the end of this financial year. This was due to outstanding work, including the funding model for nuclear.
The shifting of the deadline for the procurement process came after Joemat-Pettersson said in her budget vote speech in May that procurement would start during the second half of this year.
She also said the winning company would be announced before the end of the year.
It has been said the nuclear build programme will cost between R500 billion and R1 trillion. But the government has been coy on costs, saying this would disrupt the bidding process.
It said it would wait for the bidders to reveal their prices first, in the bidding phase, before any figure could be made public.
The department also said despite the delay in the procurement process, it would stick to the deadline of 2030 to complete the construction of the nuclear reactors.
Joemat-Pettersson has also been accused of keeping the information on the nuclear build programme out of Parliament.
Opposition parties have warned that they could not afford to have such a massive programme kept under wraps.
Today it will be their turn to turn up the heat on Joemat-Pettersson on the programme.
The government has insisted that it will build nuclear power plants that will be within its means and easy to afford.
One of the key questions to Patel is on job creation, localisation and long-term benefits of the reactors to the country.
Japanese Prefecture Kyoto moves to replace nuclear with gas and renewables, in pact with Alaska
Kyoto advances nuclear-free agenda with Alaska LNG pact, Japan Times, BY ERIC JOHNSTON KYOTO, 25 OCT 15, – The Kyoto Prefectural Government signed an agreement with Alaska last month to explore the possibility of importing liquid natural gas from the state to Maizuru, a port city on the Sea of Japan.
While daunting financial and bureaucratic challenges mean it will still be a while before Alaskan LNG flows to Kyoto, the agreement represents a step forward for Kyoto to achieve a larger goal: ending prefectural dependence on nuclear power by 2040.
The strategy, as outlined by Kyoto Gov. Keiji Yamada, calls for building up LNG facilities at Maizuru and installing new LNG pipelines in the Kansai region. The prefecture envisions Maizuru supplying not only Kyoto, but other prefectures in the region with gas to replace Fukui Prefecture’s nuclear power plants as a major source of electricity.
Kyoto is not alone in seeking to replace atomic power with a combination of LNG imports and renewable energy. As of the end of 2014, more than 600 local governments nationwide had declared their intent to be nuclear-free, although not all of have set specific dates like Kyoto, and many lack a strategic plan for achieving that goal.
Yamada listed several reasons why the prefecture needs to end its usage of nuclear power, which comes mostly from 11 Kansai Electric Power Co. reactors in neighboring Fukui……..
Kyoto and Hyogo, along with Osaka Gas, Kepco, and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, agreed in early September to formally research the cost of building an LNG pipeline from Maizuru to Sanda, Hyogo Prefecture, that could then supply other parts of Kansai and likely lead to other localities needing less nuclear power. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/10/25/national/kyoto-advances-nuclear-free-agenda-alaska-lng-pact/#.Vi0_ztIrLGh
Uranium industry in Niger from AREVA to Chinese companies
One uranium mine in Niger says a lot about China’s huge nuclear-power ambitions, Business Insider, 25 Oct 15, ARMIN ROSEN “………the ambitions of the nuclear powers in Niger are still playing out today as Niger’s remote and inhospitable northern desert environment contains the world’s fifth-largest recoverable uranium reserves, some 7% of the global total.
A fourth mine, in a place called Azelik, near the mostly ethnic Tuareg city of In’gall, is currently much smaller than the other three sites.
Like Imouraren, it’s currently shuttered as a partial result of the uranium price dip. But because of its ownership and a checkered recent history, it’s an instructive guide to the future of Niger’s uranium and the global nuclear energy industry at large.
Niger’s Azelik uranium mine, owned and operated by Chinese companies, is at the geographic and economic fringes of a continent-wide wave of Chinese investment, goods, and people. Continue reading
Public opinion in North Korea about nuclear weapons
Ask a North Korean: what do you think about nuclear weapons? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/23/ask-a-north-korean-nuclear-weapons
In an ongoing series, NK News poses a reader’s question to a North Korean defector. This week, pride in the government’s atomic exploration, Guardian, Je Son Lee for NK News, part of the North Korea network
Friday 23 October 2015 When I was still living in North Korea, the regime had a successful nuclear test. People were very proud of it, and afterwards we had a town hall meeting where my neighbours talked about how the US would no longer be able to boss us around.
Most North Koreans are very aware of the fact that other countries make fun of them, and look down on the DPRK, but many think it’s because the country is poor.
North Koreans are generally very curious about how they are perceived internationally, and reports are circulated among communities of discrimination and abuse suffered abroad – such as in China – which generate a feeling of self-consciousness.
Therefore, people in the DPRK have become very proud when they hear that the country has become a nuclear state. When they hear news like this, they think: “Our nation may still be poor. But we can [still] be one of the most powerful and influential nations in national defence.”
Justification
North Korea invests heavily in education, especially in teaching people about Japanese imperial rule and the era following independence.
The Japanese committed atrocities against unarmed, innocent Koreans, and Kim Jong-un’s government frequently highlights these acts of brutality when it justifie the possession of nuclear weapons.
Thanks to frequent reminders in school textbooks and history classes, North Koreans show more hostility toward Japanese than Americans.
Pictures and graffiti of Japanese and American soldiers committing acts of violence are painted on the buildings of kindergartens, schools and offices. If you had grown up being brainwashed and exposed to this from a young age, how would you feel? North Koreans begin to realise the importance of protecting their country.
This justifies the nuclear programme and weapons, but the government doesn’t teach its people about the negative sides and ordinary citizens have no way of finding out how dangerous they can be.
Of course, some North Koreans may hold different opinions on this issue. But from what I’ve seen, North Koreans are in favour of their government’s nuclear programme for one reason: they think it will protect them from powerful countries such as the US and Japan, and means they won’t have to go back to the time when Koreans had to suffer under the US military and Japanese imperialism.
Editing and translation by Elizabeth Jae. A version of this article first appeared on NK News, North Korea News
Sheer folly of UK government’s super costly nuclear deal with China, while cutting renewable energy
These nuclear power plans are bizarre in every way. Hinkley Point will be the most expensive plant in the world, at £24bn. To pay for it, monumental subsidies lasting until 2060 will dwarf any PFI ever devised. Osborne begs the Chinese to pay for this and for HS2 as well on a never–never bill for our grandchildren,
This nuclear power deal with China is one of the maddest ever struck http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/21/nuclear-power-deal-china-uk Polly Toynbee
The decision to allow China to build nuclear power stations in the UK is sheer folly, especially at a time when Cameron is shutting the door on renewable energy.
UK nuclear deal is a golden handout to China
China bags gold with UK nuclear power station deal, Scotsman, SCOTT MACNAB 22 October 2015 DAVID Cameron has signalled a new “golden era” in the UK’s relationship with China after a deal was struck to build the first new UK nuclear power station in a generation.
The Prime Minister held talks with Chinese president Xi Jinping yesterday at Downing Street as part of a four-day state visit by the head of the People’s Republic.
About £40 billion of investment in the UK has been announced by China including a £660 million deal with Falkirk-based Alexander Dennis to build electric buses.
But the growing closeness between the two nations has prompted concerns over the UK’s nuclear security and China’s human rights record.
Concerns have been raised about giving China such a central role in UK energy generation. Aside from Hinkley Point, two other stations at Sizewell in Suffolk, and Bradwell in Essex, are set to follow. The plant at Bradwell will be Chinese-designed, and will provide China with its first western showcase for its nuclear technology.
However, the security services, as well as senior United States strategists, are among those to have voiced fears about the extent of the nuclear technology which China will now be getting its hands on. : http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/china-bags-gold-with-uk-nuclear-power-station-deal-1-3924084#ixzz3pc0qK547
Will Canada now oppose depleted uranium weapons?
Will Canada’s election deliver Real Change on its depleted uranium weapons policy? http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/canadas-liberal-party-opposed-depleted-uranium The Liberal Party opposed depleted uranium weapons during the 2015 election, will Canada’s new government break from the stance of the Harper government on DU?
Under Harper’s government, Canada failed to join the Arms Trade Treaty and dragged its heels on the Convention on Cluster Munitions, all the while claiming leadership on disarmament issues in spite of strong evidence to the contrary. Wereviewed their position in February this year. Can we expect the situation to improve under Trudeau’s leadership?
Prior to the election Mines Action Canada (MAC) undertook informal polling of all the main parties on a range of humanitarian disarmament topics, including on DU weapons. Canada has historically abstained on UN General Assembly resolutionson DU, even though it no longer has the weapons in service – an in-depth ICBUW briefing on Canada’s position on DU is available in English and French.
MAC posed the same DU question to all the main parties – Harper’s Conservatives failed to respond to any of the questions.
“The use of depleted uranium weapons has come under international scrutiny in recent years due to significant concerns about the long term health consequences of their use. If your party forms the next government, what will Canada’s policy be on the use of depleted uranium weapons? What will be Canada’s position on providing technical and financial assistance in order to aid decontamination of affected states and reduce the risks to civilians?”
The response from the Liberal Party was short and to the point:
“The Liberal Party of Canada opposes the use of depleted uranium munitions.”
“Le Parti libéral du Canada s’oppose à l’utilisation de munitions à l’uranium appauvri.”
While the Liberal’s tone was clearly welcome, it failed to elaborate on how it would fulfil this opposition if elected. Nor did their very short answer make any mention of assistance for decontamination. Nevertheless, it could be seen as a sign that Canada’s policy may change in the coming months and ICBUW urges its Canadian supporters to seek clarification on the Liberal position once the election excitement has subsided.
The first big test of the Liberal’s position will come in October 2016, when a sixth UN General Assembly resolution on DU will be tabled. A vote in favour from Canada would be a welcome development, and would help to reinforce the norms on transparency and assistance that the resolutions have been helping to build since 2007.
UK government confirms that it is now subsidising nuclear industry, and cutting renewables
Government finally admits it is subsidising nuclear – while cutting help for renewables, Guardian, Damian Carrington, 22 Oct 15 The official admission blows a hole in already bewildering UK energy plans, which back the failed and expensive over the cheap and successful.
The government confirms that it is not continuing the ‘no public subsidy policy’ [for nuclear power] of the previous administration.
That little footnote, tucked away at the end of the announcement of Wednesday’s French-Chinese deal to build a new nuclear power station at Hinkley point, detonates an atomic bomb under the UK government’s already bewildering energy policy and leaves ministers hunkered down in a nuclear bunker.
Just the day before, energy minister Andrea Leadsom said: “It is vital that industries over time stand on their own two feet. I don’t think anyone here would advocate an industry that only survives because of a subsidy paid by the billpayer.” She was justifying 87% cuts to subsidies for solar power, just as they are on the verge of becoming cheaper than gas.
The contradiction does not need spelling out. Nuclear power has had 60 years to stand on its own two feet. The admission it still needs subsidy (after five years of ministers denying precisely that) shows that traditional nuclear power can barely crawl. Whether this admission strengthens the EU challenge against the UK that it is providing illegal state aid remains to be seen.
Ministers argue that big nuclear power stations are key to energy security. Thespooks disagree, saying having a Chinese-run nuclear power station in the UK for half a century is a hostage to fortune.
Ministers also say they are committed to cutting carbon from the UK energy supply, but that protecting consumers from higher energy bills is vital. Not many would disagree, so why are ministers all but banning new onshore wind farms, the cheapest form of green energy?
It was a manifesto commitment, says the government, presumably included to appease the minority of people who oppose wind farms. On Wednesday night, the House of Lords disagreed and voted down the Conservative’s anti-wind rules.
It’s a mess. But don’t worry, say ministers, we will shortly be announcing new policies – a “reset”. Except this explodes the most precious of all commodities in the energy system: investor confidence.
“A reset is unnecessary and would create delays to investment and increase political risks,” say the energy policy experts Prof Rob Gross and Prof Jim Watson. Over 1,000 jobs have already been culled in the solar industry, with warnings of many more to come, while Leadsom was warned on Tuesday that the UK arm of an international energy company had suffered a credit rating downgrade following the government’s planned cuts to renewable subsidies…..http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2015/oct/22/hinkley-point-uk-energy-policy-is-now-hunkering-in-a-nuclear-bunker
1 This Month
22 June – Virtual Event –Climate Change: New Data, New Debate
Monday, June 22, 2026 2:30 p.m. – 3:15 p.m. CT
YouTube. Register here
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
1st July – Webinar Waste of Space: The Environmental Harm of Military and Civil Space Activity st July, 7 pm
Report Launch Online: We are seeing an increasing exploitation of space for military and commercial purposes. This must change.
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
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 (221)
- 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 