More Nuclear Power Isn’t Needed, So Why Do Governments Keep Hyping it?
the claim that the ‘latest nuclear technology will be up and running within the next decade’ is unconvincing.”
That’s a problem, given that Britain needs to reduce its emissions 78% by 2035 to stay on track with the Paris Agreement.
Indeed, according to the independent World Nuclear Industry Status Report, nuclear energy “meets no technical or operational need that low-carbon competitors cannot meet better, cheaper and faster.”
The U.S. and France have openly acknowledged this military rationale for new civil nuclear build,” he told me. “U.K. defense literature is also very clear on the same point.
More Nuclear Power Isn’t Needed. So Why Do Governments Keep Hyping It?, Forbes, David Vetter 6 Aug 21,
.. …….Prime Minister Boris Johnson has consistently backed the development of “small and advanced reactors,” while last week the country’s Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, stated: “While renewables like wind and solar will become an integral part of where our electricity will come from by 2050, they will always require a stable low-carbon baseload from nuclear.”
This pronouncement, offered as a statement of fact, left some observers scratching their heads: here was a U.K. government minister claiming renewables would always require nuclear power to function. Was this true? And why do politicians like to use the word “baseload,” anyway?
………. many experts, including Steve Holliday, the former CEO of the U.K. National Grid, say that [the baseload] notion is outdated. In a 2015 interview Holliday trashed the concept of baseload, arguing that in a modern, decentralized electricity system, the usefulness of large power stations had been reduced to coping with peaks in demand.
But even for that purpose, Sarah J. Darby, associate professor of the energy program at the University of Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute, told me, nuclear isn’t of much use. “Nuclear stations are particularly unsuited to meeting peak demand: they are so expensive to build that it makes no sense to use them only for short periods of time,” she explained. “Even if it were easy to adjust their output flexibly—which it isn’t—there doesn’t appear to be any business case for nuclear, whether large, small, ‘advanced’ or otherwise.”
In a white paper published in June, a team of researchers at Imperial College London revealed that the quickest and cheapest way to meet Britain’s energy needs by 2035 would be to drastically ramp up the building of wind farms and energy storage, such as batteries. “If solar and/or nuclear become substantially cheaper then one should build more, but there is no reason to build more nuclear just because it is ‘firm’ or ‘baseload,’” Tim Green, co-director of Imperial’s Energy Future Lab told me. “Storage, demand-side response and international interconnection can all be used to manage the variability of wind.”
Another vital issue concerns time. Owing to the well-documented safety and environmental concerns surrounding ionizing radiation, planning and building even a small nuclear reactor takes many years. In 2007, Britain’s large Hinkley Point C nuclear power station was predicted to be up and running by 2017. “Estimated completion date is now 2026,” Darby noted. “And Hinkley C was using established technology. Given the nuclear industry’s record of time delays and overspends, the claim that the ‘latest nuclear technology will be up and running within the next decade’ is unconvincing.”
That’s a problem, given that Britain needs to reduce its emissions 78% by 2035 to stay on track with the Paris Agreement.
Indeed, according to the independent World Nuclear Industry Status Report, nuclear energy “meets no technical or operational need that low-carbon competitors cannot meet better, cheaper and faster.”
So if there isn’t a need for more nuclear power, and it’s too expensive and slow to do the job its proponents are saying it will do, why is the government so keen to back it?
Andy Stirling, professor of science and technology policy at the University of Sussex, is convinced that the pressure to support nuclear power comes from another U.K. commitment: defense. More specifically, the country’s fleet of nuclear submarines.
The U.S. and France have openly acknowledged this military rationale for new civil nuclear build,” he told me. “U.K. defense literature is also very clear on the same point. Sustaining civil nuclear power despite its high costs, helps channel taxpayer and consumer revenues into a shared infrastructure, without which support, military nuclear activities would become prohibitively expensive on their own.”
This is no conspiracy theory. In 2018, Stirling and his colleague Philip Johnstone published the findings of their research into “interdependencies between civil and military nuclear infrastructures” in countries with nuclear capability. In the U.S., a 2017 report from the Energy Futures Initiative, which includes testimony from former U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz in 2017, states: “a strong domestic supply chain is needed to provide for nuclear Navy requirements. This supply chain has an inherent and very strong overlap with the commercial nuclear energy sector and has a strong presence in states with commercial nuclear power plants”
In the U.K., bodies including the Nuclear Industry Council, a joint forum between the nuclear industry and the government, have explicitly highlighted the overlap between the need for a civil nuclear sector and the country’s submarine programs. And this week, Rolls-Royce, which builds the propulsion systems for the country’s nuclear submarines, announced it had secured some $292 million in funding to develop small modular reactors of the type touted by the Prime Minister.
In Stirling’s view, these relationships help to explain “the otherwise serious conundrum, as to why official support should continue for civil nuclear new build at a time when the energy case has become so transparently weak.”
Stirling and other experts say the energy case for nuclear is weak because there are better, cheaper and quicker alternatives that are readily available.
“When there is too little wind and solar, zero emissions generators which can flexibly and rapidly increase their output are needed,” said Mark Barrett, professor of energy and environmental systems modelling at University College London. “These can be renewables, such as biogas, or generators using fuels made with renewables such as hydrogen. But unlike nuclear, these can be turned off when wind and solar are adequate.”
Indeed, Barrett pointed out, renewables are becoming so cheap that energy surpluses won’t necessarily be that big a deal.
Renewable costs have fallen 60-80% in the last decade with more to come, such that it is lower cost to spill some renewable generation than store it, and predominantly renewable systems are lower cost than nuclear. Renewables can be rapidly built: U.K. wind has increased to 24% of total generation, mostly in just 10 years. And of course renewables do not engender safety and waste problems.”
Sarah Darby agreed, saying “a mix of energy efficiency, storage and more flexible demand shows much more promise for reducing carbon emissions overall and for coping with peaks and troughs in electricity supply.”
“The U.K. market for flexibility services is already delivering effective firm-equivalent capacity on the scale of a large nuclear reactor per year, at costs that are a small fraction of the costs of nuclear power,” Stirling told me. “With costs of flexibility diminishing radically—in batteries, other storage, electric vehicles, responsive demand, hydrogen production—the scope for further future cost savings is massive.”
“There is no foreseeable resource constraint on renewables or smart grids that makes the case for nuclear anywhere near credible,” he added. “That the U.K. Government is finding itself able to sustain such a manifestly flawed case, with so little serious questioning, is a major problem for U.K. democracy.”
In the U.K., both the incumbent Conservative party and the main opposition party, Labour, support the development of new and advanced nuclear power reactors. In an emailed response to questions for the U.K. government’s Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, a government spokesperson categorically denied any link between the civil nuclear sector and the defense industry……..
I contacted the office of Labour’s shadow secretary of state for business, energy and industrial strategy Edward Miliband for comment, but no response has been forthcoming……..https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2021/08/06/more-nuclear-power-isnt-needed-so-why-do-governments-keep-hyping-it/?sh=285eb017ddda
Russian nuclear submarine lost propulsion in Danish waters, sails submerged outside Norway now
Russian nuclear submarine lost propulsion in Danish waters, sails submerged outside Norway now Danish Navy describes the situation as “dramatic” when the giant Oscar-II class submarine “Orel” drifted at 1,5 knots towards the island of Sejerø. Ropes were prepared for towing and two other Russian warships came to assist. Barents Observer, By Thomas Nilsen August 04, 2021 Orel” was sailing together with the navy tug “Altay” and the large anti-submarine missile destroyer “Vice-Admiral Kulakov” in an inter-fleet transit from St. Petersburg towards the Kola Peninsula when it got problems with propulsion and started to drift.
The incident happened on July 30 in the busy waters east of Denmark’s second-largest city Århus. “Orel” and the two other Northern Fleet vessels had a few hours earlier sailed under the Great Belt Bridge en route out of the Baltic Sea towards Skagerak.
Orel” was sailing together with the navy tug “Altay” and the large anti-submarine missile destroyer “Vice-Admiral Kulakov” in an inter-fleet transit from St. Petersburg towards the Kola Peninsula when it got problems with propulsion and started to drift.
The incident happened on July 30 in the busy waters east of Denmark’s second-largest city Århus. “Orel” and the two other Northern Fleet vessels had a few hours earlier sailed under the Great Belt Bridge en route out of the Baltic Sea towards Skagerak.
“The escort out of the Baltic Sea will go down in history as both dramatic and exciting, as the nuclear-powered submarine “Orel” of the Oscar-II class had problems with propulsion and lay dead in the water at Sejerø, where it drifted with 1,5 knots towards the island,” the crew on the Danish patrol vessel writes.
They elaborate by explaining how they could see a crowd of crew members came out on the front deck of “Orel”, all wearing life jackets.
The Northern Fleet navy tug “Altay” came closer and ropes were prepared for towing the large submarine. “MDMS Diana” offered help, but such assistance was “politely but nor surprisingly refused,” the Danish navy writes.
Radio communication did not take place directly with the submarine, but was answered by the crew on the Russian destroyer “Vice-Admiral Kulakov”.
After a while, the Russian submarine managed to get going again and all the rigged gear for towing was taken down.
“From Diana, we closely followed the situation on the submarine and our thought quickly turned to the film The Hunt for the Red October when we saw all the people on the deck of the submarine,” the crew on the Danish patrol vessel said and added: “VERY exciting to witness up close.”
No official comments
The Russian navy has not posted any information about why the submarine lost proposition or if the incident was linked to the operation of the nuclear reactors or any other parts of the auxiliary systems.
The press service of the Northern Fleet is not allowed to speak directly to foreign media, including the Barents Observer.
Norwegian military worried
As the nuclear submarine’s propulsion was restored in time to avoid a larger accident, the Russian navy ships continued north into Skagerak, the waters between Denmark and Norway’s southern tip.
At first, the submarine sailed in surface position, but it has now submerged underwater, Norway’s Joint Headquarters tells the Barents Observer.
The Norwegians are closely following the voyages with the Russian warships now sailing north outside the coast towards the Northern Fleet’s home bases at the Kola Peninsula.
“It is always worrying when a vessel of this type has problems with propulsion,” says spokesperson Major Elisabeth Eikeland with the Joint Headquarters.
She says it is normal that Russian submarines during such inter-fleet transits are followed by their own support and auxiliary vessels.
“But we also expect Russian authorities to contact us if they again have problems with this or other vessels in waters near Norway,” Major Eikeland underlines.
Additional to the nuclear-powered submarine “Orel” several other Northern Fleet warships are currently sailing north after participating in the Main Naval Parade outside St. Petersburg on July 25.
Currently outside Norway are the two nuclear-powered submarines “Vepr” and “Knyaz Vladimir”. While “Vepr” is an Akula-class multi-purpose sub, the “Knyaz Vladimir” is the Northern Fleet’s newest ballistic missile sub of the Borei-class………………….. https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2021/08/russian-nuclear-submarine-lost-propulsion-danish-waters-sails-outside-norway-now
Belgium’s mayors show solidarity with nuclear vtims, support the UN nuclear weapons ban Treaty
Belgian ‘Mayors for Peace’ stand up for nuclear disarmament, The green and white flag will fly over more than 100 cities in Belgium with mayors appealing for world peace
Today, the ‘Mayors for Peace’ flag is flying over more than 100 cities in Belgium. The flag represents the mayors’ dedication towards nuclear disarmament and a show of solidarity with the victims in a collective bid for world peace.
Exactly 76 years ago, The USA dropped the “Little Boy” atomic bomb on Hiroshima and three days later – the “Fat Man” bomb over Nagasaki. More than 200,000 Japanese civilians died in these attacks.
Cities – showing solidarity with the victims
The City of Ypres has been involved in the ‘Mayors for Peace’ network for over 15 years and as the leading city for Belgium in this initiative, it called on all the country’s mayors to reflect on past horrors.
More than 100 Belgian cities and municipalities have replied that they will raise the flag on 6 August at 8.15 AM and lower it on 9 August at 11.02 AM, exactly when the two bombs hit the Japanese cities, causing instant devastation.
The Mayor of Kortrijk, Philippe De Coene, will raise the green and white colours in front of the town hall for the first time this year. He called for urgent work on global nuclear disarmament as there are currently 15,000 a-bombs in the world and they are, on average, 30 times more powerful than the ones dropped over Japan. Considering these numbers, he believes that the threat of nuclear war is more present than ever.
At the same time, Leuven signed the ICAN Cities Appeal, a global appeal by cities and municipalities in support of the UN Nuclear Prohibition Treaty, which entered into force on 22 January this year. Belgium has yet to sign or ratify the treaty.
The Leuven Peace Movement will also commemorate Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and together with Pax Christi Vlaanderen put together a month-long programme in August. There will be an exhibition called ‘No more hibakusha! A future without nuclear weapons’ in St. Michael’s Church with works of art by Japanese artists and students.
Furthermore, visitors of Leuven will be able to participate in the audio-guided walk – ‘Leuven, before the bombs fall’ until November. The route goes to various places in the city with stories about nuclear weapons told by well-known Leuven residents. City officials expressed their desire to make residents think about a nuclear-weapons-free future.
British Navy secrecy over nuclear submarine crashes
– The Royal Navy has refused to say whether anyone was disciplined following
an incident in which a nuclear submarine nearly crashed into a ferry
carrying 282 people off the Scottish coast. The navy also won’t say
whether it carried out an independent review to reduce the risks of future
collisions. This was recommended by government investigators concerned
about the near-miss and two other nuclear submarine crashes. Campaigners
accuse the navy of using the excuse of national security “to cover up
dangerous incompetence”. The Scottish National Party (SNP) condemns the
secrecy as “absolutely untenable”.
The Ferret 5th Aug 2021
The UK and Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA)and other organisations dismayed at approval for dumping Hinkley radioactive mud into coastal waters
The UK and Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) and the
campaigning group Geiger Bay express their deep dismay on the decision over
the weekend by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) to allow EDF Energy
to dredge mud and sediment from the cleared Hinkley Point C site into a
coastal site close to the North Somerset town of Portishead. (1)
That this controversial decision was issued unusually over a weekend in the middle of
the holiday season, and from initial reading, appears to be a rushed
response after previous delay, adds to that dismay. The NFLA and other
groups raised significant concerns in our submission to the MMO urging them
not to approve this application. Our concerns, like that of local councils
and a wide range of environmental and community groups, appear to have been
simply ignored. Campaigning groups and other environmental groups are now
seeking legal advice on the decision document.
NFLA 3rd Aug 2021
Framatome’s sub-standard nuclear fuel is threatening the survival of France’s nuclear company EDF
It is not only in China, in the world’s first operational EPR nuclearreactor, that the fuel produced by EDF’s subsidiary, Framatome, is a problem. In France, in the Ardennes, an unprecedented incident on the nuclear fleet has just occurred in a reactor and potentially concerns ten reactors, to varying degrees of severity.
This nuclear fuel that poisons the life of EDF
by Martin Leers, Le Journal de l’energie 2nd Aug 2021
Metal guards that enclose the reactor fuel, called cladding, deteriorate too quickly. A problem far from trivial: fuel cladding plays a key role in the safety of nuclear reactors. This “accelerated” corrosion appeared between 2020 and 2021 in one of the two reactors at the Chooz power plant. A fault which currently forces EDF to extend its shutdown since March 2021 and has therefore already cost it more than a hundred million euros.
But the stakes for EDF are much more important than a shutdown of a reactor. The “M5” alloy sheaths, which wear out prematurely in Chooz reactor n ° 2, are fitted to all EPR reactors in France, Finland and China, as well as dozens of other reactors in France and abroad.
Is there a link between this incident in France and that of the leaking ducts of the first EPR reactor in service in the world in Taishan (China)?
Why do these latest generation sheaths wear out prematurely?
A burning question for EDF, which is trying to convince the Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) and the Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) to reuse cladding with questionable reliability in reactors.
How did the problem come to be at the Chooz nuclear power plant?
When the Chooz reactor n ° 2 was shut down in February 2021 to reload the fuel, particles were discovered on the fuel assemblies and in the water of the primary circuit [1] . “Numerous white migrant bodies of a few millimeters were either collected by the anti-debris devices or remained on the assemblies”, explained EDF in an internal letter to ASN, dated July 7, 2021. An abnormal phenomenon . These particles are zirconium oxide which originates from the surface of the fuel cladding. [2] Their presence indicates that the sheaths are degrading. “The consequence of an abnormally high corrosion rate”, clarified EDF in the letter to ASN.
These particles are very friable and cannot cause a loss of tightness in the nuclear fuel, explained Karine Herviou, deputy director general of IRSN, to the Journal de l’énergie .
The fuel claddings are tubes more than 4 meters long and less than 1 centimeter in diameter, very thin (0.6 mm thick) in which the uranium pellets are stacked. These sheaths, commonly called rods, are brought together in assemblies, each made up of 264 sheaths. The core of Chooz nuclear reactor No. 2 contains 205 assemblies. In Chooz reactor n ° 2, the abnormal wear is only in the upper part of certain assemblies.
What consequences for the safety of the nuclear reactor could have the accelerated wear of the fuel rods?
The cladding plays an important role for reactor safety: they form the first barrier between nuclear fuel, containing very dangerous radioactive substances, and the environment. They must prevent radioactivity from spreading in the water circulating in the nuclear core. However, “damage to the surface of certain fuel cladding calls into question the demonstration of the integrity of the fuel in service”, considers ASN. This means that this incident calls into question the parameters which guarantee, in the eyes of ASN, the safety of the reactor in normal operation and during accident scenarios.
“Accelerated corrosion is likely to weaken the cladding and increase the risk of loss of integrity of the rods concerned during accidental transients and therefore lead to rupture of the first barrier”, explains EDF in the internal letter to ASN from July 7, 2021. But EDF does not consider this scenario plausible.
What are the causes of abnormal wear of the fuel rods?
EDF estimated on July 7 that “at this stage of the investigations, no single cause appears at the origin of the phenomenon of accelerated corrosion (…) which rather finds its explanation in a combination of several unfavorable factors”. But the M5 alloy from which the sheaths are made “seems to be the trigger,” notes EDF.
The iron content of the sheaths singled out
It is the low iron content of the cladding alloy which is partly responsible for their degradation. Two production batches for low iron content sheaths have been identified by EDF. The most damaged sheaths come from these lots, which EDF calls “hyper sensitive castings”. But until the February 2021 incident on Chooz reactor no.2, slight variations in iron in the cladding alloy were not considered to be a factor in the degradation of the fuel rods. The variable iron content of fuel cladding does not appear to have been perceived as a problem in France by the fuel assembly manufacturer, Framatome, or by the operator EDF, or by ASN and IRSN.
The sheaths which deteriorate are “in conformity” with the specifications
“The iron content of these batches is within the standards”, explains IRSN. “The products supplied by Framatome comply” with the specifications, “iron was not considered as a characteristic parameter for the behavior of the rods in the core. », Adds ASN.
Following the incident, EDF informed ASN that the iron content will be increased in the cladding which will be used in reactor No. 2 at Chooz from “cycle 20”. Not the next time the reactor is reloaded, but the next.
A “multifactorial” phenomenon
The iron content of pencils is not the only culprit. EDF puts forward other causes to explain the degradation of the fuel cladding. The temperature is higher at the top of the nuclear core in the most powerful reactors, those of 1450 MW, than in the less powerful reactors, those of 1300 MW. It is in this area that the cladding deteriorated in two 1,450 MWe reactors in France. What would happen if low iron cladding was introduced into EPR reactors, even more powerful than the 1450 MW reactors?
Another unfavorable element: the positioning of the fuel assemblies in the reactor vessel. “The corrosion rate depends on the place of an assembly in the reactor core during the first cycle”, particularly in the four most powerful reactors in the French fleet, explains EDF in an internal document. [3]
An unprecedented incident in France but not abroad
If this wear had never been observed in France, it had already occurred on three nuclear reactors in Brazil and Germany, two of which used the same M5 alloy. [4] As at the Chooz power station, the most worn cladding was the one with the lowest iron content. “The phenomenon of accelerated corrosion observed at the end of cycle 18 of Chooz B2 is comparable to other events in Konvoi reactors abroad”, notes EDF in the internal letter to ASN. Therefore, why was this incident not anticipated in France when the nuclear operators and institutions say they maintain a permanent dialogue on safety at the global level?
The nuclear safety experts from the German GRS institute have not been able to fully identify the causes of the corrosion of the cladding on German reactors, adds Karine Herviou of IRSN.
M5 alloy sheaths are fitted to all EPR reactors in France, Finland and China, as well as dozens of other reactors.
Designed to be more corrosion resistant than previous alloys and to improve nuclear fuel efficiency, the M5, manufactured by Framatome, is widely used in nuclear power worldwide.
“A large majority of reactors in France use assemblies with M5 cladding,” explains Karine Herviou of IRSN. Framatome claims its M5 sheaths are used in 96 nuclear reactors around the world, in a 2018 brochure .
The same cladding is used in the EPR reactors at Flamanville (Manche), Olkiluoto in Finland and Taishan in China. M5 alloy sheaths had many leakage problems in the 2000s, says a 2008 IRSN report:
“Between 2001 and 2008, around thirty fuel assembly leaks with M5 alloy cladding were detected. To date, EDF has identified three types of faults causing leaks in fuel rods with M5 alloy cladding. »Defects now corrected……………
10 nuclear reactors in France affected by the cladding defect discovered at the Chooz power plant
For the moment, ten nuclear reactors in France are directly or indirectly affected by the defect in the cladding discovered on the reactor n ° 2 at Chooz.
“To date, seven 1,300 MWe reactors and three 1,450 MWe reactors have at least one rod with a low iron content, in the core or in the management reserve,” ASN told the Journal de l’énergie .
But the inventory of potentially defective rods is still in progress, “even if it should not change”, added ASN. In addition to the two production batches for low iron content sheaths, EDF identified other batches of concern and informed ASN of them in an internal letter. How many ? Mystery.
“An inventory of the iron content of each of the rods of each of the assemblies present in the reactor or in reserve is being drawn up”, specifies ASN…………..
Is EDF’s priority to save fuel even if it means playing stunts with nuclear safety?
EDF is therefore forced to adapt the operation of the two reactors to the defective ducts with “compensatory” measures. EDF proposes that Chooz reactor no. 2 only operate at 92% of its power during its next cycle. For Chooz reactor n ° 1, the operator proposes to reduce load monitoring. [6] “Depending on the elements, EDF could be required, on reactors 1 of Chooz, 1 and 2 of Civaux and 3 of Cattenom to take compensatory measures (either to limit maneuverability or to operate at a drop in power)” , announces the operator in the internal letter of July 7, 2021 to ASN.
Measures that would have a financial impact. The aim, explains ASN, is “not to allow a reactor operating mode where this corrosion acceleration is possible”.
IRSN must deliver its opinion on EDF’s proposals in a few weeks, then ASN will decide.
Why does EDF not give up using potentially defective cladding in reactors? Is it about saving fuel even if it means doing acrobatics with nuclear safety?
Neither EDF nor Framatome answered questions from the Journal de l’énergie . https://journaldelenergie.com/nucleaire/combustible-nucleaire-empoisonne-edf/
The incident that caused the shutdown of the Taishan nuclear power plant occurs regularly in France
The incident that caused the shutdown of the Taishan nuclear power plant
occurs regularly in France. An expert will have to determine whether the
responsibility of the French fuel manufacturer, Framatome, is engaged in
the incident at the Chinese plant.
France TV info 3rd Aug 2021
Campaigners dismayed as application to dump Hinkley Point mud in the Bristol Channel is approved.
| Campaigners dismayed as application to dump Hinkley Point mud in the Bristol Channel is approved. Anti-nuclear campaigners have expressed ‘deep dismay’ following confirmation that the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) has approved EDF Energy’s application to dump mud and sediment from the construction of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station into a coastal site close to the north Somerset town of Portishead. “The MMO document endangers health all around the estuary, including the coast of south Wales, as the Welsh Government Davidson Committee’s independent report makes it clear that material dumped at Portishead travels anticlockwise round the estuary,” Geiger Bay spokesperson Richard Bramhall said. “This includes a long-term threat from inhalable particles of uranium and plutonium. We are facing a culture of deliberate ignorance. Future generations will pay the price.” Nation Cymru 3rd Aug 2021 https://nation.cymru/news/campaigners-dismayed-as-application-to-dump-hinkley-point-mud-in-the-bristol-channel-is-approved/ |
Housing market affected in Lincolnshire, as villagers react against UK government plans for a nuclear waste dump.
A Lincolnshire estate agent has warned that plans for a radioactive waste
storage facility in Theddlethorpe are causing people to reconsider buying
houses in the area, and has urged for the proposals to be scrapped.
News of the plans came in late July, when Radioactive Waste Management (RWM)
confirmed it was in “early discussions” with Lincolnshire County
Council about using the former ConocoPhillips Gas Terminal as a nuclear
waste underground disposal facility.
RWM has promised to start a conversation with the community about the proposals, in order to hear and
understand people’s views on the matter, and LCC has stressed that no
decision will be made without public backing.
The Theddlethorpe community
organised a campaign meeting in opposition to the radioactive waste storage
plans, with around 100 people gathering at Mablethorpe Sherwood Playing
Fields to protest it.
Lincolnite 3rd Aug 2021
Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) publishes analysis of report of-”Just Transition Commission in Scotland” – moving to renewables, while providing jobs.
NFLA publishes report on the need for a ‘Just Transition’ to help communities and protects jobs in mitigating and adapting to climate change. The UK and Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) publishes today a detailed analysis on the work of the Just Transition Commission in Scotland and the importance of such policies being delivered across the UK and Ireland. The necessity of tackling climate change requires a move away from fossil fuels and towards renewables. In the view of the NFLA, the long time and huge cost required to build new nuclear facilities means they are not a practical alternative within a ‘just transition’, whilst there are extensive costs in nuclear decommissioning and radioactive waste management that will keep jobs in this sector going well into the next century. There are lots of jobs in the fossil fuel and related sectors, and it is important, given the lessons that took place from the end of the mining industry, to transfer these jobs and skills to other sectors as carefully and as fairly as possible. A ‘Just Transition’ was included, following extensive international trade union lobbying, in the 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement in reference to providing “a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs”. The NFLA report focuses on, and very much welcomes, the work of the Scottish Just Transition Commission, which has reported to the Scottish Government. Its final report, published just before the recent Scottish Parliament elections, had four key conclusions. These included: Pursue an orderly, managed transition to net-zero that creates benefits and opportunities for people across Scotland. Delivery of this must be a national mission. Just transition roadmaps will give direction and confidence, driving investment that brings jobs, skills and value. Equip people with the skills and education they need to benefit from the transition. A just transition is shaped by Scotland’s citizens, not imposed on them – empowers and invigorates communities and strengthens local economies. Share benefits widely and ensure burdens are distributed on the basis of ability to pay. In this way a just transition refocuses on wellbeing; it uses the power of government intervention and public finance (such as the Scottish National Investment Bank and public pension funds) to drive action; it explores new funding methods for local projects; it fully explores the distributional impact of taxes; it ensures new technologies and services are delivered in a way that works for people, and improves the lives of the most vulnerable in our society. For the NFLA, this ground-breaking report could be a blueprint for action not just in Scotland, but provide detail for the rest of the UK, Ireland and the wider European Union. NFLA 3rd Aug 2021 https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/nfla-report-need-for-just-transition-help-communities-protects-jobs-mitigating-adapting-climate-change |
The impact of climate change on nuclear reactors should be a key part of COP26 Climate Summit
the UK’s coastal nuclear power stations are vulnerable to sea-level rise, storm surges and flooding of reactor and spent fuel stores – and soon
In other words, action to address the impact of climate change on nuclear energy should be a key part of the United Nation’s Cop26 climate summit.
Climate change: Why nuclear power isn’t part of the solution to this global crisis – Dr Paul Dorfman https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/climate-change-why-nuclear-power-isnt-part-of-the-solution-to-this-global-crisis-dr-paul-dorfman-3328894
Over the past few weeks, the intensity and scale of the floods from slow-moving storms have broken records, and climate models are running hot.By Paul Dorfman
Monday, 2nd August 2021 This has prompted some to champion nuclear power as a source of lower-carbon electricity. But this newfound USP needs to be considered within the bigger picture because UK coastal nuclear power stations will be one of the first, and most significant, casualties to ramping climate impact. Put simply, nuclear is quite literally on the front-line of climate change – and not in a good way.
This has prompted some to champion nuclear power as a source of lower-carbon electricity. But this newfound USP needs to be considered within the bigger picture because UK coastal nuclear power stations will be one of the first, and most significant, casualties to ramping climate impact. Put simply, nuclear is quite literally on the front-line of climate change – and not in a good way.
All recent scientific data points to ramping sea-levels, faster, harder, more destructive storms and storm surges – inevitably bringing into question the operational safety, security and viability of UK coastal nuclear infrastructure.
Not normally given to exaggeration, the Institute of Mechanical Engineers says we may have to ‘up sticks’, relocate or abandon nuclear sites. This will cost. Trying to defend coastal nuclear means significantly increased expense for nuclear operation, waste management, and the 100-year-plus programme to decontaminate the UK’s 17 old nuclear reactors.
For nuclear to be practical, reactors have to be built economically, efficiently and on time. But practical experience says otherwise. EDF’s flagship EPR reactor is vastly over-cost and over-time at the two sites where it’s being built, at Olkiluoto in Finland and Flamanville in France.
Problems include poor concrete, bad welding and a faulty reactor pressure vessel – the main safety component. Things were supposed to have gone better in China, until last month’s nuclear fuel debacle demonstrated their inadequate safety oversight.
As for nuclear fusion, for the last 60 years proponents have said the technology will be ready in 20 years’ time – so perhaps this is an experiment to prove that time doesn’t exist in modern nuclear physics.
The reality is nuclear is a high-risk option. And this plays out in real time. Worldwide, nuclear is in stark decline and renewables are rising. The obvious explanation is the ramping costs of the former and the plummeting costs of the latter. So, not all lower carbon options are equal, benign or effective – and there are choices to be made.
Happily, big finance is at a tipping point as key global debt and equity investors pour record capital into renewables. With wind and solar power capacity growing at a record rate, the International Energy Agency predicts that renewables will supply 90 per cent of global electric power by 2050.
In Europe, renewables overtook fossil fuels to become the EU’s main source of electricity for the first time in 2020. Perhaps because it’s 50 per cent cheaper to generate electricity from renewables compared with fossil fuel-powered plants, the EU will increase renewables share in the total energy mix to 40 per cent by 2030.
OK, running an integrated renewable energy system will mean not just more wind and solar, but also a power network that ensures a balance of supply and demand at all times.
So it’s reassuring that power supply in nuclear-free Germany, the strongest economy in Europe, is one of the most reliable in the world, with government and grid operators confident that it will stay this way. In its last session before the summer recess, the German parliament brought forward the deadline for achieving climate neutrality by five years to 2045.
Here in Scotland, BP plans to invest £10 billion to make Aberdeen a global hub for offshore wind. Meanwhile Shell and Scottish Power are developing the world’s first large-scale floating offshore windfarms in the north-east of Scotland. And a very recent report by Imperial University says a massive expansion of offshore wind to 108 gigawatt will drive new power in the UK.
There are no resounding new revelations about the vulnerability of nuclear power to natural disasters, human or engineering faults, accidental or deliberate harm. Accidents are, by nature, accidental, and we’ve learned the cost of ignoring this common-sense axiom.
The fact is, the UK’s coastal nuclear power stations are vulnerable to sea-level rise, storm surges and flooding of reactor and spent fuel stores – and soon. This means that nuclear flood risk based on ‘all case scenarios’ must be published and regularly updated as climate science evolves, including costings and a range of contingency plans for the swift onset of climate-driven severe weather.
In other words, action to address the impact of climate change on nuclear energy should be a key part of the United Nation’s Cop26 climate summit.
It’s time to think constructively. We need to secure clean, safe, affordable, sustainable, low-carbon energy to power industry, transport, homes and businesses.
Our energy transition will involve the expansion of renewable energy in all sectors, rapid growth and modernisation of the electricity grid, energy conservation and efficiency, rapidly evolving storage technology, market innovations from supply to service provision, and transport restructure.
Nuclear sucks funds and vital political attention from this imperative zero-carbon investment. It displaces renewables on the grid and diverts essential research. The ramping costs of new nuclear compromises better, flexible, safe, productive, cost-effective and affordable technologies – and comes at a time when the development of renewable, sustainable and affordable low-carbon energy is a growing economic sector with a huge potential for jobs.
In bidding a long goodbye to fossil fuels, we’re also saying farewell to nuclear, that quintessentially mid-20th century technology – and not before time. Nuclear just can’t compete with the technological, economic, safety and security advantages of the renewable evolution.
Nuclear is an out-dated technology – a tired non-starter in the 21st century. We can do better.
Dr Paul Dorfman, of the UCL Energy Institute, University College London, is founder and chair of the Nuclear Consulting Group
Britain joins the craze for war in space – reviving the evil ”Skynet”?
British military launches its own Space Command with official opening Space War by Ed Adamczyk
Washington DC (UPI) Jul 30, 2021 Britain established its Space Command on Friday in a ceremonial opening, with responsibilities split between three specific groups to form a joint space command, Britain’s Ministry of Defense announced on Friday.
The British military budget includes $1.95 billion, over 10 years, for space capabilities, part of a defense budget increase of $33.34 billion in the next four years.
Officially called the “U.K. Space Command,” the new agency will immediately take command and control of the country’s Space Operations Center, its SKYNET military communications center and the ballistic early warning radar station at RAF Flyingdales in northeastern England………..
”As our adversaries advance their space capabilities, it is vital we invest in space to ensure we maintain a battle-winning advantage across this fast-evolving operational domain,” Defense Minister for Procurement Jeremy Quin said in the ministry’s statement…..
The United States launched its Space Force as a separate military branch in 2019, charging it with a broad mission to organize, train and equip space forces to protect U.S. and allied interests in space.
On July 13, of this year, Germany opened its own space command center at the Center for Air Operations in Uedem, near the Dutch border. https://www.spacewar.com/reports/British_military_launches_its_own_Space_Command_with_official_opening_999.html
English and Welsh concerns – call on Marine management leaders to postpone the dumping of Hinkley radioactive mud in te British Channel
EDF has this week rejected concerns about radioactivity from its dredging in the Bristol Channel around Hinkley Point power station near Burnham-On-Sea. A coalition of concerned Bristol Channel researchers and
campaigners says they have undertaken a pre-dredging radioactivity survey near Hinkley Point because “EDF, who want to dump radioactivity in the Bristol Channel, refuse to do it.”
The coalition, representing interests from both Welsh and English communities along the Bristol Channel/Severn estuary coasts, has appealed to the CEOs of the Marine Management Organisation and Natural Resources Wales (who must both adjudicate on EDF’s application to dredge) and the Westminster and Welsh Governments, who oversee those two agencies, to postpone any dumping decision until the survey results are published. The coalition has also formally requested a Public Inquiry to discuss the issues.
Burnham-on-sea.com 30th July 2021
https://www.burnham-on-sea.com/news/edf-rejects-radioactivity-concerns-over-hinkley-point-dredging/
Britain’s secret shortlist of areas earmarked for the dumping of nuclear waste
Southend-on-Sea, Essex, is the county’s most populous area, with more people living in the borough than anywhere else, but it’s a different story when you go to one of its most easterly points. Once you pass Shoeburyness, the area becomes almost entirely uninhabited. A series of islands, including Foulness Island and Wallasea Island, are situated here. They’re mostly marshy, boggy areas, but a few people still live there. A number of these islands are or have been owned by the government’s Ministry of Defence, who use this area for a variety of purposes, including as a shooting range. One of these islands is Potton Island. This island is mostly uninhabited, separated from the mainland by a thin creek only navigable via a small bridge which leads to the village of Great Wakering. In the 1800s, it was used as farmland until a major flood left the island abandoned. It was restored in the 1940s, and fell under the control of the Ministry of Defence in the 1950s before being turned back into a space for pasture and farmland. Documents released in 2005, after decades of secrecy, outlined areas the British government had earmarked for dumping nuclear waste in the 1980s and 1990s. Whilst any dumping would have been done in managed and safe ways, it’s still concerning to know that areas across Britain were being earmarked as graves for radioactive waste. Waste could have potentially been buried on Potton Island, and pedestrian access onto it possibly restricted completely. Southend Borough Council reportedly had no idea that Potton Island was on the government’s list of potential dumping locations, and were shocked when they found out it was on the shortlist. Essex Live 31st July 2021 https://www.essexlive.news/whats-on/classified-plans-use-essex-island-5713965 |
Over 1.5k people sign petition against nuclear waste storage in Lincolnshire, UK
Over 1,500 people have signed a petition to say no to plans to store
nuclear waste underground on the Lincolnshire coast. Plans emerged to
dispose of nuclear waste at a site near Mablethorpe this week, as
Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) said it was in “early discussions”
with Lincolnshire County Council about using the former ConocoPhillips Gas
Terminal in Theddlethorpe as a Geological Disposal Facility, but that no
decisions had been made.
Lincolnshire County Council Leader Martin Hill
claimed it was only 10 days ago they had a presentation from the firm, and
that it was the first time they’d had a meeting with them. He also said a
“binding” local referendum would be held and “if it’s a no,
that’s the end of it”, according to the BBC.
Lincolnite 29th July 2021
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 (180)
- 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 