UK’s Regulated Asset Base (RAB) “a very bad deal for consumers” – like the USA’s disastrous system in South Carolina
Reaction to the Bill from stakeholders has been mixed. Some environmental bodies have questioned whether the RAB model set out in the Bill offers value for money for consumers and whether it transfers the risk of cost overruns to consumers. Tom Burke, the co-founder of E3G, a climate think-tank, told the Financial Times that the model risked being “a very bad deal for consumers” on the grounds that electricity generated from nuclear power would be more expensive than that from ‘homegrown’ renewables and would simultaneously “inhibit the market in wind, [an] area where we have the opportunity to create a global competitive industry in the UK”.145 The same article included comment from Steve Thomas, Professor of Energy Policy at the University of Greenwich, who questioned whether people would want their pension funds exposed to construction risk cost and whether that meant the consumer would take on all the risk. In an article in the i on the day the legislation was published, Doug Parr, Chief Scientist at Greenpeace, noted that the RAB model had already been used to finance nuclear power in the United States, adding that the “results were disastrous”: “It transfers huge financial risk from the builders to bill payers. In South Carolina, 18 per cent of residents’ energy bills went to pay for a half-built reactor which has been abandoned and will never produce electricity.” House of Commons Library 1st Nov 2021 https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9356/CBP-9356.pdf |
Opposition Leader Keresztes accuses Hungarian government of secrecy and errors in approval of Paks Nuclear Power Plant Upgrade
LMP Accuses Govt of Secrecy on Paks Nuclear Power Plant Upgrade https://hungarytoday.hu/lmp-accuses-govt-of-secrecy-on-paks-nuclear-power-plant-upgrade/MTI-Hungary Today 2021.11.13. Publicity, professionalism, and security are the most important principles in the use of nuclear energy, yet the government has chosen secrecy, outsourcing, and political control, the leader of the opposition LMP party’s parliamentary group said on Saturday.
Speaking at an online press conference, László Lóránt Keresztes said the government is unwilling to admit that it has made seriously wrong decisions and it is ready to take further ones.
In addition, “substantive information (.) has been classified in connection with the failure to secure permission for the Paks II [upgrade] project,” he said.
They make wrong decisions such as licensing excavation work in the absence of key permissions, Keresztes said.
The government has reached a dead-end over the final disposal of spent nuclear fuel rods. The decisions made in the recent period are especially detrimental to the city of Pécs and Baranya County, he said.
If the government keeps hiding information, LMP will resort to legal means to finally inform the Hungarian public about the state of the Paks nuclear power plant expansion. The opposition party is convinced that the project should not be negotiated in Moscow, behind closed doors, he added.
LMP is of the view that the deeply flawed project should be stopped, Keresztes said.
József Kóbor, LMP’s municipal councilor of Pécs, said the disposal of radioactive waste is a huge problem throughout Europe.
Scottish MP seeks commitment from UK govt to protect Beaufot’s Dyke from nuclear waste dumping
| MSP concerned about potential for dumping in Beaufort’s Dyke. South Scotland list MSP Emma Harper (SNP) is seeking a commitment from the UK Government that Beaufort’s Dyke will not be used as a dumpsite for nuclear and radioactive waste. Ms Harper has written to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Defence Secretary following speculation that through committing to upgrading the A75 and building a new nuclear power station, that the Government will once again use Beaufort’s Dyke as dumping site. Previously Ms Harper has also raised concerns over the noted increase in the amount of unexploded ordnance which has washed up on beaches across south west Scotland over recent years. Beaufort’s Dyke became the United Kingdom’s largest offshore dumpsite for surplus conventional and chemical munitions after the Second World War. Galloway Gazette 12th Nov 2021 https://www.gallowaygazette.co.uk/news/environment/msp-concerned-about-potential-for-dumping-in-beauforts-dyke-3456195 |
EX manager sues EDF over safety concerns
A former manager at EDF’s Tricastin nuclear plant in southern France has
filed a complaint in a Paris court alleging the state-owned utility failed
to report or minimised safety concerns at the plant, Le Monde newspaper
reported on Friday.
The newspaper said the plaintiff, whom it did not name,
filed the lawsuit in early October at the Paris judicial court. It said the
plaintiff was also suing EDF for harassment, without detailing those
allegations. EDF declined to comment on the allegations, but said safety at
its nuclear sites was its priority. “Transparency and compliance with
regulations are strictly applied and respected at all sites”, it said.
Yahoo 12th Nov 2021
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/ex-manager-sues-edf-over-123859453.html
France: public inquiry for the authorization to reprocess new fuels
**France – Reprocessing**
A public inquiry for the authorization to reprocess new fuels, particularly from foreign heavy water or MOX reactors, is open until
November 17, 2021. It is closely following another survey for the densification of the C D E swimming pools at La Hague in order to increase spent fuel storage capacity by 30%. Based on files with blackened lines, it only confirmed decisions already taken.
Crilan 12th Nov 2021
http://crilan.fr/densification-des-piscines-de-la-hague-mayak-en-cotentin-non-merci/
EU states split on classifying nuclear energy as ‘green’
EU states split on classifying nuclear energy as ‘green’ DW 12 Nov 21,
“It’s too risky, too slow and too expensive,” Germany says — while other EU members have pushed for the bloc to classify nuclear power as eco-friendly for investors.
Germany, Luxembourg, Portugal, Denmark and Austria spoke out on Thursday against the classification of nuclear energy as a climate-friendly source of power.
The five countries issued a statement on the sidelines of the UN climate summit in Glasgow, COP26. It comes as the European Commission is working on a so-called EU taxonomy, in which it lists what the bloc considers as “environmentally sustainable economic activities.”
Some other EU countries, led by France, are seeking to add modern forms of nuclear energy to that list……
“The current decade will be crucial for our common path toward climate neutrality and an economic system that respects the limits of our planet,” Germany, Luxembourg, Portugal, Denmark and Austria said in a statement.
Therefore, it is crucial to have an EU taxonomy that considers the sustainability of a form of energy “throughout its life cycle,” the signatories added, referring to the radioactive waste generated by nuclear power use.
They also warned that the classification could risk diverting EU funds from renewable energies such as wind and solar power.
“Nuclear power cannot be a solution in the climate crisis,” said German Environment Minister Svenja Schulze.
“It is too risky, too slow and too expensive for the crucial decade in the fight against climate change,” she added.
Austria’s environment minister, Leonore Gewessler, also backed Germany’s stance, saying, “Just because something is not quite so bad doesn’t mean it’s good.”
What about the countries supporting nuclear energy?
France, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic have called on the European Commission to classify nuclear power plants and nuclear waste storage facilities as “green.”
They also want the taxonomy to include natural gas-fired power plants.
What is the EU taxonomy?
Compiled by the European Commission, the highly anticipated classification system is a list of “environmentally sustainable economic activities.”
The Commission has said the list should “create security for investors, protect private investors from greenwashing, help companies to become more climate-friendly, mitigate market fragmentation and help shift investments where they are most needed.”
If Brussels classifies nuclear power as “sustainable” in the legal text, it will count as a direct recommendation to financial markets to invest in nuclear plants…..
many environmentalists oppose nuclear power, citing the risk of nuclear meltdowns and the difficulty of properly disposing of nuclear waste.
Germany, Denmark, Luxembourg, Austria and Portugal warn against including nuclear in the proposed EU taxonomy
The environment ministers of five EU member states including Germany warned against including nuclear power in the proposed EU taxonomy at the sidelines of the UN Cop 26 climate conference in Glasgow today. In a jointstatement issued by the environment ministers of Germany, Denmark, Luxembourg, Austria and Portugal, the signatories warn that including nuclear in the taxonomy would permanently damage the latter’s “integrity, credibility and therefore its usefulness”. The EU taxonomy is to establish criteria for environmentally sustainable economic practices, steering funding towards these activities. German caretaker environment minister Svenja Schulze said that “nuclear power is too risky, too expensive”, and in any case would come too late to make a notable contribution to mitigating climate warming. Argus Media 11th Nov 2021 https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2272872-ministries-reject-nuclear-inclusion-in-eu-taxonomy |
Speaker of UK Parliament refuses debate on motions against Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill.
Of course, consumers who have signed up to buy 100% renewable electricity could quite rightly feel aggrieved at having to pay the “nuclear tax” as well.
nuClear News, November. 21. Nuclear Energy Finance Bill On Wednesday 3rd November, MPs debated the second reading of the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill. The Liberal Democrats and the SNP, bot put forward an amendment, but neither was accepted for debate by the Speaker.
LibDem Motion: That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill because there is no economic or environmental case for the construction of any further nuclear stations in the UK; because the Bill does nothing to address concerns about costs around nuclear waste disposal and decommissioning; because the Bill fails to bring forward meaningful reforms to accelerate the deployment of renewable power or the removal of restrictions on solar, wind and the building of more interconnectors to guarantee security of supply; and because it fails to remove barriers to investment in renewables or to support investment and innovation in cutting-edge energy technologies, including tidal and wave power, energy storage, demand response, smart grids and hydrogen.
SNP Motion: This House declines to give a Second Reading to the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill because it believes there is no longer a justification for a large nuclear power station to provide base load energy, because large scale nuclear is not compatible as a counter to the intermittency of renewable wind as nuclear stations are too inflexible, because pumped storage hydro should be utilised to provide renewable energy that can be dispatched when required and pumped storage hydro should be supported with a minimum electricity price providing better value to bill payers than funding new nuclear, because wave and tidal technologies should be utilised to provide stable and predictable electricity generation and these technologies should be supported to scale up via the provision of a ring fenced pot of funding within the forthcoming contracts for difference auction, because the net zero pathway will be better advanced by supporting the Scottish Cluster as a fast track Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage project given that it includes hydrogen production, direct air capture and carbon storage facilities that will serve the wider UK, and because greater support and investment should be directed towards green hydrogen production and emerging storage technologies; and, as the cost of energy increases, this House calls on the Government to spend more money on energy efficiency measures and targeted support for those who suffer from or are at risk of fuel povertyac1
Continue readingWith the confusing consortium behind it, the UK’s Rolls Royce ”small” nuclear reactor project is running a huge risk
this is a huge risk of public money on a speculative design. By the time we know how much SMRs will cost and whether they are reliable or not, there will be up to 10 reactors being manufactured unless production lines are allowed to sit idle for years waiting until the design is proven enough for new orders to be placed. Realistically the first reactor won’t be complete before the mid-2030s at about the time the last fossil fuel will disappear from the generation mix, so it’s too little, too late and too expensive
What it turns out to amount to is an agreement to spend £400m over the next three years which may produce a design for a reactor which may get approved by the regulators and which may find investors willing to pay what will be at least £2billion to build each one
nuClear News November 21. Rolls Royce’s Small Modular Reactors On 9th November the Government announced that it would back the Rolls-Royce Small Modular Reactor with £210m in funding. Matched by private sector funding of over £250 million, this investment will take forward phase 2 of the Low-Cost Nuclear project to further develop SMR design and take it through the regulatory processes to assess suitability of potential deployment in the UK.
The Government claimed that SMRs have the potential to be less expensive to build than traditional nuclear power plants because of their smaller size, and because the modular nature of the components offers the potential for parts to be produced in dedicated factories and shipped by road to site – reducing construction time and cost. Rolls Royce SMR estimate that each Small Modular Reactor could be capable of powering 1 million homes – equivalent to a city the size of Leeds.
The £210 million grant follows £18 million invested in November 2019, which, according to the Government, has already delivered significant development of the initial design as part of Phase One of the project. (1)
The Rolls Royce SMR design is not exactly small. It was originally conceived as a 440 MW unit, but R-R has found a way of getting 470 MWe out of the core. Each of the proposed 16 reactors is expected to cost around £1.8 billion to £2.2bn and produce power at £40-60/MWh over 60 yrs. (2) Rolls Royce says it has a target cost of £1.8 billion once 5 reactors have been built. (3)
As well as the Government funding, Rolls-Royce has been backed by a consortium of private investors. The creation of the Rolls-Royce Small Modular Reactor (SMR) business was announced following a £195m cash injection from BNF Resources, and Exelon Generation to fund the plans over the next three years. (The Guardian suggests Rolls Royce will top this up with £50m of its own money, which gets us to £245m –not quite the ‘over £250m’ mentioned in the Government Press Release, but it’s not clear whether the £50m is extra money or part of the £195m). It is hoped the new company could create up to 40,000 jobs by 2050. The investment by Rolls-Royce Group, and the government will go towards developing Rolls-Royce’s SMR design and take it through regulatory processes to assess whether it is suitable to be deployed in the UK. It will also identify sites which will manufacture the reactors’ parts and most of the venture’s investment is expected to be focused in the north of the UK, where there is existing nuclear expertise. (4)
BNF Resources UK Limited appears to have been created in June and has two significant employees, Nicholas Fallows and Sean Benson. Benson says: “BNF has an established history of energy market investing and we are proud to be a part of Rolls-Royce SMR in this exciting opportunity. Following reviews of numerous proposals we found that this project, featuring a highly experienced team was the most realistic, affordable and scalable solution for provision of carbon-free baseload and alternative power requirements.” (5)
It appears that BNF Resources UK Limited is a subsidiary of BNF Capital Limited which was created in 2012 (same address) and is registered in Guernsey. These two people seem to have a history in Financial Investment. The Perrodo family, which made its fortune from the private oil company Perenco, is behind BNF Resources UK.
Confusingly there has been no mention of the Rolls Royce SMR Consortium which included Assystem, Atkins, BAM Nuttall, Laing O’Rourke, National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL), Jacobs, The Welding Institute (TWI) and Nuclear AMRC, as well as Rolls Royce. The consortium existed in July of this year when Cavendish signed up to work on the SMR. (6) Assystem has since said it will continue to lead on the design of key areas of power plant infrastructure including the turbine island, cooling water island and balance of plant systems, and is expecting to double the size of its SMR team in the next six months. (7) Similarly Nuclear AMRC has said it will work with Rolls-Royce to help prepare critical components for commercial production in the UK. The centre will also support the design of a new UK factory for large SMR components. (8)
Exelon is contributing under an agreement from a year ago to find international markets. (9)
This new funding will help Rolls-Royce start the SMRs on the Generic Design Assessment (GDA) process. (10) In May, the government declared the Generic Design Assessment (GDA) open to advanced nuclear technologies – including SMRs – for the first time. The process allows the nuclear regulators to assess the safety, security and environmental implications of new reactor designs. Rolls-Royce SMR has stated its intention to enter the GDA process shortly. (11) This could take about 5 years. (The GDA process took 5.75 years for the EPR, 7.5 years for the AP1000, 4.75 years for the ABWR, and process for the UK HPR1000 is continuing after 4 years. (12)) According to the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) the GDA on SMRs was expected to have started by now but there have been delays.
Each of the initial run of reactors is expected to have a generation capacity of 470MW, or enough to power the equivalent of 1.3m UK homes, and cost about £2bn on average, well below the price per MW sought by developers of large-scale nuclear reactors. The consortium hopes to build on an initial run of five SMRs, the first of which could go on line by 2031, to create a multibillion-pound stable of 16 SMRs around the country. (13)
This means that if delivered on budget and to engineering specifications, a single SMR would deliver roughly a seventh of the power of Hinkley for less than a twelfth of the price, while using less land. Each power station is said to be the size of two football pitches, (but this is open to question) and can also be used to create hydrogen by splitting water molecules. The company, primarily a jet engine maker, hopes the hydrogen SMRs could produce would accelerate a move to greener aviation.
Rolls-Royce will be seeking more investment for the project to help fund the building of actual SMRs. The government is currently passing legislation that will allow investors to back projects like SMRs using a regulated asset base (RAB) model, which allows them to recoup up-front costs. The government said this would “attract a wider range of private investment into these projects, reducing build costs, consumers’ energy bills and Britain’s reliance on overseas developers for finance.”
Professor MV Ramana, a nuclear policy expert at the University of British Columbia in Canada, cautioned that this would be a new market for Rolls. He said: “It’s the same technology, but the set of constraints that you will be dealing with in the electricity sector are very different from submarines.” He also said Rolls has some catching up to do against rivals pursuing the same goals. NuScale Power, based in Oregon, received US regulatory approval for its own reactor design last year and could have a plant working by 2026. (14)
Steve Thomas, Emeritus Professor of Energy Policy at Greenwich University said this is a huge risk of public money on a speculative design. By the time we know how much SMRs will cost and whether they are reliable or not, there will be up to 10 reactors being manufactured unless production lines are allowed to sit idle for years waiting until the design is proven enough for new orders to be placed. Realistically the first reactor won’t be complete before the mid-2030s at about the time the last fossil fuel will disappear from the generation mix, so it’s too little, too late and too expensive
Chair of the E3Gthink tank, Tom Burke, points out that this is the third or fourth time this programme has been announced in the past year. What it turns out to amount to is an agreement to spend £400m over the next three years which may produce a design for a reactor which may get approved by the regulators and which may find investors willing to pay what will be at least £2billion to build each one and which may be generating electricity which may be competitive with renewables just before the whole of our electricity system has to be decarbonised to meet the PM’s target. So, six things have to go right before we might see an SMR somewhere.
As expected, Moorside, Wylfa and Trawsfynydd have all been mentioned as potential sites for an SMR. Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen also wants Hartlepool to be on the list. (15) Dylan Morgan of PAWB (People Against Wylfa B) said: “We have an immediate crisis now. Nuclear power is slow, dangerous and extortionately expensive. It will do nothing to address the current energy crisis, neither will it be effective to counter climate change. The UK and Welsh governments should divert resources and support away from wasteful and outdated nuclear power projects towards developing renewable technologies that are much cheaper and can provide faster and more sustainable solutions to the energy crisis and the challenges of climate change.” (16) https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/nuClearNewsNo135.pdf
President Macron does not have the legal power to decide on new nuclear reactors – requires Parliamentary agreement
Emmanuel Macron does not have the legal power to decide on his own the order for new nuclear reactors, as he announced he wanted to do, Tuesday, November 9, denounces the former Minister of the Environment, former MEP and famous lawyer specializing in the ecology, Corinne Lepage.
The President of the Republic must first seize the Parliament in order to comply with the multiannual energy programming.
Ouest France 10th Nov 2021
Russia sends nuclear-capable bombers on patrol over Belarus for second day amid migration crisis’
Russia sends nuclear-capable bombers on patrol over Belarus for second day amid migration crisis, ABC12 Nov 21, Russia sent two nuclear-capable strategic bombers on a training mission over Belarus for the second day in a row, in support for its ally amid a dispute over migration at EU borders with Poland and Lithuania . Key points:Russia backed Belarus as thousands of migrants try to enter the EU at its border Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko said the patrols were a necessary response to the migration crisis at the border Thousands of migrants are currently stranded at the Belarus/Poland border as they try to enter the EUTwo Russian Tu-160 strategic bombers practised bombing runs at the Ruzany firing range, about 60 kilometres east of Belarus’ border with Poland on Wednesday and Thursday. The Belarusian Defence Ministry said such Russian flights will now be conducted on a regular basis as part of joint training missions and that Belarusian fighter jets simulated an intercept. Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said he needed the bombers to help him navigate what has become a tense border stand-off, as thousands of migrants and refugees gather on the Belarusian side of the Poland border in the hope of crossing into Western Europe. …………….. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-12/russia-sends-nuclear-capable-bombers-on-patrol-over-belarus/100614600 |
Developers will have an uphill battle to meet environmental protection requirements for Bradwell nuclear project.
Bradwell Action Network said “The planning inspectorate stated that
Maldon District Council had NOT behaved unreasonably in refusing permission
on ecological grounds. The inspector allowed these works to go ahead only
after the developer submitted further data and control measures, and due to
their temporary nature.
While we are disappointed that these destructive
works are set to proceed, we should take heart that this process (the
refusal and appeal) has shown that the developers will have an uphill
struggle meeting environmental protections as this project develops. The
Blackwater Estuary and our shoreline is a critical and sensitive area for
its flora and fauna. We will continue to do what we can to protect it from
the threat of the Bradwell B development.”
BAN 11th Nov 2021
The consortium wanting to develop UK’s min-nuclear plants will have to rely on tax-payer funding.
State support a fallback option for UK’s mini-nuclear plants rollout.
The head of the consortium, which is developing a £ 30 billion fleet of mini-nuclear power stations, has indicated that it will have to rely on UK taxpayers to help fund the construction of the first of the new designs if there is not enough investor interest. Kwasi Kwarteng, business secretary, confirmed on Tuesday that the government is committed to £ 210 million in state funding to a Rolls-Royce-led consortium developing a new generation of small modular reactors (SMRs) as part of a new push into nuclear power
to help achieve the UK’s net zero target.
The government has previously seen that it was prepared to approve up to £ 2 billion in state funding to help start the program, which envisages the construction of at least 16 SMR power stations. Consortium chief executive Tom Samson told the Financial
Times that he had held talks with the government on the possibility of “putting in part of the cost for the first three or four units and then using it as a way to exploit private capital”.
Samson declined to comment on the potential scope of any further government investment and stressed that while it is an option, the aim was to “move forward in line with the
technology that requires the least government funding”. He added: “It is our duty to bring this story to the [capital] markets.”. The first five SMR power stations would cost £ 2.2bn each, with the price of subsequent units dropping to £ 1.8bn, according to Rolls-Royce. The consortium is looking to build the plants at operational and mothballs nuclear power plants in Britain.
FT 10th Nov 2021
https://www.ft.com/content/869279aa-f771-4025-8719-c3b8bdf1f375
The consortium wanting to develop UK’s min-nuclear plants will have to rely on tax-payer funding.
President Macron boosts nuclear industry, but in reality, France’s prospects for new reactors are grim
“too expensive, too slow and too dangerous”.
“Announcing a nuclear revival and the construction of new reactors is totally disconnected from reality”
Macron boosts nuclear power plans to meet France’s net-zero ambitions, The Age, By Bevan Shields, November 10
”…………………in a shift, the French President on Tuesday night, Paris time (Wednesday morning AEDT) said the country would rededicate itself to atomic power.
“…………….we will for the first time in decades revive the construction of nuclear reactors in our country………….” Macron said.
He did not give details but the comments were seen as a reference to the expected green-lighting of as many as 14 next-generation nuclear plants proposed by grid operator RTE.
Macron made the announcement against the background of the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, where new forms of electricity generation have been identified as a key issue in the fight against climate change, and an energy crisis in Europe triggered by falling gas supplies and an unusually calm summer and autumn which has affected the output of wind turbines.
While confidence in nuclear took a hit in France following the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan, it is still a relatively uncontroversial technology compared to other countries such as Australia, where some Coalition MPs are pushing Prime Minister Scott Morrison to explore its feasibility.
Macron sought to tie the new nuclear push to French innovation and national pride – key themes for the President as he enters a tough presidential election campaign in 2022.
His position is in stark contrast to Germany, where nuclear power is on course to be phased out by next year.
The vast majority of France’s nuclear facilities were built in the 1970s and 1980s. A third reactor is being added to a plant in Flamanville, in the Normandy region, but the project which started in 2007 has been plagued by cost overruns and huge delays.
Greenpeace France energy transition campaigner Nicolas Nace condemned Macron’s latest announcement and pointed to the Flamanville project to claim nuclear power was “too expensive, too slow and too dangerous”.
“Announcing a nuclear revival and the construction of new reactors as the nuclear industry is totally disconnected from reality,” Nace said.
A new nuclear facility being constructed in Somerset, England, has also been hit by delays and cost blowouts.
An International Energy Agency analysis released earlier this month found global nuclear capacity would reach 582 gigawatts by 2040 – well below the 730 gigawatts needed to achieve net zero emissions.
“This gap widens even further after 2040, so long-term operation of the existing nuclear fleet and a near-doubling of the annual rate of capacity additions are required,” the report said.
“While some of this additional nuclear capacity will not come online until the late 2030s, policy decisions are required now to put nuclear back on track.”
About 20 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity need to be added each year between now and 2050 to achieve carbon neutrality – a rate of construction is comparable with the pre-Fukushima period. https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/macron-backs-nuclear-power-to-meet-france-s-net-zero-ambitions-20211110-p597kk.html
In Wales, strong opposition to UK plan for small nuclear reactors – too slow, dangerous, super costly compared to quick cheap renewables.
Nuclear set to return to Wylfa and Trawsfynydd as Rolls-Royce secures funding for mini-reactors. Nuclear power looks set to return to Wales after Rolls-Royce secured £450m for a venture to build mini nuclear reactors. Trawsfynydd and Wylfa are understood to be two of the sites being lined up for the multi-billion pound mini-power stations.The company hopes to build five by 2031, and then another eleven in the years that follow.
The UK Government have announced that they will match a £245m investment made by a consortium made up of Rolls-Royce, BNF Resources and the US generator Exelon Generation with £210 of their own. Rolls-Royce has previously said that there was a “pretty high probability” Trawsfynydd could house the first reactor by the early 2030s.
Plans for new nuclear reactors have however already attracted opposition in Wales. Anti-nuclear groups have already criticised the plans, saying that the emphasis should be placed on green renewable energy instead. Dylan Morgan of PAWB (People Against Wylfa B) said last month: “We have an immediate crisis now. Building huge reactors at a nuclear power station take at least 15 years. “Nuclear power is slow, dangerous and extortionately expensive.
It will do nothing to address the current energy crisis, neither will it be effective to counter climate change.
“The UK and Welsh governments should divert resources and support away from wasteful and outdated nuclear power projects towards developing renewable technologies that are much cheaper and can provide faster and more sustainable solutions to the energy crisis and the challenges of climate change.”
Nation Cymru 9th Nov 2021
https://nation.cymru/news/nuclear-set-to-return-to-wylfa-and-trawsfynydd-as-rolls-royce-secures-funding-for-mini-reactors/
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (163)
- 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 