nuclear-news

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

Russia withdraws offer to freeze nuclear warhead production

Russia withdraws offer to freeze nuclear warhead production, Yahoo News,  Joel Gehrke, Sat, October 2, 2021 Russian President Vladimir Putin is no longer interested in a joint freeze of nuclear weapons production with the United States, according to a senior Russian envoy who protested American inspections requests and a recent agreement to provide nuclear-powered submarines to Australia.

“No, it was a one-time offer, and it was said so to the U.S. They missed the opportunity,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told the Geneva Center for Security Policy, per state media. “They didn’t want a freeze on all warheads — they wanted an extremely intrusive verification and control at all our nuclear-related facilities.”

Ryabkov aired the withdrawal of that proposal following a meeting with Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman for what both sides described as “intensive and substantive” arms control talks. He complained about the U.S. and United Kingdom’s decision to partner with Australia on a submarine deal widely perceived as directed at China, and both Russian and American officials underscored that the negotiations are unlikely to produce a deal anytime soon………………….. https://news.yahoo.com/russia-withdraws-offer-freeze-nuclear-110000900.html?utm_source=AM%20Nukes%20Roundup&utm_campaign=98d6a39486-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_07_25_12_19_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_547ee518ec-98d6a39486-244432186&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aH

October 7, 2021 Posted by | politics international, Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

UK government to generate a colossal public sector loss in building more nuclear power station at Sizewell C

Drunk on the latest fossil fuel energy crisis, the UK Government has handed
the British public a giant nuclear hangover that will leave the country
scrabbling for renewable energy solutions. Boris Johnson has promised 40 GW
of offshore wind by the end of the decade, which, when added to other
renewable energy sources, will generate over three-quarters of current
levels of UK electricity consumption.

But this growth could be threatened
by the nuked-up knee jerk reaction to the current natural gas price crisis
that will plunge the energy budget into a massive deficit and leave the
electricity system dangerously unbalanced. After fossil fuel prices subside
back towards their more usual levels, this will constitute a giant
hangover.

The last time we had an energy crisis, in 2008 and 2011 when oil
prices spiked, the UK ended up with what was regarded as a bad deal to pay
(in today’s money) over £110 per MWh for Hinkley C over 35 years. That
was the hangover after the last crisis. This time it is likely to be worse
as the Government recycles its own half-truths to generate a colossal
public sector loss in building more nuclear power plant at Sizewell C and,
then, it hopes, at Wylfa. These plans would, eventually, ensure that around
20 percent of UK electricity comes from nuclear power, but also ensure that
efforts to balance the much cheaper renewable energy will be poorly
developed at best, and ignored at worst.

100% Renewables 4th Oct 2021
https://100percentrenewableuk.org/how-the-governments-drunken-nuclear-binge-will-threaten-renewables

October 7, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Allerdale GDF Working Group’s map of area considered for UK’s nuclear waste dump includes areas already declared unsuitable.

Allerdale GDF Working Group have finally released a map of their search
area today, illustrating where they would like to consider burying the
UK’s vast nuclear waste inventory. However, what they haven’t mentioned
is that a significant proportion of the chosen area has previously been
declared as unsuitable by the British Geological Survey (BGS). Here [on original] is a
map produced by the BGS in 2010 which identifies areas unsuitable for
geological disposal, largely due to the presence of coal and coal-bed
methane.

 Cumbria Trust 6th Oct 2021

October 7, 2021 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

October 27 – Julian Assange’s extradition appeal hearing

Dan Monceaux, 5 Oct 21 Julian Assange’s extradition appeal hearing is approaching on October 27 this year. The Americans (at least the CIA) are hoping to win the right to pluck him from the maximum security Belmarsh Prison in the UK, try him before a Grand Jury in Virginia with no permitted defence… then ultimately incarcerate him for 175 years. He will be committed to a slow, torturous death. This is the most horrendous case of “shooting the messenger” one could ever imagine. Assange is being punished for daring to publish documentary evidence of imperial transgressions to the interested public.October 27 will be a turning point in history… for better or worse.

