Expensive nuclear power push ignores chance to cut costs of UK’s electricity system
Energy strategy: expensive nuclear power push ignores chance to cut costs of UK’s electricity system
The Conversation, Furong LiReader in Electrical Systems, University of Bath, Nigel TurveyVisiting Senior Industrial Fellow in Electrical Engineering, University of Bath, 8 Apr 22,
”……………………… apart from a promised five-fold increase in solar power generation by 2035, the strategy sets no target for generating electricity from some of the country’s cheapest sources, like onshore wind.
The government may defend its decision to ramp up the production of nuclear power as support for a home-grown and reliable source of energy. But some of that hefty investment would be unnecessary if Britain reorganised its energy system to make the most of the nation’s abundant renewable electricity instead.
When the price of a commodity like a soft drink goes up, production can be ramped up fairly rapidly to respond to spot market conditions, which quickly lowers prices again. Building a new nuclear power plant or offshore wind farm is quite different, requiring major investment and the certainty that there will be a reasonable return on upfront investment from selling energy over 30 to 40 years.
In the UK, governments can intervene in the capacity market to ensure a secure electricity supply by paying for reliable sources, which provides the long-term certainty necessary to build sufficient generating capacity. Financial backing changes to reflect the state’s priorities, and the drive for eight new nuclear reactors is reported to cost the public £13 billion.
Building wind farms and nuclear plants is just the first step though. The speed at which they be can integrated into electrical networks and operated to be in tune with power, transport and heat demand is what will actually decide when energy prices stabilise………………..
How to get inflexible, low-carbon energy to homes and businesses reliably and cheaply is as important as building new, reliable sources. And on that count, making more effective use of renewable sources – and reducing energy demand overall – would mean the country could afford to build less nuclear power, which is one of the few low-carbon sources which hasn’t become substantially cheaper.
New technologies
One way to increase customer demand for renewable and low-carbon energy when it’s abundant and reduce it when generation is tight is to incentivise storage technologies.
For example, if electric vehicles are charged up when there is plenty of wind and solar power being generated, 40GW of offshore renewable energy would be enough to power the country’s entire vehicle fleet without any of it going to waste.
To help harmonise Britain’s energy demand with periods when renewable output is high, the government could invest in digital technologies such as smart meters and set up new tariffs which can send price signals to EV chargers. It could also invest in improving the short-term forecasting of solar and wind output. These changes would make distributors aware of customer needs and help customers alleviate stress on the system.
While electric vehicle batteries can manage the variability of renewable output, Britain’s energy system also needs fixed storage – like grid-scale batteries which, unlike the government’s favoured solution of hydrogen fuel, are capable of very fast response times to manage sudden changes……………………… https://theconversation.com/energy-strategy-expensive-nuclear-power-push-ignores-chance-to-cut-costs-of-uks-electricity-system-180365
Zaporizhzhia is a wake-up call demonstrating the vulnerability of nuclear plants to deliberate acts of war.
| Varrie Blowers, Secretary of BANNG discusses the implications of the war in Ukraine in the latest column for Regional Life, April, 2022. In the early hours of 4 March, fire was reported at Zaporizhzhia, the 6-reactor nuclear power station in Ukraine, Europe’s largest. The Russian army was carrying out a premeditated attack. A few days before, it had seized Chernobyl, the site in April, 1986 of the world’s worst nuclear accident……..to date. It was, mercifully, a training building that was on fire. Nonetheless, this attack on an active nuclear plant was unprecedented and in clear breach of the Geneva Conventions. But Russia was not deterred. Had there been a meltdown in a reactor or fire in the radioactive waste stores, the people of Ukraine would have been subject to a nuclear catastrophe. And the radioactive fallout of a nuclear incident of a magnitude worse than that of Chernobyl, would have had far-reaching and terrifying consequences. The incident shows for the first time the dangers of war in a nuclearised country. Nuclear plants do not seem to have been designed to cope with war. Nor can they just be switched off and abandoned. The workers at Zaporizhzhia, it has been reported, are being forced to work in conditions of exhaustion, hunger and stress – when mistakes could be made. While we hope never to experience such acts on our shores, there is the ever- present threat of terrorism and cyber-attack wreaking havoc on nuclear installations. Given what has happened, the Government should be disengaging from nuclear, not engaging in a gung-ho rush to build new plants, including Bradwell B. Chernobyl and Fukushima alerted the world to the dangers arising from nuclear accidents. Zaporizhzhia is a wake-up call demonstrating the vulnerability of nuclear plants to deliberate acts of war. BANNG 6th April 2022 https://www.banng.info/news/ukraine-nuclear-wake-up-call |
British government launches a new government body – Great British Nuclear.
A new government body, Great British Nuclear, will be set
up immediately to bring forward new projects, backed by substantial
funding, and we will launch the £120 million Future Nuclear Enabling Fund
this month. We will work to progress a series of projects as soon as
possible this decade, including Wylfa site in Anglesey. This could mean
delivering up to eight reactors, equivalent to one reactor a year instead
of one a decade, accelerating nuclear in Britain.
BEIS 6th April 2022
Britain’s ”underwhelming” energy plan – ‘Great British Nuclear, with no policies on saving energy, nor energy efficiency
The government announced that a new body called Great British Nuclear will also
be launched to bolster the UK’s nuclear capacity, with the hope that by
2050 up to 24 GW of electricity will come from that source – 25% of the
projected electricity demand.
It has said the focus on nuclear will deliver
up to eight reactors overall, with one being approved each year until 2030.
It also confirmed advanced plans to approve two new reactors at Sizewell in
Suffolk during this parliament. Wylfa in Anglesey and Oldbury in Cumbria
(sic) have also been named as candidates to host either large-scale plants,
smaller modular nuclear reactors, or possibly both.
Environmentalists and many energy experts have reacted with disbelief and anger at some of the
measures in the strategy. They cannot believe the government has offered no
new policies on saving energy by insulating buildings. They say energy
efficiency would immediately lower bills and emissions, and is the cheapest
way to improve energy security.
A Downing Street source said the strategy
was now being see as an energy supply strategy. Campaigners are also
furious that ministers have committed to seeking more oil and gas in the
North Sea, even though humans have already found enough fossil fuels to
wreck the climate. There is a strong welcome, though, for the promise of
more energy from wind offshore with speedier planning consent.
The same
boost has not been offered to onshore wind. Ed Miliband, Labour’s shadow
climate change and net-zero secretary, said: “The government’s energy
relaunch is in disarray. “Boris Johnson has completely caved to his own
backbenchers and now, ludicrously, his own energy strategy has failed on
the sprint we needed on onshore wind and solar, the cheapest, cleanest
forms of homegrown power.
“This relaunch will do nothing for the millions
of families now facing an energy bills crisis,” he added. Liberal Democrat
leader Sir Ed Davey also described the plans as “utterly hopeless”, while
the SNP’s Stephen Flynn called it a “missed opportunity”. Dr Simon
Cran-McGreehin, head of analysis at the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit,
told the BBC that he also felt “underwhelmed” following the announcement.
BBC 6th April 2022
Questions Abound About Bucha Massacre
The West has made a snap judgment about who is responsible for the massacre at the Ukrainian town of Bucha with calls for more stringent sanctions on Russia, but the question of guilt is far from decided, writes Joe Lauria. By Joe Lauria, Special to Consortium News 4 Apr 22, Within hours of news Sunday that there had been a massacre at Bucha, a town 63 kms north of the Ukrainian capital, the verdict was in: Russian troops had senselessly slaughtered hundreds of innocent civilians as they withdrew from the town, leaving their bodies littering the streets.
Unlike their judicial systems, when it comes to war, Western nations dispense with the need for investigations and evidence and pronounce guilt based on political motives: Russia is guilty. Case closed……………….
voices are now perilously calling for the U.S. to go to war with Russia over the incident. …….. Russia has categorically denied it had anything to do with the massacre.
Where to Start
If there were to be a serious probe, one of the first places an investigator would begin is to map out a timeline of events.
Last Wednesday, all Russian forces left Bucha, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.
This was confirmed on Thursday by a smiling Anatolii Fedoruk, the mayor of Bucha, in a video on the Bucha City Council official Facebook page. The translated post accompanying the video says:
“March 31 – the day of the liberation of Bucha. This was announced by Bucha Mayor Anatolii Fedoruk. This day will go down in the glorious history of Bucha and the entire Bucha community as a day of liberation by the Armed Forces of Ukraine from the Russian occupiers.”
All of the Russian troops are gone and yet there is no mention of a massacre. The beaming Fedoruk says it is a “glorious day” in the history of Bucha, which would hardly be the case if hundreds of dead civilians littered the streets around Fedoruk.
“Russian Defence Ministry denied accusations by the Kiev regime of the alleged killing of civilians in Bucha, Kiev Region. Evidence of crimes in Bucha appeared only on the fourth day after the Security Service of Ukraine and representatives of Ukrainian media arrived in the town. All Russian units completely withdrew from Bucha on March 30, and ‘not a single local resident was injured’ during the time when Bucha was under the control of Russian troops,” the Russian MOD said in a post on Telegram.
What Happened Next?
What happened then on Friday and Saturday? As pointed out in a piece by Jason Michael McCann on Standpoint Zero, The New York Times was in Bucha on Saturday and did not report a massacre. Instead, the Times said the withdrawal was completed on Saturday, two days after the mayor said it was, and that the Russians left “behind them dead soldiers and burned vehicles, according to witnesses, Ukrainian officials, satellite images and military analysts.”
The Times said reporters found the bodies of six civilians. “It was unclear under what circumstances they had died, but the discarded packaging of a Russian military ration was lying beside one man who had been shot in the head,” the paper said. It then quoted a Zelensky adviser, who said:
“’The bodies of people with tied hands, who were shot dead by soldiers lie in the streets,’ the adviser, Mykhailo Podolyak, said on Twitter. ‘These people were not in the military. They had no weapons. They posed no threat.’ He included an image of a scene, photographed by Agence France-Presse, showing three bodies on the side of a road, one with hands apparently tied behind the back. The New York Times was unable to independently verify Mr. Podolyak’s claim the people had been executed.’”
It is possible that on Saturday the full extent of the horror had yet to emerge, and that even the mayor was unaware of it two days before, though photos now show many of the bodies out in the open on the streets of the town, something that presumably would be difficult to miss.
In Bucha, the Times was close to the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, whose soldiers appear in the newspaper’s photographs. In his piece, McCann suggests that Azov may responsible for the killings:
“Something very interesting then happens on [Saturday] 2 April, hours before a massacre is brought to the attention of the national and international media. The US and EU-funded Gorshenin Institute online [Ukrainian language] site Left Bank announced that:
‘Special forces have begun a clearing operation in the city of Bucha in the Kyiv region, which has been liberated by the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The city is being cleared from saboteurs and accomplices of Russian forces.’
The Russian military has by now completely left the city, so this sounds for all the world like reprisals. The state authorities would be going through the city searching for ‘saboteurs’ and ‘accomplices of Russian forces.’ Only the day before [Friday], Ekaterina Ukraintsiva, representing the town council authority, appeared on an information video on the Bucha Live Telegram page wearing military fatigues and seated in front of a Ukrainian flag to announce ‘the cleansing of the city.’ She informed residents that the arrival of the Azov battalion did not mean that liberation was complete (but it was, the Russians had fully withdrawn), and that a ‘complete sweep’ had to be performed.”
Ukraintsiva was speaking a day after the mayor had said the town was liberated.
By Sunday morning, the world learned of the massacre of hundreds of people. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said: “We strongly condemn apparent atrocities by Kremlin forces in Bucha and across Ukraine. We are pursuing accountability using every tool available, documenting and sharing information to hold accountable those responsible.” President Joe Biden on Monday called for a “war crimes” trial. “This guy is brutal, and what’s happening in Bucha is outrageous, and everyone’s seen it. I think it’s a war crime.”
The Bucha incident is a critical moment in the war. An impartial investigation is warranted, which probably only the U.N. could conduct. The Azov Battalion may have perpetrated revenge killings against Russian collaborators, or the Russians carried out this massacre. (Once again the Pentagon is dampening the war hysteria, saying it can’t confirm or deny Russia was responsible.)
A rush to judgment is dangerous, with irresponsible talk of the U.S. directly fighting Russia. But it is a rush to judgment that we are getting.
[Update: Satellite images, published after this article appeared by The New York Times, purportedly showing bodies strewn on a street in mid-March, should be considered by an impartial investigation. It cannot be considered at this point as conclusive evidence.]
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former U.N. correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and numerous other newspapers, including The Montreal Gazette and The Star of Johannesburg. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London, a financial reporter for Bloomberg News and began his professional work as a 19-year old stringer for The New York Times. He can be reached at joelauria@consortiumnews.com and followed on Twitter @unjoe https://consortiumnews.com/2022/04/04/questions-abound-about-bucha-massacre/
Incompetence of Britain’s leaders, on energy policy
Jonathon Porritt: This is absolutely the right time for a new Energy
Strategy. Unfortunately, we’ve got absolutely the wrong politicians in
charge of it. The combination of Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak all but
guarantees that the new Energy Security Strategy will fail on most counts.
– In Boris Johnson, we have a careless showman, drawn unerringly to
‘big ticket’ announcements, groomed by a nuclear industry that knows
exactly how to play to these personality defects. – In Rishi Sunak, we
have a man so detached from the reality of most people’s lives that the
prospect of five million UK citizens finding themselves in fuel poverty by
the end of the year means literally nothing.
Careless Johnson and callous
Sunak is a devastating double-act – with the inconsequential figure of
Kwasi Kwarteng lurking around to pick up the pieces.
Jonathon Porritt 5th April 2022
http://www.jonathonporritt.com/prospects-for-energy-security-marred-by-nuclear-fantasies/
The European Commission Platform on Sustainable Finance concludes that nuclear and gas power are not green
Nuclear and gas power ‘not green’, say EC experts https://environment-analyst.com/global/107948/nuclear-and-gas-power-not-green-say-ec-experts
EC Platform on Sustainable Finance delivers final report on extending sustainable finance rules across the whole EU economy, and includes a bombshell.
A European Commission (EC) expert group has made wide-ranging recommendations on extending the scope of the EU Taxonomy – the classification system that defines environmentally sustainable economic activities – across the European economy.
The EC Platform on Sustainable Finance’s final report will inform important new EU legislation, due in the autumn, which will in turn guide future policy and investment decisions.
The report concludes that gas and nuclear power cannot be described as ‘green’ under the taxonomy’s ‘do no significant harm’ (DNSH) rules – although leaves the final decision to the European Commission.
The expert panel’s final report considers 12 sectors, including manufacturing, transport, agriculture, fishing, building and disaster risk management. It is still finalising criteria for forestry and agriculture.
The report proposes a ‘traffic light’ system, listing red activities requiring urgent transition to avoid significant harm, amber activities that could more easily qualify for taxonomy-recognised investment, and green, low environmental impact (LEnvI) activities.
Welcoming the report, Sebastien Godinot, senior economist at WWF European policy office, commented: “The platform’s recommendations are a crucial step towards the much-needed ‘biodiversity taxonomy’, aimed at driving billions into nature-friendly activities.”
He added: “However, WWF is concerned that some criteria for critical sectors like forestry and agriculture are not [yet] included. The platform must publish recommendations for them no later than May.”
The EU Taxonomy, which came into force earlier this year, provides the technical underpinning for a number of interlinked EU regulations on sustainable finance products, disclosures and reporting. The taxonomy’s purpose is to increase financial flows towards green activities and to reduce green-washing by setting science-based criteria for performance. It is hoped that the taxonomy will become a global ‘gold standard’ for green finance.
The taxonomy is governed by the Taxonomy Regulation, which came into force on 12 July 2020 and identifies activities that improve or diminish six objectives (climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, sustainable water resources, transitioning to a circular economy, pollution prevention and control and protecting biodiversity and ecosystems). Article 26.2(a) of this regulation requires the commission to report on applying its rules across the wider economy and to define sectors that have no environmental impact or are outside its scope.
At the same time as the taxonomy came into effect, the EC presented the Taxonomy Climate Delegated Act (TCDA). In response to restrictions to Europe’s natural gas supplies at the beginning of the year, the legislation was controversially complemented by a second Delegated Act, which defined nuclear and natural gas powered energy as ‘green’. This caused widespread objections from environmental and climate change groups.
The TCDA is being scrutinised by the European Parliament and the Council, before going back to the EC. The EC is expected to draft a new Delegated Act, building on the platform’s latest recommendations, in the autumn. This should resolve whether nuclear and gas-powered energy will count as sustainable for policy and investment purposes in the EU.
While asserting that nuclear and gas power are not green, the platform’s report gives the commission ‘wiggle room’ by suggesting a “systems-wide approach to the low-carbon transition”.
It says: “The extended Taxonomy framework would acknowledge the reasons why these activities are not green, explaining why, in some cases, [they] may be significantly harmful, but also showing that there is potential for valid and urgent transitions away from significantly harmful performance.”
Nuclear waste management: Is Finland’s Onkalo facility safe?
Nuclear waste management: Is Finland’s Onkalo facility safe? https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/science-technology/nuclear-waste-management-is-finland-s-onkalo-facility-safe–82252 6 Apr 22,
The facility, set to begin operation in 2024, isn’t based on a foolproof concept
Finland, a nuclear energy champion, claimed it has figured out how to tackle one of the bigger issues with nuclear energy: Safely managing radioactive waste.
The country plans to store its nuclear waste in an underground facility called Onkalo. The structure, named after the Finnish word for “pit”, is a 500-meter-deep underground disposal facility designed to store used nuclear fuel permanently.
The deep geological repository is usually built in places containing a stable rock.Finland can become the first to commission a plant to permanently store spent nuclear fuel. The idea is to encase the waste in corrosion-resistant copper canisters. These will be further encapsulated in a layer of water-absorbing clay. The setup will be buried in an underground tunnel.
The facility is now equipped with 500 sensors to monitor the functioning of the entire system, according to VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd, a state-owned company and one of the contributors to the project.
“Monitoring brings evidence that the repository will be keeping the outside world safe from the nuclear fuel waste,” Arto Laikari, senior scientist from VTT, said. The state-owned company’s collaborator Posiva, a Finnish nuclear waste management organisation, has submitted the operating license for the facility and is awaiting approval.
In 2023, Posiva will do a final trial run of the disposal mechanism but without radioactive material, Erika Holt, project manager from VTT, told Down To Earth. It is expected to begin operations in 2024.
Problem of disposing nuclear waste
For years, the nuclear industry has been trying to find solutions to the waste problem. They are generated at various steps during the nuclear life cycle: Mining uranium ore, producing uranium fuel and generating power in the reactor.
The waste can remain radioactive for a few hours, several months or even hundreds of thousands of years. Depending on the extent of radioactivity, nuclear wastes are categorised as low-, intermediate- and high-level waste.
About 97 per cent of the waste is either low- or intermediate-level. The remaining is high-level waste, such as used or spent uranium fuel.
A 1,000-megawatt plant creates about 30 tonnes of high-level nuclear waste every year, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
“Even at low levels, exposure to this waste will be harmful to people and other living organisms as long as it remains radioactive,” Ramana explained.
Global endeavours
Some nations are storing waste on-site. But it carries the risk of radioactive leakage. In the United States, for instance, spent fuel is stored in a concrete-and-steel container called a dry cask, according to the US Energy Information Administration.
India and a handful of other nations reprocess about 97-98 per cent of the spent nuclear fuel to recover plutonium and uranium, according to data from the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre.
India also recovers other materials like caesium, strontium and ruthenium, which finds application as blood irradiators to screen transfusions, cancer treatment and eye cancer therapeutics, respectively, according to the research institute.
The remaining 1-3 per cent end up in a storage facility. India also immobilises the wastes by mixing them with glass, which is kept under surveillance in storage facilities.
But there are problems with this approach as well. Except for the plutonium and uranium, all the radioactive material present in the spent fuel is redistributed among different waste streams, Ramana said. “These enter the environment sooner or later.”
The plutonium and uranium intended for reuse in other nuclear reactors will also turn into radioactive waste, he added.
Nations like Finland, Canada, France and Sweden are also looking at deep geological repositories to tackle spent nuclear fuel wastes.
In January 2022, the Swedish government greenlit an underground repository for nuclear waste. Construction in Sweden will take at least 10 more years, Johan Swahn, director of MKG Swedish NGO Office for Nuclear Waste Review, a non-governmental environmental organisation, said.
Finland can share its experience with colleagues and partners worldwide, Holt said. “But each country and programme must have their own solutions. Worldwide, we work together to show nuclear energy (and the holistic views for responsible waste management) are viable for meeting CO2 targets,” she added.
Is the approach safe?
Experts associated with the project said that 40-years of theoretical and lab-based studies suggest that the geological repository is safe.
The bedrock provides a natural barrier to protect from radioactive release to the environment, such as water bodies and air, Holt explained.
The use of clay and copper provides a protective layer to ensure no release due to extreme conditions like earthquakes.
But Ramana argues that theoretical safety studies are not foolproof. There are significant uncertainties stemming from various long-term natural processes. These include climate change and the unpredictability of human behaviour over these long periods of time, he added.
Besides, design failure could undermine claims about safety, the expert noted. For instance, a few scientists fear that copper canisters can become corrosive and crack.
Finland’s team chose copper because it corrodes slowly. But Peter Szakálos, a chemist at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, is not quite sure.
In a 2007 study, Szakálos and his team observed that copper could corrode in pure, oxygen-free water. “It’s just a matter of time — anything from decades to centuries — before unalloyed copper canisters start to crack at Onkalo,” he told Science journal.
On February 14, 2014, radioactive materials such as americium and plutonium leaked out of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, a deep geological long-lived radioactive waste repository, following an accident. The facility dealt solely with a special class of wastes from nuclear weapons production.
“If a failure like this happened within two decades of opening the repository, what are the odds that such failures won’t happen over the millennia that these repositories [Finland’s Onkalo] are supposed to operate safely?”
Both the Finnish project and the Swedish decision are very important for the international nuclear industry because the latter can point to these facilities to prove the nuclear waste problem is solved, Swahn said. “But it is very uncertain whether copper as a container material is a good idea.”
The projects may still fail as the understanding of how copper behaves in a repository environment is still developing, the expert added.
Greenpeace maps Ukraine’s nuclear power risks
The extent of the nuclear threat posed by Vladimir Putin’s illegal
invasion of Ukraine is unprecedented, new Greenpeace International mapping
and technical analysis shows. Created with data from the Institute for the
Study of War and the Centre for Information Resilience among others, and
displaying the proximity of Russian troops and military hardware to each of
Ukraine’s 15 commercial nuclear reactors over time, the interactive map
provides a chilling interactive visualisation of the potential for nuclear
catastrophe at regular intervals since the bloody invasion began on
February 24.
Greenpeace 6th April 2022
” Renewable Energy Foundation (REF)” – strongly linked to anti-wind power lobby
Charity linked to UK anti-onshore wind campaigns active again. While the
name of the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) suggests it is a charity
dedicated to promoting low-carbon electricity, it appears to spend most of
its time campaigning against onshore wind.
When it was founded in 2004,
with the TV personality Noel Edmonds as its chair, the organisation was
clear it wanted to fight against the “grotesque political push” for
onshore renewable energy in the UK. It styles itself on its website as “a
registered charity promoting sustainable development for the benefit of the
public by means of energy conservation and the use of renewable energy”.
However, many in the energy sector believe the charity to be full of
anti-wind lobbyists. In 2008, the REF had what it described as a
“dialogue” with the Charity Commission over whether it was violating
its charitable status by being too political in its campaigning. The
Charity Commission said it assessed the complaint relating to the REF’s
campaigning activities and determined there was no evidence that it was not
charitable, but also provided guidance about how to achieve its objectives
as an organisation.
The REF has strong links to a group accused of climate
science scepticism, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, started by the
former chancellor Nigel Lawson, who has denied global heating is a problem.
Prof Michael Kelly, a trustee of the REF also has a position on the board
of the GWPF. John Constable, an adviser to the GWPF, has been quoted as an
REF spokesperson and was previously its director of policy and research.
Constable answered the Guardian’s questions for this article on behalf of
the REF.
While the REF has been relatively quiet in recent years, growing
pressure on the government to support wind energy to help solve the energy
crisis seems to have led to it becoming more active again. In recent weeks,
the charity has provided anti-onshore wind research to the Telegraph and
Daily Mail. Colin Davie, a trustee of the REF, has appeared on Radio 4’s
Today programme to oppose onshore wind. Constable added that the REF had
“no blanket policy” on renewables – but that the charity did not see
them as a large part of the net zero strategy. He added: “Each proposal
must be judged on its own merits, and providing that local environmental
concerns offer no obstacle, niche applications may be suitable, as they may
be for all renewables.”
Guardian 5th April 2022
Over 70 Russian soldiers suffering from radiation exposure at Chernobyl nucler site
| Over 70 Russian soldiers exposed to radiation at Chernobyl: Ukraine, KYODO NEWS 6 Apr 22, – About 75 Russian soldiers are receiving medical treatment in Belarus after being exposed to radiation during their temporary control of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine, according to Ukraine’s Energy Minister German Galushchenko. Galushchenko said in an online interview Tuesday that the troops apparently suffered from radiation after digging around the grounds of the plant, the site of a 1986 disaster, to defend themselves from the Ukrainian military.The troops were affected “very heavily and are in a very difficult situation and now (being treated) in clinics” in Belarus, Galushchenko said, citing information made available. “I can’t imagine you could order someone to dig into” areas contaminated with “the high level of radiation with signs saying ‘Don’t come in. Don’t stay near,'” he said, speaking in English.”They’re soldiers, and they just follow the orders.”Galushchenko said Ukraine has regained complete control of the nuclear power plant…………….. https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2022/04/33e77e951e22-over-70-russian-soldiers-exposed-to-radiation-at-chernobyl-ukraine.htm |
Uzbekistan: Nuclear deal with Russia still on the table despite sanctions
Uzbekistan: Nuclear deal with Russia still on the table despite sanctions, eurasianet, Even if Rosatom is not targeted by sanctions, its future projects could still be affected. Apr 6, 2022 When Uzbekistan fired the starting pistol four years ago on plans to go nuclear as a way to address the chronic energy shortages that plague it every winter, the world was a different place.
Russian President Vladimir Putin was not an international pariah. And Shavkat Mirziyoyev, his Uzbek counterpart, was courting him as a guest of honor in Tashkent.
The high point of Putin’s visit was when he and Mirziyoyev symbolically inaugurated the start to a project to build an $11 billion nuclear power plant in an area just east of Bukhara. The work was to be done by Russia’s state-owned Rosatom, a commanding presence in the global nuclear power industry, and to be funded with loans from Moscow………
When Uzbekistan fired the starting pistol four years ago on plans to go nuclear as a way to address the chronic energy shortages that plague it every winter, the world was a different place.
Russian President Vladimir Putin was not an international pariah. And Shavkat Mirziyoyev, his Uzbek counterpart, was courting him as a guest of honor in Tashkent.
The high point of Putin’s visit was when he and Mirziyoyev symbolically inaugurated the start to a project to build an $11 billion nuclear power plant in an area just east of Bukhara. The work was to be done by Russia’s state-owned Rosatom, a commanding presence in the global nuclear power industry, and to be funded with loans from Moscow.
…………………… “It is absolutely the case that projects that have not yet been completed or that still are in the design stages are extremely vulnerable to sanctions difficulties and interference, even if Rosatom is not itself presently subject to such sanctions,” Richard Nephew, the director of the International Security Initiative at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, told Eurasianet by email. “Sanctions targeting financial transactions, technology transfers and the like will all undermine efforts to engage in and complete such projects.”
While there are clear risks to proceeding with the project, there are risks to scrapping it, too.
Aside from the certainty that cancellation would antagonize a belligerent Russia, finding a new partner to build a plant that Mirziyoyev said in 2018 would be completed within a decade would take time.
So is building the Russo-Uzbek nuclear power station still viable?
“Possibly, though given the long lead times required to develop and implement nuclear reactor projects, by the time such a project were to begin, it could be covered by sanctions,” said Nephew. “In general, it would not be advisable to start development of such projects now, given this risk.” https://eurasianet.org/uzbekistan-nuclear-deal-with-russia-still-on-the-table-despite-sanctions
Ensuring radiation protection: European Commission takes Portugal to Court to guarantee citizens’ protection from ionising radiation-exposure
Ensuring radiation protection: Commission takes Portugal to Court to guarantee citizens’ protection from ionising radiation-exposure risks https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_22_2215
The Commission is taking legal steps to ensure the protection of citizens, workers and patients against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation. Today, the Commission decided to refer Portugal to the Court of Justice of the European Union for failing to fully transpose the EU’s revised Basic Safety Standards Directive (Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom) into national legislation.
Member States were required to transpose the Directive by 6 February 2018. The Commission has been providing continuous support to the Member States to properly transpose the rules. In November 2019, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to Portugal requesting it to notify to the Commission all of its transposition measures for the Directive. Since then, Portugal has notified additional transposition measures, but has not yet established a national action plan addressing long-term risks from exposures to radon, as required by the Directive. Therefore, the Commission is referring Portugal to the Court of Justice today.
Background
The Euratom Treaty provides the Commission with the legal basis to establish basic safety standards to protect the health of workers and the general public against dangers arising from ionising radiation. Once fully implemented, the Basic Safety Standards Directive will ensure the highest level of radiation protection of workers, patients and the general public across the EU.
The Directive, which was first adopted in 1959, sets out the requirements on emergency preparedness and response in case of radiological emergency, and provides for radiation protection education, training and provision of information to the public, among others. Emergency preparedness and response provisions were strengthened following the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan in 2011. The latest revision from December 2013 took account of the scientific and technological progress since the 1990s, and consolidated five earlier legal acts into a single piece of legislation.
Chancellor Olaf Scholz reiterated Germany’s determination to close down all nuclear power stations
Scholz Shoots Down Appeal to Reverse Germany’s Nuclear Exit, Bloomberg, German Power Sources, Michael Nienaber and Arne Delfs, 6 April 2022,
Chancellor Olaf Scholz reiterated his opposition to reversing Germany’s exit from nuclear power to help cut reliance on Russian energy, saying the technical challenges would be too great.
Germany is rushing to end its heavy dependence on Russian fossil fuels following the invasion of Ukraine but the process has been complicated by the decision by former Chancellor Angela Merkel’s previous government to shut down the country’s nuclear power plants. The move was prompted by the disaster at Fukushima, Japan in 2011 and the remaining three reactors are due to go off line this year.
Does EDF really need even more subsidies for Sizewell C nuclear project?
By doing so, our beloved leaders are ensuring
that Sizewell C will now have subsidised development, subsidised
construction, subsidised power production and subsidised waste management,
for a project still being run by Europe’s most subsidised company,
Electricité de France. Free markets? Don’t you believe it.
Does EDF really need even more subsidies for Sizewell C?even more subsidies for Sizewell C? Under new
legislation, our normally parsimonious government has just earmarked a
further £1.7 billion towards meeting their (uncosted) promise to ensure
that another new nuclear fission power plant may possibly begin being built
before the next election.
By doing so, our beloved leaders are ensuring
that Sizewell C will now have subsidised development, subsidised
construction, subsidised power production and subsidised waste management,
for a project still being run by Europe’s most subsidised company,
Electricité de France. Free markets? Don’t you believe it.
Electrical Review 6th April 2022 https://electricalreview.co.uk/2022/04/06/does-edf-really-need-even-more-subsidies-for-sizewell-c/
 | |||
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 (126)
- 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 