Russian troops pull out out of Chernobyl after suffering ”acute radiation sickness”
Russian troops have pulled out of Chernobyl and handed control back to
Ukrainian authorities after soldiers suffered acute radiation sickness from
digging trenches in contaminated soil. Energoatom, Ukraine’s state
nuclear energy company, said that soldiers had received “significant
doses of radiation” after they constructed trench fortifications in the
Red Forest, a highly toxic area surrounding the defunct plant.
Times 1st April 2022
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sick-russian-soldiers-seen-fleeing-chernobyl-ztcwvgzwg
Greenpeace activists storm French nuclear plant
Greenpeace activists break into the construction site of the Flamanville
EPR nuclear reactor to protest against pro-nuclear candidates in the French
presidential elections.
Launched at the end of 2007, the Normandy project
is 11 years overdue and its cost has risen to 12.7 billion euros according
to EDF, compared with the 3.3 billion announced in 2006. Greenpeace France
has called for an independent assessment of the viability of EPR nuclear
reactors.
Euronews 31st March 2022
https://www.euronews.com/2022/03/31/greenpeace-activists-storm-french-nuclear-power-plant
Boris Johnson’s fixation on nuclear power is not justified by the facts, as Britain’s electricity demand continues to fall.
| Letter Andrew Warren, Chairman, British Energy Efficiency Federation: In declaring that Boris Johnson’s fixation on nuclear is a threat to British energy supply, Simon Nixon (Mar 31) draws attention to the fallacious belief by the Department for Business (if not at the National Grid) that demand for electricity is expected to expand enormously, apparently even double, over future years. Strangely enough, precisely the same justification was used in 2006, when the Labour government first committed itself (as Nixon observes) to a “family” of further nuclear power stations. Based on the official forecasts issued in 2006, we should by now be consuming at least 15 per cent more electricity than we were then. But we are not. In fact UK electricity consumption has gone down by more than 15 per cent since 2006. In other words, all that “expectation of demand growth” used then to justify new nukes was grossly exaggerated, by well over 30 per cent. In the interim, no new nuclear power stations have been added to the system. It hasn’t collapsed, and is far less carbon intensive. Surely, we should not be fooled again by the same spurious rhetoric about endless consumption growth? In that immortal phrase of the 1970s: “Save it. You know it makes sense.” Times 1st April 2022https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/times-letters-lessons-of-the-shropshire-maternity-scandal-7vs5xwfw3 |
UK government’s nuclear dream likely to fade away, as private investors resist that risky call
Private investors are yet to be convinced that the returns from nuclear
power are sufficiently attractive to plow billions of pounds into a new
fleet of reactors that is being pushed by the U.K. government.
Unclear policy, competition from renewables and concerns about how attractive the
financial returns will be all make the investment case for nuclear less
compelling, according to people involved in the discussions.
That could be a major stumbling block for the government as it seeks to enlist private
capital to help fund projects like Electricite de France SA’s Sizewell C
plant.
Financial Post 29th March 2022
Scrutiny on Switzerland’s nuclear power industry- it gets uranium from Russia
Use of Russian uranium for Swiss nuclear power under scrutiny, Russia’s state-owned nuclear firm Rosatom helps fuel two nuclear power plants in Switzerland. That commercial link is now under scrutiny as the Western world puts financial pressure on Russia to stop its aggression against Ukraine. Swiss Info March 31, 2022
Swiss electricity company Axpo purchases fuel from Rosatom to operate the Beznau and Leibstadt nuclear power plants in canton Aargau.
In a statement published on Thursday, the environmental NGO Greenpeace urged the authorities of seven Swiss cantons – which own Axpo – to stop buying uranium from Rosatom.
This commercial relationship, the NGO argued, helps to finance Russia’s war effort in Ukraine. Competitor company Alpiq, which runs the Gösgen nuclear site, stopped sourcing from Russia in 2016.
………………………………….. Of Switzerland’s four nuclear reactors, only Gösgen, operated by the company Alpiq, does not buy Russian uranium. Alpiq said this decision was taken in 2016 due to considerations about environmental compatibility and supply chain transparency………..
By paying for Russian uranium – Switzerland could also indirectly help finance Russia’s military apparatus. SRF points that Rosatom is the manufacturer of Russia’s warheads and now controls the operation of various Ukrainian nuclear power plants, such as at Zaporizhia, seized after fighting on March 4. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/use-of-russian-uranium-for-swiss-nuclear-power-under-scrutiny/47479722
Getting bigger but not safer or cheaper – the myth of Rolls Royce and its very big non-modular reactor
Rolls Royce are now starting a ‘Generic Design Assessment’ (GDA) process with the ONR which will take around 5 years. After then they will be asking the UK Government for a blank cheque for the project.
https://100percentrenewableuk.org/getting-bigger-but-not-safer-or-cheaper-the-myth-of-rolls-royce-and-its-very-big-non-modular-reactor By David Toke, 30 Mar 22, Rolls Royce’s so-called small modular reactor (SMR) is getting bigger, but is likely to have fewer special safety features compared to EDF’s increasingly pricey design for Hinkley C.
In 2017 Rolls Royce said that its small modular reactor would be between 220 and 440 MW, but the latest design is bigger, at 470 MW. It is strange to call this small. Reactors in service at the moment (the so-called AGR reactors) were around the 600 MW size for each unit and, strange as it might seem, most of the first generation of so-called ‘Magnox’ nuclear reactors built in the UK were actually smaller than 470 MW. They were not called ‘small’. So why is Rolls Royce calling this a SMR? There’s no reason for this other than public relations.
Rolls Royce claim that the parts will be mainly built in factories. Well, of course they will, that’s always the case with nuclear power plant. The difference with building a relatively smaller plant of course is that you get less of the economies of scale in doing this. That is why nuclear power plant have got bigger.
So the fact that the Rolls Royce unit will be about a third the size of the EPR is likely to make them cost more. But there is one way that Rolls Royce will be able to economise compared to the European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) being built at Hinkley C, and that is because I have seen no sign that Rolls Royce will include some special safety features that have been included in the EPR.
The best known of these safety features are a) a ‘double containment’ feature that is designed to stop material from the inside getting out (as well as another external shell to shield from aircraft) and b) a ‘core catcher’ to stop a melting core eating its way into the ground and potentially contaminating water courses. I am assuming Rolls Royce will not be including either of these features, although it will have to satisfy the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) that it has other ways of stopping radioactive releases from accidents.
Rolls Royce are now starting a ‘Generic Design Assessment’ (GDA) process with the ONR which will take around 5 years. After then they will be asking the UK Government for a blank cheque for a project.
Of course there is another factor and that is that EDF have some experience (admittedly not very successful of late) of building nuclear power plant. Rolls Royce do not have experience of building large nuclear power plant (which is what they are really hoping to do). Producing small (and, it must be said extremely expensive) genuinely small reactors for nuclear submarines is not the same thing at all! So Rolls Royce are likely not to have the skills to build large nuclear power plant. That is a bad sign!
The so-called SMRs proferred by Rolls Royce will just be the latest in a long line of very expensive, very lately delivered nuclear power stations in the UK. It is unlikely to be any cheaper than the reactor that EDF is building at Hinkley C (becoming more expensive as time goes on). But it will have fewer safety features.
Robert (Bob) Hoggar comments: Small Mod Reactors scattered about Britain will also have lots of nuclear waste scattered about Britain which will need careful looking after and that is guaranteed to be an additional rusk to the nation.
European Union lawmakers move to reject inclusion of nuclear energy as ‘green’
EU lawmakers move to reject green gas and nuclear investment rules, Reuters, By Kate Abnett and Simon Jessop
- Summary
- Greens, Socialists and Democrats oppose proposed rules
- Parliament vote on taxonomy proposal due by July
- EU advisers launch report on other environmental criteria
BRUSSELS, March 30 (Reuters) – At least two groups of European Union lawmakers have confirmed they will reject an EU proposal to label gas and nuclear energy as sustainable investments, officials said on Wednesday.
Reporting by Kate Abnett, Simon Jessop, editing by Ed Osmond………… (registered readers only) https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/eu-lawmakers-move-reject-green-gas-nuclear-investment-rules-2022-03-30/
UN nuclear watchdog chief in Ukraine for safety talks
 | |||
UN nuclear watchdog chief in Ukraine for safety talks https://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2022-03-un-nuclear-watchdog-chief-in-ukraine-for-safety-talks
The United Nations nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi visited Ukraine on Tuesday unannounced to start providing assistance including experts and equipment aimed at keeping nuclear facilities there safe in the midst of war, apparently without Russia’s blessing. March 30, 2022 by Charles Digges
The United Nations nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi visited Ukraine on Tuesday unannounced to start providing assistance including experts and equipment aimed at keeping nuclear facilities there safe in the midst of war, apparently without Russia’s blessing.
Grossi’s visit comes as seasonal wildfires are ripping unchecked through the irradiated area surrounding Chernobyl, the defunct nuclear power plant that was seized by Russian troops on February 24. Ukrainian officials have said the blazes within the 2,600 square kilometer exclusion zone around the disaster site could bear radiation aloft to surrounding territories and across borders.
Since Russia invaded Ukraine last month, Grossi has called on both countries to agree a framework to ensure nuclear facilities, including spent nuclear fuel storage facilities at Chernobyl and Europe’s biggest nuclear power plant at Zaporizhzhya, are kept safe and secure.
International Atomic Energy Agency chief Grossi has so far failed to obtain such an agreement or even a three-way meeting with Ukraine and Russia. He had hoped to convene one at Chernobyl, which like Zaporizhzhya continues to be held under Russian control. He met the Ukrainian and Russian foreign ministers separately in Turkey almost three weeks ago.
On Wednesday Grossi appeared to make some progress, posting on Twitter that he had met with Ukraine’s energy minister and the head of Energoatom, the state company that oversees the country’s nuclear industry.
IAEA’s on-site presence will help prevent the danger of a nuclear accident that could have severe public health and environmental consequences in Ukraine and beyond,” Grossi wrote.
On Monday, Lyudmila Denisova, commissioner of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine for human rights said the wildfires around Chernobyl have led to an increased level of radioactive air pollution that could threaten neighboring European countries.
She attributed the fires to Russian combat in the region, saying 31 blazes have been recorded, and she called on the IAEA to send firefighters and equipment to help tackle them.
“Control and suppression of fires is impossible due to the capture of the exclusion zone by Russian troops,” Denisova wrote in a Facebook post Sunday. “As a result of combustion, radionuclides are released into the atmosphere, which are transported by wind over long distances.”
The IAEA’s Grossi has not yet commented on the blazes, but their presence contributed to fears of yet more mishaps as Ukraine’s nuclear infrastructure falls under Russian fire.
Since the Chernobyl plant fell into Russian hands, nearby combat has cut power to the site twice, jeopardizing cooling processes for 22,000 spent nuclear fuel rods stores on plant territory. Ventilation is also required to tamp down radiation levels below the New Safe Confinement, a giant steel dome that was installed over the sarcophagus of Chernobyl’s Unit Four reactor, which exploded in 1986.
Power has since been restored, but the IAEA has reported it no longer has access to data transmitted by radiation sensors at the site.
At the Zaporizhzhya plant, a March 4 rocket strike destroyed a training laboratory. Like Chernobyl, the Zaproizhzhya’s plant’s staff is now essentially hostage to invading Russian forces – a situation that worries the IAEA. Since then, the Russian military has detonated ordinance at the plant that remained unexploded during its attack. The IAEA said that both the reactors and radiation levels remained safe after that incident.
Russians have also twice shelled the site of a US funded research reactor and nuclear research facility in the northeastern city of Kharkiv. The reactor’s fuel had reportedly been withdrawn prior to the onset of war and the IAEA said chances for an uncontrolled chain reaction at the site are low.
He also visited the South Ukraine nuclear power plant, whose three reactors are thought to be in the crosshairs of advancing Russian troops.
7 wildfires in Chernobyl Exclusion zone exceed Ukraine’s emergency classification tenfold.
Seven wildfires have broken out in the exclusion zone surrounding the
Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, the site of the world’s worst nuclear
disaster, according to a statement by Ukraine’s Parliament. The fires,
which were observed via satellite, exceed Ukraine’s emergency
classification criteria tenfold.
Ukrainian officials stated that the fires
were caused by “the armed aggression of the Russian Federation, namely
the shelling or arson,” though this has not been independently verified.
Wildfires risk mobilizing and dispersing radioactive contaminants left over
from the 1986 nuclear accident at Chernobyl.
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 23rd March 2022
Wildfires break out in Chernobyl amid a non-functioning radiation-monitoring system
Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense warns on radioactivity danger from the Chernobyl Excusion Zone
Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense warned yesterday that the Russian
occupation of the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone dramatically increases the risk
of the release of significant amounts of radioactive dust into the
atmosphere that could contaminate not only Ukraine but nearby European
countries.
According to the Ministry, Russian military transport, rockets,
artillery shells, and substandard mortar ammunition stored a few hundred
meters from the nuclear power plant run a high risk of detonation. The
Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant and facilities in the Exclusion Zone have
been under the control of the Russian military since 24 February, the first
day of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Regulatory control over the state
of nuclear and radiation safety at the site is impossible.
Byline Times 28th March 2022
UK’s energy security strategy delayed, as Cabinet split on nuclear power, and the Regulated Asset Base plan to pay for it.
| Disagreements between Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak over the cost of investment in new nuclear power stations have forced the government to again delay its energy security strategy. The prime minister promised to publish the strategy this month after Russia invaded Ukraine. Its publication has been repeatedly put back amid cabinet disagreements over fracking, onshore wind and the extent of government support for energy efficiency projects. Senior sources told The Times that while most issues had been settled, disagreements between No 10 and the Treasury over the extent to which new nuclear power should feature in the plan caused the latest delay. Last week Johnson told nuclear industry bosses that the government wanted the UK to get 25 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power, requiring up to six new large-scale stations. Sunak is understood to be concerned at the cost of such a commitment, arguing it represents poor value and would lead to substantial long-term increases in energy bills. He is thought to be pushing Johnson to limit the government’s commitment to two plants on top of one being built at Hinkley Point. The Treasury’s argument has been boosted by the National Infrastructure Commission that has warned large-scale nuclear power plants are “incredibly difficult to deliver on short timescales”. It has pointed out that even if the government gave the go-ahead for more nuclear power stations and they took as long as the Hinkley Point C project is expected to take, they would not come online until the mid-2040s. They have urged ministers to look at “alternatives” that are more likely to be deliverable at scale in the next 15 years. Ministers are legislating for a new model to fund nuclear power plants to make them attractive to investors. But critics say the regulated asset system would place the burden for delays and cost overruns on consumers and increase energy bills. Supporters of new nuclear power, including Johnson and Kwasi Kwarteng, the business secretary, argue that investing now is a “no regret” policy as demand for electricity is forecast to double in the transition to net zero. It is understood the strategy is now due next week. If that slips, the Easter recess and rules on what the government can say before the May elections could push it beyond the Queen’s Speech. Times 29th March 2022 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cabinet-split-on-nuclear-power-delays-uk-energy-strategy-nmfznj377 |
UK’s Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer srongly resisting Boris Johnson’s push for costly nuclear power.
Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak’s nuclear fallout sparks fresh delays to
UK energy security strategy. The Prime Minister is pushing for six to seven
new large nuclear power stations, but the Chancellor is concerned about the
massive cost. The proposals are being strongly resisted by the Treasury,
with the Chancellor concerned that the vast investment in nuclear would not
provide the taxpayer with value for money.
It has meant that the energy
package has been kicked further down the road, despite Mr Johnson having
previously pledged to publish the proposals at the start of the month. The
plans are also expected to include ways to produce more energy from
renewables, and increase North Sea oil and gas production. The Prime
Minister’s spokesman denied that they were being delayed because of a
disagreement, instead stating that it was “important we get these things
right”.
iNews 28th March 2022
Spending £4bn on a new nuclear station at Sizewell will not solve the government’s energy problems
Spending £4bn on a new nuclear station at Sizewell will not solve the government’s energy problems
Instead of sensible short-term measures to help those facing energy poverty, the government is focusing on a technology with a track record of failure Prospect Magazine
ByNick Butler March 30, 2022In the face of surging energy prices and the prospect of more problems as Europe turns off Russian gas supplies, the UK government is struggling to find a coherent energy policy. The latest move, a £4bn investment in the proposed new nuclear station at Sizewell, is both a mistake and an irrelevance. Private investors who are being asked to stump up the majority of the £20bn total cost should politely decline the offer
……………………………………………………………..There are no instant solutions but on and offshore wind and solar power could be increased relatively quickly at a reasonable cost. The government could also accelerate its investment in developing the crucial technology for energy storage. This would capture more of the power produced by every wind turbine and limit the need for back-up plants (usually requiring more gas) to deal with the times when the wind is not blowing. On top of this, direct support for simple measures to enable people to use energy more efficiently would limit demand and cut bills.
Instead of such sensible short-term measures, ministers have chosen to focus on a technology which has a track record of failure and which, even if it could be made to work, will take at least a decade to provide any new electricity supplies………….
Of all the available options, however, the choice of EDF’s European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) technology is the worst from any perspective.
In 2009, EDF promised investors and the government at the time that the EPR to be built at Hinkley would produce power at a cost of less than £50 per MWhr. By Christmas 2017, we were told Hinkley would be onstream and providing the power to cook our Christmas turkeys. We were the turkeys for believing such claims.
Hinkley is still being built and 2027 now looks like the earliest date for production to begin. In France, the comparable EPR development at Flamanville—which was due onstream in 2013—is still unfinished, having experienced a series of crucial technical problems. In both cases the costs have overrun the original budgets by many billions.
Hinkley, if it ever comes onstream, will charge consumers £92.50 per MWhr index linked from 2013 when the deal was agreed. While the costs of renewables such as offshore wind have fallen dramatically over the last decade, the costs of nuclear power from Hinkley have continued to rise. After almost a decade of inflation, that price has already risen to around £110. Who knows what it will be in 2027?………….. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/science-and-technology/spending-4bn-on-a-new-nuclear-station-at-sizewell-will-not-solve-the-governments-energy-problems
EDF announces another delay and cost overruns to Hinkley Point C nuclear project
French energy giant EDF has revealed it will have to announce new delays
and cost overruns for its Hinkley Point C nuclear plant project in the UK.
The latest setback follows conflict in Ukraine, supply chain disruption and
inflationary pressures.
EDF last updated its construction schedule in
January 2021, when it said the UK’s first new nuclear plant to be built
in decades would be delayed by six months to June 2026. It revealed costs
would rise by an additional £500m to £23bn.
Originally, the plant was
expected to open in 2025 and had a construction budget of £18bn. However,
like similar nuclear new-build projects in Flamanville, France and
Olkiluoto, Finland, it has been subject to repeated delays and spiralling
costs. In a note to its 2021 annual report, EDF arued risks to schedule and
cost at completion targets had increased. The energy firm cited the ongoing
impact of the pandemic, Brexit, lower-than-expected civil performance and
tensions in global building materials markets.
22 Mar 22, https://www.cityam.com/edf-announces-another-delay-to-hinkley-point-c-nuclear-plant/
City AM 28th March 2022
Boris Johnson beholden to the nuclear industry. That’s going to cost UK bigtime – Chancellor Sunak not happy.
Boris Johnson’s flagship energy strategy has been held up over a row
with Rishi Sunak about funding a new generation of up to eight nuclear
power stations costing the public more than £13bn.
The strategy, which has
been delayed for a month, was due to be published this week but has now
been pencilled for 5 April after disagreement about the multibillion-pound
cost of new nuclear plants and amid ongoing tensions between the prime
minister and his chancellor, as well as the wider cabinet.
Johnson has told the nuclear industry that he wants 25% of electricity generation to come
from nuclear power by 2050, up from 16% now. Whitehall sources told the
Guardian this shift could require the building of about eight new nuclear
power stations. Draft targets suggest ministers are looking at 30GW of
nuclear power capacity, meaning a huge building programme would be needed,
as capacity is due to fall to 3.6GW as plants are decommissioned.
Of the eight UK plants currently in operation, all but one are due to be switched
off by 2030. Each new plant would require the government to take a minority
stake in the project to reduce the risk to developers, and substantial cash
outlay to encourage investment.
Despite Johnson’s keenness for new
nuclear power, Sunak is concerned about the cost to the taxpayer, or extra
costs added to soaring energy bills. The Treasury has already promised
£1.7bn of direct cash for a single large-scale nuclear project – the
£20bn Sizewell C – as well as £120m for a new Future Nuclear Enabling
Fund, which aims to address barriers to entering the sector.
Building eight plants could cost more than £13bn in initial investment costs from the
government if the same amount of investment were to be put in, according to
a Whitehall source. However, the government is also pushing for the nuclear
industry to reduce its build costs.
Guardian 28th March 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 (91)
- 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
