nuclear-news

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

Together Against Sizewell C vows to continue fight after legal challenge rejected by Supreme Court – as the nuclear plant welcomes the news

 By Ash Jones ,  ash.jones@iliffepublishing.co.uk, 14 May 2024  https://www.suffolknews.co.uk/southwold/sizewell-c-campaigners-vow-to-continue-fight-after-supreme-c-9365930/

Campaigners protesting against the £20 billion Sizewell C plant are determined to continue their fight after a legal challenge was rejected by the Supreme Court.

The court yesterday refused an appeal by Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) after it called for a judicial review of the plant, near Leiston.

TASC first challenged the Government’s decision to give planning permission to the station in July 2022 after it was given the go-ahead by then-business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng.

Among its claims were that the Secretary of State was wrong to grant a Development Consent Order (DCO) without first assessing the environmental impact of proposals for Sizewell C’s water supply.

In its ruling, three Supreme Court judges said the group’s latest claims did not raise an arguable point of law.

Julia Pyke, the managing director of Sizewell C, welcomed the news and said the team were glad the challenge was rejected by the court.

However, Pete Wilkinson, from TASC, said the group would seek new avenues to challenge the plant.

Mr Wilkinson described yesterday’s ruling as a ‘bit of a blow’ but said the site still needed other permits and licences.

He said it was a challenge opposing Sizewell C through the courts and the Government seemed to have decided the plant will go through regardless.

“Local opposition to the plant appears to be growing as people in the area realise the imposition it will cause,” he said.

“There are about 36 site conditions that cover the site that we’ll be able to monitor, there are no details on water supply and a many-billion pound hole in finances as well as further licences to be awarded.

There are things that lend themselves to a possible challenge to give the public a chance to review.”

This followed TASC’s case being refused by the High Court last year – the decision to approve plant was also upheld by the Court of Appeal in December.

During the High Court case, the body argued against the impacts of water supply of up to two million litres per day, which it said were never assessed and that there was no way of knowing if the environmental benefits of the plant would outweigh the costs.

In addition, no opening date for the plant could be guaranteed, campaigners said.

Ms Pyke said the team knew the majority of East Suffolk residents supported the project and looked forward to the jobs and development opportunities it would bring.

She added: “We will continue to listen closely to local communities and we are as determined as ever to ensure that Sizewell C delivers for them.”

May 17, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

RADIATION. Euratom Treaty requires continuous monitoring radioactive discharges from nuclear facilities

 Study on monitoring of radioactive discharges from nuclear facilities in
the EU. Chapter three of Title II of the Euratom Treaty, Article 35 states:

‘Each Member State shall establish the facilities necessary to carry out
continuous monitoring of the level of radioactivity in the air, water and
soil and to ensure compliance with the basic standards’.

This study focuses on the facilities that have the authorisation to discharge a
significant amount of radioactivity in the environment. With this
authorisation, the nuclear facilities are required to have technical
systems in place to carry out continuous or batch-wise monitoring of these
discharges.

During this study, 11 nuclear facilities in nine Member States
(covering nuclear power plants with different technologies, a spent fuel
reprocessing plant, medical isotope production facilities, and a nuclear
plant under dismantling) were visited for a detailed assessment of the
monitoring of liquid and gaseous radioactive discharge systems.

 EU (accessed) 15th May 2024

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/b62bbeb4-b8dc-11ee-b164-01aa75ed71a1/language-en

May 16, 2024 Posted by | EUROPE, radiation, Reference | Leave a comment

Swedish PM open to hosting nuclear weapons on home soil in case of war

By Charles Szumski | Euractiv.com, 15 May 24,  https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/swedish-pm-open-to-hosting-nuclear-weapons-on-home-soil-in-case-of-war/

Sweden is open to the possibility of having nuclear weapons on its soil in the event of war, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said on Monday, calming the concerns of local communities by asserting that any action would be on “Swedish terms”.

As the Swedish parliament prepares to vote on the government’s proposal for a Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA) with the US, Kristersson, of the conservative Moderate Party, declared that in peacetime there should be no permanent US troops or nuclear weapons on Swedish soil. 

In wartime, however, the situation would be different, the Swedish prime minister told radio broadcaster P1 on Monday, ahead of a high-level meeting between the five Nordic prime ministers and the German chancellor in Stockholm. 

“If there is a war with us on our land, which Sweden is drawn into after an attack by others, then it is a completely different situation. Then the whole of NATO benefits from the nuclear umbrella that must exist in democracies as long as countries like Russia have nuclear weapons,” Kristersson told P1

The deal, which was announced a few months before Sweden joined NATO in late 2023, has already attracted criticism. 

Especially as it gives the US military the right to use 17 Swedish military bases across the country, the Left Party and others have criticised the agreement for giving too much power and influence to the US military and for failing to address the issue of nuclear weapons on Swedish soil, as there is no explicit prohibition in the agreement, as there is in similar agreements the US has with Denmark and Norway. 

The communities affected have also raised concerns, including that local people will not be allowed to stay in popular natural areas, that there will be more waste, and that there will be “social tensions between US troops and the local population.” 

However, Kristersson stressed that Sweden still rules over Swedish territory. 

“It is Sweden that decides over Swedish territory. That is crystal clear. Everything takes place on Swedish terms,” he simply added.

May 16, 2024 Posted by | Sweden, weapons and war | Leave a comment

UK government planning nuclear site in Scotland – Jack

 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9eze1dzy5no 15 May 24

The UK government is planning to build a new nuclear reactor in Scotland despite opposition from Holyrood, according to Scottish Secretary Alister Jack.

He told a House of Lords committee he had asked the UK energy minister to plan for such a site as part of a UK-wide strategy.

The Conservative minister also called for the Lords to be allowed to scrutinise Scottish laws.

The Scottish government has rejected calls to end an effective ban on new nuclear power stations.

The UK government has committed to developing larger-scale nuclear plants south of the border, as well as developing a new generation of smaller reactors.

Its ambitions for up to a quarter of all electricity to come from nuclear power by 2050 are being led by government-backed body Great British Nuclear body.

Mr Jack told the Lords committee: “On the small nuclear reactors, I have asked the energy minister to plan for one in Scotland.

“I believe that in 2026 we’ll see a unionist regime again in Holyrood and they will move forward with that.”

The Scottish secretary added that he did not “see any point in having a great fight over it” given the “timescales in front of us” – a likely reference to the upcoming general election.

Scotland’s last nuclear power plant – at Torness in East Lothian – is scheduled to be shut down by 2028.

Although energy policy is largely set at Westminster, the Scottish government is able to block projects it opposes as planning powers are devolved.

‘Patronising’

The Scottish Secretary went on to suggest a “grand committee” of the House of Lords should be allowed to scrutinise Holyrood legislation.

“Devolution is not a bad thing,” he told the committee. “Where it has failed is bad governance.”

Mr Jack said the Scottish Parliament’s committee structure was “not right” and that the “knowledge and wisdom” of the House of Lords could be used to help review Scottish laws.

SNP MP Tommy Sheppard said the Tory minister was “undermining and patronising our democratically-elected government”.

He added: “His comments and the decision to ignore the Scottish government on building new nuclear reactors in Scotland show exactly how this Westminster government sees Scotland and its people – a nation that should get in line and know its place.

“Scotland doesn’t need expensive nuclear power – we already have abundant natural energy resources, we just need full powers over energy so Scotland can take full advantage of the green energy gold rush.”

May 16, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear power station risks hitting taxpayers with £20bn bill

Plans for a power station at Wylfa could be derailed by government rules

Telegraph, Matt Oliver, INDUSTRY EDITOR, 13 May 2024 

Plans for a large nuclear power station on the Welsh island of Anglesey risk being derailed by government rules that will add an estimated £20bn to the national debt, insiders have warned. 

Efforts to develop a gigawatt-scale scheme at Wylfa are on the agenda this week as Andrew Bowie, the minister for energy security, meets representatives from the South Korean state nuclear company Kepco. 

The company is among several thought to be in the running to build a plant at Wylfa, with a consortium that includes US nuclear giant Westinghouse also putting forward proposals.

But one senior industry source warned there were concerns about the willingness of ministers to sign off on such a large project ahead of the general election, with the next government expected to be saddled with challenging budgetary constraints.

They blamed accounting rules which will force the British state to add the project’s full cost to the national debt, even if it only holds a minority stake in the scheme. 

This is owing to the Government’s position as the ultimate guarantor if the project goes wrong. 

There are fears it could put ministers off from backing a scheme at the Wylfa site, which has just been reacquired by the Government.

No decisions about the potential project have been taken yet but the scheme’s budget is widely expected to be in the region of £20bn. Britain’s debt pile is currently 98.3pc of GDP, or almost £2.7 trillion, as high interest rates push up the cost of Government borrowing.

The industry source said: “The main barrier right now is that if you build gigawatt-scale units, you have to put them on the Government balance sheet.

“Whoever is in power after the next election is going to have to grapple with that balance sheet – and are they really going to do this?

“It is something that is being looked at now.”………………….. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/13/anglesey-nuclear-plant-risks-saddling-taxpayers-with-bill/

May 16, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

UK nuclear lobby further infiltrates universities with government grants for nuclear fusion

The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), the UK’s national
fusion energy research and development organisation, has awarded six
organisations with £9.6 million of contracts to advance their concepts to
support fusion energy development. The contracts were awarded to three
universities and three companies focusing on digital engineering and fusion
fuel cycle developments dedicated to addressing fusion energy challenges.
The contracts range between £460,000 and £1.9m, and are funded by
UKAEA’s Fusion Industry Programme, an initiative launched in 2021 to
develop the necessary technology and skills for the future global fusion
powerplant market.

 UKAEA 15th May 2024

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ukaea-awards-96m-to-six-organisations-for-fusion-projects

May 16, 2024 Posted by | Education, UK | Leave a comment

EU rebuffs UK attempt to continue collaborating on nuclear fusion experiment.

 EU rebuffs UK attempt to continue collaborating on nuclear fusion
experiment. Bloc tells London it will be locked out of Iter project in
France within months unless it rejoins civil atomic programme. Brussels has
told London it will be locked out of the Iter project, based in France,
within months unless it affiliates to Euratom, which it quit when it left
the bloc, according to people familiar with the matter.

The UK has asked to continue with Iter as an outside partner, an arrangement granted to
Australia. But the EU has said it must also join a Euratom research scheme,
the people said. Australia has a co-operation agreement with Euratom.

London left Euratom because it did not believe the programme provided value
for money, and stayed out when it rejoined other EU research schemes last
year. Iter is an international project to build the world’s biggest
tokamak — the reaction vessel for nuclear fusion.

After four decades of experiments the technology is still years away from proving it can generate commercially viable power, but supporters hope it will prove a viable
source of plentiful low-carbon energy.

 FT 15th May 2024

https://www.ft.com/content/12cf843a-184d-4e50-8818-a57e12464276

May 16, 2024 Posted by | politics international, technology, UK | Leave a comment

Antony Blinken Dines at Nazi Restaurant in Ukraine

May 16, 2024 Posted by | politics, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Dominic Cummings: Zelensky’s no Churchill and Ukraine’s corrupt

Former Brexit campaign chief says the West is ‘getting f**ked’ by supporting Ukraine.

BY NOAH KEATE, MAY 9, 2024  https://www.politico.eu/article/dominic-cummings-volodymyr-zelenskyy-ukraine-war-corruption/

LONDON — Boris Johnson’s former top adviser Dominic Cummings launched a sweary attack on Western support for Ukraine Thursday.

In an interview with the i newspaper, Cummings — who led Britain’s Vote Leave Brexit campaign and spectacularly fell out with Johnson in 2020 — declared that the West “should have never got into the whole stupid situation” and claimed sanctions against Russia have had a greater impact on European politics than in Moscow.

The former adviser was scathing of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and comparisons with World War II.

“This is not a replay of 1940 with Zelenskyy as the Churchillian underdog,” he said.

“This whole Ukrainian corrupt mafia state has basically conned us all and we’re all going to get f**ked as a consequence. We are getting f**ked now right?”

In a follow-up tweet, Cummings later branded Zelenskyy a “potemkin” leader — but denied he’d called him a “pumpkin” as originally quoted in the interview.

He argued that war would only strengthen the relationship between Russia and China, saying Western nations “pushed [Russia] into an alliance with the world’s biggest manufacturing power.”

Cummings has long been critical of support for Ukraine, a stance that puts him sharply at odds with his old boss Johnson, a vocal supporter of Zelenskyy and Ukraine’s war effort.

He told the paper the West had failed to send Russian President Vladimir Putin a worthwhile signal which would deter him from invading another country.

“What lesson have we taught him? The lesson we’ve taught Putin is that we’re a bunch of total f**king jokers,” Cummings asserted, saying the war had “broadcast it to the entire world what a bunch of clowns we are.”

