What now for Germany’s remaining nuclear waste?
Jens Thurau, 24 Apr 23 https://www.dw.com/en/what-now-for-germanys-remaining-nuclear-waste/a-65420338
Germany has shut down its last nuclear power stations. But the issue isn’t going anywhere, as the country faces the question of what to do with its remaining nuclear waste.
Nuclear energy in Germany has been history since mid-April. At one time, up to 20 nuclear power plants fed electricity into the German grid. But all that is over now. The last three nuclear power plants ended their operations on April 15.
To Germany’s environment minister Steffi Lemke of the Green Party, the date marks a new dawn: “I think we should now put all our energy into pushing forward photovoltaics, wind power storage, energy saving, and energy efficiency, and stop these backward-looking debates,” she said in a recent radio interview.
April 15 also effectively ended a decades-long political dispute in Germany. In light of the tense situation on the energy market due to Russia’s war in Ukraine, there are still voices demanding that nuclear power be extended
The waste issue
And yet, the issue of nuclear energy will linger for Germany for some time yet, as the reactors still have to be dismantled, and the final disposal of the radioactive nuclear waste has not yet been clarified.
Like almost all other countries that have operated, or continue to operate nuclear power plants, Germany has yet to find a place to safely store the spent fuel. Currently, Germany’s nuclear waste is in interim storage at the sites of abandoned power plants, but the law requires that nuclear waste be safely stored in underground repositories for several millennia.
“The interim storage facilities are designed to last for quite some time,” Wolfram König, president of the Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Disposal (BASE), told DW. “They are supposed to bridge the time until a final repository is available. … What we are looking for is geological depth, a suitable layer of salt, in granite or in clay rock, which will ensure that no radioactive substances reach the surface again for an indefinitely long period of time.”
Location, location, location
That’s a principle that Germany shares with all of the 30 or so countries that still operate, or have operated nuclear power plants in the past: Radioactive waste is to be disposed of underground. But where exactly? For a long time, Gorleben, located in the Wendland region of Lower Saxony, northeastern Germany, was the site most favored by politicians looking for an underground repository for nuclear waste.
But Gorleben became the location of fierce protests against nuclear energy, so politicians decided a few years ago to abandon the site. Now, the search is on throughout Germany, with more than 90 possible sites under consideration. “We can and must assume that the search process in Germany, with the construction of a final repository, will take approximately as long as we have used nuclear energy, namely 60 years,” König said.
Meanwhile, the dismantling of Germany’s 20 or so nuclear power plants that have been built will also take time. That, according to König, is the responsibility of their operators, who estimate it could take between 10 and 15 years.
A worldwide headache
So far, reactors have been shut down in Italy, Kazakhstan, and Lithuania, while other countries, including the United Arab Emirates and Belarus, are building new nuclear plants.
But the permanent, safe storage of radioactive waste is an unresolved issue everywhere.
Finland is furthest along in its planning. In a report by German public broadcaster ARD, Vesa Lakaniemi, administrative head in the municipality of Eurajoki, southern Finland, talked about the construction of the final storage facility for nuclear waste in his town: “Whoever profits from electricity must also take responsibility for the waste. And that’s how it is in Finland.” The estimated construction costs for the Eurajoki repository is €3.5 billion ($3.8 billion).
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), there are currently 422 nuclear reactors in operation worldwide, with an average age of about 31 years. The recent “World Nuclear Industry Status Report” said that, despite a few countries building new nuclear power stations, there was no evidence of a “nuclear renaissance.” In 1996, some 17.5% of the world’s energy was produced in nuclear reactors — in 2021 it was below 10%. Nevertheless, the radioactive legacy will keep Germany preoccupied for many years to come.
Why the disbandment of NATO is long overdue
it is no longer feasible or possible to harbour any lingering belief that NATO is anything other than a tool of US hard power, deployed not to protect and defend, but instead to destroy and dominate.
John Wight, Medium, 27 Jan 23 https://johnwight1.medium.com/why-the-disbandment-of-nato-is-long-overdue-aaebff253cd0
The fundamental root cause of the ongoing brutal and tragic conflict in Ukraine is not Russian aggression, it is NATO aggression, reminding us that the latter’s disbandment is a non-negotiable condition of a world in which the triumph of peace and stability over chaos and conflict is at long last achieved.
Indeed the very existence of NATO seventy-four years on from its creation stands as an insult to the millions who died in WWII so that the UN Charter could be born. Produced as the foundational document of the United Nations upon its birth in October 1945, enshrined within the Charter’s articles was a solemn promise that henceforth justice, international law and tolerance would reign in place of brute power, force and intolerance.
Consider for a moment the first section of the Charter’s preamble:
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
- to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
- to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
- to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
- to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom
It is impossible to read those words and not lament the gaping disjuncture between the noble ideals and vision they describe and the grim reality that arrived in their wake. For rather than mankind being saved from the ‘scourge of war’, and rather than ‘respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law’, the scourge of war and violation of treaties and international law have grown to become a near-everyday occurrence across the globe.
The pressing question we are required to grapple with today is, why? What lies at the root and what is the common denominator responsible for mankind’s abject failure to achieve the vision set out in the UN Charter?
Upon due consideration, we are left in no doubt that fundamentally the series of conflicts that have come to define our existence are a consequence of the drive by one ideological bloc to dominate and impose a particular political, economic and value system onto a world defined by its diversity of languages, cultures, histories and traditions.
The result is the normalization of war and the apotheosis of hard power, rather than war and hard power being regarded as grotesque perversions and an impediment to human progress.
Seventy- four years ago, NATO, a military alliance whose entire existence and ethos is predicated on might is right, emerged from the womb of the Cold War objectives devised by a Truman administration of fanatical hawks, consumed with the goal of full-spectrum dominance at the close of WWII.
In his 1997 essay, ‘The Last Empire,’ Gore Vidal savages the official history proffered by Western ideologues when it comes to the sudden shift that took place from Moscow being viewed as an indispensable ally in the war against Nazi Germany in the eyes of the Roosevelt administration, to implacable foe when Truman entered the White House upon Roosevelt’s death in April 1945.
Vidal:
The National Security State, the NATO alliance, the forty-year Cold War were all created without the consent, much less advice, of the American people… The impetus behind NATO was the United States… We were now hell bent on the permanent division of Germany between our western zone (plus the British and French zones) and the Soviet zone to the east. Serenely, we broke every agreement that we had made with our former ally, now horrendous Communist enemy.
Moving things forward, it is by now no secret that US Secretary of State James Baker assured Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev in a meeting on February 9, 1990, that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward” upon the reunification of Germany. According to declassified documents, Baker’s pledge was made as part of a “cascade of assurances” over Soviet security given by Western leaders at that time and on into 1991, when the Soviet Union came to an end. It is the breaking of those assurances that lies at the heart of the deterioration in relations between East and West that has taken place since, and which informs the current conflict in Ukraine.
Flush with triumphalism over the demise of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, NATO was loosed upon the world not in name of democracy but in the cause of imperialism. Neocon scribe Thomas Friedman wrote openly of the driving ethos of Western foreign policy after the Soviet Union’s demise:
Continue readingWith visit of Algerian President France must face up to its nuclear fallout
Next month the Algerian president, Abdelmadjid Tebboune, is set to visit
Emmanuel Macron in Paris. The two countries have a difficult past, with war
giving way to hostility, giving way to a very curious form of
interdependence. The agenda for the visit looks crowded, with irregular
migration through Algeria dominating the list of the Elysee’s priorities.
However, unlike previous meetings between the two leaders, Tebboune arrives
in France on the crest of a diplomatic wave fuelled by Algeria’s
hydrocarbon reserves at a time when European supplies are at a premium.
Moreover, he arrives with a long list of Algeria’s own grievances, not
least the tonnes of radioactive waste France has buried in the Sahara and
for which it still won’t provide details.
New European 22nd April 2023
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/france-faces-up-to-its-nuclear-fallout/
The Human Dimension to Kazakhstan’s Plutonium Mountain
April 24, 2023, Sig Hecker https://nonproliferation.org/the-human-dimension-to-kazakhstans-plutonium-mountain/
The following is an excerpt from the Stanley Center for Peace and Security.
As we drove deeper into the Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site, we found kilometer-long trenches that were clearly the work of professional thieves using industrial earth-moving equipment, rather than hand-dug trenches made by nomad copper-cable-searching amateurs on camelback. Our Kazakh hosts said they could do nothing to stop these operations. In fact, they weren’t sure they had a legal right to stop them from “prospecting” on the site.
It was the sight of these trenches that urged me to convince the three governments that they must cooperate to prevent the theft of nuclear materials and equipment left behind when the Soviets exited the test site in a hurry as their country collapsed.
When the Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991, the most urgent threat to the rest of the world was no longer the immense nuclear arsenal in the hands of the Russian government but rather the possibility of its nuclear assets—weapons, materials, facilities, and experts—getting out of the hands of the government. As director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, I helped to initiate the US–Russia lab-to-lab nuclear cooperative program in 1992 to mitigate these nuclear threats.
The trilateral US–Russia–Kazakhstan cooperation began in 1999 to secure fissile materials that were left behind by the Soviets at the Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site, which was now in the newly independent country of Kazakhstan. The project was kept in confidence until the presidents of the three countries announced it at the Seoul Nuclear Security Summit in 2012
In Doomed to Cooperate, individuals from the three countries recount their cooperative efforts at Semipalatinsk. Unlike the US–Kazakhstan projects initiated earlier on nuclear test tunnel closures, identifying experiments that left weapons-usable fissile materials (plutonium and highly enriched uranium) at the huge test site—whether in the field, in tunnels, or in containment vessels—required trilateral cooperation. The Russian scientists who conducted these experiments were the only ones who knew what was done and where. It required American nuclear scientists who conducted similar tests in the United States to assess how great a proliferation danger the fissile materials in their current state may constitute. And it required Kazakh scientists and engineers to take measures to remediate the dangers. The project also required the political support of all three countries and the financial support of the American government because it was the only one at the time with the financial means. That support came from the US Cooperative Threat Reduction (or Nunn-Lugar) program.
Continue reading at the Stanley Center for Peace and Security.
Russia is deploying nuclear weapons in Belarus. NATO shouldn’t take the bait
By Nikolai N. Sokov Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Nikolai N. Sokov, a senior fellow at the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, previously worked at the Soviet and Russian Ministry. April 24, 2023
In June 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a new policy of Russia deploying some of its nuclear weapons in Belarus. The nuclear sharing arrangements between Russia and Belarus represent a fundamental change in Russian nuclear policy and the European security landscape. But as is usual with changes in Russian defense policy, the story developed slowly and has been full of unnecessary intrigue with important information revealed in small portions.
More than nine months after the initial announcement, the Russia-Belarus nuclear sharing is still very much incomplete; further developments may depend on the still uncertain evolution of the ongoing Russian war against Ukraine as well as any future changes in the scope and scale of Western assistance to Ukraine. But despite the many uncertainties, some key implications of Russia’s new policy of nuclear sharing can already be anticipated—especially as regard to its consequences for strategic stability.
Slow developments, false intrigue………………………………………………………………………….
Uncertainties. Unlike NATO’s nuclear sharing, which is built around nearly 100 B-61 gravity bombs, the Russia-Belarus one will involve a mix of gravity bombs and ground-launched missiles……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The location of the storage site(s) for the nuclear warheads is perhaps the greatest of all uncertainties surrounding the Russia-Belarus nuclear sharing……………………………
Strategic consequences. The impact of Russia’s decision to institute nuclear sharing with Belarus will have wide-ranging consequences.
For the first time since the end of the Cold War, short-range, tactical nuclear weapons have acquired a distinct military mission…………………………………………………………………………..
the Russia-Belarus nuclear sharing—which involves preparation for deployment of nuclear weapons and may eventually entail the actual transfer of Russian nuclear weapons to Belarus—is by far the boldest move by Russia because it comes supported with new capability. Moreover, if the delivery systems and warheads under these arrangements are deployed near the western border of Belarus where they are highly vulnerable, the only conceivable mode for them is to strike first. The number of nuclear weapons involved may be relatively small—perhaps only about one-third of the entire inventory of B-61 bombs—but ready to use
The message is undoubtedly addressed to the West; nuclear use against Ukraine has never even indirectly featured in any Russian statements.
……………………………………………. The seriousness of the new signal does not mean that nuclear use in Europe is an immediate threat. First, it is reserved for extreme circumstances, such as a major defeat of Russia, which would put the regime at risk. Second, it would only result from a relatively lengthy process of escalation. ………………………….
Do not respond in kind. Recent nuclear signaling and actions by Russia are clearly a step on the escalation ladder. ………………………………. The wisdom of a symmetrical, tit-for-tat response to Russia’s escalatory steps is questionable
……………………….. NATO would be better off to continue the current policy and rally international opinion against Russia’s possible nuclear use. As Allies’ defense production continues to ramp up, assistance to Ukraine will become more efficient and consequential. Escalation may be tempting, but it is both unnecessary and potentially dangerous. https://thebulletin.org/2023/04/russia-is-deploying-nuclear-weapons-in-belarus-nato-shouldnt-take-the-bait/
Maintenance impacted at Zaporizhzhia, says IAEA
24 April 2023 https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Maintenance-impacted-at-Zaporizhzhia,-says-IAEA
The current situation at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant is having a significant impact on the plant’s maintenance capability, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said.
Plant management informed the IAEA experts present at plant that the scope of maintenance performed during outages on all units in 2022 was reduced compared with the planned scope, due to reduced maintenance staff, absence of external contractors who perform a significant part of the work, and a lack of spare parts needed for the maintenance, including critical components.
The Zaporizhzhia plant currently has only about one-quarter of its regular maintenance staff available, the IAEA said. It noted new staff are being hired but it will take some time until they are fully trained. The plant said a substantial list of required spare parts has recently been submitted to Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom.
“As a result of the significant reduction of staff, the ZNPP currently does not have a systematic maintenance and in-service inspection schedule,” the IAEA said. “Before restarting any of the reactor units, the site is considering obtaining advice from an engineering organisation within Rosatom that will assess the status of the plant and provide recommendations for all structures, systems and components important to safety regarding their maintenance or any necessary replacement before operation. The site considers that this maintenance/replacement work may be undertaken using the services of a centralised Rosenergoatom company that is capable of performing these types of maintenance tasks.”
“This shows again the continuing detrimental impact that the current situation on the site is having on the seven indispensable pillars for ensuring nuclear safety and security, in this case pillars two and five on safety and security systems and equipment and logistical supply chain,” IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said.
The IAEA noted that the Zaporizhzhia plant continues to rely on the only remaining functioning 750kV power line for the external electricity it needs for reactors cooling and other essential nuclear safety and security functions. Meanwhile, a back-up 330kV power line that was damaged on 1 March on the other side of the Dnipro River from the Russian-controlled plant remains unrepaired, with Ukraine having said military action is preventing its experts from safely accessing the location situated in territory it controls to repair the line.
Russia reported last month that Rosatom was working to remove damaged equipment from the open switchyard, with the aim of restoring three 330kV lines to the grid system in currently Russian-controlled territory. The IAEA team will access the site to assess the situation.
Four of the six reactors have been in cold shutdown, with two (units 5 and 6) in hot shutdown – which allows them to provide heat to the plant and the nearby town of Energodar where many of the workers live. However, the IAEA said that, with the weather warming, unit 6 has now been transferred to cold shutdown.
France’s struggle to deliver a second nuclear era
An ambitious reactornconstruction programme aimed at reducing carbon emissions is running into the realities of skilled worker shortages.
For 10 years, Gaetan Geoffray
worked as a plasterer and painter, before learning metalwork at a company
that made cranes. Arnaud Dupuy was a policeman. A third colleague at their
factory in the depths of rural Burgundy used to be a baker.
The factory is owned by Framatome, a subsidiary of state-controlled power utility EDF, and the trio are hoping to qualify for one of the most sought-after jobs in
France, as nuclear-grade welders. If all goes well, they’ll one day be
allowed to work on the most intricate features of the steel parts assembled
in the plant, where the all-important 24-metre-long casings protecting the
core of atomic reactors are made.
For now, that goal is at least three to
four years off, so exacting are the demands in a field in which imperfect
finishes can delay a project by months and cost millions, if not billions,
of dollars. For France, the next intake of hires and welding apprentices
can’t come a day too soon.
After years of political dithering over whether
or not to cut its reliance on nuclear power, a hesitation echoed globally
after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, the country has gone
all-in with Europe’s most ambitious atomic construction project in decades.
In order to stand a chance of turning this vision into reality, the
government estimates it needs to find another 100,000 nuclear specialists
of all guises, from engineers and project supervisors to boilermakers and
electricians, over the coming six years.
Looming large, beyond hurdles with
design approvals and financing for the €52bn programme, is an even more
basic question — whether France, Europe’s main atomic nation, still has
the industrial capacity and people to make the projects happen on a scale
it has not contemplated since the 1970s.
FT 23rd April 2023
https://www.ft.com/content/d23b14ae-2c4e-458c-af8a-22692119f786
Water shortage at Sizewell: the environmental cost
Pete Wilkinson: (From Feb 2022) Building the Sizewell C plant, which
requires vast amounts of fresh water, in an area of water scarcity makes no
sense. The availability of water is something we barely give a thought to:
only ten percent of people consider water shortage to be an environmental
issue, yet without it, it’s curtains. According to the Environment Agency
(EA), England could fail to meet national demand by 2050.
As the driest part of the country, Eastern England has been designated as a
water-stressed area and future pressures include climate change, economic
and housing development. Suffolk is recognised as an area of water
scarcity, facing predictions of a water shortage in the coming years.
East Anglia Bylines (accessed) 23rd April 2023
Oh Goody – America is going to sell heaps of Holtec’s Small Nuclear Reactors to Ukraine!
“This cooperation agreement will lead to economic development, creation of jobs, establishment of modern manufacturing facilities, training facilities, R&D, and thus help Ukraine emerge as the regional hub for Holtec’s nuclear reactor technology…….”
Mass deployment of Holtec SMRs in Ukraine is part of accord’s aims
WNN 24 April 2023, Up to 20 Holtec SMR-160 plants will be built in Ukraine under a cooperation agreement signed between Holtec International and Ukrainian national nuclear operator Energoatom. The agreement calls for the first plant to begin supplying power by March 2029.
The agreement was signed on 21 April by Energoatom President Petro Kotin in Kiev and Holtec CEO Kris Singh in Camden, New Jersey, USA. The ceremony was also attended by Ukraine’s Minister of Energy Herman Galushchenko and the vice president of Holtec International operations in Ukraine Riaz Avan……………………………………………..
“This cooperation agreement will lead to economic development, creation of jobs, establishment of modern manufacturing facilities, training facilities, R&D, and thus help Ukraine emerge as the regional hub for Holtec’s nuclear reactor technology…….”
………………………………………………………… In June 2019, Holtec, Energoatom and Ukraine’s State Scientific and Technology Centre formally entered into a partnership to advance the SMR-160 for deployment in Ukraine. The partners ratified the creation of a consortium partnership that bound the three companies into a cooperative undertaking to progress the deployment of the SMR-160 small modular reactor in the country. The consortium is a US company registered in Delaware with each of the three parties owning allotted shares. Its technology operation centre will be based in Kiev, Ukraine. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Accord-sees-mass-deployment-of-Holtec-SMRs-in-Ukra
Russia’s political and economic winner – its nuclear exports to Western countries
West scrambles as Putin reveals his energy war trump card. Kremlin has
spread its tentacles through the US and Europe – and countries are
struggling to fight back. In an effort to punish Vladimir Putin, western
governments have hit Russia’s energy industry with a barrage of punishing
sanctions since his invasion of Ukraine.
But one sector has conspicuously
escaped their ire so far: nuclear power. Since the conflict erupted,
Russian nuclear exports are actually thought to have increased while those
of coal, oil and gas have been squeezed.
Meanwhile, despite the key role it
has played in Moscow’s takeover of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant
in Enerhodar, eastern Ukraine, state monopoly Rosatom remains untouched by
western sanctions.
The reason, say experts, is the complicated nature of
nuclear supply chains – from the supply of uranium to the construction of
reactors – and the dominant role Russia currently plays in many of them.
Through its global nuclear network, Moscow can exert political and economic
pressure on friends and foes alike, the White House has warned. A new
partnership between the UK, the US, Canada, Japan and France aims to change
this. Together the five countries want to squeeze Russia’s share of
nuclear exports and “ensure Putin, nor anyone like him, can ever think
they can hold the world to ransom over their energy again,” said Grant
Shapps, the Energy Security Secretary. The group aims to become independent
from Moscow and help other countries do the same, the agreement says.
Telegraph 24th April 2023
Dogs of war — Chornobyl
Chornobyl dogs are distinct group, researchers find
Dogs of war — Beyond Nuclear International By Linda Pentz Gunter 23 Apr 23,
DNA research among Chornobyl’s dogs could provide answers about the effects of living in a radioactive environment
Pity the poor dogs (and cats) of Chornobyl. Abandoned in 1986 by owners fleeing the nuclear disaster, their descendants live on in the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone, an area deemed too radioactive for human habitation and in a country now at war.
…………………………………..The presence today of at least several hundred semi-feral domestic dogs living around the Chornobyl plant and beyond, indicates that the 1986 cull was not, of course, entirely successful. The Dogs of Chornobyl — and their more furtive feline friends — continue to survive down the generations in a highly radioactive environment. There are other threats too, including exposure to rabies and wolf packs that prey on the dogs and their puppies.
…………..So how are these animals surviving? And how well?
A new study, — The dogs of Chernobyl: Demographic insights into populations inhabiting the nuclear exclusion zone — published in the journal, Science Advances, has not yet answered this fundamental question. But the researchers have been able to gather important data to enable that next step.
The group studied the DNA of three sets of dog populations: those living at the Chornobyl power plant itself; those around nine miles away in Chornobyl City and another group around 28 miles away in Slavutych.
Their task was made easier by a surprising discovery: the dogs were not living in the traditional manner of wild dogs, or their closest ancestor, the Grey Wolf, but in distinct family units.
…………..These distinct family groups and lack of intermingling meant the researchers could easily identify different dogs through their DNA and thus distinguish those living at the nuclear plant from those living further away.
Co-author Tim Mousseau, professor of biological sciences at the University of South Carolina, has been visiting the Chornobyl site and studying the fate of its wildlife there since the late 1990s. At the same time, he began collecting blood samples from the Chornobyl dogs, curious to know how their bodies were handling such a significant radioactive load. Those samples are now being used in the current study to examine the dogs’ DNA. Wrote the authors in their paper:
“Hence, the dogs of Chernobyl are of immense scientific relevance for understanding the impact of harsh environmental conditions on wildlife and humans alike, particularly the genetic health effects of exposure to long-term, low-dose ionizing radiation and other contaminants, i.e., their adaptation to harsh living conditions makes them an ideal system in which to identify mutational signatures resulting from historical and ongoing radiation exposures.”
Mousseau’s wildlife studies have revealed shortened lifespans among birds and small mammals as well as the prevalence of tumors, sterility and cataracts among other phenomena considered related to exposure to radiation.
How or if the DNA of the Chornobyl-affected dogs has altered can now be examined……………………..
This in turn may lead to enlightenment on whether or not radiation damage is accumulating in their genomes and how this may affect their health and longevity — and that of other mammals similarly exposed — now and into the future https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2023/04/23/dogs-of-war/
Pension funds shun Sizewell C in major blow to Britain’s nuclear ambitions
Asset managers ‘extremely sceptical’ about nuclear push despite project’s ‘sustainable’ status
By Matt Oliver and Szu Ping Chan, 22 April 2023 •
The Government’s push to find investors for the £20bn Sizewell C nuclear
power station has suffered a significant blow as Britain’s biggest fund
managers have snubbed the scheme.
Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor, sought to
make the project more attractive to green-focused asset managers in his
Spring Budget by proposing to give it “sustainable” status under UK
financing rules. Ministers have also reformed the funding model for nuclear
plants to hand investors more up-front rewards.
But senior sources in the
asset management industry and two of the country’s biggest fund managers
have dismissed the changes as irrelevant and insisted it would not persuade
them to back Sizewell C.
Nuclear power is seen as vital to Britain’s energy
security in the wake of the Ukraine war, with ministers calling for it togenerate 25pc of the country’s electricity needs by 2050. But despite
introducing new funding models and classifying it as “green” to attract
investors, the Government has struggled to persuade sceptical pension funds
and asset managers to get behind Sizewell C.
Legal & General – Britain’s
biggest money manager with £1.3 trillion of assets – said Mr Hunt’s
announcement will have no bearing on its opposition to large nuclear energy
schemes, as it is focused on supporting alternatives such as wind and
solar. A spokesman for Legal & General Capital told The Telegraph: “Our
stance hasn’t changed: we are focused on investing in and supporting other
innovative, viable, and cost-effective clean energy solutions that are
already delivering results.” Barclays has been brought in to run the financing process but this has not yet begun, prompting concerns it could
be held up by a potential general election next year.
Telegraph 22nd April 2023
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/04/22/uk-nuclear-ambitions-pension-funds-shun-sizewell-c/
Rolls Royce shares OK for civil aviation, but investment in small nuclear reactors is risky
Will going nuclear send Rolls-Royce shares into meltdown?
Dr James Fox takes a closer look at Rolls-Royce shares. What’s next for the British engineering giant after the recent rally came to an end in March?
The Motley Fool, Dr. James Fox 23 Apr 23
Rolls-Royce (LSE:RR) shares have been red-hot in recent months, going from strength to strength. But the FTSE 100 stock has plateaued since March.
So what could drive the share price forward in the coming years? Could it be Rolls-Royce’s entry into the nuclear space?
Rolls-Royce (LSE:RR) shares have been red-hot in recent months, going from strength to strength. But the FTSE 100 stock has plateaued since March.
So what could drive the share price forward in the coming years? Could it be Rolls-Royce’s entry into the nuclear space?
For some, the jury is out on the future profitability of the modular nuclear reactor programme — the plan was given government approval and funding last year.
………. In theory, Rolls would ‘mass produce’ these small reactors, with a capacity of 470MW, and sell them for around £2bn.
………..there are challenges. First among them are reports that the UK government is preparing to invite international bids for next-generation nuclear power projects, thus removing its backing for Rolls-Royce’s product in development.
With billions of forecast development costs, it would be disastrous if the government started to favour other companies — the share price would really suffer.
What matters more?
The nuclear programme is interesting but, in reality, other sectors are more important — for now at least. In the near term, I’m hoping to see more signs of the recovery in civil aviation. This is Rolls’ biggest sector and a post-pandemic recovery will propel the company forward.
…………………..Despite the risks in the SMR space, I’m not fearing a share price meltdown. https://www.fool.co.uk/2023/04/23/will-going-nuclear-send-rolls-royce-shares-into-meltdown/
—
UK seeks a nuclear energy renaissance – but experts question whether it’s value for money
The most powerful argument against nuclear could be economic as most plants take at least ten years to commission, design and build
inews, By Leo Cendrowicz, Brussels Correspondent, 21 Apr 23,
BRUSSELS – As Europe scrambles for new energy sources, Britain has joined the countries seeking a nuclear renaissance.
Chancellor Jeremy Hunt announced last month the creation of Great British Nuclear, a body to oversee the roll-out of a fleet of nuclear power stations.
However, there are concerns about the environmental impact of nuclear, with campaign groups saying that the risks of nuclear reactions and the difficulties in disposing of nuclear waste mean it cannot be considered green.
And the most powerful argument against nuclear could be economic. Most plants take at least ten years to commission, design and build. Delays are frequent: Europe’s largest nuclear reactor, the Olkiluoto 3 plant in Finland, came online last week a full 14 years after its scheduled date, beset by technological problems that led to lawsuits – while its final price tag ballooned to around €11bn (£9.74bn), almost three times the initial estimate.
The steep upfront building costs for nuclear power plants, along with the long construction times, have raised questions about whether nuclear energy represents value for money.
Now that renewable costs are going down – especially in solar, wind and batteries – renewable is likely to be cheaper in the longer term, making nuclear commissions look less worthwhile.
The fact that Europe has built few nuclear plants since the boom wave of the 60s also means there is little expertise available across the value chain. The EU Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton has said a “colossal” investment in nuclear energy will be needed over the next 30 years to meet the EU’s emissions-reduction targets and electricity demand.
“The big question on nuclear is the economics of building new nuclear plants,” says Ben McWilliams, an energy research analyst at Bruegel – a Brussels-based think tank. “When you compare it to something like solar or wind, which are also modular technologies, so you can have much larger economies of scale – you have to ask if it is sensible to start building new nuclear plants that will come online in 15 or 20 years when they’re going to compete in a grid that should be largely renewable dominated?”
……………………………… France, Europe’s champion, has not been the best advertisement recently: last November, almost half of the country’s reactors were offline, thanks to maintenance issues in its ageing nuclear fleet.
The UK’s strategy is to focus on small modular reactors (SMRs) to ensure faster build times. These mini reactors would generate between 50 and 500 megawatts of power, compared with the 3.2-gigawatt Hinkley Point C in Somerset, the UK’s only large nuclear plant under construction, which is plagued by delays and cost overruns.
………………………….. . In February, 11 EU energy ministers signed a declaration committing to “cooperate more closely” across the entire nuclear supply chain and promote “common industrial projects” in new generation capacity as well as new technologies like small reactors.
While energy policy is mostly set at national level within the European Union, the long-term push is for green, renewable energy. The European Commission has attempted to nudge governments to wean themselves off fossil fuels, adopting a controversial measure that labels nuclear investments as sustainable “transitional” sources, if they replace dirtier fuels. Last Tuesday, Greenpeace and other campaign groups announced plans to take the Commission to the EU Court of Justice of the EU. https://inews.co.uk/news/world/uk-nuclear-energy-renaissance-expert-money-2289161
Earth Day 2023: A Newly Post-Nuclear Germany vs. California’s Reactor Relapse
Germany’s initiative calls out California’s backpedaling.
BY HARVEY WASSERMAN , APRIL 22, 2023
This year’s Earth Day marks a massive green energy triumph in Germany that stands in stark contrast to a bitter nuclear challenge in California.
A wide range of estimates put the two regions at a virtual tie for the world’s fourth and fifth-largest economies.
They also share a leading growth industry—renewable energy, with unprecedented investments in wind, solar, batteries, and efficiency.
But when it comes to atomic power, they are headed in very different directions.
On April 15, Germany claimed a huge global landmark by becoming one of the world’s wealthiest nations to renounce atomic power.
The decision dates back to 2011, when Germany’s powerful Green movement led a national demonstration aiming to shut the seventeen atomic reactors that, at the time, provided around a quarter of the nation’s electricity.
Before the rally took place, four reactors blew up in Fukushima, Japan, sending huge clouds of radioactive fallout into the air and ocean.
Germany’s then-Chancellor Angela Merkel—who has a Ph.D. in quantum chemistry—ordered eight reactors immediately shut, and soon announced a plan to shut the remaining nine by December 31, 2022.
This energiewende, or “energy transition,” substitutes wind, solar, battery storage, and increased efficiency for nuclear power reactors, moving Germany toward full reliance on renewables. Germany, since then, has invested billions in the renewables sector, transitioning whole towns to locally-owned rooftop solar and corporate wind power pumped in from large turbines in the North Sea.
The shutdown of the final three reactors was delayed by nearly four months due to natural gas shortages caused by the Russian war in Ukraine.
It was also complicated by a major atomic breakdown in neighboring France. Heavily reliant on nuclear power, France’s more than fifty standard-design reactors succumbed to a wide range of problems, including generic structural flaws and warming rivers too hot to cool their super-heated radioactive cores. In 2022, with more than half its fleet of reactors under repair, France made up for the energy shortfall by importing power from Germany, much of it fired by the burning of coal.
This prompted the nuclear industry to criticize Germany’s plan by pointing to a rise in the country’s CO2 emissions from burning increased quantities of coal, failing to note that much of that power was being exported to France to compensate for its own shuttered reactors.
California, whose economy may now be slightly larger than Germany’s, has taken an opposite route.
Two of its last four reactors—at San Onofre, between Los Angeles and San Diego—were shuttered in 2012 and closed permanently in 2013 after flaws were found in the turbines and other components.
In 2016, a deal was reached to shut the Golden State’s last two reactors, located at Diablo Canyon, nine miles west of San Luis Obispo. In the 1970s and 1980s, thousands of protestors were arrested at Diablo Canyon, more than at any other American nuclear plant.
The 2016 shutdown deal involved another energiewende, based on blueprints to replace Diablo’s power with a huge influx of new wind, solar, battery, and efficiency installations. The agreement was approved by the California state legislature, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the state Public Utilities Commission. It was signed by then-Governor Jerry Brown, then-Lieutenant-Governor Gavin Newsom, and a wide range of local governments, unions, and environmental groups, all of whom assumed the state would thus be nuke-free once Unit Two was shut in 2025—the date its original forty-year license would expire.
But along the way, the state experienced two close calls with partial blackouts. During both incidents, Newsom, now the governor, asked consumers to dial back their energy use. Ironically, independent battery capacity—mostly controlled by individual owners—helped the state stay lit.
But Newsom reversed course and now argues that California must keep Diablo open. Infuriating the national safe energy movement, Newsom rammed through the legislature a $1.4 billion midnight bailout for PG&E, to be funded by all of the state’s consumers, including many who live hundreds of miles from the plant, and receive no energy from it at all.
The Biden Administration also kicked in $1.1 billion, money that safe energy advocates angrily argue would be far better spent on renewables.
In 2019 a statewide petition signed by Hollywood’s Jane Fonda, Martin Sheen, Lily Tomlin, Eric Roberts, and some 2,500 other Californians demanded that Newsom facilitate an independent inspection. Nearing forty years of age, both Diablo reactors suffer a wide range of structural and age-related defects.
They are also surrounded by at least a dozen known earthquake faults, sitting just forty-five miles from the infamous San Andreas fault. Former NRC site inspector Michael Peck, who was stationed at Diablo for five years, has warned it might not survive a major earthquake, for which its owner, PG&E, has little or no private insurance. The state has never made public any plans to evacuate Los Angeles or other heavily populated areas in the event of an accident.
Newsom has also supported moves by state regulators to severely slash compensation paid by utilities to solar panel owners who feed their excess energy into the grid. While 1,500 workers are stationed at Diablo, some 70,000 work in the state’s solar industry, which angrily charges that Newsom’s pro-nuclear, anti-green positions are crippling the state’s top job creator.
Indeed, the irony of these twin economies heading in opposite energy directions is hard to ignore. In the 1970s, much of America’s early anti-nuclear movement was inspired by mass demonstrations led by German Greens (with the slogan “Atomkraft? Nein, danke!”). Both movements succeeded in massively moving their communities toward a renewable future.
But at this critical moment, Germany appears to be moving beyond nuclear power, while California clings to a hugely controversial technology it had once planned to transcend.
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (82)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
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
nuclear-news 