The Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG) strongly opposes new Bradwell nuclear proposal.
Rolls Royce interest in Bradwell for nuclear reactors, https://www.maldonandburnhamstandard.co.uk/news/23138663.rolls-royce-interest-bradwell-nuclear-reactors/ By Millie Emmett @millieemmett Reporter, 26th November
FRESH proposals to develop nuclear reactors in the Maldon district have been branded “outrageous”.
Rolls Royce announced that it is looking at the Bradwell site, owned by EDF, as a potential base for four to six small modular reactors (SMRs).
The Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG) has strongly opposed any plans as it believes it would be larger than the proposed Bradwell B, which is under consideration by Chinese company CGN.
Professor Andy Blowers,chair of the Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group, said: “This proposal, if it ever came about, would place up to six nuclear reactors on the Bradwell site.
“And they are hardly ‘small’ since each reactor would be close to the size of the old Bradwell A station.
“Together these reactors would comprise a nuclear complex larger than the massive proposed Bradwell B currently under consideration for development by the Chinese company, CGN.
“It is hard to state how utterly inappropriate such a development, which would include long-term storage of highly radioactive nuclear wastes, would be on the low-lying Bradwell site, threatened by the impacts of climate change and sea level rise.
“It is an outrageous proposal which must be nipped in the bud before it gets anywhere near off the ground”
The group attended a meeting for the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) NGO nuclear forum and asked if CGN had withdrawn from the Bradwell B project.
The group was told “there was no change to the proposals for Bradwell B but that further discussion was not possible because of commercial confidentiality”.
BANNG has written to the Government to urge it to declare that the Bradwell site is unsuitable and to remove it from any further consideration by Rolls Royce or any other nuclear developer.
The anti-nuclear group has been campaigning to protect the people and the environment of the River Blackwater estuary for years.
Its aim is to raise awareness of the consequences of new nuclear development and to challenge any proposals for future nuclear power at the Bradwell site.
The projected cost of new nuclear power has risen by fourfold since 2008 – and it is still rising
The projected cost of new nuclear power has risen by almost fourfold since
the UK Government made estimates in 2008, and the cost is still rising.
Nuclear analysts warn that the cost to consumers of funding Sizewell C
through the so-called ‘Regulatory Asset Base’ (RAB) model will be much
higher than has been projected by the Government.
In 2008 as the Government argued for more nuclear power stations to be built, the Government, in a
White Paper on nuclear costs, said that each 1.6 GWe EPR reactor would cost
around 2.8 billion. But the most recently released (by EDF) cost of the
Hinkley C EPR double reactor is £25.5 billion (in 2015 prices) and assumes
the plant will be completed by 2027.
This equates to £12.75 billion per
each 1.6 GWe reactor, as reported by World Nuclear News. This is nearly
four times the estimate made by the UK Government in 2008 after inflation
is taken into account.
100% Renewables 25th Nov 2022
UK government underestimated the cost to the public of Regulated Asset Base financing of nuclear power
The government has been accused of under-estimating the cost to customers
of its new financing support mechanism for nuclear power, which could add
£100 onto annual bills if ex-prime minister Boris Johnson’s pledge to
roll out a new fleet of the plants is honoured.
At a meeting of the
All-Party Parliamentary Group on Energy Costs, held at the House of Commons
on Wednesday (23 November), University of Greenwich emeritus professor of
energy Steve Thomas criticised the use of the Regulated Asset Base (RAB)
for nuclear projects.
Utility Week 24th Nov 2022
Rolls-Royce calls for formal funding talks over small nuclear plants
Ft.com Nathalie Thomas in Edinburgh and Sylvia Pfeifer in London, 23 Nov 22
Rolls-Royce has urged the UK government to enter formal negotiations over the funding for small nuclear reactors, which it hopes to build in England or Wales by the early part of next decade.
Tom Samson, head of the company’s small modular reactor business, told a committee of MPs on Wednesday that Britain would face an electricity crisis next decade if it did not push ahead with building more “baseload” power stations that offer a reliable [?] source of generation when weather-dependent renewables including wind and solar are not producing.
Rolls-Royce is leading a consortium that has designed a 470-megawatt [that’s LARGE !] small modular nuclear reactor, which could produce enough power for a city the size of Leeds and would be built in factories before being deployed at existing nuclear sites in England and Wales.
It wants the government to enter formal talks over potential funding models and how the technology could be deployed so it can start building factories. The first Rolls-Royce-designed SMR would cost £2.5bn, although the UK engineering company has argued the cost of each plant will drop to £2bn once it has a pipeline of orders.
