nuclear-news

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

As France’s aging nuclear reactors fail, France may block electricity exports to UK

France may block energy exports to UK as Macron’s ‘ancient’ nuclear
plants rust up. Power giant EDF will slash output following delays in vital
repairs to its fleet of nuclear reactors. The French may block electricity
exports to the UK this winter as a result, causing a fresh energy supply
crunch on these shores. It’s a frightening prospect as winter looms.

 Express 5th Nov 2022

https://www.express.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/1692524/France-UK-EDF-electricity-exports-power-energy-bills-striking-workers-nuclear-reactors

November 7, 2022 Posted by | ENERGY, France | Leave a comment

UK government denies reports that the Sizewell C nuclear project is in doubt

 The UK government has denied plans for Sizewell C are currently under
review, reiterating its commitment in supporting the acceleration of the
nuclear industry. This is contrary to reports that emerged from the BBC in
which it was stated a “government official had disclosed that every major
project was under review including Sizewell C”.

It was reported that the
primary reason behind this was to cut costs as the UK enters the bleak
winter period amid the energy crisis. Dispelling these reports, a
government spokesperson told Current± that its position on the Sizewell C
project “has not changed” and it will continue to support the
development of the nuclear industry as a means to reach net zero.

 Current 4th Nov 2022

https://www.current-news.co.uk/news/uk-government-squashes-claims-sizewell-c-is-under-review

November 7, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Radioactive Waste Flasks to Share Arnside Viaduct with Walkers and Cyclists ?

 Movers and Shakers including green minded and not so green minded folk are
pushing ahead with the plan to open the Arnside Viaduct to walkers and
cyclists. Whats wrong with that? Nothing apart from the fact that
radioactive waste travels this route to Sellafield on a regular basis.


Several flasks are sometimes taken across the viaduct at a time with at
least two deisel engines required just in case one breaks down as the load
is so very dangerous to the public ..and a target for goodness knows what.


Along with Nuclear Free Local Authorities and Close Capenhurst, Radiation
Free Lakeland recently put a series of questions to Direct Rail Services
who operate the nuclear waste trains on behalf of UK Government. The
replies have so far been unsatisfactory to say the least given that UK
Government is putting public money into ever increasing nuclear waste
flasks journeying to Sellafield alongside public access for walkers and
cyclists sharing the same route over the Arnside Viaduct.

 Radiation Free Lakeland 6th Nov 2022

Radioactive Waste Flasks to Share Arnside Viaduct with Walkers and Cyclists ?

November 7, 2022 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Europe can’t cut economic ties with Russia unless it cuts nuclear power use as well

Uranium addiction .  https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2022/11/06/uranium-addiction/ By Hannes Czerulla, 6 Nov 22

The new edition of the Uranium Atlas makes it clear that Europe will not be able to detach itself economically from Russia as long as the states continue to use electricity from nuclear power. After all, both Germany and other European states obtain a large part of the uranium needed for this purpose from mines in Russia and Kazakhstan.

The recently updated version of the Uranium Atlas (in German), is published by the Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND) together with the Nuclear Free Future Foundation, the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, Greenpeace and “.ausgestrahlt”. According to the report, around 40 per cent of European uranium imports come from Russia and Kazakhstan. Thus, in addition to fossil energy imports, European countries are significantly dependent on Russia.

If Europe really wants to become independent of Russia in the energy sector, “it must also stop its cooperation with Russia in the nuclear sector as soon as possible,” emphasised Uwe Witt, Senior Advisor for Climate Protection and Structural Change at the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation.

The Uranium Atlas highlights the regions of the world where uranium is mined, utilised or disposed of. The history of the uranium industry is mostly marked by exploitation and environmental destruction. In Africa, for example, foreign companies still control the mining of radioactive ore and leave behind contaminated land and a population with impaired health. In Canada and the USA, too, indigenous inhabitants are suffering from the uranium-related contamination of entire regions. Meanwhile, Central Europe is struggling with the legacy of uranium mining.

Nuclear power does not bring security of supplies

At the centre of the Russian uranium industry is the state-owned corporation Rosatom. Founded in 2007 by Russian President Vladimir Putin, it reports directly to the Kremlin and holds stakes in uranium mines mainly in Kazakhstan, but also in Canada and the USA. With an annual output of 7,122 tonnes of uranium, the company produces 15 percent of the global total and is the second-largest uranium producer in the world.

Angela Wolff, nuclear and energy policy officer at BUND, explains: “In the production of enriched uranium, which is needed for the operation of nuclear power plants, the dependency is even greater: more than a third of the global demand comes from the Russian state corporation.”

Eastern Europe in particular is also specifically dependent on Russian fuel elements because reactors in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia – and Finland – can only be operated with these hexagonal fuel rods. In total, there are 18 reactors of this type in the EU.

Russia ignores environmental problems

Rosatom is silent about the details of uranium mining in Russia’s three remaining mines. The 225-page annual report contains only production and key figures on uranium mining. No details were mentioned and certainly no problems.

Uranium expert Paul Robinson reports in the Uranium Atlas: “In some houses in the vicinity of uranium mines in Krasnokamensk, radon concentrations of up to 28,000 becquerels per cubic metre have been measured; this value is 190 times above the limit at which, for example in the USA, emergency measures are prescribed by law.”

