Russia’s Arctic Council leadership now facing up to the problem of nuclear reactors dumped in the ocean
Reactors are dumped at several locations in the Kara Sea in addition to the two submarines K-159 and K-278 that sank in the Barents- and Norwegian Seas. Map: Barents Observer / Google Earth
Tackling dumped nuclear waste gets priority in Russia’s Arctic Council leadership https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/nuclear-safety/2021/05/lifting-nuclear-waste-kara-sea-gets-priority-russias-arctic-council
The reactors from the submarines K-11, K-19, and K-140, plus the entire submarine K-27 and spent uranium fuel from one of the old reactors of the Lenin-icebreaker have to be lifted from the seafloor and secured. Thomas Nilsen
Russia’s Foreign Ministry invites international experts from the other Arctic nations to a June 2022 conference on how to recover the sunken radioactive and hazardous objects dumped by the Soviet Union on the seafloor east of Novaya Zemlya.
No other places in the world’s oceans have more radioactive and nuclear waste than the Kara Sea.
While mentality in Soviet times was «out of sight, out of mind», the Kara Sea seemed logical. Ice-covered most of the year, and no commercial activities. That is changing now with rapidly retreating sea ice, drilling for oil-, and gas and increased shipping.
The submarine reactors dumped in shallow bays east of the closed-off military archipelago of Novaya Zemlya were all brought north for a good reason, they had experienced accidents and posed a radiation threat at the navy yards where people were working.
Dumping the reactors in shallow waters, someplace at only 50 meters, meant they could be lifted one day when technology allowed.
There is momentum now. For environmental and foreign policy reasons, Russia needs to take action now,” says nuclear safety expert Andrey Zolotkov. He works with Bellona Murmansk, an advocacy group promoting international cooperation to secure hazardous radioactive objects in Russia’s Arctic region. Zolotkov is pleased to see Moscow highlighting steps to secure the sunken reactors in the Kara Sea.
“Ecology is one of the few topics where Russia and foreign partners can conduct constructive dialogue nowadays,” he says.
However, Zolotkov underlines, “the issue of urgency can only be discussed after at least one expedition to the flooded objects.”
A worst-case scenario would be a failed lifting attempt, causing criticality in the uranium fuel, again triggering an explosion with following radiation contamination of Arctic waters.
Technical survey needed
With Russia now holding the chair of the Arctic Council, Zolotkov hopes such expedition can take place within the next two-year period.
A Russian-Norwegian expedition to the K-27 submarine in Stepovogo bay in 2012 took samples for studying possible radioactive leakages. Now, the Bellona expert, calls for an expedition to thoroughly study the strength of the hull and look for technical options on how to lift the heavy submarine and reactor compartments.
“Decades on the seafloor do not pass without impacts,” Andrey Zolotkov explains.
A previous study report made for Rosatom and the European Commission roughly estimated the costs of lifting all six objects, bringing them safely to a yard for decommissioning, and securing the reactors for long-term storage.
The estimated price-tag for all six is €278 million, of which the K-159 in the Barents Sea is the most expensive with a cost of €57,5 million. Unlike the submarines and reactors that are dumped in relatively shallow waters in the Kara Sea, the K-159 is at about 200 meters depth, and thus will be more difficult to lift.
In addition, about 17,000 objects were dumped in the Kara Sea in the period from the late 1960s to the early 1990s.
Most of that is containers with solid radioactive waste from the naval yards on the Kola Peninsula and in Severodvinsk. Some radioactive waste also originated from the repair and maintenance of the fleet of civilian nuclear-powered icebreakers in Murmansk.
Most of the objects are metal containers with low- and medium-level radioactive waste. The challenge today, though, are the reactors with high-level waste and spent uranium fuel, objects that will pose a serious threat to the marine environment for tens of thousands of years if nothing is done to secure them.
According to the Institute for Safe Development of Nuclear Energy, part of Russia’s Academy of Science, the most urgent measures should be taken to secure six objects that contain more than 90% of all the radioactivity.
The Arctic Council in late 2019 took a formal decision to establish a Working Group on radiation Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response (EPPR).
New study into mental health of atomic bomb test veterans
Eastern Daily Press 22nd May 2021, A nuclear test veteran blamed himself for the birth defects which he
believed he passed on to members of his family, his daughter has revealed.
Suzanna Ward spoke as a new study was launched into the mental health of
the children, wives and widows of nuclear veterans. Around 22,000 British
servicemen witnessed nuclear tests on mainland Australia, the Montebello
Islands off Western Australia and Christmas Island in the South Pacific,
during the 1950s and 1960s.
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/new-study-into-mental-health-of-nuclear-veterans-7991116
Dalgety Bay – 20,000 tonnes of radioactive material from the area to screen, – clean-up begins at last.
Scotsman 23rd May 2021, 30 years on, Scotland’s radioactive beach clean-up begins at last. It’s not a scene which might usually be welcome, but locals in the Fife town of Dalgety Bay have been waiting decades for this – ever since highly dangerous radioactive material was detected on the shoreline more than 30 years ago. Contamination was first identified there in 1990, but the source – luminous paint used on aircraft navigation dials – dates back to theSecond World War.
The area was once home to Donibristle military airfield,
where a large number of planes were dismantled after the end of the
conflict in 1945 and the debris burned and buried. Part of the foreshore at
Dalgety Bay has been off limits to the public since 2011 due to the health
risks posed by radioactive debris.
Radium was used to coat instrument
panels so they could be seen in the dark, but it is radioactive and toxic
to human health, with a half life of 1,600 years. Work to clean up
potentially deadly radioactive contamination has got under way at Dalgety
Bay in Fife, caused by debris from aircraft used during the Second World
War.
David Barratt, Fife councillor for Inverkeithing and Dalgety Bay, has
welcomed the work finally getting started. He said: “It has taken over 30
years and significant pressure from the community to get to this point.
“I’m delighted that works are now under way and grateful to Sepa for
all their effort in ensuring it will be done right, providing a permanent
solution.
“It should send a clear message that it doesn’t matter how much
time passes, the polluter should always pay. “Time will tell if its
smooth sailing from here and whether a 2022 completion date is possible.
They have around 20,000 tonnes of material from the area to screen and the
more contamination they find, the longer it will take, but at least now we
know it will be safe, however long it takes.”
Anxieties on the impact of pandemic on the Hinkley Point C nuclear power project, -major delays could result
Telegraph 23rd May 2021, EDF has warned that the coronavirus pandemic could cause major delays to its £23bn Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant. Talks are continuing between the French state-owned power business and British officials about potential hold-ups caused by the Covid crisis. Hinkley’s start date has already been pushed back to June 2026 due to a six-month delay caused by the pandemic. It was originally due to come online in 2025 when it was given the go-ahead in 2016. EDF first raised concerns over the possible delays at the start of the pandemic with the Low Carbon Contracts Company (LCCC), the government-owned company that acts as counterparty on clean energy subsidy contracts. Under its subsidy contract, Hinkley Point C is guaranteed £92.50 per MwH for 35 years. The Somerset site – eing built by EDF and its Chinese partner CGN – will become the UK’s first nuclear power plant in decades. However, the length of this 35-year term will be cut if Hinkley is not generating by May 2029 – reducing the guaranteed income for EDF. It can be cancelled altogether if the plant is not operational by October 2033. EDF said it has not applied to the LCCC for a specific extension to those deadlines, but that on principle it may be entitled to an extension because Covid is a “force majeure” event – an unforeseen event that affects a company’s ability to deliver on its contract. It stressed that the June 2026 schedule for Hinkley Point C to start generating, which was announced in January, remains unchanged and the project is making good progress. “We anticipate that it may take some time to establish the true impact of Covid-19 on complex construction projects such as Hinkley Point, as it is still unknown when Covid-19 restrictions will cease.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/05/23/edf-warns-delays-hinkley-due-pandemic/ |
“You can forget about the protection of area of outstanding natural beauty because if Sizewell C nuclear goes ahead nowhere is safe”
Sizewell C: Bill Turnbull says nuclear plant will cause ‘devastation’ Presenter Bill Turnbull has told a Planning Inspectorate hearing the Sizewell C nuclear power station would cause “awful devastation”. BBC , 21 May 21,
The former BBC Breakfast anchor was speaking on the last day of a four-day public hearing into the proposed plant on the Suffolk coast.
He said he was speaking on behalf of “those who have no voice – the rare and abundant wildlife around Sizewell”.
Turnbull, who is now a presenter on Classic FM, spoke in the final session of the hearing, saying it was “in sorrow, because [Sizewell C] will be awful devastation”.
He said he lived about two and a half miles away from the proposed power plant, where “the wildlife is extraordinary”.
He expressed concern over the impact on local birds including nightingales, cuckoos and owls and called the proposed link road to the plant a “highway of destruction”.
Turnbull questioned building the plant next to RSPB Minsmere, asking the Planning Inspectorate “has the world gone that mad?”.
The 65 year old asked if the power plant was approved, “what message would it send?”
“You can forget about the protection of area of outstanding natural beauty because if Sizewell C goes ahead nowhere is safe,” he said.
The Planning Inspectorate also heard from actress Diana Quick, who said she had “became convinced nuclear was a dubious option” for energy generation.
Quick, who received a Bafta nomination for her role in Brideshead Revisited, said she was “very concerned about the pollution, from many sources, such as light, dust, and traffic fumes”.
She also said her home village, Theberton, had been flooded “with mud and water” and this could increase with the building of the power plant.
William Kendall, a farmer, food and drink entrepreneur and chairman of soft drinks manufacturer Cawston Press, also spoke at the hearing.
He said as a “lifelong environmentalist” he used to support Sizewell C, but subsequently saw “several neighbours and friends upset” by the plans.
Mr Kendall, who is also president of Suffolk Wildlife Trust, said he now believed there was an “overwhelming case against” the plant.
He said it would “leave our local tourism industry millions of pounds worse off”.
Mr Kendall said he had also spoken to politicians who were against Sizewell C, saying: “If you turn down this application no tears will be shed here or in Whitehall.”………..
A decision on the power plant is not expected until later this year. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-suffolk-57202548
Poor outlook for the nuclear industry in Europe
Nuclear Power in the European Union, Heinrich Boll Stiftung, 26 April 2021 by Mycle Schneider Analysis
The issue of nuclear power has been with the European Union since the very beginning of the nuclear age. Where are operating nuclear power plants in the world? Who is building new reactors? What happened in the European region after Chernobyl and the Fall of the Berlin Wall?
26 April 2021 by Mycle SchneiderThis analysis is part of our dossier “Nuclear Power in Europe: 35 Years After the Chernobyl Disaster“.
The issue of nuclear power has been with the European Union since the very beginning of the nuclear age. French and British scientists were involved in the Manhattan Project, the development of the first nuclear weapons in the United States, and were able to share their new scientific knowledge with their colleagues at home after the Second World War. France and Britain rapidly developed their own nuclear weapons programs, and many European countries had their own military nuclear ambitions including—quite surprisingly—countries like Belgium, Germany, Italy, Sweden and Switzerland.
The Euratom Treaty, signed in 1957, established the European Atomic Energy Community with the purpose of “the speedy establishment and growth of nuclear industries”. It did not go as fast and as successfully as imagined. But in 1979, while the United Kingdom had 33 operating units, there were only a total of 58 reactors connected to the grid in what today are the EU27 Member States. By the end of the 1980s the fleet reached already its historic all-time high with 136 units in operation (see Figure 1). Only 106—30 less than in 1989—were left as of the end of 2020, about one quarter of the world total, with more than half (56) operated in just one country, France, while the remaining 50 units are located in 12 other Member States. The vast majority of the plants, 87 units or over 80 percent, are located in seven of the western countries, and only 19 are operating in the six newer Member States.
The region has not seen any significant nuclear
building-activity since the 1980s. While only 14 reactors were started up over the past 30 years, a total of 39 units ceased operation in the EU27, a net negative balance of 25 reactors. The decline of the industry has started decades ago.
Nuclear Construction – Little and Late
Since the Chernobyl disaster started unfolding 35 years ago, there have been only four construction starts in the western part of the EU27, two of which are still under construction, Olkiluoto-3 in Finland since 2005 and Flamanville-3 in France since 2007. Only two reactors were connected to the EU27-grid over the past 20 years, both in Eastern Europe with one unit each in the Czech Republic and Romania, none since Cernavoda-2 started up in 2007. Two reactors are still under construction in Slovakia (Mochovce-3 and -4), where construction started in… 1985. Maybe the first one will finally be connected to the grid in 2021.
The Finnish and French construction sites were meant to be the industrial demonstration of superior technology and engineering capacities leading to the first European Pressurized Water Reactors (EPR) ever built. Olkiluoto-3 (OL3) was meant to start generating power in 2009, followed by Flamanville-3 (FL3) in 2012. Instead, the projects turned into an industrial disaster and a financial fiasco – EPR seems to stand for European Problem Reactor. The projects have encountered numerous technical issues, from concreting to welding, with repeated quality-control problems. The EPR development was originally triggered by the Chernobyl accident, but 35 years later not a single EPR is operating in Europe (two have started up in China). The EPR case is also illustrating the very long lead times in the industry.
OL3 is currently scheduled to begin electricity generation by the end of 2021, with a 12-year delay, 16 years after construction start. The Finnish government had counted on OL3 as a low-carbon power source and had to substitute by other means of power generation, electricity imports, or the purchase of certificates to meet its climate obligations.
FL3 will be connected to the grid in 2023, at the earliest, if ever. The builders are still struggling with conceptual issues, non-conformities in the fabrication of parts, and inappropriate execution of specific tasks. The French Court of Accounts has estimated that total project costs would reach €19 billion. However, that estimate did not take into account the latest series of mishaps. When the decision was made to build the plant, almost 20 years ago, it was supposed to cost €2.5 billion………………………….
Old Machines – Expensive and Unreliable
As a consequence of the lack of construction, the average age of the EU’s nuclear fleet has been increasing constantly and stands now at over 35 years on average. The age distribution shows that the vast majority—89 of 106—of the EU’s nuclear reactors have been in operation for 31 years and beyond. The ageing atomic fission machines become increasingly unreliable. In Belgium, with seven units now the second largest fleet in the EU, the average real output in 2018 dropped to less than half of what would have been expected at nominal capacity. In fact, on an average 180 days the reactors did not generate power at all, not a single kilowatt-hour. The EU’s largest nuclear generator, France, has its own problems with maintenance outages that become impossible to forecast. In 2019, the country counted 5,580 reactor-days with zero production. That was 1,700 reactor-days with no output more than planned. In 2020, nuclear generation dropped by another 12 percent to a 27-year low. The world’s largest nuclear operator, the state-controlled Électricité de France (EDF), has lost control over outage durations.
In 2020, nuclear plants have generated just over 700 Terawatt-hours (billion kilowatt-hours or TWh) in the EU27, a spectacular drop of almost 80 TWh or 11 percent compared to the previous year, while all renewable energy technologies increased their output by a combined 80 TWh. At the same time, electricity consumption dropped by over 100 TWh, in particular due to the COVID-19 pandemic and fossil-fuel-based power plants reduced generation by over 110 TWh. As a consequence, for the first time the share of renewable power generation including hydro (39 percent) outperformed fossil fuels (36 percent) according to Eurostat estimates, which indicate that the carbon footprint of the power sector dropped by 14 percent. While the figures are not yet available, it is already certain that non-hydro renewables generated more power than nuclear plants in 2020. Less consumption, less fossil fuels, less nuclear, more renewables and lower emissions in the end. Remains to be seen whether proactive climate-protection policy will be able to make up for the effects of the global pandemic………….https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/04/26/nuclear-power-european-union?dimension1=lisa2021
Nuclear newbuild – concrete projects or white elephants?
Nuclear Power in the European Union, Heinrich Boll Stiftung, 26 April 2021 by Mycle Schneider ”………………Nuclear Newbuild – Concrete Projects or White Elephants?
There are more or less credible “plans” for new nuclear plants, most of them in Eastern Europe.
The Czech government in 2020 signed a framework agreement with the national utility ČEZ to organize an international tender in order to have a decision by 2024 and start construction of two units at the Dukovany site in 2029. The potential role of Russian Rosatom is controversial. The Czech government has failed in earlier attempts to launch a new-build program. The outcome of this initiative is uncertain. In March 2021, Vaclav Bartuška, Special Envoy for Energy Security, recalled sarcastically that, as Government Envoy for Temelín [the other operating Czech nuclear plant site], he wrote in his final report to the government, he did “not believe in a nuclear project in a country that is unable to build a motorway network and high-speed train to Berlin or Munich”.[1] Reportedly, he nevertheless thinks the Dukovany project will go ahead.
In Hungary, after some 15 years of preparation, an application for a construction license for two new Russian designed reactors at the Paks site was submitted in June 2020. The project has raised significant controversy over the procedure under which the Russian contractor was chosen. In March 2021 a study published in the Journal of the Association of Hungarian Geophysicists questioned the earthquake safety of the site. At the same time, the Paks II project company has signed a contract with an engineering company to assess until the end of 2022 the conditions under which a construction license could be obtained. Some sources have suggested construction could already start in 2022. Considering the long history of delays of the project, a short-term construction start seems unlikely.
Poland has been contemplating the introduction of nuclear power since the 1970s and has started building two units in 1984, which were abandoned in 1990. No financing plan has yet been established, no technology, no sites chosen for “6–9 Gigawatt” of nuclear power by 2040. As earlier Polish plans, this one is not credible at this point………..https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/04/26/nuclear-power-european-union?dimension1=lisa2021
Sizewell nuclear project will harm Suffolk’s tourism industry
East Anglian Daily Times 20th May 2021, The construction of large-scale energy projects on the coast is of
“significant concern” to Suffolk’s tourism industry, a Planning
Inspectorate hearing on Sizewell C has heard. EDF Energy’s proposals to
build a £20billion nuclear power station are being discussed in a four-day
public hearing.
Katherine Mackie, chairman of the Aldeburgh Society, told
the hearing on Thursday a study had revealed that more than four million
tourists visit the area every year, bringing in more than £160million to
the economy. That number rose to £228m for the wider Suffolk Coast and
Heaths area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) in 2019 with around 5,000
jobs supported, she added.
Mrs Mackie said the figures would be
“significantly impacted due to the loss of defined AONB characteristics”.
She also cited research by the Suffolk Coast Destination Management
Organisation, which found that construction of the Sizewell C project – as
well as ScottishPower’s proposed windfarm off the Suffolk coast – could
reduce visitor numbers by 17%.
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/sizewell-c-edf-planning-inspectorate-public-hearing-7988408
Boris Johnson’s plan for more nuclear weapons in Scotland ‘breaks international law’
Boris Johnson’s plan for more nuclear weapons in Scotland ‘breaks international law’,The National, By Gregor Young 19 May, 21 BORIS Johnson’s plan to increase the UK’s stockpile of nuclear warheads would breach international law, experts have warned.
The Tory government announced in March that it wants to raise the legal limit on the number of the weapons of mass destruction, which would be available to its submarine fleet at Faslane. Currently, the cap is set at 180, but the new defence review revised that up to 260.
Downing Street will also send more troops abroad “more often and for longer” as part of the £24 billion hike in defence spending.
Scotland’s Justice Secretary previously described the proposals as “utterly unacceptable”, while Washington think tank, the Arms Control Association (ACA), said they were inconsistent with the UK Government’s prior pledges under the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
That conclusion has now been backed by two academics at the London School of Economics who were commissioned to examine Johnson’s pledge by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), the Record has reported.
Led by Professor Christine Chinkin, a long-time consultant for the UN, and Dr Louise Arimatsu, a former fellow at the NATO Cyber Defense Centre, the legal report finds the increase constitutes a breach of article six of the NPT treaty.
CND general secretary Kate Hudson told the Record: “The increase in the UK’s nuclear arsenal has been exposed to intense criticism nationally and internationally, including from the United Nations. Thanks to the work of highly respected academic experts, we now know it is illegal under international law.
“Everything points to the decision costing tens of billions of pounds. During this pandemic, there are other urgent uses for public money.
“The decision breaks with the gradual nuclear reductions implemented by successive governments going back nearly 30 years and is at odds with the decision by Presidents Biden and Putin to continue bilateral nuclear reductions.”……………https://www.thenational.scot/news/19309984.boris-johnsons-plan-nuclear-weapons-scotland-breaks-international-law/
Iran: talks in Austria with UK, France and Germany head towards nuclear agreement
Iran nuclear deal ‘starting to take shape’ Albert Otti AAPThu, 20 May 2021 An agreement to restore the 2015 Iran nuclear deal is beginning to take shape after six weeks of talks, European diplomats say.
“Both on the nuclear side and on the sanctions side, we are now beginning to see the contours of what the final deal could look like,” senior diplomats said after the latest round of talks.
The negotiators from the UK, France and Germany – sometimes referred to as the E3 – have been meeting in working groups in the Austrian capital since early April, aiming to revive the 2015 nuclear deal which was crafted to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
The nuclear accord has been hanging by a thread since 2018 when then-US president Donald Trump pulled the US out and Iran began to increasingly violate its terms.
“However, success is not guaranteed. There are still some very difficult issues ahead. We do not underestimate the challenges that lay before us,” the diplomats said.
Negotiations are under way on which sanctions the US would be prepared to lift and what steps Iran would be willing to take in return to curb its nuclear program.
Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the structure of the agreement had been achieved.
“The content is almost clear although not yet finalised,” he said……… https://thewest.com.au/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-starting-to-take-shape-c-2884918
How many nuclear weapons does Britain have? Non-Proliferation explained
How many nuclear weapons does Britain have? Non-Proliferation explained https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1437927/How-many-nuclear-weapons-does-Britain-have-non-proliferation-ev
BORIS JOHNSON has been accused of infringing international laws with his plans for British nuclear proliferation. How many nuclear weapons does Britain have?, By LIAM DOYLE May 18, 2021
The current crop of roughly 195 warheads sits in an ocean-based fleet of Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines.
They operate on a continuous patrol to preserve the UK’s deterrence policy from the sea.
Britain has previously committed to non-proliferation and intended to limit its stockpile.
Mr Johnson’s predecessors outlined these intentions in the 1968 Treaty on Non-Proliferation and the Strategic Defence and Security Review.
The latter policy, brought forward by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, aimed to reduce national stockpiles by 65 percent during the 2020s.
The Government’s 2021 Integrated Review found it could no longer commit to this policy.
The Prime Minister intends to push the UK’s stockpile up by 40 percent to “no more than 260 warheads”.
The review cites the current “security environment” as its primary reason for proliferation.
And this is where the earlier 1968 treaty comes into play.
Nuclear and non-nuclear powers alike signed the Treaty on Non-Proliferation as a collaborative pledge to limit nuclear technologies.
The treaty attracted the UK, US, the then Soviet Union and a further 59 other signatories.
The ratified document prevents non-nuclear states from acquiring weapons, commits nuclear states to push for disarmament, and allowed all participants to access technology for peaceful purposes.
Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project, said the Government’s latest pursuit would break parameters set by the treaty.
He cited Article 6, which commits signatories to step-by-step disarmament, specifically.
Beatrice Fihn, executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), added the “dangerous” decision “violates international law”.
She added: “While the majority of the world’s nations are leading the way to a safer future without nuclear weapons by joining the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, the United Kingdom is pushing for a dangerous new nuclear arms race.”
New study on children, wives and widows of UK nuclear test veterans
Kent Online 18th May 2021, The children, wives and widows of nuclear test veterans in Kent are being
urged to sign up for a ground-breaking study. During the 1950s and 1960s,
around 22,000 British Servicemen – many of them called up for National
Service – witnessed nuclear tests on mainland Australia, the Montebello
Islands off Western Australia and Christmas Island in the South Pacific.
Rolls Royce plans fleets of small nuclear reactors. At approx £2billion per reactor (that’s approx $2.8billion) how much will each fleet cost?
Rolls-Royce expects the first five reactors to cost £2.2bn each, falling to £1.8bn for subsequent units.
SMRs could not achieve economies of scale unless developers secured a large number of orders. “How are you going to get orders for 16 of an unproven reactor type and if you don’t have orders for 16 how are you going to build a factory?”
Rolls-Royce courts investors for mini nuclear plants, Consortium led by engine group seeks £300m in funding as it prepares application for small modular reactors, Nathalie Thomas in Edinburgh and Sylvia Pfeifer in London Ft.com, 17 May 21,
A consortium led by Rolls-Royce that is hoping to build a fleet of mini nuclear power stations across Britain is talking to investors to secure £300m in funding as it prepares to submit its design to regulators later this year. The consortium, which also includes Jacobs and Laing O’Rourke, hopes to be the first “small modular reactor” developer to put its design through the UK’s rigorous nuclear regulatory assessment. The process is expected to take up to four years but would keep the companies on track to complete their first 470MW plant by the early 2030s, which would be capable of generating enough low-carbon electricity for about 1m homes.
UK prime minister Boris Johnson backed SMRs as part of his 10-point plan for a “green industrial revolution” last year. The technology is viewed within the government as a good way to create manufacturing jobs as well as delivering on Johnson’s “levelling up” agenda. Rolls-Royce believes at least 16 SMRs could be installed at existing and former nuclear sites in Britain and more could potentially be built at locations such as former coal mines. It estimates the programme could create as many as 40,000 jobs in the UK regions by 2050.
Environmental groups say the technology is unproved and point out that nuclear energy leaves behind a legacy of waste, the most toxic of which takes at least 100,000 years to decay The prime minister has promised £215m in public funds, which the consortium hopes will help it secure the £300m in private match funding needed for the project to progress.
Rolls-Royce, which has been working on SMRs since 2015, expects the first five reactors to cost £2.2bn each, falling to £1.8bn for subsequent units.
It has argued that its design, which uses pressurised water reactors similar to existing nuclear power stations and boasts an increased generation capacity from 440MW previously, is more commercially viable and lower-risk than rival plans. The company has also claimed it could compete with renewable technologies such as offshore wind. Tom Samson, chief executive of the Rolls-Royce-led consortium, said “the way we manufacture and assemble our power station brings down its cost to be comparable with offshore wind at around £50/MWh”.
But Tom Burke, chair of climate change think-tank E3G, argued that SMRs could not achieve economies of scale unless developers secured a large number of orders. “How are you going to get orders for 16 of an unproven reactor type and if you don’t have orders for 16 how are you going to build a factory?” If sufficient private funding is secured, the consortium intends to set up a special purpose vehicle this summer in which Rolls-Royce is expected to retain a significant interest. The programme could give Rolls-Royce an important new revenue stream as it looks to reduce its exposure to the commercial aerospace sector, which has been severely dented by the coronavirus pandemic.https://www.ft.com/content/11ba5955-2f75-4eb5-b3e9-73f74684eb10
Weatherwatch: does nuclear power really keep the lights on?
Weatherwatch: does nuclear power really keep the lights on? With nuclear fading away, Britain must learn how to carefully manage renewable energy https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/may/15/weatherwatch-does-nuclear-power-really-keep-the-lights-on, Paul BrownSat 15 May 2021 1
The nuclear industry is fond of telling us the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow, as if people living in Britain did not already know that. But the point atomic enthusiasts are making is that wind and solar electricity generation is not reliable, while nuclear will keep the lights on.
But things are a bit more complicated than that. This is partly because large-scale batteries, pump storage in reservoirs and other ways of topping up electricity supplies mean that baseload power provided by nuclear reactors is no longer needed. Another reason is that nuclear output is falling while renewables get ever stronger.
Output of electricity over a year is measured in terawatt hours (TWh). In 2020, generation from nuclear was 50.3TWh, down 11% from 2019, partly because of cracks and rust in ageing reactors. Renewable output reached a record high of 120.3TWh.
Significantly, 2020 nuclear generation was 13TWh less than in 1989, when nuclear provided 20% of the nation’s electricity, and wind and solar contributions were hardly measurable.
Even with the massive station Hinkley Point C being built in Somerset, nuclear power is fading away. To keep the lights on we will have to increasingly learn to carefully manage the power produced by our unreliable weather.
Despite Germany’s nuclear phaseout, the secure supply of electricity in Germany will remain guaranteed at the current high level for the foreseeable future.
Renew Economy 16th May 2021 Germany’s target of achieving greenhouse gas neutrality by 2045 has a very important sub-goal: The expansion of renewable energy capacity to provide green power for transport, heating and making hydrogen. But running such an integrated energy system on fluctuating renewables alone will require not just more wind turbines and solar panels, but a power network that ensures the delicate balance of supply and demand at all times, while conventional capacities are shut down. So far, the power supply in Germany remains one of the most reliable in the world. The government and grid operators are confident it will stay this way despite the challenges of electrifying the nation and experts highlight the importance of European power grid integration. But others predict that the country will soon be in need of back-up capacity. Germany’s conventional power generation capacity is beginning to dwindle. In December 2022, the country will have over 23 gigawatts (GW) less nuclear power capacity than ten years ago. In a reply to parliamentarians, it wrote in March 2021: “All analyses of supply security known to the federal government and carried out in accordance with the latest scientific findings come to the conclusion that the secure supply of electricity in Germany will remain guaranteed at the current high level for the foreseeable future. The analyses also take into account the phase-out of nuclear energy and the end of coal-fired power generation. https://reneweconomy.com.au/shutting-down-nuclear-and-coal-can-germany-keep-the-lights-on/ |
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 