France’s government is giving mixed messages on future of nuclear energy
EDF gives Macron little reason to come clean on 
nuclear https://www.ft.com/content/adbe9da6-0ab8-11ea-bb52-34c8d9dc6d84 Problems at a flagship nuclear reactor means French government can take time over future of EDF, BEN HALL , Europe editor NOVEMBER 20 2019
The earthquake that shook the Rhone valley in south-east France last week could have been another financial disaster for energy giant EDF in what has been a bruising year. Its share price has taken a battering over concerns that it will struggle to pay for the upkeep of its ageing fleet of reactors, find money to build new ones and service its €37bn of net debt. The worries have been amplified by further delays and cost overruns at the mammoth nuclear plant it is building on the Normandy coast. The Rhone valley is home to four of the country’s 19 atomic power stations and a nuclear fuel processing facility, all operated by EDF. The tremor was the worst to hit France in 16 years. Three reactors at Cruas had to be shut down until mid-December for mandatory safety checks.
The French government, which owns 83.7 per cent of the company, is giving mixed messages about the way forward. It will not decide whether to build more EPRs until Flamanville is up and running — conveniently after the 2022 presidential election, allowing Emmanuel Macron to avoid the wrath of France’s increasingly powerful environmental movement. But according to Le Monde newspaper, the government has also secretly ordered EDF to draw up a feasibility study for six new EPRs built in pairs.
A Labour government in UK would revive Wylfa nuclear power project
|
|
 Labour commits to lagoon and nuclear plant in manifesto, BBC, 21 November 2019Major Welsh projects including a Swansea Bay tidal lagoon would be built if Labour wins the general election, the party’s manifesto says.
Plans for a lagoon were dropped by UK ministers last year, but there have been efforts to revive such a scheme. Stalled plans for a new nuclear power station on Anglesey would also be revived under Labour, the party says……. Earlier this year, the Japanese firm Hitachi said it was suspending work on the £13bn Wylfa Newydd nuclear power project on Anglesey because of rising costs, after six months of talks with UK ministers about funding for the scheme. Labour’s manifesto states the party will “work with people on the island to maximise its potential for new nuclear energy, alongside investment in renewables”…….. What about Brexit? In his speech in Birmingham, Mr Corbyn said he would negotiate a “sensible” Brexit deal with the EU, that protects manufacturing and Northern Ireland’s Good Friday Agreement. Voters would be able to choose between that deal or staying in the EU in a referendum to be held within six months, he said. Mr Corbyn has refused to say which option he will back, although Welsh Labour leader Mark Drakeford says the party in Wales will campaign to keep the UK in the European Union. Recognising this difference between the two leaders on a key issue, the manifesto states “in Wales the Welsh Labour government will campaign to remain”. https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50490159 |
|
UK Labour touts ‘green industrial revolution’, BUT INCLUDES NUCLEAR POWER AS “GREEN”!
 Labour pledges ‘green industrial revolution’ with nuclear power and a digging over of allotment lawsThe environment gets top billing in Labour’s manifesto. The first chapter of their 150 pages of policy pledges is devoted to what Labour are calling a “Green Industrial Revolution”. While they’ve conspicuously dropped a conference pledge of a net zero carbon target by 2030, which most serious analysts warned was impossible to achieve anyway, like the Liberal Democrats and Green Parties they’re planning to borrow big to invest in a low carbon economy. There’s a £250bn “Green Transformation Fund” to massively increase low carbon energy generation, warmer, lower carbon homes and promises to decarbonise heating in buildings — much needed if the UK is going to meet its existing climate change pledges. In a notable departure from Liberal Democrat and Green manifestos, they promise to support nuclear power as a way of ensuring stable electricity supply on a future national grid….. https://www.itv.com/news/2019-11-21/labour-pledges-green-industrial-revolution-with-nuclear-power-and-a-digging-over-of-allotment-laws/ |
|
|
France’s company EDF selling out of USA nuclear plants, Exelon to buy.
EDF Will Bail on Three Nuclear Plants, Exelon Holds the Bag, Power Mag 11/21/2019 | Aaron Larson Exelon Generation said EDF Group—a French integrated electricity company—is exercising a put option to sell its 49.99% interest in the R.E. Ginna, Nine Mile Point, and Calvert Cliffs nuclear energy facilities. The two companies will now begin negotiations for Exelon to acquire full ownership of the plants.
EDF’s involvement in the facilities was through the Constellation Energy Nuclear Group (CENG), a joint venture between it and Constellation Energy, which was negotiated in 2009. Exelon acquired its majority stake in the plants as part of a merger with Constellation Energy, a deal that closed in March 2012.
EDF said the disposal of CENG shares is part of a previously announced non-core-asset disposal plan. The put option could have been exercised by EDF anytime between Jan. 1, 2016, and June 30, 2022. A transaction price will follow from the determination of the fair market value of CENG shares pursuant to the contractual provisions of the put option agreement, EDF said.
…….. The facilities consist of the single-unit 576-MW R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Figure 1) and the dual-unit 1,907-MW Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, which are both in upstate New York, and the dual-unit 1,756-MW Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in Maryland. The upstate New York plants were under economic pressure and faced possible closure a few years ago, but subsidies approved by the state have kept the units financially viable.
For UK elections, top issue is climate change
Climate crisis topping UK election agenda is ‘unprecedented’ change Environmentalists say such political focus on green issues ‘unthinkable’ just five years ago, Guardian, Fiona Harvey Environment correspondent, Fri 22 Nov 2019 The climate emergency has risen to the top of the UK’s election agenda in a way that would have been “unthinkable” even five years ago, leading environmentalists have said, predicting that it augurs a permanent change in British politics.On Wednesday, Labour took the unprecedented move of putting green issues as the top section of its manifesto, the first time one of the UK’s two major parties has done so. Jeremy Corbyn led the appeal to voters with policies including an £11bn windfall tax on oil and gas companies, a million new jobs in a “green industrial revolution” and commitments on moving to a net-zero carbon economy.“Such focus on climate and the environment would have been almost unthinkable five years ago,” said Shaun Spiers, executive director of the Green Alliance. “Tackling climate change runs through this manifesto in a way that is unprecedented from either of the main parties ahead of a UK general election.”
“It would not have been possible five years ago,” said Tom Burke, chairman of environmental thinktank E3G and former adviser to several governments, who said the move marked a permanent change in British politics, as younger voters in particular were “energised” over the environment. Public anxiety had been fuelled by people seeing extreme weather around the world, and the rise of climate activism in movements such as Extinction Rebellion and the school climate strikes reflected that. “The politicians are following the public on this, not the other way round.”
…….. The Liberal Democrats, while focusing on Brexit, have also made the climate emergency a key priority, promising to generate 80% of the UK’s electricity from renewable sources by 2030, to bring forward to 2045 the deadline for net-zero carbon, and to expand electric vehicles and ban fracking. The Green party wants to spend £100bn a year for the next decade on the climate crisis, replacing high-carbon infrastructure and creating jobs…. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/21/climate-crisis-topping-uk-election-agenda-is-unprecedented-change
EDF’s misleading and deficient safety report on Hunterston nuclear station
|
1km emergency zone around cracked reactors will do, says nuclear firm, The Ferret, 22 Nov 19, The power company, EDF Energy, has come under fire for advising that the emergency zone to protect people around its cracked nuclear reactors at Hunterston could be shrunk to a kilometre.The current zone – within which evacuation, sheltering and anti-radiation pills are planned in the event of an accident – is a radius of 2.4 kilometres from the nuclear power station on the Ayrshire coast.
……. Campaigners have criticised EDF’s move, warning that an accident could send a plume of radioactive contamination over Glasgow and Edinburgh. They have called for the emergency zone to be expanded, not contracted. EDF stressed that its advice was that one kilometre was the “minimum” recommended distance. North Ayrshire Council is consulting with local residents before it decides what distance to implement. The Ferret revealed in October that the graphite cores of two ageing nuclear reactors at Hunterston B have begun to crumble as cracks spread and widen. According to the UK government’s Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), at least 58 fragments and pieces of debris have broken off the graphite bricks that make up the reactor cores. The older reactor, three, has an estimated 377 core cracks and has been shut down since 9 March 2018. ONR is assessing the safety case to decide whether it can be allowed to restart in 2020. Reactor four, which has an estimated 209 cracks, was shut down for over ten months before ONR allowed it to restart in August – but only for four months. EDF is currently planning to shut it down again on 10 December……… EDF accepts, however, that food restrictions may be required over a much wider area. “It is recommended that advice be issued within 24 hours to restrict consumption of leafy green vegetables, milk and water from open sources/rain water in all sectors of the detailed emergency planning zone and downwind of the site to a distance of 43km,” it says. …….Campaigners have previously warned that a serious accident at Hunterston could spread a cloud of radioactive contamination over Glasgow, Edinburgh and the central belt, if the wind was blowing in that direction. It could be like the Chernobyl accident in Ukraine in 1986, they claimed. Radiation consultant, Dr Ian Fairlie, described EDF’s report as “deficient” and “misleading”. The suggested emergency zone was “much too small”, he argued, and there was a “lack of openness and clarity” that would leave local people uncertain what to do in the event of a major accident. He added: “The issue of the pre-distribution of prophylactic potassium iodate tablets is not mentioned. This already occurs in most European countries, and should occur here as well in order to avoid the health consequences of breathing in radioactive iodine which is a gas.” Rita Holmes, who chairs Hunterston’s local stakeholder group, pointed out that at the moment only 13 households close to the plant were given iodine tablets in advance. “It would seem a simple precaution and unwise not to pre-distribute within a wider area,” she told The Ferret. “Despite EDF’s assessment, I hope that our local authority, Ayrshire civil contingencies team and ONR will decide to extend the detailed emergency planning zone and pre-distribute stable iodine to people within a wider area. I certainly don’t expect, given the ageing reactor cores, that the zone would be shrunk.” The 50-strong group of nuclear-free local authorities argued it would be “incongruous” if the emergency zone was reduced, given the deterioration of the Hunterston reactors. “Clear question marks remain over their future operation,” said the group’s policy advisor, Peter Roche. In our view the precautionary principle would suggest a much larger emergency planning zone is drawn to provide greater reassurance to the local population.” Friends of the Earth Scotland pointed out that seven years after the explosions at the Fukushima nuclear reactors in Japan in 2011, some areas more than 20 kilometres away were still prohibited zones. “The current Hunterston zone is already very modest in comparison to the very large area which would be affected in the event of a serious accident at the plant,” said the environmental group’s director, Dr Richard Dixon. “With increasing worries about the safety of the reactors at Hunterston now is definitely not the time to reduce the level of protection on offer to the local community,” he argued. “EDF are the last people who should propose what size the exclusion zone should be around their own nuclear sites because it is in their financial and PR interests to make the zone as small as possible.”……..https://theferret.scot/emergency-zone-hunterston-nuclear-reactrors/ |
|
In Germany , renewables replace nuclear and lower emissions simultaneously
Renewables replace nuclear and lower emissions simultaneously Energy Transmission, by Craig Morris, 20 Nov 2019
A myth is haunting the English-speaking world: Germany allegedly shows that emissions rise because renewables can’t replace nuclear – and that France is right to stick with nuclear. What do the data show? Craig Morris reports
It’s not just trolls: Cambridge professors are saying it, and top US journalists are saying it, and a US presidential candidate told it to the New York Times:
“Germany initially set out to close all of its nuclear reactors by 2022, but as a result, they are now likely to miss their emissions reduction targets. And France is now considering options to extend the life of many of its older nuclear power plants.”
— US presidential candidate Marianne Williamson in the New York Times
What’s worse, US policymakers are saying it. Five US states now subsidize nuclear to keep reactors from closing, and it’s possible that all of them have done so based on this incorrect assumption. It happened years ago in New York State with explicit reference to German emissions allegedly rising because of the phase-out, it then happened in Illinois, and as one press report from Ohio put it this year when the new nuclear subsidy was announced:
The experience of Germany was repeatedly used as an example of what might happen in Ohio. Germany decommissioned its nuclear plants in favor of an all-renewable strategy. Electricity prices spiked and carbon pollution spiked, in part because of the ramping up of fossil-fuel plants to compensate for when wind and solar faltered.
“If the studies are correct, the Germans must not know how to do this,” Mr. Randazzo [chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio] said.
“If the studies are correct” indeed: So do Germany and France show that climate change requires nuclear, as Williamson says? Let’s start with France………..
France’s concern is theoretical: they didn’t actually close any reactors and try to replace the power with renewables. Rather, the French left nuclear on, and renewables hardly grew; solar (1.9%) and wind (5.1%) made up a mere 7.5% of French power supply in 2018. (In Germany, solar alone covered 7.7% of demand in 2018, with wind adding another 18.7% for a total of 26.4%). But in Germany, replacing nuclear with renewables isn’t just a postponed political ambition; it’s happening. So what do we know?
Germany emissions during the nuclear phaseout
In 2011, eight of Germany’s 17 reactors were closed. From 2010-2017, emissions in the power sector fell by more than 15%. For 2018, the power sector numbers are not yet in, but emissions from the energy sector fell by nearly two percentage points. And to date in 2019, renewables have nearly reached 50% of power supply. Germany now has some 210 TWh of non-hydro renewable power, far more than the record level of 171 TWh in 2001 for nuclear. Since 2010, renewable power has grown nearly twice as fast as nuclear shrank. Some nine tenths of it is wind and solar alone. Clearly, Germany shows that renewables can reduce emissions during a nuclear phaseout.
At this point, I hear objections. The first: “but Germany is going to miss its 2020 climate target!” Yes, it is expected to reach a 32% emissions reduction, not 40% relative to 1990 (French emissions fell by 15% from 1990-2017 in comparison, albeit from a much lower level thanks to nuclear). But the Germans don’t see the power sector as the main problem. As Deutsche Bank recently put it, “So far, Germany’s efforts… have focused on the electricity sector. However, attention is increasingly shifting towards the transport sector and its steadily rising carbon emissions.” Former Environmental Minister and Christian Democrat Klaus Töpfer recently worded the German consensus well: “We have the highest taxes on electricity although we have reduced emissions there the most.” That’s right: Germany has performed best in the sector where it has removed nuclear and worse in sectors where nuclear plays little or no role: mobility, agriculture, and heat.
The second objection is generally: “Germany would have lowered emissions even more if it had phased out coal, not nuclear.” That’s a fine thing to discuss, but it only moves us from a falsehood (“German phaseout raised emissions”) to revisionist history – not to facts. The revisionist historians act as though renewables would have been built anyway if nuclear remained online. As I wrote in my 50-page paper entitled Can reactors react (2018), the Germans argued a decade ago that renewables were unlikely to be built if nuclear stayed online.
What do the French and German cases show about how much renewable energy gets added when nuclear stays online? The French are also failing to add new nuclear as quickly as its own power company closes old reactors it wishes to keep on. From 2010-2018, wind and solar grew by 27.4 TWh in France, while nuclear shrank by 14.7 TWh (and demand stayed flat). During the same timeframe in Germany, nuclear shrank by 64.6 TWh – but solar and wind alone grew by 91.8 TWh.
The current French situation suggests that, if you remain committed to nuclear, nuclear power nonetheless shrinks; to make matters worse, the growth of renewables struggles to close the gap. Germany suggests that, if you stick with renewables and phase out nuclear, renewables growth outstrips the drop in nuclear nearly twofold, and you reduce emissions by 2 percentage points annually in the power sector. https://energytransition.org/2019/11/renewables-replace-nuclear-and-lower-emissions-simultaneously/
Russian Watchdog Detects ‘Radiation Incident’ in South China Sea
|
Russian Watchdog Detects ‘Radiation Incident’ in South China Sea https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/11/22/russian-watchdog-detects-radiation-incident-in-south-china-sea-a68287
A Rospotrebnadzor statement said radiation levels are not high enough to threaten the Russian population. The Russian government’s consumer protection watchdog Rospotrebnadzor said Friday it has detected a “radiation incident” in the South China Sea.“Based on data received from the Global Environmental Monitoring System, there’s an increase in background radiation in the South China Sea in connection with a radiation incident,” Rospotrebnadzor said in an online statement. It added that the radiation levels did not “currently threaten the Russian population” and that it “has increased its radiation monitoring in the adjacent border areas.” A website run by far-right U.S. talk show radio host Hal Turner claimed Wednesday that unidentified military sources had allegedly detected an underwater nuclear explosion in the area that caused powerful shockwaves. The U.S. tech news website Gizmodo cited two scientists who dismissed the report as fake. Gizmodo reported that uRADMonitor Global Environmental Monitoring Network data used in the initial report registered “negligible” radiation and noted that two other agencies in the region showed normal radiation readings. Military analysts reported Saturday that an 11,000-ton Chinese nuclear missile submarine had surfaced among Vietnamese fishing boats in the South China Sea in September. |
|
|
Swedish accusations against Assange – always a political motive on behalf of USA
We need to ask ourselves why the focus is not on the crimes perpetrated by those involved in war crimes. Why is an Australian citizen being subjected to US espionage laws even though he was never on US soil? More importantly, why should an Australian citizen have allegiance to the US?
The Swedish case against Assange was always political, https://www.theage.com.au/national/the-swedish-case-against-assange-was-always-political-20191120-p53cgs.html,By Greg Barns and Alysia Brooks, November 20, 2019 It is almost a decade since Julian Assange woke to discover, on the front page of a Swedish newspaper, that Swedish authorities had decided to pursue him on allegations of sexual misconduct. Immediately, Julian presented himself to the police station to make a statement and clear his name. After speaking with prosecutors, he was told he could leave the country; so he did.
Currently, Assange is held on remand in Belmarsh prison, in conditions that are exacerbating his already fragile health, and impeding his ability to prepare his defence. He is facing unprecedented charges under the US Espionage Act, for allegedly carrying out actions that journalists and publishers engage in as a part of their work. He is facing 175 years – an effective death sentence – for allegedly engaging in journalism.
And let’s not forget the material that was exposed by WikiLeaks. The releases included evidence of war crimes, including torture and unlawful killings, perpetrated during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the Guantanamo files, which demonstrated that the majority of men, and children, were being held and tortured at the prison, even though they were innocent of any crime.
We need to ask ourselves why the focus is not on the crimes perpetrated by those involved in war crimes. Why is an Australian citizen being subjected to US espionage laws even though he was never on US soil? More importantly, why should an Australian citizen have allegiance to the US?
Greg Barns is a barrister and adviser to the Australian Assange Campaign. Dr Alysia Brooks is a human rights and due process advocate.
France’s nuclear company EDF – report – a litany of failures
EDF gives Macron little reason to come clean on nuclear, Problems at a flagship nuclear reactor means French government can take time over future of EDF. BEN HALL 20 Nov 19
The earthquake that shook the Rhone valley in south-east France last week could have been another financial disaster for energy giant EDF in what has been a bruising year. Its share price has taken a battering over concerns that it will struggle to pay for the upkeep of its ageing fleet of reactors, find money to build new ones and service its €37bn of net debt. The worries have been amplified by further delays and cost overruns at the mammoth nuclear plant it is building on the Normandy coast. The Rhone valley is home to four of the country’s 19 atomic power stations and a nuclear fuel processing facility, all operated by EDF. The tremor was the worst to hit France in 16 years. Three reactors at Cruas had to be shut down until mid-December for mandatory safety checks. ……..
…………The failures at Flamanville have given Paris reason to withhold the clarity EDF needs — even if Mr Macron’s regards the nuclear industry as a strategic asset for France and Europe. The risks of nuclear power to health and safety and the costs of decommissioning and waste storage may be overblown, as Jonathan Ford has argued in this column. But if the more basic challenge of building vaguely on time or on budget cannot be met, nuclear energy soon loses its appeal. ben.hall@ft.com https://www.ft.com/content/adbe9da6-0ab8-11ea-bb52-34c8d9dc6d84
Irish wind power for France, as France’s EDF nuclear electricity is in a financial mess
Interconnector gives Ireland a stake in France’s fraught nuclear debate https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/interconnector-gives-ireland-a-stake-in-france-s-fraught-nuclear-debate-1.4086989
The bill for modernising 54 ageing reactors is currently estimated at €100bn, Nov 19, 2019, Tony Kinsella In October 2nd, 2018, the European Commission agreed to provide €530 million (56 per cent of the total cost) for an Ireland-France 700MW Celtic electricity interconnector. France can export cheap base-load nuclear electricity surpluses along this interconnector, while Irish wind-generated power can flow in the opposite direction.
However, French nuclear policy is a mess. The bill for modernising its ageing reactors is currently estimated at €100 billion, a figure that can only rise.
France’s first commercial nuclear plants were commissioned in the 1960s. Construction was boosted following the 1974 oil shock, with 54 pressurised water reactors (PWR) commissioned between 1978-1991, with a programmed life span of 40 years.
The ageing reactors are due to be replaced by EPR reactors jointly developed by France’s Areva and Siemens of Germany. EPR is third-generation pressurised water reactor technology.
The first EPR project was the 2005 Olkiluoto 3 plant in Finland, followed by the 2007 Flamanville plant in Normandy, France. They will both take four times as long to build and cost between three and four times their original estimates – Olkiluoto is due to start operating from 2020 having cost nearly €9 billion and Flamanville in 2023 for €12.4 billion.
The world’s first two operational EPR reactors opened in Taishan, China, last year. These two 1,750MW plants cost €3.5 billion each, and took nine years to build.
On October 28th, the French government received a damning 34-page report on the Flamanville nuclear project. Jean-Martin Folz, former head of carmaker Peugeot, was, at the behest of the government, tasked by Électricité de France (EDF) with producing a “no-holds barred” review of the Flamanville project in July 2019. He submitted a chillingly realistic report.
Some key elements of the Flamanville plant are defective. Repairing or replacing them will involve partial demolition of the plant. It might now prove cheaper to simply abandon it.
Wasted away
At the heart of the problem is that Europe’s once highly-skilled nuclear industry has wasted away since the 1990s. We no longer have enough experienced nuclear contractors, engineers, welders and technicians. This problem also bedevils the €22 billion Hinkley Point project in the UK.
Despite this EDF remains committed to new plants. Le Monde published an internal EDF note on November 9th on the company’s plans to build a further six EPR plants for €7 billion apiece.
The French minister for energy, Élisabeth Borne, moved quickly to publicly distanced herself from this position. She told the Political Questions show on national television that it was “not a view I share”.
Borne, an engineer and former head of the Paris RATP transit authority, went on to underline that the “option of 100 per cent renewable electricity had not been sufficiently studied”.
Borne is a respected technocrat. When she calls on EDF to “reflect on its role in a 100 per cent renewable situation” she means business.
She confirmed that no decisions on nuclear plants would be taken before mid-2021, and that “no new nuclear plants will be approved until Flamanville is operational”.
France has fallen behind in the installation of renewable power. Successive governments have chopped and changed in their approaches, denying renewable developers clear long-term perspectives. Less than 40 per cent of projects approved under a national tendering system since 2010 have actually been built.
President Giscard d’Estaing argued in 1974 that ‘France does not have oil but it has ideas’. Macron now needs to embrace ‘ideas’
Planning approval systems where every project is processed separately on a narrow basis create an additional obstacle. The fact that certain project technology has been approved in, say, Normandy offers no guarantee that an identical project will get the go-ahead in Burgundy.
Full planning approval on a very restricted technical basis takes over five years. Minor changes in processes and equipment can mean that planning approval is no longer valid, and the developer has to either begin again or abandon the project. This has been fatal for many renewable projects where available technologies evolve between the planning application and construction.
Cumbersome and therefore expensive procedures act as barriers to local projects and the involvement of regional and local authorities or co-operatives.
Administrative culture
Realisation of significant renewable energy projects in France will require a shift in French administrative culture. The financial costs may be relatively low, but more than one reform has foundered on the rocks of French administrative immobility.
If France is to expand its renewable sector from its current 18 per cent it needs to achieve two things – boost the European transmission grid and simplify procedures for renewable energies in France.
The French government needs to decide just what kind of electricity mix it wants, what France needs, and what the French electorate will accept by mid-2021, with the debate closed by the May 2022 presidential elections.
Paris could decide on a number of new EPR plants for around €10 billion apiece, invest to extend the working life of its current reactors, or significantly facilitate renewable energies and storage capacity.
President Giscard d’Estaing argued in 1974 that “France does not have oil but it has ideas”. Macron now needs to embrace “ideas”.
One 700MW connector can almost replace one nuclear reactor. A second Franco-Irish interconnector could now be on the cards.
Tony Kinsella is an entrepreneur and commentator. He divides his time between Ireland and southwest France
UK’s Liberal Democrat leader criticised for her willingness to use nuclear weapons
Sickening’: Jo Swinson condemned for unhesitatingly saying she would use nuclear weapons, CND attacks ‘disgraceful response’, saying: ‘Not even a moment’s hesitation about the prospect of killing millions of people’ Independent, Rob MerrickDeputy Political Editor @Rob_Merrick, 20 Nov 19
Jo Swinson has been criticised for trying to pass a “virility test” after saying she would be willing to press the nuclear button if she becomes prime minister.
The Liberal Democrat leader was asked if she would “ever be prepared to use a nuclear weapon”, answering with a single word: “Yes.”
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament attacked the “disgraceful response”, saying: “Not even a moment’s hesitation about the prospect of killing millions of people. We need better than this.”
And Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish National Party leader, said: “It’s sickening to hear this question asked and answered as if it’s some kind of virility test and without any context.
“Using nuclear weapons would mean killing millions of people. Those consequences should be made clear.”
But a Lib Dem spokesman defended Ms Swinson’s answer, saying: “We support multilateral disarmament, but if you have a nuclear deterrent and tell everyone you won’t use it, it ceases to be a deterrent.”
The controversy comes after Labour got into difficulty over its stance on the UK’s Trident nuclear submarines. It is party policy to retain them – but Jeremy Corbyn has previously said he would not use them.
Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, said Labour would “work collectively” on how to respond to a nuclear threat.
The Lib Dem general election manifesto is expected to back maintaining “a minimum nuclear deterrent”, while pursuing international talks to achieve multilateral disarmament.
When in office, in the Cameron-Clegg coalition, the party pledged to put forward alternatives to scale down the Trident fleet, but the idea came to nothing.
Defence experts have suggested that the number of Vanguard submarines could be reduced, ending so-called ‘continuous at sea deterrence’, without putting the UK at risk.
However, little has been heard about the idea from the Lib Dems since Nick Harvey was sacked from his defence post in the coalition in 2012.
On the campaign trail, Mr Corbyn has also declined to rule out scrapping Trident as part of any post-election arrangement with the SNP.
The Labour leader said that, as prime minister, he would seek to revive non-proliferation talks with other nations, with the UK’s nuclear weapons on the table.
Asked whether he would agree to scrap Trident if the SNP insisted on that as the price of backing a Labour government in a hung parliament, Mr Corbyn said: “I think the SNP would actually agree with me, and indeed in the past they certainly have, that the priority has to be giving realism to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.”
Ms Thornberry, asked if Mr Corbyn would press the button, replied: “I suspect that the way that Jeremy makes decisions is that he takes advice and that we work collectively.”
Social media is an increasingly important battle ground in elections – and home to many questionable claims pumped out by all sides. If social media sites won’t investigate the truth of divisive advertising, we will. Please send any political Facebook advertising you receive to digitaldemocracy@independent.co.uk, and we will catalogue and investigate it. Read more here.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jo-swinson-nuclear-weapon-button-war-lib-dems-election-debate-a9210456.html
If Julian Assange is extradited to the United States, journalism will be incarcerated, too
JOHN PILGER: Assange’s case will define the future of free journalism, https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/john-pilger-assanges-case-will-define-the-future-of-free-journalism,13324 By John Pilger | 18 November 2019 John Pilger describes the disturbing scene inside a London courtroom last week when the WikiLeaks publisher, Julian Assange, appeared at the start of a landmark extradition case that will define the future of free journalism.
THE WORST MOMENT was one of a number of “worst” moments. I have sat in many courtrooms and seen judges abuse their positions. This judge, Vanessa Baraitser – actually she isn’t a judge at all; she’s a magistrate – shocked all of us who were there.
Her face was a progression of sneers and imperious indifference; she addressed Julian Assange with an arrogance that reminded me of a magistrate presiding over apartheid South Africa’s Race Classification Board. When Julian struggled to speak, he couldn’t get words out, even stumbling over his name and date of birth.
When he spoke truth and when his barrister spoke, Baraister contrived boredom; when the prosecuting barrister spoke, she was attentive. She had nothing to do; it was demonstrably preordained. In the table in front of us were a handful of American officials, whose directions to the prosecutor were carried by his — back and forth this young woman went, delivering instructions.
Having ignored Julian’s barrister’s factual description of how the CIA had run a Spanish security firm that spied on him in the Ecuadorean embassy, she didn’t yawn, but her disinterest was as expressive. She then denied Julian’s lawyers any more time to prepare their case — even though their client was prevented in prison from receiving legal documents and other tools with which to defend himself.
Her knee in the groin was to announce that the next court hearing would be at remote Woolwich, which adjoins Belmarsh Prison and has few seats for the public. This will ensure isolation and be as close to a secret trial as it’s possible to get. Did this happen in the home of the Magna Carta? Yes, but who knew?
Who will then dare to expose anything of importance, let alone the high crimes of the West? Who will dare publish ‘Collateral Murder’? Who will dare tell the public that democracy, such as it is, has been subverted by a corporate authoritarianism from which fascism draws its strength?
Once there were spaces, gaps, boltholes, in mainstream journalism in which mavericks, who are the best journalists, could work. These are long closed now. The hope is the samizdat on the internet, where fine disobedient journalism is still practised.
The greater hope is that a judge or even judges in Britain’s court of appeal, the High Court, will rediscover justice and set him free. In the meantime, it’s our responsibility to fight in ways we know but which now require more than a modicum of Julian Assange’s courage.
Hinkley Point C nuclear, a super-expensive project for a dubious short term gain
This is the West Country 17th Nov 2019, Stop Hinkley spokesman Roy Pumfrey questions whether the economic boost from Hinkley C is worth the cost I get tired of reading how easily impressed councillors are when they visit the giant incomplete building site that is HPC.“biggest economic boost” is necessarily a good thing when it is also hugely
problematic and costly for anyone not directly involved? In our case,
economic growth also means a host of problems. There are more traffic jams
all around gridlocked Bridgwater. I’d like to travel from Bridgwater to
Taunton using the Taunton Road, but that simply adds 30 minutes to the
journey time.
schedule.
\ them to the reality of the massive hazard an untried new nuclear power
station running adjacent to her constituency represents.
Jeremy Corbyn could scrap UK’s nuclear weapons, in deal with Scottish National Party
 Jeremy Corbyn suggests he could SCRAP Britain’s nuclear weapons as the SNP demands he ‘gets rid’ of Trident missiles to win its backing in a government coalition, Daily Mail Labour leader said he wanted to add ‘realism’ to nuclear non-proliferation treaty
By DAVID WILCOCK, WHITEHALL CORRESPONDENT FOR MAILONLINE 18 November 2019 Jeremy Corbyn today suggested he would be prepared to give up the UK’s nuclear weapons after the SNP signalled it would be part of their price for propping up his future government. The Labour leader said he wanted to add ‘realism’ to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NNPT), with discussions about ‘every country’s nuclear weapons’. He also had a dig at Nato, disagreeing with a claim last week by General Sir Nick Carter, the professional head of the British Army, that the alliance was the most successful in history. His BBC interview came after the Scottish National Party’s Westminster leader Ian Blackford had said the upcoming election was ‘an opportunity to get rid of Trident’ – the UK’s atomic missile system…… The SNP has made removing Britain’s nuclear submarine fleet – based on the Clyde – out of Scotland a mainstay of its party policy. And Mr Corbyn, a former chairman of the Stop the War Coalition, has long opposed Britain’s nuclear weapons programme…. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7694603/Now-SNP-demands-Jeremy-Corbyn-scrap-Britains-NUCLEAR-WEAPONS-win-votes-coalition.html |
|
1 This Month
1 June Webinar – The High Cost of Nuclear Power – Register
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (243)
- 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 