nuclear-news

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

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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Memo to Trump: Modify the US policy of sole authority to launch nuclear weapons

Bulletin, By Lisbeth Gronlund | January 17, 2025

Mr. President, as you know, as president, you must approve any use of nuclear weapons—whether first or in retaliation. This would be a momentous decision for any one person to make. While any use would be devastating, the future of the world would hang in the balance because it might lead to an all-out nuclear war, immediately killing hundreds of millions of people, many of these Americans. Many more deaths—in the United States and globally—would occur within a year from a lack of medical services for the injured and radioactive fallout. The Earth’s temperature would change and severely lower agricultural production, resulting in widespread starvation. Such a war would leave the United States and other countries barely functional, with destroyed infrastructures and defunct societies.

The United States should adopt a better approach that avoids placing this responsibility on one person, take advantage of the wisdom and perspective of other officials, and reduce the risk of nuclear war. The global community would welcome a US policy that does not rely on just one person to decide to use nuclear weapons.

Ordering the Pentagon to adopt a modified policy that incorporates the input of a few other officials would bolster your international credibility as a real leader who made tough decisions to reduce the risk of nuclear war. Moreover, once the new Trump policy is in place, it would be difficult for future presidents to return to the old, more dangerous approach. You would be remembered for significantly reducing the risk of inadvertent nuclear use, and you would set a new standard for all future administrations.

Background

If the Pentagon detected an incoming Russian nuclear attack aimed at US missile silos, it would consider launching these missiles before Russian missiles could destroy them. And it would need your approval to do so. Because the Russian missiles would land quickly following their detection, you would have about 10 minutes for the Pentagon to brief you and lay out a small number of launch plans for your decision and approval. You could also decide to not launch any missiles. Any modified policy to involve other people in the decision-making process would need to function under such severe time constraints………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Options

— Option 1: This option could be used for either a first or retaliatory strike. Any nuclear attack plan would require a presidential order and agreement by the next two people in the presidential chain of succession. Under normal circumstances, these would be the vice president and Speaker of the House. You alone would have the authority to order a specific attack, but either of the other two could veto your order. If for some reason the other people could not be reached, the procedure could default to the current one………………………………………..

Recommendation

You should immediately adopt Option 1. I also recommend discussing Option 3 with your advisers and members of Congress to determine, among other things, the precise steps required and the length of time such approval would likely take………………………………………………………………….. more https://thebulletin.org/2025/01/memo-to-trump-modify-the-us-policy-of-sole-authority-to-launch-nuclear-weapons/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Memos%20to%20Trump%20%28he%20might%20actually%20like%29&utm_campaign=20250120%20Monday%20Newsletter

January 22, 2025 Posted by | politics, USA | 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 | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Report: Israel and Hamas Agree ‘in Principle’ to Ceasefire and Hostage Deal

According to media reports, the deal on the table doesn’t commit Israel to a permanent ceasefire

by Dave DeCamp January 14, 2025,  https://news.antiwar.com/2025/01/14/report-israel-and-hamas-agree-in-principle-to-ceasefire-and-hostage-deal/

CBS News reported Tuesday that both Israel and Hamas have agreed “in principle” to a draft hostage and ceasefire deal that could be finalized this week.

The report, which cited US, Arab, and Israeli officials, said if the final details are worked out and the Israeli government approves it, the deal could be implemented as soon as this weekend, before the January 20 inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump.

The Associated Press had a similar report that said Hamas had accepted a draft deal and that details were still being finalized before Israeli approval. The deal is largely based on a proposal President Biden put forward in May 2024, which Hamas accepted months ago.

According to Israeli media reports, pressure on Netanyahu from Trump’s incoming Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, is the reason why there’s been progress in recent days.

The deal involves three phases, but according to AP, it would not commit Israel to a permanent ceasefire or full withdrawal from Gaza.

The AP report reads: “Details of the second phase still must be negotiated during the first. Those details remain difficult to resolve — and the deal does not include written guarantees that the ceasefire will continue until a deal is reached. That means Israel could resume its military campaign after the first phase ends.”

According to media reports, the first phase involves a 42-day ceasefire, and during that time, Hamas would release 33 Israeli hostages, including women, children, the elderly, and five female IDF soldiers. Some of the hostages released in the first phase may be dead, but Israeli officials said they believe most are still alive. In exchange, Israel is expected to release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners.