……….. the first Rolls-Royce SMR would probably need a funding model underpinned by the government or bill payers.
The company has previously talked about models such as “contracts for difference”, which are used for technologies such as offshore wind and guarantee developers a set price for their output.
Alternatively, it has said it may consider a “regulated asset base” mechanism, whereby a surcharge is added to consumer energy bills long before any plant is operating to help finance schemes.
Samson warned the government it did not have the luxury of spending another two to three years talking about whether to build more nuclear capacity……………
Former prime minister Boris Johnson said while in office that he wanted up to 24 gigawatts of nuclear capacity by 2050 — up from just 5.9GW at present — but chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s recent Autumn Statement referred only to the 3.2GW Sizewell C nuclear project in Suffolk, about which the government is in negotiations with French state-backed energy group EDF. Opponents of nuclear argue that is expensive compared with other technologies.
……………. “The government is investing in these new technologies through the £385mn Advanced Nuclear Fund including £210mn towards the Rolls-Royce SMR programme,” a BEIS spokesperson said. https://www.ft.com/content/21a54a90-1b51-4561-ba9e-c1677e0262ed
—
UK recognises veterans of nuclear weapons tests with medals
Aljazeera, 22 Nov 22
The honour comes 70 years after Britain detonated a nuclear bomb in the Indian Ocean.
Seventy years after Britain detonated a nuclear bomb in the Indian Ocean, troops who took part – sometimes unknowingly – in the country’s atomic weapons tests are being recognised with a medal.
The UK government’s announcement on Monday of the Nuclear Test Medal is a victory for veterans and their families, who have campaigned for years for recognition.
Now, many want recognition of the health problems they believe they suffered as a result of exposure to radiation.
……….. Sunak attended the first-ever ceremony for the nuclear veterans at the National Memorial Arboretum in central England, marking the 70th anniversary of the United Kingdom’s first atmospheric atomic test on October 3, 1952.
Operation Hurricane
The detonation of a plutonium implosion device aboard a Royal Navy ship in the Montebello Islands off Western Australia, dubbed Operation Hurricane, made Britain the world’s third nuclear-armed nation, after the United States and Russia…….
The UK set off further nuclear explosions in Australia and ocean territories, including on Christmas Island, over the following years.
Veterans groups say about 22,000 UK military personnel were involved in British and American tests in the 1950s and 60s, many of them conscripts doing postwar national service.
Veterans, scientists and civil servants from Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Kiribati who served under British command during the tests between 1952 and 1967 will also be eligible for the UK medal.
Many veterans and their families are convinced there is a link between the tests and health problems they have suffered, and are pressing the UK to hold a public inquiry into the tests.
Some allege they were deliberately exposed to radiation to see how their bodies would react, and claim their medical records were later suppressed.
‘The end of the world’
John Morris, who saw nuclear blasts on Christmas Island as a young conscript in the 1950s, told the BBC earlier this year that “I felt like I had seen the end of the world.”
“I saw right through my hands as the light was so intense,” he said. “It felt like my blood was boiling. The palm trees – which had been 20 miles [32km] away – were scorched.”
Numerous studies over the decades have probed allegations of high cancer rates among the test veterans, and of birth defects in their children, but have failed to establish an ironclad connection with the nuclear tests.
Successive British governments have denied troops were exposed to unsafe levels of radiation.
Alan Owen, founder of the Labrats International charity for atomic test survivors, welcomed the government’s recognition, but said “we want more”………………………………………https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/11/21/uk-recognises-veterans-of-nuclear-weapons-tests-with-medals
Nuclear Industry Liability under the Paris Convention
The Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear
Energy and the Brussels Convention supplementary to the Paris Convention
established a special legal regime in relation to the compensation payable
in the event of an accident involving a civil nuclear power installation or
the transportation of nuclear substances to and from that installation.
Unlike general tort law, which is based on fault or negligence, under the
convention, the plant operator or party involved in the transportation is
exclusively liable for damages in the event of an accident and is always
deemed to be liable, regardless of whether fault can be established.
These two conventions were amended by agreement between the contracting powers,
including the United Kingdom, on 17 December 2021. After 1 January 2022,
nuclear plant operators became liable to pay compensation of up to €700
million in the event of an accident.
This level of liability will be increased by €100 million in each of the next five years leading to an
ultimate maximum liability of €1.2 billion towards claims involving
‘personal injury or loss of life, economic loss, the cost of preventive
measures and of measures of reinstatement of impaired environment’.
NFLA 21st Nov 2022
UK’s Sizewell nuclear project remains unfinanced
Alistair Osborne: The wind of change with no direction. Sizewell all at C.
Sometimes the brackets do a lot of work: “The government will continue to
secure the UK’s energy security through delivering new nuclear power,
including Sizewell C (subject to final agreement)”.
How far away is that deal? Maybe an unbuilt nuke on a Suffolk flood plain really can attract an
investor fan club. But, as yet, this £20 billion to £30 billion project
— the top end, natch, knowing nuclear — remains unfinanced.
France’s EDF only wants about 20 per cent of the project, with the taxpayer possibly
taking a fifth. And the only money pledged to date is the £700 million
from Boris Johnson on his way out of No 10. Final agreement may prove some
way off.
Times 18th Nov 2022
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alistair-osborne-the-wind-of-change-with-no-direction-w8kcq5l9b
Strange Rolls Royce plan for Large complex of Large Small Nuclear Reactors for Bradwell
Rolls Royce announced on 9 November that it is eying up Bradwell as a potential site for the deployment of four to six so-called (and currently non-existent) Small Nuclear Reactors (SMRs).
Professor Andy Blowers, the Chair of the Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG), commented:
‘This proposal, if it ever came about, would place up to six nuclear reactors on the Bradwell site. And they are hardly ‘small’ since each reactor would be close to the size of the old Bradwell A station. Together
these reactors would comprise a nuclear complex larger than the massive, proposed Bradwell B currently under consideration for development by the Chinese company, CGN.
‘It is hard to state how utterly inappropriate such a development, which would include long-term storage of highly radioactive nuclear wastes, would be on the low- lying Bradwell site, threatened by the impacts of Climate Change and Sea Level Rise.
BANNG finds it extremely odd that Rolls Royce is proposing the Bradwell site for SMRs. Only two days
before the announcement BANNG, at a meeting of the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) NGO Nuclear Forum, asked if CGN had withdrawn from the Bradwell B project. BANNG was told that there was no change to the proposals for Bradwell B but that further discussion was not
possible because of ‘commercial confidentiality’.
The Bradwell site is owned by the French company, EDF, which is also a minor partner in the
Bradwell B project. Rolls Royce agree that its proposal ‘requires agreement with CGN and EDF energy’.
Perhaps the Rolls Royce announcementunravels the mystery as to why CGN has not quit its operations at Bradwell altogether, claiming they are paused indefinitely. Could this be paving the way for Rolls Royce and also explain why BEIS invoked commercial confidentiality?
Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group 17th Nov 2022
Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk to go ahead, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt confirms
A spokesman for the group Stop Sizewell C said: “If the chancellor is
looking for cheap, reliable, energy independence, he is backing the wrong
project, as Sizewell C’s ultimate cost and technical reliability are very
uncertain and building it is reliant on French state-owned EDF.
“Greenlighting Sizewell C also loads more tax onto struggling households,
who would be forced to pay a nuclear levy on bills for a decade before they
could light a single lightbulb. “Despite the chancellor’s statement,
Sizewell C still needs financing, and with at least a year before it’s
decided whether it will finally go ahead, we’ll keep fighting this huge
black hole for taxpayers’ money, when there are cheaper, quicker ways to
get to net zero.”
ITV 17th Nov 2022
https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2022-11-17/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-to-go-ahead-chancellor-confirms
Nuclear energy is unsafe, unreliable and leaves a long and toxic legacy,
according to the Scottish Greens. This comes as the Chancellor, Jeremy
Hunt, has confirmed plans for the Sizewell C nuclear plant.
Scottish Greens 17th Nov 2022
https://greens.scot/news/nuclear-is-unsafe-unreliable-and-will-leave-long-and-toxic-legacy
PERVERSE PRIORITIES UK : CUT PUBLIC SPENDING, KEEP NUCLEAR ARMS AND WARPLANES
Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is considering billions worth of cuts in public spending while the Ministry of Defence, with Labour’s support, plans to spend vast sums on just two hugely expensive military projects.
RICHARD NORTON-TAYLOR Declassified UK, 14 NOVEMBER 2022,
We are in the midst of an extraordinary, indeed perverse, new round of austerity cuts.
The chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, is reported to be looking for £35 billion across government in cuts. While vital services will continue to be deprived of urgently-needed resources, the government seems set to give the military a budget rise in cash terms from £47.9bn this year to £48bn in 2023 and £48.6bn in 2024.
Liz Truss, backed by defence secretary Ben Wallace, wanted to award the armed forces even more – an increase close to £200bn by 2030, the biggest rise in the military budget since the start of the Cold War. By then UK military spending would have doubled to £100bn a year.
Rishi Sunak and Hunt have realised that such increases would be so unjustified and extravagant that they are reportedly ditching promises in the Conservatives 2019 manifesto and will actually cut the defence budget in real terms, that is with inflation taken into account.
However, the government’s spending on the military means that it will still be wasting vast resources on weapons systems that are unuseable in any foreseeable conflict.
Its planned public spending cuts are a small percentage of the amount the Ministry of Defence will be spending, with Labour’s enthusiastic support, on just two hugely expensive projects – the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons arsenal and a fleet of 48 American F35B fighter jets for the navy’s two large aircraft carriers.
‘Persistent engagement overseas’
The government had set out Britain’s role and military posture in an ‘Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development, and Foreign Policy’ and a report called ‘Defence in a Competitive Age’.
The documents are full of platitudes, vague promises and hollow claims. The review says Britain will be a “force for good”, “defending human rights”, avoiding any reference to Britain’s biggest market for arms sales – the Gulf states that are among the world’s worst abusers of human rights.
The refusal of the government to account to parliament about arms exports was sharply criticised by a cross-party Commons committee.
The defence report states that Britain will conduct “persistent engagement overseas”, including “further investment in Oman” demonstrating Britain’s “long-term commitment to the Gulf’s stability and prosperity, in addition to our presence in the British Indian Ocean Territory”.
This is an unstated reference to the US bomber base on Diego Garcia on the Chagos archipelago whose entire indigenous population was expelled by Britain.
The report refers to Britain’s “long standing relationships with Saudi Arabia…in support of shared security and prosperity objectives”. Saudi Arabia recently demonstrated its own priorities by siding with Vladimir Putin at the expense of consumers in the west by capping oil production.
‘Soft power superpower’
Ironically, the “integrated review” emphasises Britain’s potential role as a “soft power superpower” referring to the BBC and development aid, both of which are the victims of government cuts.
It emphasises the importance of the need to defend British interests against cyber attacks and to invest in unmanned drones. Yet the potential threat posed by cyber warfare and the opportunities presented by unmanned drones were ignored for many years by the Ministry of Defence.
The defence paper promises more investment in “autonomous platforms including swarming drones”, and says “Special Forces are at the heart of our approach to modernisation”. …………………………………..
Wasted billions
The lack of effective scrutiny of the armed forces and their expenditure has allowed the Ministry of Defence to waste tens of billions of pounds of public money on extravagant weapons systems irrelevant to modern conflict………………………………..
The figures below do not take into account the hidden costs of a skilled workforce diverted from military projects to more sustainable and useful products that benefit civil society. Nor do they take into account direct government support for arms exports and exporters – or bribery.
The MOD’s £300bn wasteful spending
| Trident renewal | £200bn |
| *Cost of delays/overruns in new projects, including frigates, Eurofighter/Typhoon aircraft, Bowman radios, A400M military transport aircraft | £18+bn |
| F-35s for aircraft carriers | £18.8bn |
| Aircraft carriers | £6.2bn |
| *Nimrod aircraft (subsequently destroyed) | £4bn |
| *Rental costs of privatised housing previously owned by MOD | £4bn |
| *Ajax armoured vehicle | at least £3.5bn |
| Military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq | £48.5bn |
(* Source: National Audit Office) https://declassifieduk.org/perverse-priorities-cut-public-spending-keep-nuclear-arms-and-warplanes/
Nuclear Free Local Authorities welcome energy efficiency plans, but deplore costly Sizewell C nuclear build at the public’s expense
Whilst the Nuclear Free Local Authorities welcome the Chancellor’s
commitment to invest billions more in home energy-efficiency, albeit too
slowly, his backing for Sizewell C is a blow.
In today’s Autumn
Statement, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt announced a further £6 billion for home
insulation from 2025 and has given the green light to the go ahead at
Sizewell C saying that contracts will be signed with partner French state
owned operator EDF Energy ‘in weeks’.
The NFLA has previously, and
severally, called on Government ministers, from successive Prime Ministers
on down, to provide serious investment for an emergency programme to
retrofit insulation to Britain’s cold and damp homes to improve comfort
whilst lowering bills for customers and the carbon footprint of the
nation’s housing stock.
Most unwelcome is the Chancellor’s backing for
Sizewell C. Jeremy Hunt has described the costly project as ‘Britain’s
first state backed nuclear power station for 30 years’, but much of the
backing will be at the expense of Britain’s already hard-pressed
electricity customers.
Hinkley Point C in Somerset, currently being built,
is already almost a decade late and way over budget, and her sister,
Sizewell C, will most likely cost upwards of £30 billion and be subject to
significant delays with customers expected to pick up the tag through the
imposition of an additional ‘nuclear tax’ on their bills to pay for it.
The NFLA wrote recently to the Chancellor urging him to scrap the scheme
and divert the money saved into renewables.
NFLA 17th Nov 2022
UK government to dump European Union nuclear safety laws – a deregulated race to the safety bottom?
Revealed: Fears over Brexit threat to nuclear safety laws, Herald 13th November,
UK GOVERNMENT plans threatening nuclear and radiation safety laws in a “Brexit bonfire” have provoked resistance from regulators and trade unionists, opposition from Scottish ministers, and alarm from campaigners.
The Cabinet Office has published a list of more than 2,400 European Union (EU) laws which are under review as part of the Government’s bid to scrap them. They include 10 key regulations designed to protect the public and workers from nuclear accidents and radiation leaks.
The UK Office for Nuclear Regulation (ORN), which oversees safety at civil and military nuclear sites, told The Ferret it was trying “to preserve the legislative framework” to meet the “highest international standards”.
The trade union Prospect, which represents scientists and engineers in the nuclear industry, accused UK ministers of “trying to weaken or dismantle a regulatory framework that has served the UK well over many decades”.
The Scottish Government attacked Westminster for “rolling back 47 years of protections in a rush to impose a deregulated race to the bottom”.
Campaigners are worried by the dangers of “watering down” nuclear safety law, and demand tougher legal protections.
A bill to remove “retained EU law” was introduced to the UK Parliament by the former business minister, Jacob Rees-Mogg, in September. It contains a “sunset” clause requiring all remaining EU law to be repealed or assimilated by the end of 2023, though this can be extended to 2026.
Among the laws under threat is the 2019 Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations which compel councils and companies to draw up emergency plans to deal with nuclear accidents. According to UK Government guidance in 2015, the regulations are “key” to ensuring that the public is “properly protected”.
Three sets of regulations aimed at protecting workers and the public from the hazards of radiation are also up for review. One “lays down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation”, the Government said.
Other laws on the UK Government list cover “maximum permitted levels” of radioactivity in food after a nuclear emergency; imports of radioactively contaminated food following the Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011 and the Chernobyl disaster in 1986; and the safety of decommissioning nuclear plants.
The ORN, which regulates the Faslane nuclear base and six other sites in Scotland, is understood to be taking the threat to nuclear safety laws “very seriously”. The six other sites are Chapelcross in Dumfries and Galloway; Dounreay in Caithness; Hunterston A and Hunterston B, both in North Ayrshire, Rosyth in Fife; and Torness in East Lothian
An ONR spokesperson told The Ferret: “We are in discussions with the Government to preserve the legislative framework that allows us to hold the nuclear sector to account consistent with the highest international standards.”
According to the veteran nuclear critic Pete Roche, this meant that the ONR was resisting the UK Government’s plans. “Reading between the lines, it looks as though the ONR is planning to fight any proposals to make drastic changes to nuclear regulation,” he said.
“In recent meetings I have been involved in, ONR representatives have stressed the need to uphold the highest international standards. I can only hope I am not being overly optimistic and that they stick to their guns.”
Prospect argued that the existing regulatory framework worked well at protecting workers and communities. This was vital as old nuclear plants were being decommissioned and new ones built, it said.
“Perhaps the Government should focus on ensuring that existing regulators are properly resourced to do this important work rather than trying to weaken or dismantle a regulatory framework that has served the UK well over many decades,” said Prospect’s senior deputy general secretary, Sue Ferns.
Ferns.
“Tearing up existing regulations for the sake of purportedly ‘taking back control’ does nothing but introduce uncertainty,” she added. “Nuclear is an international industry, there is no value in seeking to craft UK specific legislative variants just for the sake of it.”
The Scottish Government has urged the Scottish Parliament to withhold consent for the “Brexit bonfire” bill. “Ministers fundamentally oppose the Retained EU Law Bill,” said a spokesperson. “This bill puts at risk the high standards people have come to expect from EU membership, rolling back 47 years of protections in a rush to impose a deregulated race to the bottom.”
The 50-strong group of Nuclear Free Local Authorities was “gravely concerned” about the “threat to water down legislation which provides the public or our environment with protection from the operational or legacy risks posed by civil nuclear power”.
The group’s chairman David Blackburn, a Green councillor from Leeds, said: “If European regulations providing protection are to be removed, we will press Government ministers to instead enact equivalent, or preferably stronger, laws into UK domestic legislation.”
The environmental campaigner and former director of Friends of the Earth Scotland, Dr Richard Dixon, thought that the EU gave the public and workers “vital protections” against radiation risks.
“No backsliding at all can be allowed,” he said.
“This has never been more important with the prospect of damage to nuclear reactors or even the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
“Protection of the same strength or better needs to be put in place.”
The UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy did not respond to requests for comment. …………. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23121029.revealed-fears-brexit-threat-nuclear-safety-laws/
Concern over radioactive particles on Dounreay shoreline – poor monitoring of the nuclear clean-up
Letter Tor Justad: I refer to recent press reports referring to new high
numbers of “harmful” radioactive particles found on the Dounreay
shoreline and Sandside beach which suggested they were related to leaks
between 1958 and 1984, with 73% of the particles described as
“significant”, and 15 particles found between February and March 2022.
Dounreay Site Restoration Ltd (DSRL), responsible for decommissioning the
site, said it was closely monitoring the situation and Sepa (Scottish
Environment Protection Agency) stated “we are content that the monitoring
and retrieval programme in place continues to provide appropriate
protection for the public”. DSRL stated “the foreshore is not used by
the general public”
– this is not a reassurance as nuclear radiation
has no boundaries. Highlands Against Nuclear Transport (Hant) is
represented on the Dounreay Stakeholder Group (DSG) and has regularly asked
for information about the monitoring being carried out and the results –
and has been told that information will be made available when the
monitoring report is provided by an independent body.
Neither the DSG meeting on March 22 nor the Site Restoration Sub Group meeting on October
19 were informed of these findings of concern. Given that this information
has only been made available through press reports to date, Hant would want
the following to be implemented:
i) Regular up-to-date reports provided to
the DSG and by press releases to the local press on the monitoring results,
so that the DSG can provide this information to organisations represented
by members and the general public will be informed by the local press.
Assuming that the results of the monitoring can demonstrate that there is
no danger to the public this will provide reassurance to everyone living in
the area around Dounreay;
ii) That the Dounreay “clean up” reports
provided by DSRL to the Particles Retrieval Advisory Group Dounreay (Prag)
be provided to the DSG and local press – an online search resulted in the
latest information from the Prag online being from 2016 and this is totally
unacceptable;
iii) That a presentation be made to the DSG by the outside
body carrying out the monitoring to describe its methodology and how
regularly it is carried out – to provide local reassurance. Hant looks
forward to the immediate implementation of these proposals and will be
monitoring this issue closely over the next months.
Press & Journal 11th Nov 2022
Sizewell C – proposed coastal area is not suitable for nuclear reactors
Letter: Your leader on Sizewell C ignores a couple of factors that are key
to our local objections. First, the coastline on which Sizewell A and B are
built and Sizewell C is proposed is disintegrating at an increasingly
alarming rate – just two weeks’ ago a building at nearby Thorpeness had
to be demolished due to collapse of the cliffs.
Second, there is insufficient water in Suffolk to build and operate Sizewell C, which was
one of the main reasons the government’s own planning inspectorate
advised against it recently. Water is planned to be found through the
construction of desalination plants – these require huge amounts of
energy, but more importantly the waste salt and other minerals from the
extraction process will be put back into the sea, poisoning the waters
around for miles.
There are other reasons why this is a disastrous
location: it is a site of special scientific interest and an area of
outstanding natural beauty and the prototype for this type of reactor has
yet to be proved at Flamanville – still not operational, years over
schedule and way over budget. Nuclear has moved on since the design of
these reactors. The government should think again.
Observer 13th Nov 2022
Closed Dounreay nuclear site records its highest number of radioactive particles in nearly two decades
. Fifteen radioactive particles have been discovered at a
nuclear site in Scotland that is currently being decommissioned, marking
the highest reported number in nearly two decades.
The particles contained niobium 94, which has a half life of 20,300 years, Americium-241, which has
a half life of 432.2 years, caesium 137, which has a half life of 30 years,
and cobalt 60, which has a half life of around 5.3 years. Eleven of the
finds were categorised as “significant”, which is the highest hazard
level used.
ENDS 9th Nov 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 