nuclear-news

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

Vegetation being removed to enable upgrade of Sizewell line

 Work on a Suffolk railway line has sparked “fury and upset” over the
apparent removal of mature trees and vegetation. Leiston resident Hayley
Trueman said the foliage had been cut down along the Sizewell branch line
between Saxmundham and Leiston as part of an upgrade to enable the track to
be used to transport building materials to the new Sizewell C nuclear power
station.

She said: “The trees and vegetation not only provide screening for
us as residents, but is a green corridor for the abundant wildlife that
lives there.

 East Anglian Daily Times 22nd Jan 2025 https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/24873970.vegetation-removed-enable-upgrade-sizewell-line/

January 25, 2025 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

Suffolk Coastal MP said priority to hold Sizewell to account.

24th January, By Dominic Bareham,  East Anglian Daily Times

A Suffolk MP has written to the developers of the new Sizewell C nuclear power station expressing concerns raised by her constituents about the current construction.

Jenny Riddell-Carpenter, MP for Suffolk Coastal, said her priority was to hold Sizewell C to account on its “social valuable and charitable investments, employment opportunities and environmental actions”.

Campaigners from action group Together Against Sizewell C (TASC), which is opposed to the power station, have written to her asking her to call a halt to the project due to the “huge amount of environmental damage being inflicted by the project”.

………………………………………………………………In the letter, TASC raised concerns works associated with the Sizewell C project were causing environmental damage, including a new link road, access road, five roundabouts and park and ride sites.

It said: “These projects have resulted in the felling of thousands of trees, grubbing out miles of hedging and covering vast areas under concrete and tarmac, devastating the biodiversity-rich environment, Heritage Coast and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty landscape in the process.

“This amounts to wholesale environmental vandalism, especially when the project still not only lacks a final investment decision but also a final design of the all-important sea defences, has no guaranteed sustainable supply of potable water essential for its 60 years of operation and with the nuclear site’s ground stabilisation trials remaining unfinished.”  https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/24876996.suffolk-coastal-mp-said-priority-hold-sizewell-account/

January 25, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Sweden’s Nuclear Waste Plan: A 100,000-Year Gamble

Oil Price, By Kurt Cobb – Jan 20, 2025,

  • Sweden plans to store nuclear waste for 100,000 years, but the author questions whether this is feasible given the uncertainties of human civilization and technological progress over such a long period.
  • The author argues that climate change, political instability, and technological limitations could all pose threats to the long-term safety of nuclear waste storage.
  • The author suggests that reprocessing nuclear waste might be a better solution than burying it, but acknowledges that this is also expensive and dangerous.

The sensible Swedes like planning ahead. This time its storage for nuclear waste from its own nuclear industry—storage that is supposed to last 100,000 years. Nuclear power currently provides 40 percent of Sweden’s electricity from six operating reactors. The Swedes expect to fill the storage site—”60 km of tunnels buried 500 metres down in 1.9 billion year old bedrock”—sometime by 2080 at which time it will be closed.

For understanding whether the target of 100,000 years of successful storage is plausible, I suggest a trip back 100,000 years to understand what surprises might be in store over such an interval. One hundred thousand years ago the Bronze Age, the age when humans first started to refine and work with metal, was still 97,000 years in the future.

It might seem that not much happened in those 97,000 years, but actually a lot that could challenge such storage schemes did. For example, somewhere around 71,000 to 74,000 years ago Mount Toba, located in modern-day Indonesia, erupted in a supervolcano thought to be the largest in human history. The eruption was two orders of magnitude (100X) larger than another famous Indonesian volcanic eruption, Mount Tambora, which caused what is now referred to as “the year without a summer” in 1816.

…………..Of course, another Mount Toba might just solve the problem of keeping humans away from Swedish nuclear waste because there will be so few people left who could end up drinking radioactive water or touching radioactive soil that we needn’t worry. But a lesser disaster might only, say, halve the human presence on Earth while destroying the kind of complex technology and crucial political structure that make it possible to monitor such waste sites.

……………………………..What we call civilization, that is, human settlement in cities, has only been around about 10,000 years. That’s hardly an endorsement for continuity over the next 100,000. Maybe the Swedes believe that the way they are burying their nuclear waste will make the coming and going of human civilizations over the next 100,000 years irrelevant. But, how could they possibly know that? After all, one Swedish environmental group is going to court to challenge the plan because “research from Sweden’s Royal Institute of Technology showed the copper capsules [used to contain the waste] could corrode and leak radioactive elements into the ground water.”

Okay, maybe you’re thinking that surely in the future our technological prowess will be always ever greater and so containing these wastes will ultimately be a trivial problem in retrospect. There are so many answers to why that will almost certainly NOT be the case. The simplest one is that technology relies on energy and our inability to get beyond fossil fuels which are finite to something even more dense and versatile doesn’t bode well for an advanced technological future.

………………..I understand that now that we humans have produced this waste, we ought to figure out how to store it safely for the sake of whatever life, both human and nonhuman, comes after us. One solution would be to reprocess it to get the usable radioactive products from the waste and use them up as much as possible. That reduces but does not eliminate waste. And, reprocessing is expensive and dangerous and essentially a doubling down on an advanced technological solution.

Of course, another problem is that reprocessing is great for extracting plutonium that can be used in nuclear weapons—which could lead to another kind of disaster. Beyond this, worldwide the amount of waste continues to increase and there are plans to build new nuclear reactors without a solution to the waste problem having been realized on any scale necessary to take care of wastes from all the countries of the world NOT called Sweden. That’s why burying what we have in the ground seems like a cheap and viable solution in comparison to reprocessing—or the totally crazy idea of shooting such waste into space or into the Sun.

I just wonder how knowledge of such waste sites will be preserved for 100,000 years. I wonder whether we humans can build something that will last 100,000 years given our record and the dangerous exigencies of life on Earth. And, I wonder if we were wise to create something in the first place that requires 100,000 years of care, given how heedless we as a species are to hazards of our own making that may destroy our current civilization much, much sooner than a thousand centuries from now. https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Swedens-Nuclear-Waste-Plan-A-100000-Year-Gamble.html

January 24, 2025 Posted by | Sweden, wastes | Leave a comment

Labour Minister concedes no new nuclear power stations will be built in Scotland

Michael Shanks said the SNP Government’s opposition to new nuclear would see plants blocked

Paul Hutcheon, Political Editor, Daily Record, 21st Jan 2025

The UK Energy Minister has said there will be no new nuclear plants in Scotland because they would be blocked by the SNP Government. Michael Shanks said he disagreed with the Edinburgh administration’s position but said their stance was “legitimate”.

Shanks made his comments in an evidence session to Holyrood on the Labour Government’s plan for GB Energy. The publicly-owned company will be headquartered in Aberdeen and is aimed at spearheading a clean energy revolution.

But nuclear appears to have no future in Scotland as the SNP Government is opposed and can exercise a veto through the planning system.

………..“They’ve set a very clear statement that there will be no new nuclear in Scotland. I might disagree with that but that is the landscape they operate in and therefore there is no plans, there will be no engagement on that issue because it is very clear that those applications would be blocked by the Scottish Government and that is the legitimate position that the Scottish government [takes] on planning matters.”

He added that there was no “confrontation” and said GB Energy has to comply with the rules, regulations and planning statements in each part of the UK.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/labour-minster-concedes-no-new-34522820

January 24, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Europe posts record negative power prices for 2024 as renewables rise

The number of periods when day-ahead power prices fell to zero or below hit a record 4,838 instances in Europe in 2024, driven by surging renewables, weak demand, and limited grid flexibility, says Montel Analytics.

PV Magazine January 21, 2025 Brian Publicover

Europe recorded 4,838 periods of day-ahead power prices falling to zero or below in 2024, a record high driven by rising renewable generation, sluggish demand, and constrained grid flexibility, according to a new report from Montel Analytics. The total is nearly double the 2,442 instances that were recorded in 2023.

The Oslo-based market intelligence firm said that the increase was driven by surging wind and solar generation capacity, as well as sluggish demand and limited demand-side response mechanisms.

Finland led in negative pricing at 721 hours, mainly due to high wind production and low grid interconnectivity with Sweden and Estonia, said Montel Analytics. It noted that solar oversupply in the Netherlands and wind output in Sweden also weighed on prices, while the Iberian Peninsula experienced negative prices for the first time during the second quarter of 2024.

The energy data specialist said that renewables accounted for 50.4% of Europe’s total power mix, which was an all-time high. Fossil fuels, meanwhile, dropped to less than 25% of the continental total.

………………………Harreman also noted the widening price gap between solar peak and evening peak periods, as renewables displaced conventional generation.

Industrial demand remained below pre-pandemic levels, and rooftop solar continued to offset household electricity usage, said the company. It reported that total European electricity demand fell 7.7% year on year to 2,678 TWh, underscoring broader economic weakness, particularly in Germany. https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/01/21/europe-posts-record-negative-power-prices-for-2024-as-renewables-rise/

January 23, 2025 Posted by | EUROPE, renewable | Leave a comment

“A question arises in terms of nuclear power – should EDF give up its international ambitions?”

The Court of Auditors is concerned about the electricity company’s ability to support the French fleet renewal program, while it finds itself financially exposed in the costly British projects of Hinkley Point and Sizewell, notes Jean-Michel Bezat, journalist at “Le Monde”, in his column.

  Heavily indebted, the company has not yet finished
with its difficulties across the Channel, the Court of Auditors recalled in
a report published on Tuesday, January 14: “The EPR sector: new dynamics,
persistent risks”. The commissioning of the British plant is already five
years behind schedule. The additional cost has reached around 12 billion
euros since 2019, while the departure of the Chinese group CGN, linked to
tensions between London and Beijing, is creating a “worrying financing
constraint” . EDF has had to depreciate 11 billion euros of assets, and the
very profitability of the project is at stake.

 Le Monde 20th Jan 2025 https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2025/01/20/une-question-s-impose-en-matiere-de-nucleaire-edf-doit-il-renoncer-a-ses-ambitions-internationales_6506629_3232.html

January 23, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, France | Leave a comment

It is only a matter of time before nuclear development at Bradwell falls by the wayside.

Energy and the role of nuclear power

7 January 2025, Andrew Blowers, Emeritus Professor of Social Sciences, Open University and Chair of BANNG considers this topic in the January 2025 column for Regional Life magazine


At the beginning of 2024, the Conservative Government published its Civil Nuclear: Road Map to 2050, proclaiming its commitment to recovering the UK’s global leadership in nuclear power. The Road Map was gung-ho for big nuclear at Hinkley Point C (still unfinished) and Sizewell C (still looking for investors just to get started); plus a fleet of Small (in fact rather large) Modular Reactors chosen by competition (still awaiting the winning design); and the (vanishingly) distant prospect of a raft of Advanced Modular reactors, including fusion (that tantalisingly evanescent Holy Grail of nuclear fulfilment)

It was the accompanying New approach to siting beyond 2025 which most attracted our attention. The Government proposed a developer-led approach, in effect a market free-for-all where developers are invited to find suitable sites for new nuclear power stations. At the same time, six sites identified back in 2011, including Bradwell, were carried forward as having ‘inherent positive attributes’ potentially suitable for consideration.

BANNG commented that developers would be unlikely to ‘identify sites beyond those that are being dangled in front of them already’. Yet again, we were at pains to stress that the Bradwell site is simply unsuitable and does not possess any of these ‘positive attributes’, least of all widespread public support. At a meeting with the then Minister for Energy, I made it crystal clear that there is widespread deep and extensive opposition from the local communities around the Blackwater.

A change of Government brought no change in nuclear policy; if anything Labour is even more effusive in its support for nuclear as essential in providing clean, stable and reliable power.

Once again, BANNG took up the challenge. With Stephen Thomas, Emeritus Professor of Energy Policy at Greenwich University, I wrote a paper exposing the ‘Great British Nuclear Fantasy’ which formed the basis of a discussion with the Minister for Energy, Lord Hunt.

We stressed that any expansion of nuclear power would be ‘too expensive, unrealistic but above all, simply unachievable’. There were no sites yet available for nuclear projects, least of all Bradwell. In response Lord Hunt reassured us that we were not ‘blockers’ and had presented a reasoned, professional argument which, to give him credit, he listened to.

Climate Change
As the impacts of Climate Change (CC) are becoming more evident it is ever more obvious that sites like Bradwell are wholly unsuitable for major infrastructures like nuclear power stations or big transformers. During the year BANNG helped to lead a series of workshops with the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), responsible for the safety of nuclear plants, on the implications of CC for nuclear regulation.

The ONR confirmed that our work had been a significant influence on its understanding of CC. BANNG asserted that CC makes Bradwell the least suitable of all the sites currently in the ring for nuclear development. BANNG has urged the Chief Executive of ONR ‘to resist the presumption that Bradwell is an acceptable site and to declare that it should be withdrawn from further consideration’.


BANNG ended the year with a further challenge, this time to Great British Nuclear
(GBN), the body responsible for pushing forward nuclear development, inviting
it to confirm that any proposals ‘will be subject to scrutiny and consultation through
the open, democratic and participative processes of public engagement.’

Our conclusion is that despite all the rhetoric, the nuclear programme is stuttering
and Climate Change may well seal its fate. It is only a matter of time before
nuclear development at Bradwell falls by the wayside.

January 23, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Green energy in abundance

“Sorry, pessimists, the energy problem is solved.” Ulrich Fichtner, SPIEGEL colleague, is almost right with this description of the energy crisis ( Ulrich Fichtner: Born for the big opportunities, Spiegel-Buch-Verlag 2023 ).

Correct: The problem is solvable, but it is far from being solved. The energy question is the survival question of the 21st century. We know what we are doing, but we are not yet really doing what we know and doing it sufficiently. The new solar dynamic is like this: cheaper, better, faster. We can still win the climate war.

At least things are moving in the right direction. Examples:

  • We have seen a 90 percent reduction in the cost of a kilowatt hour of solar power within two decades.
  • That is why green electricity is booming worldwide, as are storage technologies.
  • Solar energy and wind energy are the cheapest sources of electricity in the world. According to the Fraunhofer Institute ISE, PV with battery storage is now cheaper than electricity from conventional power plants.
  • The photo (right –on original) shows one of the largest photovoltaic plants in the world in Abu Dhabi. It is expected to be four times as large by 2030 and will then be able to produce as much electricity as around 15 medium-sized nuclear power plants.
  • We have global growth rates for renewable energies of 40, 50 and 60 percent per year.
  • In Germany, renewables were already the largest source of electricity generation by 2024 – almost two thirds renewable and only one third fossil fuels.
  • According to calculations by the World Energy Agency, IEA, this will be the case globally by 2027.
  • The World Energy Outlook, published every year by the IEA in Paris, assumes that demand for fossil energy sources will peak in 2025. Although the global economy will continue to grow then, CO2 emissions will shrink.
  • The energy transition is in full swing worldwide. I agree with my colleague Ulrich Fichtner when he writes: “A renewable economic miracle is sweeping the globe” (page 87).
  • Even in China, solar and wind will have overtaken coal by 2024, something that seemed unthinkable until recently.
  • Not only the USA, but also Germany has decided to produce its electricity completely CO2-free by 2035.
  • The European Union doubled its share of green electricity between the beginning of 2022 and the end of 2023.
  • Costa Rica, Iceland and Kenya already produce their electricity almost entirely from renewable sources, but from very different sources, which is due to their different geographies.
  • China aims to produce half of all renewable electricity worldwide by 2027.
  • The United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Norway and Chile have ambitious plans to produce solar hydrogen.
  • In addition to China, the USA, Egypt and Morocco are investing heavily in photovoltaics.
  • The ten ASEAN countries in East Asia want to increase their share of renewable energies by 70 percent by 2027 compared to 2023 – Brazil, Cuba, Argentina, Mali and other countries in Central and Southern Africa have similar goals.

Children born today can experience a climate without crisis in 2050 – when they will be 25. People all over the world will be the winners of the solar world revolution in the future when they produce renewable electricity for one or two euro cents. Fortunately for us, plans for a better world with peaceful coexistence without exploitation of people and nature are on the table worldwide.

In spring 2024, Abu Dhabi’s energy minister told me that his country was already producing one kilowatt hour of solar power for 0.7 euro cents. The figures mentioned show that the world is electrifying and developing economically at a previously unimaginable pace. On this point, too, I can agree with Ullrich Fichtner: “A child born today will not have to worry too much about the world’s energy supply on its 25th birthday.” (Page 86).

This reminds me of a new book title by couples therapist Matthias Jung about the miracle of transformation. He writes: “It is not where the wind blows from that determines our path, but how we set the sails.” ( Matthias Jung: Setting Sails – The Miracle of Transformation, emuverlag ).

