Britain supplying depleted uranium rounds to Ukraine
The UK will send “armour piercing rounds which contain depleted
uranium” to Ukraine, for use with the tank squadron donated by the
British army. Defence minister Baroness Goldie made the admission yesterday
in response to a written parliamentary question from crossbench peer Lord
Hylton. Goldie said: “Such rounds are highly effective in defeating
modern tanks and armoured vehicles.” Russia has previously warned it
would regard the use of depleted uranium in Ukraine as a ‘dirty bomb’.
Declassified UK 21st March 2023
Putin threatens response over Britain’s toxic tank shells.
Times 21st March 2023
UK says no nuclear escalation in Ukraine after row over depleted uranium munitions
By Alistair Smout, 23 Mar 23, UK says no nuclear escalation in Ukraine after row over depleted uranium munitions | Reuters
- Summary
- Britain is giving Ukraine ammo with depleted uranium
- Foreign Secretary says munitions are conventional
- Belarus warns of ‘fearful’ response, citing ‘real’ uranium
LONDON, March 22 (Reuters) – Britain’s Foreign Secretary James Cleverly said on Wednesday there was no nuclear escalation in the Ukraine war after Russian President Vladimir Putin criticised Britain for supplying depleted uranium tank munitions to Ukrainian forces.
Additional reporting by Gareth Jones, Gabrielle Tetrault-Farber and Caleb Davis, writing by Sarah Young and Alistair Smout, editing by William James, William Maclean
But Putin on Tuesday condemned British plans to send such ammunition to Ukraine, saying Moscow would be forced to respond accordingly as such weapons had “a nuclear component”.
Cleverly said that Russia was the only country talking about mounting nuclear risks and the ammunition was conventional.
“There is no nuclear escalation. The only country in the world that is talking about nuclear issues is Russia. There is no threat to Russia, this is purely about helping Ukraine defend itself,” Cleverly said at the launch of Britain’s international technology strategy.
“It’s worth making sure everyone understands that just because the word uranium is in the title of depleted uranium munitions, they are not nuclear munitions, they are purely conventional munitions.”
Britain has used depleted uranium in its armour piercing shells for decades and does not consider those rounds as having a nuclear capability. Russia is known to also have ammunition containing depleted uranium.
It is a particular health risk around impact sites, where dust can get into people’s lungs and vital organs.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Britain was “taking this escalation to a new and very serious stage,” while Russia’s mission in Geneva accused London of prolonging the conflict and leaving “no chance for a political and diplomatic settlement of the Ukrainian crisis.”
Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, a close Putin ally, also waded into the row on Wednesday, saying Russia would retaliate against the British decision by providing Belarus with ammunition containing “real uranium”.
“We need to step back from this madness. As soon as this ammunition explodes on Russian troops’ positions, you will see a fearful response, it will be a lesson for the whole planet,” he told reporters in a video clip.
“Russia does not only have depleted uranium… We have to lower this trend towards escalation in the conflict and move towards a peaceful settlement.”
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament condemns UK decision to send depleted uranium shells to Ukraine
The UK government is sending depleted uranium shells for use in the Challenger 2 tanks gifted to Ukraine, a move CND has condemned as an additional environmental and health disaster for those living through the conflict.
First reported by Declassified UK, Defence Minister Baroness Goldie admitted in the answer to a written question that armour piercing rounds containing depleted uranium (DU) were included in its tank package for Kiev. She added that the rounds “are highly effective in defeating modern tanks and armoured vehicles.”
A byproduct of the nuclear enriching process used to make nuclear fuel or nuclear weapons, DU emits three quarters of the radioactivity of natural uranium and shares many of its risks and dangers. It is used in armour piercing rounds as it is heavy and can easily penetrate steel. However on impact, toxic or radioactive dust can be released and subsequently inhaled.
READ MORE: CND’s briefing paper on depleted uranium
DU shells were used extensively by the US and British in Iraq in 1991 and 2003, as well as in the Balkans during the 1990s.
It is thought that the extensive use of these shells is responsible for the sharp rise in the incidence rate of some cancers like breast cancer or lymphoma in the areas they were used. Other illnesses linked to DU include kidney failure, nervous system disorders, lung disease and reproductive problems. However, a lack of reliable data on exposure to DU means no large-scale study on its true impact exists.
CND General Secretary Kate Hudson said:
“Like in Iraq, the addition of depleted uranium ammunition into this conflict will only increase the long-term suffering of the civilians caught up in this conflict. DU shells have already been implicated in thousands of unnecessary deaths from cancer and other serious illnesses. CND has repeatedly called for the UK government to place an immediate moratorium on the use of depleted uranium weapons and to fund long-term studies into their health and environmental impacts. Sending them into yet another war zone will not help the people of Ukraine.”
Legal case begins against Sizewell C nuclear project.
High Court hearing for Sizewell C legal challenge campaigners. Campaigners
who have issued a legal challenge against the building of nuclear power
plant Sizewell C have a High Court hearing starting on Wednesday 22 March.
Together Against Sizewell C will argue that the environmental impacts of
securing a permanent water supply of two million litres per day at the
proposed site in Suffolk were never assessed.
As a result, the government
cannot guarantee the date the nuclear power plant will open, which means it
has no way of knowing for sure that the plant’s contribution to climate
change is enough to override the environmental harm it will cause.
Together Against Sizewell C will also make the case that no alternatives to nuclear
power, including renewables, were considered when the Secretary of State
for Energy, then Kwasi Kwarteng, gave the go ahead for the building of
Sizewell C on 20 July 2022. He rejected the recommendation of the Examining
Authority which ruled in February 2022 that unless the outstanding water
supply strategy could be resolved and sufficient information provided to
enable the Secretary of State carry out his obligations under the Habitats
Regulations, there was no case for a development consent order.
Leigh Day 20th March 2023
Rolls Royce marketing its mini nuclear reactors to Sweden, Finland, Czech Republic, but deals could collapse
Rolls-Royce could build mini-nuclear reactors in Sweden and Finland under
plans being explored by Helsinki’s national energy company. Finnish
government-owned utility Fortnum has signed an early stage deal with
Rolls-Royce’s nuclear power business to explore uses of its small modular
reactors (SMRs) in the two Nordic countries. Shares in Rolls-Royce jumped
over 6pc in London on the news, amid a broader market rally.
The early stage deal comes as Rolls-Royce awaits a UK government decision on whether
to buy the reactors, which are smaller and cheaper than full scale plants.
Rolls-Royce’s 470MW units cost £1.8bn each. As well as the Finns, the
Czech government is also considering purchasing the technology as part of
efforts to decarbonise energy systems. Despite international interest,
Rolls-Royce has warned that deals may collapse unless Britain signals it
backs the technology by placing its own orders.
Telegraph 21st March 2023
Mini nuclear reactors all the rage, but are they the answer?
Mini nuclear reactors have appeared on the scene as an exciting prospect since the
spring budget, but how do they weigh up to traditional plants?
London-based start-up Newcleo laid out plans over the weekend to raise £900mln to build
small reactors in the UK on the back of the news. US-based developer Last
Energy then announced it had signed a deal to sell 24 of its mini nuclear
plants to UK customers on Monday, with these set to cost just £100mln
each.
Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC, a key player in the industry and the only
firm with SMR tech currently going through the UK’s regulatory process,
said it welcomed the government’s new stance, meanwhile.
What it may not
welcome is heated-up competition, though, with Newcleo among six rival
firms which have already applied to enter the UK’s stringent SMR design
assessment process, and the announcement likely to prompt more –
including Last Energy. Cavendish Nuclear/X-Energy, GE-Hitachi Nuclear
Energy, GMET Nuclear, Holtec Britain, UK Atomics, mark the others which
have submitted applications for their tech, though none are set to match
the size and output of Rolls-Royce’s.
Proactive Investors 21st March 2023
UK’s costly struggle to deal with dead nuclear submarines
The MoD has also been slated for the cost of maintaining the subs, £30 million a year.
Rosyth to be ‘de-nuclearised’ with removal of old submarines
https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/23150469.rosyth-de-nuclearised-removal-old-submarines/ By Ally McRoberts 27th November, 22
ALL of the laid-up nuclear submarines will be gone as part of a UK Government pledge to “de-nuclearise Rosyth” by 2035.
Councillors were given an update on the programme to remove radioactive waste and turn the seven boats that have been parked at the dockyard for decades into “tin cans and razor blades”.
The Ministry of Defence have faced heavy criticism for the delays in dealing with the nuclear legacy, with 27 Royal Navy subs to be scrapped in total.
Christine Bruce, from the Rosyth Submarine Dismantling Project, said most of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLW) should be gone by the end of 2024.
She added: “The subs will take a bit longer but we’ve got a forward programme which definitely does remove them all by about 2035.
“It absolutely is our aim to do what we said all those years ago, to de-nuclearise Rosyth.”
One of the decommissioned subs, Dreadnought, has been in the Rosyth basin since 1980 and she admitted that it had been out of service for so long that a lot of the low-level radiation had “disappeared naturally”.
The MoD has also been slated for the cost of maintaining the subs, £30 million a year.
At the South and West Fife area committee yesterday (Wednesday), Ms Bruce acknowledged: “It’s taken a long time to get to where we are.
We started in 1998, I was part of it from the beginning, it’s taken quite a long time to come up with the policy and for good reasons.
“There were no easy answers. If it had been easy we would have done it a long time before now.
“The aim is to get rid of 27 submarines, of which seven are at Rosyth and the rest are, or will be, at Devonport.”
A facility to deal with the boats at Rosyth had to be brought up to date, to make sure it was safe to remove the radioactive material, with funding from the MoD.
Work started on Swiftsure in 2015-16 and around 52 tonnes of LLW was removed, with most of the metals recycled.
With lessons learned from the first sub, they progressed and removed 77 tonnes from Resolution and then 120 tonnes from Revenge.
The next step was a world first, the removal of the reactor from Revenge, the most radioactive part left in the sub, as well as the steam generators.
Next will be removing the rest of the LLW from Swiftsure so all that’s left is the reactor, which should be taken out around 2025.
The sub was to be recycled elsewhere but it’s cheaper, safer and more secure “to do the first one at Rosyth” and then sell it off to scrap merchants.
Gordon McAughey, head of internal assurance at Babcock Rosyth, added: “Hopefully, by 2026, the skyline change at Rosyth will occur where the first boat will be gone, it will be tin cans and razor blades.
“It’s a very challenging programme to build a facility to do all this work and to get all the permissions from regulators, but what I will say is we never compromise on safety for the sake of progress. We can’t compromise on safety.”
LLW is to be taken to a facility in Dorset, which should be completed next year, by 2024.
The reactors are to be taken to Capenhurst in Cheshire and it hasn’t yet been decided if they’ll be transported by road or sea.
Ms Bruce said safety and security would be paramount.
What to do with dead nuclear submarines?
Legacy. It is unacceptable to leave waste for future generations to deal with……
End game
To some extent, the Ministry of Defence is stuck in a vicious circle whereby the cost of storing submarines eats into the budget for their disposal. ………but the glacial pace of work …. is more concerning. There are always more pressing priorities for defence expenditure and the dismantling project has been continually delayed. In the meantime the nuclear and health and safety regulatory requirements that must be met are getting stricter, adding further costs. There is almost complete reliance on Babcock for UK submarine support activity and there is a very finite number of SQEP with nuclear expertise available to recruit in the UK.
Project to dismantle ex-Royal Navy nuclear submarines inches forward, Navy Lookout, 7 Feb 22.
There are currently 21 former Royal Navy nuclear submarines awaiting disposal, 7 in Rosyth and 14 in Devonport. Here we look at the process and the modest progress in efforts to dismantle them.
Kicking the can down the road ………. Unfortunately, successive governments failed to make arrangements for the timely disposal of these boats. In a less environmentally conscious era, filling the boats with concrete and sinking them in the deep ocean was the original plan but the disposal of nuclear waste at sea was banned by the London Dumping Convention in 1983. Planning for the dismantling of these submarines should have been started at that time, but only in the last 10 years has there been a serious effort to grip the issue.
Over time the nuclear regulatory frameworks have become ever-more demanding than when the submarines were conceived. Stricter rules have added more complexity and cost to the dismantling process, ironically adding delays and increasing the amount of nuclear waste awaiting appropriate disposal. HMS Dreadnought decommissioned in 1980, has now been tied up in Rosyth far longer than she was in active service. In the civil nuclear industry, operators are required by law to put aside funds and make plans during the life of the plant to pay for decommissioning. It would be prudent if a similar principle was applied by the MoD to all new nuclear submarine construction.
Besides the attraction of deferring costs in the short-term, a major cause of delays has been the selection of a land storage site for radioactive waste. Low-Level Waste (LLW) is stored at Sellafield in concrete-lined vaults and in 2017 URENCO Nuclear Stewardship Ltd at Capenhurst in Cheshire was selected as the interim site for storing the more dangerous Intermediate Level Waste (ILW). The Reactor Pressure Vessels (RPV) removed from the submarines are classed as ILW and will temporarily be stored in purpose-built buildings above ground. They will eventually be moved to a permanent underground Geological Disposal Facility (GDF)
Afloat storage
While awaiting dismantling, decommissioned submarines are stored afloat in a non-tidal basin in the dockyard. The 7 submarines in Rosyth have all had their nuclear fuel rods removed but of the 14 in Devonport, 10 are still fuelled. This is because in 2003 the facilities for de-fuelling were deemed no longer safe enough to meet modern regulation standards and the process was halted. Submarines that have not had fuel removed have the reactor primary circuit chemically treated to guarantee it remains inert and additional radiation monitoring equipment is fitted.
Apart from regular monitoring, once every 15 years each boat has to be dry-docked for a Survey and Docking Period (SADP) which involves hull inspection and preservation work.
Reasons to accelerate disposal
Cost. The expense of afloat storage and maintenance of decommissioned boats is rising – currently costing approximately £30M per year. Every further delay adds to this and will have to be funded from a defence budget that is much smaller in real terms than when the boats were ordered and built during the Cold War. The total disposal cost will be at least £3bn over 25 years and continue into the 2040s. (This is for the 27 boats listed above – Astute-class dismantling is not yet being considered.) All this effort and expense is a drain on precious MoD resources for zero operational gain with each delay adding to the cost.
Legacy. It is unacceptable to leave waste for future generations to deal with and it is simply common sense to dispose of old equipment at around the same time their replacements come online. Responsible care of the hulks afloat means they pose minimal risk to the environment or local population, but a tiny risk does remain. This makes some people living nearby uneasy and provides another grievance for those ideologically opposed to nuclear submarines and Trident. The minimal environmental hazard they pose is sometimes exaggerated by media, politicians and campaigners to suit their own agenda. The old boats are also a rather uncomfortable reminder of the time when the RN had an SSN force approximately double the strength it is today.
Space. When HMS Trenchant is moved to 3 Basin at Devonport for storage, the basin will be at its licensed capacity. Currently, the MoD only has permission from the nuclear regulator to store 14 boats. Approval to hold 16 will be needed in order to accommodate HMS Talent and Triumph when they decommission. Storing more boats in Rosyth is not an option because of limited space in the basin which is also used for civilian vessels as well as by the aircraft carriers to access the dry dock. Once the purpose-built disposal facility at Devonport is up and running in the early 2030s, it will be more efficient (and likely deemed politically less sensitive than anything in Scotland).
Progress at Rosyth
The Submarine Dismantling Project (SDP) finally started at Rosyth in December 2016, around 15 years behind schedule. A team of around 150 people are working on the site pioneering the two-stage process to remove radioactive waste. Swiftsure was the ‘pilot’ submarine for the project and stage 1 – the removal of LLW. This work was completed and the boat was sealed up and returned to afloat storage in the basin during August 2018. So far, 129 tonnes of mainly metallic LLW have been removed from Swiftsure and Resolution. Many of the older boats have asbestos lagging around pipes, which also has to be removed with exceptional care and disposed of in sealed containers. Stage 1 work on Resolution was completed on time in March 2020 and on budget.
Stage 1 work on Revenge started in March 2020 but was suspended on the 24th due to COVID lockdown and (almost) normal working was not resumed until June 2020……………..
Disposal at Devonport
Progress at Devonport is considerably behind that of Rosyth. The unplanned refuelling of HMS Vanguard added a six-month delay as Babcock engineers were diverted from the SDP to work on the more urgent SSBN refit. ………………..
End game
To some extent, the MoD is stuck in a vicious circle whereby the cost of storing submarines eats into the budget for their disposal. The modest progress at Rosyth in the last 5 years is encouraging but the glacial pace of work in Devonport is more concerning. There are always more pressing priorities for defence expenditure and the dismantling project has been continually delayed. In the meantime the nuclear and health and safety regulatory requirements that must be met are getting stricter, adding further costs. There is almost complete reliance on Babcock for UK submarine support activity and there is a very finite number of SQEP with nuclear expertise available to recruit in the UK.
Like so many problems in defence, the failure to dispose of the boats cannot be blamed on one person, government or company, rather a series of decisions made by many individuals that seemed justifiable at the time. There must be some sympathy for those working to deal with this legacy today, although the thrust of 2019 HoC Public Accounts Committee report on submarine disposal efforts can be summarised as saying “this is simply not good enough”. https://www.navylookout.com/project-to-dismantle-ex-royal-navy-nuclear-submarines-inches-forward/
No country in the world has worked out what to do with its old dead, radioactive, nuclear submarines.
In light of Boris’s new enthusiasm for lots of Rolls-Royce’s so-called “mini-nukes” to generate electricity, it should be better known that the Ministry of Defence has not scrapped any of its 21 similarly Rolls-Royce-powered old nuclear submarines, berthed for up to 40 years.
It has made a start dismantling the hull of one, but there are still no plans for dealing with the reactors beyond burying them. Indeed, no country in the world has properly made safe a worn out mini-nuke-powered ship or submarine.
Guardian 10th April 2022
Despite UK government’s enthusiasm, nuclear power is just not a good investment
Investment industry lukewarm on confirmation of nuclear in UK taxonomy.
One London-based funding manager warned that the industry’s problems were
economic not environmental. A sustainability figure at one large UK fund
manager said the nuclear industry’s ability to attract capital has not
primarily been about having to manage an unattractive ESG profile. “It is
incredibly expensive and un-cost competitive when compared to the
alternatives”.
Responsible Investor 14th March 2023
https://www.responsible-investor.com/investment-industry-lukewarm-on-confirmation-of-nuclear-in-uk-taxonomy/
Scotland’s not-so-Green Freeports: Minister’s equivocal response leaves way open to nuclear manufacturing facility
Scottish anti-nuclear campaigners were disappointed to learn that the
Scottish Net Zero Minister will not be opposed to a nuclear manufacturing
facility in a supposed Green Freeport. The Scottish Nuclear Free Local
Authorities and Highlands Against Nuclear Power wrote to Michael Matheson
MSP in the hope that he could provide reassurance that the two new Green
Freeports planned for Scotland in Forth and Cromarty & Inverness Firth
would not include a manufacturing plant to produce prefabricated parts for
supposedly Small Modular Reactors, such as the 470 MW design championed by
Rolls-Royce, but the Minister was unable to do so.
The Minister’s
assertion that the new Green Freeports could include businesses undertaking
work for the nuclear sector appears to both the NFLA and HANP a
contradiction of their stated aim to ‘contribute towards a just
transition to net-zero emissions by 2045’ and in so doing create
thousands of new green technology jobs.
Councillor Paul Leinster, Convenor
of NFLA Scottish, said: “We are glad that the Minister has once more
stated that there will be no new nuclear power generation on site, but
bemused that it would be acceptable for a manufacturing facility to be
located there that would make parts that would be shipped elsewhere to
enable nuclear power generation to take place outside Scotland. Nuclear is
not ‘green’; although the industry makes much of its claim that
electricity generation is carbon free this fails to take account of the
huge carbon footprint that any nuclear plant creates throughout its
lifecycle and once it is decommissioned.
NFLA 16th March 2023
“Great British Nuclear” launch – an eccentric fraud by the UK government.
UK to finally harness full power of green energy with new Great British
Nuclear scheme. Jeremy Hunt has confirmed nuclear power will be classed as
“environmentally sustainable” in a bid to boost investment in the energy
sector. The Chancellor said today he would launch “Great British Nuclear”
to bring down costs.
Andy Stirling, Professor of Science and Technology
Policy at the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex,
told Express.co.uk: “Amid the complete eclipse of nuclear power by
renewables, the position being taken by the UK Government is now growing so
eccentrically flawed as to become a major investment-threatening risk in
its own right. “To characterise nuclear as ‘cheap’ is to completely forego
credibility.
This is even more so, if promises are relied on around a new
generation of military-derived ‘small modular reactors’ that are
currently undeveloped, untested, unlicensed, unpiloted, unsited and
unbuilt.
“The National Infrastructure Commission confirms that renewables
and storage offer much more affordable, effective and rapid zero carbon
alternatives than even the most attractive nuclear options. The track
record of nuclear and renewables accentuate this picture.
“By attaching such a strong priority to nuclear power, the UK Government is not only
jeopardising economic, secure clean energy. With other nations prioritising
renewables more strongly, the UK thereby continues to forego the full
domestic employment and industrial benefits of unique UK renewable
resources.”
Express 15th March 2023
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1746665/energy-crisis-nuclear-jeremy-hunt-budget
Britain does not have the capacity to support Australia’s plan to build its own nuclear submarine fleet – Rear Admiral.
Letter Rear Admiral (ret’d) Philip Mathias:
Sir, Britain does not have the
capacity or effective leadership to provide the huge level of support
required by Australia to build its own nuclear submarine fleet (“PM
strikes submarine deal to face new threat”, Mar 14).
The performance of
the Submarine Delivery Agency has been abysmal. Astute class submarines are
being delivered late by BAE Systems; HMS Vanguard’s refit by Babcock has
taken more than seven years; and none of our 22 decommissioned nuclear
submarines has been dismantled, which is disgraceful.
Times 15th March 2023
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/times-letters-aukus-nuclear-powered-submarine-deal-9c5ntd5m7
UK government is urged to “come clean” over the real cost of Sizewell C nuclear power station
Ministers must “come clean” over the cost of the planned Sizewell C
nuclear power station, MPs have heard. Alan Brown, the SNP’s energy
security spokesman, sought guarantees about the Suffolk project, given the
increasing costs for building Hinkley Point C in Somerset. Speaking at
Cabinet Office questions, Mr Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) said: “In
2016, Hinkley Point C was estimated to cost £18 billion. “The latest
update is Hinkley Point C is going to cost £33 billion. “Now, the UK
Government wants to replicate Hinkley Point C at Sizewell C. “Why then
are they still estimating the cost for Sizewell C at £18 billion and when
are they going to come clean about the real cost?”
Irish News 16th March 2023
UK Chancellor Jeremy Hunt accused of ‘£20bn gamble’ on nuclear energy and carbon capture
Campaigners say chancellor is in the grip of the fossil fuel and nuclear lobbies and is ‘squandering taxpayers’ money’
Guardian, Alex Lawson Energy correspondent, 15 Mar 23
Jeremy Hunt has been accused of wagering a “dangerous gamble on unproven technologies” in an effort to decarbonise Britain’s energy industry after ploughing more than £20bn into a series of projects.
In his budget speech, the chancellor confirmed plans to spend the money over the next two decades on carbon capture and low carbon energy projects; announced a competition to co-fund small nuclear plants and launched a consultation to classify nuclear as “environmentally sustainable”.
The government has created Great British Nuclear, a body designed to ease the creation of nuclear projects which are regularly delayed and over budget, and set a target for nuclear to “provide up to one quarter of our electricity by 2050”.
Hunt, who has been under pressure to respond to Joe Biden’s $369bn (£306bn) of climate subsidies, said: “Increasing nuclear capacity is vital to meet our net zero obligations.”
However, climate campaigners attacked the drive, which had no giveaways for the solar or wind industries.
Ami McCarthy, Greenpeace UK’s political campaigner, said: “This misguided budget shows the stranglehold fossil fuel and nuclear lobbies have on this government. Why else would it take such a dangerous gamble on unproven technologies?
“Squandering taxpayers’ money on nuclear reactors that don’t even exist yet and fanciful carbon capture is irresponsible, and does nothing to reduce our emissions now.
“Committing to £20bn over 20 years is frankly pathetic compared to the green growth investments being made in the US, EU and China.”
Helen Clarkson, chief executive of Climate Group, said: “This spring budget overlooks cheap and clean renewable energy, and instead rebrands nuclear as ‘environmentally sustainable’ and throws cash at carbon capture technology. This was a missed opportunity to renew the UK’s commitment to climate leadership.”
………….. Stuart Murphy, founder of tidal energy specialist TPGen24, said: “There is nothing environmentally sustainable about a finite resource which leaves a legacy of hazardous waste.”…………………. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/15/jeremy-hunt-accused-of-taking-a-20bn-gamble-on-nuclear-energy-and-carbon-capture
1 This Month
of the week – Shut Down Drone Warfare!
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
Petition to revoke the licensing of the Near Surface Nuclear Disposal Facility (NSDF) at Chalk River. https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-7247
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (103)
- 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)
- May 2025 (261)
-
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 