Fire on Trident nuclear submarine at Scots navy base prompts safety concern for nearby locals.
Fire on Trident nuclear submarine at Scots navy base prompts safety
concern for nearby locals. The fire on-board HMS Victorious last year
raised concerns from local councillors about what was being done to keep
residents safe in the event of a nuclear incident.
Daily Record 30th March 2023
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/fire-trident-nuclear-submarine-scots-29592800
Glasgow Live 30th March 2023
https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/fire-trident-nuclear-submarine-prompts-26592968
The Scottish Greens condemn UK Government plans for a major investment in nuclear power
The Scottish Greens have condemned UK Government plans for a major
investment in nuclear power, which they say is no solution to the climate
crisis. The Party says that nuclear power is costly and will leave a toxic
legacy. It has called for assurances that taxpayers in Scotland will not
pay for nuclear reactors across the UK when the Scottish Government is
opposed to nuclear power.
Scottish Greens 30th March 2023
https://greens.scot/news/nuclear-energy-is-no-solution-to-the-climate-crisis
Nuclear skills shortage in Britain
Across the UK, businesses of all shapes, sizes and sectors face increasing
competition for talent. But the big question is: does the country – with
its long-standing skills gap in a number of industries – have the
foundations to build a workforce which can meet our economic and
environmental ambitions?
Nuclear faces a perfect storm in developing future
talent with the combination of a historic lack of investment, an ageing
workforce and the government’s aspirations for growth in civil and
defence (due to the drive to reach net zero and national security
concerns). This means the sector must increase its recruitment levels by
300% at a time of fierce competition for talent.
New Civil Engineer 27th March 2023
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/boosting-nuclear-knowledge-in-schools-plays-a-crucial-role-in-building-the-workforce-of-the-future-27-03-2023/
The UK Budget pushes nuclear and CCS, and the military link with small nuclear reactors is now overt
‘nuclear submarines would be too costly to build and maintain without an “industrial base” largely funded by elevated consumer electricity bills’.
Renew Extra Weekly, 26 Mar 23
The UK spring budget announced investment of £20bn spread over the next two decades in carbon capture and support for nuclear, with a commitment to ‘spades in the ground on these projects from next year’ as energy security secretary, Grant Shapps, put it
…………………………………. boosting our own sources of clean generation is a must to shield us from future price shocks’. But it’s hard to see how investing in CCS will help- that is fossil based. And, like nuclear, it’s expensive. …………………………………………..
There was very little .. comfort….. in the Budget Red Book, even in the ‘Green Industries’ section (p.64-65). That focussed on CCS/CCUS and nuclear, with SMRs an initial target for the new Great British Nuclear programme, and nuclear ‘to be included in the green taxonomy, subject to consultation, encouraging private investment’.
No mention of the negative impact of the windfall tax (EGL) on renewables. Indeed there is no direct mention of renewables anywhere in the text, and no mention of energy saving, apart from indirectly via 2 year extension of the Climate Change Agreement scheme.
,…………………………………. Greenpeace said: ‘This misguided Budget shows the stranglehold fossil fuel and nuclear lobbies have on this government’.
……………………………………………………… For the moment, since the chancellor said in his budget speech that nuclear was ‘vital to meet our net-zero obligations’, he will be launching ‘the first’ competition for small modular reactors, to be run by Great British Nuclear and ‘completed by the end of this year’. Though Carbon Brief noted that, actually, ‘the government previously launched a £250m competition for small nuclear in 2015, but no winners were announced. Since then, it has offered various pots of money, including “up to” £210m for Rolls Royce to develop its reactor design and “up to” £170m for “advanced” modular reactors.’
In parallel, the Government will be looking to the inclusion nuclear power in the UK ‘Green Taxonomy’. But this isn’t a done deal yet, there will be consultation, and, as was pointed out in an answer to a Parliamentary Question from Carolyn Lucas, ‘with the support of the independent Green Technical Advisory Group and stakeholder engagement, we will take the time to get the taxonomy right to ensure it is usable and effective’. That may lead to quite a debate, as has happened in the EU where the inclusion of nuclear (and gas) in its green taxonomy has been very contentious.
In the UK context, would inclusion actually help? Not everyone thought so- from an investment perspective, the problems were economic not environmental. But, quite apart from being expensive, there were, actually, some environmental issues. Nuclear is low carbon, but not zero carbon. It leads to dangerous waste residues. The pro-nuclear lobby these days sets that against its assumed role in support of variable renewables, but that may not be realistic: nuclear plants are inflexible and get in the way- see my earlier post.
And so the somewhat tired old nuclear debate goes on. With though a new extension- a military and civil nuclear interaction. In the recent Defence Review, the government said that ‘we will proactively look for opportunities to align delivery of the civil and defence nuclear enterprises, seeking synergies where appropriate to ensure a coherent demand signal to our industry and academic partners.’ For University of Sussex Prof. Andy Stirling, that confirmed his view that ‘nuclear submarines would be too costly to build and maintain without an “industrial base” largely funded by elevated consumer electricity bills’.
It certainly does provide more evidence for co-dependence, with ‘joint expansion’ also possibly in mind. Well, whatever the intent, it’s arguably good that the military-civil link is now overt rather than hidden. But it does open up all sorts of strategic issues.
https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-uk-budget-pushes-nuclear-and-ccs.html
Will Scotland’s next Chief Minister heed the warnings of Dounreay?
25 Mar 23, https://www.thenational.scot/politics/23411771.will-next-fm-heed-warnings-dounreay/ DEAR Ms Forbes, Ms Regan and Mr Yousaf,
Please tell me if you will honour the current SNP commitment against any new nuclear energy production in Scotland.
I am asking you about this because Scotland is already paying a terrible price for being chosen as the UK’s remote and expendable area for experiments with nuclear technology and nuclear waste dumping.
In 1986, during the EDRP Public Inquiry in Caithness, the UK Atomic Energy Authority was forced to release documents which showed that highly radioactive, potentially lethal fragments of nuclear-spent fuel had been dumped on beaches and on the seabed at Dounreay.
These fragments were first discussed with shop stewards at Dounreay in 1983. At that first discussion, the shop stewards were warned not to share the information “to avoid public panic”. Most of the workforce at Dounreay were in any case bound by the Official Secrets Act. The public inquiry nevertheless encouraged some of these workers to share more information about appalling incidents within their community – caused directly by the nuclear industry.
Forty years later, those lethal fragments of nuclear-spent fuel are still there – the Scottish Environment Protection Agency has confirmed that they are irretrievable. The awful legacies of nuclear mistakes at Dounreay also include large tracts of land which will not be safe to use – in any way – for at least 300 years. Nuclear mistakes continue throughout the world, including to this day at Dounreay and at Windscale/ Sellafield.
It is important that your generation of political leaders is made aware of this awful history: it is now your responsibility to avoid such mistakes and to protect the wellbeing of Scotland’s land, sea and people.
With its new policy of “Great British Nuclear”, the Westminster Tory government is defying the findings of the 1976 report on “Nuclear Power and the Environment” by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. It advised that no further development of nuclear power should be made until a safe method of nuclear waste was confirmed. No such method has been found.
More worryingly, that same Westminster government is currently attempting to evade international treaties which ban the dumping of nuclear waste in international waters – by working towards a nuclear dump in the Irish Sea off Dumfries, Galloway and Cumbrian coasts.
I would appreciate a prompt reply.
Frances McKie
Evanton, Ross-shire
“Together Against Sizewell” argue in UK’s High Court against this nuclear development’s impact on environment
The government’s decision to back a new Sizewell C nuclear power plant
failed to assess the environmental impact of the project and should be
overturned, campaigners have argued at the High Court.
Protest group Together Against Sizewell C has launched a bid to challenge development
consent granted by the then Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng last July. At
a hearing in London, lawyers for the Suffolk residents argued that the
government failed to assess the impact of providing an “essential” water
supply to the project and did not consider “alternative solutions” to
meeting its energy and climate change objectives.
They also argue that the
government concluded the power station site would be clear of nuclear
material by 2140, when rising sea levels and storm surges could flood the
site before it has been decontaminated. The government, supporting the
project with a £700m stake, argues that it made “legitimate planning
judgments” and that the campaigners’ “unarguable” challenge should be
dismissed.
ITV 23rd March 2023
What is Sizewell C and how will it be paid for? Campaigners challenge new
plant. Campaigners have told the High Court that the Government’s decision
to support the Sizewell C nuclear power plant plan was “unlawful” and
should be overturned.
Evening Standard 23rd March 2023
Lawyers representing campaigners argued in London’s High Court that the
government did not evaluate the environmental impact of the nuclear power
plant.
Energy Live News 23rd March 2023
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
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 