Closed mines need to be cleaned up in Russia. Environmental protection organisations that wanted to secure them are harassed by the state. The nuclear physicist Oleg Bodrov, for example, had to resign from the leadership of the organisation Green World in 2017 because he had campaigned for the decommissioning of all nuclear power plants in Russia and the cessation of uranium mining.

Import ban for Russia is not enough

While Rosatom is planning to build a total of 35 new nuclear power plants abroad – among others in Belarus, Bulgaria, China, Finland and Hungary – the EU Commission is being forced to act, explained Armin Simon of the anti-nuclear organisation .ausgestrahlt. The EU Commission has justified the inclusion of nuclear power and fossil gas in the EU taxonomy with supply security aspects, Simon said. “This justification has turned out to be false for all to see. Contrary to what is claimed, nuclear power does not contribute to security of supply.”

An import ban on nuclear fuel from Russia, as already demanded by the EU Parliament, falls short, he said. “The EU Commission must revise its position on this. Otherwise, the EU Parliament must pull the emergency brake,” Simon demanded.

BUND points out that despite the precarious situation, CDU/CSU politicians are calling for lifetime extensions for German nuclear power plants. For example, Bavaria’s Prime Minister “Markus Söder is conducting a grotesque sham debate,” said Olaf Bandt, Chairman of BUND. “His calls for nuclear power are a political and moral indictment in light of the nuclear threats from nuclear power plants in the war zone [in Ukraine] and Putin’s nuclear bomb threats.” (Editor’s note: Since this article was originally published, the German government did decide to extend the operating life of two of its remaining three reactors, but only until next April.)

Critics as enemies of the state

In the authors’ view, obtaining the uranium needed in Europe from states other than Russia is not an alternative. The conditions under which the fuel is mined are precarious everywhere. In China, anyone who criticises uranium mining is considered an enemy of the state.

The activist and Nuclear Free Future Award winner Sun Xiaodi is mentioned as an example. He had run a warehouse at one of China’s largest mines and raised questions about health hazards and radiation exposure from 1988 onwards. After giving an interview to a French journalist in 2005, he was placed under house arrest. In 2009, Sun Xiaodi was sentenced to two years in a penal camp for inciting public opinion, according to reports by the medical organisation IPPNW.

Africa does not benefit from mining

Read more: Europe can’t cut economic ties with Russia unless it cuts nuclear power use as well

Nowadays, active mines in Africa are found in Niger, Namibia and South Africa. Although Niger is the world’s eighth-largest uranium producer in terms of total historical mining, the population has not benefited from the boom since the 1960s. Today, the country is one of the poorest in the world. At the same time, about 152,000 tonnes of uranium with a current market price of about 40 billion US dollars were exported.

What has been left behind – mainly by the French nuclear company Areva – is radiating waste. In the areas surrounding the mines, the radiation levels in the water are in some cases ten to a hundred times higher than recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO). Roads have been built out of radiated rock debris. In the mining town of Arlit on the southern edge of the Sahara, 35 million tonnes of radioactive waste are lying around in the open. The background radiation there is 200 times higher. Nevertheless, three new mines are planned.

Under South Africa’s apartheid system, it was standard practice for decades that workers with suspicious symptoms of illness were given a last month’s pay and dismissed. There, uranium is only a by-product of gold mining. However, this was enough to make South Africa the most important uranium producer in Africa.

“Nuclear power contributes nothing to solving the climate crisis.”

The authors of the Uranium Atlas also warn against viewing nuclear power as a “climate saviour”, as is currently repeatedly suggested by interest groups and politicians. “Climate protection is currently the central argument for making nuclear power respectable again,” the Uranium Atlas states.

In its brochure “Nuclear Power and the Paris Agreement”, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) claims that nuclear power is also needed to achieve the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement. With this justification, the EU Commission also wants to classify nuclear energy as sustainable in the EU taxonomy (in German). (Editor’s note. Since the original publication of this article, this has now become a reality.)

From the authors’ point of view, however, these demands neglect the health and environmental dangers of uranium mining, the possibility of a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions and the still unresolved question of final storage. Horst Hamm, project manager of the Uranium Atlases, therefore declared: “Nuclear power contributes nothing to solving the climate crisis.” Moreover, the construction of new nuclear power plants is too expensive and too slow to make a difference to climate protection in the future, he said.

“Not even existing nuclear power plants are still able to compete with renewable energies, as the example of the USA in the Uranium Atlas shows,” Hamm added. Six US reactors are being shut down there ahead of schedule, and more are to follow. (Editor’s note: there are now moves afoot to subsidize and keep open reactors that planned to close and even to reopen at least one.) The nuclear industry had already been highly subsidised in the past decades and, from a purely economic point of view, was not viable.

New construction projects: Bottomless pit

Worldwide, one in eight new nuclear power plants was abandoned before it went into operation. The reason was often delays in completion and rising costs during construction. Examples include Chile, Indonesia, Jordan, Lithuania, South Africa, Thailand and Vietnam.

However, there are also reactors in Europe whose commissioning has been delayed by years and whose costs continue to rise: The construction of the first European pressurised water reactor (EPR) in Olkiluoto, Finland, started in 2005 and was supposed to be finished in 2009. Now, in the course of 2022, with a delay of 13 years, regular generation of electricity is to begin there. (Editor’s note: In October, cracks in all four feedwater pumps of Finland’s Olkiluoto 3 were found and startup is now delayed until at least late December 2022.)

The new reactor in Flamanville, France has been under construction since 2007 and should have been operational in 2012. Due to technical and industrial problems, it will now be commissioned in 2023 at the earliest. With projected costs of 19 billion Euros, the power plant is expected to be six times as expensive as planned. The costs of the Finnish EPR have risen from an estimated 3 billion Euros to almost 11 billion Euros.

Renewables cheaper than nuclear power

When calculating the costs of nuclear power, items such as the removal of damage from uranium mining as well as the dismantling and final storage of contaminated waste must also be priced in. The latter, however, are difficult to quantify. According to the Uranium Atlas, the nuclear industry has “neither determined the true price of its business nor adequately illuminated its economic situation”. Instead, state subsidies have been paid again and again due to the interconnections with the construction of nuclear bombs and the maintenance of nuclear-powered submarines and warships.

According to calculations made by the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems in 2021, generating electricity with the help of nuclear fission is more expensive than almost any other method. Only energy from gas and hard coal costs even more per kilowatt-hour. The researchers calculated a price of 13.5 Euro cents for a kilowatt-hour of nuclear electricity. A kilowatt-hour from hard coal costs 15.5 cents and from gas 20.2 cents.

In contrast, energy production from renewable resources is in part significantly cheaper. The price of a kilowatt-hour from offshore wind turbines is only 9.7 cents, onshore 6.1 cents, and photovoltaic plants on open land in southern Germany produce the kilowatt-hour for 3.6 cents. In sunnier countries like oil-rich Saudi Arabia, it is even cheaper. There, a 600-megawatt solar project has been connected to the grid that generates the kilowatt-hour for 1.04 US cents.

The authors see the future of sustainable energy generation not in nuclear power, but in renewables like wind and solar. “Renewable energies are now cheaper than coal, gas or nuclear power plants, even if you don’t count their follow-up costs,” said Heinz Smital, nuclear campaigner for Greenpeace. Even old and depreciated plants often cannot keep up.

Last April marked the 36th anniversary of the April 26, 1986 Chernobyl reactor disaster. Nevertheless, nuclear energy is once again being presented as the solution in Europe (in German) today. In light of this, BUND calls on the federal government to stand by its refusal to extend the operating lives of nuclear power plants and to complete the phase-out of nuclear power.

November 6, 2022 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international, Uranium | Leave a comment

Poland picks nuclear power that the International Energy Agency says is “stagnating or in decline”

Poland won’t get energy security from three Westinghouse reactors. It probably won’t even get the reactors. What it will get, however, is junior membership in the Nuclear Club

The love of three lemons,  https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2022/11/06/the-love-of-three-lemons/ By Linda Pentz Gunter, 5 Nov 22,

Congratulations must go to Poland — and to US vice president, Kamala Harris, and US energy secretary, Jennifer Granholm for brokering the deal — for its commitment to purchase a triad of American nuclear lemons.

With breathtaking myopia, the Polish government has signed a deal to partner with the US company, Westinghouse, in the construction of three nuclear reactors in Poland.

Apparently, everyone concerned is happy to ignore the fact that Westinghouse was bankrupted by its disastrous nuclear projects in South Carolina and Georgia. The former was canceled mid-construction and the latter, at Plant Vogtle, is now years behind schedule and well beyond its originally predicted 2016 start-up date, with ever-ballooning cost over-runs that have now topped $30 billion.

Also overlooked was that former Westinghouse Electric Company Senior Vice President, Jeffrey A. Benjamin, was charged with 16 felony counts including conspiracy, wire fraud, securities fraud, and causing a publicly-traded company to keep a false record, over the company’s handling of its now canceled V.C. Summer 2-reactor project in South Carolina.

The official reason that long-shelved plans to build nuclear reactors were suddenly revived is that the war in Ukraine has caused energy shortages in heavily fossil fuel-dependent Poland. But, tellingly, another reason given was Poland’s “lack of immediate renewable substitutes”.

Like France with its nuclear power monopoly, Poland’s reliance on coal and gas stifled renewable energy development. Now there is nowhere else to turn. France is similarly stranded and is importing fossil fuel energy and even reopening closed coal plants. 

The backward turn by France in climate mitigation was effectively caused by prioritizing nuclear power for so many decades. Added to that, its aging nuclear reactor fleet is now breaking down with remarkable alacrity — at various times recently more than half of all French reactors have been out of operation. It’s a perfect demonstration of why the nuclear choice is a rash and unreliable one, even without addressing all the inherent dangers and waste issues.

The Polish decision to partner with a bankrupt company that has a track record of failure to deliver on time or on budget, as well as criminal activity, certainly seems like a bizarre choice. So perhaps there is another agenda afoot here?

Poland’s unhappy history of invasion, occupation and shifting boundaries puts the country in a uniquely vulnerable position. Once behind the Iron Curtain and a member of the Warsaw Pact, Poland is now an enthusiastic member of NATO and outspokenly critical of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Its multiple shared borders include Ukraine as well as Russian ally, Belarus.

In announcing the Westinghouse contract with Poland, the U.S. State Department called it “a watershed moment in advancing European energy security”.

Polish government spokesman, Piotr Müller, echoed this when he said:  “Nuclear energy will be an important element of Poland’s energy security”.

The International Energy Agency defines energy security as “the uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an affordable price”. But, more revealingly, it describes electricity security thus: 

“Variable renewable generation has already surged over the past decade, driven by cost reductions and favorable policy environments, a trend that is set to continue and even accelerate in line with climate change objectives. Meanwhile, conventional power plants, notably those using coal, nuclear and hydro, are stagnating or in decline.” [emphasis added]

Poland won’t get energy security from three Westinghouse reactors. It probably won’t even get the reactors. What it will get, however, is junior membership in the Nuclear Club. In possession of nuclear materials, technology, personnel and know-how, it will join other aspirational nations developing nuclear power, not because they need it or can even afford it, but because it delivers some sort of absurd prestige. Not quite a member of the Big Nine — the actual nuclear weapon states — Poland will at least arrive on the doorstep.

In early October, President Andrzej Duda, even said that he had asked to have US nuclear weapons stationed on Polish territory, although the US government denied receiving any such request. None of this is coincidence or unconnected.

The UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, now supported by a majority of the world’s countries, works hard to stigmatize nuclear weapons. We need to do the same for nuclear power. Otherwise it serves as the nuclear drawbridge that is never raised.

Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear and writes for and curates Beyond Nuclear International.

November 6, 2022 Posted by | EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

France, depending on nuclear power, now imports more electricity than it exports

Nuclear power provides 70pc of French electricity. The failure to replace
ageing infrastructure has left more than half of the 56 reactors out of
service as the worst winter in living memory approaches.

EDF, whichnoperates the plants, has been nationalised and, for the first time in
decades, France is importing more energy than it exports, only narrowly
avoiding blackouts so far. For the foreseeable future, the country has not
only been overtaken by Sweden as Europe’s leading electricity exporter,
but has lost its vaunted reputation for energy security.

 Telegraph 6th Nov 2022

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/11/06/how-france-became-trapped-spiral-chaos-decline/

November 6, 2022 Posted by | ENERGY, France | Leave a comment

 Does the UK need new nuclear plants like Sizewell C to reach net zero?

 Does the UK need new nuclear plants like Sizewell C to reach net zero?
With the cost of renewables and batteries plummeting, some academics argue
that the UK doesn’t need to build new nuclear power stations to achieve its
net zero goal.

Eight months ago, the UK government made a big bet on
nuclear, promising to treble the size of the country’s nuclear fleet
between now and 2050. Delivering on that promise would require huge
investment in both large-scale new nuclear plants and small-scale modular
reactors. This follows years of government delay and prevarication.
Ministers at the time told the public this push for nuclear was essential
to achieve the UK’s aim to have net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

That nuclear-fuelled zero-carbon future could now be in doubt, according to news
reports. A government official told the BBC that plans for the nuclear
power plant Sizewell C, which would supply around 7 per cent of the UK’s
electricity, are “under review” as the government looks to cut
spending.

The prime minister’s spokesperson later denied that it was
under review, saying that negotiations with private firms over funding were
ongoing and the government “hoped to get a deal over the line as soon as
possible”.

However, some academics are questioning whether new nuclear is
even necessary. For years it has been energy orthodoxy to argue that
nuclear will be an essential component of the UK’s energy mix to meet its
net zero goal. Wind and solar would supply most of the country’s energy,
so the thinking went, but some back-up power would be needed for when the
wind doesn’t blow and the sky is cloudy. It is an argument broadly
accepted by the UK government, the Climate Change Committee that advises it
and, reluctantly, many environmental campaigners.

But that is now changing,
says James Price at University College London, author of a study published
in September that suggests the government’s backing for new nuclear is
“increasingly difficult to justify”

 New Scientist 4th Nov 2022

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2345743-does-the-uk-need-new-nuclear-plants-like-sizewell-c-to-reach-net-zero/

November 6, 2022 Posted by | ENERGY, UK | Leave a comment

Councillor wants to know why there has been an increase in radioactive particles found on Dounreay foreshore.

A Caithness councillor wants to know
why there has been an increase in the number of radioactive particles found
on the foreshore at Dounreay this year. Struan Mackie, a Thurso and
Northwest Caithness Highland councillor and chairman of the Dounreay
Stakeholder Group (DSG), made the call after 15 irradiated particles were
discovered on the foreshore area between February and March. It is
understood to be the highest number since 17 were found in 1996.

Mr Mackie
said: “We wish to ascertain why there has been an increase in particle
detections and whether this was preventable. “Regular public updates are
provided to the Dounreay Stakeholder Group through our Site Restoration
sub-group, and it is of the utmost importance that these matters are dealt
with in a robust but transparent manner.”

Dounreay confirmed there has been
an increase in the number of particles found on the foreshore. A
spokeswoman said: “We closely monitor the environment around the site and
have seen an increase in particles found on the Dounreay foreshore this
year. “The foreshore is not used by the general public. We are looking at
wind and wave data to see if we can pinpoint a trend, and will report our
findings when they are complete. Safety is our number one priority and we
continue to monitor the foreshore on a regular basis.

 John O’Groat Journal 4th Nov 2022

https://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/councillor-wants-to-know-why-there-has-been-an-increase-in-r-292436/

November 6, 2022 Posted by | environment, radiation, UK | Leave a comment

UK government might scrap Sizewell nuclear plan

A new nuclear power plant in Suffolk is under review and could be delayed or even axed, as the government tries to cut spending, the BBC has been told. Sizewell C was expected to provide up to 7% of the UK’s total
electricity needs, but critics have argued it will be expensive and take years to build. A new high speed rail line in the north of England could also be axed.

“We are reviewing every major project – including Sizewell C,” a government official told the BBC. The government is due to unveil its tax and spending plans under new Prime Minister Rishi Sunak at the Autumn
Statement on 17 November. Negotiations on raising funds for Sizewell C are understood to be ongoing. It is not expected to begin generating electricity until the 2030s. A Treasury spokesperson said delivering
infrastructure projects was “a priority”.

There was confusion on Thursday as executives at the French energy contractor EDF – already building a new plant at Hinkley in Somerset – and the Business and Energy department seemed blindsided by a potential change in tack on existing government policy, which promises to press ahead with both large and smaller scale nuclear projects. “As far we know, it’s still on”, said one nuclear industry executive close to the matter. New large-scale nuclear plants have been a key part of a government strategy to help reduce the UK’s reliance on fossil fuels. Boris Johnson whilst PM declared it was his intention to build eight new reactors in the next eight years.

A shift away from that position would represent a major change in UK energy policy that some will
lament and some will celebrate. But it would do little to convince investors in the UK – domestic and foreign – that they are dealing with a government with stable policy priorities.

BBC 4th Nov 2022

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63507630

November 3, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Attacks on Ukrainian nuclear-power plants challenge treaties, and raise other safety concerns

Researchers and policymakers must ask new questions. Are other locations at risk, given the projected global growth in nuclear energy?

As the crisis at the Zaporizhzhia plant worsens, international agreements need to be extended to ensure nuclear safety during war.

Nature Anthony Burke, 3 Nov 22,

This year marked the first time in which civilian nuclear-power facilities have come under attack during war. As Russian armed forces pushed into Ukraine in February, troops took control of the Chernobyl nuclear exclusion zone, where hundreds of people still manage the aftermath of the catastrophic 1986 meltdown. Thousands of vehicles stirred up radioactive dust as they moved towards Kyiv. Russian soldiers worked and slept in the deadly ‘red zone’ near the abandoned city of Pripyat.

In March, Russian armoured vehicles and tanks took control of the Zaporizhzhia power station — Europe’s largest nuclear power plant. Conditions rapidly deteriorated. Today, all six reactors are shut down. In August, Russia used artillery located at the plant to shell the city of Nikopol, provoking counterattacks from Ukrainian forces. As witnessed by an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team sent to report on the situation in September, shelling has disconnected main power lines, knocked out radiation-detection sensors and damaged water pipes, walkways, the fire station and the building housing fresh nuclear fuel and solid radioactive waste1. More power losses in October left backup diesel generators as the only electricity supply to keep fuel rods cool. External power was restored, only to be disrupted again by a landmine explosion. One wrong move, and another Chernobyl could be possible.

The international community must urgently address the inadequacy of nuclear-safety architecture, policy and preparedness.

The powers of the IAEA are limited. It has responded in a rapid and principled way to the crisis in Ukraine, after being unable to prevent the Fukushima disaster following the Tohoku earthquake in Japan in 2011. But the international Convention on Nuclear Safety — one of several treaties that the IAEA serves to reinforce — was never designed to grapple with the nightmare of nuclear-power stations coming under military attack. As a ‘soft-law’ instrument, it allows states to create their own regulatory mechanisms with weak international oversight.

Researchers and policymakers must ask new questions. Are other locations at risk, given the projected global growth in nuclear energy? How do Russia’s actions in Ukraine challenge the world’s commitment to the ‘peaceful uses’ of nuclear energy and to international mechanisms for countering nuclear-weapons proliferation? Can current treaties be adapted, or is a more robust legal architecture and rapid-response capability required? And how can political obstacles be overcome?

Unsafe conditions

Conditions at Zaporizhzhia are “not sustainable and could lead to increased human error with implications on nuclear safety”, the IAEA warned in September1. Ukrainian plant staff are working under duress after Rosatom, the Russian energy company, took control and a Russian holding company was established. Energoatom, Ukraine’s state nuclear-energy company, has reported that the plant’s deputy director and head of human resources have been detained and that others are being pressured to sign contracts with Rosatom. The plant’s director, Igor Murashov, was earlier arrested by Russian forces, interrogated and expelled from Russian-held territory.

The integrity of reactor cores and storage pools is the main concern. If fuel rods are exposed, a core meltdown and uncontrolled release of radiation is likely, as happened at Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 19792. “And so, one mine or one missile or whatever”, warned Ukraine’s energy minister Herman Halushchenko, “could stop the working of the generators and then you have one hour and probably 30 minutes, not more than 2 hours, before the reaction starts.”

Russian control of the plant also delayed the IAEA from conducting its required annual inspection, which is crucial for ensuring safety and verifying the secure disposal of nuclear fuel and preventing its diversion for military uses1.

Nuclear-power plants elsewhere in Ukraine are also under threat. Shelling has been reported at the Khmelnytskyy plant in Netishyn, and cruise missiles have overflown the South Ukraine plant in Yuzhnoukrainsk. And Ukraine’s energy infrastructure across the country is coming under attack, including substations linked to nuclear plants.………………………………….

more https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-03580-0

November 3, 2022 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

‘Will they, won’t they – great uncertainty over government go ahead for Sizewell C.

It has been a day of mixed messages with reports in the national press and on the BBC that government funding for Sizewell C may be axed being contradicted by a statement issued from the Prime Minister’s office.

The Nuclear Free Local Authorities would sincerely like the costly Suffolk white elephant culled and the money spent instead on insulating cold and damp British homes to reduce energy demand and lower fuel bills. In a letter to Jeremy Hunt MP last month, the organisation urged the Chancellor to ‘leave Sizewell C well-alone’ and to withdraw from the £700 million commitment made by outgoing Prime Minister Boris Johnson and from the concordat agreed between Prime Minister Truss and President Macron to each take a 20% stake in the project.

As the estimated cost to completion is at least £30 billion, this represents a tremendous commitment of taxpayers’ cash, and there is considerable doubt over whether operator EDF Energy, already in huge debt, will be in a financial position to complete the plant or if private-sector players will step in to take the remaining 60% share. Nuclear power projects are notorious for being delivered late and massively over budget so the risk is great that Sizewell C will represent both a lumbering folly and a financial bottomless pit for beleaguered consumers, who would have to pick up the tab through a ‘nuclear tax’ levied through electricity bills.

For the NFLA then, there was great disappointment when in his response to the letter, Climate Minister Graham Stuart, said that ‘commercial discussions have been constructive but are ongoing, and no decisions have been made’ and in a statement made today, a spokesperson for the Prime Minister said ‘Britain’s Sizewell C nuclear power plant project is not being scrapped and negotiations on its funding are progressing’.

So optimistic noises that the project is on track, but there has been speculation that there is an ongoing internal conflict between Whitehall mandarins in the Treasury and the Department of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy as to whether Sizewell C should be in the mix as a project that must be cut alongside HS2 and the Northern Powerhouse Rail as part of the government’s plan to reduce the deficit by £35 billion as Britain enters a new recession.

For the NFLA then, there was great disappointment when in his response to the letter, Climate Minister Graham Stuart, said that ‘commercial discussions have been constructive but are ongoing, and no decisions have been made’ and in a statement made today, a spokesperson for the Prime Minister said ‘Britain’s Sizewell C nuclear power plant project is not being scrapped and negotiations on its funding are progressing’.

November 3, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

U.S. company Westinghouse wants to build a fleet of nuclear reactors in Europe, starting with Poland.

The Council of Ministers has formally approved the decision that the first
nuclear power plant in Poland will use three Westinghouse AP1000 reactors –
with the US company calling it an “historic day” as it looks to build a
fleet of the reactors in central Europe.

World Nuclear News 3rd Nov 2022

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Poland%E2%80%99s-government-confirms-Westinghouse-for-nucl

November 3, 2022 Posted by | EUROPE, marketing | Leave a comment

When it comes to a nuclear industry project – Europe puts no sanctions on Russia

Despite conflict, Russia sends France giant magnet for nuclear fusion project, Euractiv 4 Nov 22

Russia on Tuesday (1 November) dispatched one of six giant magnets needed for the ITER nuclear fusion programme in France, one of the last international scientific projects Moscow participates in despite the Ukraine conflict.

The ship carrying the Russian-made magnet – or “poloidal field coil” – departed Saint Petersburg on Tuesday under grey skies.

On board, the massive nine-metre-wide coil, which weighs 200 tonnes had been tightly wrapped to withstand a two-week trip to Marseille, southern France.

The ring-shaped magnet built under Russian atomic agency Rosatom’s supervision will make up the top part of the world’s largest “tokamak”.

The tokamak is a magnetic fusion device built in France following the same principle that powers our sun and stars.


The Russian piece was meant to leave in May but sanctions forbidding Russian ships docking in Europe delayed the departure.

Still, the “current situation did not change the fact that we will fullfil our obligations”, Rosatom representative for international projects Viacheslav Perchukov said.

Geopolitical tensions “practically did not affect the realisation of this project”, Perchukov said.

“Without (the Russian coil), the tokamak will not work,” senior ITER centre scientist Leonid Khimchenko told AFP……………………more https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/despite-conflict-russia-sends-france-giant-magnet-for-nuclear-fusion-project/

November 3, 2022 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

French nuclear corporation EDF – facing huge debts, but cosily enmeshed with UK government

But what about the future? EDF is predicted to stack up 100 billion Euros (£87.8 billion) in debt this year and the French government already pumped €3 billion (£2.6 billion) into the company in Spring.

But as you’ll see below, no matter how bad things are there’s always room to give the CEO a pay rise.

In 2020, CEO Lévy was listed as the 9th highest-paid CEO in the utility sector worldwide taking home a salary of €450,000 (£389,500) and €3,660 (£3,150) in benefits. 

EDF has been getting cosier and cosier with the government. 

And the cosiness isn’t set to end anytime soon, EDF stands in good stead under Liz Truss. The new PM nominated former EDF lobbyist Michael Stott as Downing Street’s new business liaison. Stott, who is also an ex-Tory press officer, is expected to lead the government’s new-build nuclear programme.

  EDF: WHEN THE STATE GOES FULL CAPITALIST. https://newint.org/features/2022/10/31/edf-when-state-goes-full-capitalist 31 October 2022

What happens when a state energy company goes multinational? In the second installment of its Heat the Rich series on Britain’s big six energy giants, Corporate Watch puts the spotlight on EDF Energy.

EDF is the fifth biggest energy supplier in the UK currently controlling over 10% of the market. The French multinational is best known for “leading the UK’s nuclear renaissance” operating all eight of the UK’s nuclear power stations. 

It’s owned by Electricity of France S.A. (Électricité de France, EDF). A multinational energy producer and supplier primarily (and soon to be solely) owned by the French government. It is one of the world’s top five utility companies. 

Created in 1946 by the French government, EDF was set up with the intention of rebuilding France’s power grid following World War Two. Now, 70 years on, EDF has branched out a lot further than France, cashing in on energy users from the USA to India. The group is now made up of 144 subsidiaries.

Despite its name, EDF isn’t just in the energy business. EDF is also involved in the data software, vehicle traceability, investment, and real estate sectors, to name just a few. 

EDF uses strategic partnership deals to build its brand, for example, the company is a ‘premium partner’ (and official energy supplier) for the Olympic and Paralympic Games in Paris in 2024.

HOW MANY UK ENERGY CUSTOMERS DOES EDF HAVE?

Electricity (excluding pre-payment): 3 million

Gas (excluding pre-payment): 2.1 million

WHO OWNS IT? 

EDF Energy (UK) Ltd is ultimately owned by EDF SA, a French company which is majority owned (84%) by the French government and listed on Euronext, the French stock exchange.

In July 2022, the French government announced it would buy out the outstanding 16% of EDF’s shares, reversing the partial privatization of the company in 2005. But it hit a brick wall when investors threatened to sue the government for losses. The French state started finalising their buyout of 100% shares in EDF in September. But at what price? The other shareholders are demanding a fortune, with the government set to pay a total of 9.7 billion euros (£8.7 billion) of French taxpayers’ money. It’s worth noting that the shareholders set to cash in from this nationalization are investment giants Blackrock and Vanguard Group. 

IS EDF SUFFERING AS A RESULT OF THE COST OF LIVING CRISIS? 

On the face of it, it does seem like EDF profits have nose-dived in recent years. According to EDF Energy (UK) Ltd’s 2021 accounts, EDF operated a €4.8 billion (£4.2 billion) loss compared to €268 million (£239 million) in 2020. No dividends were paid by EDF Energy (UK) Ltd. in 2021 nor in 2020. However, another UK subsidiary, EDF Energy Holdings Ltd did pay dividends of £1 million in 2021, and £60 million in 2020. 

Despite these losses, at the end of 2021 EDF Energy (UK) Ltd still had net assets of €17.9 billion (£16 billion).

Regardless of the UK subsidiary’s accounts, the EDF Group achieved all its financial targets in 2021. Group sales for the year amounted to £8,720m, an increase of 8%. The Group reaped profits of €360 million (£324 million) in 2021, a total reverse in performance from 2020 when the Group made a loss of €2.6 billion (£2.3 billion).

But what about the future? EDF is predicted to stack up 100 billion Euros (£87.8 billion) in debt this year and the French government already pumped €3 billion (£2.6 billion) into the company in Spring. But as you’ll see below, no matter how bad things are there’s always room to give the CEO a pay rise.

WHO RUNS EDF?

Jean-Bernard Lévy, the current CEO of the Group, is due to leave six months early after a fallout at the top between Lévy and French president, Emmanuel Macron, over nuclear energy. Lévy is – however – unlikely to be out of a job after EDF. He was formerly CEO of weapons company Thales, and media company Vivendi, and even did a stint as a technical adviser to a government ministry. In 2020, Lévy was listed as the 9th highest-paid CEO in the utility sector worldwide taking home a salary of €450,000 (£389,500) and €3,660 (£3,150) in benefits. 

Moreover, Lévy’s probable successor, Luc Remont, cherrypicked by Macron (whose appointment is just waiting for parliamentary approval), will start on on a lucrative footing after the French Government announced that it would like to increase the new EDF CEO’s salary to attract more candidates. The company CEO’s salary is currently capped at €450,000 (£389,500). Whilst no figure has been publicly stated, the EDF Group is known to pay high salaries. In 2013 it was revealed that former UK CEO, Vincent de Rivaz, received a pay package of £1 million annually in remuneration. 


Simone Rossi has been at EDF since 2004, Rossi switched roles from Head of the International Division to UK CEO in 2017. But Rossi’s influence goes far beyond the British Isles. As a member of the Executive Committee, Rossi is at the very top of the EDF Group. At first it appears Rossi accepted a big pay cut, with a 2017 payment package capped at just over £100,000. A modest salary in comparison to his predecessor, de Rivaz, who was on £1 million a year. But it is highly probable that Rossi’s remuneration is now identical to de Rivaz at £1 million, as the highest-paid director in EDF Energy Holdings Ltd. 

EDF

It’s not just customers at the receiving end of EDF’s profit-led strategy. Kashmir Singh, a Prospect trade union organizer, has been fighting against workplace racism and discrimination for half a century. Singh was presented with a 50-year long-service award in 2021 by Simone Rossi. But Singh’s union released a statement explaining how, during his career, he had been subject to two grievance and disciplinary proceedings for daring to raise EDF’s failure to hire and promote staff from Asian or Black Ethnic (ABLE) backgrounds. 

SUBSIDIARIES IN TAX HAVENS

EDF Energy (UK) Ltd owns EDF Energy Holdings Ltd, the top holding company for EDF’s UK subsidiaries. Whilst EDF Energy (UK)’s accounts from 2021 detail tax payments of €‎905m (£780m) of corporation tax in 2021, some of its subsidiaries are registered in notorious tax havens including a holdings company registered in Hong Kong and an insurance company in Guernsey. 

Over the last two decades, EDF has funded the Conservative party to the tune of £38,499.

Most recently, last October EDF Energy Renewables Ltd donated £4,999 to the Conservative Tees Valley Mayor, Ben Houchen. And like clockwork, by March 2022, EDF announced its plan to construct a new hydrogen production centre near the former Redcar steelworks in Teeside. The centre is called Tees Green Hydrogen.

EDF also made two £6,000 in donations to the Labour Party in October 2003 and September 2005. The timing of these donations coincided with Labour PM Tony Blair’s announcement in November 2005 that the government was looking into new nuclear for the UK’s future energy supplies. This set the ball rolling for EDF’s £18 billion government contract for the construction of Hinkley Point C power station. 

Over the last decade, EDF has been getting cosier and cosier with the government. The company has had at least five independent opportunities to promote its agenda in meetings with UK prime ministers, once with David Cameron and four times with Boris Johnson. Company representatives even had an intimate one-to-one with Johnson in January 2022 to chat about the UK’s nuclear energy supply, which EDF holds the monopoly over. 

Since 2012, company representatives have also attended at least 151 meetings with government ministers, including 24 solo meetings with the former Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Kwasi Kwarteng, who is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the person in charge of UK economic policy.

And the cosiness isn’t set to end anytime soon, EDF stands in good stead under Liz Truss. The new PM nominated former EDF lobbyist Michael Stott as Downing Street’s new business liaison. Stott, who is also an ex-Tory press officer, is expected to lead the government’s new-build nuclear programme.

November 2, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Failure of the “nuclear renaissance” leaves Britain with super-costly closures of reactors, and electricity shortage

UK facing electricity supply woes after nuclear power stations shut, MPs told

Larger and smaller reactors carry risks, island nation failed to keep pace with nuclear fleet closure

Lindsay Clark, 1 Nov 2022 , Electricity shortages appear inevitable for the UK due to the decommissioning of the nation’s aging estate of nuclear power stations, according to evidence submitted by industry to politicians.

…….. Writing to the Commons Science and Technology Committee, Manchester University’s Dalton Nuclear Policy Group said: “Sadly, it is now much too late to avoid a negative impact on the UK’s electricity supply due to the closure of our nuclear fleet. All eleven of Britain’s Magnox plants have been shut down for many years – the last being the Wylfa plant on Anglesey which ceased operation on New Year’s Eve 2015.

It added: “The fleet of Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors (AGRs) operated by [French energy firm] EDF is also now seeing closures.”

In February, the UK government was warned taxpayers would have to make up a multibillion-pound shortfall to decommission nuclear power stations unless a history of overspending is reversed. EDF Energy runs seven AGR stations in the UK, part of eight second-generation reactors set to be decommissioned which provide 16 percent of the nation’s electricity. The AGR stations are scheduled to stop producing electricity by 2028.

Last year the government injected £5.1 billion ($5.8 billion) into the Nuclear Liabilities Fund – now valued at £14.8 billion ($17 billion) – which it set up in 1996 to meet the costs of decommissioning AGR and Pressurized Water Reactor stations. But EDF’s latest cost estimate to decommission the stations in March last year was £23.5bn ($27 billion). Public spending watchdog the National Audit Office has warned more money will be needed unless the government and EDF avoid overspending.

But as well as overspending, decommissioning also presents a problem for electricity supply.

“It is unlikely that there will be any significant extension to these projected dates, although there may be scope for some slight delays in closure. Once the AGRs are all closed, the UK will only have one reactor from the current nuclear fleet still operational – the pressurised water reactor at Sizewell B,” Dalton Nuclear Policy Group said.

…….  “it is due to the failure since 2008 – with the exception of the long-delayed Hinkley Point C – of all proposals for a nuclear renaissance in the UK to move from plans to reality,” the group said.

In May, EDF admitted to another year’s delay and £3 billion ($3.5 billion) extra cost in Hinkely Point C – the UK’s first nuclear power station to be built in 20 years. The revised operating date for the site in Somerset is now June 2027 and total costs are estimated to be in the range of £25 billion to £26 billion ($29 billion).

EDF said it would have no cost impact on British consumers or taxpayers. The power station had been due online by 2017 at a cost of around £20 billion ($22 billion)………………….. The Science and Technology Committee is set to hear oral evidence for its inquiry on Delivering Nuclear Power during hearings this week.

 The Register 1st Nov 2022

https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/01/electricity_shortages_uk/

November 2, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, decommission reactor, politics, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »