Opposition mounts to planned nuclear plant as Starmer confirms new policy of ‘Build, baby, build’
Martin Shipton Nation Cymru 9th Feb 2025
Opposition to a proposed nuclear energy plant in Bridgend is mounting, with the local Green Party saying it is “unnecessary, unwanted and unsafe”.
But doubts about the proposal come as Keir Starmer confirmed that the UK Government intends to change the planning system to make it easier for such projects to go ahead.
An American-owned company called Last Energy intends to build the SMR (small modular reactor) plant next to the River Llynfi, just to the north of Bridgend.
The Green Party argues that If the development goes ahead, it will be funded by venture capitalists who are not likely to be citizens of Wales. The nuclear power plant will operate for profit, as a private enterprise.
Untested
A party spokesperson said: “It is based on a new design which if built will be the first of its kind. So the design is untested in the real world. Locals, including Green Party members, have several credible reasons for concern.
“The Green Party questions the need for a nuclear power plant, when Wales has the natural resources required to produce all its energy from a mixture of solar power, onshore and off-shore wind generation.
“It is true that people need secure energy supplies which can be quickly restored, and that Wales needs investment in improving the grid infrastructure. But nuclear power is not the solution to Wales’ energy needs.
“As was proved in the December 2024 storm, we desperately need improvements to our energy resilience – such as the ability to restore power after severe climate events, and this should be the focus of any energy investment.
“Do locals want a nuclear power plant in Bridgend? Last Energy has hosted two community consultations, one in Bettws and one in Pencoed. Debra Cooper, the Green Party Chair for Bridgend, attended both events and asked how the locals had been invited to these meetings, given that many were unaware that they were taking place.
“The speaker gave a vague reply that Facebook had been used, and that Last Energy had outsourced the invitations. More consultation events are planned, and we demand that Last Energy genuinely seeks to invite the community to their consultations.
“Is nuclear power safe? The risk of nuclear leaks from the onsite nuclear waste storage is not acceptable.
“Who will pay for future nuclear waste storage? There is a risk that no other region of the UK will be willing to store the nuclear waste, and that this area will become a long term nuclear waste storage site. The consequences of accidental leakage and terrorist targeting have not been fully considered.”
Nuclear waste
Brian Jones, CND Cymru Vice Chair, said: ““Last Energy, despite having never built a nuclear reactor, is proposing to build four nuclear reactors near Bridgend which, like all nuclear reactors, will produce nuclear waste which needs to be safely contained and monitored for thousands of years. Nuclear power stations have consistently cost more and taken longer to build than originally proposed.”
Tony Cooke, who leads on Wales energy policy development for the Green Party, said: “Green Party policy is clearly opposed to any new nuclear power stations. The developers haven’t actually built any to their proposed design and they don’t have a design licensed by the UK Office for Nuclear Regulation which would be required. Their website claims more than 300 are operating globally – but this is misleading – there are more than 300 pressurised water reactors), but PWR refers to a generic ‘family’ approach to design – not a specific one. Licensing is not likely to be quick. (years not months)
“The developers are presumably targeting an ex coal fired power station site because it has a now unused grid connection. These are valuable, given the time lag in getting new grid connections. The site should be prioritised for battery storage, which is needed and complements renewable generation. Because of the small scale of the proposal it is in the powers of the local authority to reject it. We should lobby for them to do so.”
Planning approvals
Richard Outram, secretary of the Britain / Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities group said: “Nuclear energy can never be 100% safe and is never ‘clean’ whatever the industry claims. Last Energy has a long way to go before securing the necessary regulatory or planning approvals to begin its project by 2027. The Office for Nuclear Regulation said this was ‘very ambitious’. And Last Energy does not even appear to have any working reactors – just mock ups! Nuclear at Bridgend would be more Lost Energy – renewables are the future.”
Last Energy says it hopes the pressurised water reactors will supply power to “mid-size manufacturers throughout the region, providing 24/7 baseload power and putting the local economy on a path toward industrial decarbonisation”.
It says the project will not need taxpayer cash, with the company estimating it would be making a £300m investment, £30m of which would benefit the local economy, excluding business rates collected by Bridgend County Borough Council. It also expects to create at least 100 local full-time jobs.
Last Energy UK CEO Michael Jenner said: “Last Energy’s Llynfi project will not only transform a vacant coal site into a hub for clean energy production, it will also create economic opportunity for companies throughout South Wales.
“The benefits of nuclear power speak for themselves, so our focus must be on delivering those benefits on time and on budget. Last Energy’s emphasis on mass-manufacturability allows us to deliver significantly smaller plants in under 24 months with purely private financing.
“We look forward to engaging with the public, meeting local suppliers, and being an active partner in south Wales’ path towards energy security and industrial decarbonisation.”
Nato
In June 2024, Last Energy announced it was working with Nato to research opportunities for the future deployment of micro-nuclear power technologies at military installations.
The partnership between Last Energy and Nato Energy Security Centre of Excellence (Ensec Coe) will see the two parties research military applications for the micro-reactors and look into potential deployment.
In October 2024, independent nuclear experts told New Civil Engineer magazine that SMRs could be used to produce weapons-grade material, but various practical, legal and moral challenges made this unlikely to be done in reality.
On February 6 Prime Minister Keir Starmer pledged to “build baby build”, as he announced plans to make it easier to construct mini nuclear power stations in England and Wales.
He told the BBC the government was going to “take on the blockers” and change planning rules so new reactors could be built in more parts of the country.
Sir Keir said he wanted the country to return to being “one of the world leaders on nuclear”, helping to create thousands of highly skilled jobs and boosting economic growth. https://nation.cymru/news/opposition-mounts-to-planned-nuclear-plant-as-starmer-confirms-new-policy-of-build-baby-build/
CND Cymru warns against Starmer’s ‘anti-democratic’ push for mini-nuclear reactors
Morning Star 7th Feb 2025 https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/cnd-cymru-warns-against-starmers-anti-democratic-push-mini-nuclear-reactors
CND CYMRU has blasted Sir Keir Starmer’s “anti-democratic” push to put nuclear reactors in communities without consultation.
The Prime Minister announced planning reforms this week that will see “archaic” rules slashed to allow more power plants approved across England and Wales.
Clearing a path for so-called small modular reactors (SMRs) to be built for the first time, the government said growth will be prioritised ahead of so-called Nimbys.
A set list of eight sites where mini-nuclear power stations can be included in planning rules and the expiry date on nuclear planning rules will be scrapped.
CND Cymru national secretary Dylan Lewis-Rowlands said: “If the proposals from Westminster are to be believed, then not only could plans similar to this pop up anywhere in Wales or England, but could also be pushed through against community will from the UK government.”
CND Cymru vice-chairman Brian Jones added: “This is not just a question of nuclear development, but of democracy.
“The intention of this move by Starmer seems to be something that the nuclear power and weapons industry has only dreamt of before — the ability to ignore communities wishes and focus their vast lobbying budgets on getting central government to allow them to build wherever they want, without opposition.
“It is fundamentally putting profit before people and planet, and turning Britain into a nuclear power test site for SMRs. It is, in one word, anti-democratic.”
Concerns were also raised regarding the intention of these proposals to power AI datacentres, with Mr Lewis-Rowlands warning: “The industry always try and co-opt any reason to push development and secure the lucrative government money that allows them to pay their shareholders.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer (centre) and Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary Ed Miliband (right) meet staff at the new decontamination and decommissioning lab during a visit to Springfields (Preston Lab), National Nuclear Laboratory facility in Preston, Lancashire, as the Government is pledging to create thousands of highly skilled jobs by reforming planning rules to make it easier to build new nuclear reactors. Picture date: Thursday February 6, 2025
Kansai Electric to ship more spent nuclear fuel to France
Fukui Japan Times 9th Feb 2025 https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2025/02/09/japan/japan-more-spent-nuke-fuel-to-france/
Kansai Electric Power is working to double the amount of spent nuclear fuel it will ship to France, increasing it by about 200 tons, informed sources said.
The move comes as Fukui Prefecture, home to several nuclear plants, urges Kansai Electric to address shrinking storage capacity for spent nuclear fuel, the sources said.
In 2023, Kansai Electric announced a plan to ship about 200 tons of the fuel from its Takahama plant in Fukui to France starting in fiscal 2027. Based on the Japanese government’s policy, the spent fuel will be used for research on technology to reprocess uranium-plutonium mixed oxide, or MOX, fuel.
At the Takahama plant, about 90% of the spent fuel storage capacity has already been used, and that amount is expected to reach the upper limit in about three years.
About 200 tons of spent fuel will be generated if the No. 1 to No. 4 reactors at the plant are operated for about three years. Kansai Electric has restarted all of its seven nuclear reactors.
The company initially planned to send spent fuel mainly to a reprocessing plant to be built in Aomori Prefecture, but the completion of the facility has been postponed.
Last September, the company notified Fukui Gov. Tatsuji Sugimoto of its intention to review the plan, and said that it would halt three reactors in the prefecture if it fails to come up with a proposal that can win the understanding of officials there by the end of fiscal 2024.
Can the nuclear industry find a better way to build?
The sector is hopeful that using copies of established reactors can help keep costs down and
prevent delays for new projects.
On a construction site sitting behind the
beach at Sizewell, on England’s East Anglian coast, mountains of soil
make it hard to see two small, blue signs. These indicate the spots where,
in the middle of the next decade, two nuclear reactors should start
generating enough energy to power 6mn homes.
The extraordinary thing about
the 900-acre site is not its scale but that it has an identical twin —
for reasons that reveal a lot about the latest thinking on building nuclear
power stations. The new Sizewell C plant has been designed to be as close
as possible a copy of Hinkley Point C, a project 280 miles away on the
other side of the country. Building there started in 2016, eight years
before that at Sizewell.
The replication is part of a push across Europe and North America to tackle what Bent Flyvbjerg, an academic studying project management, calls the nuclear power industry’s “negative learning” problem. More simply: for an industry that has become infamous
for massive cost overruns and endless delays, maybe the solution is just to
build exact copies of established reactors.
The IEA has found that nuclear
plants delivered since 2000 in the US and Europe were on average eight
years late and cost two-and-a-half times their original budget. The UK
government on Thursday announced planning reforms intended to make it
easier to build nuclear plants quickly and cheaply. Tom Burke, founder of
E3G, a London-based clean energy consultancy, is far more sceptical, saying
the information from the countries claiming better records lacks
credibility. “Where the publicly available information is reliable — if
you look at what happened in Finland, the United States and the United
Kingdom — people have not built reactors to time and budget, ever,”
Burke says. EDF has said UK regulations meant there were 7,000 changes to
the design for Hinkley Point from that at Flamanville — although the
UK’s Office for Nuclear Regulation has disputed the figure.
Many developers’ hopes are hanging on a new breed of reactors — small
modular reactors. The devices are intended to be small enough to
mass-produce on a highly standardised basis in the controlled environment
of a factory. They will then be taken to power station sites for
installation. Most SMRs will have a capacity below 300MW, less than 10 per
cent of the 3.2GW capacity at Sizewell C, and will be far smaller.
Yet sceptics such as E3G’s Burke are far from convinced. Asked if he thinks
steady orders and standardisation can bring the sector’s costs under
control, Burke replies: “I think that’s one of the biggest ‘ifs’
I’ve ever seen.”
FT 10th Feb 2025
https://www.ft.com/content/5e563e3f-575d-4a90-bd46-4d0a3083f707
Sizewell C campaigners slammed “clueless” Government
By Dominic Bareham, East Anglian Daily Times 9th Feb 2025
Campaigners opposed to the new Sizewell C nuclear power station have slammed prime minister Sir Keir Starmer’s backing for nuclear energy as “appalling”.
On Thursday, the Labour leader pledged to “build, baby, build” as part of an effort to create thousands of highly skilled jobs and boost economic growth in the UK.
This included plans to “fast forward on nuclear” by tackling “blockers” and changing planning rules so more reactors could be built in more parts of the country.
But Jenny Kirtley, chair of action group Together Against Sizewell C (TASC), said: “Starmer’s statement is appalling, full of soundbites fuelled by the pro-nuclear lobbyists – many of whom already have their ‘snouts in the trough’ – spouted by a clueless government blaming ‘blockers’ to divert attention away from the evidence that nuclear is not cheap, quick to deploy, homegrown, nor clean.”
In response to the prime minister’s suggestion that legal actions brought by campaign groups had delayed construction projects, she said Sizewell C had not been blocked by campaigners, but by “incompetent planning”.
In particular, she highlighted locating the reactor on a “fast eroding coastline” and in the UK’s driest, most drought-prone region with “no guaranteed sustainable supply of mains water”.
Instead, she said the UK government should be looking to develop renewable energy.
She added: “With renewables, we already have technologies that are cheaper, quicker to deploy and cleaner than nuclear, yet Labour favours slow nuclear, meaning that fossil fuels will burn for longer.”……………………….. https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/24919434.sizewell-c-campaigners-slammed-clueless-government/
Labour’s growth policy is fantasy fiction
Richard J Murphy, Tax Research 9th Feb 2025
Labour is promising growth based on carbon capture and storage, new nuclear power stations and sustainable flying, and none of them are known to work. They’re gambling on economic fantasies.
Labour’s economic policies are increasingly based upon fantasy. I wish I didn’t have to say that, but let me explain.
Labour says it’s going to deliver economic growth in the UK, and at the same time, it’s going to deliver net zero. I don’t believe them. On the basis of their policies, I think they’re talking utter rubbish, and their ideas are based upon economic fantasies.
There are three issues that illustrate this point, and I’m going to try and keep them as simple as possible.
Those three issues are carbon capture and storage, which they are planning to use to control the emissions of big business and therefore achieve net zero, and nuclear power, which is based upon the idea that there can be a new series of at least ten nuclear power stations built in the UK, and a third runway for Heathrow.
Let’s run through those. Carbon capture and storage was announced first of these three, so perhaps I will pick it for that reason.
Carbon capture and storage is a relatively simple idea. What it says is that we don’t have to stop industry from producing carbon, which we all know is polluting the atmosphere and, therefore, creating climate change. Instead, we capture the carbon that is created by business in its industrial processes, and then store it underground, in the case of the UK, almost certainly in the old oil and gas fields under the North Sea. There’s just one little problem with this idea: nobody’s actually done it. ……………………………………………………………
What else could he have done with that money? He could have talked about putting insulation into UK houses and cutting the demand for energy.
He could have literally talked about putting solar panels on the roofs of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of households.
But no, he didn’t want to do that. He instead wants to undertake an economic fantasy; something that has not been proven to be possible, is what he’s choosing over actual deliverables that would create jobs in streets throughout the UK, for real people in the UK, in every constituency in the UK, and which would work. This is what I mean by economic fantasy.
And the nuclear program, to which he has also signed up, which is supposedly going to deliver clean energy from ten new nuclear power stations, is just as fantastical as is carbon capture and storage. The reason why is that these are all based upon a technology created by Rolls Royce called the Small Modular Reactor. And absolutely nobody has any idea whether they will work or not. The technology is, once again, totally unproven. But we are apparently going to have ten of them.
Will they work? Who knows.
How will the waste be managed? Who knows.
What will be the cost from managing the waste from ten new nuclear power stations? Who knows? But I do know that the cost of clearing the first ever nuclear establishment in Scotland – Dounreay – a tiny little reactor built in the 1950s, has recently been increased from £2 billion to £8 billion, and it won’t be clean for another century as yet, which actually means nobody knows when or if it will ever happen.
So, this isn’t clean energy. It is actually about creating long-term, dangerous waste that we don’t know how to manage and at what cost. And yet, Labour is pursuing it because this is another economic fantasy on its part. Growth is apparently all that matters. The fact that we might destroy significant parts of the countryside that can never be used again as a consequence of doing so is neither here nor there.
And then we come to Heathrow………………………………………………………………………..
So, what is Labour up to here? They are living with the most extraordinary short-term thinking, which is totally based upon fantasy because Heathrow Airport hasn’t actually asked for a third runway yet, Rolls Royce hasn’t proved that their reactors work as yet, and absolutely nobody on the planet knows whether carbon capture and storage work as yet. But Labour is putting all its faith into these unproven situations to supposedly create the economic growth which is going to let us have nurses and education and everything else.
They could, of course, do something else. They could, of course, simply fund nurses and education and whatever else it is, because they have the power to do so because they create the money in this country and direct how it is used. Instead, they want to play games of economic fantasy.
And I don’t trust them for that reason.
These are dangerous games. They should not be being pursued.
They are playing with our planet.
They’re putting lives at risk.
They’re putting futures at risk.
They aren’t going to deliver growth, and they are threatening the well-being of generations to come. They’re dangerous people, and I really don’t think they deserve to be in office. https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/02/09/labours-growth-policy-is-fantasy-fiction/
‘Build baby build’, says PM as he sets out nuclear plan
BBC 6th Feb 2025, Hafsa Khalil. BBC News, Becky Morton, Political reporter,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c805mjxe2y9o
Sir Keir Starmer has pledged to “build baby build”, as he announced plans to make it easier to construct mini nuclear power stations in England and Wales.
The prime minister told the BBC the government was going to “take on the blockers” and change planning rules so new reactors could be built in more parts of the country.
Sir Keir said he wanted the country to return to being “one of the world leaders on nuclear”, helping to create thousands of highly skilled jobs and boosting economic growth.
Unions and business groups welcomed the move, but some environmentalists criticised the government, saying it had “swallowed nuclear industry spin whole”.
Currently, progress building nuclear power stations in the UK can be slow – to get from planning to “power on” can take nearly 20 years.
Speaking on a visit to the UK National Nuclear Laboratory in Lancashire, Sir Keir said the process was too long and that changes announced by the government would speed it up.
Asked by the BBC’s Chris Mason if “build baby build” was his mantra like US President Donald Trump’s “drill baby drill”, Sir Keir said: “I say build baby build. I say we’re going to take on the blockers so that we can build.”
He said the government had already changed the rules to allow onshore wind farms and was now acting to ensure “we can fast forward on nuclear”.
Pressed over whether people who live near nuclear infrastructure could get money off their electricity bills, the prime minister said while this was not part of the announcement the government had already backed the idea of benefits for local communities hosting energy infrastructure.
In the 1990s, nuclear power generated about 25% of the UK’s electricity but that figure has fallen to around 15%, with no new power stations built since then and many of the country’s ageing reactors due to be decommissioned over the next decade.
Mini nuclear power stations – or small modular reactors (SMRs) – are smaller and cheaper than traditional nuclear power plants, and produce much less power.
However, while there are some 80 different designs under development globally, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the concept has yet to be proven commercially.
The plans announced on Thursday mark the first time SMRs will be included in planning rules. A list of the only places a nuclear reactor could be built – made up of just eight sites – will also be scrapped.
Sir Keir said the plans would improve the country’s energy security by increasing the supply of clean, homegrown power.
He added that Britain had been “held hostage” by Russian President Vladimir Putin for “too long”, which has resulted in energy prices “skyrocketing at his whims”.
The process of choosing to loosen rules on where nuclear reactors could be built began under Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government with a consultation in January 2024.
Ministers said Britain is considered one of the world’s most expensive countries in which to build nuclear power, and a new Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce will be established to speed up the approval of new reactor designs and stream line how developers engage with regulators.
Conservative shadow energy secretary Andrew Bowie said it was “about time” Labour followed his party’s lead in recognising the benefits “of stable, reliable, baseload nuclear power”.
But Doug Parr, policy director of Greenpeace UK, claimed the government had not applied “so much as a pinch of critical scrutiny or asking for a sprinkling of evidence”.
“The Labour government has swallowed [the] nuclear industry spin whole,” he said, adding: “They present as fact things which are merely optimistic conjecture on small nuclear reactor cost, speed of delivery and safety.”
While the overall cost of nuclear power is comparable with other forms of energy, nuclear plants are extremely expensive to build.
The head of the Nuclear Industry Association, Tom Greatrex, said the changes would give investors certainty and enable them to get on with building new plants.
Gary Smith, GMB’s general secretary, said the union has repeatedly said “there can be no net zero without new nuclear”.
The previous Conservative government gave the go-ahead for a new nuclear reactor on the Suffolk coast – Sizewell C – in 2022.
The new Labour government committed a further £2.7bn to the project in October but a final decision on its future is not due to come until the spending review later this year.
Two new nuclear reactors are also being built at Hinkley Point C in Somerset, which are due to open in 2030.
NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE: SOLAR REVOLUTION
Sir Jonathon Porritt, 7 Feb 25
So, what was Keir Starmer’s response to news yesterday that not only was 2024 the hottest year ever, but that January 2025 was the hottest January ever – when it had been widely predicted that it would be a lot cooler than January 2024: we’re going to double down on our endlessly recycled nuclear fantasies as the best way of achieving instant economic growth.
At the same time, the once-quite-sensible Ed Miliband was reduced to mouthing growthist inanities: “build, baby, build”.
OMG! What drugs are these pro-nuclear politicians on? Was their mothers’ milk radioactive? Do they really have to regurgitate every last gobbet of the nuclear industry’s manic and mostly dishonest hype?
Here’s what this nuclear growth agenda looks like in reality.
Over the next decade, both the big stuff (another of EDF’s Hinkley Point look-alikes at Sizewell C on the Suffolk coast) and the small stuff (as in the spectacularly over-hyped Small Modular Reactors) will make zero difference to consumers’ energy bills; zero difference to UK energy security; and zero difference to achieving our Net Zero targets .
During that time, new nuclear’s contribution to economic growth will be marginal at best, non-existent at worst. Sizewell C is may never get a Final Investment Decision – after six years of “best efforts” to sign up investors by both the Tories and Labour. Contrary to what you might think, Small Modular Reactors do not, at the moment, actually exist outside of the fevered brains of the nuclear industry. And even if the investment required, for either big or small, was somehow cobbled together, any new nuclear projects are GUARANTEED to be massively over-budget (good for growth, I agree, but disastrous for taxpayers) and massively delayed.
Which is why, dear Keir and dear Ed, easing planning conditions for new nuclear projects will make literally ZERO difference to achieving any additional economic growth.
To mitigate the despair you might now be feeling, thinking about the nuclear-powered Starmer/ Reeves/ Miliband troika, here’s a quick pick-me-up to end the week on a cheerier note.
Just a week ago, a consortium of financial institutions (led by the World Bank and the African Development Bank) agreed the biggest roll out of solar energy in the continent of Africa’s history: $35 billion in loans (at below-market interest rates) to provide electricity for roughly half of the 600 million Africans who are currently deprived of that basic necessity. And roughly half of that $35 billion will be invested in solar mini-grids at the village level. All to be rolled out over the next five years.
It’s so much easier to stay hopeful when one can deal in reality not fantasy.
UK’s new government taxonomy will greenwash nuclear
It would be easy to miss the oblique reference buried in the document where it states that ‘the government proposes that nuclear energy will be classified as green in any future UK Green Taxonomy’. This proposal will be the subject of a further consultation.
Treasury officials and ministers are looking to officially rebrand nuclear power as ‘green energy’ in their latest taxonomy plan; a move the NFLAs will continue to expose and oppose.
Mirroring moves first made by the European Commission, and mooted by the previous Conservative Government, a consultation has now concluded on whether Ministers should establish a new ‘UK Green Taxonomy’ which is described as a ‘useful tool’ in the UK’s ambition ‘to be the world leader in sustainable finance’.
The consultation document describes a taxonomy as ‘a classification tool which provides its users with a common framework to define which economic activities support climate, environmental or wider sustainability objectives’. In essence, it is a mechanism to judge whether an investment is deemed to be ‘green’; if in the case of energy, the technology is judged ‘green’ financial bodies will be better able to justify investing in it to their share- or bondholders.
It would be easy to miss the oblique reference buried in the document where it states that ‘the government proposes that nuclear energy will be classified as green in any future UK Green Taxonomy’. This proposal will be the subject of a further consultation.
Two years ago, we set out in a letter to then Conservative Chancellor Jeremy Hunt in response to his plans to introduce a similar taxonomy a list ‘of the carbon-intensive and environmentally damaging activities that accompany civil nuclear power projects’:
- the mining of uranium and its processing and manufacture into fuel rods which leaves ‘behind environmental degradation, radioactive contamination, and chronic ill-health from exposure to that radiation amongst the local workforce and the host community (usually poor and Indigenous)’
- the construction of a nuclear power plant which ‘requires the employment of vast amounts of concrete, steel and numerous other materials, many years of labour, and many millions of vehicles and personnel movements onto and off site’
- the operation of a nuclear power station necessitating ‘the transportation of fuel rods, waste, other materials and the labour force onto and off the site; the daily use of millions of gallons of seawater with the deaths of millions of fish; and the employment of its own generated electricity for cooling the plant and any stockpiled radioactive waste’
- ongoing nuclear operations which lead to ‘the contamination of the environment surrounding the plant, local beaches, the sea, neighbouring water courses and air’
And, above all, after the closure of the nuclear power station, the need to engage in the costly and prolonged decommissioning of the plant, the decontamination of the site, and the management and treatment of the radioactive waste involves processes that are ‘incredibly resource intensive.’
Green, we don’t think so.
TASC urge Chief Secretary to the Treasury to cancel Sizewell C.
Essex TV 5th Feb 2025, https://essex-tv.co.uk/tasc-urge-chief-secretary-to-the-treasury-to-cancel-sizewell-c/
Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) have written the attached letter to Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Darren Jones, urging government to cancel Sizewell C, saying TASC are “pleased to acknowledge your recent statement to Parliament affirming that you will ”undertake a zero-based review of every pound of public expenditure” as this will enable HM Treasury to carry out a full appraisal of the billions of public funds that the government are sleepwalking into committing to the Sizewell C project”
TASC claim “Sizewell C is a project progressing by stealth, spending money aggressively and at pace, with long lead items being ordered, acting, with taxpayer money, as if a final investment decision has already happened, even though without full financial backing Sizewell C will not be built. There has been no regard to the environmental cost if Sizewell C is not completed.”
TASC took the opportunity to remind Darren Jones of his statement reported in 2022[1] regarding the Sizewell C project “The review will probably conclude that the state can’t take on the capital risk of paying for the majority of the costs of Sizewell C, because private finance was not forthcoming. Nuclear is costly and risky…”
TASC concluded their letter saying, “Sizewell C, is a Boris Johnson vanity project[2] that was recklessly approved by the then Secretary of State, Kwasi Kwarteng, against the recommendation of the five expert planning inspectors”. TASC urge “HM Treasury not to throw more taxpayers’ money at this expensive, risky project that will raise energy bills during its lengthy and problematic construction and announce the cancellation of Sizewell C.”
Opponents of mini nuclear power station question lacklustre consultation
Greens oppose Llynfi power station plans; say Last Energy aren’t doing enough to seek local views.
Oggy Bloggy 5th Feb 2025, by Owen Donovan, https://oggybloggyogwr.com/2025/02/opponents-of-mini-nuclear-power-station-question-lacklustre-consultation/
Although we’re still a long way away from anything official – planning-wise – groups are beginning to organise against a proposed 80MW modular “mini” nuclear power station in the Llynfi Valley.
The proposal by American start-up, Last Energy, arrived out of the blue in October 2024 and has certainly generated lots of interest, both in favour and against.
In the last few days, the Bridgend branch of the Green Party issued a statement opposing the power station.
The Greens have questioned the need for a nuclear power plant, the potential safety and waste risks and the untested technology proposed at the site.
Last Energy has been hosting public meetings in the area about the project. The Greens say that two local meetings – one held in Bettws, one in Pencoed – were poorly advertised and poorly attended. Two meetings for potential suppliers were held in Cardiff and Swansea.
Last Energy has a proposed programme of further public meetings and outreach sessions, many of which are yet to be scheduled.
The next public meeting is set to be held at Coytrahen Community Centre on Monday 17th February 2025, starting at 6:15 pm.
Two workers contaminated with radioactive material at Borssele nuclear plant
NL Times 8th Feb 2025, https://nltimes.nl/2025/02/08/two-workers-contaminated-radioactive-material-borssele-nuclear-plant
Two workers at the Borssele nuclear power plant were reportedly contaminated with radioactive material during maintenance work, plant operator EPZ confirmed. Both employees were wearing respiratory protection, preventing internal contamination.
The incident occurred on November 26, 2024, but was only disclosed last week. A small amount of radioactive material was released during the work, triggering an alarm in the facility. The area was immediately evacuated.
The two affected workers had radioactive particles on their skin. After decontamination showers, they were cleared to go home. A third worker, who was also in the room but was not wearing respiratory protection, left as soon as the alarm sounded and later tested negative for contamination.
All three workers underwent additional testing for internal exposure, but no contamination was found. The affected area was cleaned, and work resumed after safety checks.
With calls for nuclear, are Scottish Labour stuck in the 70s?
BE careful what you wish for. I’ve dreamt all my life of the harnessing of robots
and artificial intelligence, enabling a wondrous and liberated human
civilisation. And now you tell me their power needs mean we must build more
domestic nuclear reactors? Sometimes the big narratives really don’t line
up.
We live in a country where renewable energy provided 113% of
Scotland’s overall electricity consumption in 2022 – and it’s set to
ascend over the coming decades. It’s an infrastructural build-out which
is, rightly, one solid plank in the economic and societal case for
independence.
The sense that a Scottish national future is desirable comes
significantly from the vigour, the virtue – and the permanence – of our
renewables sector. So it was jarring, as well as embarrassing, to hear Anas
Sarwar deride John Swinney in Holyrood on Thursday as “trapped in the
1970s”, as the First Minister resisted Labour’s calls for a new wave of
nuclear power plants across the UK. What could be more 70s than
atomics+computers = progress!
The National 8th Feb 2025 https://www.thenational.scot/politics/24920161.calls-nuclear-scottish-labour-stuck-70s/
Requiem for the trees
Earlier this week, Sizewell C admitted to a Community Forum that they have
felled a staggering 21,675 trees! The photo above shows local resident
David Grant seated on the remains of a 300 year-old oak tree on the
boundary between his land and what was compulsorily purchased for the
Sizewell Link Road. He was being interviewed by BBC Look East, for
broadcast next Tuesday (11th, 6.30pm) about the devastation. But we are
still not being told who will pay for Sizewell C and what it will cost.
Stop Sizewell C 7th Feb 2025 https://mailchi.mp/stopsizewellc/en7?e=326ee81c22
Planners recommended against nuclear plant in 2019 citing fears for Welsh language
the inspectors’ report concluded that “the matters weighing against the proposed development outweigh the matters weighing in favour of it” and that despite planned mitigations the project could “adversely affect tourism, the local economy, health and wellbeing and Welsh language and culture”
Industry figures say fate of Anglesey facility to have been built by Hitachi shows problems with planning system
Guardian, Eleni Courea 7 Feb 25
Planning inspectors recommended against a Hitachi-built nuclear power plant in Anglesey on the basis that it could dilute the island’s Welsh language and culture, it has emerged.
Hitachi scrapped plans to build a £20bn nuclear power plant at Wylfa in 2020 over cost concerns after failing to reach a funding agreement with UK ministers.
Keir Starmer’s government has vowed to make it easier to build major infrastructure projects by reforming the planning system and stopping campaigners from launching “excessive” legal challenges.
The prime minister unveiled plans for a historic expansion in nuclear power this week, vowing to “push past nimbyism” and make sites across the country available for new power stations.
Nuclear industry figures believe that the fate of Hitachi’s proposed plant at Wylfa demonstrates the problems with the UK’s planning system.
Planning inspectors appointed by the UK government recommended that the project be rejected in 2019, warning of its impact on biodiversity, the local economy, housing stock and the Welsh language.
The inspectors’ 906-page report said the additional workers required by the project would put pressure on local housing and schools and that “given the number of Welsh-speaking residents, this could adversely affect Welsh language and culture”.
Hitachi carried out a Welsh language impact assessment as part of its application, which found that the project would need to bring 7,500 workers from outside the area. Anglesey has 70,000 residents and one of the highest concentrations of Welsh speakers in the country.
The impact assessment concluded the extra workers “could have a major adverse effect on the balance of Welsh and non-Welsh speakers” in the area and “could adversely affect the use and prominence of the Welsh language within communities”.
But the assessment also found that by creating high-skilled jobs for young people, the project would help preserve the Welsh language on the island. It would have created more than 2,000 local construction jobs for nine years, and about 85% of the plant’s workforce would be local under the plans.
Nevertheless, the inspectors’ report concluded that “the matters weighing against the proposed development outweigh the matters weighing in favour of it” and that despite planned mitigations the project could “adversely affect tourism, the local economy, health and wellbeing and Welsh language and culture”
It also found that the developers had not put forward enough evidence to demonstrate that the arctic and sandwich tern populations around the Cemlyn Bay area, where the plant was going to be built, would not be disturbed by construction. There were fears that the birds would abandon the area as a result.
The last Conservative government revived plans for a large-scale nuclear power station at Wylfa and bought the site from Hitachi for £160m. In its election manifesto, Labour pledged to “explore the opportunities for new nuclear at Wylfa”………………………………..
Linda Rogers of the campaign group People Against Wylfa B said Hitachi withdrew “because the government wasn’t able to provide adequate funding as far as they were concerned”.
She added: “[The plans] broke environmental regulations – which this present government is laughing at, at a time when we need to increase biodiversity – and affected very much the local wildlife, particularly terns. And it was bad for the Welsh language. There were a lot of issues why it was not appropriate to build at Wylfa.” https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/07/planners-recommended-against-nuclear-plant-in-2019-over-welsh-language-and-cultural-concerns-hitachi
1 This Month
26 September – International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
PLEASE OPPOSE HR 8255 AND S.3639 – bills would accelerate satellite deployment, with no environmental review or safeguards – https://ncstd5li.quorum.us/campaign/169331/
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (313)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
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
