nuclear-news

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

Sizewell C nuclear station ‘absolutely not inevitable’ says campaigner – Can investors be found?

The official cost of Sizewell C has been put at £20bn by the government, but many observers expect the final bill to be much higher due to increased building costs.

who would want to invest in an expensive project which will take 12 years to build, with no guarantee of a return for many more years?

Andrew Sinclair – Political editor, BBC East, Sun, 12 May 2024  https://au.news.yahoo.com/sizewell-c-absolutely-not-inevitable-091834059.html

A leading campaigner against the Sizewell C nuclear power station has said its construction is still not inevitable.

The planned energy plant, on the Suffolk coast, has just been granted its nuclear site licence.

But Alison Downes, director of campaign group Stop Sizewell C, has questioned whether the government will be able to attract enough private investment.

Ministers, who have already contributed £2.5bn to the project, have said they remain committed to the scheme.

The decision to grant Sizewell C a nuclear site licence on 7 May was described by the project team and local business groups as a “huge milestone”.

It came just months after the government granted a Development Consent Order to Sizewell C and pledged further funding to the project. Ministers have regularly referred to Sizewell C when discussing the country’s nuclear programme.

Andrew Bowie, Minister for Nuclear and Renewables, said: “Sizewell C will be the cornerstone of the UK’s clean energy transition, supplying six million homes with green energy for decades.”

But despite plenty of signs that the project could be coming closer to reality, Alison Downes insisted on BBC Politics East that “it’s absolutely not inevitable”.

“We still don’t know who is going to pay for it. The government is trying to raise funds at the moment, but there’s no guarantee it’ll be successful,” she said.

The government agreed to take a 50% stake in the development of Sizewell C after concerns about the involvement of Chinese investors and it is looking for investors to help fund the project.

Can investors be found?

The official cost of Sizewell C has been put at £20bn by the government, but many observers expect the final bill to be much higher due to increased building costs.

The prime minister told me last year that there had already been “encouraging early interest” from people wanting to invest.

But campaigners have questioned who would want to invest in an expensive project which will take 12 years to build, with no guarantee of a return for many more years.

Ms Downes, who also has concerns about the safety of the site from rising sea levels and the project’s impact on local habitats, said: “A lot of taxpayers’ money has gone into a project that has no absolute certainty of whether or not it’s going ahead.”

The argument for nuclear

But Richard Rout, the deputy leader of Suffolk County Council, told BBC Politics East that the demand for more homegrown green energy meant that Sizewell was essential.

“I think Sizewell C is now at a point where it has to happen. We need nuclear in this country to give us energy independence,” he said.

“We are now seeing Sizewell C move forward and for me [the priority now] is about minimising the impacts on the local community and maximising the benefits.”

But Alison Downes pledged to “absolutely keep fighting” .

A final decision on whether to go ahead with the project is expected to be taken by energy company EDF towards the end of 2024.

May 13, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

The United States Is Expected to Announce a New $400 Million Package of Weapons for Ukraine

Associated Press | By Lolita C. Baldor and Matthew Lee,  May 10, 2024, https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/05/10/united-states-expected-announce-new-400-million-package-of-weapons-ukraine.html

WASHINGTON — The U.S. is expected to announce a new $400 million package of military aid for Ukraine on Friday, U.S. officials said, as Kyiv struggles to hold off advances by Russian troops in the northeast Kharkiv region.

This is the third tranche of aid for Ukraine since Congress passed supplemental funding in late April after months of gridlock. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had warned Thursday that his country was facing “a really difficult situation” in the east, but said a new supply of U.S. weapons was coming and “we will be able to stop them.”

According to officials, the package includes High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems and rockets for them, as well as artillery, air defense and anti-tank munitions, armored vehicles and other weapons and equipment. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the aid has not yet been announced. It will be provided through presidential drawdown authority, which pulls systems and munitions from existing U.S. stockpiles so they can be sent quickly to the war front.

Almost immediately after President Joe Biden signed the $95 billion foreign aid package, the Pentagon announced it was sending $1 billion in weapons through that drawdown authority,. And just days later the Biden administration announced a $6 billion package funded through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which pays for longer-term contracts with the defense industry and means that the weapons could take many months or years to arrive.

