In UK “deep disposal” is planned for the mounting, costly and forever problem of nuclear wastes
How To Solve Nuclear Energy’s Biggest Problem https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-
Power/How-To-Solve-Nuclear-Energys-Biggest-Problem.html By Haley Zaremba – Jan 22, 2020, Nuclear waste is a huge issue and it’s not going away any time soon–in fact, it’s not going away for millions of years. While most types of nuclear waste remain radioactive for mere tens of thousands of years, the half-life of Chlorine-36 is 300,000 years and neptunium-237 boasts a half-life of a whopping 2 million years.
All this radioactivity amounts to a huge amount of maintenance to ensure that our radioactive waste is being properly managed throughout its extraordinarily long shelf life and isn’t endangering anyone. And, it almost goes without saying, all this maintenance comes at a cost. In the United States, nuclear waste carries a particularly hefty cost.
Last year, in a hard-hitting expose on the nuclear industry’s toll on U.S. taxpayers, the Los Angeles Times reported that “almost 40 years after Congress decided the United States, and not private companies, would be responsible for storing radioactive waste, the cost of that effort has grown to $7.5 billion, and it’s about to get even pricier.”
How much pricier? A lot. “With no place of its own to keep the waste, the government now says it expects to pay $35.5 billion to private companies as more and more nuclear plants shut down, unable to compete with cheaper natural gas and renewable energy sources. Storing spent fuel at an operating plant with staff and technology on hand can cost $300,000 a year. The price for a closed facility: more than $8 million, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute.”
With the United States as a poster child of what not to do with your nuclear waste, the United Kingdom is taking a much different tack. The UK is currently undertaking what the country’s Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) department says “will be one of the UK’s largest ever environmental projects.” This nuclear waste storage solution comes in the form of a geological disposal facility (GDF), a waste disposal method that involves burying nuclear waste deep, deep underground in a cocoon of backfill, most commonly comprised of bentonite-based cement. This type of cement is able to absorb shocks and is ideal for containing radioactive particles in case of any failure. The GDF system would also be at such a depth that it would be under the water table, minimizing any risk of contaminating the groundwater.
According to reporting from Engineering & Technology, nuclear waste is a mounting issue in Europe and in the UK in particular. “Under European law, all countries that create radioactive waste are obliged to find their own disposal solutions – shipping nuclear waste is not generally permitted except in some legacy agreements. However, when the first countries charged into nuclear energy generation (or nuclear weapons research), disposal of the radioactive waste was not a major consideration. For several of those countries, like the UK, that is now around 70 years ago, and the waste has been ‘stored’ rather than disposed of. It remains a problem.”
In fact, not only does it remain a problem, it is a mounting problem. As nuclear waste has been improperly or shortsightedly managed in the past, the current administration can no longer avoid dealing with the issue. In the past the UK used its Drigg Low-Level Waste Repository on the Cumbrian Coast to treat low and intermediate level waste, but now, thanks to coastal erosion, the facility will soon begin leeching radioactive materials into the sea, although that might not be quite as scary as it sounds.
Back in 2014, the Environment Agency raised concerns that coastal erosion could result in leakage from the site within 100 to 1,000 years, although it was counter-claimed that the levels of radioactivity after such a time would be low enough to be harmless,” Engineering & Technology writes. “This would definitely not be the case for high-level wastes, where radioactivity could remain a hazard into and beyond the next ice age, hence the need for longer-term disposal.”