During the first phase, Israeli troops will withdraw from population centers in Gaza, and Palestinians will be able to return to north Gaza, although there is nothing for them to return to since IDF has destroyed nearly every building in sight. Aid deliveries will also be surged, with 600 trucks per day expected to enter the Strip.

The second phase of the deal would involve the release of all male Israeli hostages from Gaza and a full IDF withdrawal, with many details still needing to be worked out. The third phase would involve the exchange of bodies and the start of the reconstruction of Gaza.

January 17, 2025 Posted by | Gaza, Israel, politics | Leave a comment

Sizewell C’s future in doubt as EDF told to prioritise French nuclear power

Auditor warns against costly foreign projects as energy giant considers investment decision into the plant

The future of Sizewell C has been thrown into doubt after EDF, the company
behind the project, was told to prioritise supporting nuclear power in
France. In a rare intervention, the French state auditor warned the
state-owned energy giant against backing risky new projects abroad, which
include plans to build a new nuclear power station in Suffolk.

Instead, the Cour de Comptes said EDF should focus on making a success of
multibillion-euro projects at home, ensuring they were profitable and built
on time. It comes as EDF prepares to make a final investment decision on
Sizewell C, which will increase its exposure in the UK given it is already
building Hinkley Point C in Somerset.

However, that project has been hit by
surging costs and delays, with the most recent forecasts saying it will
open after 2030 and cost around £45bn. Industry sources are also predicting
Sizewell C will cost £40bn to build, double EDF’s initial estimates in
2020.

EDF is working alongside the Government on Sizewell C, with £4bn of
taxpayer cash already spent on the project. However, the French auditor has
released a report saying EDF should not make a final investment decision on
the Sizewell project before cutting its financial exposure to Hinkley.

Telegraph 14th Jan 2025,
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/01/14/sizewell-c-future-doubt-edf-told-prioritise-french-nuclear/

January 17, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

The Great British Nuke Off

  by beyondnuclearinternational,  https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/01/12/the-great-british-nuke-off/

It’s time to expose the sham plan for new nuclear power, write Andy Blowers and Stephen Thomas in their new report

The following is the introduction and the conclusion from the report, “It is time to expose the Great British Nuclear Fantasy once and for all”. Read the full report.

In April 2022, the then UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, set a target of 24GW (equivalent to eight stations like Hinkley Point C) of new nuclear capacity to be completed in Great Britain by 2050. At the heart of the proposal was the creation of a new government owned entity, Great British Nuclear (GBN), with a mission of ‘helping projects through every stage of the development process and developing a resilient pipeline of new builds’ designed to ensure energy security and to meet the UK’s commitment to achieving net zero. 

The new Labour Government, elected in July 2024, has been emphatic about the scaling up of renewables, and has confirmed that nuclear power ‘will play an important role in helping the UK achieve energy security and clean power’. While not explicitly committing to the 24GW target, the new Government expressed its belief that a scale expansion of new nuclear projects was a necessary part of the energy mix for the transition to achieving net zero carbon by 2050. 

The Government is expected to continue with GBN but in a clearly subordinate role to its new creation, Great British Energy, its vehicle for driving development and investment into projects that will enable the energy transition to achieve net zero by 2050.

There has, so far, been little government recognition of the sheer difficulty of achieving a vast expansion of nuclear energy. As so often in the past, the nuclear programme has barely got off the ground and the flagship project of the new nuclear programme, Sizewell C, had, by October 2024, yet to receive a Final Investment Decision (FID) apparently because of the lack of interested investors. 

In an attempt to keep the project from collapsing while it tries to find investors, Government has chosen to invest £8bn in the project, in addition to Electricité de France’s (EDF’s) contribution of about £700m, just to get it to FID, a process budgeted by EDF in 2016 to cost only £458m.  Small Modular Reactors in which much hope is vested barely exist beyond the drawing boards and by the time they could be deployed, if all goes to plan, it will be too late for SMRs and Sizewell C to make any significant contribution to achieving ‘Net Zero’. 

The recipe for expanding nuclear and overcoming the problems that have meant previous large nuclear programmes came to little remains the same as that of the previous government: create a flow of large nuclear projects starting with an FID for Sizewell C; bring Small Modular Reactors to commercial availability by 2029 and start ordering them then; and streamline the planning and regulatory processes. 