Russia has sought to exploit Ukraine’s shortages of ammunition and manpower as the flow of Western supplies since the outbreak of the war petered out while Congress struggled to pass the bill. Moscow has assembled large troop concentrations in the east as well as in the north and has been gaining an edge on the battlefield, Zelenskyy said.

Officials did not say if the latest package includes more of the long-range ballistic missiles — known as the Army Tactical Missile System — that Ukraine has repeatedly requested. The U.S. secretly sent a number of the missiles to Ukraine for the first time this spring and the White House has said it would send more. In one case, Ukraine used them to bomb a Russian military airfield in Crimea.

The new missiles give Ukraine nearly double the striking distance — up to 300 kilometers (190 miles) — than it had with the mid-range version of the weapon that it received from the U.S. in October.

May 13, 2024 Posted by | Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

South Korean state energy monopoly in talks to build new UK nuclear plant.

Kepco has held early-stage discussions with British officials over
mothballed Wylfa site. South Korea’s state energy monopoly is in talks
with the UK government about building a new nuclear power station off the
coast of Wales, in what could be a big boost to Britain’s plans for a new
nuclear fleet.

Kepco has held early-stage discussions with British
officials about a new facility at the Wylfa site in Anglesey, and a
ministerial meeting is expected this coming week, according to people
briefed on the matter.

In his March Budget, chancellor Jeremy Hunt
announced the government would buy the mothballed site and another from
Hitachi for £160mn. In 2019, the Japanese industrial group scrapped its
plans to develop a nuclear project at Wylfa, writing off £2.1bn in the
process.

Hunt’s move was designed to facilitate a fresh deal with a new
private sector partner to build a power station at Wylfa, which could boost
the government’s plans to replace Britain’s current ageing fleet of
nuclear power stations.

A consortium including US construction group
Bechtel and US nuclear company Westinghouse has already proposed building a
new plant on the Wylfa site using Westinghouse’s AP1000 reactor
technology.

Another industry figure said Wylfa’s future would depend on a
decision by GB Nuclear, the government quango which now owns the site. GBN
could give the go-ahead for a large reactor or reactors at Wylfa or judge
that it is a suitable site for building a cluster of new “small modular
reactors”.

Supporters of SMRs claim their modular design would make them
relatively quick and cheap to build. “Wylfa is now the next priority site
for the UK so it makes sense that Kepco are interested, but they just need
GBN to make a decision soon about whether they do want a traditional
nuclear power station there,” the figure said.

One senior Korean
government official struck a cautious note about the prospect of Kepco
buying the site, saying that building nuclear power stations in the UK was
“difficult”.

 FT 12th May 2024

https://www.ft.com/content/3404a203-158e-4fe1-9f5d-f5fb64032ffc

May 12, 2024 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, South Korea, UK | Leave a comment

Fixation on UK nuclear power may not help to solve climate crisis

Waste and cost among drawbacks, as researchers say renewables could power UK entirely

Paul Brown 10 May 24,  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/10/fixation-on-nuclear-power-in-uk-may-not-help-to-solve-climate-crisis

In the battle to prevent the climate overheating, wind and solar are making impressive inroads into the once dominant market share of coal. Even investors in gas plants are increasingly seen as taking a gamble.

With researchers at Oxford and elsewhere agreeing that the UK could easily become entirely powered by wind and solar – with no fossil fuels required – it seems an anomaly that nuclear power is still getting the lion’s share of taxpayer subsidies to keep the ailing industry alive.

Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic are backing as yet unproven small modular reactors (SMRs) as an indispensable part of the answer to the climate crisis and are running competitions to get this industry started. These reactors, from tiny ones of the type that power nuclear submarines, to scaled-up versions that can, in theory, be factory produced and built in relays to provide steady power, are all still in the design stage.

As the Union of Concerned Scientists in the United States points out, whichever model is chosen they have all the drawbacks of existing nuclear power stations; expensive, even without cost overruns, and the still unsolved waste problem. The biggest disadvantage, the group says, is that even if the technology worked it would be too little, too late, to keep the climate safe.

May 12, 2024 Posted by | climate change, politics, UK | Leave a comment

France wants to extend its nuclear umbrella to Europe. But is Macron ready to trade Paris for Helsinki?

Bulletin By Carine Guerout, Jason Moyer | May 10, 2024

Europe’s reliance on US nuclear weapons has been at the heart of the transatlantic security relationship, and so has been the protection that the old continent gets from being part of the NATO alliance and its powerful Article 5. Now, the debate about nuclear deterrence for the European Union is back at the forefront, in part due to the prospects of a reticent United States under a possible second Trump presidency and a resurgent Russia increasingly threatening to use nuclear weapons.

NATO, as a nuclear alliance, relies heavily on US nuclear warheads stationed in Europe for its deterrence. The United Kingdom and France are Europe’s only nuclear powers: Although part of NATO, they maintain independent control over their own nuclear arsenals. In the past, the European Union has been reluctant—or incapable—of providing nuclear deterrence. But the uncertain security environment in Europe has recently led the Union to strengthen its previously neglected security pillar—and, with it, caused some political leaders to become more vocal about nuclear weapons.

In recent weeks, France’s President Emmanuel Macron, in his classic disrupting style, has openly called for debate in Europe over using his country’s nuclear capabilities to defend the continent. In Macron’s view the uncertainty over future US engagement in Europe is forcing the European Union to decide whether it needs a nuclear deterrent of its own—and suggests France may help with this. But it is not clear whether France would be willing—and capable—of extending its nuclear umbrella to the rest of the Union. For this to happen, France would need to address multiple issues, starting with explaining whether it would retain full decision-making over its arsenal, exploring the limitations of its current stockpile of nuclear weapons, and weighing the impact such a decision would have on NATO and its relations with the United States and its fellow EU member states.

Macron’s insistence. Since the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union in 2020‚—popularly known as “Brexit”—France has become the Union’s only country with nuclear weapons. France possesses approximately 290 nuclear weapons (the world’s fourth arsenal in terms of stockpiles warheads behind Russia, the United States, and China). Ever since French President Charles de Gaulle’s famous questioning of US nuclear assurances in 1961— which led France to develop its own nuclear deterrence force—France has historically seen itself as an independent force counterbalancing that of the United States in Europe. This spirit persists today: France still does not participate in NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group and remains one of the Western allies most in favor of nuclear deterrence. France’s independent deterrence strengthens NATO overall because it complicates the calculus of adversaries. Although nuclear deterrence has been a cornerstone of NATO’s deterrence posture, the same cannot be said of the European Union: Many member states remain uncertain about the role of nuclear weapons in defense planning.

The debate over the nuclear readiness of the EU is not new. Traditionally, the holdout to developing a so-called “Eurobomb” has been Germany. In recent years, a growing number of German policy makers have asked the previously unthinkable question of whether it should possess its own nuclear weapons. The German public remains unconvinced, however: Even after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, 90 percent of Germans still reject the idea of their country developing a nuclear weapons program and it seems unlikely the German public will dramatically pivot toward a Eurobomb. Traditionally neutral EU countries such as Ireland, Malta, and Austria are not likely to be willing to support the bomb either: All three are signatories to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), also known as the ban treaty, and would likely block any attempt to extend France’s nuclear arsenal to Europe…………………………………………………………………………………………..

Easier said than done. To move forward with his proposal, President Macron will need to answer at least three critical questions about the politics and logistics of a European-level nuclear weapon sharing arrangement. First, France will need to clarify whether it wants to retain full decision-making power over its nuclear arsenal. ……………………………………..

Second, it is not clear how France could realistically provide nuclear deterrence to the entire Union. French nuclear forces have limited capabilities, with a much smaller and less diversified arsenal than that of other major nuclear powers, and its nuclear deterrence has been developed for a strictly defensive purpose. France partially disarmed its nuclear arsenal in the 1990s after the Cold War, reducing its nuclear stockpiles from 600 warheads to just under 300……………………………………………………………

In practice, the idea of a French nuclear umbrella for Europe also raises a third question for Macron: How to embed the French nuclear armament into existing European structures and how this shift would complement NATO’s capabilities in Europe…………………………………………………………………….  https://thebulletin.org/2024/05/france-wants-to-extend-its-nuclear-umbrella-to-europe-but-is-macron-ready-to-trade-paris-for-helsinki/

May 12, 2024 Posted by | France, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Polish industry minister announces massive delay in nuclear power plant project

The anticipated opening of Poland’s first nuclear power plant may be postponed by up to seven years, with the new operation date set for 2039-2040, significantly later than previously planned.

