French finance minister and MPs clash over future of nuclear power
to “all those who confuse reality with their fantasies […] nuclear power does not work”.
By Paul Messad | EURACTIV.fr | translated by Arthur Riffaud, Jul 29, 2022
Left-wing MPs and Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire came to heated debate in the French National Assembly over a reduction in nuclear power production during the vote on the rectifying finance bill.
On Tuesday night (26-27 July), French MPs adopted the rectifying finance bill, in which it was agreed the country’s public energy supplier EDF should be nationalised. At a minimum, it was agreed that the state will make a public offer to buy the remaining 16% of the company that it does not already own, a sum amounting to €9.7 billion……….
LFI MP Antoine Léaument said that the cost of the ‘Grand Carénage’ programme, aimed at extending the life of power plants, would represent the same budget as the construction of 33 to 76 offshore wind farms, which would produce more installed power than that of nuclear.
The themes of the discussion are not new. In June, LFI’s party leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon revived debate over nuclear’s votality, saying that while this is not a “fact”, the current situation of climate breakdown is such that “what was not intermittent yesterday will become more and more so.”
He added that “France is now the country lagging furthest behind in its renewable energy objectives” within the European Union.
On renewable profitability
On 18 July, the French Energy Regulation Commission (CRE) unveiled its assessment of the public service costs of energy to be compensated by the state for 2023.
The report concludes that renewables will generate revenue for the State in 2023, due to the current very high price of megawatt hours (MWh). When prices are set higher than the feed-in tariff set by the state, operators pay the difference to public authorities.
This has prompted some observers to insist on the profitability of renewable energies, in particular wind power.
“France is reactivating its coal power plants while at the same time there are currently 4.7 GW of wind projects and 3 GW of solar projects being put on hold”, said Anne-Catherine Tourtier, president of the France Energie Eolienne association.
The government has already announced a bill to speed up the development of renewable energies for the autumn. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/french-finance-minister-and-mps-clash-over-future-of-nuclear-power/
However, the outcome was not easy to swallow, particularly for those on the left.
In reality, nuclear production is at half mast. France is significantly importing electricity: up to 10 GW on a single day, as the country’s transmission system operator RTE figures show, a noteworthy figure considering that the country is usually a net exporter.
Nuclear capacity
Currently, about thirty reactors are shut down, more than half of France’s fleet. Some are closed for maintenance, and 12 for problems with corrosion. Others have been impacted by the weather, with extreme temperatures endangering the cooling capacities of the plants.
EDF announced that it has lost €5.3 billion euros in the first half of the year, mainly associated with the forced closure of many of the nuclear plants.
The French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) extended a temporary derogation to the shutdown rules for such situations on Friday (22 July) to “ensure the safety of the electricity network” during this critical period. The power plants of Golfech, Saint-Alban, Blayais and Bugey will thus be permitted to operate until 7 August 2022.
Heated debate in the National Assembly
During the debate on the draft rectifying finance law in the National Assembly, Green MPs and others from the left-wing party La France Insoumise (LFI) condemned the government’s irresponsibility in its approach to nuclear energy.
Julien Bayou, Europe Écologie Les Verts (EELV) MP for Paris and party executive, repeatedly said: to “all those who confuse reality with their fantasies […] nuclear power does not work”.
A new nuclear power station needs a vast supply of water. But where will Sizewell C get it from?
As one of the driest parts of the country, Suffolk is described by the Environment Agency as “seriously water stressed”. By 2043, eight years into Sizewell C’s 60-year operating life, the agency anticipates a water deficit in the county of more than 7m litres a day.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/27/nuclear-power-station-sizewell-c-water-suffolk William Atkins 28 Jul 2022 Plans for the site have got the go-ahead. The knock-on effect for Suffolk’s rivers and seawater will soon be clear
Last week, the government gave the go-ahead for a new nuclear power station to be developed on the Suffolk coast. Providing low-carbon electricity for about 6m homes, Sizewell C will stand alongside two existing stations, Sizewell B and the decommissioned Sizewell A. I live close enough to see the 60-metre tall, white dome of Sizewell B almost every day. When I want to torture myself, I look at developer EDF’s “construction phase visualisations” of the 1,380-acre building site, with its towering spoil heaps and forest of cranes, and wonder if this is what it will take to save the planet.
What might not have been immediately obvious in the coverage of the government’s decision was that the Planning Inspectorate, tasked with assessing such projects, had recommended that permission be refused. The problem, the examiners explained, was fairly simple: EDF couldn’t say exactly where it would obtain one of the main substances needed to make a nuclear power station work, that substance being water.
As well as uranium, a reactor of the kind EDF plans to build needs water in very great volumes. Saltwater will do for part of the process, which is one reason why nuclear power stations are usually built beside the sea. But fresh or “potable” water will also be needed – first, to cool the two reactors, and then, just as importantly, to cool the irradiated fuel once it has been removed from the reactors. For this, absolutely pure water is essential. Sizewell B uses about 800,000 litres of potable water per day; Sizewell C, with its twin reactors, will need more than 2m litres per day, and as much as 3.5m litres per day during construction.
Last September, during the closing hearings of the six-month public planning examination, the question of just where the developer was going to get the water to run Sizewell C, let alone build it, was becoming urgent. Those who had raised concerns about precisely this issue more than 10 years earlier would have been forgiven for feeling frustrated. As one of the driest parts of the country, Suffolk is described by the Environment Agency as “seriously water stressed”. By 2043, eight years into Sizewell C’s 60-year operating life, the agency anticipates a water deficit in the county of more than 7m litres a day. Northumbrian Water, which operates locally as Essex and Suffolk Water, had made it clear to EDF that there was not enough local groundwater for either construction or operation. EDF’s plan, therefore, was to build a pipeline to bring water from the River Waveney, 18 miles away on the Norfolk border. During at least the first two years of construction, while the pipeline was being built, EDF planned to install a temporary desalination plant on the site to turn saltwater from the sea into fresh.
Then, in August, the water company broke the news that its abstraction licenses dictating how much water it could extract from the Waveney, granted by the Environment Agency, were likely to be reduced by up to 60% to safeguard downstream levels. It subsequently confirmed that the Waveney did not, after all, have the capacity to supply water for for any of the 10-year construction phase.
Desalination, opponents of the project noted, was a solution EDF itself had discounted in January 2021 “due to concerns with power consumption, sustainability, cost and wastewater discharge”. And yet, desalination, with all the problems it had set out (including discharging millions of litres a day of saline concentrate and phosphorus into the North Sea), remains EDF’s “fallback” solution for running the station, as well as building it, if another source can’t be found. Northumbrian Water has since confirmed that: “Existing water resources (including the River Waveney) will not be sufficient to meet forecast mains water demand, including the operational demand of Sizewell C.”
Then, in August, the water company broke the news that its abstraction licenses dictating how much water it could extract from the Waveney, granted by the Environment Agency, were likely to be reduced by up to 60% to safeguard downstream levels. It subsequently confirmed that the Waveney did not, after all, have the capacity to supply water for for any of the 10-year construction phase.
Desalination, opponents of the project noted, was a solution EDF itself had discounted in January 2021 “due to concerns with power consumption, sustainability, cost and wastewater discharge”. And yet, desalination, with all the problems it had set out (including discharging millions of litres a day of saline concentrate and phosphorus into the North Sea), remains EDF’s “fallback” solution for running the station, as well as building it, if another source can’t be found. Northumbrian Water has since confirmed that: “Existing water resources (including the River Waveney) will not be sufficient to meet forecast mains water demand, including the operational demand of Sizewell C.”
The more I look at those mock-ups of the building site, the more they seem like a metaphor for another kind of despoilment. Given the government’s stated intention to build a fleet of new nuclear power stations across the country, it’s not just people who live in Suffolk who have reason to wonder what the secretary of state’s decision to wash his hands of Sizewell C’s water problem says about the resilience of the systems we entrust with safeguarding our environment. Still, the foundations will be laid, I suppose, and the cranes will rise, and after 10 years and £20bn (by EDF’s reckoning), Sizewell C will be built. And when the time comes for its reactors to go critical, there will be water, because if there isn’t, Suffolk will have a new tourist attraction to rival Framlingham Castle: the most expensive white elephant in human history.
What this fait accompli means for Suffolk’s rivers and seawater, let alone for the county’s householders and farmers, are not questions that will be answered before building begins. It’s enlightening, in this context, to consider that the past six months have been the driest in Suffolk for more than a quarter of a century, and the driest in England since 1976.
“The secretary of state disagrees with the examining authority’s conclusions on this matter,” Wednesday’s decision letter states, “and considers that the uncertainty over the permanent water supply strategy is not a barrier to granting consent to the proposed development.” During last year’s planning hearings, two stories kept coming back to me: the biblical account of Moses in the desert, making water gush from a rock by striking it with his staff; and the Brothers Grimm tale in which a giant clasps a stone in his fist, and crushes it until, finally, water is forced out.
William Atkins is the author of The Immeasurable World: Journeys in Desert Places and The Moor
How professional lobbyists have worked to generate enthusiasm in Washington for a long proxy military conflict in Ukraine
Kiev’s influence blitz in Washington is exposed as revealing Foreign Agent registration figures emerge
Rt.com.By Slobodan Kolomoets.29 July 22,” …………………
On July 11, Washington DC-based public affairs consultancy Ridgely Walsh registered as a Foreign Agent on behalf of Ukrainian interests with the US Justice Department.
The company – which typically advises Silicon Valley big hitters such as eBay, Google, Snapchat, SpaceX, and Uber – is just the latest Beltway operator to enlist under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA)
Last July, just 11 US-based firms were registered as lobbyists for Ukrainian clients under FARA. Over the course of 2021, these influencers attempted to pressure Washington to kill the Nord Stream 2 project, increase lethal aid shipments to Kiev, and post ever-more US and NATO forces along Russia’s border.
In the process, they amassed over 10,000 contacts with lawmakers, think tanks, and journalists. This is a staggering figure when one considers the Saudi lobby – one of the largest and most influential in the US – had just 2,834 interactions with these elements in the same timeframe.
Lobbying activity on behalf of Kiev over 2022 will inevitably dwarf even that vast total. Now, the number of registered pro-Ukrainian agents in Washington stands at an unprecedented 24, with six being compelled to register in June alone. Strikingly too, many of these companies are providing their services free of charge – to the extent pro bono lobbying for Zelensky’s government has been dubbed the ‘hottest trend’ in Washington DC political circles.
This phenomenon cannot be attributed to generosity of spirit, or altruism. Some lobbyists work for the Ukrainian government without remuneration for a positive PR boost, others to rehabilitate their reputations and remain in favor with US clients after enthusiastically representing Russian corporations prior to the February 24 invasion. As we shall see, there are potentially other, more spectral factors at work in some cases, too.
It is likely many more firms are effectively representing Ukrainian interests than are officially recognized under FARA. Ridgely Walsh only registered in July, after Vox documented its work chaperoning two Ukrainian pilots around Washington, meeting with journalists, senators and representatives, and Defense and State Department representatives. It had been working for the Ukrainian government for over five months by that point.
The FARA filing indicates that Ridgely Walsh engages directly with Yury Sak, adviser to Ukrainian Defense Minister Aleksey Reznikov, and Lieutenant Colonel Denis Smazhny, and an appendix in the document sets out the terms of Ridgely Walsh’s work for Kiev.
It states that the company “provides public relations and media relations support to Ukraine, including by engaging with US media representatives, government officials, NGOs, educational institutions, think tanks, investors, and foreign policy experts; arranging media interviews; developing and pitching op-eds; [and] organizing events.” The firm also creates “opportunities for Ukrainians to interact” with journalists, politicians, pundits, and “other sections of the US public.”…………………………..
The constellation of troublemaking initiatives funded by Ribachuk also received significant financing from American oligarch Pierre Omidyar, and US intelligence agency fronts USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which were fundamental to supporting the 2014 Maidan in Kiev.
Writing in February 2014, veteran journalist Bob Parry noted that the NED had over the previous year funded 65 projects in Ukraine totaling over $20 million, amounting to “a shadow political structure of media and activist groups that could be deployed to stir up unrest when the Ukrainian government didn’t act as desired.”
………………………………………………… the vast majority of Western media coverage of the conflict has amounted to simply regurgitating Ukrainian statements, without any attempt at fact checking.
………………………….. Evidently, Washington and Kiev are preparing for a very long war indeed. And a vast army of lobbying firms are ready, willing, and able to make that happen, by deluging the media and legislative chambers the world over with eminently suspect narratives to maintain inexorable and ever-increasingly vast Western arms shipments to Kiev…. https://www.rt.com/russia/559386-foreign-agent-registration-document/
Undersea nuclear waste dump off Cumbria would imperil marine life, experts warn
UK looking for storage site for world’s biggest stockpile of untreated waste, including 100 tonnes of plutonium
Guardian, Mattha Busby, Fri 29 Jul 2022
Plans to dispose of radioactive nuclear waste beneath the seabed off the north-west coast of England risk seriously harming marine life including mammals such as dolphins and whales, experts have warned.
Seismic surveys in the Irish Sea near Cumbria get under way on Saturday to explore whether the area is suitable for a proposed facility. The UK government is seeking a location for a deep underground repository to store the world’s largest stockpile of untreated nuclear waste.
Officials have said that a decades-long accumulation of materials including more than 100 tonnes of plutonium – which could create thousands of nuclear bombs – cannot sustainably be stored above ground for ever and they are therefore searching for a site to “keep it safe and secure over the hundreds of thousands of years it will take for the radioactivity to naturally decay”.
In 2019, radioactivity leaked into the soil beneath Sellafield, in Cumbria, which saw a serious leakage in the 1970s and was not built with decommissioning in mind. There are 20 surface facilities that store highly radioactive waste across the UK. About 750,000 cubic metres, equivalent to 70% of the volume of Wembley stadium, is earmarked for “geological disposal”.
But impacts related to noise exposure from seismic gun blasts have been linked to vastly reduced sightings of whales, whose primary sense is acoustic. There is also concern over storing nuclear waste underwater, with just a handful of such sites globally.
The Zoological Society of London’s cetacean strandings investigation programme manager, Rob Deaville, said that seismic blasts can cause habitat avoidance, risk excluding mammals from an area, and raise the risk of decompression sickness. “Potential impacts can also include direct physical effects ranging from temporary or permanent threshold shifts in hearing to direct blast trauma,” he told the Guardian.
There are also concerns that the blasts may drown out mating calls and even cause deaths, after more than 800 dolphins washed ashore in Peru in 2012 after seismic tests. On the Cumbria survey, Deaville added that the area is a known habitat for porpoises, dolphins and other species. “Our teams are very much on standby, in the event we receive increased reports of live/dead strandings over this period.”
In a letter to campaigners shared with the Guardian, an official from the Marine Management Organisation, a public body, acknowledged “the potential disturbance to certain cetacean species” but noted that the plans were largely exempt from regulations.
Critics also suggest it may be impossible to predict the consequences of storing heat-generating nuclear waste beneath the sea in perpetuity.
The chair of Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA), David Blackburn, also leader of the Green party group at Leeds city council, told the Guardian: “The waste would be left in situ for millennia and, no matter how effective the barriers, some of the radioactivity will eventually reach the surface. The rate at which radioactivity would leak from a [geological disposal facility (GDF)] can be poorly predicted and is likely to remain so for an indefinite period.
“Rather than solving a problem for future generations, it could be leaving them a legacy of a nuclear waste dump gradually releasing radioactivity into the environment and cutting off their options for deciding how to deal with this waste.”
The NFLA prefers the idea of a “near surface, near site storage of waste” to allow for monitoring and management, and action in the event of a leakage. “Further scientific research may yield advancements that could mean that radioactive waste can be treated such as to make it less toxic in a shorter time period,” Blackburn added. “Chucking it in a hole in the ground or under the seabed precludes this possibility…………………………….. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/29/undersea-nuclear-waste-dump-off-cumbria-risks-harm-to-marine-life-experts-warn
Nuclear reactors: Engie’s demands are prerequisites to any further extension of nuclear power in Belgium.
https://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium-news/264186/nuclear-reactors-engies-demands-are-prerequisites-to-any-further-extension,30 July 2022 By Lukas Taylor
Having agreed to extend their nuclear reactors by 10 years, Engie has confirmed that the Federal Government will meet the French energy company’s conditions.
On 21 July, the Federal Government and Engie reached an ‘agreement in principle‘ to extend two nuclear reactors until 2035. In reality, this agreement is a letter of intent upon which further negotiations will be held.
In a press statement announcing that their profits had more than doubled in the last six months, Engie maintained that the terms outlined in the letter are ‘intrinsic’ to the extension.
Nuclear conditioning
Engie set three prerequisites for extending Doel 4 and Tihange 3 reactors. Firstly, that the extension will begin within five years of the agreement’s signature.
They then stated that they want a shareholding company to be founded with a 50/50 involvement of the Belgian State and Electrabel, so that the government can play a role in strategic matters concerning the extension.
Finally, the letter of intent set a cap on Engie’s expenses of decommissioning the reactors, as well as the management of fissile materials and radioactive waste. This will come in the form of a fixed amount to be determined by the Nuclear Provisions Commission and the National Organisation for Radioactive Waste and Fissile Materials (Ondraf).
EDF forced to redesign UK nuclear reactors after horror leaks at Chinese sites
Energy crisis: EDF forced to redesign UK reactors after horror leaks at
Chinese sites. The company announced that it would change the way fuel rods
are held in place in their flagship new EPR generators, following reports
of fuel cell damage that forced a nuclear power plant with the same design
in China to shut down. Last year, state owned China General Nuclear (CGN)
announced that the EPR reactor at the Taishan plant, about 80 miles west of
Hong Kong, was shut down for “maintenance” after cracks in the fuel
rods were discovered.
Express 25th July 2022
Scotland’s government dithering about nuclear power
The SNP Government is facing calls to explain an apparent U-turn on energy
policy after revealing its ‘prospectus for independence’ will consider
nuclear power. Liam Kerr, Scottish Conservative Shadow Net Zero Secretary,
said the SNP administration needed to explain what brought about their
U-turn following years of opposition.
A freedom of information request
published by the Scottish Government includes questions about Scotland’s
energy supply and the impact of moving away from fossil fuels. One of the
questions asked if the government had factored in the effects of Scexit and
breaking up the United Kingdom.
The Scottish Government confirmed that in
the next stage of its independence prospectus it would look into
Scotland’s energy outlook. It revealed that the prospectus will
“consider future nuclear, oil and gas supply” in an independent
Scotland. The reply revealed that Scotland’s climate change plans
highlighted the importance of nuclear, oil and gas in reducing Scotland’s
energy systems. Officials said the move towards electric vehicles, heat
pumps and hydrogen would help Scotland move away from oil and gas but it
failed to confirmed if the plan would include moving away from nuclear.
They wrote: “Sector analyses and modelling conducted for Scotland’s
climate change plans show that nuclear, oil and gas can play a reducing
role in Scotland’s energy system, and this is necessary as we move
towards 2045 and our net zero legislated target.
Mr Matheson said in an
interview on Good Morning Scotland that the Scottish Government was against
nuclear power for three reasons: its long legacy in terms of construction
cost and nuclear waste, concerns around safety, and that it is the “most
expensive form of electricity”, with renewable alternatives being cheaper
to run and better at helping lower peoples household bills – adding that
nuclear is “heavily subsidised”.
Express 26th July 2022
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/snp-government-called-explain-u-27579843
Latest Research – Baseload generators such as Sizewell C nuclear power plants are not needed in an all-renewable future and their use would simply increase costs
Latest Research – Baseload generators such as Sizewell C nuclear power
plants are not needed in an all-renewable future and their use would simply
increase costs. Sizewell C is much more expensive and slower to build than
proven and reliable alternative low carbon solutions say elite Energy Think
Tank. Professor Mark Barrett, from UCL, who has modeled the comparative
costs of nuclear and renewable power, using hour-by-hour wind and solar
data with 35 years of weather data , said: “Nuclear power is more
expensive and slower to build than renewables, particularly offshore wind.
7 GW of wind will generate about 40% more electricity than Hinkley at about
30-50% of the cost per kWh and will be built in half the time. Neither wind
nor nuclear plant operates all the time, so both will need backup. Modeling
shows the total cost of a renewable generation to be less than nuclear and
to be just as able to provide continuous power even with wind and solar
droughts.”
100% Renewables 26th July 2022
Rolls Royce hyping up risky and unproven small nuclear reactors
The seeds of a recovery are in place. The company’s nascent small
modular nuclear reactor operation is hugely promising. They can be built
for a fraction of the cost [ed -this is a dubious claim] and are much quicker to assemble. The Government
has thrown its weight behind the technology with £210m of grants. Yet the
project will require four new factories to be built and the first reactor
isn’t expected until 2029. There are high hopes, too, for a move into
electric powered planes and clean fuel. With a cutting edge in combustion
engines that burn hydrogen or artificial fuels, the real elephant in the
room for Rolls is decarbonisation. Yet, the newer technologies it is
pouring money into are risky and unproven.
Telegraph 27th July 2022
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/07/27/rolls-royce-existential-crisis-new-unknown-b
Campaign groups in Wales join to fight nuclear power plans
More than 30 anti-nuclear campaigners representing the major Welsh
campaign groups met in Caernarfon on Saturday to discuss their strategy to
withstand plans from the Welsh and UK governments to develop new nuclear
power stations at Wylfa and Trawsfynydd. The UK government confirmed in
April this year that re-opening Wylfa nuclear power station was part of its
energy strategy, with the idea to move ahead with the project “as soon as
possible this decade”. Scotland, meanwhile, will not see any new nuclear
reactors as part of the UK government’s energy strategy.
The National (Wales) 27th July 2022
https://www.thenational.wales/environment/20513304.wylfa-campaigners-fight-nuclear-power-wales/
Nuclear giant EDF and waste company Veolia continue to do business with Russia – the nuclear industry gets uranium from Russia, and sends wastes there.
Two utility giants raking in billions from British customers are STILL doing business with Russia — five months after Vladimir Putin ‘s forces invaded Ukraine.
Energy supplier EDF and waste firm Veolia have been accused of indirectly funding the war. Despite the death of 5,000 civilians, EDF Group’s contracts include a deal to source uranium from state-run nuclear power giant Rosatom. And Veolia – like EDF, French-owned – has a number of lucrative heating and waste supply contracts. Both firms insist they comply with international sanctions and that their activities are to provide essential public services.
But critics believe they should cut all ties immediately. Lib Dem energy spokesperson Wera Hobhouse said: “EDF should do the right thing by ending their business with brutal dictator Putin.”
Mirror 23rd July 2022
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/two-energy-firms-earning-billions-27560187
Russia accused of waging war out of working nuclear power plant in Ukraine
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220725-russia-accused-of-waging-war-out-of-working-nuclear-power-plant-in-ukraine Russian forces have reportedly been using the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, near Nikopol in southern Ukraine, as a base to launch attacks, ramping up security concerns in surrounding areas.
The power plant in Ukraine is the largest in Europe and has been under Russian control since March. It is the only working nuclear power plant in history to be occupied by an invading army
Recent reports have noted shells being fired from the direction of Zaporizhzhia towards Ukrainian forces. “Ukrainian forces can’t shoot back in case they hit the plant,” a local told FRANCE 24’s Gulliver Cragg, reporting from Nikopol.
The Ukrainian nuclear energy agency, Enerhoatom, has also raised concerns about the risk of heavy military equipment and explosives being stored inside reactor buildings and military trucks parked in the reactor hall.
“The question is what happens if there’s a fire?” said Petro K., president of Enerhoatom. “It won’t be possible to put the fire out because these trucks block the firefighters’ access.”
At the same time, Russia has accused Ukrainian forces of risking a nuclear catastrophe with alleged military activity in the area. Ukrainian officials deny these claims, saying they are all too aware of the dangers and would not take such risks
Anti-nuclear groups gather in Wales
Organizations meeting to oppose nuclear energy in the north. In Caernarfon
on Saturday, a number of anti nuclear organizations came together to oppose
any plans to build new power stations on Anglesey and Trawsfynydd. The
organizations present – PAWB, CADNO, Cymdeithas yr Iaith, Welsh Anti
Nuclear Alliance and the Nuclear Free Local Authorities – claimed that
nuclear energy is not the way forward to meet Wales’ power needs. They were
also concerned about the effect that nuclear projects in Welsh speaking
areas would have on the language.
BBC 24th July 2022
France should “rethink the temperature thresholds of rivers”,
Nuclear: with the heat wave, “we should rethink the temperature thresholds of rivers”, says the ASN chief inspector. The news sparked heated controversy: faced with heat records, the Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) and the Ministry for Energy Transition granted an environmental waiver for four nuclear power plants: Saint-Alban, Golfech, Le Blayais and Le Blayais. Bugey.
Until July 24, these sites will be authorized to exceed the regulatory levels of water temperature discharged into the rivers and rivers in which they feed, in order to be able to operate if necessary for
the electricity network. For La Tribune, the ASN chief inspector, Christophe Quintin, discusses the reasons for this derogation, its implications and the lessons to be drawn from it.
La Tribune 21st July 2022
EDF’s new demand means that Hinkley Point C will be further delayed, with costs escalating to £34 billion.
EDF have implicitly admitted that the construction of Hinkley C may take
at least 11 years to finish signalling cost overruns of 70 per cent or
more. Bloomberg reports that EDF is requesting the Government that EDF be
given another 15 months to complete the plant and be fully generating
beyond 2029.
Under the terms of EDF’s contract with the UK Government if
Hinkley C fails to generate power by 2029 it will start losing the amount
of subsidy it can claim. Adding 15 months to this as requested (under a
‘force majeure’ clause) will take us into 2030. Hinkley C construction
was begun seriously in early 2019, meaning a total construction period of
over 11 years.
The plant was supposed to be operating by the end of 2025
according the EDF’ earlier plans. Using the rule of thumb that
construction cost is directly proportional to the length of construction
time this would imply a 70% cost overrun. That could mean a cost rise, in
today’s prices from around the original £20 bn to £34 billion. However,
one should in no way assume this will be all the time that is needed.
Things may well get worse.
100% Renewables 22nd July 2022
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 (81)
- 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
