U.S. European Command, NATO Supreme Headquarters Allied Command Europe leaders meet to “improve warfighting readiness” — Anti-bellum
The two commands share a top commander, currently General Tod Wolters. U.S.-NATO staff talks fortify ironclad security alliance U.S. European Command and NATO Supreme Headquarters Allied Command Europe leaders met today for staff talks, enhancing military coordination for deterrence and security. *** The collaborative meeting strengthens…improving warfighting readiness between the two military organizations and is […]
U.S. European Command, NATO Supreme Headquarters Allied Command Europe leaders meet to “improve warfighting readiness” — Anti-bellum
President of the European Commission to have the final say on whether Europe considers nuclear power to be ”clean” and ”green”?
Gas and nuclear: Fate of EU green taxonomy ‘now in the hands of von der Leyen’ By Frédéric Simon and Kira Taylor | EURACTIV.com, 10 Dec 2021
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has taken charge of a soon-to-be-published list of sustainable investments amid controversy around the possible classification of fossil gas and nuclear energy as “green” or “transitional” activities under certain conditions, according to several sources familiar with the process.
The European Union is moving closer to integrating nuclear power and natural gas into the bloc’s sustainable finance taxonomy – a set of rules designed to provide investors with a common definition of what is green and what is not in order to channel more capital into sustainable businesses.
The list of activities that Europe considers “green” or “transitional” investments will be laid down in a so-called ‘delegated act’ adopted by the European Commission setting out detailed implementing rules under the EU’s sustainable finance taxonomy regulation, adopted in December 2019.
But after several failed attempts and mounting controversy over the role of gas and nuclear power in the energy transition, President von der Leyen has now taken matters into her own hands, several sources told EURACTIV………
On Wednesday evening, the EU passed the first part of its taxonomy rulebook, setting out environmental criteria for investments including renewable energy, shipping and car manufacturing that will apply as of January 2022.
But no decision has been taken yet on the most politically sensitive part of the taxonomy, dealing with gas and nuclear investments…………. Contacted by EURACTIV, the European Commission did not confirm whether von der Leyen had taken charge. Most likely, the proposal will be presented to the College of Commissioners by Mairead McGuinness, the EU financial services commissioner, and Valdis Dombrovskis, the vice-president in charge of the economy, a spokesperson said.
Given internal procedures, a final proposal should be ready by Friday before it is submitted to the college for approval next week, according to an EU source.
Europe divided
European countries are deeply divided on the subject. While France is leading a group of twelve countries supporting the inclusion of nuclear energy in the taxonomy, five other EU countries expressed their opposition to the move, with Austria even warning it was ready to challenge the decision before the EU court of justice.
Central and eastern European countries are also pushing to include fossil gas as a “transitional” activity in the taxonomy, arguing that gas is needed as a stepping stone for them to exit coal, the most polluting of all fossil fuels.
But the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), a network of international investors, has advised the EU against allowing these energy sources a sustainable label.
The inclusion of gas-fired power “would seriously compromise” the taxonomy’s role as an independent and scientific tool in line with Europe’s climate goals, PRI warned in a briefing note.
And while a report from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) looked favourably at the inclusion of nuclear, it did “not sufficiently [address] risks related to the storage of nuclear waste, severe incidents and nuclear proliferation,” UNEP said.
The UN-supported initiative recommends that Europe explores alternatives, either by developing a proposal for sectors involved with the energy transition or extending the taxonomy “to recognise intermediate economic activities and transition pathways such as gas-fired power that operates below the ‘significant harm’ threshold of 270g CO2/kWh”………
Technology neutral
In the end, it looks increasingly likely that both gas and nuclear will be included in the list of sustainable investments as transitional fuels………….
For nuclear, however, the choice to call it transitional is still subject to controversy, with supporters arguing it should labelled “sustainable” because of its low-carbon [?]nature………..
Nuclear split in three categories
According to the EU’s energy commissioner Kadri Simson, the proposal “will be ready in the coming weeks…and it will clarify whether or not nuclear energy generation, waste disposal or fuel supply can be classified as sustainable activities for investors.”
Simson’s comments suggest that the upcoming delegated act could split nuclear activities into three categories: fuel supply, energy generation and waste.
…. the management of radioactive waste and the possibility of a nuclear incident remains a cause of concern for the United Nation’s PRI, which says these were not sufficiently explored in the JRC report.
“The materialisation of the risks above could seriously harm most – if not all – of the five environmental objectives other than climate mitigation that are part of the EU Taxonomy Regulation,” the PRI said in its briefing note.
…….. There is still no confirmed date for the publication of the taxonomy’s delegated act, but the European Commission says it will be published before the end of the year. Some expect it to be published alongside the gas package on 14 December while others are talking about it coming out on 22 December. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/gas-and-nuclear-fate-of-eu-green-taxonomy-now-in-the-hands-of-von-der-leyen/
UK’s Nuclear Energy Finance Bill Committee hears problems about funding of new nuclear projects, that will be too late to affect climate change.
nuClear News No 126 December 21, . New Nuclear Energy Developments In Safe Energy Journal No.92 and nuClear News No.135 we reported on a debate in the House of Commons on the Second Reading of the Nuclear Energy Finance Bill, which took place on 3rd November. (1) Since then, there have been several meetings of the Nuclear Energy Finance Bill Committee, including one session which took evidence from Doug Parr of Greenpeace, Mycle Schneider of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report and Professor Steve Thomas. (2)
The SNP’s Energy Spokesperson at Westminster, Alan Brown, asked Mycle Schneider about the argument that the UK needs baseload power and can’t meet its net zero targets without nuclear power. Mycle pointed out that we are in a climate emergency, so we need reductions in carbon emissions as quickly as possible. For every pound we spend we need to see large and fast results. It’s clear that there are other options beside nuclear which are more climate effective. The cost of renewables is cheaper and nuclear is five times slower. Possible investments in nuclear which might deliver after 2030 are much too slow.
Regarding the need for baseload electricity, the National Grid’s scenarios say nothing about the need for reliable baseload. Only one out of their three scenarios needs Sizewell C. Nuclear is not flexible. If the wind isn’t blowing nuclear doesn’t help. What is required is batteries and demand-side responses to compensate for intermittency.
Analysis of the French nuclear fleet shows that nuclear power is not a reliable source providing power 24/7. For 2019 – the year before Covid – when EDF starts an outage for maintenance and refuelling it has lost control entirely over the date and time it is able to restart its reactors. There were over 40 cases of revised times and dates. EDF was not even able to make reliable predictions 24 hours before the reactors were due to restart.
Labour’s Alan Whitehead asked Mycle Schneider about the experience of the United States using the Regulated Asset Base (RAB) funding model for two plants in South Carolina which were abandoned recently. Should there be measures in any Bill which make sure any nuclear plant is finished to avoid consumers being dumped with the cost of a plant that wasn’t finished. Construction of VC Summer started in 2013 and it was supposed to come on-line in 2017. By 2017 the cost estimate had increased by 75%. In July 2017 construction was abandoned. This was one of the consequences of the fact that Westinghouse filed for bankruptcy. The affair has cost consumers billions.
Steve Thomas said what marked out the VC Summer project and a similar project in Georgia from other US projects was that they allowed the recovery of costs from consumers before completion of the reactors. The Summer experience shows very clearly the folly of using the RAB model. We would have to be careful with any legislation which prevents nuclear plants under construction being abandoned. Dungeness B took 24 years from the start of construction to commercial operation, and over its 32 years of operation its availability was well below 50%. It should have been abandoned before it was completed.
Matthew Pennycook said there is a lack of clarity around the Chinese company, CGN’s investment in Sizewell C and how that interacts with the intentions of this Bill. He asked what is in the 2016 Strategic Investment Agreement and what provisions there are in that agreement that would allow the Government to remove CGN. And related to that there was £1.7 billion in the budget to enable a final investment decision for a large scale nuclear project. Is that money to buyout the CGN stake?
Steve Thomas said in the 2016 Agreement CGN agreed to take up to 20% of the Sizewell C project up to the Final Investment Decision (FID). They have an option to take 20% of the construction and operation of the plant if it goes ahead. EDF and CGN have spent about half a billion pounds so far, It may take another £0.5 billion at the most to get to FID. So £1.7bn seems too much. In terms of how you get CGN out of Sizewell C it probably depends on what happens to Bradwell B. The Chinese really want to get the endorsement of UK nuclear regulators for it HPR1000 reactor. If they are not going to be allowed to build Bradwell B, they are unlikely to be interested in putting money into Sizewell C.
Steve Thomas told MPs there is a lot of missing detail in the RAB proposals. One of the biggest elements is how much the surcharge will be during the construction. The Government has said it will be a maximum of about £10 per year per consumer. That would yield £6bn. In the context of a project that will cost £24-40bn, plus financing costs, £^bn is not much of a game changer.
PMQs On 24th November, during Prime Minister’s Questions Matthew Pennycook asked: “The Government’s integrated review has concluded that the Chinese state poses a systemic challenge to our national security, and the Prime Minister has made it clear that when it comes to China, we must remain vigilant about our critical national infrastructure. Can he therefore confirm unequivocally today that plans for China General Nuclear to own and operate its own plant at Bradwell in Essex have been abandoned, and explain to the House precisely how and when his Government intend to remove CGN’s interest from the Sizewell C nuclear project?”
Boris Johnson replied that “…we do not want to see undue influence by potentially adversarial countries in our critical national infrastructure. That is why we have taken the decisions that we have. On Bradwell, there will be more information forthcoming – What I do not want to do is pitchfork away wantonly all Chinese investment in this country, or minimise the importance to this country of having a trading relationship with China.” (3)
The Times pointed to the National Security and Investment Bill, going through parliament at present, which will allow the government to “screen” and potentially block sensitive foreign investments, and concluded that China will be cut out of future involvement in developing new nuclear power stations, but this is still not entirely clear. (4)
Mr Pennycook later responded to the PMs answer via Twitter: “We need certainty on the future of China’s involvement in UK nuclear power and clarity about how and when the Government intends to remove China’s state-controlled nuclear energy company from involvement in any future UK project.”
Subsequently the team behind Bradwell B said China’s nuclear group remains committed to the project. (5) https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/nuClearNewsNo136.pd
European Union passes sustainable taxonomy law, but postpones decision about nuclear power.
“The commission must deliver a science-based taxonomy regulation that excludes fossil gas, nuclear, and factory farming. Otherwise, the credibility of the taxonomy is ruined.”
EU green taxonomy becomes law, gas and nuclear postponed, Institutional investors have signalled they want a taxonomy that is based on science – not political compromise. euobserver, By WESTER VAN GAAL 11 Dec 21,
BRUSSELS, The first two chapters of the sustainable taxonomy, the EU’s ambitious labelling system for green investment, were passed on Thursday (9 December).
Until midnight on Wednesday, EU member states had time to reject this first set of rules – the so-called ‘first delegated act’.
But despite opposition from a group of countries, the proposal passed and will come into force on 1 January 2022. It will describe the sustainable criteria for renewable energy, car manufacturing, shipping, forestry and bioenergy and more, and include a “technology-neutral” benchmark at 100 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour for any investments in energy production.
The criteria for the list has mainly been compiled by the Sustainable Finance Platform, a group of 57 NGOs, scientific and financial experts, making the first part of taxonomy “science-based”…..
The European Commission will now likely unveil the second delegated act on 22 December.
This will describe how nuclear and gas will be labelled under the taxonomy. But the process has become highly-politicised over the last months.
Second act
In a meeting of member states on 29 November the project nearly faltered.
An EU diplomat, speaking anonymously, explained to EUobserver that a French-led group of 13 member states tried to block the first list “out of principle” – because the commission had not agreed to include nuclear and gas in the green taxonomy.
France and Finland pushed for nuclear to be “fully part of the taxonomy.” Ten other mainly eastern European countries want gas included. Sweden joined the group because the new rules endanger its forestry sector.
The group tried to gain a supermajority of 15 to force the commission’s hand but fell short. Germany and Italy abstained, but did not respond to requests for explanation made by EUobserver.
The commission will now decide how to label nuclear and gas before the end of the year, and it is not yet clear how the issue will pan out…………..
Whatever the commission will decide, only a supermajority in the council – 15 member states – or a parliamentary majority can block the second delegated act. Both are unlikely.
What next?
Institutional investors have already signalled they want a taxonomy based on science, not political compromise.
This will “harm the objective-scientific, transparent character of the taxonomy and increases the risk of ‘greenwashing’. Europe promised the world climate leadership, it is time to show it,” a group of banks wrote this week.
Sebastien Godinot, a senior economist at WWF and member of the EU’s Sustainable Finance Platform, said the commission must not give in to blackmail and bullying.
“The commission must deliver a science-based taxonomy regulation that excludes fossil gas, nuclear, and factory farming. Otherwise, the credibility of the taxonomy is ruined.”
But the commission may have no choice but to compromise between the gas and nuclear-supporting member states on one side, and countries opposing these on the other – while also being mindful that investors and experts from its Sustainable Finance Platform will reject a system containing contradictory political concessions. https://euobserver.com/climate/153776
Appeal to UK’s Supreme Court will just lengthen Julian Assange’s legal torment
Edward Fitzgerald QC, for Assange, previously told the High Court that Australia had not indicated whether it would accept Assange, who “will most likely be dead before it can have any purchase, if it ever could”……..
Assange lawyers eye UK Supreme Court, The North West Star.Jess Glass and Tom Pilgrim, PA
11 Dec 21, Julian Assange’s lawyers intend to take his case to the Supreme Court, his fiancee says, after the High Court allowed the WikiLeaks founder’s extradition to the United States.
Assange, 50, is wanted in the US over an alleged conspiracy to obtain and disclose classified information following WikiLeaks’ publication of hundreds of thousands of leaked documents relating to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars
US authorities brought a High Court challenge against a January ruling by then-district judge Vanessa Baraitser that Assange should not be sent to the US, in which she cited a real and “oppressive” risk of suicide.
After a two-day hearing in October, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, sitting with Lord Justice Holroyde, ruled in favour of the US on Friday………..
The judges ordered that the case must return to Westminster Magistrates’ Court for a district judge to formally send it to UK Home Secretary Priti Patel.
Assange’s fiancee Stella Moris called the ruling “dangerous and misguided” and said his lawyers intended to seek an appeal at the Supreme Court……..
The legal wrangling will go to the Supreme Court, the United Kingdom’s final court of appeal.
“It is highly disturbing that a UK court has overturned a decision not to extradite Julian Assange, accepting vague assurances by the United States government,” Assange’s lawyer Barry Pollack said.
“Mr Assange will seek review of this decision by the UK Supreme Court.”
Supporters of Assange gathered outside of the court after the ruling, chanting “free Julian Assange” and “no extradition”.
They tied hundreds of yellow ribbons to the court’s gates and held up placards saying “journalism is not a crime”.
If Assange’s lawyers do take his case to the Supreme Court, justices will first decide whether to hear the case before any appeal is heard.
During October’s hearing, James Lewis QC for the US said that the “binding” diplomatic assurances made were a “solemn matter” and “are not dished out like Smarties”.
The assurances included that Assange would not be held in a so-called “ADX” maximum security prison in Colorado or submitted to special administrative measures (SAMs) and that he could be transferred to Australia to serve his sentence if convicted.
But lawyers representing Assange had argued that the assurances over the WikiLeaks founder’s potential treatment were “meaningless” and “vague”.
Edward Fitzgerald QC, for Assange, previously told the High Court that Australia had not indicated whether it would accept Assange, who “will most likely be dead before it can have any purchase, if it ever could”……..
The United Nations’ special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer sharply criticised the verdict.
“This is a shortcoming for the British judiciary,” Melzer told the DPA news agency on Friday.
“You can think what you want about Assange but he is not in a condition to be extradited,” he said, referring to a “politically motivated verdict”.
with reporting from Reuters and DPA https://www.northweststar.com.au/story/7547237/assange-lawyers-eye-uk-supreme-court/?cs=13136
Industrial action set to ”cripple” the effective running of UK’s nuclear submarine base.
SPECIALIST staff are to escalate industrial action in a dispute which a
union has said is expected to “cripple” the effective running of UK’s
nuclear submarine base on the Clyde. Unite Scotland has confirmed that its
pay dispute with the ABL Alliance at the Royal Naval Armaments Depot (RNAD)
Coulport is to escalate with around 70 workers set to take strike action
from next week.
Herald 9th Dec 2021
UK government will ”prove the potential”of advanced nuclear reactors with its Advanced Modular Reactor Research, Development and Demonstration Programme.
nuClear NewsNo 136 Dec 21, Advanced Reactors , Energy minister Greg Hands told the Nuclear2021 conference organised by the Nuclear Industry Association that the UK will build a high-temperature gas reactor (HTGR) as the centrepiece of its Advanced Modular Reactor Research, Development & Demonstration Programme.
The goal of the research programme is to “prove the potential” of advanced reactors and have a demonstration unit in operation “by the early 2030s, at the latest”. The key focus would be to produce high temperature heat which could be used for hydrogen production, to supply industrial processes and potentially district heating as well as electricity generation.
Several other reactor concepts could have been selected. The emerging category of ‘advanced’ reactors includes the lead-cooled fast reactor, molten salt reactor, supercritical water-cooled reactor, sodium-cooled fast reactor and very-high-temperature gas reactor in addition to hightemperature gas reactors.
Paul Howarth, CEO of the National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL), called it “a further signal of the resurgence of nuclear.” He added, “With the opportunity HTGRs bring to deliver high temperature heat, hydrogen and synthetic fuels, the potential of this technology to help decarbonise our industries and energy grid is significant.” He noted that NNL is “actively working on the fuel, graphite and high temperature materials required for HTGRs.”
The Advanced Modular Reactor Research, Development & Demonstration Programme counts on £170 million of government funding from a £385 million package intended to accelerate development of highly flexible nuclear technologies. (1)
In July the Government sought views on its preference to explore the potential of High Temperature Gas Reactors (HTGRs) for the Advanced Modular Reactor Research Development & Demonstration (AMR RD&D) Programme. It says the call found no significant, additional evidence to materially change the outcome of the Government’s underpinning analysis. As a result, the Programme will focus on High Temperature Gas Reactors with the ambition for this to lead to a HTGR demonstration by the early 2030s at the latest. In parallel, government continues to support the development of all AMRs as part of wider policy on advanced nuclear activities. This includes: opening the Generic Design Assessment (GDA) process to advanced nuclear technologies and developing a siting approach for further nuclear developments. (2) https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/nuClearNewsNo136.pdf
Bradwell nuclear project would become vulnerable to sea level rise
BANNG refutes recent statement by BRB that Bradwell B would be Essex’s
biggest contribution to reduced carbon emissions. Low lying land at
Bradwell would become vulnerable to sea level rise. And Bradwell B would be
unlikely to start operating before the middle of next decade – far too
late to make an appreciable contribution to a net zero 2050. In fact it
would have a negative impact on renewable energy and flexibility.
Maylands Mayl 10th Dec 2021
UK’s failure to reduce energy demand – the most important measure to address climate change.
No2NuclearPower No. 136 December 21 Overtly and comprehensively ignoring demand side management . In nuClear News No.135 we asked if UK electricity demand is really going to double. While many other countries are spending billions on energy efficiency measures and proactively aiming to reduce energy and electricity consumption, the UK seems to be giving up on the old ‘fabric first’ idea and putting all its eggs into the nuclear and electricity supply basket. On transport there seems to be far too much focus on electric vehicles rather than public transport and active travel. With a nuclear tax on consumers’ bills in prospect and a large percentage of the population dependent on non-car travel options, the Government’s climate policies threaten to exacerbate inequalities rather than promote ‘climate justice’.
Unlike the UK, Denmark has a policy to reduce total energy demand by 50% by 2050. (1) And, Germany is not projecting a doubling of electricity demand either, in fact gross electricity generation is projected fall by 2050. Energy efficiency is the main mechanism, but also less waste in the system, more flexibility in storage and grids, integration of the heat sector. These all come together to work towards less (or certainly no more) electricity use whilst switching to renewables. In 2010, the Federal Environment Agency wrote that in the households, industrial as well as trade, commerce and services sectors “a reduction of final energy consumption by 58%, from 1639.4 TWh in 2005 to 774.2 TWh in 2050” is expected. Electricity consumption by these sectors decreases by 19%, from 492.9 TWh in 2005 to 396.7 TWh in 2050. Electricity demand experiences a lower reduction rate than final energy consumption due to the switch from fossil fuels to electricity. Total electricity consumption is expected to fall from 564 TWh in 2005 to 506 TWh. (2)
The National Audit Office (NAO) published a damning report on the Green Homes Grant debacle. It has seldom issued a more excoriating report. The scheme was originally supposed to make 600,000 homes more energy efficient. It may just have reached 47,500. It was meant to create somewhere between 100,000 and 140,000 jobs, but may have only sustained 5,600 people in employment. It was supposed to last 18 months. It was ignominiously abandoned over a weekend, after just 6 months. The NAO reckon “the rushed delivery and implementation of the scheme has significantly reduced the benefits that might have been achieved, caused frustration for homeowners and installers, and had limited impact on job creation for the longer term.” ……………….. https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/nuClearNewsNo136.pdf
Nuclear exit to unleash wind power in Northern Germany
Nuclear exit to unleash wind power in Northern Germany
By Charlotte Nijhuis and Nikolaus J. Kurmayer | EURACTIV.com with CLEW 10 Dec 2021
The shutdown of the last nuclear power plant in Schleswig-Holstein will unclog the electricity grid and unleash wind power in the northern German state, according to its environment minister Jan Philipp Albrecht, reports Clean Energy Wire.
“Nuclear power is clogging our grids, especially in the direction of the south,” Albrecht told press agency dpa.
Due to grid bottlenecks, offshore wind turbines indeed have to be switched off in some cases.
The importance of nuclear power as a whole is therefore overestimated,” Albrecht added.
After the shutdown of the nuclear plant at the end of this year, the north of Germany could cover 160% of its electricity needs with renewable energy and there will be more wind power exports to the south, Albrecht said.
Fears of power blackouts due to the nuclear phaseout are unfounded, he said. “After all, we will continue to massively expand renewable energies in Germany now. In the future, we will not be dependent on nuclear power being generated in France.”
His anti-nuclear party, the Greens, have recently entered federal government in Germany, with Super-Minister Robert Habeck in charge of boosting the expansion of renewable energies up to 80% of the country’s power supply.
Germany is set to turn off the nuclear reactors Grohnde, Gundremmingen C and Brokdorf by the end of December.
Shutting down the remaining three nuclear reactors in 2022 will then conclude a decades-long struggle by the anti-nuclear movement that gave rise to the Green Party and other environmental groups in the 1980s.
…….researchers are confident that the shutdown of Germany’s last nuclear power plants will not cause supply shortages, according to calculations by the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin).
In order to keep grid operation stable, congestion management will need to be adjusted. But “the lights will not go out in Germany,” study author Claudia Kemfert said in statement.
“On the contrary: the [nuclear] shutdown paves the way for the overdue expansion of renewable energies. Nuclear energy was uneconomical from the start and characterised by incalculable risks,” she added………https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/nuclear-exit-to-unleash-wind-power-in-northern-germany/
Hunterston and Continuous Decommissioning
nuClear News No136 Dec 21, Hunterston and Continuous Decommissioning The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s 2021-24 Business Plan (1) says it has reviewed the Magnox reactor decommissioning strategy and endorsed a site-specific approach to Magnox reactor decommissioning which will involve a mix of decommissioning strategies. For some sites this will result in their decommissioning being brought forward whilst for others a deferral strategy will be the chosen approach. New Site-Specific Strategies will be developed for each Magnox station across Britain. These will support optimal sequencing of reactor dismantling – a rolling programme of decommissioning which will maximise the opportunity for sharing any lessons learned, developing and implementing new technologies and strengthening wider capability.
These new site-specific decommissioning strategies are currently being defined. A timetable will be set that best suits each site and a business case developed to set out the benefits and cost and schedule impacts of any changes.
Reactor dismantling at the Hunterston A Magnox station, which ceased generation in 1990, is now expected to start in 2035. The previous strategy was to place the reactors into care and maintenance for up to 85 years to allow for radioactivity to decay. The current work programme which involves packaging various waste, sludges etc and placing the packages into an Intermediate Level Waste store will now take until 2030, 40 years after it ceased operation. The plant opened in 1964, so by 2030 Hunterston A will have spent longer being cleaned up than it actually spent generating electricity. Originally the current work programme was expected to be completed by 2022, but problems associated with retrieving waste in 5 bunkers has caused delays. The period between 2030 and 2035 will be spent demolishing various buildings.
Under the old strategy the NDA was going to install a “weather envelope” around the old Magnox reactors. Work on this has now been suspended.
Hunterston B Meanwhile, Hunterston B – Reactor 3 switched off for final time on 26th November. The reactor was first switched on on 6th February 1976. When EDF acquired the power station it was expected to end generation in 2016. (2) Hunterston B Reactor 4 – is scheduled to shut down in January, which will see the end of power generation for the site in North Ayrshire, Scotland. (3)
Reactor 3 and Reactor 4 were taken offline on 9 March and 3 October 2018, respectively, after cracks in their graphite cores were discovered during routine inspections. In August 2020, the UK’s Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) gave approval to EDF to restart Reactor 4 in August 2020 and Reactor 3 the following month. The reactors were taken offline earlier this year for further inspections of their graphite cores. In April, the ONR gave permission for the units to be switched back on. However, it said continued operation would be for up to a total of 16.7 terawatt days for Reactor 3 and 16.52 terawatt days for Reactor 4 – about six months of operation for each reactor. Reactor 3 returned to service on 23 April and Reactor 4 on 5 June.
In June, the UK government and EDF agreed on improved arrangements to decommission the UK’s seven AGR nuclear plants that are scheduled to close this decade. This followed an announcement by EDF that it had decided not to restart the first of the AGRs, Dungeness B, and to begin defuelling with immediate effect. (4) Each of the AGR sites will move across to the NDA on a rolling basis once defueling and fuel free verification are complete, for the decommissioning work to be overseen and managed by the NDA’s Magnox division. However, EDF’s defueling work will be supported by the NDA divisions Sellafield Ltd and Nuclear Transport Solutions (NTS) alongside other parts of the NDA group. Spent fuel from Hunterston B will be sent by train to Sellafield. (5)
EDF has now submitted a defueling safety case to ONR. First there will be what’s called “defueling outage” which will last about 60 days – making sure everything is safe to commence defueling. Defueling is then expected to start in March 2022 and will take around 3 years.
After defueling the NDA will take control of the AGR reactors. Under the old regime it would have taken until about 2030 to prepare the reactors for a period of care and maintenance. Now Hunterston B will develop a site-specific decommissioning strategy which should involve reactor dismantling sooner rather than later, thus providing the prospect of more continuous employment on the site.
The NDA, EDF and Magnox have been working together to investigate the feasibility of Hunterston B sharing the use of the Hunterston A Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) store and processing facility. Seems obvious that they should, but EDF has recently been working on plans for a standalone store. EDF and NDA have now agreed to share the Hunterston A store and EDF has suspended work on a Hunterston B store. ONR & SEPA still need to be consulted and a planning application made to North Ayrshire Council (NAC). (6) https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/nuClearNewsNo136.pdf
British pensioners funding France’s ”nuclear renaissance” with white elephant nuclear projects?
According to Gérard Magnin, a former EDF director, the French company sees Hinkley as ‘a way to make the British fund the renaissance of nuclear in France’. He added: ‘We cannot be sure that in 2060 or 2065, British pensioners, who are currently at school, will not still be paying for the advancement of the nuclear industry in France.’ ..……….
White elephant energy projects that are tomorrow’s HS2, The Conservative Woman, 10 Dec 21, -December 10, 2021AS someone who has in a small way been opposing the climate catastrophe narrative* and has had to study the government’s energy plans, I’m beginning to wonder why Suffolk has been chosen for not one but two white elephant energy projects. What have we done to deserve this? An even more pertinent question is ‘What the hell does this technologically-illiterate government think it is doing?…….
The proposed Sizewell C will house a pair of French-designed nuclear fission reactors of 1600MW output each which are slated to be built next to the decommissioned Sizewell A. …………
Superficially (i.e. as assessed by a typical minister who has the same knowledge of science, technology, engineering and mathematics as the average 12-year-old) Sizewell seems an obvious place to dump a pair of the new generation large nuclear reactors, that is if you ignore the fact that it will take a big bite out of the Suffolk Coastal Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, ruin the tourist trade for decades and require the building of a temporary town to house the thousands of workers who will be imported to build it. More to the point, they’ll come in late while costing far more than the estimate.
It seems no one in government has noticed that European Pressurised Water Reactors (EPRs) like the two planned for Sizewell C are proving extremely difficult to build. For example, the Finnish Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant already had two reactors of a different design, so they are not nuclear tyros. They applied for planning permission for the third, the first Finnish EPR, in 2000. It was due to begin feeding power to the grid in 2010. The latest estimate is June 2022. That’s 22 years between application and delivery of electricity instead of ten. It comes as no surprise that Finland has cancelled plans for a second EPR. Another example: the Hinkley C EPRs in Somerset have a strike price of £106/MWh at 2021 prices and will, unless there are further delays, be contributing to the grid in 2026 after approval in 2008. As well as being late it is over budget: the cost estimate was £18billion in 2016, but by 2019 it was up to £22,500,000,000 and the electricity it produces will cost more than forecast.
The deadline for the UK Planning Inspectorate to submit their recommendation for Sizewell C is January 14, 2022. The minister then has three months to think it over. It will be interesting to see what he or she decides if, as is perfectly possible, we are then in the middle of a fuel and energy crisis.
Working on the Olkiluoto timescale, Sizewell C would begin to power UK homes in 2044, by which time climate hysteria may well have abated. And of course there is the matter of cost. Initial estimate for Olkiluoto was €3billion for the single reactor. Latest and nearly final estimate is €11,000,000,000. It makes HS2 look a bargain.
According to the Financial Times Her Majesty’s Government has noticed that China General Nuclear (CGN) may not be the ideal partner to be involved in building nuclear reactors in the UK: like all Chinese firms it is the tool of its owner, the Chinese State, and as such has strategic interests which may not chime with those of the UK. Permitting any foreign state-controlled company to have its hand on the off switch of the National Grid is obviously undesirable – which is unfortunate as there’s another foreign state-owned ‘partner’ in the car crash that is the UK’s nuclear development plan. Électricité de France (EDF) owns 75 per cent of Framatome, the firm responsible for the disastrous EPR design. There are various subsidies, name changes and takeovers that complicate matters but here is the underlying reality: Framatome designs, manufactures, and installs components, fuel and instrumentation and control systems. It is involved in Hinkley C, the Chinese reactors at Taishan where there have recently been safety concerns, and has recently bagged a contract to supply control and support equipment for a Russian reactor. So this foreign firm is supplying Russia and China with duplicates of the equipment which is being installed in the UK…………
And while we’re on the subject of EDF, here’s a report from the Guardian in 2017: According to Gérard Magnin, a former EDF director, the French company sees Hinkley as ‘a way to make the British fund the renaissance of nuclear in France’. He added: ‘We cannot be sure that in 2060 or 2065, British pensioners, who are currently at school, will not still be paying for the advancement of the nuclear industry in France.’ …………
DRUMS OF WAR Biden is pushing us to brink of NUCLEAR WAR over Ukraine in chilling echo of Cuban missile crisis, Russia claims
FIRES OF WAR Biden is pushing us to brink of NUCLEAR WAR over Ukraine in chilling echo of Cuban missile crisis, Russia claims, The Sun UK, Katie Davis, 10 Dec 2021
RUSSIA has warned Joe Biden is pushing the nation to the brink of NUCLEAR WAR as tensions over Ukraine hit boiling point.
Sergei Ryabkov, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, has warned a chilling echo of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis is possible as the US closely watches unrest at the border.
“You know, it really could come to that,” he said.
“If things continue as they are, it is entirely possible by the logic of events to suddenly wake up and see yourself in something similar.”
A standoff between Russia and the US brought the world close to nuclear war when Washington blocked Moscow from shipping nuclear missiles to Cuba in 1962 – and Ryabkov has warned escalating tensions between the nations risk a repeat of that.
After strained negotiations, John Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev reached an agreement, with the Soviet leader dismantling their offensive weapons in Cuba on the condition the US would sign a public declaration to not invade the Caribbean country again.
It comes amid mounting tensions between the West and Moscow over a potential invasion of Ukraine – with growing fears war could break out.
Last week US intelligence detected Russia massing 175,000 troops on the border with Ukraine as fears of a potential invasion in early 2022 are mounting.
Meanwhile, Moscow claimed its fighter jets intercepted a US spy plane that was flying over the Black Sea.
Russia has denied that it plans to attack Ukraine.
Ryabkov’s warning comes after Joe Biden held a high-stakes call with Vladimir Putin as tensions between Washington and Moscow intensify over Ukraine.
The two-hour call between the leaders was held in a bid to de-escalate tensions – with the US President threatening sanctions over the situation at Russia’s border…………….
Russia has been demanded Ukraine not join NATO and raged that the US must stop all military activity in the region.
Ukraine commanders have warned that a Russian invasion would overwhelm the country without help from the West…………
it’s reported Britain and her allies are ready to use force to stop Russia invading Ukraine – despite warnings it would lead to the worst conflict since World War Two…………
a US senator has warned America could “rain destruction” on Russia with nuclear weapons if Putin invades Ukraine……
Senator Roger Wicker said “We don’t rule out first-use nuclear action, we don’t think it will happen, but there are certain things in negotiations, if you are going to be tough, that you don’t take off the table.”
But the Russian Embassy in Washington hit back at Wicker’s remarks, branding his suggestion that the US should consider using nuclear weapons against Moscow in the event of invasion as “irresponsible”.
“Such statements are irresponsible,” the statement, posted on Facebook, said.
“We advise all the unenlightened to read the joint statement of the Presidents of Russia and the United States of June 16, 2021 thoroughly. This document reaffirms the two countries’ commitment to the principle that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”………. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16999520/biden-pushing-brink-nuclear-war-ukraine-russia/
The latest court case for Australian Julian Assange – and the death of democracy
Assange is too important to the establishment to let get away. No matter that the C.I.A. wanted to kill him; no matter that the C.I.A. spied on his privileged conversations with his lawyers; no matter that the chief witness in the computer conspiracy charge admitted he made it all up.
The Old Boy Network of trust between the rulers of the Anglo-Saxon powers was enough.
To save their hides from more exposure about how they try to violently and deceptively dominate the world, they are willing to sacrifice the last vestiges of their pretend democracy.
Julian Assange is that important to them.
Democracy Dying in the Darkness of the Assange Case https://consortiumnews.com/2021/12/10/democracy-dying-in-the-darkness-of-the-assange-case/ December 10, 2021 The establishment figures on the bench took American promises as “solemn undertakings from one government to another” because Assange is too important to let go, By Joe Lauria.
It is a very dark day indeed for the future of press freedom. If Julian Assange does not find relief at the U.K. Supreme Court, it won’t be an exaggeration to say that democracy, already on life support, is done for. The U.S., and its best ally Britain, have behaved in this affair no better than any tinpot dictator tossing a critical reporter into a dungeon.
This judgement by the High Court today to allow Assange’s extradition to the U.S. comes on U.N. Human Rights Day; the day that Washington concluded its so-called Democracy Summit and the day when the Nobel Prize was awarded to two journalists, one of whom dismissed Julian Assange and said the purpose of journalism is to support national security.
That’s exactly what the national security state wants from its journalists. And they reward them with the highest honors. Assange did the opposite. He fulfilled journalism’s supreme purpose and he may be about to pay for it with his life.
The Choices Available
The High Court could have denied extradition to a country whose intelligence service plotted to kill or kidnap him. It could have sent the case back to magistrate’s court to be reheard.
Instead Lord Chief Justice Ian Burnett and Lord Justice Timothy Holroyde found an extremely narrow way to overturn the lower court’s decision not to extradite Assange.
Continue reading1 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 (156)
- 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 