January 22, 2025 Posted by | Germany, renewable | Leave a comment

Nine Swedish energy researchers find that new nuclear power is not needed.

 The government has stated that “physics is heavier than politics” .
Unfortunately, on several occasions, misconceptions have been spread about
the physical capabilities of the power system.

It is not true that it costs 8 billion to regulate and balance wind power, or that new nuclear power is necessary for a stable electricity system, write nine energy researchers
from north to south. The need for new nuclear power. “New nuclear power
is necessary for a stable and reliable energy system, for both consumers
and businesses,” stated Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson (M) in
November 2023.

It goes without saying that a stable and reliable energy
system is needed. Svenska kraftnät has studied various alternatives in its
reports, the latest of which is “ Long-term Market Analysis 2024 ”. It
shows that a Swedish fossil-free power system with more than twice as much
consumption as today, and without nuclear power, can achieve reliability at
the same level as today.

The solution is called flexibility, where electric
cars, hydrogen storage and electricity trading contribute, among other
things. Nuclear power is important for stability today, as it contributes a
buffer in the form of rotational energy. This buffer ensures that balance
is maintained during the first seconds after, for example, a sudden stop in
another nuclear power plant. Nuclear power also helps to ensure that we get
an appropriate voltage on the power lines.

But this can also be arranged in
other ways. In the Nordic countries there is a system that activates
batteries, among other things, in seconds, so that stability is achieved
even with lower amounts of nuclear power. There is also a technological
development where Swedish industry is at the forefront. There is an
incredibly large export market, since the whole world will get more solar
and wind power when the existing fossil power plants are phased out. This
shift is happening now because solar and wind power have steadily fallen in
price and can be built quickly.

 Dagens Nyheter 18th Jan 2025 https://www.dn.se/debatt/karnkraft-ar-en-mojlighet-men-ingen-fysisk-nodvandighet/

January 22, 2025 Posted by | ENERGY, Sweden | Leave a comment

UK Nuclear Power Ambitions Hampered by Delays and Soaring Costs

The construction of Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C nuclear power plants is
facing significant delays and cost overruns, jeopardizing the UK’s energy
security. Sellafield Ltd’s cybersecurity failings have raised concerns
about the safety and security of the UK’s nuclear industry.

The UK government’s ambitious plans to expand nuclear power are facing criticism
due to the high costs and potential impact on taxpayers. As the U.K.
government doubles down on plans to develop the country’s nuclear power
industry following decades of neglect, severe delays and cost increases are
hampering progress. Delays and rising costs at the Sizewell C and Hinkley C
nuclear projects have drawn public criticism, while concerns over public
safety have been brought into question due to cybersecurity failings by
Sellafield Ltd. While public support for nuclear power is at its highest
level in decades, these failings could hinder the development of a strong
nuclear power industry in the U.K.

 Oil Price 19th Jan 2025, https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/UK-Nuclear-Power-Ambitions-Hampered-by-Delays-and-Soaring-Costs.html

January 21, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

‘I was exposed to evil in British nuclear tests’

Kirsteen O’Sullivan & Marcus White, 15 Jan 25,  https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgpp5ze28ro?fbclid=IwY2xjawH5E-JleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHegxfVRLO66gQNKipt3Y5f9BWzRPbu0h6QWkys9CWH2yBTjZhE1YRCwhmA_aem_E7q8FCNDKoWD6DMMToVaoQ

A nuclear test veteran who witnessed the detonation of several British atomic bombs in the 1950s has said he was “exposed to evil”.

Robert James, 87, was an RAF firefighter stationed in Maralinga in Australia, where seven major UK tests took place.

Mr James, from Fordingbridge, Hampshire, said many service personnel had suffered fatal illnesses as a result and he was angry that the UK government had still not offered compensation.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said ministers were continuing to discuss issues with families.

Veterans’ campaign groups have said British service personnel were lined up and deliberately exposed to bomb tests to see what effect they would have.

Mr James said many of his comrades had died as a result of cancers and diseases associated with radiation exposure.

He said: “A lot of the guys suffered a lot. There’s lads dying every day… and after having long illness.

“We were exposed to evil, we were exposed to radiation. That’s pretty serious and I think that warrants compensation.

“Not only for people that are surviving like myself but the families that have suffered where their husbands or fathers died.”

In 2019, the Labour Party, then led by Jeremy Corbyn, pledged £50,000 for each surviving British nuclear test veteran.

Sir Keir Starmer met veterans in 2021, before becoming Prime Minister, but made no promises – and the 2019 offer was not in the 2024 manifesto.

However, the current Defence Secretary John Healey posted on his website in 2021: “UK remains the only nuclear power that refuses them recognition or compensation, unlike the US, France, Canada and Australia.”

Mr James said: “Don’t go back on your word, Mr Starmer… You promised us full compensation and recognition. Keep to your word.”

January 20, 2025 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear resister Susan Crane released after 7.5 month prison term in Germany

from Nukewatch by John LaForge,  https://www.nukeresister.org/2025/01/17/nuclear-resister-susan-crane-released-after-7-5-month-prison-term-in-germany/?fbclid=IwY2xjawH5EthleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHTVW2eZGE2IE-W3LPf6iXXpESUr8kt2y7UvRgz2O8GmIutozT9gN37brag_aem_KHyUNaUTEixZQ46JaMNVpQ

U.S. Activist Ends 7.5-Month Prison Term in Germany;

Jailed for Protests Against U.S. “Nuclear Sharing”

Susan Crane of Redwood City, California was released from prison in Koblenz, Germany on Friday, January 17, 2025, after spending 7.5 months incarcerated for trespass convictions and refusing to pay fines stemming from a string of nonviolent protests against U.S. nuclear weapons stationed at the Büchel air force base, southeast of Cologne.

On June 4, 2024, Crane began serving a 230-day sentence at the Wöllstein-Rohrbach prison in Rhineland-Palatinate, the longest term yet imposed in the decades-long campaign of protests against the American-made free-fall, gravity bombs known as B61s at the base.  Dutch peace activist Susan van der Hijden from Amsterdam served 115-days along with Crane for similar convictions. After ten days at Wöllstein, the two were transferred to the Offener Vollzug or the “open prison” in Koblenz, a less severe system that permits daytime work release. Crane was welcomed by the Martin Luther Evangelical Church community of Koblenz and did light work around the church grounds for many weeks.

Crane, 81, a life-long peace activist who has endured lengthy prison sentences in the United States for anti-war actions, was convicted of several trespass charges in Germany after joining six “go-in” demonstrations at Büchel. During the actions on the German base, Crane and others warned personnel that stationing the U.S. nuclear weapons there, and NATO’s ongoing threat to use them known quaintly as “nuclear sharing,” are both unlawful. Tornado fighter jet pilots of the German air force’s 33rdTactical Air Wing at Büchel routinely train to drop the U.S. H-bombs on targets in Russia [1], most recently in operation “Steadfast Defender 24” [2] — provocatively staged in the midst of NATO-armed war in Ukraine.

In one action, Crane and others unfurled a banner that read, “Büchel Air Base is a Crime Scene.” According to legal scholars, the transfer of nuclear weapons from the U.S. to Germany violates the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) which explicitly forbids any “transfer to any recipient whatsoever [of] nuclear weapons.” [3] According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the U.S. hydrogen bombs at Büchel are the 170-kiloton B61-3, and the 50-kiloton B61-4.[4] The U.S. atomic bomb that incinerated Hiroshima in 1945 was a 15-kiloton device.

Crane said in a statement before entering prison, “I thought the German courts would listen to the reasons we went onto the base, and understand that our peaceful actions were justified as acts of crime prevention. But international law was not respected or enforced.”

Crane, who has two adult children and four grandchildren, has devoted her life in California to serving the poor and homeless as a member of the of Redwood City Catholic Worker community. In a statement last March Crane said, “I see people living in camps, living in cars, and I see working people who don’t have enough income for basic needs like rent, food, or medical care. Then, I think of the money wasted on war-making by the U.S. and NATO nations, and that 3% of the U.S. military budget alone could end starvation around the world.”

At least 29 Germans, as well as two other U.S. citizens and two Dutch nationals have been jailed in Germany for related protest actions against the U.S. nuclear weapons. [5] Crane is the first U.S. women to be imprisoned in Germany in the campaign. Brian Terrell of Maloy, Iowa, was recently ordered by the court in Koblenz, Germany to report to the Wittlich prison on February 26, 2025 to serve a 15-day sentence for a related go-in action in July 2019.

January 20, 2025 Posted by | Germany, Legal | Leave a comment

Over time, over budget… will our new nuclear plants ever be built?

A damning report on EDF, the French company aiming to construct Sizewell C,
has thrown the project into doubt, while Hinkley Point C faces soaring
costs and delays.

The cost of nuclear power in the UK came roaring back
into the headlines last week after reports that the final bill for Sizewell
C, the planned new power station on the Suffolk coast, would be £40
billion — twice what was initially expected. This was followed by a
damning report on EDF, the French state-backed company that is proposing to
build Sizewell, which laid bare its financing problems, raising questions
about whether the plant will be built at all.

Hinkley is running years late and is massively over budget, prompting critics to wonder whether this is a model we should be copying. EDF had originally envisaged that [Hinkley]
would be in operation by this year; its most optimistic scenario now puts
the start date for the first of its two reactors at 2029. Meanwhile,
Hinkley’s original £18 billion cost on the eve of its construction has
ballooned to up to £35 billion in 2015 prices — or £46 billion in
today’s money.

Unfortunately, the financing for both plants is far from
settled. It is estimated that cost overruns at Hinkley mean it needs to
find another £5 billion to finish the work. This shortfall has been
exacerbated by EDF’s partner in the project, China General Nuclear Power,
refusing to put in more money after being excluded from Sizewell on
national security grounds.

Alison Downes of the Stop Sizewell C campaign
said: “We’ve no faith this project is being looked at objectively, so
it’s vital that the Office for Value for Money [the new government
agency] launches an immediate inquiry before ministers sleepwalk into a
disastrous decision.”

Having allocated £5.5 billion to Sizewell in the
budget, most observers expect Labour to give the green light at the
spending review. Some argue that the “sunk-cost fallacy” — a
reluctance to abandon projects in which a lot of money has been invested,
even if that would ultimately be a more cost-effective option — has
kicked in, and that cancelling it now would trigger a large and galling
write-down for the government. Nor are there obvious alternative vendors of
large nuclear projects — at least not yet. Bull, of Manchester
University, said axing Sizewell would send a terrible signal: “I think
the real cost of not doing Sizewell C is that we end up with another failed
project, and investors start to think we are just not serious.”

 Times 19th Jan 2025 https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/companies/article/whats-happening-with-britains-nuclear-plants-and-when-will-they-be-built-tr6v0986f

January 20, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Told you so: Financial Times follows NFLAs lead on Sizewell C cost estimate.

16 Jan 25 – https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/told-you-so-ft-follows-nflas-lead-on-sizewell-c-cost-estimate/

It is always nice when a media cornerstone of the finance world follows your lead in doing its sums – but that is what the Financial Times did yesterday in publishing an article indicating that the estimated cost of completing the new nuclear plant at Sizewell C will be £40 billion, something the NFLAs have been saying for ages.

One rule in nuclear is that the construction cost for new plants will always be far higher than the first estimate. And there has been no better example of this truism than that of Sizewell C’s sister plant, Hinkley Point C in Somerset, where an initial estimate of £18 billion for completion has now doubled to £34 billion (at 2015 prices).


It was hardly surprising that the FT reported that the final bill is more likely to be nearer £40 billion after speaking to ‘people close to negotiations over flagship energy scheme’; which are understood to be ‘one senior government figure and two well-placed industry sources.’ This figure is double that made in 2020 reflecting the recent surge in construction costs, and the inevitable delays and cost overruns will inevitably add to the eventual total.

The Sizewell C site presents its own costly challenges, namely a need for considerable expenditure on coastal defences as the East Coast will be increasingly subject to inundation and storm surges because of climate change and the need to provide in this water-stressed region for the provision of potable water with the likely installation of a dedicated desalination plant.

The British Government has already spent, or pledged, up to £8 billion in public funds to carry out preparatory groundwork around the site. Although private investors are being sought to finance the cost of construction, under the Regulated Asset Base being adopted by the British Government for the construction of any new nuclear plants, British electricity customers will ultimately have to bear the cost as the developer will be reimbursed these construction costs in stages through applying a nuclear levy to bills.

However, the Final Investment Decision to give the project the go-ahead has yet to be made. This is only expected in the late Spring after the completion of a Spending Review of overall government spending so there is still time for the Chancellor Rachel Reeves to stop it.

Local campaign group Stop Sizewell C is asking supporters to sign a petition to do so. The link to the petition is https://action.stopsizewellc.org/save-billions-cancel-sizewellc

Stop Sizewell C’s message to the Chancellor, via the Treasury, is: “As you carry out your multi-year spending review, I am reminded of your statement to Parliament during your mini-budget last year – “If we cannot afford it, we cannot do it”. I appreciate that you face many difficult choices, but with the Financial Times reporting that Sizewell C will cost at least £40 billion, I urge you not to throw more taxpayers’ money at this expensive, risky project that will raise energy bills during its lengthy and unpredictable construction. For alternative strategies that will help meet the UK’s 2030 target and create many thousands of jobs, I urge you to focus on renewables and energy efficiency.”

The NFLAs endorse this petition as it mirrors our position.

At present, the British Government is the majority stakeholder, but long-term only wishes to retain 20% as Ministers intend to offload much of their stake to private investors. So far however, no one is definitively biting, with mixed messages about interest from Centrica, British Gas’s parent, and Gulf States’ sovereignty funds.

As a second whammy to government hopes that more private sector partners will become involved, yesterday, the French State Auditor, the Cour des Comptes, criticised the expenditure already made by French state owned EDF on Hinkley Point C in a published report which suggested this could compromise investment in domestic nuclear power expansion plans and that “EDF should not take a final investment decision on Sizewell C before achieving a significant reduction in its financial exposure to Hinkley Point C.”

Stop Sizewell C is asking supporters to write to prospective investors asking them not to do so. The relevant links to take this action are shown below:

Amber Infrastructure:  action.stopsizewellc.org/amber
Equitix: action.stopsizewellc.org/equitix
Schroders Greencoat: action.stopsizewellc.org/greencoat
Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation: action.stopsizewellc.org/emirates
Centrica: action.stopsizewellc.org/centrica 

The NFLAs has previously written to these prospective investors and endorse this action.

Finally Stop Sizewell C is petitioning the new Office of Value for Money’s independent Chair, David Goldstone, to call in the Sizewell C project for urgent scrutiny. Initial feedback from the Treasury indicated that Sizewell C would be examined, but more recent correspondence with officials has been less committal.

Supporters are asked to follow the NFLA’s example and sign the petition at https://action.stopsizewellc.org/valueformoney

Ends://..For further information, please contact NFLA Secretary Richard Outram by email to richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk

January 19, 2025 Posted by | media, UK | Leave a comment

  French energy giant EDF launches search for Hinkley Point finance after damning audit report

EDF Group’s chief executive Luc Rémont has hit
back at the national French auditor’s claims that the energy company
should delay its investment in UK nuclear power project Sizewell C.

He said the regulated asset base (RAB) model for financing the Suffolk nuclear
power station, where the cost of development is shared with the consumer,
should not be correlated with the refinancing of the Hinkley Point C
project in Somerset.

The French state-owned energy company has started a
search for financiers to help refinance the delayed project at Hinkley
Point C, following the French state auditor’s findings yesterday,
according to Rémont.

In October, the energy company issued £500m of
senior bonds to help finance investments in two nuclear reactors at the
site. Rémont said that the funding model for the Sizewell C nuclear power
project on the Suffolk coast “limits” EDF’s capital exposure.

The auditor’s report come a week after a letter was sent to the national
auditor in the UK, the National Audit Office, calling for a review of the
government’s spending assessment for Sizewell C. The campaign group
behind the letter raised concerns of rising costs at Hinkley Point C,
another nuclear power station being built by EDF, now estimated to be in
the region of £46 billion. The letter from Together Against Sizewell C
(TASC) followed a plea by Ecotricity founder Dale Vince, a Labour donor,
for the Treasury’s new Office for Value for Money to review plans to
develop the new nuclear power project in Suffolk.

 Energy Voice 15th Jan 2025 https://www.energyvoice.com/renewables-energy-transition/565569/french-energy-giant-edf-launches-search-for-hinkley-point-finance-after-damning-audit-report/

January 19, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, France, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »