Marine deaths prompt calls for investigation and halt into any new nuclear dump tests.
Marine Deaths of harbour porpoise, dolphin, pilot whale, seals
and other protected species following last August’s seismic blasting
looking at the geology of the Irish Sea for a deep sub-sea nuclear dump
have prompted calls for a halt and an investigation.
A legal challenge has been threatened by campaigners against further seismic blasting in the search areas which include the Irish Sea and Allerdale’s Solway Firth area.
The Copeland seismic blasting went ahead for 20 days from the 1st August
2022 despite a petiton of over 50,000 signatures. The testing of the
Copeland Irish Sea area centred off Sellafield was contracted by Nuclear
Waste Services in their quest to find a place to dispose of high level
nuclear wastes in a Geological Disposal Facility.
Environmental Lawyers
Leigh Day acting for Lakes Against Nuclear Dump, a Radiation Free Lakeland
campaign have now written to the Environment Secretary Thérèse Coffey and
to the Marine Management Organisation. The letter includes an Appendix of
“Events” beginning with strandings of protected species including dead
seals and harbour porpoise at Drigg on the 8th August and includes deaths
of dolphin, pilot whale and jellyfish (food for protected turtle species).
Radiation Free Lakeland 25th April 2023
Anti nuclear campaign groups in Wales(Dwyfor and Meirionnydd) urge government to invest in energy conservation, NOT dirty nuclear power.
Here is the response on behalf of PAWB, Pobl Atal Wylfa B/People AgainstWylfa B (Ynys Môn and Arfon) and CADNO, Cymdeithas Atal Dinistr NiwclearOesol (Dwyfor and Meirionnydd) to the Welsh Government’s review of renewable energy targets..
Generally, there is much to welcome in the government’s discussion paper.
However, in response to Proposal 1, we would like to see the government
putting more emphasis on reducing the demand for electricity by investing
in a comprehensive insulation and energy conservation programme.
That is vitally important all over Cymru alongside the renewable energy programme.
However, we believe that Welsh Government’s investment in Cwmni Egino to
attempt to get a nuclear energy development at the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority’a site at Trawsfynydd undermines this aim. Nuclear power is a
dirty, dangerous and extremely expensive technology that is in no way
renewable. Any nuclear development at Trawsfynydd would depend heavily on
carbon fuels in the building process thereby further undermining the aim of
proposal.
PAWB 24th April 2023
Despite the dangers of climate change, UK nuclear power stations still sited on the coastline!
**Nuclear Siting**
Frozen in aspic — planning and pragmatism in the siting of nuclear power
stations in Britain. Despite efforts at strategic siting and the problems
posed by changing circumstances — especially the challenges arising out
of climate change — the geography of nuclear power infrastructure is
stubbornly inflexible, and has barely changed since it was first
established over half a century ago, as Andrew Blowers explains.
The geography of nuclear power in Britain was more or less settled by the 1970s
and has endured remarkably since then. Speed was of the essence in the
early years, a so-called age of ‘innocent expectation’ or, perhaps more
realistically, one of ‘trust in technology’. This was ‘nuclear’s
moment’, lasting less than three decades, during which time the
infrastructure of nuclear development was established around Britain,
predominantly at coastal sites.
But there is now a serious disjunction between a geography of nuclear power established more than half a century ago and the realities of site suitability in an age of climate change.
During the present century, a strategic siting process was adopted, with
individual sites identified through a National Policy Statement for Nuclear
Power Generation. In practice, siting remains a specific process, a matter
primarily of economic and historical determinism, with a few projects
seeking to attract investment to a handful of existing sites.
The last of the AGRs, at Torness on the east coast of Scotland, became the focus of the
first full-blown anti-nuclear protest in 1978 and 1979, attracting 5,000
people to the familiar features of fairs, symbols, stalls, camps, speeches,
leaflets, workshops, non-violent action, political and media attention,
stand-off s with police, and site occupations. The protest halted progress
but was eventually cleared. Its target was not just Torness power station
but the nuclear industry itself, and the connections between civil and
military nuclear power were clearly in evidence. With Torness, the
geography of nuclear power in Britain was complete.
Town & Country Planning Association Journal March April, 25th April 2023. ..https://www.tcpa.org.uk/journals/
No change to nuclear transport rules following accident down under, says regulator
in Western Australia.
The Office of Nuclear Regulation is responsible for oversight of operators transporting nuclear materials in the UK, and the Chief Nuclear Inspector’s report from October 2022 recorded 69 incidents related to nuclear transport in the reporting period. Two of these involved lost radioactive packages.
In response to the Western Australian accident, Richard Bramhall, of the Low-Level Radiation Campaign, told the NFLA: ‘The company is to be criticised for appalling practice since the gauge itself came apart and the packaging came apart and the vehicle was inadequate to contain the outcome of those failures.’
The NFLA and Dr Jill Sutcliffe, joint Chair of the NGA Forum of the Office of Nuclear Regulation, sent an FOI request to the ONR with their concerns. The ONR’s response is shown below as, whilst it contains no commitment to procedural changes, it has useful detailed guidance on the regulatory regime that applies to the transport of nuclear materials and links to reports.
The NFLA also wrote to senior executives at Rio Tinto PLC, the mining conglomerate that lost the caesium capsule, asking the company to issue a statement outlining how procedures would be tightened up to avoid another accident and whether Rio Tinto would fully reimburse the local authorities for the cost of recovering the capsule. Despite a reminder being sent urging the executives to respond, no reply has so far been received. 25 Apr 23
Water shortage at Sizewell: the environmental cost
Pete Wilkinson: (From Feb 2022) Building the Sizewell C plant, which
requires vast amounts of fresh water, in an area of water scarcity makes no
sense. The availability of water is something we barely give a thought to:
only ten percent of people consider water shortage to be an environmental
issue, yet without it, it’s curtains. According to the Environment Agency
(EA), England could fail to meet national demand by 2050.
As the driest part of the country, Eastern England has been designated as a
water-stressed area and future pressures include climate change, economic
and housing development. Suffolk is recognised as an area of water
scarcity, facing predictions of a water shortage in the coming years.
East Anglia Bylines (accessed) 23rd April 2023
Pension funds shun Sizewell C in major blow to Britain’s nuclear ambitions
Asset managers ‘extremely sceptical’ about nuclear push despite project’s ‘sustainable’ status
By Matt Oliver and Szu Ping Chan, 22 April 2023 •
The Government’s push to find investors for the £20bn Sizewell C nuclear
power station has suffered a significant blow as Britain’s biggest fund
managers have snubbed the scheme.
Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor, sought to
make the project more attractive to green-focused asset managers in his
Spring Budget by proposing to give it “sustainable” status under UK
financing rules. Ministers have also reformed the funding model for nuclear
plants to hand investors more up-front rewards.
But senior sources in the
asset management industry and two of the country’s biggest fund managers
have dismissed the changes as irrelevant and insisted it would not persuade
them to back Sizewell C.
Nuclear power is seen as vital to Britain’s energy
security in the wake of the Ukraine war, with ministers calling for it togenerate 25pc of the country’s electricity needs by 2050. But despite
introducing new funding models and classifying it as “green” to attract
investors, the Government has struggled to persuade sceptical pension funds
and asset managers to get behind Sizewell C.
Legal & General – Britain’s
biggest money manager with £1.3 trillion of assets – said Mr Hunt’s
announcement will have no bearing on its opposition to large nuclear energy
schemes, as it is focused on supporting alternatives such as wind and
solar. A spokesman for Legal & General Capital told The Telegraph: “Our
stance hasn’t changed: we are focused on investing in and supporting other
innovative, viable, and cost-effective clean energy solutions that are
already delivering results.” Barclays has been brought in to run the financing process but this has not yet begun, prompting concerns it could
be held up by a potential general election next year.
Telegraph 22nd April 2023
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/04/22/uk-nuclear-ambitions-pension-funds-shun-sizewell-c/
Rolls Royce shares OK for civil aviation, but investment in small nuclear reactors is risky
Will going nuclear send Rolls-Royce shares into meltdown?
Dr James Fox takes a closer look at Rolls-Royce shares. What’s next for the British engineering giant after the recent rally came to an end in March?
The Motley Fool, Dr. James Fox 23 Apr 23
Rolls-Royce (LSE:RR) shares have been red-hot in recent months, going from strength to strength. But the FTSE 100 stock has plateaued since March.
So what could drive the share price forward in the coming years? Could it be Rolls-Royce’s entry into the nuclear space?
Rolls-Royce (LSE:RR) shares have been red-hot in recent months, going from strength to strength. But the FTSE 100 stock has plateaued since March.
So what could drive the share price forward in the coming years? Could it be Rolls-Royce’s entry into the nuclear space?
For some, the jury is out on the future profitability of the modular nuclear reactor programme — the plan was given government approval and funding last year.
………. In theory, Rolls would ‘mass produce’ these small reactors, with a capacity of 470MW, and sell them for around £2bn.
………..there are challenges. First among them are reports that the UK government is preparing to invite international bids for next-generation nuclear power projects, thus removing its backing for Rolls-Royce’s product in development.
With billions of forecast development costs, it would be disastrous if the government started to favour other companies — the share price would really suffer.
What matters more?
The nuclear programme is interesting but, in reality, other sectors are more important — for now at least. In the near term, I’m hoping to see more signs of the recovery in civil aviation. This is Rolls’ biggest sector and a post-pandemic recovery will propel the company forward.
…………………..Despite the risks in the SMR space, I’m not fearing a share price meltdown. https://www.fool.co.uk/2023/04/23/will-going-nuclear-send-rolls-royce-shares-into-meltdown/
—
UK seeks a nuclear energy renaissance – but experts question whether it’s value for money
The most powerful argument against nuclear could be economic as most plants take at least ten years to commission, design and build
inews, By Leo Cendrowicz, Brussels Correspondent, 21 Apr 23,
BRUSSELS – As Europe scrambles for new energy sources, Britain has joined the countries seeking a nuclear renaissance.
Chancellor Jeremy Hunt announced last month the creation of Great British Nuclear, a body to oversee the roll-out of a fleet of nuclear power stations.
However, there are concerns about the environmental impact of nuclear, with campaign groups saying that the risks of nuclear reactions and the difficulties in disposing of nuclear waste mean it cannot be considered green.
And the most powerful argument against nuclear could be economic. Most plants take at least ten years to commission, design and build. Delays are frequent: Europe’s largest nuclear reactor, the Olkiluoto 3 plant in Finland, came online last week a full 14 years after its scheduled date, beset by technological problems that led to lawsuits – while its final price tag ballooned to around €11bn (£9.74bn), almost three times the initial estimate.
The steep upfront building costs for nuclear power plants, along with the long construction times, have raised questions about whether nuclear energy represents value for money.
Now that renewable costs are going down – especially in solar, wind and batteries – renewable is likely to be cheaper in the longer term, making nuclear commissions look less worthwhile.
The fact that Europe has built few nuclear plants since the boom wave of the 60s also means there is little expertise available across the value chain. The EU Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton has said a “colossal” investment in nuclear energy will be needed over the next 30 years to meet the EU’s emissions-reduction targets and electricity demand.
“The big question on nuclear is the economics of building new nuclear plants,” says Ben McWilliams, an energy research analyst at Bruegel – a Brussels-based think tank. “When you compare it to something like solar or wind, which are also modular technologies, so you can have much larger economies of scale – you have to ask if it is sensible to start building new nuclear plants that will come online in 15 or 20 years when they’re going to compete in a grid that should be largely renewable dominated?”
……………………………… France, Europe’s champion, has not been the best advertisement recently: last November, almost half of the country’s reactors were offline, thanks to maintenance issues in its ageing nuclear fleet.
The UK’s strategy is to focus on small modular reactors (SMRs) to ensure faster build times. These mini reactors would generate between 50 and 500 megawatts of power, compared with the 3.2-gigawatt Hinkley Point C in Somerset, the UK’s only large nuclear plant under construction, which is plagued by delays and cost overruns.
………………………….. . In February, 11 EU energy ministers signed a declaration committing to “cooperate more closely” across the entire nuclear supply chain and promote “common industrial projects” in new generation capacity as well as new technologies like small reactors.
While energy policy is mostly set at national level within the European Union, the long-term push is for green, renewable energy. The European Commission has attempted to nudge governments to wean themselves off fossil fuels, adopting a controversial measure that labels nuclear investments as sustainable “transitional” sources, if they replace dirtier fuels. Last Tuesday, Greenpeace and other campaign groups announced plans to take the Commission to the EU Court of Justice of the EU. https://inews.co.uk/news/world/uk-nuclear-energy-renaissance-expert-money-2289161
Will Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investment managers follow the govt in backing nuclear?
By Chloe Cheung, 19 Apr 23, https://www.ftadviser.com/investments/2023/04/19/will-esg-investment-managers-follow-the-govt-in-backing-nuclear/
Wind turbines and solar panels are commonly associated with low-carbon energy, but nuclear power is also being considered in the pursuit of net zero.
In a move to encourage private sector investment, chancellor Jeremy Hunt said in the spring Budget that the UK green taxonomy will class nuclear power as ‘environmentally sustainable’, subject to consultation.
Although nuclear fuels are not renewable, the classification would enable nuclear power to have the same investment incentives as renewable energy.
But despite being low-carbon, it is not uncommon to come across ESG funds and investment companies that exclude nuclear power generation. So will investment managers follow the UK government’s approach to nuclear power?
William Argent, lead adviser to the VT Gravis Clean Energy Income Fund, says the fund’s responsible investment statement does not currently allow exposure to nuclear power generation assets.
“There may be some very modest exposure to companies involved in the nuclear energy supply chain, providing services; but we do not have exposure to companies that own nuclear energy generation plants themselves,” he adds.
While the UK government wants to class nuclear power as ‘environmentally sustainable’, Argent says his position on nuclear energy has, at this stage, not changed. “We exclude it as a commonly perceived ‘controversial activity’.
“There would need to be a shift in that perception among our investors and more widely. We would not consider changing the stance unless there was a broader acceptance.”
Other funds avoiding companies that generate revenue from nuclear power generation include Quilter Cheviot’s Climate Assets Funds.
“While we recognise that nuclear power does not generate greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore it has a role to play in the net-zero pathway and transition away from fossil fuels, we do not consider it a ‘sustainable investment’,” says Claudia Quiroz, lead fund manager of the Climate Assets Funds, and head of sustainable investment at Quilter Cheviot.
Citing environmental and safety issues that “outweigh” zero emission credentials, she says: “Nuclear energy generates a significant mass of radioactive waste. In addition, however it is disposed of, that radioactive waste will remain for generations to come.
“Safety concerns, both accidental and deliberate, also exist. While the operation of nuclear power plants is undoubtedly safer than previous generations and an accidental disaster on the scale of Chernobyl is unlikely, safety challenges do remain.
“Nuclear power plants are also easy targets for malevolent acts such as terrorist threats, cyberattacks or acts of war.”
Although Quiroz describes the UK government’s intended sustainable classification of nuclear energy as ultimately a positive move, she adds that as sustainable investors, it will not change the fund’s philosophy on investing in nuclear energy.
Jonathon Porritt: Germany’s nuclear nous vs UK nuclear nutters.
So that’s another dead duck in the case made for new nuclear. Which just leaves the final barrier: the continuing reality that our nuclear weapons capability still depends very heavily on maintaining a civil nuclear power programme – not just to guarantee a continuing supply of nuclear engineers and R&D funding, but to keep the public in the dark about the increasingly insupportable costs of renewing our notionally ‘independent’ nuclear deterrent.
I’m celebrating today – for the simple reason that Germany closed down its three remaining nuclear reactors on Saturday 15th April.
I’ve followed the nuclear debate in Germany ever since I first got involved in green politics back in the 1970s, and was hugely inspired by the campaigns of Die Grünen against both nuclear power and nuclear weapons – seeing the two as inextricably linked. Interestingly, it’s as controversial a debate now as it was then – with a majority of people in Germany (including some Die Grünen voters) still believing that nuclear power should be part of the electricity mix.
As I argued back in 2011, I did not agree with the decision of the Merkel Government (in coalition with Die Grünen) to close down all its remaining reactors in response to the Fukushima disaster – well before the end of their scheduled operational lifetime. Inevitably, this decision caused an (albeit temporary) increase in burning coal and gas.
That’s now water under the bridge – and Germany’s energy system will now be completely nuclear-free, even if it will be dealing with the legacy of its nuclear waste for many years to come. As the German Environment Minster, Steffi Lemke, said: ‘Three generations have benefitted from nuclear power in Germany, but about 30,000 generations will be affected by the ongoing presence of nuclear waste.’
But my celebration has been sadly attenuated by the current nuclear frenzy going on here in the UK. I’ve been through many periods of nuclear hype over the years, but nothing quite like this one – with all the mainstream political parties, the industry itself and all mainstream media (including some sorely deluded muppets in the BBC and the Guardian) ramping up their ‘nuclear renaissance’ rhetoric in increasingly dishonest and fact-free ways.
I suspect they see this as a ‘now or never’ moment before economic reality kills off nuclear power once and for all – when that combination of renewables-storage-efficiency is so massively outperforming nuclear as to starve all nuclear options of the capital they will still need. Government subsidy can only go so far.
In the meantime, however, we have a Government still strenuously seeking investors in its godforsaken plans for two more ludicrously expensive reactors at Sizewell C – an asset that already looks totally stranded even before a Final Investment Decision is taken.
Even that, however, is just a sideshow in comparison to the hype around prospects for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) here in the UK. In March, the Chancellor announced a new competition to identify the best value SMR design for the UK, with a view to its eventually handing over a full £1bn in co-funding to get that design off the ground. Ludicrous. But full marks to the Tories for ‘recycling’ here: the announcement sounded almost identical to the earlier competition it announced back in March 2016. (And it was only the fifth time that the Chancellor reconfirmed plans for a new Great British Nuclear agency!)
Apart from the nuclear industry itself, and all its happy-clappy cheerleaders, the majority of independent commentators continue to point out that SMRs cannot possibly deliver what we now need: safe, affordable, ultra-low-carbon electricity that can actually make a practical difference in meeting our Net Zero target by 2035.
And that’s before one thinks about the nuclear waste nightmare: a new study published in Proceedings of the American National Academy of Sciences estimates that SMRs will create 30 times as much nuclear waste (per unit of electricity generated) as conventional reactors.
It’s all just a massive waste of time and public money – but with devastating consequences. If we could just free ourselves of our residual hankering after nuclear power, we could (finally!) double down on the infinitely more cost-effective renewables-storage-efficiency alternatives. With massive benefits in terms of decarbonisation, jobs, addressing fuel poverty and so on.
The case for this transition (away from fossil fuels and nuclear) is now incontrovertible but two remaining barriers stand in the way of us doing what Germany has managed to do.
The first is the endlessly repeated argument from nuclear industry spokespeople that nuclear power is the only way of providing the baseload generation our current electricity supply system depends on – once big thermal coal and gas plants are taken off the grid. There was indeed a time when grid stability depended on ‘always on’ big power stations. But that is now widely seen (outside the nuclear industry) to be a completely outmoded concept.
……………………… , the Government acknowledges that there is now no specific baseload expectations of nuclear or anything else. It is now all about ‘lowest cost’, rather than baseload,………..
So that’s another dead duck in the case made for new nuclear. Which just leaves the final barrier: the continuing reality that our nuclear weapons capability still depends very heavily on maintaining a civil nuclear power programme – not just to guarantee a continuing supply of nuclear engineers and R&D funding, but to keep the public in the dark about the increasingly insupportable costs of renewing our notionally ‘independent’ nuclear deterrent.
Which takes us right back to the origins of the German anti-nuclear movement in the 1970s. These ‘evil twins’, nuclear weapons and nuclear power, have forever been joined at the hip, and always will be until the world rids itself of the deadly incubus of nuclear weaponry.
Alba MP Neale Hanvey calls for Ministry of Defence to tackle nuclear decontamination at Dalgety Bay
The National, By James Walker @James_L_Walker 19 Apr 23
More than 3,000 radioactive particles have been found at Dalgety Bay.
ALBA Party MP Neale Hanvey has called on the Ministry of Defence to clean-up radiation contamination on the Dalgety Bay shoreline.
In a statement, Hanvey added that “there can be no excuse for inaction”.
Leading a Westminster debate on the issue on Tuesday, the MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath – the constituency which includes the West Fife town – listed and condemned what he described as a “historical backlog in remediation”.
Radioactive material was first detected at Dalgety Bay in 1990 and came from WW2 planes, which had aircraft dials coated in radium to help pilots see in the dark.
More than 3,000 radioactive particles, with a half-life of 1,600 years, have been found on the beach and next to Dalgety Bay Sailing Club.
Restrictions were put in place in 2011, with parts of the beach fenced off.
The MoD admitted responsibility for the radioactive pollution in 2014. But plans to tackle the issue have frequently been delayed.
Balfour Beatty took on a £10.5 million contract in 2020 but decontamination work didn’t get under way until May 2021 and hasn’t yet been completed.
Hanvey has repeatedly condemned the Ministry of Defense for continued silence and delays in tackling the issue.
At the debate, Hanvey asked the Minister for Defence Procurement, Alex Chalk, for further clarification as to when the work would be completed, the costs incurred and whether they will be fully covered by the MoD.
Chalk said the cost would be around £15 million. He said that the costs would be be met by the MoD, but added: “I stress that there was absolutely no legal requirement on the Ministry of Defence to do so. However, we decided to take that step.”
Chalk also stressed that many of the delays were unforeseen, including having to “search through many tonnes of sand and soil for minute radioactive particles”.
He added, however, that he was “delighted” to say that work will be completed by September 2023…………………. more https://www.thenational.scot/news/23464754.alba-mp-neale-hanvey-calls-mod-tackle-nuclear-decontamination/
Ciaron says he was arrested for trying to give ‘the key to Julian Assange’s cell’ to Joe Biden
Ciaron O’Reilly says he was attempting to deliver “the key to Julian Assange’s cell” to US President Joe Biden, who is facing calls to drop extradition proceedings against the Wikileaks co-founder.
15 April 2023 By David Aidone, SBS News
KEY POINTS
- An Australian activist says he was arrested for protesting outside Dublin Castle during US President Joe Biden’s visit.
- Ciaron O’Reilly held a key-shaped placard demanding freedom for Julian Assange.
- Mr Assange, co-founder of WikiLeaks, is fighting extradition to the US.
An Australian anti-war activist and former bodyguard to Julian Assange claims he was arrested after staging a protest outside Dublin Castle in Ireland where United States President Joe Biden was attending an event this week.
Ciaron O’Reilly posted pictures of himself on social media holding a novelty-sized key-shaped placard emblazoned with the words “President Biden, Free Julian Assange“.
Mr O’Reilly said he was attempting to deliver the key to Mr Biden, who was on a four-day trip to Northern Ireland and Ireland honouring the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement.
He said he was arrested by officers of Garda Siochana, the national police service of Ireland, after protesting outside Dublin Castle while a banquet was being held for Mr Biden.
“Joe seemed to have dropped his key to #JulianAssange’s cell, I was merely returning it!,” Mr O’Reilly wrote on Twitter.
“We need to #FreeAssangeNOW! O’Reilly was wrestled to the ground by members of the GardaiSiochana outside #Dublin Castle where a banquet was underway during the #Biden visit,” the post read…………………………………… more https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/ciaron-says-he-was-arrested-for-trying-to-give-the-key-to-julian-assanges-cell-to-joe-biden/d4rc1q76w
‘It’s time to pump the brakes on reintroduction of nuclear energy to Trawsfynydd’
By Patrick O’Brien | Columnist |Sunday 16th April 2023
‘It’s time to pump the brakes on reintroduction of nuclear energy to
Trawsfynydd’. Giving SMRs a clean bill of health in advance of any
researched-based demonstration that such is justified is bad enough, but en
route there is a sweeping assertion about the utter desirability of all
nuclear power – past and present.
For any deniers of the proposition, this
is a meltdown moment. SMRs, which can generate up to 300 megawatts, or
about two-thirds less than traditional nuclear power reactors. They are
claimed to be safer because of increased use of smart innovative technology
and inherent safety features.
So how solid is the SMR safety case? The
jury’s out. In 2021, the intergovernmental Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA)
established an expert group on SMRs “to handle safety challenges and
develop a solid scientific basis which supports safety demonstration of the
advanced and innovative technologies used for SMRs”.
But the NEA is clear
that much research on safety remains to be done. The Welsh Government,
meanwhile, is brimming over with enthusiasm, insisting its proposed project
will become essential for the diagnosis and treatment of a number of
diseases, and that its north Wales facility would be a global centre of
excellence in nuclear medicine, making Wales the leading location for
medical radioisotope production in the UK, leading to the creation of
highly skilled jobs over several decades.
But it’s time to slow down. The
NEA’s reticence on safety means it’s necessary for the government – and
Patrick Loxdale – to take a deep breath and, no doubt with difficulty,
reserve judgment.
Cambrian News 15th April 2023
Nuclear storage dump opponents sweep into Theddlethorpe parish council
Residents have organised against storage plans
The Lincolnite, By Daniel Jaines Local Democracy Reporter 13 Apr 23
Candidates opposing a nuclear storage dump have surged to power in Theddlethorpe in a demonstration of local opposition.
Eight of the ten seats on two Theddlethorpe Parish Councils – St Helen’s and All Saints – have been filled uncontested by people against to Nuclear Waste Service’s plans for a Geological Disposal Facility in the village.
Nearby residents were in uproar after it was announced last year that the Theddlethorpe Gas Terminal could become the entry point for a nuclear storage facility to dispose of around 10% of the UK’s nuclear waste.
The new councillors, who will automatically become councillors after the May 4 local elections, are all part of Theddlethorpe Residents Association.
Members Brian Swift and Andrew Spink formed it after their application to join the parish councils were rejected in 2021.
Mr Swift said: “We were both turned down, but shortly after this we got together with a few neighbours and formed the Theddlethorpe Residents Association with the aim to give the parish a collective voice and to counter the PC’s negative stance.”
Since its inception, the residents association has garnered more than 120 members and holds regular events.
However, Mr Swift said the anti-GDF sentiment of the members would not mean other views would be unwelcome.
“Despite the fact that the majority of the councillors are now anti-GDF ,we are keen to stress that all points of view are welcome. Our priorities are to carry out the parish council’s functions to the best of our ability and to do our utmost to see that the village thrives and continues to be the friendly, united place we all call home,” he said………………………. more https://thelincolnite.co.uk/2023/04/nuclear-storage-dump-opponents-sweep-into-theddlethorpe-parish-council/—
Nuclear is not the solution to our energy troubles.
France pays a price for its energy security. President Macron has announced plans to build 6 new reactors by 2050 – and they’re much needed to replace the country’s ageing fleet of power stations – but he was warned very publicly just two months ago that he needs to have a credible programme to deal with the fourth issue: nuclear waste and both from the new planned plants and from the new ones. Right now, France’s nuclear waste facilities are close to over-flowing. In reality, if you’re worried about reactor safety, you should really be a lot more worried about nuclear waste. The full decommissioning process for a nuclear plant takes between 20 and 30 years. ……………….Furthermore, those small, modular nuclear power stations on which the Tory position relies? According to research published last year by Stanford University and the University of British Columbia, they produce more waste than conventional nuclear power plants.
Reaction Giga Watt, April 13, 2023
Both the current UK government and the likely next government want to embrace nuclear power.
Rishi Sunak has commissioned an energy review that will focus on “carbon capture and storage, small modular reactors and the like”. Keir Starmer’s proposed “Great British Energy” would invest in nuclear energy alongside wind, solar, tidal and other emerging technologies. There’s nothing new about nuclear power and if it was the solution to all our problems – and on the face of it, it should be – the world would have already fully embraced nuclear, risks and all. So why haven’t we?
………… burning fossil fuels is very much not consequence free and we’re only just starting to get serious about those consequences and no amount of “clean” coal, unleaded fuel, catalytic converters, wonderful though they are, can make up for this.
Secondly, nuclear power is scary: the world’s first public demonstrations of nuclear power were at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Roughly once a decade since then, the world has provided us with reminders of just how frightening nuclear power can be: the Cuban Missile Crisis, Three Mile Island, Exercise Able Archer, Chernobyl, Fukushima and Zaporizhzhia are all examples from the past 60 years where the perils of a nuclear world have been brought home to us.
………………………………………………………………….. It’s also true that the rise of more sophisticated terrorist organisations made the public and thereby politicians wary of the nuclear industry especially from 9/11 onwards. If terrorists can fly two large aeroplanes into the heart of the biggest financial centre in the world then surely an isolated power station would be a much easier target………….. At Zaporizhzhia in Ukraine during the current conflict, the issue is less about the impact on the reactors themselves from Russian shelling but the impact on waste storage facilities and power supplies to cooling and safety systems
……….As the Zaporizhzhia reactors were being switched off, they still needed to be continuously cooled with water from the Dnieper to ensure safe shutdown because they produce so much heat. Uranium-filled fuel rods, the source of nuclear fission within the reactor, are immersed in water for around 10 years after they are used before they reach a temperature at which they can be safely handled. It’s this efficiency that makes nuclear power an unusual part of the energy mix as, unlike gas or coal, you can’t easily turn the output up or down. Nuclear energy just is.
This means that in a system that requires flexibility, and remembering that UK electricity demand can swing between 40 GWs and 20 GWs in just one day, nuclear power is unsuited to modern demands. ………………….
France pays a price for its energy security. President Macron has announced plans to build 6 new reactors by 2050 – and they’re much needed to replace the country’s ageing fleet of power stations – but he was warned very publicly just two months ago that he needs to have a credible programme to deal with the fourth issue: nuclear waste and both from the new planned plants and from the new ones. Right now, France’s nuclear waste facilities are close to over-flowing. In reality, if you’re worried about reactor safety, you should really be a lot more worried about nuclear waste. The full decommissioning process for a nuclear plant takes between 20 and 30 years. ……………….Furthermore, those small, modular nuclear power stations on which the Tory position relies? According to research published last year by Stanford University and the University of British Columbia, they produce more waste than conventional nuclear power plants.
Part of the problem with waste is that, even as we approach the 70th anniversary of the first nuclear power stations, there is still no global consensus on how best to handle high level nuclear waste because the timeframes are so immense. What seems like an obvious solution today – for example, storing waste in deep geological repositories hundreds of metres below the ground – may end up being a total disaster in 500 or even 5,000 years’ time. What do those timescales mean? It means asking Henry VIII, King of England in 1523, to make decisions about the country we live in today. Unsurprisingly we have ended up with a halfway house: everyone agrees that toxic waste can be treated and converted into less dangerous (but still very dangerous) forms; everyone also agrees that it’s probably best if it’s stored underground but no one can yet agree what underground means and what the risks will be over the centuries to come.
And if the timescales are immense, then so are the costs: the Sellafield facility in Cumbria is being decommissioned with a current cost estimate of £121 billion which does not included the placing of the waste from the site into a geological disposal facility, the location and timing of which are to be determined, which will cost another £53 billion.
At least Henry VIII would not have had to deal with our fifth hurdle: the British planning system and an island cluttered with around 65 million people and it’s this, perhaps above all, that makes new nuclear projects vanishingly unlikely. I don’t want to live next to a nuclear power station of any size and I doubt many Reaction subscribers would either but because we live in an age of Nimbyism, it’s doubtful that any of us will be asked to do so anyway. Even if we are, and if the project is approved, investment is found and if construction starts, you can look forward to the project, counting from today, delivering power in roughly 2035 and that’s being very optimistic.
……………………. over the past ten years, the UK has done so much to change its energy mix that investing in nuclear now, with all the cost, time and controversy involved, would be a significant mistake. It seems unlikely that it will take Sunak and Starmer, arch-pragmatists that they both are, very long to work this out. https://reaction.life/nuclear-is-not-the-solution-to-our-energy-troubles/
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 (126)
- 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 