BYGRZEGORZ ADAMCZYK 9 May 24  https://rmx.news/article/polish-industry-minister-announces-massive-delay-in-nuclear-power-plant-project/

Polish Industry Minister Marzena Czarnecka stated that the country’s first nuclear power facility is now expected to become operational in 2040, a seven-year delay from initial estimates.

The adjustment comes as a shock following Deputy Minister of Climate and Environment Miłosz Motyka’s earlier suggestion that only a one-year delay was likely in the nuclear plant’s preparation process. However, it has now become evident that the setbacks will be much more severe.

Minister Czarnecka, in an interview with Polish Radio on Tuesday, announced that the first nuclear unit in Poland would commence operations in 2039-2040, criticizing the previous government’s 2033 target as unrealistic. She highlighted what she said was her pragmatic approach, acknowledging that “all investments are subject to certain delays” and marked 2039 as a “breakthrough year” for the Choczewo nuclear plant.

The postponement in the completion of the next major investment after the Central Communication Port (CPK) transport hub has left energy specialists frozen in place. Immediately, voices began to arise that if Poland does not manage to complete the power plant by 2035, an energy disaster awaits the country.

As news of delays in implementing nuclear power in Poland began to heat up in the media and on the web, the minister decided to speak again and clarify what she had said the day before. In response to a publication on Energetyka24.pl, she noted that by mentioning 2039, she was referring to the complete end of construction of the first nuclear power plant. Minister Czarnecka also provided a planned work schedule, which assumes that physical construction will begin in 2028, and the first energy block will be put into operation by 2035. By 2039, the next two blocks are to be connected to the grid.

Recent weeks have also seen rumors of a potential change in location for Poland’s inaugural nuclear facility, which, according to Łukasz Młynarkiewicz, vice-president of Polish Nuclear Power Plants, would not invalidate previous decisions or halt preparatory work at the current site.

However, a relocation could mean additional years of delay. Experts already consider the Polish nuclear energy project to be about two years behind schedule, with every month of delay further widening the gap.

Media reports have also surfaced about requests for re-evaluation of the environmental decision concerning Poland’s first nuclear plant. These requests, submitted to the General Directorate for Environmental Protection (GDOŚ), have come from several environmental organizations and individuals, whose identities remain protected for privacy reasons.

May 11, 2024 Posted by | ENERGY, EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

Moscow threatens to strike British military facilities following Cameron’s remarks

U.K. foreign secretary’s words confirm London’s growing involvement in military operations on the side of Kyiv, according to the Kremlin.

Politico, BY PIERRE EMMANUEL NGENDAKUMANA, 6 May 24

Russia said on Monday it could strike British military installations and equipment both “inside and beyond” Ukraine if British weapons are used by Kyiv to attack its territory.

“Any British military facilities and equipment on the territory of Ukraine and beyond could be a response to Ukrainian strikes with the use of British weapons on the territory of Russia,” the Russian ministry of foreign affairs said in a statement.

The Kremlin also summoned the British Ambassador to Moscow “to express a strong protest” in connection with recent comments by U.K. Foreign Secretary David Cameron……………………….

Cameron told Reuters last week that Ukraine has the “right” to use British-supplied weapons to strike Russia inside its own territory.

“Russian side views Cameron’s words as evidence of a serious escalation and confirmation of London’s growing involvement in military operations on the side of Kyiv,” according to the Russian foreign affairs ministry……………………

Earlier on Monday, Russia announced it has started preparing for nuclear weapons exercises, accusing Western officials of making “provocative statements and threats” by deepening their support for Ukraine.  https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-threaten-strike-british-military-facility-david-camerons-remark-war-ukraine/

May 11, 2024 Posted by | Russia, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear lobby infiltrates West Lakes Academy and the Energy Coast University Technical College  

 West Cumbrian students challenged to design nuclear decommissioning robots 

Business Crack, by Adam Lewis, May 9, 2024

West Cumbrian youngsters have been tasked by the Robotics and AI Collaboration (RAICo) and the Industrial Solutions Hub (iSH) to design and build robots which will be showcased at a major robotics and artificial intelligence industry event. 

