Australia’s opposition leader ‘s ideas for nuclear power are not welcomed by the public
The Victorian towns where Peter Dutton is considering going nuclear
Josh Gordon and Benjamin Preiss, February 25, 2024, https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/the-victorian-towns-where-peter-dutton-is-considering-going-nuclear-20240223-p5f7a3.html
The Coalition is leaving the door open to building nuclear reactors in the Latrobe Valley and Anglesea using land from retired coal-fired power stations as a solution to Victoria’s energy troubles.
But locals warn there would be significant opposition to nuclear reactors being built in their towns, even if the huge legal hurdles to constructing and running them could be overcome.
With Victoria’s energy security under scrutiny after a wild storm earlier this month left hundreds of thousands of homes without power and triggered the shutdown of the state’s largest coal-fired generator, the federal opposition has confirmed it is now in the “advanced stages” of developing an energy policy. Nuclear is set to be a key part of the mix.
Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien told The Age potential locations remained a “work-in-progress”, but he had been advised that “communities with experience hosting coal plants could be ideal potential hosts for zero-emissions nuclear plants”.
That leaves Victoria’s three remaining coal-fired power plants, plus the now decommissioned site of the Hazelwood mine and power station, as strongly preferred locations – with existing connections to the energy grid, and a ready-made workforce preparing for the end of coal-fired generation over the next 15 years.
“We have been very transparent about the fact we are considering zero-emissions nuclear energy as part of Australia’s future energy mix, and we will remain open about the details of our policy when it is announced,” O’Brien said.
The state opposition remains more cautious about the prospect of nuclear in the Latrobe Valley, but it too is not ruling out the idea. Asked about using retired coal-fired power stations as sites for nuclear energy, Opposition Leader John Pesutto said a commonsense approach was needed.
“But for any new industry to succeed it would first need detailed inquiries and thorough examination,” Pesutto told The Age. “It would also require bipartisan support, as this is crucial for investment certainty and to eliminate sovereign risk.”
Other sites in Victoria have also been flagged. Federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton recently hinted at the possibility of a small modular reactor on the Surf Coast at Anglesea, on the site of Alcoa’s former mine and power station.
“It’s zero emissions, you can put it into an existing brownfield site, so when the coal-fired generation comes to an end, you can put the nuclear modular reactors into that facility,” Dutton said in September.
The argument for nuclear is that plugging into existing infrastructure would be significantly cheaper and would reduce the need for thousands of kilometres of new transmission lines needed to connect wind and solar energy dotted across the grid.
O’Brien has previously pointed to a September 2022 study for the US Department of Energy that found using the infrastructure of an existing coal plant could reduce a nuclear plant’s capital costs by up to 35 per cent. He suggested Australia should look to the US state of Wyoming, which is planning to replace its coal-fired generators with nuclear by about 2030.
But any move towards nuclear power in Victoria would likely encounter strong resistance from communities worried about safety, waste disposal and the cost.
Voices of the Valley president Wendy Farmer said nuclear power would face major opposition from communities worried about the risks.Farmer said residents in the Latrobe Valley had already suffered the consequences of the Hazelwood mine fire in 2014, which burned for 45 days and caused health concerns for those living amid the smoke.
“I would be surprised if there would be any enthusiasm for a reactor,” she said.
Deputy Mayor Mike Bodsworth, who represents the Anglesea ward, said residents were excited by the potential for renewable power generation at the former Alcoa site.
“But nobody I know has ever mentioned nuclear,” he said. “Knowing the general preferences of the local population, I doubt it would be supported.”
The Coalition has been talking up the potential to use small-scale modular reactors to generate power, and argue this, along with gas, will be a key part of Australia’s future energy mix to provide so-called base-load generation along with variable renewables.
In May last year, US company Westinghouse released plans for a small modular reactor. Reuters reported Westinghouse planned to begin building the reactor by 2030.
But many experts say this approach would be prohibitively expensive in Australia, particularly if forced to compete against lower-cost renewable wind and solar generators now being installed at a rapid rate across the country.
The CSIRO’s best guess is that in 2030 the capital cost of a small modular reactor will be $15,844 per kilowatt of electricity generated, compared to $1078 for solar and $1989 for wind.
That suggests replacing Victoria’s three remaining coal-fired plants, which combined to produce up to 4730 megawatts of electricity, with nuclear would involve a capital cost of about $74.9 billion, before even considering the ongoing running, maintenance and waste disposal costs.
The Coalition would also need to get the numbers in state parliament to repeal existing state and federal laws, including Victoria’s Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act of 1983, which bans the construction and operation of nuclear facilities in Victoria.
Victorian Energy Minister Lily D’Ambrosio said nuclear energy was “toxic, risky, will take years to develop and [is] the most expensive form of energy there is”.
“Not only are the sites of our former coal plants privately owned, but there is currently no regulatory framework for approving a nuclear power plant in Australia, there are no nuclear waste storage sites in Australia, and no modular nuclear reactors have made it past the trial phase,” she said.
Federal Energy Minister Chris Bowen said claims of a boom in small modular reactors was a myth, and suggested Dutton should explain to the people around Gippsland why they should accommodate multiple reactors “for no good reason”.
“Anyone who has done their homework knows nuclear is not viable,” Bowen said. “The alleged boom in small modular reactors is a furphy. It’s striking that a party that once prided itself on economic rationalism could embrace a frolic so spectacularly uneconomic.”
In the US, a project run by NuScale Power to build the first commercial small modular reactor was scrapped last year because of soaring costs, leaving taxpayers facing a significant bill. Other projects promising commercially competitive nuclear energy have similarly failed to materialise.
