The government plans to block foreign control of newspapers – what about physical infrastructure?
Questions are being raised about the government’s willingness to allow essential physical infrastructure to fall into the hands of foreign states but not newspapers.
Government minister Lord Parkinson told the House of Lords yesterday: “We will amend the media merger regime explicitly to rule out newspaper and periodical news magazine mergers involving ownership, influence or control by foreign states.”
Legislation is being introduced specifically to prevent The Telegraph newspaper group from being bought by RedBird IMI, a fund backed by the United Arab Emirates.
It is not yet clear, however, how far the new law could stretch. The intention is that it applies only to newspapers and news magazines. But are they really more important than water companies, electricity companies and power stations?
The Chinese state was allowed to have an influence in the development of Hinkley Point C nuclear power station but has been blocked from further involvement in the UK nuclear programme amid security concerns.
However, the UK government has been wooing the UAE to step in to help fund Sizewell C in place of China.
Campaigners against Sizewell C see the Telegraph intervention as grounds to block UAE investment in British nuclear power, on the basis that nuclear power stations must be at least as important to national security as newspapers.
“If the government is prepared to ban foreign state ownership of newspapers because of the UAE’s bid for the Telegraph, ministers must now block UAE investment in Sizewell C in the interests of national security. That deal should also be dead in the water: there is no place in our critical national infrastructure for a regime that does not share our views and values,” said a spokesperson for Stop Sizewell C.
There already exists legislation that could be used to prevent a foreign state having influence in critical infrastructure – the National Security & Investment Act 2021 and the National Security Act 2023 have sought to respond to foreign state interference.
Lord Parkinson told parliament yesterday: “We intend to expand on the current definition of ‘foreign powers’ used in the National Security Act 2023 to ensure a broad definition that also covers officers of foreign governments acting in a private capacity and investing their private wealth.”
That could put the skids under a whole host of utility companies.
However, rather blurring the message, the minister concluded: “I should note that the government remain committed to encouraging and supporting investment into the United Kingdom and recognise that investors deploying capital into this country rely on the predictability and consistency of our regulatory regime. The UK remains one of the most open economies in the world, which is key for the prosperity and future growth of our nation. Our focus here is not on foreign investment in the UK media sector in general; this new regime is targeted and will apply only to foreign states, foreign state bodies and connected individuals, and only to newspapers and news magazines.”
The UK Government recently announced it had bought the Anglesey site from Hitachi
North Wales Live, David Powell, Court reporter, 17 Mar 24
People living near the Wylfa power station on Anglesey have greeted the prospect of a fresh development at the site with excitement, anxiety and pessimism. Last week the UK Government announced that a £160m deal had been reached with Hitachi to buy sites at Wylfa and Oldbury in Gloucestershire – with a final sign off expected this summer.
The minister for nuclear Andrew Bowie says this is not another “false dawn” for Wylfa and that he was “supremely confident” that new nuclear would be developed at the site. North Wales Live this week visited nearby Cemaes to gauge opinions from people in the village on the proposals.
Cemaes resident William Huw Edwards, 80, used to work as a contractor atRio Tinto
, which ran Anglesey Aluminium, and on the runway at RAF Valley. He remembers disruption during construction work for the current Wylfa power station.
“There used to be two or three lorries at a time in convoys,” he recalled. As for the prospect of a new nuclear development, he said: “A lot of people are against it because of the traffic and the noise.”
He added: “It’s going to cost a lot and they will have to find the money.” He doubts it will be in the near future, saying: “It won’t be soon. Don’t hold your breath.”
But another resident Julie Clemence, 63, would support a new nuclear operation if it were smaller than its predecessor. “The American ones are really huge but I would support it if it’s smaller and less of a blot on the landscape than now,” she said.
………………………………………………………… Dylan Morgan, of Pobl Atal Wylfa B (PAWB), a campaign group against the proposal, said: “This government and anyone following it will face the same challenges regarding attracting any large new private investment to develop reactors at Wylfa or any other site in the global context of a shrinking nuclear industry.
“At the same time, renewable technologies are galloping ahead every year to take an increasing share of the worldwide electricity market.” He claimed 20 years has been “wasted” when money and resources could have been spent developing renewable energy…………………………………….
Meanwhile Katie Hayward, of Felin Honeybees, has said she is “completely broken” after learning the site might be redeveloped after she battled the proposed Wylfa B site for years.
HSBC Holdings Plc is in talks with investment funds about loans to help to finance the construction of the UK’s Sizewell C nuclear plant, as the government steps up efforts to get a key energy project off the drawing board this year.
The bank is in discussions with funds to provide the debt that would be guaranteed by the country’s export finance agency, according to people familiar with the matter. That would help Sizewell offset risks of financing a long-term project, while securing cheaper capital, the people said, asking not to be identified as the negotiations are private.
HSBC, Sizewell and UK Export Finance all declined to comment. A spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said the development of the project’s commercial structure is subject to sensitive discussions
Securing state-guaranteed funding would be an important milestone for a project that could cost more than £40 billion ($51 billion). The UK government has vowed to get as much as 25% of the country’s power from nuclear plants in coming years as part of a push to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Declining output from Britain’s fleet of aging reactors means new plants will be needed by the end of the decade.
So far, the only one under construction is Electricite de France SA’s Hinkley Point C. That plant has been repeatedly delayed, while the projected budget has ballooned to as high as £47.9 billion.
The UK government is working with Barclays Plc to drum up equity investors for the Sizewell project, with bids due later this year. Centrica Plc is seen as a potential anchor investor, with Chief Executive Officer Chris O’Shea saying the company has been in talks with the government.
HSBC is working for Sizewell C Ltd., the operating company set up by EDF to build the copy of Hinkley. The second project should cost less than its forerunner, according to EDF.
The UK has gradually increased its own exposure to Sizewell C, boosting investment in the project to more than £2 billion earlier this year to become the majority shareholder. The government is taking on more construction risk than it did for Hinkley, as it trials a different approach to financing to try to get new projects over the line.
The huge costs involved make it tricky. In 2019, the government offered to take a third of the equity in a £20 billion project in Wales, and provide all the debt during construction plus guaranteed power prices. That wasn’t enough to convince the developer Hitachi Ltd. to proceed.
With assistance from Jessica Shankleman and Francois de Beaupuy.
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL15 Mar 24
Decision time Democrats: Oppose Biden’s genocide in Gaza or tacitly support it
The verdict of history will condemn President Biden to eternity for enabling Benjamin Netanyahu’s genocidal ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza. Over half (56%) of his 81 million voters in 2020 recognize this ghoulish truth and are abandoning him with their respect and possibly their vote November 5.
But that leaves roughly 37 million Biden voters who have turned away from Biden’s genocidal policies to continue total support in this election season. They have scrubbed any references to Gaza, Palestinians or genocide from their support. They go further and criticize any Democrat who does, even hurling scurrilous insults that critics are in sync with Trump and aiding Trump’s reelection.
While destroying life for 2,300,000 Palestinians in Gaza, Biden has destroyed his soul and legacy with the worst murderous policy any leader could engage in. At 81 and in declining mental and physical health, it may be too late to expect a Biden epiphany to abandon genocidal aid to Netanyahu’s Likud Party.
But it’s not too late for genocidal Biden’s unthinking supporters to pivot to peace. If so, they would not only join the Democratic voting majority and most of the civilized world in solidarity with the Palestinian cause, they would be reclaiming their moral legacy as well.
Stephen Stapczynski and Aya Wagatsuma, Bloomberg News, 15 Mar 24
Japan’s government is ramping up an effort to secure local approval to resume operations at the world’s biggest nuclear power plant, according to a report, amid a wider push by the nation to restart its idled fleet of reactors.
Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Ken Saito will next week request Niigata Governor Hideyo Hanazumi to endorse the restart of Tokyo Electric Power Co’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power station, according to the Niigata Nippo newspaper. METI didn’t respond to a request for comment.
The governor’s approval is one of the last hurdles before the nuclear plant can resume…………………………….
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency this week said that the organization would provide technical assistance for the plant, and send a team of experts to assist Tepco’s effort to gain public trust.
Kashiwazaki Kariwa, which has seven reactors totaling 8.2 gigawatts in capacity, is located about 250 kilometers (155 miles) north of Tokyo. The nation’s regulator said in 2017 that reactor units 6 and 7 met post-Fukushima safety protocols.
After decades of decline, the U.S. is significantly increasing its investment in nuclear energy to address climate change and strengthen energy security.
The recently passed Atomic Energy Advancement Act simplifies approval processes for novel reactor designs, aiming to expedite the development of new nuclear power plants.
………. The U.S. is set to accelerate the rollout of new nuclear power plants and reactors following the passing of new legislation this month. This follows a movement away from nuclear power for several decades due to the poor political and public perception of nuclear power due to several notable nuclear disasters………………..
This month, the House approved legislation aimed at developing U.S. nuclear power capacity in the coming years, with a vote of 365 to 36. The Atomic Energy Advancement Act was widely approved by both the Democrat and Republican parties ………
……………………………..The law will see that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) streamlines its processes for the approval of new reactor designs, and will increase hiring at the commission, reduce fees for applicants, establish financial prizes for novel types of reactors, and encourage the development of nuclear power at the sites of retiring coal plants. The legislation is expected to support the greatest development of U.S. nuclear power of this generation. ……………………………..
The Biden administration has repeatedly demonstrated its support for nuclear power by passing laws and approving funding to keep existing nuclear projects afloat. Two policies, passed in 2021 and 2022, provided the funding needed to save 22 reactors, with further investment being rolled out this year. This financing is expected to keep the existing U.S. nuclear reactor fleet online until at least 2032, by which time the government hopes greater investment will be being made into new nuclear projects. The policies also provide funding for research and development into the next generation of modular, more flexible nuclear plants
The passing of the Atomic Energy Advancement Act is expected to speed up the deployment of new nuclear energy technology, supported by previous Biden administration policies that provide greater investment to the sector. While strict safety regulations must be upheld, the government is putting pressure on the NRC to modernize and approve innovative reactor designs to allow for new nuclear energy capacity to be rolled out …. https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/The-US-Is-Betting-Big-on-Small-Nuclear-Reactors.html
CND Vice-President Dr Ian Fairlie writes for us on the purchase of the Wylfa nuclear site in last week’s budget.
On March 6, as part of the Spring Budget, the Chancellor announced a deal with the Japanese multinational Hitachi to purchase the defunct and closed Wylfa and Oldbury nuclear sites for £160 million. Hitachi suspended the much larger Wylfa project in 2019 and then abandoned it in September 2020 due to the massively rising costs of building nuclear plants.
Many nuclear enthusiasts read into the Chancellor’s statement that the government was going to build new plants at these sites. However a careful reading of the Budget statement reveals no such commitment. Instead, several independent commentators drily remarked that if Hitachi had decided the Wylfa nuclear plant was commercially untenable, why would anyone in Government think it was.
In fact, it is likely the £160 million land purchase was little more than a sop to myopic nuclear obsessives in the Conservative Party. The reality is that, in energy strategy terms, this sum is a drop in the bucket compared to the estimated £46,000 million (£46 billion) which Hinkley C nuclear plant would cost if it ever were completed. And, in another comparison, the Chancellor confirmed that the budget for the 2024 Contracts for Difference (CfD) auctions mainly for wind and solar projects will be set at over £1,000 million (£1 billion).
The environmental group People Against Wylfa B called the Chancellor’s statement a cynical move to try to support Tory Virginia Crosbie MP to keep her Ynys Môn parliamentary seat. Not much chance of that happening as her majority is under 2,000, and several recent by-elections have shown that Tory majorities of even 20,000 or more are now unsafe.
South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem signed a bill into law last week that conflates some criticisms of the modern state of Israel with anti-Semitism.
By signing the bill into law, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism must be taken into consideration in investigations of unfair or discriminatory practices within the state of South Dakota.
The IHRA’s definition was first adopted in 2016 and lists “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” as an example of anti-Semitism. Noem signed the bill into law as Israel’s brutal campaign in Gaza has killed over 31,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, and after the International Court of Justice ruled it’s “plausible” that Israel is committing genocide.
The IHRA also defines anti-Semitism as applying “double standards” to Israel by “requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” It lists “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” by “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” as another example of anti-Semitism.
According to The Jerusalem Post, South Dakota has become the 12th US state to codify the IHRA’s definition of anti-Semitism into law. At least 23 other states have supported the definition through legislative action but have not officially made it into law. The US State Department has also adopted the definition, as the US is a member country of the IHRA.
Many US states have also passed laws to punish individuals or companies who boycott Israel. The legislation is designed to fight against the global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement that advocates for global boycotts against Israel.
Over 30 states have adopted anti-BDS laws, and several states used them to punish Unilever, the parent company of Ben & Jerry’s, over the ice cream maker’s decision to stop selling its product in illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Colorado, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Arizona, Florida, and Texas all took action against Unilever by moving to divest state pension funds from the British conglomerate.
The Japanese government is chasing a nuclear mirage 13 years after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in March 2011. Government statements in support of nuclear power, such as the recent declaration at COP28 that Japan will triple nuclear energy by 2050, receive much attention. Away from the public spotlight, however, Japan is facing a nuclear energy policy disaster as it struggles to actually return to nuclear energy after the Fukushima nuclear accident.
As the Japanese government pursues a nuclear revival to no avail, the yawning gap between vision and policy reality jeopardizes important energy policy goals such as energy security and decarbonizing energy supply.
The share of nuclear power in Japan’s electricity mix has stagnated between 5 and 8 percent since 2018, and the goal to generate 20–22 percent of electricity from nuclear by 2030 has become elusive. Japan’s fleet of commercial nuclear reactors, once the third largest in the world at 54 units, has diminished to 33 plus two units currently under construction. Restarting these 35 reactors would barely be enough to meet the government’s 2030 targets. However, only 27 reactors are undergoing the safety reviews required for a restart permit. If successful, they can provide about 14 percent of Japan’s electricity mix by 2030, far from the government’s goals.
Actual restart progress is even more bleak, with only 12 reactors back on the grid by early 2024. Plans to start using the Onagawa plant’s reactor number two for electricity generation in May 2024 had to be postponed to September due to delays in additional safety construction work. For the Tokai reactor number two, work on safety measures is scheduled to conclude in September 2024, but it remains to be seen whether construction will finish on time. With the restart process riddled with setbacks and uncertainties, the total number of reactors actually generating electricity looks to increase only marginally over the next few years.
One potential solution to this problem, constructing new reactors, takes at least a decade and risks public backlash as safety concerns linger. The recent Noto earthquake was a reminder of safety risks as the earthquake partly exceeded assumptions made in safety checks and led to questions about the adequacy of emergency evacuation plans. Removing the official 40-year lifespan limit on nuclear reactors – introduced as a major safety lesson after the 2011 nuclear disaster – as part of Japan’s so-called GX (green transformation) strategy that will guide the country’s decarbonization appears as a rather desperate and potentially risky measure. The next generation of modular reactors stressed in the COP28 declaration on nuclear and the GX strategy are not even market-ready technology at the moment.
Japan’s nuclear energy revival is supposed to increase energy security and drive decarbonization. Chasing unattainable goals, however, has the exact opposite effect as the yawning implementation gap is continuously filled with fossil fuel imports.
It is time to embrace the solution at hand: expanding renewable energy capacity.
Increasing energy security has been a major goal of Japan’s energy policy ever since the oil shock in the 1970s. Dependence on fossil fuel imports, already high at 81 percent in 2010, shot up once all of the nuclear power plants were shut down following the Fukushima accident. What brought it down again to about 83 percent in 2021 was not nuclear restarts, but rather an increasing share of renewable energy. Nuclear power and renewable energy have essentially switched places in Japan’s energy mix as renewables increased from 4 percent in 2010 to 11 percent in 2021 and nuclear decreased from 10 percent in 2010 to 3 percent in 2021.
Additional coal and gas imports to fill the nuclear power gap not only keep Japan’s import dependence high, but also have a substantial impact on its greenhouse gas emissions. Aside from a small share of nuclear energy, low-carbon electricity mainly comes from renewables, which have seen an impressive annual growth at about 16 percent since 2012. The remaining 72 percent come from fossil fuels. Once a climate leader in the 1990s, the current nuclear energy disaster solidifies Japan as a fossil fuel champion rather than a decarbonization leader.
In 2024, the Japanese government has an opportunity to turn things around. Japan’s Strategic Energy Plan, revised every three years, is due again. This presents an opportunity for the government to increase its renewable energy target, ideally in line with the international commitment made at COP28 to triple renewable energy capacity by 2050, and to reduce its nuclear power target accordingly. This would be the best way to alleviate Japan’s current nuclear energy policy disaster and to put the country back on track in its pursuit of energy security and decarbonization.
Plans for a nuclear power plant in North Wales look set to be revived almost four years after the project was shelved.
Jeremy Hunt said the Government has bought the Wylfa site on Anglesey and a second at Oldbury-on-Severn in south Gloucestershire from Hitachi for £160million.
The Japanese firm walked away from building the plant at Wylfa in September 2020 having suspended the project the year before due to rising costs.
But yesterday the Chancellor, who referred to the island by its Welsh-language and constituency name, said: ‘Ynys Mon has a vital role in developing our nuclear ambitions.’
Ministers are also pressing ahead with plans for small modular reactors (SMRs) with six companies including Rolls-Royce bidding to win the contract.
Ukraine forces are in retreat and the war is going badly from NATO’s perspective, Biden’s $60+ billion for Kiev is halted in the House, and the Democratic incumbent’s reelection chances are looking grim in November. And as if confirming there’s no light at the end of the tunnel, Victoria Nuland is stepping down as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs of the United States.
The State Department announced Tuesday morning she is retiring. The Associated Press announcement interestingly enough underscores her hawkish legacy on Russia and Ukraine. “Victoria Nuland, the third-highest ranking U.S. diplomat and frequent target of criticism for her hawkish views on Russia and its actions in Ukraine, will leave her post this month, the State Department said Tuesday,” it wrote.
Her boss Antony Blinken said something a bit ironic on the occasion of unveiling her departure: “But it’s Toria’s leadership on Ukraine that diplomats and students of foreign policy will study for years to come.”
Indeed, many already know her as Victoria-‘Fuck the EU’-Nuland and for essentially running foreign policy in Europe, stretching back through the Obama years as then Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, where many of the problems which sparked the disastrous and tragic Russia-Ukraine war were first set in motion.
According to more praise from Secretary Blinken:
“Her efforts have been indispensable to confronting Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, marshaling a global coalition to ensure his strategic failure, and helping Ukraine work toward the day when it will be able to stand strongly on its own feet – democratically, economically, and militarily.”
Of course, Blinken’s boldly declaring Russia’s “strategic failure” seems a bit forced and premature (to put it mildly), considering too that even from a propaganda angle leading NATO countries are currently very much on the defensive. Things simply aren’t going well in NATO-land, by many accounts.
Western Europe has no conceivable interest in escalating the Ukraine war through a long-range missile exchange. While it should sustain its logistical support for Ukrainian forces, it has no strategic interest in Kyiv’s desire to drive Russia out of the majority Russian-speaking areas of Crimea or Donbas. It has every interest in assiduously seeking an early settlement and starting the rebuilding of Ukraine.
As for the west’s “soft power” sanctions on Russia, they have failed miserably, disrupting the global trading economy in the process. Sanctions may be beloved of western diplomats and thinktanks. They may even hurt someone – not least Britain’s energy users – but they have not devastated the Russian economy or changed Putin’s mind. This year Russia’s growth rate is expected to exceed Britain’s.
The crass ineptitude of a quarter of a century of western military interventions should have taught us some lessons. Apparently not.
Just over a week ago, she was talking about “tightening the noose” around Putin to CNN…………………………………………………
At this point we might say she’s wisely choosing to “quit while ahead”… but the reality of her disastrous interventionist policies in Eastern Europe is something more like quitting while you’re behind.
Recall too that she ran point for Obama’s regime change “democracy promotion” efforts in Ukraine. In 2014 leaked audio clip posted to YouTube caused deep embarrassment for the State Department amid accusations the US was coordinating coup efforts using the ongoing “Maidan Revolution” to oust then President Viktor Yanukovych.
What’s the Choice between Labour and the Green Party on energy?
Set against the Government’s ever-incredibly shrinking net zero commitments, Labour’s own shrinking net zero commitments in its ‘Green Prosperity Plan’ still look substantially better. But is this a difference big enough for environmentally conscious people to vote Labour? Or is Labour abandoning the climate struggle so much that people should go for the Green Party instead?
These are troubling questions for Labour supporters who put climate policy at the top of their to-do lists. Most troubling is the fact that Labour’s programme seems to ignore the benefit of converting the nation away from using natural gas and towards use of heat pumps…………………………………………………………………………………..
Then there is the clean power plan. This is supposed to have all electricity generated from non-fossil fuels by 2030………………………………………………………….
Nuclear black hole
Indeed, Labour may end up pouring a lot of the money intended for other types of green energy down the black hole that will open as the Government seriously starts the Sizewell C project. That project will be a terrible public spending/consumer bill disaster compared even to Hinkley C. This is because unlike Hinkley C the construction cost overruns will be borne by the UK Government and the UK energy consumers, and not by EDF. Sizewell C may not come online until after 2050. This new nuclear would in practice, anyway, make little difference to the need to balance fluctuating renewable energy supplies. Labour’s proposals mention small modular reactors (SMRs), a fantasy concept that is getting nowhere across the planet. If nuclear reactors were best small, they would not have become bigger! More wasted money!
Green Party and extra spending
The Green Party of England and Wales (GPEW), by contrast, is promising an extensive programme of green energy investment. They will say more in the forthcoming manifesto.
However, in March 2023 they called for £37 billion annual spend to pay for insulation, plus a range of support measures for different types of renewable energy and replacing gas boilers with heat pumps.
True, much of it would rely on borrowing money. However, a significant portion of the funding is based on a promise to raise a new wealth tax as well as the promise held out by Labour for more windfall taxes on oil and gas. In addition, the Green Party has called for carbon taxes to fund measures, the carbon taxes to be levied on ‘the biggest polluters’. Avoiding spending money on nuclear power (which the Green Party opposes) will release a lot of funds for green energy compared to Labour………………………………………………………………….
Public Ownership
The Green Party also supports a lot more public ownership of energy compared to Labour. I certainly support the nationalisation of the domestic energy supply sector. This will cost very little for the state to buy – arguably nothing since the consumer will no longer have to pay bail-outs for bankrupt suppliers. It has always been a nonsense to say that this retail supply market is competitive……………………………………………… more https://davidtoke.substack.com/p/labour-versus-green
SNP ministers are to set out proposals for the armed forces in an independent Scotland, including the removal of nuclear weapons from the country.
Angus Robertson, the external affairs secretary, will launch a new policy paper today focused on an independent Scotland’s “place in the world”.
And it will argue Scotland would gain “a seat at the table at the UN, the EU and other important global and regional forums”.
Mr Robertson said: “Independence would mean that Scotland gets to determine the type of nation it wants to be on the world stage. A nation that acts based on its values and principles, promotes human rights and development, and builds partnerships with other countries and international organisations to address global challenges.
“As an independent country we could renew and strengthen our existing relationships on these islands and around the world – promoting peace, prosperity and climate action, as a good global citizen committed to safeguarding human rights and upholding international law and the rules-based order.
“Scotland has a long history of being an outward-looking nation and I look forward to setting out our proposals in detail.”
It will be the latest in a series of Scottish Government papers, titled Building a New Scotland, which are described as forming a prospectus for an independent Scotland.
The SNP has long backed the removal of nuclear weapons from Faslane. However, there have been questions in the past over what this would mean for possible Nato membership.
Beverley and Holderness MP Graham Stuart said he had secured a commitment from Nuclear Minister Andrew Bowie that a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) will not come to south Holderness.
The Conservative MP said he was delighted with the confirmation after people from Holderness and local councillors managed to put a stop to the plans..
It comes after Nuclear Waste Services, the Government agency behind the proposals, said it would wind down the South Holderness Working Group after East Riding councillors voted to withdraw.
It followed pressure from local campaigners and South West Holderness ward’s Coun Sean McMaster and Coun Lyn Healing, backed by Mr Stuart, after GDF proposals were announced in January.
They would have seen radioactive nuclear waste transported to south Holderness and stored in a network of vaults and tunnels hundreds of metres underground for up to 175 years.
The establishment of the Working Group began a process that would have lasted at least a decade while also bringing between £1m and £2.5m-a-year in funding to the area.
Nuclear Waste Services said the international consensus was that GDFs were the best long-term solution for disposing of nuclear waste and it would have brought economic benefits to south Holderness
It comes after Nuclear Waste Services, the Government agency behind the proposals, said it would wind down the South Holderness Working Group after East Riding councillors voted to withdraw.
They would have seen radioactive nuclear waste transported to south Holderness and stored in a network of vaults and tunnels hundreds of metres underground for up to 175 years.
The establishment of the Working Group began a process that would have lasted at least a decade while also bringing between £1m and £2.5m-a-year in funding to the area.
Nuclear Waste Services said the international consensus was that GDFs were the best long-term solution for disposing of nuclear waste and it would have brought economic benefits to south Holderness.
But residents and councillors who spoke at East Riding Council’s full meeting on Wednesday, February 21, said it threatened tourism and farming and had caused house sales to fall through.
Former UK Government nuclear waste disposal adviser Paul Dorfman told LDRS putting a GDF in an area at risk of flooding such as south Holderness was ludicrous.
Mr Stuart said Nuclear Minister Mr Bowie had told him Nuclear Waste Services would fully respect the council’s decision to end discussions about the GDF
The Beverley and Holderness MP added the council vote reflected deep opposition in the local community to the plans.
Mr Stuart said: “Many people in Holderness didn’t want nuclear waste to come to the place they call home.
“I always want to see our communities strengthened, and Coun McMaster and Coun Healing did just that through their motion to have the council withdraw from discussions with Nuclear Waste Services.
“I’m delighted that the government minister responsible has confirmed that Nuclear Waste Services will now withdraw from Holderness, and leave us alone for good.”
The ADVANCE Act of 2023 (HR6544) with Price-Anderson renewal for 40 years passes US House floor vote
Bipartisan support to extend severe accident liability protection to “inherently safe” new reactors?
The “Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act”, also known as the “Price-Anderson Act” (PAA), is moving for renewal by Congress. The federal law to shield the nuclear industry from full liability of a nuclear accident is presently scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2025.
However, there is remains little to no transparency of the Act’s extension and expansion process to the public’s scrutiny of its incongruities.
Since 1957, Congress has periodically extended an adjusted upper limit for the nuclear industry’s financial liability protection from the otherwise unpredictably high projected cost in damages from the next severe radiological accident at a commercial nuclear power plant.
Originally, the industry’s limited liability for damages caused by a single nuclear accident was artificially set at $500 million per incident including personal injuries caused by radioactive fallout, population and economic dislocation by prolonged evacuations without re-entry, potentially permanent loss of property (residential, commercial and industrial), agricultural production and the contamination of natural resources with widespread and long-lived radioactivity.
The “Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act”, also known as the “Price-Anderson Act” (PAA), is moving for renewal by Congress. The federal law to shield the nuclear industry from full liability of a nuclear accident is presently scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2025.
However, there is remains little to no transparency of the Act’s extension and expansion process to the public’s scrutiny of its incongruities.
Since 1957, Congress has periodically extended an adjusted upper limit for the nuclear industry’s financial liability protection from the otherwise unpredictably high projected cost in damages from the next severe radiological accident at a commercial nuclear power plant.
Originally, the industry’s limited liability for damages caused by a single nuclear accident was artificially set at $500 million per incident including personal injuries caused by radioactive fallout, population and economic dislocation by prolonged evacuations without re-entry, potentially permanent loss of property (residential, commercial and industrial), agricultural production and the contamination of natural resources with widespread and long-lived radioactivity.
According to the latest figures provided by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report published January 25, 2024, the industry’s financial liability ceiling for a single, severe nuclear accident is now capped at $16.6 billion by federal law. Beyond that ceiling, damages would supposedly be covered by US taxpayers. But the still unrealized total damage costs of a severe nuclear accident as evidenced by ongoing nuclear catastrophes at Fukushima (13 year ago) and Chernobyl (38 years ago) are already running into the hundreds of billions of dollars. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear catastrophe’s damage is recently updated to surpass ¥15.4trillion ($102.7 billion).
The PAA renewal is part of the controversial“Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy (ADVANCE) Act of 2023” that is now approved by both the Senate and the House with significant differences including the PAA liability protection extension period.
The US Senate version (SB 1000) extends the PAA by 20 years to December 31, 2045, was passed on July 31, 2023 as a “must pass” inclusion in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2023 without a single public hearing. With Senate passage, the National Defense Authorization Act went to the US House of Representatives for approval where the ADVANCE Act of 2023 along with the PAA renewal on its coattail were instead culled from the military spending bill.
The ADVANCE Act with its the Price-Anderson renewal rider were introduced to the House as stand alone legislation (HR 6544) with the House version extending the industry’s limited accident liability protection to 40 years (December 31, 2065). According to E&ENews, “The House will vote on bipartisan nuclear energy legislation this week (02.26.2024) in hopes of reaching an agreement with the Senate in the coming weeks”—still without a single public hearing. The House floor vote to pass the HR 6544 with broad bipartisan support was confirmed by E&ENews February 29, 2024. The ADVANCE Act with the Price-Anderson extension for 40 years now goes back to the Senate to consider reconciliation.
Both the Senate and House versions intend to expand the government’s limited accident liability coverage beyond the aging, economically distressed and grandfathered commercial nuclear power fleet to now include new and supposedly “inherently safe” Small Modular Reactors and Advanced Non-Light Water reactor designs that incongruently could be licensed without any offsite radiological emergency planning zones.
All of this, thus far, has been accomplished without the transparency of a single congressional hearing in either the US Senate or House to explain the extension and expansion of Price-Anderson Act liability protection to increasingly economically distressed old reactors and new reactors where safety claims have yet to be technically certified.
nuclear-news 