October 5, 2021 Posted by | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

Russia aims to lift old dead nuclear submarines from the bottom of the Barents and Kara Seas by 2030

Russia to Lift Radioactive Time Bombs From Ocean Floor in 2030,   https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/10/04/russia-to-lift-radioactive-time-bombs-from-ocean-floor-in-2030-a75207 Two rusty nuclear submarines will be raised from the sea beds of the Barents and Kara Seas and brought to a shipyard for safe decommissioning. By The Barents Observer  4 Oct 21,  The November-class K-159 submarine sank in late August 2003 while being towed in bad weather from the closed naval base of Gremikha on the eastern shores of the Kola Peninsula toward the Nerpa shipyard north of Murmansk.

Researchers have monitored the wreck ever since, fearing leakages of radioactivity from the two old nuclear reactors onboard could contaminate the important fishing grounds in the Barents Sea. A joint Norwegian-Russian expedition examined the site in 2014 and concluded that no leakage has so far occurred from the reactors to the surrounding marine environment.

However, the bad shape of the hull could eventually lead to radionuclide leakages. A modeling study by the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research said that a pulse discharge of the entire Caesium-137 inventory from the two reactors could increase concentrations in cod in the eastern part of the Barents Sea up to 100 times current levels for a two-year period after the discharge. While a Cs-137 increase of 100 times in cod sounds dramatic, the levels would still be below international guidelines, but tell that to the market buying the fish.

Now, Russia’s nuclear corporation Rosatom has announced the date for lifting the K-159 to 2030.

“As indicated in the strategy for the development of the Arctic, 2030, not earlier,” Anatoly Grigoriev, head of Rosatom’s international technical assistance project, told Interfax.

Grigoriev said Atomflot, the state operator of civilian nuclear-powered icebreakers whose technical base is just north of Murmansk, could become the contractor for the lifting.

The Rosatom official added that the K-27, a submarine dumped in the Kara Sea in 1982, is also included on the list of nuclear objects on the Arctic seabed to be salvaged by 2030.

The submarine was dumped at a depth of 33 meters in the Stepovogo fjord on the eastern shores of Novaya Zemlya.

Last month, divers from the Center for Underwater Research of the Russian Geographical Society conducted a survey of the submarine’s hull. Metal pieces were cut free and the thickness of the hull was measured, along with other inspections of the submarine that has been corroding on the seabed for nearly 40 years. 

Based on the examination, a detailed plan will be worked out on how to conduct the salvage with destabilizing the uranium fuel in the reactors in such a way that a new chain reactor could be restarted with a worst-case scenario of triggering direct contact between the uranium fuel and seawater. 

October 5, 2021 Posted by | oceans, Russia, wastes | Leave a comment

Norway led the way in 25 years of clean-up of Russia’s dead nuclear submarine radioactive trash

Andreyeva Bay evolved into a dumping ground for 22,000 spent nuclear fuel assemblies offloaded from hundreds of Soviet submarines. Cracks in storage pools made worse by the hard Arctic freeze threatened to contaminate the Barents Sea. At one point, experts even feared the radioactive morgue might spark an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction.

Norway has led the pack by far, contributing some $220 million over the past 20 years toward safely removing Andreyeva Bay’s spend nuclear fuel – a national movement spawned when Bellona published its first report on Northwest Russia’s nuclear hazards in 1996.

Norway and Russia mark 25 years of cooperative work on radiation security https://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2021-10-norway-and-russia-mark-25-years-of-cooperative-work-on-radiation-se 4 Oct 21

Two and a half decades ago, a green four-car train would make the rounds every few months of Russia’s icy Kola Peninsula to cart nuclear fuel and radioactive waste 3,000 kilometers south to the Ural Mountains. October 4, 2021 by Charles Digges

Two and a half decades ago, a green four-car train would make the rounds every few months of Russia’s icy Kola Peninsula to cart nuclear fuel and radioactive waste 3,000 kilometers south to the Ural Mountains.

At the time, that lonely rail artery was the center of a logistical and financial bottleneck that made Northwest Russia – home of the once feared Soviet nuclear fleet – a toxic nuclear dumping ground shrouded in military secrecy.

Nearly 200 rusted out submarines bobbed in icy waters at bases throughout the region, their reactors still loaded with nuclear fuel, vulnerable to sinking or worse. Further from shore and under the waves laid other submarines and nuclear waste intentionally scuttled by the Soviet navy. Still more radioactive spent fuel was piling up in storage tanks and open-air bins on military bases and in shipyards.

One of those places was Andreyeva Bay, a run-down nuclear submarine maintenance yard just 55 kilometers from the Norwegian border.

Since the birth of the nuclear navy in the 1960s, Andreyeva Bay evolved into a dumping ground for 22,000 spent nuclear fuel assemblies offloaded from hundreds of Soviet submarines. Cracks in storage pools made worse by the hard Arctic freeze threatened to contaminate the Barents Sea. At one point, experts even feared the radioactive morgue might spark an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction.

Infrastructure, technology and the Kremlin were failing to keep up with the mushrooming catastrophe. That green nuclear fuel train could only bear away 588 fuel assemblies at a time three or four times a year – little more than the contents of one nuclear submarine per trip. Even if the train ran on schedule, removing broken or deformed nuclear fuel elements at Andreyeva Bay was still seen as impossible

In the bleak and politically chaotic late 1990s, many feared that the carcinogenic remains of the Cold War would lie neglected at Andreyeva Bay for decades more.

“Now, after more than two decades of international effort spearheaded by Bellona, nearly all of those threats are already – or nearly – the stuff of history,” says Oskar Njaa, Bellona’ general manager for international affairs.

Those efforts have been backed by more than $200 million in funding from Norway, which, in 1996, became the first western government to recognize the new Russia’s emerging crisis over its radioactive legacy.

Norway’s financial foray into northwest Russia paved the way for yet more funding from the West, as numerous other European nations pitched in to help.

Last week, officials from both sides of the border gathered at Andreyeva Bay ­– now the flagship project between the two nations – to mark the 25th anniversary of the Norwegian-Russian Commission on Nuclear Safety.

“Bellona became the first organization in the world to publish such a name ‘Andreyeva Bay,’ and also told about the facility itself and its condition, ”said Alexander Nikitin, who directs Bellona’s St Petersburg offices, and was the first to sound the alarm.
“It was in 1996. After that, the object drew the close attention of the international community and international projects began.”

The first containers of Andreyeva’s accumulated waste were packed up in 2017 and borne away on a specially outfitted ship called the Rossita ­– itself a bit of expertise donated by Italy under the Northern Dimensions Environmental Partnership, an enormous Russian nuclear cleanup fund managed by the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development.

To date, the Rossita has made 15 trips, bearing away 10,000 spent nuclear fuel assemblies for reprocessing in the Urals, representing 45% of the total assemblies at the site.

According to Anatoly Grigoriev, who heads up the international projects division of Rosatom, Russia’s state nuclear corporation, the cleanup will continue for another six to seven years.

“Andreyeva Bay has been a daunting task for Norway,” said Per Einar Fiskebek, an advisor to the governor of Tromsø and Finnmark Counties, the Norwegian border region closest to Andreyeva Bay. “It is especially important for us that the work be carried out absolutely safely for the personnel, who have been professionally coping with it even in a pandemic. Norway and Russia are good neighbors with a common border and nature. I can assure you that Norway will remain with Russia until the end, until Andreeva Bay becomes absolutely clean.”

Cracks and contamination

Andreyeva Bay had been piling up spent nuclear submarine fuel for more than two decades when its troubles began in earnest in 1982.

That year, a crack developed in its now-notorious Building 5, a storage pool for thousands of spent fuel assemblies. The ensuing leak threatened to dump a stew of plutonium, uranium and other fission products into Litsa Fjord, fouling the Barents Sea.

The water was drained and the fuel painstakingly moved, but that revealed other problems. The fuel elements from Building 5 needed somewhere to go, so they were rushed into hastily arranged storage facilities that were meant only to be temporary.

Technicians stuffed the fuel elements into three dry storage buildings and cemented them in. The temporary storage solution has now spanned the last 30 years. . Meanwhile the leaking radioactive water contaminated much of the soil around Building 5.

It took the government years to catch up to the problem. In 1995, the Murmansk regional government paid it first visit to the secretive military site and, based on what it saw, shut down its operations. Five years later Moscow finally got involved, taking Andreyeva Bay out of the military’s hands, and giving it to the mainly civilian Ministry of Atomic Energy, now Rosatom.

Rosatom helped create a nuclear waste-handling agency in Murmansk, called SevRAO, to deal with the problem. Yet even in 2000, SevRAO was essentially working from scratch. Rosatom officials noted that there weren’t even documents detailing what waste and fuel was stored where at the site, much less an infrastructure to help safely get rid of it.

Bellona leads the charge

Norway, at Bellona’s urging, led the charge to pitch in.

Finally, in 2001, an enclosure was built over the three storage buildings to prevent further contamination while technicians worked to remove the spent fuel and load it into cases. Roads were built and cranes were brought in. Personnel decontamination posts went up, along with a laboratory complex and power lines.

A host of nations pumped funding into the burgeoning city whose central industry was safely packing up decades of nuclear fuel from Russia’s past nuclear soldiers. Starting in 2003, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada and Great Britain, joined by Finland, Denmark, Sweden, and the European Commission pooled resources for a total contribution of $70 million over several years.

But Norway has led the pack by far, contributing some $220 million over the past 20 years toward safely removing Andreyeva Bay’s spend nuclear fuel – a national movement spawned when Bellona published its first report on Northwest Russia’s nuclear hazards in 1996.

“I hope that the system will take care of the future nuclear legacy without waiting for it to be accumulated,” Nikitin told The Independent Barents Observer. “Nuclear and radioactive waste should be dealt with before it reaches a situation as we had in Soviet times.”

As the project continues, Nikitin said he is pleased to see how the work has progressed.

“Bellona started it, and we have to finish it,” he told the portal.

October 5, 2021 Posted by | EUROPE, media, politics international, wastes, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Extinction Rebellion climate activists vow to cause disruption at Glasgow COP26

EXTINCTION Rebellion activists have said they have “no choice” but to
cause disruption in Glasgow during COP26. Thousands of delegates, world
leaders and media will descend on the city during the first two weeks of
November for the climate summit, which is being held at the SEC.

 Herald 4th Oct 2021

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/19622529.cop26-extinction-rebellion-warn-no-choice-glasgow-disruption/

October 5, 2021 Posted by | climate change, UK | Leave a comment

Boris Johnson promoting nuclear power as clean, green, renewable.

Boris Johnson will this week announce that all of Britain’s electricity will come from renewable sources by 2035 as he seeks to reduce the country’s dependence on gas and other fossil fuels, The Times has been
told. The prime minister will use his conference speech to commit his party to plans to hugely increase investment in renewable and nuclear energy as Britain faces a crisis caused by a surge in the cost of gas.

He is expected to argue that taking all electricity from green sources would be a significant step towards the government’s ambition to hit net zero emissions by 2050, and reduce exposure to fluctuations in gas prices. Thenew target will require significant growth not only in offshore wind generation but also in nuclear capacity to provide a “baseload” of electricity to cope with variable supply and demand. It will mean a minimum quadrupling of offshore wind from the present level over the coming decade.


Johnson is also expected to commit to the construction of at least two large-scale nuclear power plants. Britain’s seven existing nuclear plants provide about 17 per cent of the country’s electricity needs but this
will fall by almost half by 2024. Further plants are due to close between then and 2030. So far only one nuclear power station, at Hinkley Point in Somerset, is under construction. However, ministers are looking to give the go-ahead for up to two more plants, with a funding announcement for at least one being expected in this month’s comprehensive spending review,the conclusions of which are due to be given in the autumn budget on October 27.

 Times 4th Oct 2021

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/all-britains-electricity-to-be-green-by-2035-ns76tl7vm

October 5, 2021 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Are small nuclear reactors really the answer to UK’s green energy crisis?

the falling cost of wind and solar power, coupled with new technology to store energy off the grid for times when it is needed, made nuclear largely redundant.

It’s too expensive, takes too long to develop, and we can’t afford to wait for it”

Are small nuclear reactors really the answer to our green energy crisis? Small nuclear reactors are hailed as an answer to our energy crisis, but Jon Yeomans finds problems remain with the untested technology.

Trawsfynydd’s fortunes could be about to change. It has been proposed as a possible site for a new type of nuclear reactor to be built by a consortium led by Rolls-Royce. Small modular reactors (SMRs) offer the promise of a new fleet of power stations that could be produced in a factory, loaded on to lorries and then trucked around the country for installation on decommissioned nuclear sites.

The government believes these so-called “mini-nukes” will form a key part of its “green recovery”
and is close to approving £215 million in funding to speed their development. The hope is that they could reduce the cost of nuclear power dramatically and help the UK to hit its target of net-zero emissions by 2050. But nothing is ever simple with nuclear.

Can this dream become reality? With large-scale nuclear projects under a cloud, the government
has warmed to the idea of smaller, nimbler technology, such as the SMRs proposed by Rolls-Royce. The Derby-based company is better known for producing aircraft engines, but since the 1960s it has also been responsible for the reactors on Britain’s nuclear submarines. These
pressurised water reactors (PWRs) will form the basis of the SMRs it proposes to build in the UK.

The big selling point of SMRs is that they can be made on a production line, reducing the huge costs of a project such as Hinkley. Rolls claims they solve “the conundrum of how to create
affordable energy, and more of it, with a lower carbon footprint”. It says the scheme could generate £52 billion of “economic benefit” by 2050.

The company’s SMRs will have a price tag of about £2 billion each, once the initial costs of building the factory are out of the way. It is thought Rolls would need to make 16 before the programme could pay its way, with financial support from the government required for at least the first four units. The SMRs would have a capacity of 470MW — enough to power one million homes.

Critics of SMRs note there are few, if any, operating anywhere in the world. The American company Westinghouse is developing a lead-cooled reactor with 450MW capacity which won £10 million in UK government funding last year. NuScale, based in Oregon, is working on SMRs with an output of 77MW.

But its first plant will not be operational until 2027. If the government gives the green light, Rolls will spend the next four years seeking approval from regulators while simultaneously building
the first of a projected three factories in the UK. Company sources suggested the factories themselves could be a “levelling up” opportunity, bringing high-skilled jobs to the regions. It would take another four years for the first reactor to roll off the production line, pushing their start date into the next decade.

Stephen Thomas, professor of energy policy at Greenwich University, said the falling cost of wind and solar power, coupled with new technology to store energy off the grid for times when it is needed, made nuclear largely redundant.

“It’s too expensive, takes too long to develop, and we can’t afford to wait for it,” he said. A report by National Grid ESO (Electricity System Operator) this year envisaged at least two pathways to net zero by 2050 that did not rely on a large increase in nuclear. Instead, the gap in output would be
made up by more renewable energy; more energy storage, in the form of batteries; and changing consumer behaviour to lower energy demand.

 Times 3rd Oct 2021

 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/are-small-nuclear-reactors-really-the-answer-to-our-green-energy-crisis-pm9mrmtqg

October 4, 2021 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

French company EDF getting anxious and urgent about UK getting funding for Sizewell C nuclear project.


EDF chief urges UK to clarify future of nuclear power station
French group wants ‘urgent” decision by British government on whether China’s CGN has a role,  Ft.com Nathalie Thomas in Edinburgh and Jim Pickard in London, 3 Oct 21,

EDF has warned that it is now “urgent” for the UK government to decide on the future of the £20bn Sizewell C nuclear power station, including whether China’s CGN should remain involved in the project.

Simone Rossi, head of the French utility’s UK arm, is hoping to take a final investment decision by the end of 2022 on the nuclear plant earmarked for Suffolk on England’s east coast, which would generate enough electricity for 6m homes but is strongly opposed by environmental groups.

Before EDF could commit to building the plant, Rossi said it needed UK ministers to settle matters such as which partners were involved and legislation on the preferred funding model.

……………all but one of Britain’s current fleet of nuclear power stations will close by the end of the decade. The first new nuclear plant in a generation, Hinkley Point C in Somerset, which is being built by EDF, will not start electricity production until 2026, while questions remain over the future of several other proposed sites.

EDF is keen for a swift government decision on Sizewell so it can transfer workers from Hinkley. Sizewell will use the same reactor design as Hinkley. State-owned CGN holds a 20 per cent stake in Sizewell, and has an option to participate in the construction. EDF holds the remaining 80 per cent. Rossi said CGN’s continued participation in the project was “a matter for the UK government to decide”.

. EDF has warned that it is now “urgent” for the UK government to decide on the future of the £20bn Sizewell C nuclear power station, including whether China’s CGN should remain involved in the project. Simone Rossi, head of the French utility’s UK arm, is hoping to take a final investment decision by the end of 2022 on the nuclear plant earmarked for Suffolk on England’s east coast, which would generate enough electricity for 6m homes but is strongly opposed by environmental groups.

Before EDF could commit to building the plant, Rossi said it needed UK ministers to settle matters such as which partners were involved and legislation on the preferred funding model. “I think really the time is now for all those decisions to coalesce together and say right: ‘Do we want to do it or not?’ And if we want to do it how are we going to do it?” Rossi told the Financial Times. “This is all now urgent.”

 ………. while questions remain over the future of several other proposed sites. EDF is keen for a swift government decision on Sizewell so it can transfer workers from Hinkley. Sizewell will use the same reactor design as Hinkley. State-owned CGN holds a 20 per cent stake in Sizewell, and has an option to participate in the construction. EDF holds the remaining 80 per cent. Rossi said CGN’s continued participation in the project was “a matter for the UK government to decide”. The Financial Times reported in July that ministers were examining ways to remove CGN from UK nuclear projects following a deterioration in relations between London and Beijing over issues including the clampdown on dissent in Hong Kong. UK officials are considering plans for the government to take on CGN’s 20 per cent stake in Sizewell and either sell the shareholding on to institutional investors or float it on the stock market. ……… https://www.ft.com/content/7c3a4e77-9889-43b4-a7fa-1bbb5b6bd985

October 4, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, France, politics international, UK | 1 Comment

Two French nuclear workers affected by contaminated water

Penly nuclear power plant near Dieppe: two employees affected by
contaminated water. Two EDF employees at the Penly nuclear power plant were
affected by contaminated water, on the night from Friday to Saturday,
October 2, 2021.

 Actu.fr 2nd Oct 2021

https://actu.fr/normandie/petit-caux_76618/centrale-nucleaire-de-penly-deux-salaries-touches-par-de-l-eau-contaminee_45364830.html

October 4, 2021 Posted by | France, incidents | Leave a comment

Nuclear test veteran joins the fight against a nuclear waste facility at former gas terminal in Theddlethorpe

A South Holland nuclear test veteran has joined the fight against plans to
build a waste facility in the county. Moulton man Doug Hern is among
thousands of British servicemen and their families who are paying the price
for being exposed to atomic and hydrogen tests in the 1950s. Now he is
putting out a warning over plans to construct a nuclear waste facility at a
former gas terminal in Theddlethorpe.

 Spalding Today 2nd Oct 2021

https://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/news/test-vet-doug-warns-against-nuclear-waste-9218804/

October 4, 2021 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

UK’s nuclear tax – who is going to pay for Sizewell C nuclear station?

The French have a saying: “Le malheur des uns fait le bonheur des autres”, which essentially means that there’s always someone who will benefit from the misfortune of others. EDF, the French-owned energy
company, will certainly know this, and the nuclear industry is cheerfully demonstrating it. Soaring gas and electricity prices, along with the panic caused by the long queues outside empty petrol stations, have led to a predictable knee-jerk reaction in government and the media. Nuclear is the answer!

As someone who has been a regular visitor to the Suffolk coast for 30 years, I, along with thousands of others, have been opposing the £20 billion reactors that are being planned at Sizewell C. They will cause
untold damage to Minsmere, one of Europe’s best-loved nature reserves, which is right next door. There aren’t the roads in Suffolk to cope with the extra 10,000 cars and HGVs heading their way.

Who is going to pay for Sizewell C? Until recently EDF was in bed with CGN (China General Nuclear),
which might have taken a 20 per cent share in the project, but because of national security issues having China as a business partner has become politically unacceptable.

Unfortunately, very few pension funds have shown any inclination to invest. This puts more emphasis on the regulated asset base (RAB), which the protest group, Stop Sizewell C, has termed “the nuclear tax”. RAB will pile the upfront costs of construction on to consumers’ bill years ahead of it becoming operational. Is this the best time to be considering another stealth tax on electricity bills . . . particularly as the amount will almost certainly rise with the cost overruns and overspends for which the nuclear industry is notorious?

 Times 3rd Oct 2021

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/britain-s-energy-policy-cannot-be-determined-by-today-s-crises-ncp2tngs5

October 4, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Reducing energy use is the major way to cut greenhouse emissions, not slow, outdated, and dirty nuclear power

Letter Professor Simone Abram, director, Durham Energy Institute, Durham University: You report that the government is backing a new generation of nuclear reactors. The Nuclear Industry Association has managed to convince ministers (and your reporters) that its narrative about energy is the only one.

It is not. Nuclear power remains expensive, relies on non-renewable imported fuel and creates a waste problem to which we have no solution. Worse, an electricity system based on renewables needs agile counterparts to respond rapidly to fluctuations in supply — which nuclear power is not suited to.

The recipe for a sustainable energy system lies elsewhere, in reduced demand (energy efficiency), better storage (hydrogen storage will come online quicker than a new nuclear power station) and a focus on heat rather than power (the UK could be halfway towards self-sufficiency in heat if we used our low-grade geothermal stores effectively). All this needs an energy policy based on what we know now, not on what we knew in 1956, or even in 1976.

 Times 3rd Oct 2021

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-nuclear-power-cant-keep-the-lights-on-p9d3csb7d

October 4, 2021 Posted by | ENERGY, UK | Leave a comment

The sunken nuclear submarines: Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea 

One of them is the K-27, once known as the “golden fish” because of its high cost. The 360ft-long (118m) attack submarine (a submarine designed to hunt other submarines) was plagued with problems since its 1962 launch with its experimental liquid-metal-cooled reactors, one of which ruptured six years later and exposed nine sailors to fatal doses of radiation. In 1981 and 1982, the navy filled the reactor with asphalt and scuttled it east of Novaya Zemlya island in a mere 108ft (33m) of water. A tugboat had to ram the bow after a hole blown in the ballast tanks only sank the aft end.

The K-27 was sunk after some safety measures were installed that should keep the wreck safe until 2032. But another incident is more alarming. The K-159, a 350ft (107m) November-class attack submarine, was in service from 1963 to 1989. The K-159 sank with no warning, sending 800kg (1,760lb) of spent uranium fuel to the seafloor beneath busy fishing and shipping lanes just north of Murmansk. Thomas Nilsen, editor of The Barents Observer online newspaper, describes the submarines as a “Chernobyl in slow motion on the seabed”.

While the vast size of the oceans quickly dilutes radiation, even very small levels can become concentrated in animals at the top of the food chain through “bioaccumulation” – and then be ingested by humans. But economic consequences for the Barents Sea fishing industry, which provides the vast majority of cod and haddock at British fish and chip shops, “may perhaps be worse than the environmental consequences”, says Hilde Elise Heldal, a scientist at Norway’s Institute of Marine Research.

But an accident while raising the submarine, on the other hand, could suddenly jar the reactor, potentially mixing fuel elements and starting an uncontrolled chain reaction and explosion. That could boost radiation levels in fish 1,000 times normal or, if it occurred on the surface, irradiate terrestrial animals and humans, another Norwegian study found.

Russia’s ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea  https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines, By Alec Luhn, 2nd September 2020

Beneath some of the world’s busiest fisheries, radioactive submarines from the Soviet era lie disintegrating on the seafloor. Decades later, Russia is preparing to retrieve them.

By tradition, Russians always bring an odd number of flowers to a living person and an even number to a grave or memorial. But every other day, 83-year-old Raisa Lappa places three roses or gladiolas by the plaque to her son Sergei in their hometown Rubtsovsk, as if he hadn’t gone down with his submarine during an ill-fated towing operation in the Arctic Ocean in 2003.

Continue reading

October 2, 2021 Posted by | oceans, PERSONAL STORIES, Reference, Russia, wastes, weapons and war | Leave a comment