It comes as the former Vote Leave Brexit campaign chief tests the water for a new political party to replace the Tories.

POLITICO reported on Thursday that Cummings has organized a series of focus groups to get the public’s views about a new anti-establishment outfit.

Cummings told the i his “Start Up Party” would be “ruthlessly focused on the voters not on Westminster and the old media.”

May 15, 2024 Posted by | politics, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Nuclear power and nuclear weapons – two sides of the same coin

In March 2024, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak explicitly linked nuclear weapons production capability with civil nuclear power generation development. This is because nuclear reactors are used to create tritium – the radioactive isotope of hydrogen – necessary for nuclear weapons.

The government has admitted its push for nuclear energy expansion is linked to its strategic military interests

by Peter Wilkinson,  12 May 2024, o https://eastangliabylines.co.uk/nuclear-power-and-nuclear-weapons-two-sides-of-the-same-coin/

The government’s apparent answer to climate change and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is to triple the amount of nuclear generated electricity in the belief that it generates ‘low carbon’ electricity. But a recent admission by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak suggests there is a strong military component to what looks on the surface to be a civil matter.

The UK review of the energy sector, prompted by the invasion of Ukraine, offered a golden opportunity to address the need to drive down demand for electricity and energy more generally. This could be achieved by retrofitting insulation to the housing stock and buildings, mandating solar panel use for all new homes, investing heavily in renewables, in emerging battery technology and in decentralisation. Instead, the government has focused on a massive expansion of nuclear-generated electricity.

The dual nuclear agenda

Now the reason has finally been openly admitted. Maintaining and improving the supply chain and the knowledge and skills base in the workforce for the UK’s £100bn Trident nuclear weapons renewal programme relies on the civil nuclear sector.

While this claim has been regularly made by anti-nuclear campaigners – and just as regularly denied by minister after minister – it is now openly acknowledged. The Roadmap states quite clearly that it is important to align civil and military nuclear ambitions across government, to strengthen the interconnections between civil and military industries’ research and development, and thereby reduce costs for both the weapons and power sectors.

In March 2024, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak explicitly linked nuclear weapons production capability with civil nuclear power generation development. This is because nuclear reactors are used to create tritium – the radioactive isotope of hydrogen – necessary for nuclear weapons.

The cat which was so carefully and fraudulently hidden for decades is finally out of the bag: ministers now have to acknowledge that the civil nuclear programme owes more to maintaining weapons of mass destruction – weapons that were outlawed by the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons which entered into force in January 2021 – than it has to do with salvation from the existential crisis that is climate change.

Debunking myths: the truth behind nuclear ambitions

Its brave new world aims for a nuclear sector generating upto 24 Gigawatts of electricity by 2050. That’s comparable to seven new 3.2 Gw capacity Hinkley Point Cs or Sizewell Cs or forty-eight Sizewell A-size reactors at around half a Megawatt output.

The locations for a proposed ‘mix’ of ‘gigawatt-sized reactors’ such as the European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) planned for Sizewell C, and ‘small modular’ and ‘advanced modular’ reactors (SMRs and AMRs respectively) is the subject of the government’s ‘Nuclear Road Map’.

It is, necessarily, largely a work of fiction laced with eulogies to nuclear power and liberally interspersed with admissions of hope over expectations. The truth is that Hinkley Point C is now expected to cost an eye-watering £40+bn from its original £20bn, and Sizewell C has already cost the taxpayer £2.4bn in sweeteners to the private sector.

Commercial SMRs don’t yet exist, and they are not small, unless you consider that Sizewell A falls into that category. AMRs have remained a fantasy for decades and are likely to remain so. Mention them to a nuclear regulator, and you’ll probably get a raised eyebrow in response.

Nuclear revival: promises vs reality

The Sizewell project has yet to be granted multiple construction and operating permits and licences and no final investment decision has been made. Other issues which make Sizewell C a terrible idea include:

  • A multi-billion hole existing in its finances
  • There is no reliable and guaranteed supply of potable water – of which an average of 2.2 million litres a day are required in the country’s most water-scarce area
  • It is situated in a flood zone
  • It is in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  • It sits on the fastest-eroding coastline in northern Europe
  • An estimated 46 hectares of woodland have already been flattened
  • The Environment Agency (EA) has authorised the dumping of 1,590 tonnes of dead and dying fish back into the North Sea each year as a consequence of the Sizewell C cooling water intake (not to mention the 100s of millions of fish, fish larvae and other marine biota)
  • In addition, there will be an estimated 171 million sacrificial sand goby, none of which are acknowledged by the EA.
  • Radiological discharges from Sizewell C to the sea and air have contested health impacts

EDF ploughs on

The Supreme Court is still considering the merits of a judicial review appeal against the original planning approval. None of these uncertainties and deficiencies have stopped EDF devastating the areas around the development with the sanction of the local planning authority.

The tragedy is that nuclear is now a redundant technology which takes too long to come to our climate-change rescue and is not fit to be in the front-line of defence against climate change. It does not represent a plan of great urgency to meet the accelerating existential threats of climate change.

It has a rapidly narrowing window in which to contribute its electricity to the job of reducing climate change risks. When compared to renewables and conservation measures, nuclear is slow, costly and unreliable in terms of the new technology embodied in the EPR design. The Flamanville project in France, using a Sizewell EPR-type reactor, is still offline, is twelve years late and will cost four times the original budget.

The government has been in thrall to nuclear power for a long time. Perhaps with the admission of its connection to its strategic miliary goals, we can now better understand why that is. But the knowledge only deepens and entrenches the divide between the hawks and the doves.

May 14, 2024 Posted by | Reference, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

MISTAKES THAT CAUSED THE CHERNOBYL DISASTER

BY S. FLANNAGAN/MAY 12, 2024  https://www.grunge.com/1562994/mistakes-that-caused-chernobyl-disaster/

The Chernobyl disaster remains one of the most chilling incidents of the nuclear age. The Chernobyl Power Complex was the name of a nuclear power plant in northern Ukraine just a few miles from the Belarus border near the city of Pripyat. At the time Ukraine was part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), and Chernobyl was constructed between 1970 and 1977 as part of the USSR’s nuclear expansion program. It had four reactors, each capable of generating colossal amounts of energy to enrich the Soviet bloc. On April 26, 1986, a series of errors caused reactor 4 to experience an unexpected surge of power that started a huge fire, which led to several explosions and the biggest release of radioactive material into the atmosphere in history.

Local areas such as Pripyat were evacuated, but a delayed emergency response saw the area transformed into an uninhabitable no-go zone. It has been reported that 31 people lost their lives in the immediate aftermath of the meltdown, including six firefighters who received double the fatal amount of radiation as they attempted to extinguish the blaze. But a delayed response saw the amount of material released into the environment and spread across Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, and parts of Central Europe. Hundreds of thousands of people were involved in the clean-up, many of whom went on to develop health problems such as cancer as a consequence of the exposure. Here are some of the mistakes that led to the meltdown, and to the local area being largely uninhabited even today.

A FLAWED DESIGN

The World Nuclear Association notes that one of the key issues that led to the meltdown of Reactor 4 which resulted in the Chernobyl disaster of 1986 was the flawed design of the reactor itself. Each of Chernobyl’s four reactors was of a new Soviet design known as “reaktor bolshoy moshchnosty kanalny,” or RBMK. RBMK reactors were one of two reactor designs to emerge from the USSR in the 1970s. They employ a water-cooling system and graphite control rods that regulate fission, which creates nuclear energy.

On the night of the meltdown, operators were attempting to test whether residual steam pressure would be able to keep the reactor going in the event of a power cut long enough for the backup diesel generators to take over. However, in the course of the experiment, a huge and unexpected power surge hit the reactor, which was later found to have been caused by the RBMK’s enormous “void coefficient,” ultimately meaning that excess steam in the water cooling system would not be able to absorb neutrons in the system, resulting in the surge. After an investigation into these flaws, crews were tasked with upgrading other reactors in the Chernobyl Power Complex to make them safer, though over the years these other reactors have also eventually been decommissioned.

SAFETY ISSUES COVERED UP

But the flaws in the design of the RBMK-1000 reactor at Chernobyl that rendered it unsafe weren’t exactly a surprise to experts in the wake of the meltdown. In fact, the site had suffered several notable accidents and emergencies years before the shocking events of April 1986. But as we know now, those in charge of the Soviet nuclear program sought to cover up evidence that their reactors were unsafe, meaning that they continued to be operated despite such safety issues leading to the worst nuclear accident in history.

According to a 2021 report published by Reuters, it was revealed that the side had a radiation leak as early as 1982 and that numerous accidents occurred at the plant in 1984. The Soviet government was reportedly aware of the truth that Chernobyl was fundamentally unsafe as a power plant as early as 1983 but kept the matter a secret from the public.

The same instinct among the Soviet powers that be to cover their tracks led to their delayed order to evacuate the city of Pripyat until about Chernobyl 36 hours after the meltdown began, ultimately exposing thousands of locals to dangerous levels of radiation.

The nuclear operators on-site at the Chernobyl Power Complex were later identified as lacking in adequate training required to keep such a complicated and cutting-edge power station running effectively and safely. In the years following the devastating nuclear meltdown, the operators themselves were afforded a great deal of blame for the disaster in which many of them lost their lives.

Indeed, the experiment that the Chernobyl nuclear operators were performing on the night of the meltdown was flawed as a result of human error, which largely came down to the team’s lack of understanding of the reactor’s internal systems. None of them expected the surge of power that the experiment unleashed. The experiment itself was later reported to have been unauthorized, though plant director Viktor Bryukhanov, chief engineer Nikolai Fomin, and his deputy, Anatoly Dyatlov later received 10-year prison sentences for the disaster. Official Soviet government reports claimed that the operators, three more of whom were given prison sentences, had been negligent.

The lack of training that the operators were afforded resulted from what is now known to have been an almost complete lack of safety culture at the Chernobyl Power Complex, a characteristic of Soviet industry more generally at the time. No interest in maximum design accidents, hypothetical disasters that could then be mitigated against in design features, were of little interest to commissioners or designers of the RBMK-1000 reactor, who were also looking to reduce costs.

The safety of Chernobyl was further impacted by opacity within the Soviet hierarchy, which prevented subordinates from reporting issues and misgivings to their superiors, leading to a culture of silence in which errors were not course-corrected. Similarly, mistakes, including those around safety, were covered up, rather than treated as lessons to be learned from. “The attitude came from the race for the atomic bomb, “Chernobyl: History of a Tragedy writer Sehii Plokhy writer told The Guardian in 2018. “The sacrifice of health and life was almost expected. That culture was transferred to the nuclear power establishment.”

Further safety features were overlooked as director Viktor Bryukhanov, who was also in charge of the setting up of the reactors as well as providing accommodation for the operators, raced to keep the project on track. The science journal Nature reports that under his direction electric cables were installed without the required fire-resistant cladding, just one instance of the corners that were cut in the creation of the plant despite the potential calamity that might occur were something to go wrong with any of its reactors.

A lax attitude to safety continued even after the meltdown and the delayed evacuation of local people from the area around the site as it grew more and more radiated and became a danger to human life. In the aftermath, an international effort saw a concrete “sarcophagus” erected around the reactor intended to stop the spread of further radiation. However, the structure was only intended to be temporary and still requires a permanent solution to this day, with experts claiming that it and other stores of radioactive material from the world’s worst nuclear disaster constitute an ongoing risk to public safety if not adequately maintained.

May 14, 2024 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

RAF Lakenheath protest to make airbase nuclear-free zone

By Tom Cann, TomCann97, Community Report, 12 May, https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/24314379.raf-lakenheath-protest-make-airbase-nuclear-free-zone/

Residents and local councillors from across East Anglia came together to protest against the US plans to station nuclear weapons at an air base in Suffolk.

Protestors and activists went to RAF Lakenheath to declare the site a nuclear-free zone.

In January, it was revealed that the US was planning to put warheads three times as strong as the Hiroshima bomb at RAF Lakenheath.

They previously stationed nuclear missiles at the site but these were removed in 2008 when the Cold War threat from Moscow had receded.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) lead a nationwide day of action on May 11.

A declaration was read out in front of the base, calling on the British government to work for global nuclear disarmament by refusing delivery of any US nuclear weapons and instead making Lakenheath a nuclear-free zone.

Sophie Bolt, from CND, said: “We know that US plans to deploy its nuclear bombs here at Lakenheath.

“This will not make us safer, but – on the contrary – make the world far more dangerous.

“With tensions still dangerously high between NATO and Russia, siting these weapons of mass destruction in Britain puts us all on the frontline of a nuclear war.”

Previously, an RAF Lakenheath spokesman said: “We recognise and support the right to peaceful protest as a fundamental aspect of a democratic society, however, it’s a long standing Ministry of Defence policy that we do not discuss the location or status of nuclear weapons.”

Activists plan more protests in July.

May 14, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

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