The students, aged between 16 and 18 from West Lakes Academy and the Energy Coast University Technical College are taking part in the challenge, with the aim of each school developing a small robot capable of transporting a mock nuclear waste barrel. 

…………………..The RAICo-supported event is designed to showcase the region’s RAI capability and offers a chance for students to network with industry professionals, listen to keynote speeches and find out about career opportunities in the sector. 

………..RAICo is a collaboration between the UK Atomic Energy Authority, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), Sellafield Ltd and the University of Manchester.  

……..Sophie Finlinson, project manager at RAICo said: “This educational outreach initiative offers practical exposure to students interested in STEM subjects. It could represent a pivotal step in someone’s journey towards a successful career in our industry. …………………………..  https://businesscrack.co.uk/2024/05/09/west-cumbrian-students-challenged-to-design-nuclear-decommissioning-robots/

May 11, 2024 Posted by | Education, UK | Leave a comment

The UK makes licensing for nuclear fusion easier: developers can lead site selection

Fusion plants will not be subject to the same nuclear site licensing
process as fission reactors, with the UK government instead proposing
developer-led site selection and their designation as nationally
significant infrastructure projects.

World Nuclear News 9th May 2024

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UK-consults-on-new-planning-process-for-fusion-rea

May 11, 2024 Posted by | technology, UK | Leave a comment

NATO escalation in Ukraine threatens nuclear war with Russia

Now, however, Macron says NATO aims not to seek a negotiated peace, but to force the Russian military to assume that NATO may adopt the most aggressive possible policy. This includes possibly launching not only a large-scale land invasion of Russia, but also—since France, Britain and the United States all refuse to rule out initiating the use of nuclear weapons in a war—a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Russian forces in Ukraine or on Russian cities.

It is high time for Biden and his NATO colleagues to tell the people that their pursuit of “victory in Ukraine” means risking nuclear war

Alex Lantier, 6 May 2024 https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2024/05/07/qtgn-m07.html

There are growing indications that NATO’s war against Russia is entering a new stage of escalation that threatens to lead to the use of nuclear weapons. Top NATO officials are publicly talking about resorting to missile strikes and ground war against Russia, while Russian officials are warning they may launch counter-strikes on NATO countries.

Last week, 100 artillerymen and surveillance specialists of the French Foreign Legion were deployed to the front lines at Slavyansk in Ukraine, according to a report by former US Undersecretary for Defense Stephen Bryen in the Asia Times. Bryen said a further 1,500 French Foreign Legionnaires could soon deploy to Ukraine. He wrote that one consequence of this is “potentially triggering a pan-European war.”

While the French Foreign Ministry denied Bryen’s report, it is in line with President Emmanuel Macron’s previous calls for a ground war with Russia. Macron and other top NATO officials are now reasserting these comments in an aggressive press campaign. Last week, in The Economist, Macron again demanded that NATO be ready to send ground troops to Ukraine:

If the Russians were to break through the front lines, if there were a Ukrainian request—which is not the case today—we would legitimately have to ask ourselves this question.

This weekend, the Italian daily La Repubblica reported on further NATO war plans. It cited secret NATO agreements allegedly defining two “red lines,” Belarus’ entry into the war and a Russian “provocation” targeting Poland, Hungary or the Baltic States. If either of these “red lines” were crossed, NATO would mobilize 100,000 troops across Eastern Europe, from the Baltic states to Romania.

Also, last Thursday, UK Foreign Minister David Cameron went to Kiev, where he said Ukraine has the “absolute right” to use British long-range missiles to bomb Russia.

This weekend, Macron told the French financial newspaper La Tribune that NATO must create total uncertainty about its actions in Russia’s military command:

President Putin has constantly brandished the nuclear threat. Faced with such an adversary, it is such an act of weakness to give a priori limits on one’s own actions! We must on the contrary deny him any idea of what we might do. This is how we can deter him from taking action.

Macron’s statements illustrate the mood of utter recklessness prevailing in ruling circles. During the Cold War, US and Soviet officials installed an emergency hotline between the White House and the Kremlin, fearing that nuclear war could erupt accidentally if one side misread the intentions of the other and believed the opponent had launched a nuclear strike. On September 26, 1983, this nearly occurred, when Soviet early warning systems falsely indicated that US forces had launched nuclear missiles at the Soviet Union.

Now, however, Macron says NATO aims not to seek a negotiated peace, but to force the Russian military to assume that NATO may adopt the most aggressive possible policy. This includes possibly launching not only a large-scale land invasion of Russia, but also—since France, Britain and the United States all refuse to rule out initiating the use of nuclear weapons in a war—a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Russian forces in Ukraine or on Russian cities.

Whether or not French troops are already deployed in Ukraine, the Kremlin is clearly taking these reports seriously. The “strategic ambiguity” Macron said he wanted to build in NATO relations with Russia has been established. Increasingly convinced that NATO may catastrophically escalate the conflict, Russian officials are calling to prepare the most drastic measures in response, creating conditions for a disastrous escalatory spiral in the war.

Yesterday, the Kremlin announced that it would hold military exercises simulating the use of nuclear weapons. Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov called the nuclear exercises a response to an “unprecedented stage in the escalation of tensions initiated by the French president and the British foreign secretary,” including “an intention to send armed contingents to Ukraine—that is, to actually put NATO soldiers in front of Russian troops.”

Extraordinary warnings emerged after the Russian foreign ministry summoned the British and French ambassadors yesterday to protest the statements of Cameron and Macron.

It warned UK Ambassador to Russia Nigel Casey that Cameron’s statements made Britain “a de facto party to the conflict” between Ukraine and Russia, the Guardian wrote. “Casey was told that in response to Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory with British weapons, any British military facilities and equipment on the territory of Ukraine and abroad could be targeted,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

Yesterday, on his Telegram channel, former Russian President Dmitri Medvedev bluntly stated that if NATO continues on its course, Russia could bomb Washington, Paris and London amid a “world catastrophe.” Medvedev wrote:

There is some kind of total degradation of the ruling class in the West. This class really does not want to logically connect elementary things. Sending your troops to the territory of Ukraine will entail the direct entry of their countries into the war, to which we will have to respond. And, alas, not only in the territory of Ukraine.

In this case, none of them will be able to hide either on Capitol Hill, or in the Elysée Palace, or in 10 Downing Street. A world catastrophe will come.

On May 4, introducing the International Committee of the Fourth International’s (ICFI) May Day online rally, David North warned of the danger that the NATO war against Russia in Ukraine could escalate into a nuclear world war. Citing US-UK pledges to arm NATO’s Ukrainian puppet regime with long-range missiles that can strike major Russian cities, North said:

But what if Putin, invoking the precedent set by President John F. Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, declares, paraphrasing Kennedy’s warning, that attacks on Russian territory by Ukraine with missiles supplied by NATO “will be regarded as an attack” by NATO upon Russia, “requiring a full retaliatory response” upon NATO countries?


It is high time for Biden and his NATO colleagues to tell the people that their pursuit of “victory in Ukraine” means risking nuclear war and describe in necessary detail what will happen to their countries and the world if the confrontation with Russia goes nuclear.

There was no trace of exaggeration in this warning, which has been confirmed in barely three days.

The strongest possible appeal must be made to workers and youth around the world: If the working class does not intervene against the capitalist governments to stop this escalation, one or another confrontation will ultimately escalate into nuclear war.

The greatest danger is that masses of workers and youth are not fully aware of the urgency of the risk of a catastrophic global war. They must be alerted and mobilized through an international movement of meetings, protests and strikes, aiming to build a mass, socialist anti-war movement in the international working class.

May 10, 2024 Posted by | Russia, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

UK Taxpayers to fund fast-tracked nuclear fusion reactors

Planning exemptions and financial support proposed in bid to boost UK energy industry

Jonathan Leake, 8 May 2024

Pioneering nuclear fusion power plants are to be fast tracked through the planning process and supported with taxpayer money as Britain attempts to become a world leader in the technology……………. (Subscribers only)  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/08/nuclear-fusion-reactors-britain-fast-tracked-taxpayer/

May 10, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

France’s mini nuclear reactor plan – Nuward, gets another financial handout from the European Commission

The European Commission (EC) has approved, under European Union (EU) state
aid rules, a €300m ($320m) French measure to support Electricité de
France’s (EDF) subsidiary Nuward in researching and developing small
modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). The EC said the measure will contribute to
the achievement of the strategic objectives of the European industrial
strategy and the European Green Deal.

France notified to the Commission its
plan to grant €300m to Nuward to support its research and development
(R&D) project on SMR technology. The project aims to develop processes for
the design and construction of SMRs based on a simple and modular design
and with a power output equivalent to or less than 300 MWe. The front-end
design is the third phase of the overall Nuward project, which contains
five distinct phases.

In December 2022, the Commission already approved a
€50m French measure to support the second phase of the project, aimed at
acquiring new knowledge for the design and construction of SMRs. The aid
will take the form of a direct grant of up to €300m that will cover the
R&D project until early 2027. The measure will support Nuward in sizing the
modules and components of the SMRs and validating their integration in the
SMRs by means of numerical simulators and laboratory tests. Nuward will
also carry out industrialisation studies relating to the modular design and
mass production of SMRs. Finally, the measure will also support Nuward in
the preparation of the required safety demonstrations for the approval of
the project by the national nuclear safety authorities.

 Nuclear Engineering International 1st May 2024

https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newseuropean-commission-approves-state-aid-for-nuward-smr-11725920

May 10, 2024 Posted by | EUROPE, politics, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Hinkley Point C: New public inquiry planned over environmental impact

New saltmarshes could be created to mitigate the power station

Somerset Live, By Daniel Mumby, Local Democracy Reporter, 8 May 24

The environmental impact of Somerset’s new nuclear power station will be the subject of a new planning inquiry which could be held in the next 18 months. Around 11,000 people are currently working at the Hinkley Point C construction site near Stogursey, with this number expected to rise to 12,000 in the coming months.

EDF Energy secured planning consent for the power station back in 2013, with construction beginning three years later – a consent which include a number of measures to offset the environmental impact of the new facility. The company is seeking to make a number of changes to the agreed measures, which will require the approval of the Planning Inspectorate – resulting in a new public inquiry where residents can have their say.

The new inquiry was confirmed in a recent report by Councillor Ros Wyke, Somerset Council‘s portfolio holder for economic development, planning and assets. She said: “EDF Energy is proposing to make some material (and non-material) changes to the development consent order (DCO) for the Hinkley Point C project.

“As a DCO, any material changes will need to be authorised by the relevant secretary of state. EDF Energy expect to submit proposals to the secretary of state in the spring of 2025.

“This is likely to result in a public examination, which would begin by the autumn of 2025.” DCOs are detailed planning consents which are issued by central government for major infrastructure projects, such as the dualling of the A303 between Podimore and Sparkford.

EDF is proposing to make the following changes to the current DCO:

  • Removing the need to install an acoustic fish deterrent in the Bristol Channel
  • Providing ecological mitigation to counter the potential loss of fish stocks from this deterrent – taking the form of new saltmarshes near the River Parrett
  • Changing the agreed interim spent fuel store from a wet store to a larger dry
    store…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Councillor Leigh Redman, who is standing for Labour in the new Bridgwater constituency, said that he had serious concerns about the saltmarshes proposal, including how effective it would be given the other environmental factors at play. Mr Redman (who represents the Bridgwater North and Central division on the council) said: “The Bristol Channel and Severn estuary are hugely important habitats for species including salmon and eel.

“According to the government’s Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, between 18 and 46 tonnes of fish could be lost a year if the acoustic fish deterrent plan is abandoned. Saltmarshes are vulnerable to erosion caused by factors, such as stormy conditions, wave action, and human activities, particularly in this area of the tidal River Parrett.

“This erosion can lead to habitat loss and a decrease in the protective function of the marsh against flooding and coastal erosion. I really do feel that we must listen to local people that know their area.

I feel that this particular element of the mitigation needs much more thought before any decision can be made, particularly in this area of the Parrett.” Councillor Claire Sully – who is standing for the Liberal Democrats in the same constituency – has been fighting against the new saltmarshes as part of the Save Pawlett Hams campaign.

The action group held a ‘Run the Hams’ event on Sunday (May 5) to raise awareness of the issues, following a ‘Rock the Hams’ concerns held at Pawlett Pavillion at the end of April. Ms Sully – who represents the Mendip South division on the council – claimed that the new nature reserve would cost up to £50m to deliver, arguing the acoustic fish deterrent was “essential” to preventing damage to the Severn estuary.

………..Pawlett Hams is well known in aquatic beetle circles and the EDF proposals would certainly lead to a serious diminishing of freshwater aquatic biodiversity for little seeming biodiversity gain, and a huge loss of fish from the Severn estuary.

“Other wildlife that could be lost include great crested newts, water voles in the ditches, and hares.” The Planning Inspectorate will confirm the precise dates of the public inquiry once EDF has formally submitted its plans to alter the DCO for the power station.

Hinkley Point C is currently expected to be operational by 2031, following EDF’s announcement in January 2023 that it would not meet its then-target date of 2027.

 https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/hinkley-point-c-new-public-9268906
—

May 10, 2024 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

Sizewell C in Suffolk granted nuclear site licence

Campaigners ‘appalled’ as French energy company EDF gets go-ahead for next stage of project

Jillian Ambrose, 8 May 24,  https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/may/07/sizewell-c-suffolk-granted-nuclear-site-licence-edf

A planned nuclear power station at Sizewell in Suffolk has been granted the first site licence in more than a decade as investors and government officials race to finalise a deal for the multibillion-pound project this year.

The licence from the nuclear regulator is considered a milestone for EDF, which plans to build Sizewell C as a replica of its Hinkley Point C project in Somerset, which has been dogged by delays and cost overruns.

The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has granted only two site licences to build new nuclear plants in more than 35 years: the first for Hinkley Point C in 2012, and the second for Sizewell.

It was granted as EDF works to reach a final investment decision on the Sizewell C project by the end of this year, depending on a government framework to finance the project and fresh investment to cover its construction costs.

EDF holds just under 50% stake in the project, while the UK government holds just over 50%. They are searching for further investment after EDF’s partner at Hinkley Point, China’s CGN, was barred from the successor project over security concerns.

Mina Golshan, a director at Sizewell C, said the licence was a “show of confidence” from the UK’s nuclear regulator that the company had a suitable site and was ready to begin large-scale construction work on a safe design replicated from Hinkley Point C.

“It’s a huge milestone and demonstrates that this project is firmly on track,” Golshan said.

EDF has blamed inflation, Covid and Brexit for a four-year delay and cost overruns at the Hinkley Point C site. It believes that by learning the lessons from Hinkley it will be able to build Sizewell C in about nine years.

Mark Foy, the ONR chief nuclear inspector and its chief executive, said the licence was granted after “extensive engagement and review” by the ONR team and would allow the regulator to take greater regulatory oversight and challenge the company as it progressed its plans.

“The licensing process is fundamental in confirming that operators of a nuclear site are ready and able to meet their obligations under the nuclear site licence, to protect their workforce and the public,” Foy said.

A group campaigning against the nuclear plant, Stop Sizewell C, said it was “appalled that a nuclear site licence has been issued when matters critical to the future safety of the site remain unresolved.

“There isn’t even a final design of the sea defences, which will be necessary to keep this vulnerable site safe for the next century and a half, at the very least. This seems to us like kicking the can down the road, on the assumption that some future generation will be able to clear up the mess,” the group said.

May 10, 2024 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

12 years behind schedule, EDF’s Flamanville 3 nuclear plant gets regulatory approval for trial period

 Electricite de France SA got regulatory approval to start up its new
nuclear reactor 12 years behind schedule after the utility faced
construction problems ranging from concrete weakness to faulty pipe welds.
The green light for commissioning of the Flamanville 3 nuclear plant
located in Northwestern France allows EDF to load the fuel in the reactor,
proceed with trials, then begin operations, the Autorite de Surete
Nucleaire said in a statement on Tuesday.

Further approvals will be
required when reaching key milestones during the trial phase, the regulator
added said. Once connected to the grid, the 1.6-gigawatt plant called a
European Pressurized Reactor will join EDF’s fleet of 56 reactors in
France, which accounted for about two-thirds of the country’s power
production last year.

 Bloomberg 7th May 2024

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/edf-gets-approval-to-start-long-delayed-nuclear-plant-in-france-1.2069909

May 9, 2024 Posted by | France, safety | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries