Ukraine War Has Upset Uzbekistan’s Nuclear Plans
Ukraine Has Upset Uzbekistan’s Nuclear Plans By Eurasianet – Apr 10, 2022, 10:00 AM CDT
- Four years ago, Uzbekistan turned to nuclear energy as a way to address its chronic energy shortages, relying on Russian investment and expertise to drive the projects forward.
- Today, with Russia facing sanctions from the international community due to its invasion of Ukraine, Uzbekistan’s nuclear future is suddenly looking very uncertain.
Uzbekistan is stuck between a rock and a hard place, not wanting to antagonize Russia by canceling the projects and wanting to avoid sanctions when the projects are completed……………………………………….. https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Russias-Invasion-Of-Ukraine-Has-Upset-Uzbekistans-Nuclear-Plans.html
Russian soldiers in Chernobyl ‘picked up radioactive material with barehands’ and contaminated inside of plant
| Russian soldiers in Chernobyl ‘picked up radioactive material with bare hands’ and contaminated inside of plant. The Russian soldiers’ disregard for safety may have exposed them to potentially harmful doses of radiation. Employees at the power plant have described how Russian soldiers, who seized the plant for a month in late February, may have been exposed to potentially harmful doses of radiation, which brings a high risk of cancer and other health issues, even decades later. One soldier is already reported to have died. Drone footage released by the Ukrainian military revealed that the soldiers dug trenches in the nearby Red Forest, to this day one of the most radioactive places on earth at the site of one of the world’s worst nuclear disasters. Journalists discovered food wrappings, military gear and even a blackened cooking pot, suggesting the Russian troops had spent an extended period of time in the trenches. Staff at the Chernobyl Power Plant said the Russian soldiers contaminated the power plant with radioactive material they carried back from the forest on their shoes. Telegraph 9th April 2022 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/04/09/russians-soldiers-chernobyl-picked-radioactive-material-bare/ |
Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has hit back at the UK Government’s plans for new nuclear power plants

| NICOLA Sturgeon has hit back at the UK Government’s plans for new nuclear power plants after The National revealed the Tories were considering building one in Scotland. The First Minister said “nobody’s ever yet worked out what to do with the waste” generated by atomic power and said it was “expensive” compared with renewables. It comes after The National revealed the Tories’ new energy strategy – which said no new nuclear plants would be built in Scotland – contradicted current UK Government policy which officials confirmed was still exploring the possibility of a new site [for a Fusion reactor] in Ayrshire. Speaking at the launch of the SNP’s Glasgow manifesto launch on Saturday, the First Minister told reporters: “We don’t support new nuclear. “It is an expensive form of energy compared to many renewable resources and, increasingly, wind energy and nobody’s ever yet worked out what to do with the waste from nuclear energy. “Scotland has vast renewable potential – we see that in offshore wind. I think one of the missed opportunities – for entirely political reasons – in the UK Government’s was around onshore wind, failing to increase generation from onshore wind. “But we’ve also got vast offshore wind resources which we see in the recent ScotWind auction round, so that’s where we should be focusing. “From the perspective of securing energy, independence and security but also cheaper energy bills in the longer-term renewables is where we need to put our efforts and – pardon the pun – our energies over the period ahead.” The National 9th April 2022https://www.thenational.scot/news/20057654.nicola-sturgeon-hits-back-scottish-nuclear-site-deliberations/ |
UK Government should ‘impose’ energy projects on devolved nations says Conservative editor
| UK Government should ‘impose’ energy projects on devolved nations says Conservative editor. The UK Government should “impose” energy projects on the devolved nations, a Conservative editor has said. Conservative Home deputy editor Henry Hill was responding to the suggestion by Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng that they should respect Wales and Scotland’s devolved competencies. Planning powers are devolved to Scotland, meaning that they could block any new nuclear site. The Welsh Government has the power to consent energy projects with a generating capacity of up to 350MW, meaning that the power to give the go-ahead to a nuclear power plant is reserved to Westminster. Kwasi Kwarteng said the nuclear reactors are being planned for England and Wales, insisting there is “huge appetite” for this “particularly in Wales”. But he said: “We have no plans to impose nuclear reactors in Scotland. It is a devolved affair, that is up to people in Edinburgh to decide what their nuclear policy is.” But Henry Hill said that “energy should not be evolved” saying that the UK Government should not “give a veto” to those opposing their energy plans. Nation Cymru 9th April 2022https://nation.cymru/news/uk-government-should-impose-energy-projects-on-devolved-nations-says-conservative-editor/ |
The Windscale nuclear accident 1957, and still not cleaned up. – a warning from history

Nuclear power: the warnings from history. The PM wants to keep the lights
on with eight new atomic plants. He’s in denial if he thinks the
catastrophes of the past won’t happen again.
If Johnson is going to use nuclear history to justify his strategy, perhaps he needs to look a little
deeper, because Windscale was also the site of one of the world’s first
serious nuclear accidents. In October 1957, a fire raged for three days in
one of the reactors after changes to increase production.
Through the heroism of staff, and a significant degree of luck, the catastrophe was
contained. But significant radiation was released. Milk from cows within
200 square miles was contaminated. In 1982 officials estimated 260 people
developed cancer and 32 people died as a result. The two first reactors at
Windscale were closed, but the clean-up is still under way today.
Last November the top of the chimney in which the fire blazed was removed as
part of the demolition. The renowned nuclear historian Serhii Plokhy
describes the episode in a forthcoming book and points out: “The existing
nuclear industry is an open-ended liability.” No nuclear power station
has ever been fully decommissioned.
In Atoms and Ashes, Plokhy, 64, a
Ukrainian historian at Harvard, explores the causes and consequences of
Windscale and five other nuclear accidents: at Bikini Atoll in the Pacific
in 1954, Kyshtym in Russia in 1957, Three Mile Island in the US in 1979,
Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986 and Fukushima in Japan in 2011.While most of
these accidents took place in the formative years of nuclear science,
Plokhy argues they could easily happen again. “Technology was improved as
a result, and every accident contributed to the shaping of subsequent
safety procedures and culture,” he writes.
“And yet nuclear accidents
occur again and again. Many of the political, economic, social, and
cultural factors that led to the accidents of the past are still with us
today, making the nuclear industry vulnerable to repeating old mistakes in
new and unexpected ways.”
Times 9th April 2022
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nuclear-power-latest-warnings-history-chernobyl-ph9q7w80j
In the UK’s energy plan, the nation has been sold a dud
Jim Watson, director, UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources: Britain was
promised a bold and visionary energy plan. But we’ve been sold a dud.
Does it deliver what it says on the tin?
The answer is straightforward. It fails. At the heart of most definitions of energy security is reliability
of supplies for households and businesses. This is usually complemented by
a focus on affordability.
The new strategy does very little to deal with the immediate impacts of high fossil fuel prices.
While the government has announced some help for households via loans and a
council tax reduction, this is simply not enough. The energy price cap has
already risen to almost £2,000 a year and a further rise is due in the
autumn.
This comes on top of a wider cost of living crisis and high levels
of inflation.is available, but the price is too high for businesses to
function or households to keep warm. While more money to help people pay
their bills is needed, this must be accompanied by action to prevent these
acute impacts in future. This means making homes more efficient and
switching away from fossil fuels for heating. It is nearly a decade since
effective policies for home energy efficiency were cancelled and replaced
with new approaches, such as the green deal, which have failed
spectacularly.
As a result, the steady improvements in efficiency and
financial benefits to households have virtually stopped. A new programme of
home upgrades is urgently needed. This would not only reduce our dependence
on gas, but would also cut bills and carbon emissions.
According to many headlines, nuclear power is the “centrepiece” of the strategy. The
government’s plans are ambitious, but delivery will be difficult. New
nuclear plants will not have an impact for many years. The Treasury’s
fingerprints are visible in the careful caveats in the strategy, including
an insistence that new projects are “subject to a value for money and
relevant approvals”.
This reflects the long history of rising costs
within the nuclear sector, and the financial risks that consumers or
taxpayers will be exposed to.
In short, the government has pulled its
punches and avoided measures that would have a more immediate impact on
energy security – mainly by reducing the amount of energy we need to use.
Instead, it has produced a mixed bag of energy supply proposals. While some
are credible, a large nuclear power programme will require huge amounts of
political and financial capital. History suggests that this will be very
difficult to deliver.
Guardian 9th April 2022
In France, the nuclear waste keeps piling up: new reactors will add to the dilemma

France inches towards nuclear waste solution as more reactors planned
President Macron’s ‘French Nuclear Renaissance’ aims to provide energy independence and greener electricity for France – but the nuclear waste keeps piling up Connexion, By George Kazolias, 8 Apr 22,
Emmanuel Macron has announced plans to launch construction of six new nuclear reactors by 2050, along with studies for a possible eight further ones.
He also wants to prolong the life of existing reactors beyond 50 years in what he is calling the “French Nuclear Renaissance”.
Mr Macron’s vision to “take back control of [France’s] energy and industrial destiny” might be a winner with his electorate, but it clashes with the proposals of most of the left-wing presidential candidates, who want to reduce reliance on nuclear power.
New reactors will add to waste dilemma
Solutions for dealing with the waste already produced by existing power stations, however, are still struggling to get out of the starting blocks – and there is no plan for what would be done with waste from a potential 14 additional ones…………..At present, however, none of France’s nuclear reactor waste has been dealt with in a long-term way. All waste considered radioactive, almost two million cubic tonnes of it, is stored at surface level, in treatment centres and pools, or shallow repositories.
Some 60% of this comes from reactors and the rest is from medical, research, military and other sources.
The other waste, which includes items such as tools, clothing, mops and medical tubes, is not highly radioactive,
……… More problematic is what to do with France’s intermediate and high-level nuclear waste.
In 1998, a site near the village of Bure in the Meuse in north east France was chosen as the final storage place for most of it. It will be stored half a kilometre below ground in a vast network of tunnels and galleries known as a Deep Geological Repository (DGR).
The facility will be big enough for all the nuclear waste accumulated so far, but on-site studies, administrative procedures and opposition to the programme, including court cases and civil disobedience, have slowed its opening.
Deep underground storage could be three years away
The Bure DGR will store the waste in galleries carved out of 160-million-year-old compacted clay rocks. Known by its French acronym, Cigéo, the project currently holds 84% of the 665 hectares required to build the facility. The prefecture of the Meuse gave it a declaration of public utility (DUP) in December – a formal recognition that a proposed project has public benefits that must be obtained for most large construction and infrastructure projects before work can begin.
Once the Conseil d’Etat gives its consent, the prime minister can sign his own DUP. Andra will then have the power to get the rest of the property it needs.
In the meantime, work has continued with digging of wells and galleries to test reversible techniques of stocking waste for up to 100,000 years.
The prime minister is expected to sign off only after the presidential elections, but the final green light might be three years away as the rigorous and independent Nuclear Security Agency studies the permit request to move and store the spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive matter.
Plans are for existing not future waste
Activity at the Cigéo remains high, nevertheless. This year, a 1,700m² building, called The Eclipse, is being built to house companies working on underground trials.
A 100m-long cavity will also be dug to test technologies and conduct experiments. This is the length each cavity will have to be for intermediate-level waste, which is often solidified into concrete.
The nuclear authority is hoping to start storing this type of waste in 2025.
It is impossible to bury the high-level radioactive waste. This is turned into a glass-like substance, but then requires a cooling period of at least 50 years.
The clay storage facilities cannot handle temperatures above 90C.
Senator Sido said: “It is true that the most recent batches cannot be stocked in their present state. They are too hot and need a cooling-off period of several decades. But the first batches can be stocked now.”
The remaining high-level waste might not arrive before 2060. By then, France will have produced at least as much nuclear waste again. For that, it might have to create a new underground facility.
“As far as I know, there is no project in the pipeline for high-level and long-lived waste which will be produced in the future,” Mr Sido said. https://www.connexionfrance.com/article/Practical/Environment/France-inches-towards-nuclear-waste-solution-as-more-reactors-planned
UK government got its energy strategy so wrong
‘Major misjudgment’: how the Tories got their energy strategy so wrong. Analysis: betting big on nuclear, hydrogen, oil and gas while passing over energy saving measures, Johnson’s plan is a huge missed
opportunity.
Government industrial strategies are often derided as attempts to pick winners. The UK’s Conservative government has taken a different approach with its new energy strategy. In terms of dealing with the energybill and climate crises, it’s picking losers.
Nuclear power is the only major energy technology that has increased in cost in the last decade and
routinely suffers from massive time and budget overruns. Even Kwarteng acknowledges that France’s large nuclear fleet “cost a fortune”. The gamble Johnson is making, with taxpayers’ money, is that nuclear power is a more reliable wager to secure clean future power than renewables and fast-developing energy storage technologies. It’s a long shot.
Renewables and storage will develop much faster and get much cheaper due to the rapid learning that comes with small-scale technologies, unlike colossal projects
like nuclear.
Guardian 6th April 2022
Expert warning that UK’s nuclear plans mean that there won’t be room for all the new radioactive wastes.

![]() ![]() | |||
to me![]() |
Nuclear power plant plans could mean UK might run out of room for radioactive waste, says expert
https://inews.co.uk/news/nuclear-power-plant-plans-uk-could-run-out-room-radioactive-waste-1563015?ito=facebook_share_article-top&fbclid=IwAR2IxsDYG9O8oNJoXYfiKRKF18v2H-zI_l2NqC3VMWj5O8bGLZGYRMLQtss Current policy only allows for disposal of radioactive waste from 16GW of new nuclear capacity, far short of government’s new ambitions
By Madeleine Cuff, 8 Apr 22, Environment Reporter The UK could run out of room to store radioactive waste if the government presses ahead with plans to build eight new nuclear power stations across the country, a nuclear waste expert has warned.
Ministers today set out plans to accelerate the development of new nuclear power stations to bolster the UK’s energy security and push the country to net zero.
The long-awaited energy security strategy set out plans for trebling the UK’s nuclear generation, with up to 24GW of nuclear capacity planned for 2050.
But one of the country’s leading nuclear waste experts has told i the UK could “run out of room” to store the waste produced by so many plants.
Officials have spent the last 50 years hunting for a permanent way to dispose of radioactive waste produced by the UK’s fleet of nuclear plants.
In 2019 fresh search was launched to find a community willing to host the radioactive waste, which would be buried hundreds of metres below the Earth’s surface.
“The policy at the moment is that it can take all of the legacy waste – everything we have generated in the last 70 years, plus up to 16GW of new nuclear build,” said Professor Claire Corkhill, an expert in nuclear waste at the University of Sheffield.
But if the UK builds 24GW of new nuclear it could run into a storage problem, she warns. “My worry is that if we go to 24GW of nuclear energy then we might run out of room to store the radioactive waste,” she said. “We’ve jumped the gun a little bit in saying that we are going to have this much new nuclear energy without thinking really about whether we have got anywhere suitable to put the waste.”
She said it the government could look for a second storage site, but finding one could take decades.
UK’s new energy strategy will accelerate the development of nuclear power generation despite Treasury opposition
| As expected, the Strategy will detail plans to accelerate the development of nuclear power generation. It will target 24GW of installed capacity by 2050, meaning that nuclear will provide 25% of the UK’s electricity demands by mid-century. The Government has stated that it will support the delivery of up to eight large plants this decade, including Wylfa, Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C. It will also support small modular reactors (SMRs). It has been reported that Johnson has pushed hard for these targets on nuclear, despite opposition from the Treasury. Edie 6th April 2022 https://www.edie.net/energy-security-strategy-uk-targets-95-low-carbon-electricity-mix-by-2030-but-will-increase-oil-and-gas-production/ |
People Against Wylfa B (PAWB) to protest against plan for nuclear reactor on Anglesey island

An anti-nuclear campaign group are to protest outside the office of Ynys
Môn’s MPs over plans to build a new nuclear power plant on the island.
The UK Government this morning confirmed its intention to push ahead with a
nuclear project at the Wylfa site on the island of Anglesey. People Against
Wylfa B (PAWB) said that the UK’s energy needs could be met with
renewable energy and that ministerial claims that nuclear was necessary to
support weather-dependent renewables was “simply not true”.
Ynys Môn’s MP who has described herself as an ‘Atomic Kitten’ has been a
persistent advocate of a new nuclear plant on Anglesey.
A spokesperson for PAWB, Neil Crumpton, however said that the Prime Minister should not be
“gung ho” about nuclear power. “It is a complex and radio-toxic
technology,” he said. “The UK should be showing the world how wind and
solar energy, when backed-up by hydrogen-fired power stations, would
provide reliable electricity to consumers no matter what the weather or
season. Nuclear baseload is not needed.
Nation Cymru 7th April 2022
Rosatom, Russia’s nuclear corporation, exports nuclear fuel to Finland and others – has not been sanctioned by USA and Europe
Rosatom, which is the world’s biggest exporter of nuclear reactors and maintains a near-monopoly over the fuel they use to generate electricity, hasn’t been sanctioned by the U.S. and Europe.
it’ll be “three to four years” before Russian fuel currently being used in Finland needs to be swapped out in full for new assemblies.
Europe’s other energy problem: relying on Russian nuclear fuel https://www.mining.com/web/europes-other-energy-problem-relying-on-russian-nuclear-fuel/ Bloomberg News | April 7, 2022 A day before Russia invaded Ukraine, it sent four highly-trained armed guards across the border on a special mission to deliver fuel to an aging nuclear power facility.

Reactors based on Soviet designs generate power across the former Cold War bloc, accounting for more than half of all electricity in Ukraine and around two-fifths in a swath of territory arching from Finland to Bulgaria. So the fuel shipment was routine enough — until President Vladimir Putin ordered his army to war.
Russia and Ukraine agree the small security detachment arrived by train on Feb. 23 and was present as technicians unloaded a new batch of fuel rods at the Rivne Nuclear Power Plant 340 kilometers (210 miles) west of Kyiv. They differ wildly over what happened to the so-called Atomspetstrans guards as fighting began.
Ukraine told the International Atomic Energy Agency last week that they were disarmed and subsequently refused to return home. The Kremlin accused Kyiv of taking the four employees of state-owned Rosatom hostage. The IAEA is assessing the situation as it prepares to return monitors to Ukraine.
The incident was just one nuclear flashpoint of a war that’s being fought amid a fleet of operating reactors as well as the entombed site of the world’s worst atomic accident at Chernobyl.
But it also highlights another looming energy challenge for leaders on Moscow’s European periphery even as the continent moves to bar more Russian fossil fuels: how to cut their reliance on nuclear trade with a heavily-sanctioned Russia that many in the region want to further isolate.
“Countries are taking it a lot more seriously because of the situation,” top U.S. nuclear official Bonnie Jenkins said in an interview last month. “They are aware of their dependence.”
Rosatom, which is the world’s biggest exporter of nuclear reactors and maintains a near-monopoly over the fuel they use to generate electricity, hasn’t been sanctioned by the U.S. and Europe.
Non-proliferation experts have warned that doing so could boomerang back by coaxing more countries to enter fuel markets. U.S. officials said last month sanctions would have to be carefully calibrated to avoid damaging allied economies, as well as other U.S. diplomatic efforts, like the nuclear negotiations with Iran. Those talks foresee continued supply of fuel to the Persian Gulf country’s Russia-built reactor.
For Moscow, atomic exports remain a key geopolitical lever, and it’s using state financing to expand Rosatom’s reach with new units in China, India, Iran and Turkey, none of which have enforced war-penalties so far imposed on Russia.
Nuclear fuel differs from commodities like gas or coal because it requires precision-engineered assemblies that conform to licensing requirements set by safety regulators. Trying to cut ties prematurely with Russia could imperil electricity supplies for almost 100 million Europeans in countries that rely on nuclear plants as their biggest source of clean energy.
Jenkins, 61, the U.S. State Department’s under-secretary for arms control and international security, cautioned the switch could take years.
Still, said Liisa Heikinheimo, deputy director general for energy at Finland’s Economy Ministry, “it’s a fact that an alternative supplier is needed. It’s about to be a problem that’s soon reality.”
Finland, where Fortum Oyj operates two Soviet-built VVER reactors 90 kilometers east of Helsinki, has tried to find alternatives to Russia. It contracted British Nuclear Fuel Ltd., now owned by Westinghouse Electric Co., in the 1990s but ultimately stuck with Rosatom’s competitive prices.
More recently, the U.S. Department of Energy and Ukraine worked with Westinghouse to dislodge Rosatom fuel from 15 operating reactors, which still supply more than half the country’s electricity after six weeks of war wrought billions of dollars in damages to infrastructure.
Fuel made by Westinghouse, owned by private-equity investors at Brookfield Business Partners LP, now generates power at six Ukrainian units, with engineers needing until mid-decade to supply the rest.
“Westinghouse started in Ukraine because of the government-to-government agreement with the U.S.,” said Jose Emeterio Gutierrez, the Spanish nuclear engineer who formerly led the company’s decade-long effort to compete with Rosatom. But nuclear-fuel market peculiarities, along with a Soviet technological legacy, makes diversification difficult, he said.
Few nations possess the vast infrastructure needed to convert and enrich uranium ore into metal, which then has to be engineered into ceramic pellets and inserted into zirconium fuel rods with a safety tolerance measured in millimeters. A catalog of international regulations ensures that material isn’t diverted for weapons.
Rising demand for stable energy supplies, along with the European Union’s green label on nuclear power, could help to speed up the process.
Slovakia, with four Russian-built units, pitched a fuel consortium last month to share costs. The U.S. is also involved, pledging last week to help the Czech Republic diversify fuel for its six Russian-designed reactors.
But moving away from Rosatom will require time, said Heikinheimo, who figures it’ll be “three to four years” before Russian fuel currently being used in Finland needs to be swapped out in full for new assemblies.
(By Jonathan Tirone, Kati Pohjanpalo and Jesper Starn, with assistance from Thomas Hall)
Expensive nuclear power push ignores chance to cut costs of UK’s electricity system
Energy strategy: expensive nuclear power push ignores chance to cut costs of UK’s electricity system
The Conversation, Furong LiReader in Electrical Systems, University of Bath, Nigel TurveyVisiting Senior Industrial Fellow in Electrical Engineering, University of Bath, 8 Apr 22,
”……………………… apart from a promised five-fold increase in solar power generation by 2035, the strategy sets no target for generating electricity from some of the country’s cheapest sources, like onshore wind.
The government may defend its decision to ramp up the production of nuclear power as support for a home-grown and reliable source of energy. But some of that hefty investment would be unnecessary if Britain reorganised its energy system to make the most of the nation’s abundant renewable electricity instead.
When the price of a commodity like a soft drink goes up, production can be ramped up fairly rapidly to respond to spot market conditions, which quickly lowers prices again. Building a new nuclear power plant or offshore wind farm is quite different, requiring major investment and the certainty that there will be a reasonable return on upfront investment from selling energy over 30 to 40 years.
In the UK, governments can intervene in the capacity market to ensure a secure electricity supply by paying for reliable sources, which provides the long-term certainty necessary to build sufficient generating capacity. Financial backing changes to reflect the state’s priorities, and the drive for eight new nuclear reactors is reported to cost the public £13 billion.
Building wind farms and nuclear plants is just the first step though. The speed at which they be can integrated into electrical networks and operated to be in tune with power, transport and heat demand is what will actually decide when energy prices stabilise………………..
How to get inflexible, low-carbon energy to homes and businesses reliably and cheaply is as important as building new, reliable sources. And on that count, making more effective use of renewable sources – and reducing energy demand overall – would mean the country could afford to build less nuclear power, which is one of the few low-carbon sources which hasn’t become substantially cheaper.
New technologies
One way to increase customer demand for renewable and low-carbon energy when it’s abundant and reduce it when generation is tight is to incentivise storage technologies.
For example, if electric vehicles are charged up when there is plenty of wind and solar power being generated, 40GW of offshore renewable energy would be enough to power the country’s entire vehicle fleet without any of it going to waste.
To help harmonise Britain’s energy demand with periods when renewable output is high, the government could invest in digital technologies such as smart meters and set up new tariffs which can send price signals to EV chargers. It could also invest in improving the short-term forecasting of solar and wind output. These changes would make distributors aware of customer needs and help customers alleviate stress on the system.
While electric vehicle batteries can manage the variability of renewable output, Britain’s energy system also needs fixed storage – like grid-scale batteries which, unlike the government’s favoured solution of hydrogen fuel, are capable of very fast response times to manage sudden changes……………………… https://theconversation.com/energy-strategy-expensive-nuclear-power-push-ignores-chance-to-cut-costs-of-uks-electricity-system-180365
Zaporizhzhia is a wake-up call demonstrating the vulnerability of nuclear plants to deliberate acts of war.
| Varrie Blowers, Secretary of BANNG discusses the implications of the war in Ukraine in the latest column for Regional Life, April, 2022. In the early hours of 4 March, fire was reported at Zaporizhzhia, the 6-reactor nuclear power station in Ukraine, Europe’s largest. The Russian army was carrying out a premeditated attack. A few days before, it had seized Chernobyl, the site in April, 1986 of the world’s worst nuclear accident……..to date. It was, mercifully, a training building that was on fire. Nonetheless, this attack on an active nuclear plant was unprecedented and in clear breach of the Geneva Conventions. But Russia was not deterred. Had there been a meltdown in a reactor or fire in the radioactive waste stores, the people of Ukraine would have been subject to a nuclear catastrophe. And the radioactive fallout of a nuclear incident of a magnitude worse than that of Chernobyl, would have had far-reaching and terrifying consequences. The incident shows for the first time the dangers of war in a nuclearised country. Nuclear plants do not seem to have been designed to cope with war. Nor can they just be switched off and abandoned. The workers at Zaporizhzhia, it has been reported, are being forced to work in conditions of exhaustion, hunger and stress – when mistakes could be made. While we hope never to experience such acts on our shores, there is the ever- present threat of terrorism and cyber-attack wreaking havoc on nuclear installations. Given what has happened, the Government should be disengaging from nuclear, not engaging in a gung-ho rush to build new plants, including Bradwell B. Chernobyl and Fukushima alerted the world to the dangers arising from nuclear accidents. Zaporizhzhia is a wake-up call demonstrating the vulnerability of nuclear plants to deliberate acts of war. BANNG 6th April 2022 https://www.banng.info/news/ukraine-nuclear-wake-up-call |
British government launches a new government body – Great British Nuclear.
A new government body, Great British Nuclear, will be set
up immediately to bring forward new projects, backed by substantial
funding, and we will launch the £120 million Future Nuclear Enabling Fund
this month. We will work to progress a series of projects as soon as
possible this decade, including Wylfa site in Anglesey. This could mean
delivering up to eight reactors, equivalent to one reactor a year instead
of one a decade, accelerating nuclear in Britain.
BEIS 6th April 2022
-
Archives
- May 2026 (180)
- 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