Energy Costs UK : The Price Of Power-Nuclear Fandango
British consumers of nuclear energy will be paying amongst the highest prices for electricity in the world.
masterinvestor, By Victor Hill 23 February 2024
Last month, UK energy secretary Claire Coutinho declared in the government’s Civil Nuclear Roadmap policy document that “Our nuclear industry is re-awakening”. That document pledges the UK to build 24 gigawatts of new nuclear power capacity over the next two decades. That is equivalent to six times the capacity of the one nuclear plant now under construction. Thus, at least one more massive nuclear plant is envisaged for an as yet unidentified location (although Wylfa in Anglesey, North Wales looks to be the most probable site).
There is currently one nuclear power plant under construction in the UK – Hinkley Point C – and one planned – Sizewell C. But the latest news on these is discouraging. Last month the French majority state-owned energy company EDF announced that the first reactor Hinkley Point C in Somerset would not come onstream until 2029 at the earliest, and probably more like 2031. There is no date set as yet for the second reactor. The final cost of the project, it said, could rise to £46 billion – as compared to an initial budget back in 2016 when contracts were signed of £18-24 billion.
EDF has encountered problems in the construction of other nuclear plants which use the European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) technology deployed at Hinkley Point at Olkiluoto, Finland and Flamanville, France. Some engineers have spoken about a design flaw in this technology. While they were designed for maximum safety – especially in the wake of the radiation leak at Fukushima,……….
To make matters worse, the French finance minister, Bruno Le Maire, began to press the case for the UK government to cough up more funds to finish the project. Worse still, EDF cast doubt over its commitment to build the new reactor at Sizewell C in Suffolk, in which it will have a 20 percent stake, unless the funding issue over Hinkley Point were satisfactorily resolved.
The funding structure devised for Sizewell C envisaged that consumers would pay a levy on their electricity bills to help pay for construction costs. This is the so-called Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model. Opponents of the project have dubbed this a “nuclear tax” which will endure for decades.
In contrast, Hinkley Point C will operate on the old contracts for difference model where the developers enjoy a guaranteed strike price once the reactors are operational. The original £89.50 per megawatt hour strike price has already been adjusted up to £125 in view of inflation. This means that British consumers of nuclear energy will be paying amongst the highest prices for electricity in the world.
The construction of Hinkley Point C was contracted by the UK government to EDF and China General Nuclear (CGN). Both Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C will have the capacity to power about six million households and will have an economic life of up to 60 years. The two plants could be producing 14 percent of Britain’s total electricity output in the late 2030s.
Ms Coutinho rushed out a press release on the evening of 23 January, saying: “Hinkley Point C is not a government project and so any additional costs or schedule overruns are the responsibility of EDF and its partners and will no way fall on [British] taxpayers”. This comment annoyed EDF and its main shareholder, the French government, to prompt a further statement. The substance of that was that unless the UK government offered something towards the shortfall at Hinkley Point, Sizewell C would simply not happen.
Eventually, the UK Department for Energy Security and Net Zero pledged an additional £1.8 billion of taxpayers’ money. The Minister for Nuclear and Renewables, Andrew Bowie MP, later admitted that he needed to raise an additional £20 billion of private finance to ensure that Hinkley Point C is completed…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
there has been no coherent political consensus around the need for nuclear power in the UK. The 2003 energy white paper published under Tony Blair’s government described nuclear power as an “unattractive option” – although Labour later changed its mind. There is still vocal opposition to nuclear power generation on safety grounds – and even more to the disposal of nuclear waste. The Low Level Waste Repository (LLWR) in Cumbria, operated by British Nuclear Fuels has been especially contentious. Many environmental and political activists associate nuclear energy production with nuclear weapons production. Moreover, there have been nine different energy secretaries sitting in cabinet since 2010. With such a level of turnover of people at the top, it has proven difficult to fashion policy.
At least the optimists foresee that Sizewell C will benefit from the lessons learnt at Hinkley Point C. Though, somehow, I doubt it……………………………. https://masterinvestor.co.uk/economics/energy-costs-the-price-of-power/—
Racist or revolutionary: The complex legacy of Alexei Navalny
Euro News 16 Feb 2024
……………….’Not a Western liberal democrat’
there is a darker side to him, some say.
Navalny’s ‘ideal’ image conflicts with his past remarks, McGlynn tells Euronews, pointing to his controversial views on Muslims in the Caucasus, Georgians and Central Asian migrants in Russia.
“Immigrants from Central Asia bring in drugs [to Russia],” Navalny said in an interview in 2012, defending what he described as a “realist” visa requirement for “wonderful people from Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.”
While he has reflected on some of these past remarks, they frequently re-surface, causing some to question if Navalny is what many in the Western world think he is.
Navalny’s controversial statements stem from his political origins in the nationalist movement, according to McGlynn.
“He used to attend the Russian march, a very far-right nationalist group generally behind the slogan of ‘Russia for ethnic Russians’. Anybody who expects Navalny to be an ideal Western liberal Democrat has been mistaken,” she tells Euronews.
His ultra-nationalist sentiment was prominent in a video dating back some 17 years filled with xenophobic comments.
His ultra-nationalist sentiment was prominent in a video dating back some 17 years filled with xenophobic comments.
“Everything in our way should be carefully but decisively removed through deportation,” Navalny said in the video dressed as a dentist, comparing immigrants to dental cavities.
Amnesty International stripped the opposition leader of the “prisoner of conscience” status based on this clip. It reversed this decision in 2021, recognising an “individual’s opinions and behaviour may evolve over time” in a statement. ………………………………………………………….
His incendiary comments on immigrants and Georgians re-surfaced when Navalny’s daughter, Dasha Navalnaya, was invited to speak at Georgetown University in May 2023.
Students filed a petition against the speaker selection, calling for a meritocratic appointment and that “being anti-Putin doesn’t imply being a pro-democratic, anti-war, and liberal leader.”
Following the backlash, two new speakers were added by the university to diversify perspectives, refusing to “disinvite” Navalnaya. ……………………………………..
What’s fueling the commercial fusion hype?
Despite its lack of promise for civilian use, the Energy Department and the White House have used the Livermore controlled fusion experiment results to boost the effort to harness fusion power for civilian purposes. In December 2022, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm announced with great fanfare that a laser pulse ignited a fusion reaction that produced more energy than was supplied by the light beams
In her energy balance, however, the energy secretary forgot to account for the energy it took to create the laser beams. This energy input, when added, drastically reverses her conclusion
By Victor Gilinsky | February 20, 2024,
https://thebulletin.org/2024/02/whats-fueling-the-commercial-fusion-hype/
Recent White House and Energy Department pronouncements on speeding up the “commercialization” of fusion energy are so over the top as to make you wonder about the scientific competence in the upper reaches of the government.
In April 2022, the White House launched what it called a “bold decadal vision” for a 10-year program to “accelerate the realization of commercial fusion energy.” The “bold” part is the proposal, in questionable analogy with high-speed computing, to do in parallel all the development steps that are typically done sequentially to bring a new technology to the market. According to the White House, this parallel processing would include: technology development, preparing a regulatory system (including rules for fusion reactor exports), securing the supply chain, identifying high-value markets, training a diverse workforce, and gaining public support, all “to support the rapid scale-up of fusion energy facilities.”
The special attraction of fusion is of course that it offers a potential source of abundant carbon-free energy that does not generate radioactive nuclear waste. But just because it would be nice if controlled fusion could work doesn’t mean it’s on the verge of doing so. The hard truth is that scientists and engineers don’t even know yet whether controlled fusion can be achieved to make useful work, at least anywhere outside the sun (and other stars, of course).
A historical perspective is useful to understand where the hype about commercial fusion is coming from.
We have known about fusion powering the sun since Hans Bethe explained it in 1939. This was also almost exactly when Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann discovered uranium fission (and Lise Meitner and her nephew Otto Frisch explained it). Then in 1942, Enrico Fermi and a small number of co-workers demonstrated a controlled fission chain reaction in a squash court at the University of Chicago. Fermi spent about $50 million in today’s dollars on building his 20-foot-tall atomic pile.
More than 80 years later, the corresponding control-of-fusion principle has yet to be demonstrated experimentally and the US government already made $35 billion in cumulative fusion expenditure—with probably a comparable investment abroad—without yet knowing what works.
The White House’s approach to attain success appears based on the idea that enthusiasm and coordination of all diverse stakeholders backed up with enough money can solve a so-far-unsolved scientific problem. Administration spokespersons mention projects that were successfully accelerated in this way, like the 1969 trip to the moon. Sure, this was indeed a hugely successful monumental project at the time, but no one involved doubted it was possible to do. All the necessary component technologies, like rockets and communications, were in hand on a smaller scale. In the case of fusion power reactors, no one is yet sure what they would look like, let alone if they will turn out to be possible and practicable.
The main research track today in fusion energy is “magnetic confinement”—configuring magnetic fields to keep in place a plasma of thermonuclear fuel 10 times hotter than the sun’s core within a donut-shaped magnetic “bottle.” Dozens of such machines—known as “tokamaks,” a Russian-language transliteration for toroidal chamber with axial magnetic field—have been built around the world since the 1950s, but none got close to demonstrating a net energy gain. Controlled fusion, it turns out, is an extremely difficult problem. To solve it, fusion experts have concluded the key is to have a large enough facility.
The world’s largest experimental fusion machine—ITER (initially the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, also meaning “the way” in Latin)—is nearing completion in France. It is a highly complex scientific and engineering project. ITER publicity describes the building housing the reactor as “slightly taller than the Arc de Triomphe in Paris,” and that the building foundation will support some 400,000 metric tons—“more than the weight of New York’s Empire State Building.” Started in 2006, ITER is a 35-country megaproject that was supposed to be completed in 2016 at a cost of $6 billion. The reactor is currently projected to start up in 2025, but even that appears to be an optimistic date, as is the total budget estimate of about $22 billion.
The initial design objective is to produce a fusion plasma with thermal power 10 times greater than the injected thermal power. Even if successful, this net power output would not yet be the fusion equivalent of Fermi’s 1942 experimental nuclear pile, which proved the controlled fission concept. Nor would ITER’s more ambitious subsequent goal of maintaining this plasma for eight minutes. To get to proof of principle would likely take another step or an upgrading of ITER.
The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s weapons laboratory pursued another approach of “internal confinement,” to create a fusion reaction at its National Ignition Facility (NIF) and claimed it could have power application. NIF uses light pulses from a concentric battery of powerful lasers to heat a small target containing a tiny bead of frozen thermonuclear fuel. This is, in effect, a miniature (secondary) thermonuclear bomb, with the lasers playing the role of the triggering fission reactions (primary). The light heats the container material sufficiently to ablate and swiftly compress the fuel to the point of detonation, which lasts some billionths of a second. The experiment was directed primarily at developing a useful diagnostic tool for weapons research. In power application, you would have to repeat the explosions at an extraordinarily fast rate, which is a tall order.
Despite its lack of promise for civilian use, the Energy Department and the White House have used the Livermore controlled fusion experiment results to boost the effort to harness fusion power for civilian purposes. In December 2022, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm announced with great fanfare that a laser pulse ignited a fusion reaction that produced more energy than was supplied by the light beams: “This milestone moves us one significant step closer to the possibility of zero carbon abundant energy powering our society … a huge step forward to the president’s goal of achieving commercial fusion within a decade.” (Update: In less than nine years from now.)
In her energy balance, however, the energy secretary forgot to account for the energy it took to create the laser beams. This energy input, when added, drastically reverses her conclusion, with the fusion output then amounting to only about one percent of the input. This is not disqualifying from a scientific point of view, but it obviously is in a power generating application. Still, this hasn’t stopped the Energy Department from including Livermore’s fusion ignition experiment in a promotional video on the “7 moments that changed nuclear energy history.” The clip claims “[t]he Lab was the first to produce more energy from a fusion reaction than was used to start the process,” again forgetting the energy it took to power the lasers.
Alexei Navalny Was an Ultra-Right Nationalist Who Compared Muslims to Cockroaches
Medium, Matthew Puddister 23 Feb 24
The death of Alexei Navalny in a Russian prison camp Feb. 16 prompted a wave of eulogies from Western politicians and media, Canada summoning the Russian ambassador in protest, and the immediate accusation that Russian President Vladimir Putin had had the Western-backed opposition leader killed. Such accusations may or may not be true; the authoritarian Putin has long been credibly linked to the assassination of his political rivals. But the campaign to portray Navalny as some liberal hero of democracy and human rights — perhaps reaching its height with the 2022 film Navalny, which won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature — is pure fiction, a Western propaganda invention.
In reality, Navalny was a far nastier piece of work: an ultra-right racist and Russian nationalist, who railed against immigration and compared Muslims to “flies and cockroaches”. It’s ironic that Western liberals who view Donald Trump as a puppet of Russia/Putin and the very incarnation of evil are mourning a figure whose politics in all essentials are very similar to Trump’s. Consider Trump’s infamous attack on illegal immigrants launching his 2016 U.S. presidential campaign — “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best … They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists” — to Navalny’s remarks in a 2012 interview stating, “Immigrants from Central Asia bring in drugs [to Russia].”
Like Trump, Navalny encouraged and welcomed support from the most extreme fringes of the far right. In 2007, Yabloko, Russia’s oldest liberal party, kicked out Navalny for his “nationalist views” and participation in the Russian March, an annual rally that brings together thousands of far-right Russian nationalists, monarchists, and white supremacists under the slogan “Russia for ethnic Russians”. Shortly thereafter, Navalny released a video in which he presents himself as a “certified nationalist” who wants to exterminate “flies and cockroaches”, his rant intercut with shots of bearded Muslim men. In the video, Navalny then takes out a gun and shoots an actor wearing a keffiyeh, who is portrayed as trying to attack him……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
the fawning tributes to Navalny by reformist politicians and celebrities beggar belief in their willful disregard for this man’s racist, far-right politics. Instead, they adhere to the bourgeoisie’s standard rubric by which those who support the interests of U.S. imperialism are hailed as champions of “freedom”, while those who oppose the interests of U.S. imperialism are vilified…………………………………………
Contrary to what Joe Biden, Cornel West, and Bono would have us believe, the mere fact of being Russian and opposing Vladimir Putin does not make someone an icon of freedom. U.S. imperialism and its allies have a long tradition of funding far-right forces abroad as proxies………………………………………. https://medium.com/@matthew.puddister/alexei-navalny-was-an-ultra-right-nationalist-who-compared-muslims-to-cockroaches-1864e0cda000
Nuclear route does Scotland no favours – Tommy Sheppard
As we limp towards a general election later this year, energy policy will feature high on the political agenda.
By Tommy Sheppard, 23rd Feb 2024, https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/nuclear-route-does-scotland-no-favours-tommy-sheppard-4529234
Sadly, though, it looks as if one aspect of that debate will escape serious scrutiny due to a cosy consensus between the main parties at Westminster. Nuclear power.
Earlier this week Parliament debated the government’s recently published civil nuclear roadmap. This hare-brained scheme sets out an ambition to quadruple the current 5.9 gigawatts of nuclear energy production by 2050. Sadly, not only does the Labour party support this Conservative plan, it accuses the government of dragging its feet on implementation, suggesting that if anything a Starmer administration will accelerate the nuclear programme.
It’s crazy that this 20th century technology still commands such widespread political support in the UK. A quick recap. Nuclear power is – by far – the most expensive way of generating electricity ever devised by mankind. Contrary to claims it is not a renewable energy source. It is fuelled by uranium ore of which there is approximately 90 years supply left, less if programmes expand. Most of this is in Kazakhstan so it hardly qualifies as a secure energy source.
Moreover, it produces toxic waste which has to be kept isolated from human beings for generations. The new roadmap by the way suggests a new form of reactor which will produce twice as much waste and has no credible plan to safeguard it.
You can only spend a pound once – and if the government spends billions on nuclear that investment will be siphoned off renewable energy development. The craziest part of Labour’s plan is to argue for a further windfall tax on oil and gas in order to subsidise new nuclear plants in England. Don’t get me wrong, corporations should pay fair taxes, especially on excess profits. But of all the things you might spend that revenue on, subsidising nuclear power must surely be the worst.
If this continues, our children will look back mid-century and wonder why we didn’t make use of the phenomenal natural energy resources from sun, sea and air. We can stop this nonsense by the simple measure of putting Scotland’s energy policy in the hands of the people who live here. Another reason why Scotland should be an independent country.
Tommy Sheppard is SNP Scotland & Constitutional Affairs Spokesperson
Navalny had a mixed past – was an “ultra nationalist”
Radio Free Europe, February 25, 2021
1 “…………………………On February 23, the prominent NGO Amnesty International withdrew Navalny from its list of “prisoners of conscience,” a designation reserved for people imprisoned for who they are or what they believe. Amnesty said Navalny, who is in prison on what he and his supporters call trumped-up charges aimed at silencing him, fell short of its criteria because of past statements the rights watchdog perceived as reaching the “threshold of advocacy of hatred.”
Amnesty’s recent probe into Navalny, who has come under scrutiny for his association with Russian nationalists and statements seen as racist and xenophobic, was prompted by a wave of complaints that appeared part of “a coordinated campaign” to discredit him after he was named a “prisoner of conscience” in January.
One anonymous Amnesty employee told Russian media that a Twitter thread about Navalny by Katya Kazbek — a U.S.-based freelance columnist and translator who has written for Russia’s state-funded media outlet RT and for RFE/RL — lists examples of objectionable comments made by Navalny and was cited by a wave of e-mails sent to the organization.
Kazbek, whose real name is Yekaterina Dubovitskaya, told RFE/RL she has “never been knowingly in touch with anyone connected to Amnesty International.”
In response, the liberal Yabloko party expelled Navalny from its ranks, but under the banner of a new group called the National Russian Liberation Movement in 2007 he released YouTube videos describing himself as a “certified nationalist” and advancing thinly veiled xenophobia.
In one clip, Navalny is shown in a dentist’s outfit as footage of migrants in Moscow is interspersed with his references to harmful tooth cavities. “I recommend full sanitization,” he says. “Everything in our way should be carefully but decisively be removed through deportation.”
In subsequent years Navalny publicly softened his tone but continued promoting conservative immigration policies, campaigning to introduce a visa regime with Central Asia, a major source of labor migrants to Russia, ahead of the 2018 presidential election from which the Kremlin ultimately barred him. He also railed against “Islamism” in posts to his blog as late as 2015.
Navalny has repeatedly stated in interviews that he doesn’t regret his past comments or videos, and suggested that an ability to engage both liberals and nationalists is part of his strength as a politician.
Victory: Nuclear Free Local Authorities welcome Council vote on South Holderness nuke dump plan
NFLA 21 Feb 24,
The UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities have welcomed today’s (21 February) overwhelming decision by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council to withdraw South Holderness from further consideration as a potential location for a high-level radioactive waste dump.
A motion was brought by South East Holderness Ward Councillor Sean McMaster to a meeting of the Full Council calling for the Council to ‘use its right of withdrawal with immediate effect due to the strong opposition from the communities of South Holderness’ . The Leader of the Council, Councillor Anne Handley, had already indicated her support for the motion, as had the Leaders of the Opposition Groups. Consequently, the motion was carried on a cross-party basis with 52 in favour and only 1 against.
News that the area was under consideration by Nuclear Waste Services was only announced in late January, with Invest East Yorkshire listed as the ‘Interested Party’ and a Working Group established with Dr David Richards as Chair.
The news prompted a massive public backlash with local people in the hundreds flocking to join a Facebook group, South Holderness against the GDF. Tens of thousands of leaflets have been distributed by local volunteers who have been pounding the streets in all weathers to inform residents of their reasons for opposing the plan, whilst 1,200 local people attended the first round of public events hosted by NWS staff, many to register their opposition and pose challenging questions to geologists from the nuclear industry. Chair Lynn Massey-Davis appeared in the first few days of the campaign to challenge the legitimacy of the dump in a spirited performance in a television interview with Peter Levy on BBC Look North.
The NFLAs have been proud to have offered some advice to the group and to local politicians at the Withernsea Town and East Riding Councils. Following an online conversation with the Labour Group Leader, Councillor Steve Gallant, the NFLA Secretary produced a bespoke briefing on the Right to Withdraw (see notes) for circulation to Councillors.
21st February 2024
Victory: NFLAs welcome Council vote on South Holderness nuke dump plan
The UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities have welcomed today’s (21 February) overwhelming decision by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council to withdraw South Holderness from further consideration as a potential location for a high-level radioactive waste dump.
A motion was brought by South East Holderness Ward Councillor Sean McMaster to a meeting of the Full Council calling for the Council to ‘use its right of withdrawal with immediate effect due to the strong opposition from the communities of South Holderness’ . The Leader of the Council, Councillor Anne Handley, had already indicated her support for the motion, as had the Leaders of the Opposition Groups. Consequently, the motion was carried on a cross-party basis with 52 in favour and only 1 against.
News that the area was under consideration by Nuclear Waste Services was only announced in late January, with Invest East Yorkshire listed as the ‘Interested Party’ and a Working Group established with Dr David Richards as Chair.
The news prompted a massive public backlash with local people in the hundreds flocking to join a Facebook group, South Holderness against the GDF. Tens of thousands of leaflets have been distributed by local volunteers who have been pounding the streets in all weathers to inform residents of their reasons for opposing the plan, whilst 1,200 local people attended the first round of public events hosted by NWS staff, many to register their opposition and pose challenging questions to geologists from the nuclear industry. Chair Lynn Massey-Davis appeared in the first few days of the campaign to challenge the legitimacy of the dump in a spirited performance in a television interview with Peter Levy on BBC Look North.
The NFLAs have been proud to have offered some advice to the group and to local politicians at the Withernsea Town and East Riding Councils. Following an online conversation with the Labour Group Leader, Councillor Steve Gallant, the NFLA Secretary produced a bespoke briefing on the Right to Withdraw (see notes) for circulation to Councillors.
The impact of this decision will be profound. Under the published Community Guidance governing the GDF siting process, consideration of any Search Area must have the support of a Relevant Principal Local Authority (RPLA). The East Riding of Yorkshire Council is the RPLA for South Holderness and as such has the Right to Withdraw. Although the Community Guidance is vague and contradictory, appearing both to suggest that withdrawal can occur at any time or only once a Community Partnership is formed, it is clear that there will be little point NWS investing further money, time and staff resources on taking its plan forward at this early stage without political support; clearly then the process must soon come to an end.
Councillor David Blackburn, Chair of the NFLAs English Forum, was full of praise for local campaigners:
Commenting on the vote, Cllr Blackburn added:
“I am glad that Councillors of all parties saw sense and supported this motion on a cross-party basis. South Holderness is an agricultural and touristic area and as such was never appropriate for consideration for a nuclear waste dump. So what I do find inexplicable is why the Leader of the Council ever agreed for East Riding of Yorkshire Council to engage with the process and become a member of the Working Group in the first place, as a resolute NO would have killed the process off at the onset, as happened at Hartlepool.”
Nuclear Waste Services have now issued a press statement stating that it ‘fully respects the council’s decision to withdraw from the GDF siting process. Together with the Working Group Chair, NWS will now take the necessary steps to wind down the South Holderness Working Group and respond to outstanding requests for more information’. (See notes)…………………………………… more https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/victory-nflas-welcome-council-vote-on-south-holderness-nuke-dump-plan/
House is heading toward “nuclear” war over Ukraine funding, one top House GOP leader says
By Major Garrett, February 21, 2024 CBS News
There’s a “50-50” chance of a government shutdown in early March, says House Financial Services Chairman Patrick McHenry, of North Carolina, and it’s House Speaker Mike Johnson’s fear of being ousted that will determine the outcome. And at the same time, McHenry says the House is heading to a procedural “nuclear” war over funding for Ukraine……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. more https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-ukraine-funding-the-takeout/
Great British Nuclear seeks to buy EDF land for small modular reactor.
UK Government in talks to buy site in Heysham, Lancashire, as it rolls out the new
technology.
The government is holding talks with EDF to take control of
land at a site in Lancashire as part of plans to roll out mini-nuclear
power stations in Britain. Great British Nuclear is in early discussions
with the French state-owned energy group over buying land adjacent to its
existing nuclear plants at Heysham, with a view to potentially giving the
green light for a private developer to build a small modular reactor there.
The 255-acre site is one of eight in Britain approved for new nuclear
development and is the location of EDF’s Heysham 1 and Heysham 2 nuclear
power stations. Almost 109 acres has a nuclear site licence, while the rest
is being used for other purposes. Britain’s first small nuclear plants
are due to be awarded government contracts this summer after six designs,
including one from Rolls-Royce, were selected to compete for up to £20
billion in taxpayer funding.
The government does not expect to make a final
investment decision on the first small modular reactor until 2029. Great
British Nuclear is searching initially for two sites, each to house a
single mini-reactor, with a plan to build between four and six in total, as
part of the first phase of the rollout in Britain.
Times 19th Feb 2024
Nuclear Delays, Cost Overruns Imperil UK’s Net-Zero Goals
For the first time, the department’s nuclear road map was honest about why Britain and France are still so keen on nuclear, as opposed to much cheaper renewables. The roadmap mentions 14 times the link between civil and military nuclear power and the need to strengthen ties between the two to reduce costs. This military link was consistently denied in the 1990s, and in the earlier years of this century.
February 12, 2024, Paul Brown, https://www.theenergymix.com/nuclear-delays-cost-overruns-imperil-uks-net-zero-goals/
Électricité de France (EDF), the owner of the biggest construction project in the world—the giant nuclear power plant under construction at Hinkley Point in the southwest of Britain—recently announced further cost increases and delays to its completion, adding to doubts that the United Kingdom can fulfill its legal pledges to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.
The French government, which owns EDF, wants the UK to chip in billions of pounds to help bail the project out, but London says it has no obligation to do so. This is leading to tensions between the two governments, with French taxpayers objecting to paying for British nuclear power stations when their own nuclear industry is struggling with under-investment and a massive debt burden. It leads to doubts that a second power station of the same size, this time on the Suffolk coast in the east of England, will ever be built.
The overoptimistic miscalculations made by EDF mean the cost estimates for the Hinkley Point project have now doubled from the 2015 estimate of £18 billion (US$22.8 billion) to between £31 and £34 billion. But that makes the problem sound better than it is: the figures are calculated in 2015 prices, and the true cost with inflation is now said to be £46 billion (US$58 billion) and still rising.
EDF is faced with making up this funding gap when it is already deep in debt and needs vast capital reserves to modernize its own fleet of more than 50 reactors and start a promised new build program. Just before the French government re-nationalized the company last year, its debts were already a staggering €54.5 billion (US$59 billion)/
When the Hinkley Point power station was first planned, the company famously predicted that UK consumers would be cooking their Christmas turkeys on power from the station by 2017. That date has been revised several times, and stood at 2027 until the third week in January. Now it has slipped back in the best case to 2029, but more likely to 2031. As one commentator put it: “The turkeys would have died of natural causes by then.”
The problem is that both governments are relying on their nuclear industries for a large part of their emission reductions. Both have to reach net-zero targets by 2050. Hinkley Point would in theory be producing 7% of British electricity by 2030 as an interim target date, displacing existing gas stations. But Hinkley Point was only part of the net-zero plan—EDF is in partnership with the British government to build a second identical power plant at Sizewell, on the Suffolk coast.
Both Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C are twin European Pressurised Reactors (EPRs), designed by EDF. Each station is supposed to produce enough power to supply six million British homes. But it is a design that has proved difficult to construct. EDF started one in Flamanville in Normandy in 2009 which was expected to be running in 2013, but is still not complete. Yet the UK is intent on continuing to allow EDF to build four reactors of the same design in Britain.
The British government has so far sunk £2.5 billion into the Sizewell C project but is not making a final investment decision while it looks for private investors. Up to now, it has found no takers.
So while the future of this power station remains in doubt, the timetables are slipping badly, and even if it does go ahead not many would bet on it producing power before 2050.
One of the odd aspects of this situation is that, in an election year in Britain, there is no political debate about what looks like a serious crisis for the nuclear industry and the UK’s climate targets. The Labour party supports the building of nuclear power stations, too, and will not be drawn into debate for fear of antagonizing the trade unions in the sector that are strongly in favour of giant power stations.
Suffolk campaigners, however, are not so reticent. “Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C epitomise the definition of insanity—doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result,” said Alison Downes of Stop Sizewell C. “EDF and its EPR reactors are an unmitigated disaster, and it stretches credulity that Sizewell C is affordable. Indeed the government seems too embarrassed to publish the cost of Sizewell C. It should cancel the project immediately instead of handing over scarce billions that could be used instead for renewables, energy efficiency, or—in this election year—schools and hospitals.”
Stop Sizewell C and a number of other groups are challenging the Conservative government in the courts over its failure to fulfill its legal obligations under its own law that bound the UK to reach net-zero by 2050. Further delays to the nuclear power station construction program may add to the campaigner’s case.
Last month, the UK government produced a new nuclear roadmap projecting a massive new build program to bolster the industry, both for these large reactors and dozens of small modular reactors. The Department for Energy Security & Net Zero (DESNZ) remains optimistic about the nuclear industry despite the delays, but said it would not be bailing out EDF.
Hinkley Point C “is not a government project,” the department said in a statement, so “any additional costs or schedule overruns are the responsibility of EDF and its partners and will in no way fall on (UK) taxpayers”.
For the first time, the department’s nuclear road map was honest about why Britain and France are still so keen on nuclear, as opposed to much cheaper renewables. The roadmap mentions 14 times the link between civil and military nuclear power and the need to strengthen ties between the two to reduce costs. This military link was consistently denied in the 1990s, and in the earlier years of this century.
While Labour, which has a massive lead in the opinion polls going into election year, refuses to engage in a nuclear debate, it does differ from the Conservatives on the role of renewables. The current government encourages offshore wind and some solar power but has effectively blocked onshore wind farms for nearly a decade. Since this is the cheapest form of electricity production in these windy islands, and the public overwhelmingly support onshore turbines, Labour says it will at least overturn this blocking policy.
The UK’s biggest nuclear waste dump faces an inquiry by the National Audit Office (NAO) over its soaring costs and safety record.
The public spending watchdog has said it wants to examine whether Sellafield in
Cumbria is “managing and prioritising the risks and hazards of the site
effectively in the short and long term”.
It follows growing concern over
the costs of managing the site’s nuclear legacy. An NAO statement said:
“Cleaning up the site is a long-term endeavour, likely to last well into
the next century. It is expected to cost £84bn (in discounted prices),
though this cost estimate is highly uncertain.”
Sellafield stores and
treats nuclear waste from weapons programmes and power generation. The site
comprises more than 1,000 buildings and has about 81,000 tonnes of
radioactive waste in storage. This is expected to rise to 3.3m tonnes over
the coming years.
About 2,000 tonnes comprise high level waste – the most
toxic – including around 140 tonnes of plutonium in what is the world’s
largest stockpile. The site employs about 11,000 people and cost the
taxpayer around £2.5bn last year. Scrutiny of its budget and safety record
come after a series of critical reports in the Guardian, with allegations
ranging from lax cyber security to a poor work culture. The Government,
which ultimately controls Sellafield, has defended the site’s operations,
insisting there is “no elevated risk to public safety as result of the
issues reported”.
Telegraph 15th Feb 2024
UK’s Nuclear Strategy Faces Criticism: Uncertainty Looms for Small Modular Reactors
The UK’s nuclear strategy faces increasing criticism from MPs due to lack of clarity on small modular reactors (SMRs). Concerns about timelines, waste management, and costs cast doubt on their role in the future energy mix.
Rafia Tasleem, 14 Feb 2024, https://bnnbreaking.com/politics/uks-nuclear-strategy-faces-criticism-uncertainty-looms-for-small-modular-reactors
The UK government’s nuclear strategy, specifically its approach to small modular reactors (SMRs), faces mounting criticism from Members of Parliament (MPs) for its lack of clarity and the ensuing uncertainty in the nuclear sector.
A Murky Vision for Nuclear Power
MPs have expressed serious concerns about the timeline for SMR projects, potential waste management issues, and the overall vision for the sector. Despite promises of support and investment, the government’s plans for SMRs remain obscure, casting doubts on their role in the future energy mix.
The Environmental Audit Committee has voiced strong criticisms, citing the unclear strategy as a significant obstacle for the nuclear industry. This ambiguity not only undermines industry confidence but also raises questions about potential cost implications for taxpayers.
Hinkley Point C: A Cautionary Tale
The ongoing saga of Hinkley Point C serves as a stark reminder of the challenges and uncertainties surrounding UK energy policy and developments, especially in the face of the climate crisis.
Initially greenlit in June 2016, the project’s funding was divided between the government, EDF, and China General Nuclear (CGN). However, in a surprising turn of events, CGN withdrew its funding in December 2022, leaving the government to shoulder the shortfall in investment.
Furthermore, the opening of Hinkley Point C has been delayed until at least 2029, with the projected cost ballooning from £25 billion to at least £35 billion—a staggering increase that has raised eyebrows and ignited debates on the feasibility of nuclear power as a sustainable and cost-effective solution.
The Future of UK Nuclear Power
With the UK government aiming to have 24 gigawatts of nuclear capacity by 2050, the choice lies between additional large-scale reactors like Hinkley Point C or a combination of large and SMRs. However, the escalating costs and delays associated with Hinkley Point C have cast a long shadow over the nuclear sector.
The current state of affairs raises pressing questions about the future of nuclear power in the UK, especially in light of the climate crisis and the need for sustainable and reliable energy sources. As MPs and industry experts grapple with these concerns, the search for clarity and a coherent strategy becomes ever more urgent.
As of February 15, 2024, the UK government faces a critical juncture: to address the concerns surrounding its nuclear strategy and provide a clear path forward, or risk further uncertainty and potential setbacks in the nation’s quest for a sustainable energy future.
“Unbelievable” U.S. government bailouts fund zombie nuclear projects
Unbelievable” bailouts fund zombie nuke nightmares, February 13, 2024, https://beyondnuclear.org/unbelievable-bailouts-fund-zombie-nuke-nightmares
In Stateline on February 12, 2024, Alex Brown published an article entitled “Federal money could supercharge state efforts to preserve nuclear power: A plant in Michigan might become the first to reopen after closing.”
The massive level of federal and state subsidization being handed over to the nuclear power industry is reflected in the giddiness of the head of the nuclear engineering department at the University of Michigan:
“You’re starting to see a lot of states transition to a position where they’re supportive of nuclear,” said Todd Allen, chair of the Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences department at the University of Michigan. “And compared to 30 years ago, the amount of federal support for nuclear is unbelievable.” (Emphasis added)
It is unbelievable, in a shocking and horrifying way. An analysis by NIRS shows the unwitting federal taxpayer largesse benefitting the nuclear power industry included in a single law, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
The Stateline article focuses on the unprecedented, outrageously expensive, and extremely high risk Palisades zombie reactor restart scheme in Michigan. Beyond Nuclear has co-led grassroots environmental resistance to this restart, as well as to Holtec’s so-called “Small Modular Reactor” (SMR) new builds scheme on the same site.
We have posted about the $3.3 billion (yes, with a B!) in federal and state bailouts for the Palisades restart, another $7.4 billion for Holtec’s SMR new builds (including at Palisades, and at its sibling, decommissioned — although still radioactively contaminated, with on-site highly radioactive waste storage — reactor site in northern Michigan, Big Rock Point), as well as more recently announced federal taxpayer and ratepayer bailouts associated with the Palisades restart, a long list still growing with time! The requested restart bailout total alone is now at around $4.5 billion, and counting! Added to the SMR new builds bailout, nearly $12 billion, or more, in federal and state taxpayer, as well as ratepayer, bailouts could be sunk, just at the Palisades site alone!
The Stateline article quoted Beyond Nuclear’s radioactive waste specialist, Kevin Kamps, at length:
…While some environmental groups have embraced the nuclear investments, others have pointed to long-standing concerns about safety issues, citing infamous accidents such as those at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. Opponents also note the long-term issue of radioactive waste storage, and in some cases assert that nuclear can stall the growth of renewables such as wind and solar.
“With the amount of money that’s gone into this [Palisades] restart scheme already, you could develop brand-new renewable energy proposals that would be online in the same time frame producing more electricity,” said Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste specialist at Beyond Nuclear, an environmental nonprofit that opposes nuclear energy…
Opponents of nuclear point to the canceled projects, delays and cost overruns as proof that nuclear isn’t viable.
“This is just throwing good money after bad,” said Kamps, the anti-nuclear advocate. “We stand horrified at the actions being taken by Congress and certain state governments.”
Kamps also cited previous nuclear disasters and warned of the risks of extending aging plants…
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 mentioned above is the law under which Holtec hopes to receive a $1.5 billion nuclear loan guarantee — $500 million more than it had talked about the past few years — which is interest-free and risk-free, in that it actually need not be paid back, leaving taxpayers holding the bag. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act) of 2021 is the law under which Holtec hopes to obtain $2 billion in Civil Nuclear Credits. President Joe Biden signed both bills into law.
His Energy Secretary, Jennifer Granholm, a former governor and attorney general of Michigan, is in charge of deciding where the various bailouts get dispensed. This even includes the $7.4 billion for SMR development, even though that particular funding stream was created under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as well as December 23, 2007 appropriations passed by Congress (both of which were enacted with President George W. Bush’s signature). Thus, we are horrified at the actions being taken by the Biden administration, as well.
1 This Month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
of the week–London Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (173)
- 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)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
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 