Achieving these objectives in whole or in part will be impossible. In addition, the nuclear programme remains encumbered by its traditional ethical and sustainability problems, if anything, more so. The prevailing fear of nuclear accidents and radiation risks has intensified as nuclear is increasingly exposed to cyber-attack and the palpable threats from terrorism and warfare. 

The accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima, and the threats to Zaporizhzhia in Ukraine and Russia’s Kursk plant at the heart of the Russo-Ukraine war provide chilling evidence of dangers that are likely to materialise sometime somewhere. 

With its embedded relationship to the bomb, nuclear energy is implicated in existential catastrophe. The other existential threat comes from accelerating Climate Change which will inundate some coastal sites, create problems of cooling water and, render the legacy of wastes scattered at vulnerable sites an unmanageable problem for generations far into the future. 

We may well ask why, in the face of such deficiencies and dangers and with evidence of flagging momentum, this fantastical project is still proceeding? The answer lies in a powerful combination of political ambition, nuclear industry and trade union lobbying purveying the promise of skills, jobs investment, export markets and wealth associated with nuclear development and its supply chain. A mainstream discourse of nuclear as a mainstay of base load supply, energy security and the goal of net zero has been nurtured, to which powerful interests unthinkingly subscribe. Inertia ensures the persistence of the fantasy. 

Yet, all the evidence in terms of renewables competition, the opportunity costs and long term economic and security risks of a swerve to new nuclear indicates a vast gulf between rhetoric and reality. In this paper it is our purpose to address the realities and to demonstrate why new nuclear expansion is not only impossible but acts as a barrier to achieve a rapid energy transition powered by renewable technology, storage and energy efficiency. 

In the face of the evidence, we consider it reasonable to conclude that any expansion of civil nuclear power in the UK beyond that already committed is unachievable. 

The history of nuclear power worldwide is of ambitious programmes falling far short of plans, with huge delays and time overruns. The impact of these failures has been masked by less than expected electricity demand growth and the availability of quicker and cheaper alternatives.

However, there has been a significant opportunity cost to money wasted on these ill-fated policies. For decades UK governments have been seduced by claims from the nuclear industry that, this time, a major nuclear programme will go to plan. More than ever before, the latest programme will be dependent on huge quantities of public money with financial risks falling squarely on the public. 

It strains credibility that, with a massive hole in the finances and urgent priorities in health and welfare, the justice system, education and infrastructure, the idea of plugging the nuclear black hole will be met with universal enthusiasm. 

The signs are all too clear, the rhetoric has no concrete foundations and the programme will vaporise slowly, perhaps but with inevitable termination. Future demand is again being over-estimated and cheaper, quicker alternatives exist. 

The real cost of nuclear power continues to rise and the delays increase, while the cost of alternatives continues to fall. The latest prices for off-shore and onshore wind, and solar photovoltaic are about half the likely price for new nuclear. The IEA reported that over the 10 years from 2013-23, battery costs fell by more than 80%.

Authoritative analysis by an Oxford University team found that UK energy demand could be halved by 2050 with substantial welfare benefits in terms of reducing fuel poverty.

While government documents on nuclear invariably speak of things moving ‘at pace’, the reality is that in the period since the 24GW programme was announced, delays have mounted. In only two years, the completion date for Hinkley Point C went back up to four years and Sizewell C’s FID has been delayed by at least three years. 

By October 2024, more than two years after it was announced, GBN barely exists. It has no permanent executive, no premises and no independent budget and its staff are temporary secondees. 

GBN’s first substantive task was to complete the SMR competition and award contracts. In October 2023, it expected this to happen in spring 2024. It now seems likely this will not happen until the end of 2024, so a task expected to take about 6 months will, if there are no more delays, take 15 months. 

The new Labour administration has yet to say whether GBN will remain as a separate body or whether it will be absorbed into its own new creation, Great British Energy. This uncertainty could delay the decision further. 

Despite the sound and fury, the GBN project is bound to fail. Its contribution to achieving net zero by 2050 will be nugatory. No amount of political commitment can overcome the lack of investors, the absence of credible builders and operators or available technologies let alone secure regulatory assessment and approval. 

Moreover, in an era of climate change there will be few potentially suitable sites to host new nuclear power stations for indefinite, indeed unknowable, operating, decommissioning and waste management lifetimes. 

And there are the anxieties and fears that nuclear foments, the danger of accidents and proliferation and the environmental and public health issues arising from the legacy of radioactive waste scattered on sites around the country. 

Abandoning Sizewell C and the SMR competition will lead to howls of anguish from interest groups such as the nuclear industry and trade unions with a strong presence in the sector. It will also require compensation payments to be made to organisations affected. However, the scale of these payments will be tiny in comparison with the cost of not abandoning them. 

It is our hope that sanity and rationality may prevail and lead to a future energy policy shorn of the burden of new nuclear and on a pathway to sustainable energy in the pursuit of net zero. 

Professor Andy Blowers is a British geographer and environmentalist and Emeritus Professor of the Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences at the Open University. Professor Stephen Thomas is a professor at the University of Greenwich Business School, working in the area of energy policy. 

January 14, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Together Against Sizewell C letter to National Audit Office SZC Value for Money concerns 06.01.25

Assessment of the true costs of the project could lead to Sizewell C failing the value for money assessment

 TASC 6th Jan 2025

Dear Mr Davies,

SIZEWELL C

Whilst acknowledging your previous comments regarding TASC’s concerns for the UK taxpayer in relation to the Sizewell C project, TASC wishes to make further representations regarding more recent developments which highlight a risky project proceeding by stealth with no transparency regarding Value for Money (VfM). The Sizewell C DCO was approved based on an estimated capital cost of £20 billion, but with announcements that the sister project at Hinkley Point C is estimated to cost (at current prices) £46 billion and in the knowledge that the Sizewell site is a more difficult site to develop, it is not credible to suggest, as one of the developer’s joint managing directors did in 2024[1], the cost to build Sizewell C remains at £20 billion.

With reference to your letter of 17th June, TASC fully appreciates that it is a government decision whether to proceed with Sizewell C and we advise that we are not expecting the NAO, at the current time, to pre-judge the final decision or to review the current negotiations with potential investors. However, what is clear from recent developments is that the growing and already substantial government financial support for the project has been split into two separate funding streams, the first being for the period leading to the potential Final Investment Decision (FID), and the other being part of the FID should it be agreed. TASC has considerable concerns about the decision-making at this pre-FID stage of the project due to the risk to public finances and the lack of transparency regarding the VfM assessment which is being used to justify the current funding.

On 30th August 2024, DESNZ published details of the Sizewell C Development Expenditure

(Devex) Subsidy Scheme no. SC11179 (the ‘Devex’ scheme) which authorises a total subsidy of £5.5 billion, up to the date of a potential FID, the first tranche of which, amounting to £1.2 billion, was allocated without any transparency or announcement on 20th September 2024 (details of this payment were first disclosed to the public on the subsidy scheme website on 5th

December)[2]. Combined with the £2.5 billion granted through the ‘SZC Investment Funding Scheme (SC10655)’, this will take total taxpayer exposure to £8 billion. If we then add the £2.7 billion allocated to the project in the recent budget which, if not part of the Devex scheme, the exposure of public funds would extend to £10.7 billion – for a project that is not guaranteed to go ahead should there be no FID or satisfactory resolution of the many other key matters relating to the project. The Devex scheme states that allocations will be supported by VfM assessments.

In your letter of 15th May 2024, you advised that you were anticipating that FID would occur during the period of the previous Parliament. According to the Devex scheme, FID may not happen till June 2026. It is worth recalling that when EDF first proposed Sizewell C, they budgeted the costs to get to FID to be £458 million. With a £2.5 billion spend by the previous Tory government, £5.5 billion authorised by this government under the Devex Scheme and an estimated £700 million invested by EDF, the cost of getting to FID is approximately 1,900% of the original budget. Even by EDF’s previous underbudgeting history, this uplift is quite staggering, yet there has been no explanation as to why these costs are so astronomically higher than the original estimate, how such increases have been justified and how much more public funding is likely to be assigned to what many observers are calling ‘Labour’s HS2’.

TASC call on the NAO to carry out a review of the Value for Money assessment supporting the government decision to use up to £10.7 billion of public funding without any guarantee that the project will go ahead. There are many facets to the Sizewell C project that will have an impact on its viability and TASC take this opportunity to remind you of some of the risks why the project may not proceed:-

  1. Insufficient external funding, perhaps due to the many cost uncertainties raised in our letter of 29th April 2024, meaning that a final investment decision cannot be made.

2. Assessment of the true costs of the project could lead to Sizewell C failing the value for money assessment, particularly as the government has advised that by 2030, the UK will be a net exporter of electricity[3] meaning that if and when Sizewell C ever becomes operational in the late 2030’s, it is likely to be surplus to the UK’s needs: even though Sizewell C’s DCO approval was justified on the grounds of ‘Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest’.

3. Sizewell C is proposed to be sited on one of Europe’s fastest eroding coastlines, yet there is still no final design of the sea defences required to keep it safe from the effects of climate change, so there is no guarantee that the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) will be satisfied that the site can be kept safe for its full lifetime i.e. until the late 2100s. The future need for a final design of the sea defences, including the flood risk implications of the 20-year extension to the site lifetime (to that approved in the DCO) and the need to justify the proposed nuclear platform height, was recognised by the ONR when they issued a Nuclear Site Licence to Sizewell C in May 2024. If the ONR are not satisfied with the outstanding proposals, they will not licence Sizewell C’s operations.

4. The project’s safety case currently being assessed by the ONR is materially different from the project that was approved in the DCO i.e. in respect of the commitment Sizewell C Ltd have made to install ‘Overland Flood Barriers’ and the 20-year extension to the site’s lifetime, meaning that the Secretary of State should review the updated project before opining whether the changes are acceptable.

5. Sizewell C Ltd have still not completed investigations into the ground conditions beneath the nuclear site, much of which was originally marshland, to determine how and if the cut-off wall – essential to enable the dewatering of the whole nuclear site – can be constructed. Without the cut-off wall, Sizewell C cannot be built. TASC are not aware that ground testing has even started for the area that will be covered by the hard coast sea defences.

6. Despite being located in the UK’s driest region, there is still no guaranteed sustainable source or agreement for the provision of the 2.2 million litres of potable water per day essential for Sizewell C’s sixty years of operation, meaning that the nuclear plant could be built but unable to operate.

TASC draw your attention to the evidence given by GBN’s interim CEO, Simon Bowen,  at the 20th November 2024 meeting of the ESNZ Parliamentary committee[4], at which he indicated that one of the reasons for the delay in Sizewell C achieving a FID is, quote, “technical issues in getting the design to the stage where you can take it to final investment decision” and following a discussion about nuclear projects achieving value for money and how projects can be de-risked he said, quote, “How do you de-risk in the way that you do across all infrastructure projects? Well, you do not dig a hole until you have completed the design. It is as basic as that.”  He then went on to say “If we can get to that stage, first, it makes it more investable for the private sector…”

In the light of Simon Bowen’s evidence and in recognition that the Sizewell C project is already digging a significant number of large holes throughout East Suffolk building or preparing projects which without Sizewell C would not be justified and are totally unnecessary. Such potentially redundant projects include:-………………………………………………………………………..

January 12, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Why Greenland Is Of Growing Strategic Significance

Donald Trump seems more insistent than ever on controlling Greenland, but regardless of his controversial intentions, the island is of real strategic importance

Thomas Newdick, THE WARZONE, 9 Jan 25

Donald Trump wouldn’t categorically rule out using the U.S. military to take control of Greenland, saying that America needs it — as well as the Panama Canal — for “economic security.” Amid intense kickback from Denmark — a NATO ally of which Greenland is an autonomous territory — and other countries, it’s worth looking in more detail at the significance of the island, which is one of the world’s largest, in economic, geostrategic, and, above all, military terms…………………………………….. more https://www.twz.com/news-features/why-greenland-is-of-growing-strategic-significance

January 12, 2025 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment

U.S. politicians want transparency about the radiation risks of the fire afflicted Santa Susana nuclear site.

Public Risks from the Woolsey Fire and the Santa Susana Field Laboratory: A Letter to DTSC https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2018/11/20/18819268.php, by Bradley Allen (bradley [at] bradleyallen.net)  Nov 20th, 2018    

On November 19, representatives Henry Stern and Jesse Gabriel authored a joint letter to Barbara Lee, Director of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). In their letter, Senator Stern and Assembly member Gabriel call for “full transparency” to “ensure the public is fully aware of any public health risks posed by the Woolsey Fire on Santa Susana Field Laboratory.”

Prior to the first round of data analysis, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control reported that its scientists “do not believe the fire caused any releases of hazardous materials that would pose a risk to people exposed to the smoke.”

“A common denominator in every single nuclear accident – a nuclear plant or on a nuclear submarine – is that before the specialists even know what has happened, they rush to the media saying, ‘There’s no danger to the public.’ They do this before they themselves know what has happened because they are terrified that the public might react violently, either by panic or by revolt.” 

—Jacques-Yves Cousteau

On November 19, representatives Henry Stern and Jesse Gabriel authored a joint letter to Barbara Lee, Director of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). In their letter, posted to social media, Senator Stern and Assemblymember Gabriel call for “full transparency” to “ensure the public is fully aware of any public health risks posed by the Woolsey Fire on Santa Susana Field Laboratory.”

Henry Stern represents nearly 1 million residents of the 27th Senate District, which includes Agoura Hills, Calabasas, Hidden Hills, Malibu, Moorpark, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, Westlake Village, part of Santa Clarita and the following Los Angeles communities: Canoga Park, Chatsworth, Encino, Porter Ranch, Reseda, Lake Balboa, Tarzana, West Hills, Winnetka, and Woodland Hills.

Jesse Gabriel represents Assembly District 45 comprised of the cities of Calabasas and Hidden Hills, a small portion of unincorporated Ventura County and several neighborhoods in the City of Los Angeles: Canoga Park, Chatsworth, Encino, Northridge, Reseda, Tarzana, Warner Center, West Hills, Winnetka, and Woodland Hills.

Senator Stern and Assemblymember Gabriel outline five specific requests regarding transparency from the DTSC, and conclude, “Given the serious and unsettling nature of this situation, we respectfully request that all information and data be disclosed as quickly as possible. Our community—and the broader public—deserve answers.”

Letter from Senator Stern and Assembly member Gabriel to DTSC,  Continue reading →

January 11, 2025 Posted by | climate change, environment, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Trump’s war on wind power: Plans to stop windmill construction nationwide

 In a recent conference held at his Florida resort, US President-elect
Donald Trump announced his intention to halt the construction of wind
turbines across the country. “We are going to have a policy where no
windmills will be built,” Trump declared, reiterating his long-standing
opposition to this form of renewable energy.

 Review Energy 8th Jan 2025
https://www.review-energy.com/otras-fuentes/trump-s-war-on-wind-power-plans-to-stop-windmill-construction-nationwide

January 11, 2025 Posted by | politics, renewable, USA | Leave a comment

EDF delays salt marsh consultation for Hinkley Point C

 EDF has delayed a formal public consultation over the proposed location of
a new salt marsh which would act as an environmental mitigation for the
Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant. The consultation was due to commence
in January but will now be delayed to later in 2025 to “carefully
evaluate the best approach.” Four possible locations have been proposed
for a salt marsh along the River Severn, including Kingston Seymour,
Arlingham, Littleton, and Rodley.

 Bridgwater Mercury 8th Jan 2025,
https://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/news/24842339.edf-delay-salt-marsh-consultation-hinkley-point-c/

January 11, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Genocidal President, Genocidal Politics

The presidential genocide and the active acquiescence of the vast majority of Congress are matched by the dominant media and overall politics of the United States.

Jan 6, 2025, Norman Solomon,  https://www.laprogressive.com/war-and-peace/genocidal-president?utm_source=LA+Progressive+NEW&utm_campaign=c01ae947cf-LAP+News+–+%288%29+18+NOVEMBER+2022_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_61288e16ef-c01ae947cf-287023764&ct=t(EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_11_17_2022_10_46_COPY_01)&mc_cid=c01ae947cf&mc_eid=02629a6e14

Then news broke over the weekend that President Biden just approved an $8 billion deal for shipping weapons to Israel, a nameless official vowed that “we will continue to provide the capabilities necessary for Israel’s defense.” Following the reports last month from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch concluding that Israeli actions in Gaza are genocide, Biden’s decision was a new low for his presidency.

It’s logical to focus on Biden as an individual. His choices to keep sending huge quantities of weaponry to Israel have been pivotal and calamitous. But the presidential genocide and the active acquiescence of the vast majority of Congress are matched by the dominant media and overall politics of the United States.

Forty days after the Gaza war began, Anne Boyer announced her resignation as poetry editor of the New York Times Magazine. More than a year later, her statement illuminates why the moral credibility of so many liberal institutions has collapsed in the wake of Gaza’s destruction.

While Boyer denounced “the Israeli state’s U.S.-backed war against the people of Gaza,” she emphatically chose to disassociate herself from the nation’s leading liberal news organization: “I can’t write about poetry amidst the ‘reasonable’ tones of those who aim to acclimatize us to this unreasonable suffering. No more ghoulish euphemisms. No more verbally sanitized hellscapes. No more warmongering lies.”

The acclimatizing process soon became routine. It was most crucially abetted by President Biden and his loyalists, who were especially motivated to pretend that he wasn’t really doing what he was really doing.

For mainline journalists, the process required the willing suspension of belief in a consistent standard of language and humanity. When Boyer acutely grasped the dire significance of its Gaza coverage, she withdrew from “the newspaper of record.”

Content analysis of the war’s first six weeks found that coverage by the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times had a steeply dehumanizing slant toward Palestinians. The three papers “disproportionately emphasized Israeli deaths in the conflict” and “used emotive language to describe the killings of Israelis, but not Palestinians,” a study by The Intercept showed. “The term ‘slaughter’ was used by editors and reporters to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 60 to 1, and ‘massacre’ was used to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 125 to 2. ‘Horrific’ was used to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 36 to 4.”

After a year of the Gaza war, Arab-American historian Rashid Khalidi said: “My objection to organs of opinion like the New York Times is that they see absolutely everything from an Israeli perspective. ‘How does it affect Israel, how do the Israelis see it?’ Israel is at the center of their worldview, and that’s true of our elites generally, all over the West. The Israelis have very shrewdly, by preventing direct reportage from Gaza, further enabled that Israelocentric perspective.”

Khalidi summed up: “The mainstream media is as blind as it ever was, as willing to shill for any monstrous Israeli lie, to act as stenographers for power, repeating what is said in Washington.”

The conformist media climate smoothed the way for Biden and his prominent rationalizers to slide off the hook and shape the narrative, disguising complicity as evenhanded policy. Meanwhile, mighty boosts of Israel’s weapons and ammunition were coming from the United States. Nearly half of the Palestinians they killed were children.

For those children and their families, the road to hell was paved with good doublethink. So, for instance, while the Gaza horrors went on, no journalist would confront Biden with what he’d said at the time of the widely decried school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, when the president had quickly gone on live television. “There are parents who will never see their child again,” he said, adding: “To lose a child is like having a piece of your soul ripped away. . . . It’s a feeling shared by the siblings, and the grandparents, and their family members, and the community that’s left behind.” And he asked plaintively, “Why are we willing to live with this carnage? Why do we keep letting this happen?”

The massacre in Uvalde killed 19 children. The daily massacre in Gaza has taken the lives of that many Palestinian kids in a matter of hours.

While Biden refused to acknowledge the ethnic cleansing and mass murder that he kept making possible, Democrats in his orbit cooperated with silence or other types of evasion. A longstanding maneuver amounts to checking the box for a requisite platitude by affirming support for a “two-state solution.”

Dominating Capitol Hill, an unspoken precept has held that Palestinian people are expendable as a practical political matter. Party leaders like Senator Chuck Schumer and Representative Hakeem Jeffries did virtually nothing to indicate otherwise. Nor did they exert themselves to defend incumbent House Democrats Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush, defeated in summer primaries with an unprecedented deluge of multimillion-dollar ad campaigns funded by AIPAC and Republican donors.

The overall media environment was a bit more varied but no less lethal for Palestinian civilians. During its first several months, the Gaza war received huge quantities of mainstream media coverage, which thinned over time; the effects were largely to normalize the continual slaughter. Some exceptional reporting existed about the suffering, but the journalism gradually took on a media ambience akin to background noise, while credulously hyping Biden’s weak ceasefire efforts as determined quests.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came in for increasing amounts of criticism. But the prevalent U.S. media coverage and political rhetoric — unwilling to expose the Israeli mission to destroy Palestinians en masse — rarely went beyond portraying Israel’s leaders as insufficiently concerned with protecting Palestinian civilians.

Instead of candor about horrific truths, the usual tales of U.S. media and politics have offered euphemisms and evasions.

When she resigned as the New York Times Magazine poetry editor in mid-November 2023, Anne Boyer condemned what she called “an ongoing war against the people of Palestine, people who have resisted through decades of occupation, forced dislocation, deprivation, surveillance, siege, imprisonment, and torture.” Another poet, William Stafford, wrote decades ago:

I call it cruel and maybe the root of all cruelty

to know what occurs but not recognize the fact.

January 10, 2025 Posted by | Gaza, politics | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »