nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Pro nuclear shills use UK’s energy crisis to promote nuclear, but with government action, renewable energy would solve the problem

Government failure behind energy crisis, Chartist, By Dave Toke -31/12/2021   The only thing wrong with renewables is that we’ve not built nearly enough of them, says Dave Toke. Amidst a global shortfall of gas supplies in relation to demand (and a global increase in gas prices), the anti-renewables lobbies are busy blaming a lack of wind and solar (wot, solar too?) for the soaring energy prices. It’s nonsense of course to pin the blame on renewables for a combination of a global oil and gas crisis and the UK’s unique market vulnerability to natural gas supply squeezes, but that’s precisely what is happening. The truth is we’d be much more secure and greener with a much higher proportion of energy coming from renewables backed up with a revived storage network that successive UK governments have allowed to run down. 

Of course we’ve had fossil fuel energy price surges and crises for decades, but now, suddenly, to read some papers and a lot of tweets, I’m told mainly from fossil fuel lobbyists,  it’s the fault of renewables! Remarkable! 

Some are even using the crisis to boost the case for nuclear power. Now that’s ironic, given that five out of 14 of EDF’s nuclear units are offline as I write! With nuclear, of course, it’s always going to be better in the future (and never is). Certainly, the idea that the UK relying on 3.2GW units (like Hinkley C and the planned Sizewell C) for its security at times of pressure is a guarantee of system security needs rather clearer analysis than is being done at the moment. (By the way, did you know that the first Hinkley C – like EPR in China – got shut down this summer because of radioactive leaks? Somebody please tell me when it gets back online.)………………..

We need much, much more renewables. Currently, the UK generates about 100TWh a year of wind and solar, compared to around 900TWh of natural gas consumption. How on earth can you blame wind and solar for a failure to meet gas demand when the Government has so far incentivised only a small fraction of the renewable energy generation required to phase out reliance on natural gas? It’s gaslighting on a grand scale (pun intended). 

And, yes, there’s easily enough renewables to do the job. All of UK energy could be supplied from offshore wind occupying less than less than 8 per cent of the UK’s offshore waters, not counting all the solar and other renewable energy resources in the UK. https://www.chartist.org.uk/government-failure-behind-energy-crisis/

January 4, 2022 Posted by | politics, renewable, UK | Leave a comment

German government struggles to unite on EU energy proposal

German government struggles to unite on EU energy proposal, DW, 4 Jan 22,

The EU Commission’s proposal to classify nuclear power and natural gas plants as “green” investments has sparked debate in Germany’s new coalition government. Conflict is also brewing between EU states.

Less than a month after Germany’s new coalition government was sworn in, it is facing a major test: To find a united stance in response to a controversial proposal by the EU Commission, published on New Year’s Eve.

The EU Commission wants to label natural gas and nuclear power as climate-friendly, and include investments in both energies on its long-awaited taxonomy list — a green labeling system for investments in the energy sector.

The list is part of the bloc’s plans to decarbonize the European economy and build clean power plants, which will require the investment of billions of euros.

Under the draft proposal, the gas and nuclear plants must meet certain criteria: Investment in new nuclear plants as they are planned in France, the Netherlands, and Poland, can be considered “sustainable” only if respective states ensure they meet the latest technology standards, and provide a concrete plan for the disposal for high-level radioactive waste. 

Natural gas plants could also be granted a green label for a limited period of time, provided certain criteria are met. These could involve limits on the amount of greenhouse gas emitted or proving that the plants can also be operated with green hydrogen or low-carbon gas. 

The classification of economic activities by the EU Commission under the so-called taxonomy is intended to enable investors to switch their investments to more sustainable technologies and companies.

Divided coalition………………

Climate and Economy Minister and Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck, told German press agency dpa that he felt the EU proposal “waters down the good label for sustainability.”

“It’s questionable whether this greenwashing will be accepted by the financial markets anyway,” the Green politician said.

Environment Minister Steffi Lemke (Greens) also rated the EU proposal as “questionable.”………….

Klaus Jacob of the Research Center for Environment Policy at Berlin’s Freie Universität says the debate within the government was completely foreseeable.

“This isn’t a predetermined breaking point in the coalition,” Jacob told DW…………………….

Nuclear phaseout nearing completion

The three governing coalition parties are, however, in agreement when it comes to the phaseout of nuclear energy. Germany’s last nuclear power plants are due to be decommissioned just a year from now.

The decision to phase out nuclear power was made during the 1998-2003 coalition between the SPD and Greens under Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, in response to the realization that there was no way to store nuclear waste safely. Almost two decades earlier, Germany’s anti-nuclear protests gave birth to the Green Party and the phaseout has long been one of its core policies.

Angela Merkel’s coalition government of center-right Christian Democrats and FDP then rolled back the phaseout. But in 2011, after the accident at the Fukushima atomic power plant in Japan, Merkel made an about-turn and decided to push through with the phaseout after all.

Referring to the EU’s plans to green label nuclear energy, Environment Minister Lemke said the Commission “creates the great danger of blocking and damaging really viable, sustainable investments in favor of dangerous nuclear power.”……………

EU fissure

The 27 EU member states now have until January 12 to comment on the Commission’s draft. But it’s unlikely that the proposal can be blocked. Besides Germany, only Austria, Luxembourg, Denmark, and Portugal have voiced criticism. 

Implementation can only be prevented if at least 20 EU countries (representing at least 65% of the total EU population) or at least 353 members of parliament vote against it.

Other EU countries are continuing to push nuclear energy and campaign for it to be included on the EU’s list of sustainable energy sources eligible for investment — prominently France which holds the rotating EU presidency and is heading for presidential elections in April.

Austria, meanwhile, is threatening to go to the European Court of Justice to stop the draft from being passed.

Edited by Rina Goldenberg   https://www.dw.com/en/german-government-struggles-to-unite-on-eu-energy-proposal/a-60319292

January 4, 2022 Posted by | climate change, Germany, politics | Leave a comment

Climate Noise Has Obscured Nuclear Dump Cronyism and Nuclear Impacts of Coal Mine – Why Bother With Traffic Light System for Induced Earthquakes? — RADIATION FREE LAKELAND

Originally posted on Keep Cumbrian Coal in the Hole: The following letter has just been sent to the Coal Mine Planning Inspector Mr Stephen Normington following a letter from the Rt Hon Greg Hands, Minister of State for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (this Govnt department appointed the coal mine boss as “invaluable” nuclear…

Climate Noise Has Obscured Nuclear Dump Cronyism and Nuclear Impacts of Coal Mine – Why Bother With Traffic Light System for Induced Earthquakes? — RADIATION FREE LAKELAND

Excerpts –  ”……………………..should the coal mine be approved by government, then a seismic Traffic Light System at least as stringent as that for the oil and gas industry should be part of the conditions imposed.   The empirical evidence (presented by Radiation Free Lakeland at the Planning Inquiry) is unequivocal in its findings that coal mining produces earthquakes of far greater magnitude and frequency than that of fracking.  Despite this Greg Hands MP states that there will be no Traffic Light System for the coal mine.

In tandem with the absence of a seismic Traffic Light System is the outrageous allowance of 6mm/s Peak Particle Velocity as agreed by the Inquiry’s Rule 6 Parties and Developer for ground movements as a result of the deep mining proposed.   As you will be aware the PPV at which “receptors”  will make complaints is 1mm/s.

An observer of the bulk of the Planning Inquiry would have had no idea of the uniquely dangerous sense of place regarding the planned coal mine.  If this same coal mine was anywhere in the world the climate impacts would be the same.  

……….   But this coal mine is not anywhere in the world.  It is five miles from Sellafield, the worlds riskiest nuclear waste site,  under the arguably most radioactively contaminated sea in the world and directly beneath the radioactively contaminated Cumbrian Mud Patch………

 our concerns lay with the undeniable connections/cronyism between the coal mine and the proposed Geological Disposal Facility.

The Government’s refusal to consider a seismic Traffic Light System for the earthquake inducing coal mine is a case in point. 

Mark Kirkbride the CEO of West Cumbria Mining was appointed in 2019 as an “invaluable” adviser to the Government (Committee on Radioactive Waste Management) on the digging of big holes for a Geological Disposal Facility for Heat Generating Nuclear Wastes and for shallower Near Surface Disposal of Low and Intermediate Level Nuclear Wastes.   

We are painfully aware, as no doubt is government nuclear dump advisor Mark Kirkbride, that a seismic Traffic Light System for an earthquake inducing deep undersea coal mine would also impact negatively on the facilitation of an even deeper hole for a GDF. The Irish Sea area adjacent to the coal mine is in the frame for a GDF.

……..  which is far more than the sum of its (more widely reported) climate/jobs parts.   Should this coal mine go ahead the people and environment of Cumbria and the planet WILL be exposed to deep radiological, immediate and irreversible impacts that will make the more widely reported and not to be sneezed at climate impacts pale into insignificance.

The whole thing feels like a massive stitch up in which the climate issues have been used as a smoke screen to hide the nuclear impacts of this coal mine.  If Leonardo DiCaprio (of “Don’t Look Up” fame)  thinks climate campaigners have it bad he should walk a mile in the shoes of nuclear safety campaigners!  https://keepcumbriancoalinthehole.wordpress.com/2022/01/03/climate-noise-has-obscured-nuclear-dump-cronyism-and-nuclear-impacts-of-coal-mine-why-bother-with-traffic-light-system-for-induced-earthquakes/

January 4, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Angry response in Europe to the draft European Commission plans to accept nuclear power as ”climate-friendly” – eligible for tax-payer financial help.

BRUSSELS (AP) — Draft European Union plans that would allow nuclear and gas energy to remain part of the bloc’s path to a climate-friendly future came under immediate criticism over the weekend from both environmentalists and some governing political parties in EU member nations.

In draft conclusions seen by The Associated Press, the EU’s executive commission proposes a classification system for defining what counts as an investment in sustainable energy. Under certain conditions, it would allow gas and nuclear energy to be part of the mix.

The plans would have a huge impact on nuclear-fired economies like France and on Germany’s gas-fueled power plants since they might have had to fundamentally change their strategies.

….. The plans still need the backing of a large majority of the 27 member states and a simple majority in the European Parliament. But the initial thrust from the EU Commission is a key element of the procedure for passage.

“Classifying investments in gas and nuclear power as sustainable contradicts the Green Deal,” the EU’s initiative that is intended to make the bloc climate-neutral by 2050, said Ska Keller, the president of the Green group in the European Parliament.

…..German Economy Minister Robert Habeck criticized the plan to classify investments in gas and nuclear power plants as climate-friendly.

“The EU Commission’s proposals water down the good label for sustainability,” Habeck, who represents the Germany’s environmentalist Greens in the country’s coalition government, told German news agency dpa. “We don’t see how to approve the new proposals of the EU Commission,” he said.

“In any case, it is questionable whether this greenwashing will even find acceptance on the financial market,” Habeck stressed, referring to the practice of painting investments as sustainable when they actually are not.

In Austria, Climate Protection Minister Leonore Gewessler from the Greens also sharply rejected the proposed regulation, saying “the EU Commission took a step towards greenwashing nuclear power and fossil gas in a night and fog action.”

“They are harmful to the climate and the environment and destroy the future of our children,” Gewessler said.

The environmental NGO Greenpeace called the Commission draft proposals “a licence to greenwash.”

“Polluting companies will be delighted to have the EU’s seal of approval to attract cash and keep wrecking the planet by burning fossil gas and producing radioactive waste, said Greenpeace’s Magda Stoczkiewicz.

Especially nuclear power remains extremely controversial in Europe, where many are still vividly remember the fear following the 1986 nuclear accident in Chernobyl, Ukraine. In Germany, children weren’t allowed to play outside anymore for months, couldn’t go mushroom hunting for years and the farmers had to destroy their entire harvest the year it happened………. https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/orange-county/ap-top-news/2022/01/02/eu-draft-on-financing-nuclear-and-gas-plants-raises-ire

January 3, 2022 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE | 1 Comment

Britain’s National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) advises government against new nuclear power projects.

UK NIC backs alternatives to nuclear,   Renew Extra Weekly, 2 Jan 21, The UK Government asked the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) for its advice on whether an additional new nuclear plant, beyond the proposed Sizewell C project, was needed to deliver the UK’s sixth Carbon (reduction) Budget, due in 2035. In response, the NIC said no, it was not needed or viable for 2035, since new nuclear was slow to deploy. It asserted that ‘it is highly unlikely that a new large scale nuclear plant is deliverable in the next 15 years; trying and failing would jeopardise delivery of the sixth Carbon Budget’. Instead it backed renewables, hydrogen and low/negative carbon technology- which is said could be deployed faster.
It noted that ‘since 1990, nuclear projects have faced significant delays all around the world. Even just in Europe around half of all plants have faced at least a 50% delay in construction, and 1 in 4 plants have faced at least a 90% delay in construction’. So it said that ‘any nuclear project schedule estimate should be expected to take at least 50% longer than planned. If a new project began development next year and took the same amount of time as the Hinkley Point C project is expected to take to complete, it would not come online until at least the mid 2040s’. So that put it well outside the 2035 timeframe.

Small Modular/advanced reactors might be a faster option, but the NIC said ‘relying on significant capacity being deployed before 2035 would be risky’. It pointed out that ‘no SMR has gone through the Generic Design Assessment process and some developer proposals are conditional on government support to progress project development. There are no SMRs in operation in countries similar to the UK.

To fill the same capacity gap illustrated in the BEIS modelling, at least six SMRs would be needed by 2035, if not more. This would require compressing the normal delivery timeline and doing things in parallel rather than in sequence, significantly increasing the risk of delays. Delivery success will also be dependent on the capability of the developer.’

Alternatives  likely to be faster 

Instead of these nuclear options, for delivery within the timeframe to 2035, it backed ‘renewables with a combination of gas power plants with carbon capture and storage, hydrogen fired gas plants and bioenergy with carbon capture & storage’. It said ‘these alternatives are more likely to be deliverable at scale in the next 15 years’. …………………..

even without costing analysis, it said its analysis clearly demonstrated ‘that a third new nuclear plant is not necessary to reach the 2035 emissions target and that more gas CCS, hydrogen powered gas plants, and BECCS could be deployed instead. Whilst these technologies are yet to be deployed at scale, the Commission considers them to be a lower delivery risk than nuclear.’ And it claimed that its proposed alternative technology mix was supported by analysis previously conducted for the Commission and by other bodies such as National Grid ESO & the Climate Change Committee. …………………

It’s odd that the NIC plunge into CCS and Hydrogen, rather than talking about renewables more. Maybe they are taken for granted. But if, led by wind and solar, they could be expanded much faster than BEIS and NIC envisage, then maybe we could forget about fossil CCS, BECCS and also Sizewell C. That might be helped if tidal stream technology could also get going- with CfD help, it ought to be able to by 2030. Geothermal too, for heat and power. All NIC says is that, from the BEIS analysis, it’s clear that ‘significant volumes of renewables are needed to deliver a low carbon power system by 2035. This is supported by previous analysis for the Commission and others. Rapid cost reductions and short and reliable build profiles mean that renewables will be the backbone of any future GB power system’. OK, fine, but we need details & plans now for faster expansion, along with a much improved commitment to energy saving!  https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2022/01/uk-nic-backs-alternatives-to-nuclear.html

January 3, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

German Greens fight plan to funnel billions of euros into the nuclear industry via deceptive taxonomy ”sustainable” label

German Greens lead attack on EU plan to label nuclear power ‘sustainable’. Brussels’ proposal is central to European goal of channelling billions of euros into green investments, Ft.com,  Mehreen Khan in Brussels and Joe Miller in Frankfurt 3 Jan 21,
  Germany, Austria and Luxembourg have hit out at Brussels’ plans to classify nuclear power as a sustainable technology in the EU’s landmark labelling system for green investment, which is central to Europe’s plans to decarbonise the bloc’s economy. German economy minister Robert Habeck, who is a member of the Green party in the country’s governing coalition, said: “It is questionable whether this greenwashing will even find acceptance on the financial market.” He told German press agency DPA on Saturday: “In our view, there was no need for this addition to the taxonomy rules.”  

Brussels’ proposal is part of a so-called “taxonomy” list, which aims to help channel billions of euros of investment needed to decarbonise the bloc’s economy. The plan, the first attempt by a leading regulator to bring clarity to investors seeking to put private capital into sustainable economic activity, covers about 80 per cent of the bloc’s emissions and is intended to be a “gold standard” for markets to decide what is truly green or not. But the process has been beset by fierce political infighting inside the European Commission and its member states.

Leonore Gewessler, Austria’s minister for climate and energy, said on Saturday that Vienna would consider suing the European Commission if the classification of nuclear power as green went ahead. Claude Turmes, Luxembourg’s energy minister, meanwhile called the inclusion of nuclear power a “provocation”.  The inclusion of nuclear power is widely seen as a victory for the French government which has urged Brussels to ensure the new rules do not punish a technology that provides almost two-thirds of French electricity. Nuclear reactors do not generate CO2 emissions but produce highly toxic waste…………..
The Brussels draft text will form part of a consultation with EU countries and independent experts that will run until January 12. However, anti-nuclear EU governments do not have the power to veto the taxonomy, which diplomats say is likely to win majority support in the EU Council. Astrid Matthey, one of the independent experts who advises the commission on the rules, criticised the draft for “contradicting the very purpose of the taxonomy”. 

“The conditions under which both technologies are to be included are far from ensuring that we reach the Paris climate targets and do-no-significant-harm to the environment. There is still a long way to go for this draft to become aligned with the Green Deal and the EU’s environmental targets”, said Matthey. https://www.ft.com/content/92ab113f-ab17-4492-be65-56c9173cfc53

January 3, 2022 Posted by | climate change, Germany | Leave a comment

Bitcoin miners in Kazakhstan will rely on government building new nuclear power plant

Kazakhstan bitcoin miners could use nuclear energy as gov’t might build power plant, Kazakhstan’s government is discussing a plan to build a nuclear power plant, which might boost the country’s Bitcoin (BTC) and crypto mining industries in the long run. Micky.com By Jet Encila -January 2, 2022…….. construction might take up to 10 years……..

Since September’s crackdown, an estimated 88,000 mining rigs have been smuggled across the border from China, increasing electricity demand in many places, based on multiple sources.

Not only in Central Asia, but also in the United States and Europe, the cooperation between mining and nuclear energy providers is deepening. 

In the United States, a handful of miners have already begun getting power from nuclear reactors, while in Ukraine, the national nuclear energy supplier has been collaborating with miners at Europe’s largest nuclear plants in an attempt to mitigate financial losses.
—https://micky.com.au/kazakhstan-bitcoin-miners-could-use-nuclear-energy-as-govt-might-build-power-plant/

January 3, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, Kazakhstan, politics | Leave a comment

France’s electricity consumers face curbs as EDF struggles with problems and shutdowns


French electricity consumers face curbs on their electricity supplies
following shutdowns at four of EDF’s nuclear power plant. France is
highly reliant on its nuclear power plants, obtaining around 70 per cent of
its electricity from nuclear on an annual basis.

This, along with other
various examples of nuclear unreliability, must seriously question the
British Government’s determination to plough on with its programme of new
nuclear power plant. The four nuclear plants have been shut down ‘after
the detection of anomalies in the emergency injection circuits‘.

France’s Grid Operator, RTE, has warned consumers that limitations on
supplies may be necessary soon. France has been struggling with its nuclear
sector and EDF’s efforts to build another nuclear plant at Flamanville
have been hobbled by very long construction delays and massive cost
overruns.

 100% Renewables 31st Dec 2021

 https://100percentrenewableuk.org/french-electricity-consumers-face-brownouts-and-even-power-cuts-after-nuclear-power-plant-shutdowns

January 3, 2022 Posted by | France, politics | Leave a comment

Risky for UK to plan for small and advanced nuclear reactors

New nuclear technologies, such as small and advanced nuclear reactors, may
have a role to play in the long term. But relying on significant capacity
being deployed before 2035 would be risky. They will face both the
challenges of being first of a kind plants and being a nuclear technology.

 National Infrastructure Commission (Accessed) 1st Jan 2022

Click to access Advice-on-nuclear-power-plant-deployment.pdf

January 3, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

European Commission drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as ”green”

EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green, Reuters, By Kate Abnett and Simon JessopSummary

EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green Reuters, By Kate Abnett and Simon JessopSummary

EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green Reuters, By Kate Abnett and Simon JessopSummary 2 Jan 22

  • European Commission drawing up green investment rules
  • Draft proposal labels nuclear, some gas plants as green
  • Countries disagree on the fuels’ green credentials
  • EU advisors said gas not compatible with climate goals

Jan 1 (Reuters) – The European Union has drawn up plans to label some natural gas and nuclear energy projects as “green” investments after a year-long battle between governments over which investments are truly climate-friendly.

The European Commission is expected to propose rules in January deciding whether gas and nuclear projects will be included in the EU “sustainable finance taxonomy’.

EU countries and a panel of experts will scrutinise the draft proposal, which could change before it is due to be published later in January. Once published, it could be vetoed by a majority of EU countries or the European Parliament.

Brussels has also made moves to apply the system to some EU funding, meaning the rules could decide which projects are eligible for certain public finance.

A draft of the Commission’s proposal, seen by Reuters, would label nuclear power plant investments as green if the project has a plan, funds and a site to safely dispose of radioactive waste. To be deemed green, new nuclear plants must receive construction permits before 2045.

…………………. Gas and nuclear power generation would be labelled green on the grounds that they are “transitional” activities – defined as those that are not fully sustainable, but which have emissions below industry average and do not lock in polluting assets.

…………….. The policy has been mired in lobbying from governments for more than a year and EU countries disagree on which fuels are truly sustainable.

……………. Some environmental campaigners and Green EU lawmakers criticised the leaked proposal on gas and nuclear.

“By including them… the Commission risks jeopardising the credibility of the EU’s role as a leading marketplace for sustainable finance,” Greens president Philippe Lamberts said……….  https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/eu-drafts-plan-label-gas-nuclear-investments-green-2022-01-01/

January 3, 2022 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE | Leave a comment

EU Commission’s draft taxonomy plan – ”a licence to greenwash”

EU Commission’s taxonomy plan is “licence to greenwash” Greenpeace European Unit

  https://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/issues/climate-energy/45988/nuclear-gas-eu-taxonomy-licence-to-greenwash/ 01/01/2022  Brussels – The European Commission intends to label certain fossil gas and nuclear activities as “sustainable” investments in the EU’s taxonomy of green economic activities, according to a draft communication released late on 31 December 2021.  

According to the Commission document, nuclear projects with a construction permit issued by 2045 would be eligible for private investments, as long as they can provide plans for the management of radioactive waste and for decommissioning.

Gas projects with permits issued until 2030 would also be eligible, provided they fulfil a series of conditions, including emissions under 270g CO₂e/kWh. These provisions would deal a significant blow to the EU’s climate and environment action.

Nuclear power generates high-level radioactive waste, and a commercially viable long-term solution has yet to be found. Fossil gas is already the leading source of greenhouse gas emissions from power generation in Europe. Encouraging investments in fossil gas by giving it a green label will only exacerbate its devastating climate impact, warned Greenpeace.

 In both cases, renewables are cheaper and faster to deploy, meaning that sending the wrong signal to private investors could disrupt the  energy transition towards 100% renewables and delay the EU’s progress on its climate commitments.
The development comes after the EU had already severely undermined the taxonomy last year by labelling the burning of trees for energy as another sustainable activity. 

Greenpeace EU programme director Magda Stoczkiewicz said: “The Commission’s taxonomy is a licence to greenwash. Polluting companies will be delighted to have the EU’s seal of approval to attract cash and keep wrecking the planet by burning fossil gas and producing radioactive waste. Promoting these toxic and expensive forms of energy for decades to come is a real threat to Europe’s energy transition. The Commission has shown a shocking disregard for the climate crisis, nature and the people of Europe. The European Parliament and governments need to stop this plan.”

Next steps

Following feedback from government representatives and experts, the Commission will present the final text later in January. 

National governments and the European Parliament have the power to reject the proposal to stop it from automatically entering into force.

Contacts:Magda Stoczkiewicz – Greenpeace EU programme director: +32 (0)495 290028, magda.stoczkiewicz@greenpeace.orgGreenpeace EU press desk: +32 (0)2 274 1911, pressdesk.eu@greenpeace.org   

January 3, 2022 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE, spinbuster | Leave a comment

A technology that leaves behind hazardous wastes ”cannot be sustainable”

 Federal government calls EU nuclear push “greenwashing”. Environment
Minister Lemke and Economics Minister Habeck sharply criticize the EU
Commission’s nuclear proposal. A technology that leaves behind hazardous
waste “cannot be sustainable”., Spiegel 1st Jan 2022

https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/taxonomieverordnung-bundesregierung-nennt-eu-atomkraft-vorstoss-absolut-falsch-a-cc9d1e64-7b9a-4aaa-b95b-e196496ec292

January 3, 2022 Posted by | climate change, Germany | Leave a comment

Hard to swallow the manipulations going on in nuclear waste decisions on UK’s Geological Disposal Facility


‘GDF flies in face of past decisions on storing nuclear waste’ https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/19816090.gdf-flies-face-past-decisions-storing-nuclear-waste/ David Kirkwood, 2 Jan 22,
Penrith  ON December 20, I received an email informing me that Allerdale Borough Council leadership had held a meeting on November 24 and voted in favour of progressing the nuclear Geological Disposal Facility in Allerdale.

This statement was released amid the Omicron virus and Christmas festivities simply to bury the controversial news. It flies in the face of the two previous decisions rejecting the burying of nuclear waste material anywhere in Cumbria.

One of the main reasons was that the geology in Cumbria was unsuitable for a repository. Secondly, the most important reason was the population did not want it.

It is obvious why this decision has been reached, quite simply the local government reorganisation was engineered to try and invalidate the previous decisions taken by the soon-to-be-dismantled County Council.

Perhaps, someone from the Radioactive Waste Management can explain why a company called Genr8 North Ltd can be involved with both Allerdale Borough Council and Copeland Borough Council, if as they say they have no commercial interest in a nuclear geological disposal facility being built?

I find this very hard to believe.

This is just an attempt by a few individuals to brainwash the majority into acceptance. I’m certain in years to come the radioactive nuclear waste will be buried in Cumbria irrespective of the wishes of the resident population.

January 3, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Will the European Commission buy into the lie that nuclear power is clean and green?

Just who will be making this decision? The global nuclear lobby is desperate to get tax-payer funding , to keep its expensive, dirty, dangerous product going.

Pro nuclear stooges, like Ursula von der Leyen (at left) are keen to get Europe to decide that nuclear power is necessary for climate change.

They keep calling nuclear “zero’ or ”low carbon” – ignoring the full chain of carbon-emiitting processes involved in nuclear structures and in fuelling rectors.

Also ignored , the delays in gettting the industry going – too late to be of any use.

nuclear: Fate of EU green taxonomy ‘now in the hands of von der Leyen’.

 The taxonomy text will need approval from a majority of EU member states and members of the European Parliament. 

Brussels proposes green label for nuclear and natural gas
European Commission paves way for investments despite concerns over waste and CO2 emissions , Ft.com, Mehreen Khan in Brussels, 1 January 2022.

Brussels wants to recognise nuclear power and forms of natural gas as “green” activity as part of a landmark EU classification scheme to help financial markets decide what counts as sustainable investment. In long-awaited plans, the European Commission has paved the way for investment in new nuclear power plants for at least the next two decades and natural gas for at least a decade, under a green labelling system known as the “taxonomy for sustainable finance”.  The labelling system, which will cover industries that generate about 80 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the EU, is the first attempt by a major global regulator to decide what counts as truly sustainable economic activity and help stamp out so-called greenwashing in the financial sector.  

A draft legal text, seen by the Financial Times, says the EU’s green label should be awarded to controversial energy sources including nuclear power and natural gas under certain circumstances. The decision was taken after a vocal group of pro-nuclear countries, led by France, and pro-gas governments in southern and eastern Europe, demanded the taxonomy should not punish energy sources that provide a bulk of their power generation….

The draft taxonomy text says nuclear power should be considered a sustainable economic activity as long as EU countries that host power stations can safely dispose of toxic waste and meet a criteria to cause “no significant harm” to the environment. The construction of new nuclear plants will be recognised as green for permits granted until 2045, says the text.  ……….

https://www.ft.com/content/7872a05f-9e38-4740-9b1b-4efc69ca316c

January 1, 2022 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

Why nuclear power is a bad way to balance renewable energy 

Why nuclear power is a bad way to balance renewable energy  https://100percentrenewableuk.org/why-nuclear-power-is-a-bad-way-to-balance-renewable-energy

David Toke, Ian Fairlie and Herbert Eppel from 100percentrenewableuk discuss how nuclear power effectively switches off wind and solar power and how a 100percent renewable energy system is much better for the UK than one involving nuclear power.

The Government, backed by a lot of public policy reports paid for by pro-nuclear interests, constantly pushes out the view that nuclear power is ‘essential’ to balancing wind and solar power. But what they never mention is the massive waste of renewables that occurs in such a scenario. Under the scenarios planned by the Government nuclear power is paid very high prices to generate power even when there is excess electricity, which pushes renewables to close down. The Government also refuses to undertake serious investigations of how a system that uses excess renewables to create short and long term storage is a much better way of organising our energy needs rather than wasting more money on building nuclear power stations.

Look at our video which, drawing upon research on the role of nuclear and renewables, discusses these issues.

If you agree the aims of 100percentrenewableuk please join the discussion via our email group.

January 1, 2022 Posted by | renewable, Ukraine | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »