Beaches near Sellafield contaminated with radioactive particles.
Radiation Free Lakeland has written to Cumbria Wildlife Trust asking them
to cancel the “Sea-Coastal Foraging Evening” at St Bees on 18th May.
Who doesn’t love to forage for food on the beach? The problem with
beaches near Sellafield (and not so near) is that radioactive particles are
routinely washed onto the beaches and into the abundant wild food found on
our beaches. Sellafield has blighted our coasts and continues to do so with
impunity thanks to the criminal nonchalance promoted by events like the one
organised by Cumbria Wildlife Trust. The risk to health is very real,
especially to the young and the pregnant.
Radiation Free Lakeland 15th May 2022
The horrible dangers of pushing a US proxy war in Ukraine
If there is indeed a shift in strategy to another level of confrontation with Russia, we need to know what we’re getting into.
Responsible Stateccraft APRIL 27, 2022, Anatol Lieven,
To judge by its latest statements, the Biden administration is increasingly committed to using the conflict in Ukraine to wage a proxy war against Russia, with as its goal the weakening or even destruction of the Russian state.
This would mean America adopting a strategy that every U.S. president during the Cold War took great pains to avoid: the sponsorship of war in Europe, bringing with it the acute risk of escalation towards direct military confrontation between Russia and NATO, possibly ending in nuclear catastrophe. The U.S. and NATO refusal to support armed rebellions against Soviet rule in eastern Europe was obviously not based on any kind of recognition of the legitimacy of Communist rule and Soviet domination, but simply on a hard-headed calculation of the appalling risks involved to America, Europe and humanity in general.
……………………………… Lavrov compared the situation in terms of nuclear danger to the Cuban missile crisis. We might do well to remember in this context how very close humanity came to nuclear annihilation in the fall of 1962. At one point, the fate of the world depended on the wisdom and caution of just one Soviet naval officer on board a nuclear attack submarine: Commander (later Admiral) Vassily Arkhipov………..
Two of Lloyd Austin’s remarks are especially worth examining in some detail. The first is that weakening Russia is necessary in order to prevent it repeating its invasion of Ukraine elsewhere. This statement is either meaningless, hypocritical, or both. There is no sign that Russia wants to or indeed could invade any other countries. As far as an attack on NATO is concerned, the miserable performance of the Russian military in Ukraine should have made absolutely clear that this is a fatuous chimera. If Russia cannot capture cities less than 20 miles from Russia’s own border, the idea of an attack on NATO is ludicrous.
As far as Georgia, Moldova and Belarus are concerned, it already holds the positions it needs in these countries. Russia’s military presence in Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh is at the request of the Armenians themselves, and is indeed essential to protect them against Turkey and Azerbaijan. When it comes to combating Islamist extremism in Central Asia and elsewhere, Russia’s interests and those of the West are in fact aligned.
Lloyd Austin also stated that U.S. officials believe that Ukraine can “win” the war with Russia given the right equipment and support from the West. The question is what “winning” means. If it means preserving Ukrainian independence, freedom to join the European Union, and sovereignty over the great majority of Ukrainian territory, then this is a legitimate and necessary goal. Indeed, thanks to Ukrainian courage and Western weaponry, it has already to a great extent been achieved.
Moscow’s original goal of overthrowing the Ukrainian government and subjugating the whole of Ukraine failed utterly. Given the losses that the Russian military has suffered, it seems highly unlikely that Russia can capture any more large Ukrainian cities, let alone conquer the whole of Ukraine.
If however what is meant by victory is Ukrainian reconquest — with Western help — of all the areas lost to Russia and Russian-backed separatists since 2014, then this is a recipe for perpetual war, and monstrous losses and suffering for Ukrainians. The Ukrainian army has fought magnificently in defense of its urban areas, but attacking entrenched Russian defensive positions across open country would be a very different matter.
Moreover, since Russia has annexed Crimea and the vast majority of the Russian people believe that this is Russian national territory, no future Russian government could possibly agree to give it up. A goal of complete Ukrainian victory therefore does indeed imply the destruction of the Russian state — something that Russia’s nuclear arsenal exists to prevent.
There is however a fatal ambiguity involved in such statements. For if what they suggest is a U.S. commitment to help Ukraine to go on fighting until Ukraine has reconquered all of the territory taken by Russia since 2014, including Crimea, then this implies a permanent war with the destruction of the Russian state as its goal; for short of the collapse of the Russian state, no Russian government will surrender Crimea, and for geographical reasons, no Ukrainian victory on the ground can bring this about. Furthermore, while China has so far been very restrained in its support for Russia over Ukraine, Beijing could not possibly tolerate a U.S. strategy aimed at the destruction of the Russian state and the consequent complete isolation of China. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/04/27/the-horrible-dangers-in-pushing-a-us-proxy-war-in-ukraine/
Boris Johnson’s UK ”nuclear renaissance” – now desperate for funding, pleads to USA
| Kwasi Kwarteng seeks US investment for UK nuclear plants to end reliance on China. There are plans for expansion of nuclear power in Britain as part of a new energy security strategy following the invasion of Ukraine. The Business Secretary is to fly to the US this week to drum up American investment in new nuclear plants amid concerns that the UK is too reliant on China for help building reactors in Britain. Kwasi Kwarteng is expected to hold talks with Jennifer Granholm, the US energy secretary, in Washington DC, where a Whitehall source said the minister was “keen to strengthen cooperation with the Americans on energy security”. Last month Boris Johnson and Mr Kwarteng announced plans for a massive expansion of nuclear energy in Britain as part of the country’s new energy security strategy that followed Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Mr Kwarteng is said to be concerned that Britain has become too reliant on two major players in the nuclear market – China General Nuclear, a Chinese state-owned energy giant, and EDF, which is owned by the French state. Ministers are hoping to raise more than £10 billion in private capital to fund the new Sizewell C nuclear power station in Suffolk. The Government is expected to take a 20 per cent equity stake in the project, with a further 20 per cent for EDF and the final 60 per cent coming from private investors. A Whitehall source said: “We’ve become too reliant on a handful of companies to develop new nuclear. Britain split the atom and built the world’s first full-scale nuclear power station, but we’ve fallen so far behind after three decades of drift. “We want British and American companies to pile in the cash to get our nuclear renaissance off the ground. The Business Secretary is keen to work with safe and reliable investors from like-minded countries and hug them close.” Telegraph 14th May 2022 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/14/kwasi-kwarteng-seeks-boost-us-investment-nuclear-end-reliance/ |
Uncertain funding for Britain’s plans for new nuclear reactors
China General Nuclear has provided substantial investment for Britain’s
nuclear power stations alongside France’s EDF. The two companies are
funding Hinkley Point C in Somerset but the project has been beset by cost
overruns and delays.
EDF is expected to announce more delays to Hinkley C
within weeks and will have to raise billions in extra finance for the
project. The company has warned CGN is not likely to increase its funding
for the plant.
Ministers have drawn up a so-called Regulated Asset Base
funding model to replace Chinese investment for nuclear plants in future
and incentivise other private investors to put forward funding. The RAB
model would see consumers start paying indirectly towards the costs of a
new power project during the construction phase. They would fund the
project through a small rise in their energy bills.
The model replaces the current Contracts for Difference scheme used for Hinkley Point C whereby
the developer finances the construction phase and only receives revenue
when the plant generates electricity.
EDF has also warned that separate
plans to build the Bradwell nuclear power plant in Essex are likely to fall
through because of political opposition to Chinese investment. In its
annual report, EDF said: “There is great uncertainty around the
development perspectives of the Bradwell Project, mainly related to the
political opposition to a Chinese company leading a critical UK
infrastructure project and from the lack of local stakeholder support.
““The risks of not being in a position to carry out the Bradwell project
are high and have increased in 2021.”
The government is also exploring
options for squeezing China out of the plans to build the Sizewell C plant
in Suffolk.
Telegraph 13th May 2022
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/05/13/energy-bills-rise-pay-nuclear-plants-says-kwarteng/
Regulated Asset Base system will transfer nuclear’s financial risks to the UK public, rather than the nuclear companies
Some energy experts, however, are sceptical that the promised tidal wave of investment will ever materialise
Cran-McGreehin says one danger of the RABmodel is that it transfers risk to bill-payers rather than the companies building the station.
| City institutions have been taking a keen interest in the Tideway’s progress. Investors are intrigued by the novel way the £4.2 billion project was financed. The method has been seized on by the government to kick-start a £100 billion-plus splurge on new nuclear power stations, a move that could create a giant new market in infrastructure investment. The not-so-magic ingredient is asking customers to pay more up front and to guarantee payments in the future. Kwasi Kwarteng, the business secretary, said the plan would have a “small effect” on bills but did not say by how much they would go up. Industry experts think each large new station — and the plan envisages as many as eight — would add between £6-£10 to the average household bill. The buffer of cash raised from customers can be used to hammer out problems with power plant designs, and can be eaten into if construction proves troublesome. The project company is also allowed to continue to charge customers once the station is working, with the amount based on the value of the project. The whole arrangement is monitored by an independent regulator, hence its name: regulated asset base (RAB) financing. As a condition of the licence, investors in the project company are on the hook for a pre-agreed level of cost overruns. The Department for Business claims the reduction in interest payments could save consumers £30 billion over the life of a new power station. “In essence it is reducing the cost of capital by cutting back the construction risk to investors,” Richard Goodfellow, head of infrastructure, projects and energy at the City law firm Addleshaw Goddard, said. Some energy experts, however, are sceptical that the promised tidal wave of investment will ever materialise. “There is no cheap or easy way to do new nuclear,” Simon Cran-McGreehin, head of analysis at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), said. “I fear the government’s big ambitions will prove a distraction that won’t ultimately lead to much.” Since Johnson threw his weight behind the RAB route, the government has quickly put in place some necessary stepping stones. Four days after the nuclear summit at Downing Street, the Department for Business quietly published the criteria that projects would have to meet. Ministers are hoping that big British pension funds will buy the bonds and have helped to clear the way with reforms to the EU’s Solvency II regime, which at present limits the type of investments that insurers can hold. Goddard sees groups with a record of investing in infrastructure projects — Canadian pension funds, for example — as the biggest players. “I would expect the bulk of the investment — perhaps two-thirds — to come from the big global infrastructure funds that are already big investors in UK assets,” he said. “There are some investors who will be put off — either because of the size of the projects, the timescales, or just because it is nuclear.” After Sizewell, the pipeline of projects is unclear. Ministers are keen to push ahead with the on-again, off-again scheme for a new station at Wylfa on Anglesey. Hitachi, the Japanese industrial group, was to have built two new reactors there, but the project has now been taken up by the US engineering giant Bechtel. Senior sources at EDF say it is also casting a covetous eye over Wylfa as the possible site for another Hinkley Point design. There have also been discussions on a new plant at Moorside, close to the Sellafield nuclear site in Cumbria. RAB financing could also be adopted for a new type of small reactor. Rolls-Royce, which builds the power plants for nuclear submarines, has submitted a design to Britain’s nuclear regulators, while two US providers, Last Energy and TerraPower, are also weighing options in the UK. Cran-McGreehin says one danger of the RABmodel is that it transfers risk to bill-payers rather than the companies building the station. His bigger query, however, is whether there is too much concentration on nuclear. “Governments do from time to time get very excited about nuclear, then cool off,” he said. “I am not convinced allthis will actually come to pass, and in the meantime it risks taking thefocus away from investment in renewable energy.” Times 14th May 2022 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-nuclear-push-could-be-sweet-music-for-city-7gj7s5s38 |
Kwasi Kwarteng: Nuclear push may increase energy bills, minister admits.
Kwasi Kwarteng: Nuclear push may increase energy bills, minister admits.
THE TORY Energy Secretary has admitted the Government’s nuclear plans may
increase household energy bills. Kwasi Kwarteng conceded the Tory push for
new nuclear power plants could see energy bills go up despite the
Government’s failure to introduce immediate measures to tackle the cost
of living crisis.
The National 13th May 2022
Timely release of Netflix documentary on Three Mile Island nuclear accident
| Christina Macpherson <christinamacpherson@gmail.com> | 7:18 AM (10 hours ago) |  | |
| to me |
There are those
who would maintain, despite all this, that the profit motive is fine so
long as the industry is properly regulated. Again, the Three Mile Island
affair calls this into question. Regulators tend to be appointed by
politicians. Even if they have an apolitical remit – such as, you know,
keeping people safe – their leaders tend to play close attention to
political priorities. If the political priority is to encourage nuclear
energy as an alternative to importing hydrocarbons from unreliable
partners, then they will pay attention to that.
Independent 14th May 2022
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/three-mile-island-netflix-documentary-nuclear-power-b2078962.html
Drones seized at UK nuclear bases after a ‘swarm’ and reports of ‘red lights’
Drones have been seized by security personnel at nuclear facilities with
one report of a ‘swarm’ at a UK installation, newly released files
show. The unmanned aerial systems were either sighted or secured at sites
across the country amid concerns over the security threat posed by the
technology.
Twenty such reports between 2020 and last year have been
released to Metro.co.uk under the Freedom of Information Act. In two
instances, the drones landed ‘in the area’ and were secured by
personnel. Multiple other reports were made of the aerial vehicles near
facilities or nuclear objects such as reactors, boats and submarines. A
passing detail in another response shows there was a report of a swarm –
where interlinked drones take part in the same operation or attack – at a
nuclear licensed site in the UK. The incident took place between January
2014 and July 2020, according to the Office for Nuclear Regulation, which
gave no further details.
The reports come at a time of heightened tensions
between the West and China and Russia, which have each been linked to
concerted physical and cyber spying operations in the UK. Peter Burt, who
has studied drone use and is part of the Nukewatch monitoring network,
wants the UK authorities to provide a fuller picture of the incidents and
the potential threats posed. Mr Burt told Metro.co.uk:
‘There have
certainly been cases of coordinated swarms of drones spotted flying over
nuclear facilities in other countries, for example in France and the United
States, so this raises questions about the security of our own nuclear
facilities. I think it’s a legitimate question to ask whether similar
incidents have occurred in this country and, if they have, who do we think
is behind them? ‘I have had scant information back from the Ministry of
Defence when I have submitted Freedom of Information Act requests about
this issue and I think there is a clear public interest in more information
being disclosed.’
Metro 15th May 2022
Ending the War of Attrition in Ukraine
by Jeffrey D. Sachs, NEW YORK (IDN) 114 May 22, — Wars often erupt and persist because of the two sides’ miscalculations regarding their relative power. In the case of Ukraine, Russia blundered badly by underestimating the resolve of Ukrainians to fight and the effectiveness of NATO-supplied weaponry. Yet Ukraine and NATO are also overestimating their capacity to defeat Russia on the battlefield. The result is a war of attrition that each side believes it will win, but that both sides will lose.
Ukraine should intensify the search for a negotiated peace of the type that was on the table in late March, but which it then abandoned following evidence of Russian atrocities in Bucha—and perhaps owing to changing perceptions of its military prospects.
The peace terms under discussion in late March called for Ukraine’s neutrality, backed by security guarantees and a timeline to address contentious issues such as the status of Crimea and the Donbas. Russian and Ukrainian negotiators stated that there was progress in the negotiations, as did the Turkish mediators. The negotiations then collapsed after the reports from Bucha, with Ukraine’s negotiator stating that “Ukrainian society is now much more negative about any negotiation concept that concerns the Russian Federation.”
But the case for negotiations remains urgent and overwhelming. The alternative is not Ukraine’s victory but a devastating war of attrition. To reach an agreement, both sides need to recalibrate their expectations.
When Russia attacked Ukraine, it clearly expected a quick and easy victory. Russia vastly underestimated the upgrading of the Ukraine military following years of US, British, and other military support and training since 2014. Moreover, Russia underestimated the extent to which NATO military technology would counter Russia’s greater number of troops. No doubt, Russia’s greatest error was to assume that the Ukrainians would not fight—or perhaps even switch sides.
Russia’s greatest error was to assume that the Ukrainians would not fight—or perhaps even switch sides.
Yet now Ukraine and its Western supporters are overestimating the chances of defeating Russia on the battlefield. The idea that the Russian army is about to collapse is wishful thinking. Russia has the military capacity to destroy Ukrainian infrastructure (such as the rail lines now under attack) and to win and hold territory in the Donbas region and on the Black Sea coast. Ukrainians are fighting resolutely, but it is highly unlikely that they can force a Russian defeat.
Nor can Western financial sanctions, which are far less sweeping and effective than the governments that imposed them acknowledge. ………………
Moreover, the sanctions are creating serious economic consequences for the United States and especially Europe……………..
In the meantime, Ukraine continues to suffer grievously in terms of deaths, dislocation, and destruction. The IMF now forecasts a 35% contraction of Ukraine’s economy in 2022, reflecting the brutal destruction of housing, factories, rail stock, energy storage and transmission capacity, and other vital infrastructure.
Most dangerous of all, as long as the war continues, the risk of nuclear escalation is real. If Russia’s conventional forces were actually to be pushed toward defeat, as the US is now seeking, Russia might well counter with tactical nuclear weapons. A US or Russian aircraft could be shot down by the other side as they scramble over the Black Sea, which in turn could lead to direct military conflict. Media reports that the US has covert forces on the ground, and the US intelligence community’s disclosure that it helped Ukraine kill Russian generals and sink Russia’s Black Sea flagship, underscore the danger.
The reality of the nuclear threat means that both sides should never forgo the possibility of negotiations. That is the central lesson of the Cuban Missile Crisis, which took place 60 years ago this coming October. President John F. Kennedy saved the world then by negotiating an end to the crisis—agreeing that the US would never again invade Cuba and that the US would remove its missiles from Turkey in exchange for the withdrawal of the Soviet missiles from Cuba. That was not giving in to Soviet nuclear blackmail. That was Kennedy wisely avoiding Armageddon.
It is still possible to establish peace in Ukraine based on the parameters that were on the table at the end of March: neutrality, security guarantees, a framework for addressing Crimea and the Donbas, and Russian withdrawal. This remains the only realistic and safe course for Ukraine, Russia, and the world. The world would rally to such an agreement, and, for its own survival and well-being, so should Ukraine. https://www.indepthnews.net/index.php/opinion/5298-ending-the-war-of-attrition-in-ukraine#.Yn3tJBvujtI.twitter
UN: There is ‘credible’ information Ukrainian forces are torturing Russian POWs
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/foreign/un-there-is-credible-information-ukrainian-forces-are-torturing-russian-pows
Abigail Adcox, Washington Examiner, Tue, 10 May 2022
There is “credible” information that Russian prisoners of war have been mistreated by Ukrainian forces since the beginning of the Russian invasion in February, a United Nations official said.
The evidence suggests that Russia is not the only country willing to break international norms during war, as the U.N. reports that Ukrainian forces have subjected Russians under their watch to treatment that violates
international law, Matilda Bogner, head of the U.N. Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, said Tuesday.
“Ukraine and Russia must promptly and effectively investigate all allegations of torture and ill-treatment of prisoners of war. They must also effectively control and instruct their forces to stop any further violations from occurring.”
Russia is accused of several war crimes, including raping Ukrainian women, targeting and killing innocent civilians, and forcing others to go to Russia against their will.
Comment: Given Ukraine’s long history of prisoner abuse throughout the eight-year war on Donetsk-Lugansk, torture is its standard procedure. Were the UN’s complaints effective then?
Some of the violations were determined by Bogner and other U.N. officials during a visit to towns in the Kyiv and Chernihiv regions that were occupied by Russian armed forces until the end of March.
The group also reported that hundreds of educational or medical facilities have been damaged or destroyed in areas of hostility across the country. At least 50 places of worship have been damaged, more than half of which cannot be used. Bogner said:
“The best way to end the violations that we have been documenting will be to end the hostilities. However, while they are ongoing and for as long as they last, parties must in the conduct of operations take constant care to spare the civilian population.”
“We have received credible information of torture, ill-treatment and incommunicado detention by Ukrainian Armed Forces against prisoners of war from Russian armed forces and affiliated armed groups. We continue to see the publication of videos, which show inhumane treatment, including prisoners from both sides being coerced to make statements, apologies and confessions, and other forms of humiliation.”
The mistreatment from both sides is considered a violation of international humanitarian law, as the U.N. continues to investigate and document egregious violations since Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24.
Ukraine and Russia must promptly and effectively investigate all allegations of torture and ill-treatment of prisoners of war. They must also effectively control and instruct their forces to stop any further violations from occurring,” Bogner said.
Russia is accused of several war crimes, including raping Ukrainian women, targeting and killing innocent civilians, and forcing others to go to Russia against their will.
Some of the violations were determined by Bogner and other U.N. officials during a visit to towns in the Kyiv and Chernihiv regions that were occupied by Russian armed forces until the end of March.
The group also reported that hundreds of educational or medical facilities have been damaged or destroyed in areas of hostility across the country. At least 50 places of worship have been damaged, more than half of which cannot be used.
“The best way to end the violations that we have been documenting will be to end the hostilities,” Bogner said. “However, while they are ongoing and for as long as they last, parties must in the conduct of operations take constant care to spare the civilian population.”
Atomic energy chief: Ukraine’s nuclear safety situation ‘far from being resolved’
Russian troops are still occupying Europe’s largest nuclear power plant at Zaporizhzhia. Politico BY LOUISE GUILLOT The risk of a nuclear accident in Ukraine is still a source of concern, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said Tuesday, calling the situation “far from being resolved.”
Speaking at European Parliament hearing, IAEA chief Rafael Mariano Grossi said the agency’s main “preoccupation” remains Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine’s largest functioning nuclear power plant, which has been under Russian military control since early March.
“We have been living in a very fragile situation,” he said, explaining that the plant is currently run by Ukrainian state nuclear operator Energoatom but occupied by Russian troops.
Grossi added that Russian nuclear experts are also on site, but said their function “is not entirely clear.” Their presence “goes against every safety principle that we have” and creates the “potential for disagreement, for friction, for contradictory instruction,” he warned.
Russian military control of Zaporizhzhia in eastern Ukraine is also raising questions about the status of nuclear material at the site.
Because IAEA experts currently don’t have access to the plant, they can’t perform regular nuclear safeguard activities, including physical inventories and monitoring, according to Grossi.
“Without that we cannot ensure to the international community where the nuclear material is or what’s happening with it,” he said.
He added that IAEA had no evidence that Ukraine had started a nuclear weapons program before the war — contrary to Russian allegations.
“But when I’m confronted with a situation … where we have more than 30,000 kilograms of enriched uranium and a similar amount of plutonium and I cannot go and inspect … the situation with this nuclear material, it is a very real danger and something that should be considered in all its seriousness,” he said.
………… Talks are ongoing with both sides, according to Grossi. “We’re not at a dead end.”
He added that a group of IAEA experts will make a second trip to the decommissioned Chernobyl nuclear power plant “very soon” to carry out additional repairs, but that the situation “appears to have been stabilized.”…….. https://www.politico.eu/article/iaea-rafael-mariano-grossi-ukraine-nuclear-safety-situation-not-resolve/
French nuclear output down 20.2% in April
French nuclear output down 20.2% in April, https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/french-nuclear-output-down-202-april-2022-05-11/PARIS, May 11 (Reuters) Reporting by Gus Trompiz, editing by Sybille de La Hamaide and Jane Merriman – Nuclear power generation at EDF’s (EDF.PA) French reactors in April fell by 20.2% year on year to 21.7 terawatt hours (TWh), the energy company said on Wednesday.
Total nuclear generation in France since the start of the year was 113.4 TWh, down 10.3% compared with 126.4 TWh for January-April 2021, EDF said on its website, citing reduced availability of the nuclear fleet that was mainly due to the discovery of stress corrosion at some sites
In Britain, EDF said its nuclear production last month rose 11.8% compared with April 2021 to 3.8 TWh, while cumulative output since the start of 2022 was up 9.4% versus the same period last year at 15.2 TWh.
Cost of living: Ministers consider delaying nuclear power decommissioning to help ease crisis
Government will consider plans only if nuclear regulator believes it is safe to keep reactors online
inews By Richard Vaughan Ministers are looking into delaying the decommissioning of existing nuclear power stations in a bid to keep soaring energy prices down in the coming years, i understands.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson has demanded his Cabinet look into ways to tackle the cost of living crisis, urging them to be “as creative as possible” in devising measures to ease the burden on households.
Whitehall sources have told i that among the options being examined are plans to keep existing nuclear reactors going beyond the date they are due to be taken off grid……..
Six of the UK’s seven nuclear reactors are due to go offline by 2030. Due to the rampant cost of fossil fuels, nuclear power is now among the cheaper energy sources for the UK, prompting Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng to look at whether they could be kept operational.
Nuclear industry insiders believe the Hinkley Point B reactor, which is due for decommission in July, could be extended for several more years.
Six of the UK’s seven nuclear reactors are due to go offline by 2030. Due to the rampant cost of fossil fuels, nuclear power is now among the cheaper energy sources for the UK, prompting Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng to look at whether they could be kept operational.
Nuclear industry insiders believe the Hinkley Point B reactor, which is due for decommission in July, could be extended for several more years.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/cost-of-living-ministers-consider-delaying-nuclear-power-decommissioning-to-help-ease-crisis-1625223
The future of nuclear waste: what’s the plan and can it be safe?
The future of nuclear waste: what’s the plan and can it be safe? The Conversation , Lewis Blackburn, EPSRC Doctoral Prize Fellow in Materials Science, University of Sheffield 11 May 22, The UK is planning to significantly expand its nuclear capability, in an effort to decrease its reliance on carbon-based fossil fuels. The government is aiming to construct up to eight new reactors over the next couple of decades, with a view to increasing power capacity from approximately 8 gigawatts (GW) today to 24GW by 2050. This would meet around 25% of the forecast UK energy demand, compared to around 16% in 2020
As part of this plan to triple nuclear capacity, also in the works is a £210 million investment for Rolls-Royce to develop and produce a fleet of small modular reactors (SMRs). …………
New reactors will inevitably mean more radioactive waste. Nuclear waste decommissioning, as of 2019, was already estimated to cost UK taxpayers £3 billion per year. The vast majority of our waste is held in storage facilities at or near ground level, mostly at Sellafield nuclear waste site in Cumbria, which is so large it has the infrastructure of a small town.
But above-ground nuclear storage isn’t a feasible long term plan – governments, academics and scientists are in agreement that permanent disposal below ground is the only long-term strategy that satisfies security and environmental concerns. So what plans are underway, and can they be delivered safely?
……….. Previous ideas have included disposing of the extra waste in space, in the sea and below the ocean floor where tectonic plates converge, but each has been shelved as too risky.Now, almost every nation plans to isolate radioactive waste from the environment in an underground, highly engineered structure called a geological disposal facility (GDF). Some models see GDFs constructed at 1,000 metres underground but 700 metres is more realistic. These facilities will receive low, intermediate or high level nuclear wastes (classified as such according to radioactivity and half-life) and store them safely for up to hundreds of thousands of years.
The process for creating such a facility is not simple. The organisation responsible for delivering the GDF, which in the UK is Nuclear Waste Services (NWS), must not only overcome huge environmental and technical issues but also earn the public’s support.
Will all GDFs look the same?Although generic design concepts do exist, each GDF will have unique aspects based on the size and constitution of the waste inventory and the geology of where it is installed. Every nation will tailor its GDF to its individual needs, under the scrutiny of regulators and the public.Underpinning all GDFs, however, will be what is known as the multi-barrier concept. This combines man-made and natural barriers to isolate nuclear waste from the environment, and allow it to steadily decay.
The system for preparing high-level waste for storage in such a system will start with spent nuclear fuel rods from reactors. First, any uranium and plutonium that is still usable for future reactions will be recovered. The residual waste will then be dried and dispersed into a host glass, which is used because glass is tough, durable in groundwater and resistant to radiation. The molten glass will then be poured into a metal container and solidified, so that there are two layers of protection.
This packaged waste will then be surrounded by a backfill of clay or cement, which seals the excavated rock cavities and underground tunnel structures. Hundreds of metres of rock itself will act as the final layer of containment.
How is the UK programme going?The UK GDF programme is in its early stages. The siting process operates on a so-called volunteerism approach, in which communities can put themselves forward as potential sites to host the facility. At present, a working group (Theddlethorpe, Lincolnshire) and three community partnerships (Allerdale, Mid Copeland and South Copeland in Cumbria) have formed. Whilst working groups are at earlier stages of the siting process, the next steps for community partnerships are to begin more extensive geological surveys, followed by drilling boreholes to assess the underlying rock………………..
The UK government aims to identify a suitable site within the next 15-20 years, after which construction can start. The timescale from siting to closing and sealing the first UK GDF is 100 years, making this the largest UK infrastructure project ever……….
Is there another way?
It is the scientific consensus, internationally, that the GDF approach is the most technically feasible way to permanently dispose of nuclear waste. ………
The only other approach that has received any traction is the deep borehole disposal (DBD) concept. At face value, this is not too dissimilar from a GDF approach; drilling boreholes much deeper than a GDF would be (up to several kilometers) and putting waste packages at the bottom. Countries such as Norway are considering this approach. https://theconversation.com/the-future-of-nuclear-waste-whats-the-plan-and-can-it-be-safe-181884
UK government’s reckless spending on nuclear submarines is really getting out of control.
(But let’s not worry – they’re being careful with our tax-payers’ money – not wasting any more of it on health, education, welfare – and soft stuff like that)
Barrow: Contracts of £2bn to build nuclear submarines— BBC News, 9 May 22,
Contracts worth more than £2bn have been awarded to BAE Systems and Rolls Royce to build the Royal Navy’s largest ever submarines.
It marks the start of the third phase of Britain’s nuclear deterrent submarines project Dreadnought.
Four new submarines with a lifespan of 30 years will be built in Barrow, Cumbria, and introduced from the 2030s….. Dreadnought submarines will carry the UK’s nuclear weapons and replace the Vanguard class which is currently operating.
The delivery phase three will see the first of the new submarines, HMS Dreadnought, leave the Barrow shipyard to begin sea trials……..
Four Dreadnought class submarines are being built, each weighing about 17,000 tonnes
The Dreadnought Class is the largest submarine ever built for the Royal Navy. Each is the length of three Olympic swimming pools and built to operate in hostile environments.
Eighteen months ago an upgrade at BAE Systems’ shipyard was criticised by the National Audit Office for being nearly two years behind schedule, but the MoD maintained the nuclear deterrent programme was “on track”……. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cumbria-61381970
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (173)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
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 