Where exactly will that longer-term disposal be based? That’s up for debate. And it won’t be an easy thing to decide, as the RWM says that they will need a community to volunteer to be involved in such a costly, lengthy, and potentially unpopular project. And it’s not just an issue for the current inhabitants of potential locations in the UK, but for many generations to come over the next tens of thousands of years of radioactivity
Rolls Royce’s fantasy plan for so-called ‘mini’ nuclear reactors
|
Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51233444 By Roger Harrabin & Katie Prescott, BBC environment analyst and business reporter, 24 January 2020
Mini nuclear reactors could be generating power in the UK by the end of the decade. Manufacturer Rolls-Royce has told the BBC’s Today programme that it plans to install and operate factory-built power stations by 2029. Mini nuclear stations can be mass manufactured and delivered in chunks on the back of a lorry, which makes costs more predictable. But opponents say the UK should quit nuclear power altogether. They say the country should concentrate on cheaper renewable energy instead. Environmentalists are divided over nuclear power, with some maintaining it is dangerous and expensive, while others say that to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 all technologies are needed. However, the industry is confident that mini reactors can compete on price with low-cost renewables such as offshore wind. Rolls-Royce is leading a consortium to build small modular reactors (SMRs) and install them in former nuclear sites in Cumbria or in Wales. Ultimately, the company thinks it will build between 10 and 15 of the stations in the UK. They are about 1.5 acres in size – sitting in a 10-acre space. That is a 16th of the size of a major power station such as Hinkley Point. SMRs are so small that theoretically every town could have its own reactor – but using existing sites avoids the huge problem of how to secure them against terrorist attacks. It is a rare positive note from the nuclear industry, which has struggled as the cost of renewables has plummeted. In the past few years, major nuclear projects have been abandoned as Japanese companies Toshiba and Hitachi pulled out because they could not get the required funding. And the construction of Hinkley Point in Somerset could cost £3bn more than was expected, in an echo of the row over the rail mega-project HS2. “The trick is to have prefabricated parts where we use advanced digital welding methods and robotic assembly and then parts are shipped to site and bolted together,” said Paul Stein, the chief technology officer at Rolls-Royce.
He said the approach would dramatically reduce the cost of building nuclear power sites, which would lead to cheaper electricity. But Paul Dorfman from University College London said: “The potential cost benefits of assembly line module construction relative to custom-build on-site construction may prove overstated. “Production line mistakes may lead to generic defects that propagate throughout an entire fleet of reactors and are costly to fix,” he warned. “It’s far more economic to build one 1.2 GW unit than a dozen 100 MW units.” Rolls-Royce is hoping to overcome the cost barrier by selling SMRs abroad to achieve economies of scale. Its critics have warned that SMRs will not be ready in substantial numbers until the mid 2030s, by which time electricity needs to be carbon-free in the UK already to meet climate change targets. |
|
In UK “big” nuclear power versus “small” (both unaffordable) at Wylfa
The global nuclear lobby might look like a unified force – it’s anything but!. The nuclear nations fight each other in desperately trying to flog off their unaffordable white elephant nuclear reactors to ‘developing’ countries, or to any sucker, really. .
The nuclear industry itself is divided – the ‘conventional’ big nuclear reactors versus the (not yet existing) Small and Medium Nuclear Reactors (SMRs)
‘No plans’ for Wylfa mini nuclear power station according to developer, https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/no-plans-wylfa-mini-nuclear-17599188, Owen Hughes, Business correspondent, 20 JAN 2020
Horizon Nuclear Power said its full focus is on delivering a full scale nuke plant.
Wylfa Newydd developer Horizon Nuclear Power says there are “no plans” to build mini reactors at its Anglesey site.
Rolls Royce is currently leading a consortium developing the technology for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) – supported by the UK Government. Trawsfynydd in Gwynedd has been tipped at a prime spot for one of the reactors and over the weekend Wylfa was also reported as a target location.
But Horizon has released a statement making clear the Wylfa site is not being put forward for this technology as they press on with the current plan for a full scale nuclear site.
A spokesman said: “There are no plans to deploy a Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor at the Wylfa Newydd site.”
He added: “Activity on the Horizon project is currently suspended, but we’re working hard to establish the conditions for a restart using our tried and tested reactor design, which has already cleared the UK regulators’ assessment process.
Energy Secretary Andrea Leadsom wants additional information before deciding whether to give planning permission for Wylfa Newydd.
She deferred the decision on the site in October.
If permission is granted then the next step will be securing funding to make the project happen.
When it comes to SMRs, Alan Woods, strategy and business development director for Rolls-Royce, said they were focusing on sites in Wales and the north of England. Modular reactors are smaller and, once the first is approved and built, manufacturers hope mass-production will lead to shorter construction times and lower costs for each unit.
The consortium will need to establish factories to produce the small modular reactors with the pre-fabricated modules transported to sites for construction.
UK’s nuclear region, Cumbria, has unusually high rates of certain cancers
NW Evening Mail 16th Jan 2020, A WORRYING new report has found that Cumbria has the highest incidence rates of certain kinds of cancer in the North West. According to data collated by charity North West Cancer Research, the county ranks 11 per cent higher on key cancers than the national average. As part of the study, analysts assessed the impact of 25 key cancers across the North West and 37 cancers across Wales.Nuclear’s swansong?
Is This The Death Knell For Nuclear? https://finance.yahoo.com/news/death-knell-nuclear-200000585.html By Haley Zaremba – Jan 18, 2020 It’s nearly impossible to discuss climate change and the future of the energy industry without discussing nuclear energy. Nuclear energy produces zero carbon emissions, [ ed. not so!] it’s ultra-efficient, it’s already in widespread use, and could be scaled up to meet much more of our global energy needs with relative ease, but it is, and will likely always be, an extremely divisive solution.nuclear energy certainly has its fair share of drawbacks. It may not emit greenhouse gases, but what it does produce is deadly nuclear waste that remains radioactive for up to millions of years and we still don’t really know what to do with it other than hold onto it in ever-growing storage spaces. And then there are the horror stories that keep civilians and politicians alike wary if not outright antagonistic toward the technology. Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island loom large in our collective doomsday consciousness, and not without good reason.
We’re still dealing with the aftermath of these nuclear disasters. Japan is in many ways still reeling from 2011’s Fukushima nuclear disaster and recently even threatened to throw radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean or letting it evaporate into the air because they are running out of storage space for the wastewater they have been using to keep the damaged Fukushima reactors from overheating again. So yeah, nuclear isn’t perfect.
As paraphrased by environmental news site EcoWatch, the energy experts at Chatham House “agreed that despite continued enthusiasm from the industry, and from some politicians, the number of nuclear power stations under construction worldwide would not be enough to replace those closing down.” The consensus was that this is nuclear’s swan song, and we are now unequivocally entering the era of wind and solar power.
These conclusions were arrived at during a summit convened to discuss the findings of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2019, which concluded that “money spent on building and running nuclear power stations was diverting cash away from much better ways of tackling climate change.”
This echoes the sentiment of many other climate and energy experts, who have long been sounding the alarm bells that renewable energy is not being built up or invested in with nearly enough urgency. Last year the International Energy Agency announced that renewables growth has slumped, and that our current renewable growth rate of 18o GW of added renewable capacity per year is “only around 60 percent of the net additions needed each year to meet long-term climate goals”.
The International Renewable Energy Agency (Irena) did the math, calculating exactly how much renewable energy will need to be installed by 2030 if the world has any hope of meeting the goals set by the Paris climate agreement, and they found that “7.7TW of operational renewable capacity will be needed by 2030 if the world is to limit global warming to ‘well below’ 2C above pre-industrial levels, in line with the Paris Climate Agreement,” according to reporting by Wind Power Monthly. “However, at present, countries’ nationally determined contributions (NDCs) amount to 3.2TW of renewable installations by 2030, up from 2.3TW currently deployed.”
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report succinctly sums up the situation while sounding the death knell for nuclear: “Stabilising the climate is urgent, nuclear power is slow. It meets no technical or operational need that these low-carbon competitors cannot meet better, cheaper, and faster.”
As building large nuclear stations stall in UK, sites are picked for ‘small] nuclear reactors
REVEALED: Sites for revolutionary mini nuclear power stations led by Rolls-Royce are set to be built in the North of England
- Whitehall is planning new small nuclear power plants in Cumbria and Wales
- Britain’s eight large-scale nuclear power plants are reaching their end of life
- Plans to build a new generation of large-scale nuclear power stations are stalled
- Officials hope these smaller power stations will be able to plug the potential gap
Daily Mail, By NEIL CRAVEN FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY 19 January 2020 | The first of a new generation of revolutionary mini nuclear power stations is to be built in the North of England and North Wales by a consortium led by Rolls-Royce, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
A number of existing licensed nuclear sites have already been informally discussed within Whitehall.
The sites under consideration include Moorside in Cumbria and Wylfa in North Wales, where plans for future large-scale reactor projects have recently been shelved/
Britain’s eight large-scale nuclear power plants are nearing the end of their collective lifespan, with most due to close by the end of the decade.
It will be followed by up to 16 more mini reactors at other sites, with plans for all to be producing electricity.
It is understood that other locations being considered include Trawsfynydd in Snowdonia, North Wales…….
The pre-fabricated modules would then be transported to sites for construction. Officials have cautioned, though, that there could be public opposition in some areas to a nuclear facility being built nearby. ……..
Work at Wylfa by nuclear developer Horizon, owned by Japanese firm Hitachi, was suspended a year ago amid rising costs. Only months before, plans for a new nuclear power station at Moorside were scrapped after the Japanese giant Toshiba announced it was winding up the project.
A joint investment of £500 million between the Government and the Rolls-Royce consortium was proposed last summer. An initial award from the Government of £18 million was signed off in November, which the consortium will match.
One nuclear industry source said: ‘There is broad support for this programme from Government.’ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7903495/New-Rolls-Royce-mini-nuclear-power-stations-built-North.html
In UK, energy bosses bullying locals into submission over Sizewell nuclear build?
East Anglian Daily Times 16th Jan 2020, Villagers whose properties would be affected by a bypass included in Sizewell C plans, claim energy bosses are trying to pressure them into submission.
A group of households in Farnham claim EDF Energy’s valuers
have attempted to hold complex discussions over financial mitigation
related to the new section of the A12 with little notice and no time to
prepare.
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/farnham-residents-criticse-edf-over-a12-bypass-route-1-6468545
The highly controversial question of how to fund UK’s nuclear build
|
Momentum Builds for UK Government to Self-Fund New Nuclear Plants https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/momentum-builds-for-uk-government-to-fund-new-nuclear-itself
The U.K. government wants new nuclear capacity. How it will be funded remains a highly contentious question. JOHN PARNELL JANUARY 15, 2020 When the U.K. government unveiled its contract for difference with EDF’s 3.2-gigawatt Hinkley Point C nuclear power station in 2012, it proudly proclaimed that the arrangement proved new nuclear did not need direct subsidy.
Since then, three other U.K. projects have been put on an indefinite pause after Hitachi and Toshiba said their respective ventures had failed to attract investors. While the 35-year contract for difference (CFD) awarded to EDF is considered generous at £92.50 ($120) per megawatt-hour, the French energy giant is on the hook for overrun costs — no small concession. A 2014 study found that of a global sample of 180 nuclear power plants, 97 percent ended up over budget. There is an acceptance in the nuclear industry and at the government level that the CFD approach won’t be used for nuclear again in the U.K. Yet all but one of the country’s 15 working reactors are going offline by 2030, and the process of replacing them is behind schedule. A new approach is needed — and quickly. Sizewell C is the next active nuclear project in the U.K. pipeline. It will be a carbon copy of EDF’s Hinkley C, offering project savings and a readymade supply chain. The plan is to switch the workforce from one site to the other. How Sizewell C will be funded, however, remains an open question. The government launched a consultation in July 2019 on a new method that could be used for Sizewell C. That process closed in October, but between Brexit and an election, there has been no response from the government since. EDF has reportedly become twitchy about the timeline, telling the government it needs to know how Sizewell C will be funded by the end of the year if it’s to have any chance of starting construction in 2022. The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy told GTM it would follow up on the consultation’s responses “in due course.” RAB: Nuclear’s next top model?The government is seeking feedback on one possible new approach for Sizewell C known as regulated asset base (RAB), which is already in use for other big infrastructure projects. The RAB model basically gives the project developer a means to recover its investment through consumer bills under the watchful gaze of a regulator — including payments during the construction phase. It’s the model used by the country’s water monopolies to pay for their infrastructure. But pipes and pumps are generally simpler and cheaper than new nuclear. The biggest RAB deal in the U.K. so far is the £13.5 billion extension of Heathrow Airport. The most conservative estimate for Sizewell C is £20 billion ($26 billion). (Its forerunner Hinkley Point C is sitting at £22 billion and counting.) Taking this approach would be a first for the energy sector and a first for RABs. An entirely new entity, within or outside current regulator Ofgem, would have to step up to monitor how funds were being recouped from bills. EDF and other nuclear developers wouldn’t be paid if projects never make it to financial close, potentially leaving them exposed to the predevelopment costs. But clarity is still needed on which entities would be exposed to various other risks, and there is danger that in the event of project costs rising, billpayers would be stuck with the tab. Another option: State-backed nuclear funding?Meanwhile, a number of respondents to the government’s consultation say the government should take another, more controversial route: stepping in to build new nuclear itself, then quickly selling completed plants to the private sector. The U.K. government celebrated the fact that it wasn’t sinking state money into Hinkley Point C when the CFD was awarded. But after all, that project is being developed by two other state-run companies, albeit ones from France and China. In its response to the government’s consultation on funding options, the independent Nuclear Energy Consulting Group called for a new nuclear Crown Corporation, a state-backed investment vehicle, to step in to build nuclear projects. “This new entity would act as an owner or funder of new [nuclear power] projects from inception to commercial operation, with project risks and benefits during development and construction remaining with [HM government],” write authors Edward Kee, Ruediger Koenig, Paul Murphy and Xavier Rollat. In an email to GTM, Edward Kee, the CEO of Nuclear Energy Consulting Group, shared the group’s reservations about the RAB model. “We have doubts that developing and implementing a nuclear power RAB framework would happen fast enough. It is also unclear that the RAB approach would deliver the needed nuclear power investment, even when put into place,” said Kee. The International Project Finance Association, whose members include the World Bank, the U.S. Treasury and many major investors, agreed that the U.K. government should consider funding nuclear projects. “An alternative structure would be for government to procure construction on the balance sheet (so that the government would own the project and pay for construction as the costs are incurred), and then look to sell the project to the private sector once operational,” the IPFA suggested in its response. Energy Systems Catapult, a not-for-profit innovation center established by the government itself, also backs using the national balance sheet to build new nuclear at the lowest cost. The potential funding pool for new nuclear in Europe shrank in December when the EU published a definitive list of what can be considered for “sustainable finance.” Nuclear power did not make the grade, and nuclear won’t be financed as part of the EU’s recently announced Green Deal. Whether financial institutions follow the EU’s lead remains to be seen. The government declined to comment on its position toward directly funding and owning new nuclear power assets. “New nuclear has an important role to play in providing reliable, low-carbon power as part of our future energy mix as we aim to eliminate our contribution to climate change by 2050,” a spokesperson said. “However, we are clear that any energy project must offer value for money for consumers.” Does the U.K. need new nuclear at all?Other influential groups remain open or even supportive of the RAB model for funding new nuclear. The union Unite is receptive to a RAB framework but began its own response by saying it “favors a policy of state ownership of the energy sector.” The union also warned against letting what it views as inevitable cost overruns be passed on to energy-intensive consumers, which might then take their operations and jobs elsewhere. Trade body EnergyUK said it supports the development of an RAB model but added that it views a levy on consumer bills as a more regressive approach to funding than using general taxation. At the same time, other groups are questioning the government’s commitment to new nuclear. Citizens Advice, the powerful consumer watchdog, said it does not believe RAB would deliver good value. The union Unite is receptive to a RAB framework but began its own response by saying it “favors a policy of state ownership of the energy sector.” The union also warned against letting what it views as inevitable cost overruns be passed on to energy-intensive consumers, which might then take their operations and jobs elsewhere. Trade body EnergyUK said it supports the development of an RAB model but added that it views a levy on consumer bills as a more regressive approach to funding than using general taxation. At the same time, other groups are questioning the government’s commitment to new nuclear. Citizens Advice, the powerful consumer watchdog, said it does not believe RAB would deliver good value. “Several of the government’s own advisors, including both the Committee on Climate Change and the National Infrastructure Commission, are less definitive on the case for new nuclear than it is,” the group states in its response to the consultation. “If new nuclear is an option rather than a necessity, its economics come more sharply into play, and they are challenging when compared to a range of other low-carbon options.” Citizens Advice said it wants to see a detailed business case for new nuclear prior to any contracts being signed. It claims the value-for-money assessment on Hinkley C was published after the deal was legally binding and was only three pages long. The group also pointed out the elephant in the room: Brexit. To date, the investor pool for new U.K. nuclear has been largely populated by firms backed by foreign governments, including those that we may need to strike trade deals with in the coming years, meaning that there are political as well as economic considerations at play,” it wrote. “These factors would make it extremely hard for any regulator to take any steps that might result in the abandonment of a new nuclear project, even if costs were to escalate significantly. This would dilute their ability to act in consumers’ best interests.” |
|
Britons want real action on climate change, but Boris Johnson’s govt missing in action on this
  UK Energy Policy, Independent 12th Jan 2020Boris Johnson was today facing calls to step up action on global warming, after a poll for The Independent found overwhelming support for radical change to end the UK’s net carbon emissions by the end of the decade. Some 70 per cent of those questioned by pollsters BMG said they supported the target of net-zero emissions by 2030, with only 7 per cent opposing it. And support for swift action over the next 10 years was high across all age ranges, social groups and parts of the country, countering perceptions of a generational or urban/rural split on the climate emergency. Independent 8th Jan 2020, Ministers are under fire after revealing their strategy to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 will not be released until the end of the year. It means the plans – which will require huge and potentially unpopular changes to transport, energy and agriculture – will only emerge more than a year after the legal commitment was made. “If this is true, it doesn’t really smack of a government treating this issue as a climate emergency,” said Clive Lewis, Labour’s Treasury spokesman and a
leadership candidate. And Wera Hobhouse, the Liberal Democrat climate emergency spokesperson, pointing to the wildfire crisis in Australia, said: “While the world is waking up to the dangers of climate change, this Tory government is still on holiday. |
|
Britain’s Sizewell nuclear project in jeopardy, as EDF struggles to get funding
 Sizewell, Times 13th Jan 2020, EDF is in a race against time to secure a funding deal for its proposed nuclear power station in Suffolk as delays risk making the project prohibitively expensive. The French energy giant has hired Rothschild as financial adviser for the Sizewell C project and says it wants a “definitive way forward” from the government this year so it can start construction in 2022. The company building the £22 billion Hinkley Point C plant in Somerset has promised it can significantly reduce the cost of the sister plant in Suffolk, including by transferring workers and equipmentbetween the two. Delays to funding that result in a hiatus between the
projects would erode such savings and jeopardise Sizewell, which the government has said must be cheaper than Hinkley. A senior executive at Sizewell recently admitted that if funding proposals ended up “outside an acceptable price range for the government, then the project probably won’t go ahead — it’s as simple as that”.
EDF has proposed an alternative, funding model for Sizewell C, under which consumers would pay for the project while it is still under construction. This would cut borrowing costs but also put consumers on the hook for cost overruns.
The government ran a consultation last year on adopting the model but is yet to give its verdict. An EDF spokeswoman said: “We hope to see a way forward on nuclear financing in 2020 ahead of COP26 [the Glasgow climate change summit]. This would ensure we can maximise the benefits of replicating the design of Hinkley Point C at Sizewell C.”
|
‘Error of judgement’: UK police recall guide which listed Extinction Rebellion among extremist groups
‘Error of judgement’: UK police recall guide which listed Extinction Rebellion among extremist groups https://www.sbs.com.au/news/error-of-judgement-uk-police-recall-guide-which-listed-extinction-rebellion-among-extremist-groups
Counter-terrorism police in South-East England say they made an ‘error of judgement’ in adding climate Justice group Extinction Rebellion to a list of extremist ideologies.
The Guardian revealed the group was included in a 12-page guide named ‘Safeguarding young people and adults from ideological extremism’.
The document was designed to help educate people working with youth to “recognise when young people or adults may be vulnerable to extreme or violent ideologies”,
The guide advises people to look out for young people who “neglect to attend school” or “participate in planned school walkouts” – an apparent reference to the global School Strike for climate movement started by Greta Thunberg this year.
It also suggests that young people who engage in non-violent direct action such as writing environmentally-themed graffiti, sit-down protests or banner drops are potentially at risk of radicalisation.
The environmental group featured alongside Neo-Nazi terror operations and a pro-terrorist Islam outfit.
In a statement to The Guardian, Counter Terrorism Policing South East boss Kath Barnes said the guide is being recalled.
“The document was designed for a very specific audience who understand the complexities of the safeguarding environment we work within and who have statutory duties under Prevent. We are in the process of confirming who it has been shared with and recalling it.”
Extinction Rebellion was founded in October 2018 and the group maintains a welcoming, non-violent culture is at the core of its beliefs.
A spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion’s Sydney arm, AJ Tennant, says it was a shock to hear the international movement had made it onto the list in the first place.
“It’s very distressing that a peaceful, environmental organisation that’s trying to advocate for the protection of humanity would be treated with such disdain.”
He says he understands that people may find the extinction rebellion movement confronting, and even frustrating at times, but argues the movement has always been focused on non-violent methods of drawing attention to the climate debate.
“The first word that applies to everything that XR does is non-violent. We talk about being peaceful, we talk about having love in the movement, we talk about apologising to people for any inconvenience we caused, so while we are disruptive, we are always, always peaceful.
London-based human rights lawyer and media commentator Shoaib Khan has taken to Twitter to condemn the actions of British authorities.
Tens of thousands of Australians took to the streets on Friday to demand stronger action on climate, with some in the large crowds carrying the Extinction Rebellion network’s recognisable logo and flag.
A nuclear accident in Essex would be catastrophic
|
How much of Essex would disappear if there was a nuclear disaster?The damage would be catastrophic, Essex Live, By Brad Gray Multimedia Reporter 12 Jan 2020 “…………. disasters can happen, and Essex has it’s own nuclear power plant up in Bradwell-on-Sea.
Although the plant was closed down back in 2002 – and works have taken place over the past 20 years to remove nuclear waste and storage vaults – there are plans to reopen the site. A new plant could be built on the same location, up to modern standards, by 2030, but plans are not fully in place. However, with the date only a decade away – and interest in nuclear disasters higher than usual because of the hit TV show Chernobyl – it’s worth seeing how bad a nuclear disaster would be if something happened near Essex. How bad would the damage be in Essex?No 2 Nuclear Power have created a map tool to see how bad the damage would be if Sizewell were to have a nuclear accident the scale of Chernobyl’s. The map shows that much of Essex would become uninhabitable and areas in dark red or purple would have compulsory evacuation take place. At around 30 miles from the Essex border, the impact would still encompass most of the county. What about elsewhere?The damage wouldn’t just stop at our county. Suffolk and Norfolk would both be equally as affected as Essex, and London would also be heavily affected with some relocation needed. The affects would be felt as far away as Birmingham and Wales, and even further north to Nottingham and Sheffield. It’s fair to say that an explosion would be a national disaster unlike anything ever seen in the country. These estimations are also based upon there not being strong winds on the hypothetical day in question, as radiation can spread further if gusts are strong. If wind was blowing strongly west a huge portion of the country would be brought to a halt. Cities like Nottingham, Derby, Lincoln and Sheffield would all require immediate evacuation. Huge parts of the country would become uninhabitable and it would be a nationwide disaster not seen in the UK since World War Two. How likely would something like this be?It’s worth remembering that at the moment, Bradwell’s site is a non-operable plant. A disaster like this cannot happen until reactors there are up and running. And even then, with modern technology and monitoring standards, explosions like this are incredibly unlikely. In regards to Sizewell, which is made up of two nuclear power stations, there are plans that it could be transferred to a ‘nuclear island’ off the Suffolk coast………. HTTPS://WWW.ESSEXLIVE.NEWS/NEWS/ESSEX-NEWS/HOW-MUCH-ESSEX-WOULD-DISAPPEAR-3729222 |
|
|
UK’s planned Sizewell power station likely to become a ‘nuclear island’
Rising sea levels could turn new Sizewell power station into ‘nuclear island’ East Anglian Daily Times, 10 January, 2020, Andrew Hirst
Surging sea levels due to climate change could mean new power station Sizewell C is cut off by the water within decades, a top scientist has warned.
UK’s competition watchdog to investigate Jacobs’ acquisition of Wood Nuclear Limited
Times and Star 9th Jan 2020, The proposed £250 million acquisition of a major player in the clean-up of the Sellafield site in West Cumbria could be blocked. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has launched an investigation into global engineering firm Jacobs’ acquisition of Wood Nuclear Limited – the nuclear arm of the Wood Group.
The proposal deal – announced in August last year – would see Wood Nuclear Limited along with “subsidiary and certain affiliated companies” come under control of Jacobs’ UK division. Jacobs would also take on existing contracts held by the business – which include managing the Design and Engineering lot for the Programme and Project Partners (PPP) framework.
20-year contract awarded last year by Sellafield Limited as part of its push to “revolutionise” the decommissioning of the site, could be worth up to £769 million. Wood’s nuclear division is already a long-standing big tier company at Sellafield and, in December was awarded a £50m contract to provide programmable digital control technologies to the plant.
Bradwell nuclear power plan – foolish, in view of climate change predictions
BANNG 8th Jan 2020, As we enter a new year, Andy Blowers muses on the massive challenge of climate change that lies ahead, globally and locally, in the column for Regional Life, January 2020.
In East Anglia, we are increasingly aware of record heatwaves, milder and wetter winters, retreating coastlines and loss of precious habitats and declining and disappearing species. To an extent, these may be tackled by adaptive measures such as managed retreat of the coastline or hard defences. Even then, land loss and inundation will be unavoidable.
The idea of a massive nuclear power station at Bradwell on a
site threatened by the impacts of climate change seems foolish in the
extreme. Far better to go for cheaper, less risky and easily deployable
renewable options. Concerted action worldwide and locally, by governments,
businesses and individuals, is needed now if we are to reduce carbon
emissions to net zero and avert catastrophe. That was a clear message from
the General Election. Now we must get on with it.
1.This Month
of the week
Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety
The Nuclear Waste Problem- theme for January 2020
Please watch this video throughout. You will be surprised, and so much better informed about the reality of the nuclear waste situation.
EVENTS
January 30th – The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) will hold a public meeting about its yet-to-be-submitted application for renewal of the ten-year hazardous waste permit to the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED).
N CARLSBAD: January 30th from 5 to 7 pm at the Skeen-Whitlock Building, 4021 National Park Highway, Carlsbad
Free Julian Assange, before it’s too late. Sign to STOP the USA Extradition PETITION
-
Archives
- January 2020 (213)
- December 2019 (251)
- November 2019 (269)
- October 2019 (262)
- September 2019 (248)
- August 2019 (310)
- July 2019 (390)
- June 2019 (353)
- May 2019 (326)
- April 2019 (366)
- March 2019 (365)
- February 2019 (316)
-
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
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
