EUROPE « nuclear-news

Small and large new nuclear reactors in Britain’s so-called ‘green industrial revolution’

Mail on Sunday 7th Nov 2020, Boris Johnson is poised to launch major plans for a ‘green industrial revolution’ backing a new wave of nuclear power plants to boost the economy and slash Britain’s carbon emissions. The proposals are expected to include the green light to build a nuclear plant at Sizewell C in Suffolk and thenext stage in a programme that would lead to a production line of rapidlyn and more cheaply produced small modular reactors within a decade, The Mail on Sunday understands.

The Government is considering a ‘Made in Britain’ solution that may include a taxpayer-backed injection from an infrastructure growth fund – a plan that would need rubber stamping by the Treasury. Funding could also include backing from British pension funds. It would allow the Government to help subsidise the small modular reactor programme (SMR) with as much as £2billion and a stake in Sizewell C of up to 10 per cent of its £20billion build costs.

Sizewell C is backed by French state-backed EDF Energy, which could become a minority shareholder. Government financing would also help slash the cost of electricity produced by the plant. Britain has eight nuclear power plants, generating about a fifth of the country’s electricity. Seven are due to close by 2030.

The SMR consortium is led by Rolls-Royce and includes construction and engineering companies Assystem, Atkins, BAM Nuttall,
Jacobs and Laing O’Rourke. It hopes to build ten to 15 reactors in the UK, largely on former nuclear sites. Plans are already being discussed for the possibility of joint sites in locations including Moorside in Cumbria – where Japanese multinational Toshiba recently pulled out of developing its own reactor – that could contain a large EDF-backed reactor and a smaller modular reactor, creating a ‘clean energy hub’.

EDF has insisted synergies with Hinkley will mean the cost of energy from a second plant at Sizewell C would be slashed. It is understood site preparations could begin immediately and that planning consent for the project itself could be given
as soon as 2022, meaning the plant could be online by 2032.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-8924115/Lift-GREEN-Industrial-Revolution.html

November 9, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

Putin orders Russian government to try to meet Paris climate goals

President Vladimir Putin has signed a decree ordering the Russian government to try to meet the 2015 Paris Agreement to fight climate change, but stressed that any action must be balanced with the need to ensure strong economic development.

November 7, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change, Russia | Leave a comment

Exploring the reasons why Britain is to ‘re-nationalise’ it’s nuclear weapons

UK Government move to ‘re-nationalise’ Britain’s nuclear weapons, The National

By Martin HannanMultimedia Journalist 6th NovemberEARLIER this week the UK Government slipped out a story about Britain’s nuclear deterrent in the form of a ministerial statement that hardly anyone noticed.

It indicated that the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) headquartered on the former site of RAF Aldermaston is effectively going to be re-nationalised.

Stripped of civil-servant speak, the statement says that the UK Government is exercising its right to end early a 25-year contract with a consortium of companies that run AWE plc. From next year AWE will become an arms-length operation wholly owned by the Ministry of Defence. That will include AWE’s presence at the Royal Naval Armaments depot at Coulport on Loch Long which services the Clyde Submarine Base at Faslane, home to Britain’s Trident submarines.

The statement indicates the change is on grounds of efficiency. It read: “The change in Model will remove the current commercial arrangements, enhancing the MoD’s agility in the future management of the UK’s nuclear deterrent, whilst also delivering on core MoD objectives and value for money to the taxpayer.

Forgive the cynical view but that all says “in other words, we’re back in complete charge and will spend what we like on the replacement for Trident with no need for reports to shareholders and that public sort of stuff”.

WHEN WAS AWE ORIGINALLY PRIVATISED?

THE Act to effectively privatise Aldermaston was passed under John Major’s Tory Government in 1991. The transfer of a previously MoD-run facility to the private sector caused some controversy at the time, but went ahead anyway………..

WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?

GOOD question. Obviously somebody somewhere is not happy. Ending a 25-year contract four years early is not a usual tactic of HM Government – quite the opposite with contracts often renewed “on the nod”.

It could also be an advance move in a long-rumoured possible project for the MoD to take back more sites and facilities and run them as arms-length operations. Babcock and other private contractors at Faslane and elsewhere will have taken note of the move.

ARE ALDERMASTON AND SCOTLAND LINKED?

THE convoys that take nuclear weapons between Coulport/Faslane and Aldermaston have been a worry for anti-nuclear campaigners for decades. In an independent Scotland, the Westminster Government would be asked to remove Trident and its ilk, which has always begged the question – what is the MoD’s plan B for Trident or its replacement after independence? Answer: there isn’t one. Go on, ask them yourselves. https://www.thenational.scot/news/18850871.uk-government-move-re-nationalise-britains-nuclear-weapons/

November 7, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear Technology Germany Association says Small Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) will always be more expensive than large ones.

German nuclear industry cautious about usefulness of small reactors for energy transition, Nuclear phase-out Technology, Clean Energy Wire, Süddeutsche Zeitung , 6 Nov 20 Small Modular Reactors (SMR) are increasingly hailed as an effective way for using nuclear power to curb the climate crisis without the major risks associated with conventional nuclear plants, but Germany’s nuclear industry is sceptical whether the small reactors really can help boost international climate action, Christian J. Meier writes for the Süddeutsche Zeitung

……… Nicolas Wendler of industry association Nuclear Technology Germany (KernD) says SMRs are always going to be more expensive than bigger reactors due to lower power output at constant fixed costs, as safety measures and staffing requirements do not vary greatly compared to conventional reactors. In terms of levelised energy costs, SMRs will always be more expensive than big plants.” In order for SMRs to be profitable, these should run at maximum utilisation most of the time, Wendler argues, concluding that the potential on the German market would not be much greater than what is needed to adjust oscillating renewable power production…. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-nuclear-industry-cautious-about-usefulness-small-reactors-energy-transition

November 7, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Germany, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

UK govt’s spin to Scotland, promoting nuclear submarines – but the Scots are nae sae daft

We cannot defeat our real enemies by using nuclear weapons, https://www.thenational.scot/news/18850915.cannot-defeat-real-enemies-using-nuclear-weapons/, Jim Taylor, Edinburgh, 6 Nov 20

INTRIGUED, I tuned in on Wednesday to Channel Five’s programme “On Board Britain’s Nuclear Submarine: Trident” to be met with little more than a UK Government propaganda piece.

What transpired was a description of this weapon system with repeated use of the term “deterrent”. No-one wants to deploy it so it is somehow acceptable and necessary. The crew, like Captain Darren Mason, are just doing their job, so that must be right then – while ignoring that mutually assured destruction, wreaking global devastation, would end human life as we know it, probably totally.

Yet they are prepared to follow orders, without any real concern for the potential consequences of their actions. A position well claimed through many conflicts by war criminals perpetrating heinous acts against humanity. How is widespread death and destruction from nuclear obliteration any less than another even more heinous act, just because we would be committing it on the diktat of our Prime Minister? Particularly given the potential of one held in such poor public regard as the current one. Have we learned nothing from centuries of conflict?

At the conclusion of the programme, Rear Admiral John Weale tells us that no-one really wants nuclear weapons … but “we are planning to have them for the next 50 years”.

So it’s a done deal, whether we Scots support it or not. Our UK Union membership means we will be forced against our will to be party to this inhumane weapon system, and the increased danger it puts us in with its continued location at Faslane.

Trident’s replacement is currently reckoned to cost around £200 billion, before any expected design, construction, operational cost overruns and other usual ongoing cost increases. With the potential for a further cycle of replacement during the next 50 years, going forward, the cost to the nation will rise exponentially.

And all while we have children going to school hungry, precarious employment prospects, widespread poverty with even the working poor using food banks, and we know our real enemies are lunatic terrorists, pandemic and climate change that nuclear weapons can’t protect us from. Shouldn’t tackling these be our real priorities?

Clearly the Royal Navy took the unprecedented step to permit this programme being made at the behest of the UK Government trying to warm our feelings about nuclear weapons, recognise a “need” for them and in the hope this will drive a wedge in Scotland’s drive to call upon its Claim of Right and independence.

Isn’t the UK Government’s mistake assuredly that Scots are nae sae daft?

November 7, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear now costs twice the price of renewables and the gap is growing. No need for Hinkley C, Sizewell, Bradwell etc

No need for nuclear power, Craven Herald and Pioneer By Lesley Tate, Senior Reporter, 6 Nov 20, Cllr David Noland, Skipton North writes,

” ………The Green Party have been arguing for many years in recognition of the work by Friends of the Earth, the Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) in Wales and many others, that we do not need ‘further expansion of nuclear and gas turbines’ but to be far more clever about our energy use, easy to do now that renewables are cheaper than nuclear and new gas.

CAT has been at the forefront of development of research on renewable technology and Green building for some 50 years.

Their latest report ‘Zero Carbon Britain (Rising to the Climate Emergency)’ clearly demonstrates that the UK has the tools and technology to efficiently power this country with 100 per cent renewable technology (read the executive summary, it’s only eight pages long).

By using energy more efficiently we can power down by 60 per cent with particularly large savings in heating buildings and transport.

There is absolutely no need for nuclear power in our energy mix and we cannot afford it, let alone pay for cleaning up the sites at the end which taxpayers always end up paying for.

Nuclear now costs twice the price of renewables and the gap is growing.

How many Herald readers know that the electricity from the Hinkley Point nuclear reactor will cost UK consumers £92.50 per Kwh (the most recent offshore wind turbine fields are half of this)?

The deal was signed by (former Prime Minister) Theresa May and supported by Labour and Lib Dems.

The profits are going to the Chinese government which will run it for 40 years. The French firm (EDF) that has been building Hinkley Point and wants to build more nuclear reactors in the UK wants to cushion the financial blow of future nuclear power stations in this country by charging electricity customers a few extra pounds every month on their bill even now.

This is referred to as a new funding model, I’d call it a rip-off. Are people really happy to put billions of pounds into the coffers of the Chinese government and EDF rather than invest, as part of a Green New Deal, in insulation and draught-proofing of UK homes to keep us warmer, take over two and a half million households out of fuel poverty and permanently reduce everyone’s fuel bills. https://www.cravenherald.co.uk/opinion/opinion_letters/18824349.letter-no-need-nuclear-power/

November 7, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, politics, UK | 1 Comment

A new nuclear power plant at Sizewell is the wrong choice for a zero carbon Britain

A new nuclear power plant at Sizewell is the wrong choice for a zero carbon Britain, The climate column: The proposed Sizewell C will not produce electricity until about 2040, which it means it cannot reduce the UK’s carbon emissions with the speed necessary to avoid catastrophic tipping points The Independent , Donnachadh McCarthy@DonnachadhMc 6 Nov 20,

Just weeks ago, the Climate Assembly set up by parliament rejected nuclear power as an answer to creating a zero-carbon economy. This was due to cost, safety and difficulties with waste storage and decommissioning.

Yet Boris Johnson is reported to be about to commit Britain to buying another hugely expensive nuclear power station.

As this new plant would not be producing electricity until about 2040, it means it cannot reduce the UK’s carbon emissions with the speed necessary to avoid catastrophic tipping points, whereas cheaper renewables can be up and running within a couple of years of being commissioned.

Consider the following analogy. Four years ago, you needed to replace your gas boiler and a company came along and offered to sell you the world’s most expensive experimental boiler ever. It’s been trying to build the first four of them for over 20 years but had not yet got any actually working.

The first one it tried to build, in Finland, is already 13 years behind schedule and has more than tripled in price. The second one it tried to build, in France, is 10 years behind schedule, now costs six times the original quote and has encountered monumental safety issues.

They then tell you the boiler was filled with lethal toxins, which if the boiler’s seals broke, could explode and kill everybody in your house. All your neighbours would have to be permanently evacuated immediately without being allowed to collect their lethally contaminated belongings and the area around your boiler would become an exclusion zone for generations.

The sales-person added that the boiler will cost up to twice as much to run as your current boiler. They demanded you sign a 35-year inflation-proofed deal that makes it difficult to switch to a cheaper renewable energy supplier or use energy efficiency measures to reduce your need for the boiler.

Every single bank refused to lend you the money to install your new boiler, as they believed it was a financially insane project to lend money to.

There was another problem. The experimental boiler continuously produces highly-toxic explosive waste that the supplier, after 70 years of trying, still has no idea what to do with. You would have to store it in your cellar, until somebody miraculously comes up with a way to store it safely for millennia.

The salesperson neglected to add that you had to pay for the costs of removing the boiler at the end of its life but that the process takes hundreds of years to complete.

I tell you this imaginary tale to try and explain the utter insanity of what the UK government did when it signed the contract with EDF Energy to build a new Hinkley Point nuclear power plant in 2016. Hinkley is already a year behind schedule and nearly £3bn over budget.

And now imagine this. Despite all of the above and knowing that renewable energy alternatives have already fallen to less than half of the cost of this experimental boiler and that new renewable electricity storage technologies have been likewise collapsing in price, the same contractor comes back to you to persuade you to buy another of these hugely expensive boilers for your second home.

Unlike almost every single government in the world, Boris Johnson’s government is reported to be planning on announcing in the next few weeks that the UK will agree to build a second new EDF nuclear power plant at Sizewell in Suffolk. Why would any supposedly sane country sign such crazy energy contracts? ……… https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nuclear-power-plant-sizewell-boris-johnson-b1622086.html

November 7, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Chernobyl’s bumblebees still affected by radiation

This new data shows effects on bumblebees are happening at dose rates previously thought safe for insects, and the current international recommendations will need to be re-evaluated.

Chernobyl: bumblebees still at risk from radiation nearly 35 years on, https://theconversation.com/chernobyl-bumblebees-still-at-risk-from-radiation-nearly-35-years-on-149055, Katherine Raines, Fellow and Lecturer, University of Stirling, November 5, 2020 In the early hours of April 26 1986, reactor four of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine exploded, causing the largest nuclear disaster in history. More than 350,000 people were evacuated, and a 4,700km² exclusion zone was formed in Ukraine and Belarus. Despite the intervening 34 years, there is still uncertainty about the effects of the radiation exposure on wildlife living in the Chernobyl exclusion zone (CEZ).

Continue reading →

November 5, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | environment, radiation, Reference, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Poland’s nuclear energy plans not likely to be supported by the European Commission

Nuclear power is not considered environmentally sustainable, and there is little hope this approach will change. Therefore, the possibilities for bankrolling nuclear energy are very limited.

Brussels’s impact on Poland’s nuclear project, https://biznesalert.com/brusselss-impact-on-polands-nuclear-project/ : Paweł Wróbel, @Pawrobel 4 Nov 20, Poland’s nuclear power plant constrsuction program has been riddled with ambiguity for many years. Neverthele, among the few certainties remains the necessity to abide by the EU law on granting state aid. The project cannot happen without Brussels. Investments in nuclear energy are one of the most expensive in the energy sector, which is why building a nuclear plant in Poland will not be possible without state support. Therefore, the European Commission will have to approve the selected financing model – Paweł Wróbel, CEO of Gate Brussels, writes for BiznesAlert.pl.

Recently in a reaction to the plans made by Warsaw, Frans Timmersmans, Executive Vice President of the European Commission for the European Green Deal, has stressed that the EC would not stand in the way of building nuclear power plants (NPPs) in member states. This assurance was also offered to the prime minister of the Czech Republic, who announced before the last EU summit, that his country would support the increase in CO2 reduction target to 55 percent by 2030, only if the EC did not interfere with nuclear programs. Timmermans really wants all the member states to support the increased CO2 emissions reduction target. Even though it is Margrethe Vestager, another EC Executive Vice President, who is responsible for competition, Timmerman’s voice will be very important when it comes to the decision process.

Timmermans is a seasoned diplomat, a former foreign minister of Holland, so it is worth paying attention to the entirety of his statement to learn what he thinks about these kinds of investments in the energy sector. In his opinion, nuclear power had “serious disadvantages”, e.g. the necessity to import uranium and handle radioactive waste. He also pointed out that nuclear power was “very expensive”, which is why long-term state involvement was crucial. “… [I]f you invest in it, you’re stuck with it for a very, very long period of time,” he stressed.

Still, Timmermans did not openly admit that the European Commission did not bet on nuclear power, even in the context of the 2050 climate neutrality target. However, this approach is visible in the Union’s main strategies, which determine the target energy transition model. The strategies were adopted last July and are titled: the EU Strategy for Energy System Integration and the Hydrogen Strategy. Neither of the documents suggests that nuclear energy will play a significant role in the European Green Deal

The EC has been consistent in its push for renewable energy sources (RES) as the basis for energy generation in the EU, and the most cost-efficient option. Renewables will make it possible to electrify heat generation and transport. While hydrogen will play a complementary role, especially when it comes to industrial processes and heavy transport. This approach is reflected in the ongoing revisions of the main legislation for the energy sector. The goal of this strategy is to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. Nuclear energy is not an important part of this model.

The situation is similar when it comes to EU funding mechanisms and regulations on public and private entities on financial markets in EU states, e.g. in taxonomy. Nuclear power is not considered environmentally sustainable, and there is little hope this approach will change. Therefore, the possibilities for bankrolling nuclear energy are very limited. The availability of options is a lot smaller than in case of RES or hydrogen. Of course, the EC respects the principle of “technological neutrality”, so it cannot deprive states of their ability to invest in nuclear energy, especially that some of them do bet on this kind of power generation. However, this means it is necessary to find a model that will be in line with EU law.

One of the biggest challenges is to prepare a financing model for the investment that will comply with EU rules for state aid. The EC has stressed its role is to limit as much as possible any interference with competition on the energy market that state aid may cause. During its inquiries into state aid plans, e.g. with regard to nuclear energy, the EC holds talks with governments that plan such investments. The EC then determines what conditions need to be met for it to approve the aid. This happened, e.g. in 2017 when Hungary wanted to expand its Paks II NPP. The Hungarian government had to take on considerable commitments for the EC to agree the investment was in line with EU rules.

Those included the following: (1) profits could only be used to pay off debt to the state, or to cover the NPP’s operational costs, (2) Paks II could not be formally linked with other entities on the energy market, including the existing Paks power plant, which meant it had to survive on the market on its own, (3) at least 30 percent of the production had to be sold on the open energy market, whereas the remainder via an open auction system. Especially the last condition could be too difficult to meet, as nuclear energy is one of the most expensive when it comes to new investments.

In case of Poland an EC consent will not be unconditional either. The process usually takes a dozen or so months. In case of Paks II it took 3 years. These are one of the most difficult and one of the longest cases. The final conditions that the EC will set, will determine not just the construction process, but mostly the terms on which the NPP will have to function on the market.

November 5, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

Sizewell C – Britain walking into a trap that benefits only the nuclear industry

Sizewell C – Britain walking into a trap that benefits only the nuclear industry, Sizewell C: Dodgy deals and obscure decision-making https://eciu.net/blog/2020/sizewell-c-dodgy-deals-and-obscure-decision-making By Jonathan Marshall, Head of Analysis@JMarshall_ECIU, 02 November 2020 This weekend the BBC reported that the Government was close to reaching a deal with EDF to construct a new nuclear power station at Sizewell in Suffolk. Sizewell C is expected to be a carbon-copy of the plant under construction at Hinkley Point, and will help fill the gap left as Britain’s existing nukes retire.

There is little point in re-hashing the well-worn arguments about whether we need new nuclear in the UK. No changing of minds on either side looks likely, nor is there much point trying to counter the six-or-so lines from either side about why nuclear is a good or bad choice.

What is worth scrutiny, though, is how the Government appears to be making another hash of agreeing terms and penning a contract.

Just three years ago the National Audit Office delivered a stinging rebuke of the deal with EDF for Hinkley Point C, saying it has ‘locked consumers into a risky and expensive project with uncertain strategic and economic benefits’; that efforts to ensure value for money had been overlooked; and that there remained a risk that the developer would come cap-in-hand for more cash before the project was finished, at which point the Government would not be in the strongest position to say no.

Backroom dealings

Based on current reports, it seems that one of the major failures from Hinkley – that the deal was concluded bilaterally, behind closed doors, and with no downward pressure on costs through competition – is being repeated.

And it is hard to see how the Government has let itself be backed into this corner, allowing EDF to present itself as ‘the only option’ for the new nuclear it is no doubt saying is essential to reach net zero.

Sizewell has even received public backing from those usually in favour of a small state and as little Government intervention as possible, a position miles away from what is seemingly imminent.

Endless stalling on policy decisions and lack of support for other plants has seen other proposals evaporate, changing economics have seen developers pull out globally (Japan, for example, has said it will get to net zero without new nuclear), and a constant drumroll of political support for the as-yet-to-exist Small Modular Reactors rather than traditional large plant have left EDF as the only player in town.

The Government, well aware of the benefits of pitting projects against each other, has been lauding the successes of doing exactly that in auctions for offshore wind, in the capacity market and in a host of nascent markets for flexible power. Yet, nuclear remains exempt.

And while there are some factors that would make an auction system more difficult – high project start-up costs, lengthy safety sign-offs, etc, it is surely not beyond the wit of ministers and their advisors, and the civil service, to force something into place.

The only winners from the current behind-closed-doors set-up are the nuclear industry, which is not an effective way to make policy.

Time-Limited Backstop

The desperation to bring costs down for nuclear mean British electricity users are set to be on the hook for the costs of building Sizewell before it starts generating.

This situation would raise eyebrows in many instances, but for a scheme based on projects currently running wildly over budget and embarrassingly behind schedule, this seems like madness.

There are few guarantees in British media, but stories about rising energy bills are about as close as one can get. Extra costs on households to pay back investors, rather than for actually producing energy, mean this deal could be a toxic legacy for years to come.

It remains to be seen what protections from overrunning costs are put in place for consumers, and what guarantees that the cost agreed through a Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model will not increase as the project inevitably runs over budget. Both of these are pretty essential for allaying concerns that the public is being sold another white elephant.

Going Blind

Backing Sizewell raises as many questions as it answers, on which clarity from Government would help onlookers understand their decision-making.

On finances, the latest BEIS assessments of generation costs didn’t include nuclear, apparently for commercial confidentiality reasons. We should now expect these to be updated, especially as the latest iteration included the associated ‘system costs’ of different technologies. Doing this for nuclear (which of course imposes other costs on the power grid due to its inflexibility) is now vital.

Where are the assessments of how new nuclear can fit into increasingly smart and flexible power grids? Churning out a constant stream of electrons is good for keeping the country running, but it would be more useful if there was some data to show how it impedes on the rest of the grid.

What thought has been given to location? The Suffolk coast is set to be the landing point for a huge amount of offshore wind capacity – is it the best place for a new nuclear plant? Or just the only place still in the running?

How could the power output from Sizewell be used most effectively? What are the economics behind building an electrolyser nearby to convert excess power into hydrogen? Can the waste heat be made use of?

Providing answers to these sort of questions (just a few of many more) would help us to have a more grown up debate around nuclear, and would help understand the reasons for signing what, at first sight, looks like another dodgy deal.

Theresa May’s decision to sign off Hinkley was met with widespread dismay, for the reasons above and for many more. Without more clarity on Government thought, it appears our current Prime Minister could be walking into the same trap.

November 5, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

UK nuclear weapons making to be run by the Ministry of Defence

Public Technology 3rd Nov 2020, The government has claimed that bringing the manufacturing of nuclear
warheads back in house will enable it to better “invest in technology”.
Since 1993, the Atomic Weapons Establishment – which is responsible for
developing, manufacturing, and managing the UK’s arsenal of nuclear
weapons – has operated as a private company, under contract from the
government.

Hunting-BRAE held the contract until 1999, at which point a
25-year deal was awarded to AWE Management Ltd, a joint venture led by 51%
shareholder Lockheed Martin, supported by Serco and Jacobs Engineering.
Defence secretary Ben Wallace announced in parliament this week that,
following a review, the “Ministry of Defence has concluded that AWE will
revert to a direct government ownership model”. From as early as next
summer, the nuclear agency will become an arm’s-length government body,
wholly owned by the ministry.

https://www.publictechnology.net/articles/news/government-claims-bringing-nuclear-warheads-house-will-enable-investment-technology

Basingstoke Gazette 3rd Nov 2020, THE government will take control of a nuclear weapons manufacturer in
Aldermaston. AWE, which also has a site in Burghfield, is to be taken over
by ministers to “simplify and further strengthen” the relationship between
the operator and the Ministry of Defence. It means that Lockheed Martin,
which owns 51 per cent of AWE Management Ltd, and Serco, which owns 24.5
per cent, will be stripped of their control of the base when the lucrative
25-year contract comes to an end, with Sky News reporting that it could be
as soon as next year.

https://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/news/18842320.awe-aldermaston-taken-government/

November 5, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Europe still without a final disposal solution for its most dangerous nuclear waste

Le Monde 4th Nov 2020, Europe still without a final disposal solution for its most dangerous
nuclear waste. The first edition of the World Report on Nuclear Waste,
published Wednesday in its French version, provides elements of comparison
of management methods in different countries.

https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2020/11/04/l-europe-toujours-sans-solution-de-stockage-definitif-de-ses-dechets-nucleaires-les-plus-dangereux_6058412_3244.html

November 5, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Belarus, wastes | Leave a comment

Warning to UK government on Sizewell nuclear power project – is it value for money?

New Civil Engineer 4th Nov 2020 Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit head of analysis Jonathan Marshall has urged caution as the government looks increasingly likely to approve plans for the Sizewell C nuclear power station.

According to the BBC, talks between the government and Sizewell contractor EDF have “intensified in recent weeks”. However, Marshall emphasised that renewable energy solutions offer more flexibility than nuclear. “If you look at the amount of money involved in building nuclear power stations, it’s pretty easy to come up with something renewables-based that’s as firm and moreflexible,” he said. “There are not many people saying we should have loads of nuclear apart from the nuclear industry. There’s also the risk that by the time power stations are built the grid is running in a different way because they take so long to build.”

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/warning-against-sizewell-cs-value-for-money-as-nuclear-project-nears-green-light-04-11-2020/

November 5, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

Archives
- May 2026 (225)
- 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
  - Arclight's Vision
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
  - business and costs
    - employment
    - marketing
  - climate change
  - culture and arts
  - ENERGY
    - renewable
      - decentralised
      - energy storage
  - environment
    - oceans
    - water
  - health
    - children
    - psychology – mental health
    - radiation
    - social effects
    - women
  - history
  - indigenous issues
  - Legal
    - deaths by radiation
    - legal
  - marketing of nuclear
  - media
    - investigative journalism
    - Wikileaks
  - opposition to nuclear
  - PERSONAL STORIES
  - politics
    - psychology and culture
      - Trump – personality
    - public opinion
    - USA election 2024
    - USA elections 2016
  - politics international
  - Religion and ethics
  - safety
    - incidents
  - secrets,lies and civil liberties
    - civil liberties
  - spinbuster
    - Education
  - technology
    - reprocessing
    - Small Modular Nuclear Reactors
    - space travel
  - Uranium
  - wastes
    - – plutonium
    - decommission reactor
  - weapons and war
    - Atrocities
    - depleted uranium
  - Women
- 2 WORLD
  - ANTARCTICA
  - ARCTIC
  - ASIA
    - Burma
    - China
    - India
    - Indonesia
    - Japan
    - Malaysia
    - Mongolia
    - North Korea
    - Pakistan
    - South Korea
    - Taiwan
    - Turkey
    - Vietnam
  - EUROPE
    - Belarus
    - Bulgaria
    - Denmark
    - Finland
    - France
    - Germany
    - Greece
    - Ireland
    - Italy
    - Kazakhstan
    - Kyrgyzstan
    - Russia
    - Spain
    - Sweden
    - Switzerland
    - UK
    - Ukraine
  - MIDDLE EAST
    - Afghanistan
    - Egypt
    - Gaza
    - Iran
    - Iraq
    - Israel
    - Jordan
    - Libya
    - Saudi Arabia
    - Syria
    - Turkey
    - United Arab Emirates
  - NORTH AMERICA
    - Canada
    - USA
      - election USA 2020
  - OCEANIA
    - New Zealand
    - Philippines
  - SOUTH AMERICA
    - Brazil
- ACTION
- AFRICA
  - Kenya
  - Malawi
  - Mali
  - Namibia
  - Niger
  - Nigeria
  - Somalia
  - South 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
  - thorium
- Reference
  - Reference archives
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS

nuclear-news

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