Construction to start on Sizewell C nuclear power station amid opposition.

Construction to start on Sizewell C nuclear power station amid opposition.
Construction on the multi-million pound Sizewell C nuclear power station
will start despite local opposition to the plans. The government has signed
a development consent order, meaning that preparation work on the £700
million site such as building fencing and accommodation can start. Andrew
Bowie MP, Minister for Nuclear and Renewables, will visit the site in
Suffolk today where he is expected to be met with peaceful protests which
have been organised by local campaign groups who are opposed to the
project. The final stage of the project, the Final Investment Decision,
will be announced later this year.

 ITV 15th Jan 2024

https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2024-01-15/construction-on-700-million-nuclear-power-station-starts

 BBC 15th Jan 2024

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-67973566

 Sizewell C campaigners hold peaceful demonstration as government minister
Andrew Bowie visits. Two campaign groups opposed to the building of a
nuclear power plant near the Suffolk coast are to hold a peaceful protest
this morning. Stop Sizewell C and Together Against Sizewell C will be
demonstrating at the site entrance from 8.45am to 9.30am. Energy minister
Andrew Bowie is visiting to prompt a Development Consent Order (DCO) which
campaigners say will take the project to the next step.

 Suffolk News 15th Jan 2024

https://www.suffolknews.co.uk/lowestoft/our-campaign-is-not-over-sizewell-c-campaigners-demonstra-9348575/

January 16, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

On the road to nowhere… UK Ministers launch nuclear ‘Roadmap’ in election year

11th January 2024,  https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/on-the-road-to-nowhere-ministers-launch-nuclear-roadmap-in-election-year/

The UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities are dismissive of the UK Government’s announcement today (11 Jan) of a ‘Roadmap’ supposedly outlining the route to undertake ‘the biggest expansion of nuclear power for 70 years’,[1] as another example of blinkered thinking by Ministers who are taking the wrong path to achieve energy security and net zero.

NFLA Chair Councillor Lawrence O’Neill said of the ‘Roadmap’: “Prime Minister Sunak and his ministers seem more like a group of clueless hikers too focused on the endless trail to their nuclear nirvana to see the turning immediately enroute which leads down the renewables path and the truly sustainable electricity future that Britain needs.

“Those with a cynical bent may be inclined to believe that its launch may not be coincidental in what is likely to be an election year as it represents a mantra of aspirations that will appeal to a certain voter base – two pointed references to Churchill are made by Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho in the preamble – but is nonetheless completely unaffordable. How can a vast programme of nuclear new build costing hundreds of billions of pounds be paid for, when the HS2 railway programme was curtailed on grounds of cost?

11th January 2024

On the road to nowhere… Ministers launch nuclear ‘Roadmap’ in election year

The UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities are dismissive of the UK Government’s announcement today (11 Jan) of a ‘Roadmap’ supposedly outlining the route to undertake ‘the biggest expansion of nuclear power for 70 years’,[1] as another example of blinkered thinking by Ministers who are taking the wrong path to achieve energy security and net zero.

NFLA Chair Councillor Lawrence O’Neill said of the ‘Roadmap’: “Prime Minister Sunak and his ministers seem more like a group of clueless hikers too focused on the endless trail to their nuclear nirvana to see the turning immediately enroute which leads down the renewables path and the truly sustainable electricity future that Britain needs.

“Those with a cynical bent may be inclined to believe that its launch may not be coincidental in what is likely to be an election year as it represents a mantra of aspirations that will appeal to a certain voter base – two pointed references to Churchill are made by Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho in the preamble – but is nonetheless completely unaffordable. How can a vast programme of nuclear new build costing hundreds of billions of pounds be paid for, when the HS2 railway programme was curtailed on grounds of cost?

“Despite several academic reports having been published in recent months outlining how the UK can meet its electricity needs through renewables [2,3,4] this government appears intent to once more trod the route taken by many Ministers before them – the route of greatest resistance – to the nuclear never-never.

“A plan based upon generation by a range of green technologies, coupled with energy efficiency measures and storage solutions, would be far quicker, far cheaper, and create many jobs to achieve the government’s stated goals of achieving energy security and net zero for the nation.”

The ‘Civil Nuclear Roadmap’ recommits the government to building a fleet of nuclear reactors capable of producing 24GW by 2050, around a quarter of electricity demand. Approval will be given for one to two reactors every five years between 2030 and 2044, a rate far faster than historic trends. The plan is predicated upon building a third large-scale plant alongside Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C. This would most likely be located at Wylfa in North Wales, which was ‘talked up’ by Prime Minister Sunak in a recent interview with BBC Wales as ‘a fantastic site’.[5]

Government ministers are also wedded to investment in so-called Small Modular Reactors, which may be built at existing or former nuclear sites or co-located alongside large industrial consumers. A ‘competition’ is currently being held by a new company specifically created to take forward the government’s SMR ambitions. In the initial stage, Great British Nuclear has approved new SMR designs from six companies with a view to taking forward two as preferred competitors in the spring. The plan also provides for investment in a range of so-called Advanced Modular Reactors.

Alongside the ‘Roadmap’, the government has also launched two consultations. One is to establish a new policy on ‘siting’ nuclear plants on ‘a greater diversity of sites’ and with ‘a flexible approach to nuclear siting’. The second concerns Alternative Routes to Market for New Nuclear Projects exploring how to ease the way for new nuclear. To the NFLAs these both sound suspiciously like vehicles to favour developers by loosening the regulatory regime to enable SMRs and AMRs to make development and deployment possible on a wider range of sites, by adopting new procedures involving less planning, licensing, and consultation with elected members, community organisations and the public.

11th January 2024

On the road to nowhere… Ministers launch nuclear ‘Roadmap’ in election year

The UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities are dismissive of the UK Government’s announcement today (11 Jan) of a ‘Roadmap’ supposedly outlining the route to undertake ‘the biggest expansion of nuclear power for 70 years’,[1] as another example of blinkered thinking by Ministers who are taking the wrong path to achieve energy security and net zero.

NFLA Chair Councillor Lawrence O’Neill said of the ‘Roadmap’: “Prime Minister Sunak and his ministers seem more like a group of clueless hikers too focused on the endless trail to their nuclear nirvana to see the turning immediately enroute which leads down the renewables path and the truly sustainable electricity future that Britain needs.

“Those with a cynical bent may be inclined to believe that its launch may not be coincidental in what is likely to be an election year as it represents a mantra of aspirations that will appeal to a certain voter base – two pointed references to Churchill are made by Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho in the preamble – but is nonetheless completely unaffordable. How can a vast programme of nuclear new build costing hundreds of billions of pounds be paid for, when the HS2 railway programme was curtailed on grounds of cost?

“Despite several academic reports having been published in recent months outlining how the UK can meet its electricity needs through renewables [2,3,4] this government appears intent to once more trod the route taken by many Ministers before them – the route of greatest resistance – to the nuclear never-never.

“A plan based upon generation by a range of green technologies, coupled with energy efficiency measures and storage solutions, would be far quicker, far cheaper, and create many jobs to achieve the government’s stated goals of achieving energy security and net zero for the nation.”

The ‘Civil Nuclear Roadmap’ recommits the government to building a fleet of nuclear reactors capable of producing 24GW by 2050, around a quarter of electricity demand. Approval will be given for one to two reactors every five years between 2030 and 2044, a rate far faster than historic trends. The plan is predicated upon building a third large-scale plant alongside Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C. This would most likely be located at Wylfa in North Wales, which was ‘talked up’ by Prime Minister Sunak in a recent interview with BBC Wales as ‘a fantastic site’.[5]

Government ministers are also wedded to investment in so-called Small Modular Reactors, which may be built at existing or former nuclear sites or co-located alongside large industrial consumers. A ‘competition’ is currently being held by a new company specifically created to take forward the government’s SMR ambitions. In the initial stage, Great British Nuclear has approved new SMR designs from six companies with a view to taking forward two as preferred competitors in the spring. The plan also provides for investment in a range of so-called Advanced Modular Reactors.

Alongside the ‘Roadmap’, the government has also launched two consultations. One is to establish a new policy on ‘siting’ nuclear plants on ‘a greater diversity of sites’ and with ‘a flexible approach to nuclear siting’. The second concerns Alternative Routes to Market for New Nuclear Projects exploring how to ease the way for new nuclear. To the NFLAs these both sound suspiciously like vehicles to favour developers by loosening the regulatory regime to enable SMRs and AMRs to make development and deployment possible on a wider range of sites, by adopting new procedures involving less planning, licensing, and consultation with elected members, community organisations and the public.

A third consultation on the taxonomy of nuclear projects, to declare nuclear a ‘green’ energy source to facilitate investment, and the publication of the government’s response to the consultation on managing radioactive waste are promised, but these have already been long-delayed.

But all is not ‘rosy’ in their nuclear garden.

Both the Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C plants will be built and operated by EDF, a French state- owned company which is in dire financial trouble and is faced with the diversion of needing to make further significant investment in existing and new nuclear plants at home. Hinkley Point C, which is currently under construction in Somerset, is behind schedule and massively over budget. In 2016, EDF estimated the cost of building the plant at £18 billion, this budget has now mushroomed to £33 billion at current prices. The enterprise was a partnership with CGN, a Chinese state-owned nuclear company, which agreed to take a 33.5 percent stake, but which last month declined to put any more money into the project after meeting its contracted share, putting more financial pressure on EDF.[6]

The date of first generation has also been constantly pushed back, with the latest official estimate that generation from reactor one will start in the summer of 2027 and from reactor two one year later. However, it is interesting to note that both The Daily Telegraph[7] and now The Guardian[8] have recently printed that generation will not actually begin until the 2030’s. Even the road map is non-specific pledging only to monitor developments so generation ‘can come online later this decade’.

At Sizewell C, EDF’s partners, CGN, were forced out on a tide of anti-Chinese sentiment and the French and British Governments instead agreed to take a fifty percent stake. £1.2 billion of UK taxpayers’ money has already been poured in, whilst Ministers seek private investment from the money markets to enable them to reduce the government’s stake. Eager to move things on, in the ‘Roadmap’ Ministers have pledged to arrive at a Financial Investment Decision ‘before the end of this Parliament’ and to hold a future consultation on taxonomy, but this will not make money materialise.

For whilst ministers and certain sections of the media talk of the budget as being as low as £20 billion, this seems fanciful given the additional engineering challenges attached to development at the Suffolk site and the established runaway cost of Sizewell’s older sister at Hinkley Point C, and respected academics, such as Professor Stephen Thomas at the University of Greenwich, have calculated that the eventual cost could be over twice that. Although there has rumours of interest in investment from Middle East sovereignty funds and Centrica, nothing of substance has so far materialised, and investors may baulk at the cost.

Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C would both be equipped with the EPR, the European Pressurised Reactor, a design with a chequered history. One EPR in China was offline for many months following an accident and others in Finland and France have, or are being, delivered very late, well over budget and with a series of ‘teething troubles’. Even EDF’s former Chief Executive Henri Proglio, in December 2022 told a hearing of the French National Assembly in exasperation that: “The EPR is too complicated, almost unbuildable. We see the result today.”[9]

Interest in Wylfa has been expressed by American nuclear engineering companies Westinghouse and Bechtel, whose performance has proven to be lamentable at the VC Summer and Vogtle 3 nuclear projects in the United States. In South Carolina, a new nuclear project ended in a fiasco, with a corporate bankruptcy, prosecutions for fraud, and an inoperable plant which amounted to a ‘hole in the ground which had to be filled in’ at an estimated cost of up to $9 billion to state taxpayers.[10] Whilst in Georgia, Vogtle 3 has just begun operations after a six-year delay and with a $30 billion price tag.[11] More likely to coalesce is an interest from KEPCO, the South Korean nuclear company, which signed a commercial partnership agreement alongside the recent state visit paid to the UK by the South Korean President.

On the SMR front, only two of the six potential designs have so far been entered into the Generic Design Assessment process managed by the Office of Nuclear Regulation. The government have pledged to speed this process up but may face pushback from the regulators. Although the ‘Roadmap’ specifies 2029 as the target date for investment decision making, we are still at an early stage with the six designs still technically unproven and, as shown by NuScale’s recent experience in Utah, financially uncertain. As to the supposedly Advanced Modular Reactor designs, these are mostly rehashed concepts first developed in the aftermath of the Second World War, tried previously, and found wanting.

In describing the ‘road’ that Ministers have ‘mapped’ out, NFLA Chair Cllr Lawrence O’Neill added:

“This is indeed a rocky road involving dependency on foreign investment, foreign technologies, and, yes until at least 2030, Russian uranium; failed or uncertain reactor designs; the uncertain risk of accidents; the most certain generation of radioactive waste; and the massive cost of managing both it and the decommissioning of old plants. And reliance on nuclear will mean creating an energy network of potential ‘dirty bombs’ that will be a prime target for terrorists and hostile state actors in time of war.

“Nonetheless these Whitehall hikers are heedless, for ultimately it will be electricity consumers and taxpayers who will pick up the tab for their folly with new plants funded through the imposition of a ‘nuclear tax’ on bills through the Regulated Asset Model; through paying higher metered prices for the electricity generated by nuclear plants; by paying for the cost of decommissioning the old nuclear plants; and by bankrolling the ongoing management of the resultant nuclear waste.

“These costs will be especially burdensome for low-income households already faced with huge energy bills and would be iniquitous to consumers in my own native Scotland which has so robustly rejected nuclear.”

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

References: ……………………………………………………….

January 14, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Ayrshire radiation highlighted as Labour’s nuclear support attacked

12th January

SCOTTISH Labour have been called out for their support of nuclear energy as
an MP warned of the risks of radioactivity in parts of the country. Allan
Dorans, the MP for Ayr said parts of his constituency were being
contaminated by radioactive waste from the Sellafield reprocessing plant in
Cumbria.

He highlighted research which found that shellfish caught off the
Ayrshire coast at Maidens, in the extreme west of his constituency,
contained radiation at a level which would mean it would be illegal for
sale in Japan.

It comes as the Government yesterday unveiled new plans for
what it called the “biggest nuclear expansion in 70 years”. Catches,
including the shells of mussels, cockles and winkles made off the Ayrshire
coast, which is downstream from Sellafield, were found to contain
“significant” levels of radiation in a 2015 study.

Labour are committed
to nuclear energy, with party leader Keir Starmer using a speech last
summer to slam the Government for stalling the UK’s progress on setting up
new atomic power plans and to pledge if in power he would invest in the
energy source. But concerns have been raised about its safety, with critics
pointing to the possibility of leaks or major breakdowns like Chernobyl or
Fukushima.

The National 12th Jan 2024

https://www.thenational.scot/news/24044180.ayrshire-radiation-highlighted-labours-nuclear-support-attacked/

January 14, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Allan Dorans: Scottish Labour’s support for nuclear fuel poses a risk

THE Labour candidate for the Central Ayrshire constituency at the next
General Election is supported by the GMB Scotland trade union. The GMB is a
champion of the nuclear fuels industry and of nuclear weapons.

The Labour candidate for my constituency of Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock will follow the
UK Labour Party line which supports Trident and is calling for new nuclear
power stations in Scotland.

My party, the SNP, is firmly opposed to both.
Just last month, The Guardian released a video explaining why the
Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in Cumbria, a short distance down the
coast from my constituency and upstream from it, is “Europe’s most
dangerous industrial site”, pointing out that Sellafield has failed to
contain numerous threats, including a cybersecurity breach by groups linked
to Russia and China and of growing physical cracks in its “most hazardous
facility”. In 2016, researchers at Glasgow University reported
“enhanced” radioactivity levels, in shellfish catches, at a number of
coastal locations in Cumbria, near the Sellafield plant, and on the west
coast of Scotland, including the village of Maidens, in my Ayrshire
constituency.

The National 12th Jan 2024

https://www.thenational.scot/politics/24044322.allan-dorans-scottish-labours-support-nuclear-fuel-poses-risk/

January 14, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

UK’s Nuclear Roadmap is Pure Fantasy

11th January 2024,  http://stophinkley.org/press-releases/nuclear-roadmap-is-pure-fantasy/

The Stop Hinkley Campaign has described the Government’s so-called Nuclear Roadmap as “pure fantasy”.

The Roadmap majors on plans to explore the possibility of building another large-scale power plant as big as Hinkley Point C. Anglesey and Cumbria are suggested as possible sites. But these sites were designated twelve and a half years ago and have come to nothing. The problem is finding somebody willing to invest the huge sums of money required for these risky projects. SSE, Iberdrola, Engie and Toshiba have already rejected the idea of investing in Moorside in Cumbria. And RWE, Eon and Hitachi have given up on Wylfa on Anglesey.

The Financial Times reports today that the Government and EDF might be able to raise £20bn to fund Sizewell C by end of this year. This looks as though it will probably include investment from the United Arab Emirates sovereign wealth fund. So, we have basically jumped out of a Chinese frying pan into a UAE fire.

Stop Hinkley Spokesperson Roy Pumfrey said:

“This plan is yet another vague wish-list from the Government. It is pure fantasy. Many people will be tempted to echo Beryl from Bristol’s famous phrase “Not another one!” There is nothing here which get us any closer to the important target of zero carbon electricity by 2035. We need to rapidly ramp up energy efficiency and home refurbishments – something we could be doing right now that would save people money.

Global renewable energy capacity grew by the fastest pace recorded in the last 20 years last year,  but it’s still not fast enough.  Britain is fast losing its lead in this area, thanks to Government bungling and too much focus on fantasy nuclear projects.”

He continued:

“The two reactors being built at Hinkley Point C are now unlikely to be generating electricity until 2028 and 2029  at the earliest and the cost is likely to reach £33bn.  Our climate simply doesn’t have the time to wait around for these expensive white elephants to come on-line.

We need to get on with energy efficiency and renewable developments right now.”

Read More: SH Roadmap PR 110124

January 13, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

UK Government’s nuclear power expansion plans branded hot air

12 Jan 24  https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/government-nuclear-power-expansion-plans-branded-hot-air

NEW government plans for “Britain’s biggest nuclear power expansion in 70 years” were dismissed today as “unevidenced” hot air.

Unite and Greenpeace poured doubt over ministers’ latest “grandiose” promises of cheap energy provision amid faltering nuclear output and project delays.

The government has published a roadmap recommitting itself to building a series of nuclear reactors capable of producing 24 gigawatts — a quarter of national electricity demand — by 2050.

Approval would be given for one or two new reactors every five years from 2030 to 2044, alongside backing for another large-scale reactor in addition to Hinkley Point C and the planned Sizewell C.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak hailed the announcement as “the next step in our commitment to nuclear power, which puts us on course to achieve net zero by 2050 in a measured and sustainable way.”

But Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said: “The government’s announcement to expand nuclear power sounds like a lot of hot air.

“We have had years of time wasting and underinvestment by ministers in this industry, which is vital to achieving energy security and net zero.”We have had years of time wasting and underinvestment by ministers in this industry, which is vital to achieving energy security and net zero.

“If they now want to be taken seriously we need to see far more detail and clarity. Any plans for nuclear need to include small modular reactors as part of Britain’s balanced energy mix.

“It is also essential that we don’t just hand over government funding to private companies and hope for the best.”

French energy giant EDF said the cost of Hinkley Point C has spiralled to £33bn, a 30 per cent increase from 2015 when it forecast the cost at £25-£26bn.

Hinckley Point C’s planned successor project at Sizewell C in Suffolk, which has been planned for the past 12 years, is yet to receive a final investment decision.

Greenpeace UK chief scientist Doug Parr said: “Every few months the government makes a grandiose public announcement about future nuclear in the hope that a big investor will believe the hype and step up to fund this 20^th century technology, but it isn’t working.

“The energy industry knows that the economic case for slow, expensive nuclear just doesn’t add up, and the future is renewable.

“This vague, aspirational announcement with its unevidenced claims of cheap energy is unlikely to change their minds when there are real reactors overshooting their massive construction budgets and showing them the truth.”

January 13, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment