No Ceasefire in the Propaganda War
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2023/11/no-ceasefire-in-the-propaganda-war/
I have had BBC News on in the background for the last two hours. In that time there have been three lengthy interviews with different relatives of Israeli hostages held by Hamas. There has not been a single interview with a Palestinian relative of a Palestinian prisoner held by Israel.
Today 13 Israeli prisoners and 39 Palestinian prisoners are due to be released. 90% of the BBC mentions of prisoner releases do not include the Palestinians at all. Just finished is a ten minute interview of a Professor in Kent on the psychological effects on Israeli hostages. Earlier there was an expert from Tel Aviv on the psychological impact on Israeli hostages’ families. There has been no report whatsoever of the impact on Palestinian prisoners and their families.
The BBC simply does not treat the Palestinians as human, whereas the emphasis on Israeli personal victimhood is incessant and unrelenting.
Of the 300 Palestinian women and children prisoners on the list possibly to be released during the ceasefire, 252 have never been charged with any crime. 23 were charged with stone throwing.
Since October 8 over 200 Palestinian children have been taken prisoner, none of whom had anything to do with the October 7 attacks. That rather puts the possible release of 33 children and six women today into perspective. But it is not a perspective the BBC would ever give you.
Over 2,000 Palestinians are held by Israel in “administrative detention”, without charge or trial. Some for over twenty years.
Since 1967 Israel has made over 1 million arrests of Palestinians. This “justice” system is an essential part of the imposition of apartheid and the slow genocide, which did not just start this autumn. The BBC won’t tell you that either, and appears to have no problem with permanently showcasing its Israel based correspondents churning out the Israeli propaganda narrative, with no attempt at either perspective or balance.
Poor nuclear prospects in UK
The Global Warming Policy Foundation, no stranger to controversy, has published a report on nuclear prospects, which is quite damning, with the GWPF claiming that it shows that the nuclear industry is now so dysfunctional it may have no future in the UK without a concerted policy and regulatory effort. The report’s author, energy consultant and Daily Telegraph columnist Kathryn Porter, says ‘most of our existing nuclear fleet will close in the next few years, with almost nothing to replace it, and I see little cause for optimism that the economic or regulatory environment will produce significant new capacity any time soon.’………………
In the report, Porter goes through the technical options in a quite neutral way, but warns that, at present, ‘the economic opportunities for nuclear power in Great Britain are mixed. The Government hopes that the new Regulated Asset Base model will attract investor interest by increasing income certainty and transferring some risks to consumers. However, Ofgem has been designated as the economic regulator in this area, and its track record in setting consistent and effective price controls for gas and electricity network operators has been mixed. It is now under significant pressure to contain energy company profits, which may make nuclear developers nervous about the model and how it may operate in practice’.
So she is concerned about funding. ………………………………..
Prof. Malcolm Grimson from Imperial College London focused more on the economics: ‘The paper is rightly very clear that the economic risks of nuclear power – in short, that compared to other power options, much more of the cost of nuclear generation is front-loaded in the construction phase, so managing risks of cost or schedule overruns is a practically insuperable task for private capital – are such that heavy state involvement, probably up to and including direct state investment in new nuclear construction, is unavoidable.’
He added ‘The paper is also probably right in saying that the CfD/strike price structure which was created to fund Hinkley Point C probably will not be repeated……………………..
It will be interesting to see how the government (and the nuclear industry) responds to Porters analysis of funding and energy pricing policy, and especially to the point that, given the zero fuel costs of renewable, but also their operational costs, ‘determining the optimal generation mix of nuclear and renewable energy when taking the full costs to consumers into account is challenging’………………………..
she backs off talking about nationalisation,……………………… https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2023/11/poor-nuclear-prospects.html
Rolls Royce panicking, as UK government and investors are lukewarm about its small nuclear reactor project?
Rolls-Royce boss Tufan Erginbilgic: Britain must win nuclear race. The
boss of Rolls-Royce is this week expected to urge the Government to throw
its full weight behind ground-breaking British nuclear technology developed
by the country’s flagship engineering giant. Chief executive Tufan
Erginbilgic is pushing through a whirlwind transformation of the company.
He will on Tuesday unveil his blueprint for restoring Rolls to its former
glory. ‘Turbo-Tufan’ will be highlighting his company’s mini nuclear
power plants – known as SMRs, standing for small modular reactors.
Erginbilgic is a big believer in the SMR project, which is based on
technology honed for use in submarines over the last three decades.
Rolls-Royce, which has so far benefited from about £200 million
of Government backing for its work, is ahead of other companies in the UK
and abroad. But Erginbilgic is understood to be concerned that competitors
will catch up if the Government does not give its full-throated support.
There are also fears that potential overseas buyers of the technology are
hesitant because of the British Government’s apparently lukewarm attitude
towards Rolls-Royce’s technology.
Instead of backing Rolls outright, the
Government launched a competition to select an SMR provider, pitting the
company against foreign rivals. Six firms were selected for the next phase
of the competition last month, including EDF of France and a joint venture
between the US’s GE and Hitachi of Japan. Erginbilgic is likely to argue
that the process should be speeded up.
This is Money 25th Nov 2023
The EU Confirmed That Over Half A Million Ukrainian Men Fled To Escape Conscription
Zelensky’s forthcoming conscription drive might be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back and could result in the Maidan scenario and/or perhaps even the Zaluzhny-led mutiny that he’s so afraid of nowadays.
The EU’s official statistics body Eurostat confirmed that an estimated 650,000 military-age Ukrainian men entered the bloc since the start of Russia’s special operation, though they acknowledged that it could be much more since their data only accounts for those who’ve officially registered their status. The BBC reported on this shortly after Zelensky promised that a new conscription drive will begin next week, and the timing of their article can thus be interpreted as a subtle signal that they expect this policy to fail.
As it turns out, Zelensky’s parliamentary ally David Arakhamia admitted just the other day that former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson convinced the Ukrainians to abandon spring 2022’s Istanbul peace process with Russia despite the two warring sides having been on the brink of a deal. This makes the UK state broadcaster’s aforesaid signal bittersweet since their country is morally responsible at least in part for all the deaths over the past 20 months since Kiev pulled out of those peace talks……………………………………… more https://korybko.substack.com/p/the-eu-confirmed-that-over-half-a?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=835783&post_id=139165040&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&utm_medium=email
Ukraine ‘concerned’ by Western push for peace talks – security chief
https://www.rt.com/russia/587695-ukraine-concerned-russia-talks/ 20 Nov, 2023
The West must keep supporting Kiev if it wants to keep ruling the world, Alexey Danilov has claimed
Kiev is worried that its Western backers are calling for peace out of an irrational fear of Russia, Aleksey Danilov, the secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, said on Monday.
Danilov spoke via video link to the annual conference of the Halifax International Security Forum, a Washington, DC-based pressure group funded in part by the Canadian government.
“Ukraine is concerned by the fact that discussions among certain partners have intensified regarding the need for negotiations, consultations, meetings with the Russians to discuss the issues of the war in Ukraine, a ceasefire, etc.,” Danilov said, according to a transcript posted by his office.
He attributed this to a “rudimentary fear” of Russia and argued that the West should follow Ukraine’s example instead, as Moscow “only understands the language of force.”
According to Danilov, the current conflict is “a struggle between democracy and tyranny,” with the West and Ukraine on one side, and Russia, China, Iran and North Korea on the other. If Russia is not defeated, the world should expect a new “axis of evil” within 15-20 years that would include “some European countries” as well, he insisted. “Ukraine and the Ukrainian people will fight to the end. We are sure of our victory.”
President Vladimir Zelensky’s top security official described Ukraine’s idea of victory as the “controlled decomposition of Russia into several parts” leading not just to “regime change” in Moscow but the “de-sovereignization… denuclearization and demilitarization” of the neighboring country.
Meanwhile, he said, Ukraine needs more Western funding and support to restore its 1991 borders and become an economic powerhouse
“Ukraine has every chance to become a strategic project of the West, which will demonstrate the full power of the vitality of democracy and the defense of universal values,” Danilov insisted. “The West must confirm that it is and remains the First, and a victorious Ukraine will serve as a convincing narrative in the modern confrontation between slavery and freedom!”
Earlier on Monday, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin arrived in Kiev to offer moral support for Ukraine, but had no new military assistance to announce. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told the outlet CNBC that Ukraine is “utterly dependent” on US funding to keep paying the salaries of government workers, calling the continued funding of Kiev a “critical priority” for US national security.
Most of the congressionally approved funding for Ukraine has been spent and the White House has been trying to pressure Congress to pass more, so far with no effect.
Engie demands close scrutiny of French nuclear power deal to ensure competition.
A recent deal regulating French nuclear power risks making
electricity more expensive and must be carefully monitored to ensure the
new rules do not strengthen EDF’s dominant position, power group Engie’s
CEO said on Wednesday. Vigilance will be needed to ensure EDF’s producer
and supplier activities are strictly separated, said Engie (ENGIE.PA),
which is the second largest electricity supplier in the country behind
state-owned EDF.
Reuters 22nd Nov 2023
UK GOVERNMENT BLOCKS MP QUESTIONS ABOUT GAZA-RELATED ACTIVITY AT ITS CYPRUS BASE
Ministry of Defence takes extraordinary step of censoring all requests for information by MPs about RAF Akrotiri on Cyprus, which Declassified has reported is facilitating arms supplies to Israel’s war on Gaza.
MATT KENNARD AND MARK CURTIS, 20 NOVEMBER 2023 https://www.declassifieduk.org/uk-government-blocks-mp-questions-about-gaza-related-activity-at-its-cyprus-base/
- MP whose questions were blocked tells Declassified: “This is totally unacceptable in a democracy”
- RAF sent A400M military transport aircraft from Cyprus base to Tel Aviv this morning
- Britain’s Cyprus base has secretly become international military hub supporting Israel’s bombing of Gaza
The British government has blocked MPs asking any questions about activity at RAF Akrotiri, its vast air base on Cyprus, Declassified can reveal.
Blocking all parliamentary questions from MPs is a highly unusual move.
Government departments routinely refuse to answer specific questions about military operations for reasons of “national security”, but blocking all questions by elected parliamentarians goes far beyond the usual level of Whitehall secrecy.
It comes after Declassified revealed the RAF has made over 30 military transport flights to Tel Aviv since Israel began bombing Gaza. The Ministry of Defence refused to provide us any detail of the cargo or personnel on the flights.
Just this morning an A400M Atlas military transport aircraft operated by the RAF landed in Tel Aviv from Akrotiri. The aircraft can carry 116 soldiers, a Chinook helicopter or a payload of 37 tonnes.
RAF Akrotiri sits 180 miles from Tel Aviv with a flight time of 40 minutes.
Declassified has also reported that the US is moving arms to Israel using RAF Akrotiri, which has become an international military hub supporting Israel’s bombing campaign in Gaza. Half of US planes flying from British Cyprus are said to be carrying weapons for Israel.
Kenny MacAskill, Alba MP for East Lothian, told Declassified he put down a number of parliamentary questions concerning what military support the UK is providing to Israel and the role of RAF Akrotiri in the supply of military equipment.
“Your question has been queried because it is subject to a block by Government,” he was told in an email. “The Department [Ministry of Defence] has stated that it will not comment on operational matters at this base.”
MacAskill, a former Scottish justice secretary, told Declassified: “This is totally unacceptable in a democracy. Genocide is being perpetrated in Gaza and we have a right to know what our Government is doing about it.”
MacAskill said he had never experienced such a ‘block’ on asking parliamentary questions before.
He added: “The failure to call for an immediate ceasefire is bad enough but any complicity raises issues of participating in war crimes. We need openness and transparency by our government. This is not in our name.”
Secrecy
The UK military-run Defence and Security Media Advisory (DSMA) Committee – better known as the ‘D-Notice’ committee – has also sent out an ‘advisory’ to all British media to suppress reporting on UK special forces’ activity related to Gaza. The SAS was previously reported to have deployed a force to Cyprus.
No British mainstream media outlets have reported on Declassified’s recent findings about RAF Akrotiri and Gaza despite the President of Cyprus Nikos Christodoulides having to defend his government from accusations of complicity in Israel’s bombing of Gaza.
In answer to questions about the use of RAF Akrotiri by Cypriot journalists over the weekend, Christodoulides said: “There is no such information, our country cannot be used as a base for war operations”.
However, RAF Akrotiri has long been the staging post for British bombing campaigns across the Middle East. Declassified also recently revealed that 129 US airmen are also permanently deployed at the base.
The censorship of information requests from MPs makes it all but certain that RAF Akrotiri is being used for covert military purposes that the government does not want the public to know about.
It is likely the UK is sending material military aid to Israel during its bombing of Gaza, which has now killed over 12,000 Palestinians, although it previously told Declassified it was not providing “lethal aid”.
Nuclear Power: UK’s Financial Challenge Unveiled
the actual cost might reach as high as £10 billion per reactor, resulting in an astonishing cumulative expense for the decommissioning process. …
this substantial cost could ultimately fall on taxpayers, raising concerns about the financial burden on the public.
Dev X Noah Nguyen, November 21, 2023
The UK’s Commitment to Nuclear Power and Financial Challenges
The United Kingdom’s dedication to nuclear power is becoming a financially challenging commitment as the dismantling expenses for its nuclear generating facilities continue to escalate. These costs have been advantageous for businesses involved in the dismantling process but a noteworthy expenditure for UK taxpayers
Regardless of the substantial costs associated with the new nuclear reactors at Hinkley Site C and the rising price of clean-up initiatives, the nation’s government remains committed to nuclear technology. This unwavering commitment is driven by the belief that nuclear power is crucial for achieving the UK’s long-term energy security and climate change goals. However, critics argue that increased investment in renewable energy sources could provide similar benefits, without the high financial burden and safety concerns associated with nuclear power……………………………………………………
Concerns Regarding Decommissioning Costs and Life Expectancy of Reactors
Nearly all of the remaining functional reactors are scheduled for closure by 2028, except Sizewell B, anticipated to stay in operation until 2035. With a life expectancy of roughly 40 years—considerably shorter than the 60 to 80 years frequently claimed by the sector—questions emerge about the demolition costs for the existing 23 reactors and the two under construction at Hinkley Point C.
As these reactors reach the end of their life cycle, it is crucial to plan and allocate resources effectively for their dismantling and waste disposal. The cost of decommissioning and managing nuclear facilities can significantly impact the overall economic feasibility of the energy generated, emphasizing the need for accurate cost estimations and environmentally responsible strategies.
Projected Costs of Dismantling and Importance of Effective Management
By the end of 2022, the UK’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) projected a total dismantling cost of £149 billion. If this figure encompasses Hinkley Site C, it would equate to about £6 billion per reactor. This substantial financial investment highlights the importance of thoroughly managing the decommissioning process to ensure effective resource allocation. With the growing push towards renewable energy sources, proper management and safe dismantling of nuclear reactors have become increasingly significant for the country’s transition towards sustainable energy.
Higher Potential Costs and the Financial Burden on Taxpayers
However, Professor Stephen Thomas from the University of Greenwich’s energy policy department posits that the actual cost might reach as high as £10 billion per reactor, resulting in an astonishing cumulative expense for the decommissioning process. He further elaborates that this substantial cost could ultimately fall on taxpayers, raising concerns about the financial burden on the public. To mitigate such consequences, proper planning and establishing an adequate funding source must be undertaken for a feasible and efficient decommissioning process…………………………………………………………………………………….
What are the concerns regarding the decommissioning costs and life expectancy of nuclear reactors in the UK?
With functional reactors scheduled for closure and shorter life expectancies than often claimed, there are concerns about the demolition costs for the existing reactors and effective management of resources for dismantling and waste disposal. The cost of decommissioning can significantly impact the overall economic feasibility of nuclear-generated energy and necessitates accurate cost estimations and environmentally responsible strategies………….. https://www.devx.com/news/nuclear-power-uks-financial-challenge-unveiled/
Tories, Labour clash over Milton Keynes nuclear waste claims
Claims that Milton Keynes is being considered as a site to store nuclear
waste have sparked a war of words between the Labour and Conservative
parties. The Labour Leader of Milton Keynes City Council Peter Marland
claimed that a site in the north of the city had been identified as a
potential dumping ground for nuclear waste.
He said that Nuclear Waste
Services, the body responsible for managing the nuclear waste generated
from UK power stations, has contacted the council about an “interested
party” looking for a site. Nuclear Waste Services has been approached for
comment. In an email seen by the BBC Local Democracy Reporting Service
(LDRS) a council official said they had been contacted by a member of the
government body who “confirmed that they will ‘close out’ with the
interested party, meaning the initial assessment of a site in MK will go no
further”.
Milton Keynes Labour said it had launched a petition to oppose
the “plans” that will be sent to the Secretary of State for Energy
Security and Net Zero, Claire Coutinho.
Bucks Free Press 21st Nov 2023
Energy and Climate Scenarios Paradoxically Assume Considerable Nuclear Energy Growth
DIW Weekly Report 45-49 / 2023, S. 293-301
Christian von Hirschhausen, Björn Steigerwald, Franziska Hoffart, Claudia Kemfert, Jens Weibezahn, Alexander Wimmers
get_app Download (PDF 0.52 MB)
get_app Gesamtausgabe/ Whole Issue (PDF 2.63 MB – barrierefrei / universal access)
Abstract
Most climate and energy scenarios created by international organizations and researchers include a considerable expansion of nuclear energy. In the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, for example, nuclear energy increases from a current 3,000 terawatt hours on average to over 6,000 terawatt hours in 2050 and to over 12,000 terawatt hours in 2100.
This doubling and quadrupling of nuclear energy production by 2050 and 2100 is contradictory to the technical and economic realities: At no point have newly built nuclear energy plants ever been competitive, nor will they become so in the foreseeable future.
This contradiction, referred to here as the nuclear energy scenario paradox, can be explained by a series of politico- economic, institutional, and geopolitical factors.
In particular, the close relationship between the military and commercial uses of nuclear energy as well as the interest of the nuclear industry and its organizations in self-preservation play a role.
The assumptions and model logic of the scenarios must be critically scrutinized. There is the risk that considerable public and private funds will be invested in developing technologies for the commercial use of nuclear energy despite the fact that other technologies are expected to offer a significantly better cost-performance ratio with fewer economic, technical, and military risks. In light of the urgency of climate change mitigation, continuing to channel personnel and financial resources into nuclear energy is problematic.
Etopia Report: the nuclear problem – economic realities
Selected quotes for from the eTopia report 2023 (translated from the French)
“4.5. The pharaonic cost of accidents and uninsurability of Nuclear
For their part, the potential costs of nuclear incidents and accidents are difficult to take into account in the cost of the mWh, even if they are very real. Thus, the sabotage (still not clarified) in 2014 of one of the reactors at Doel cost Engie nearly 100 million euros. And in case largest accident, no insurance company in the world will agree to cover nuclear power plants.
The maximum amount of damage up to which liability of the operator is incurred, amounts to €1.2 billion for each accident nuclear ! The additional costs would therefore be borne by the taxpayers (see on this subject the Price Anderson Act, American legal framework of irresponsibility of operators on which the legislation is based today (European).
As an example – and scale – the cost of the disaster of Chernobyl is estimated, at a minimum, at more than 200 billion euros, that of Fukushima today exceeds 170 billion, while the counter still running… The Institute of Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) studied the economic cost of a nuclear accident, if it occurred in France. A serious accident would cost on average 120 billion euros, a major accident, 430 billion euros… or the GDP of Belgium.
In a recent interview, Patrick Pouyanné, boss of Total Energies, explains why the company will not go into nuclear power. Acknowledging that they had studied the issue very seriously, he concluded: “it’s very capital intensive and the risk cocktail is too important to a private company”. Too expensive and too dangerous, therefore. In Germany, a study commissioned by the Versicherungsforen Leipzig, a service provider for insurance companies, calculated in 2011 that if an insurance wanted to constitute sufficient premiums to a nuclear power plant within 50 years, for example, it should ask for 72 billion euros per year for civil liability!
In practical, the reactors cannot therefore be insured, unless that the price of electricity is multiplied by… twenty. The study explains years of market distortion in favor of nuclear energy and to the detriment of competition. Uwe Leprich from the University of Sciences applied sciences of Saarbrücken, demonstrates that “nuclear energy is not competitive when considered from an economic point of view appropriate in terms of regulatory policy. »
ETOPIA is a Center for animation and research in political ecology. Founded in 2004, based in Namur, our think tank brings together environmental activists, associate researchers, trainers and change agents.
Link eTopia Nuclear 2023 Report: https://rep.etopia.be/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/LIVRE_PROBLEME_NUCLEAIRE_WEB.pdf
The Russian nuclear industry during wartime, 2022 and early 2023
Bellona has published a new report that analyze the new footing on which
Rosatom, Russia’s power state nuclear corporation, has found itself as the
the war in Ukraine grinds on. It’s clear that the putatively civilian
corporation is now a direct participant in and beneficiary of Russia’s
seizure of Ukrainian nuclear infrastructure.
In the early days of the war,
Moscow’s troops marched into Chernobyl, site of the world’s worst nuclear
accident and now the host of numerous industrial scale activities aimed at
cleaning it up. Days later, it then overran the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power
plant — Europe’s largest such facility — making it the world’s first
nuclear power station to be taken as prize as the result of an armed
attack. Click here to download the report: The Russian nuclear industry during wartime, 2022 and early 2023
Bellona 21st Nov 2023
UK Has £10 Billion Per Nuclear Reactor Decommissioning Bottomless Pit
estimate in late 2022 was that the program was likely to cost £260 billion given the cost trends. That’s £10.4 billion per reactor, an order of magnitude higher than the industry average of three years ago.
Whether £6 billion or £10 billion, these numbers should be giving national energy policy makers pause. After all, those costs are going to be paid in the future in future value dollars that will be inflated. They won’t be getting magically smaller due to discounting, but should be included in cost cases with the discounting rates built in.
Clean Technica, , Michael Barnard
The decommissioning costs for the UK’s nuclear generation are coming home to roost, and they are laying golden eggs for the firms that won the business. For UK citizens, not so much. Despite the very high costs of both the new nuclear reactors at Hinkley Site C, the rapidly rising costs of clean up and the much cheaper alternatives available, the country’s current administration remains committed to the technology. Something is likely to give.
The UK is like the USA and France, a western nuclear military power. They built and operated four nuclear powered submarines with nuclear missiles and two nuclear powered aircraft carriers. That gave them one of the preconditions for success for commercial nuclear electricity generation.
They built all of the 14 shut down and 9 currently operating nuclear generation plants between 1957 and 1995, satisfying the conditions of success of a three to four decade build out to maintain master builders, creation of a nuclear construction industry with skilled, certified and security validated resources, and building a couple of dozen reactors to amortize the national program across.
They built all reactors with a very narrow set of designs, first the Magnox which also created weapons grade plutonium and then the AGR which was a modified Magnox optimized for electricity generation, not plutonium manufacturing. The high similarity and only two designs across all 23 reactors satisfied another criterion for success of a nuclear program…………….
Naturally, the nuclear program was a national strategic priority for the UK with bi-partisan support between the Conservatives and Labour, satisfying another condition of success.
This was a blueprint for a successful nuclear electrical generation program, and why nuclear generation is a poor fit for free market economics.
Despite no longer having the obvious conditions for success for a new nuclear program, the British government got behind the Hinkley Point C construction of two new EPR reactors with their unproven design. That program is years late and 50% over budget as a result. The reactors are GW scale, with 3.2 GW between the two reactors so have one condition for success out of six. The UK government also have planned two EPRs at the Sizewell site, with one of the innumerable Conservative Prime Ministers of the past decade committing £100 million of governmental money in a vain attempt to get any private investors interested. No schedule has been set for construction of those reactors.
But now the reactors are shut down or about to be shut down. Most of the remaining operating reactors will be off the grid by 2028, with only Sizewell B hanging on until 2035. All reactors had roughly a 40 year lifespan, not the 60 to 80 years often claimed by the industry, including the 60 year claim for Hinkley Point C.
How much will it cost to decommission those 23 reactors and the two Hinkley Point C reactors still under construction? The last time I looked at nuclear decommissioning costs and duration was three years ago. At the time, the average was roughly a billion US dollars and a century of duration per site.
Well, the UK’s nuclear program is definitely exceeding that. As of late 2022, the official estimate of the UK’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) was £149 billion. Assuming Hinkley Site C was rolled into that number, that would be a cost of £6 billion per reactor, or more than many nuclear advocates claim new nuclear can be built for.
However, Stephen Thomas, a professor of energy policy at the University of Greenwich and a regular analyst of the nuclear industry with a publication history on energy and nuclear programs with a global reach stretching back to 2004, has a slightly different expectation. He first published on the UK’s NDA in 2005 and has been tracking costs closely since, including with freedom of information requests to get accurate numbers.
His estimate in late 2022 was that the program was likely to cost £260 billion given the cost trends. That’s £10.4 billion per reactor, an order of magnitude higher than the industry average of three years ago.
Whether £6 billion or £10 billion, these numbers should be giving national energy policy makers pause. After all, those costs are going to be paid in the future in future value dollars that will be inflated. They won’t be getting magically smaller due to discounting, but should be included in cost cases with the discounting rates built in.
Given the magnitude of the costs, effectively every MWh generated by the UK fleet of reactors cost substantially more than its official stated cost. The price will be paid, after all.
If there were no alternatives to nuclear generation, then this wouldn’t be a problem compared to global warming. But, of course, this is 2023 and there are proven, effective, efficient and reliable forms of low-carbon electrical generation that do compete with nuclear energy, wind and solar. ……………………………………
The full lifecycle costs of nuclear energy are fairly well established now, and they are much higher than for renewables, transmission and storage. The conditions for success for nuclear programs are well established as well, and there isn’t a single country in the world that has fulfilled them in the 21st Century. Even China has failed, in my assessment as their industrial policy of exporting nuclear reactors of any type foreign buyers might want overrode energy policy requirements to build only a single design.
It’s unclear to me what blend of ideology, tribalism and magical thinking are combining to make countries think that their nuclear programs are unique, and that they will succeed at them when there are clear alternatives. https://cleantechnica.com/2023/11/19/uk-has-e10-billion-per-nuclear-reactor-decommissioning-bottomless-pit/
Major malfunction on Royal navy nuclear submarine plunges warship into ‘danger zone’
The sub was preparing to go on patrol when dials indicating its depth stopped working, leaving commanders to think it was level when it was still diving.
Jerome Starkey – The Sun, November 20, 202
A Royal navy nuclear sub sinking towards its crush depth was saved moments from disaster.
A depth gauge failed on the decades-old Vanguard class vessel, carrying 140 crew and Trident 2 doomsday missiles in the Atlantic.
Such a catastrophe would also have triggered a nightmare salvage mission to recover the top-secret vessel and its nuclear reactor before the Russians got to the scene, The Sun reports.
The sub was preparing to go on patrol when dials indicating its depth stopped working, leaving commanders to think it was level when it was still diving.
It was entering the “danger zone” when engineers at the back of the 490ft Vanguard-class vessel spotted a second gauge and raised the alarm………………………………………. more https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/major-malfunction-on-royal-navy-nuclear-submarine-plunges-warship-into-danger-zone/news-story/6267e0293fd0b47979b907f1912d5058
Nuclear submarine scare for 140 British crew due to ‘faulty’ gauge
George Sandeman, Monday November 20 2023, The Times
A Royal Navy nuclear submarine travelled to dangerous oceanic depths because of a failed gauge, it was reported last night.
The Vanguard-class vessel, which was carrying 140 crew and equipped with Trident missiles, was operating in the Atlantic at the time of the incident. It was preparing to go on patrol when the depth gauge stopped working, according to The Sun, leading commanders to believe that the submarine was level when it was still diving
Its descent was only halted once engineers working at the rear of the vessel noticed the actual depth on a second gauge, which was working correctly, and raised the alarm…………………………………..https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nuclear-submarine-scare-for-140-british-crew-due-to-faulty-gauge-5nlv2bgqc
1 This Month
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
- October 2026 (19)
- September 2026 (339)
- 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)
-
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
