Expensive nuclear power push ignores chance to cut costs of UK’s electricity system
Energy strategy: expensive nuclear power push ignores chance to cut costs of UK’s electricity system
The Conversation, Furong LiReader in Electrical Systems, University of Bath, Nigel TurveyVisiting Senior Industrial Fellow in Electrical Engineering, University of Bath, 8 Apr 22,
”……………………… apart from a promised five-fold increase in solar power generation by 2035, the strategy sets no target for generating electricity from some of the country’s cheapest sources, like onshore wind.
The government may defend its decision to ramp up the production of nuclear power as support for a home-grown and reliable source of energy. But some of that hefty investment would be unnecessary if Britain reorganised its energy system to make the most of the nation’s abundant renewable electricity instead.
When the price of a commodity like a soft drink goes up, production can be ramped up fairly rapidly to respond to spot market conditions, which quickly lowers prices again. Building a new nuclear power plant or offshore wind farm is quite different, requiring major investment and the certainty that there will be a reasonable return on upfront investment from selling energy over 30 to 40 years.
In the UK, governments can intervene in the capacity market to ensure a secure electricity supply by paying for reliable sources, which provides the long-term certainty necessary to build sufficient generating capacity. Financial backing changes to reflect the state’s priorities, and the drive for eight new nuclear reactors is reported to cost the public £13 billion.
Building wind farms and nuclear plants is just the first step though. The speed at which they be can integrated into electrical networks and operated to be in tune with power, transport and heat demand is what will actually decide when energy prices stabilise………………..
How to get inflexible, low-carbon energy to homes and businesses reliably and cheaply is as important as building new, reliable sources. And on that count, making more effective use of renewable sources – and reducing energy demand overall – would mean the country could afford to build less nuclear power, which is one of the few low-carbon sources which hasn’t become substantially cheaper.
New technologies
One way to increase customer demand for renewable and low-carbon energy when it’s abundant and reduce it when generation is tight is to incentivise storage technologies.
For example, if electric vehicles are charged up when there is plenty of wind and solar power being generated, 40GW of offshore renewable energy would be enough to power the country’s entire vehicle fleet without any of it going to waste.
To help harmonise Britain’s energy demand with periods when renewable output is high, the government could invest in digital technologies such as smart meters and set up new tariffs which can send price signals to EV chargers. It could also invest in improving the short-term forecasting of solar and wind output. These changes would make distributors aware of customer needs and help customers alleviate stress on the system.
While electric vehicle batteries can manage the variability of renewable output, Britain’s energy system also needs fixed storage – like grid-scale batteries which, unlike the government’s favoured solution of hydrogen fuel, are capable of very fast response times to manage sudden changes……………………… https://theconversation.com/energy-strategy-expensive-nuclear-power-push-ignores-chance-to-cut-costs-of-uks-electricity-system-180365
British government launches a new government body – Great British Nuclear.
A new government body, Great British Nuclear, will be set
up immediately to bring forward new projects, backed by substantial
funding, and we will launch the £120 million Future Nuclear Enabling Fund
this month. We will work to progress a series of projects as soon as
possible this decade, including Wylfa site in Anglesey. This could mean
delivering up to eight reactors, equivalent to one reactor a year instead
of one a decade, accelerating nuclear in Britain.
BEIS 6th April 2022
Britain’s ”underwhelming” energy plan – ‘Great British Nuclear, with no policies on saving energy, nor energy efficiency
The government announced that a new body called Great British Nuclear will also
be launched to bolster the UK’s nuclear capacity, with the hope that by
2050 up to 24 GW of electricity will come from that source – 25% of the
projected electricity demand.
It has said the focus on nuclear will deliver
up to eight reactors overall, with one being approved each year until 2030.
It also confirmed advanced plans to approve two new reactors at Sizewell in
Suffolk during this parliament. Wylfa in Anglesey and Oldbury in Cumbria
(sic) have also been named as candidates to host either large-scale plants,
smaller modular nuclear reactors, or possibly both.
Environmentalists and many energy experts have reacted with disbelief and anger at some of the
measures in the strategy. They cannot believe the government has offered no
new policies on saving energy by insulating buildings. They say energy
efficiency would immediately lower bills and emissions, and is the cheapest
way to improve energy security.
A Downing Street source said the strategy
was now being see as an energy supply strategy. Campaigners are also
furious that ministers have committed to seeking more oil and gas in the
North Sea, even though humans have already found enough fossil fuels to
wreck the climate. There is a strong welcome, though, for the promise of
more energy from wind offshore with speedier planning consent.
The same
boost has not been offered to onshore wind. Ed Miliband, Labour’s shadow
climate change and net-zero secretary, said: “The government’s energy
relaunch is in disarray. “Boris Johnson has completely caved to his own
backbenchers and now, ludicrously, his own energy strategy has failed on
the sprint we needed on onshore wind and solar, the cheapest, cleanest
forms of homegrown power.
“This relaunch will do nothing for the millions
of families now facing an energy bills crisis,” he added. Liberal Democrat
leader Sir Ed Davey also described the plans as “utterly hopeless”, while
the SNP’s Stephen Flynn called it a “missed opportunity”. Dr Simon
Cran-McGreehin, head of analysis at the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit,
told the BBC that he also felt “underwhelmed” following the announcement.
BBC 6th April 2022
Incompetence of Britain’s leaders, on energy policy
Jonathon Porritt: This is absolutely the right time for a new Energy
Strategy. Unfortunately, we’ve got absolutely the wrong politicians in
charge of it. The combination of Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak all but
guarantees that the new Energy Security Strategy will fail on most counts.
– In Boris Johnson, we have a careless showman, drawn unerringly to
‘big ticket’ announcements, groomed by a nuclear industry that knows
exactly how to play to these personality defects. – In Rishi Sunak, we
have a man so detached from the reality of most people’s lives that the
prospect of five million UK citizens finding themselves in fuel poverty by
the end of the year means literally nothing.
Careless Johnson and callous
Sunak is a devastating double-act – with the inconsequential figure of
Kwasi Kwarteng lurking around to pick up the pieces.
Jonathon Porritt 5th April 2022
http://www.jonathonporritt.com/prospects-for-energy-security-marred-by-nuclear-fantasies/
” Renewable Energy Foundation (REF)” – strongly linked to anti-wind power lobby
Charity linked to UK anti-onshore wind campaigns active again. While the
name of the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) suggests it is a charity
dedicated to promoting low-carbon electricity, it appears to spend most of
its time campaigning against onshore wind.
When it was founded in 2004,
with the TV personality Noel Edmonds as its chair, the organisation was
clear it wanted to fight against the “grotesque political push” for
onshore renewable energy in the UK. It styles itself on its website as “a
registered charity promoting sustainable development for the benefit of the
public by means of energy conservation and the use of renewable energy”.
However, many in the energy sector believe the charity to be full of
anti-wind lobbyists. In 2008, the REF had what it described as a
“dialogue” with the Charity Commission over whether it was violating
its charitable status by being too political in its campaigning. The
Charity Commission said it assessed the complaint relating to the REF’s
campaigning activities and determined there was no evidence that it was not
charitable, but also provided guidance about how to achieve its objectives
as an organisation.
The REF has strong links to a group accused of climate
science scepticism, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, started by the
former chancellor Nigel Lawson, who has denied global heating is a problem.
Prof Michael Kelly, a trustee of the REF also has a position on the board
of the GWPF. John Constable, an adviser to the GWPF, has been quoted as an
REF spokesperson and was previously its director of policy and research.
Constable answered the Guardian’s questions for this article on behalf of
the REF.
While the REF has been relatively quiet in recent years, growing
pressure on the government to support wind energy to help solve the energy
crisis seems to have led to it becoming more active again. In recent weeks,
the charity has provided anti-onshore wind research to the Telegraph and
Daily Mail. Colin Davie, a trustee of the REF, has appeared on Radio 4’s
Today programme to oppose onshore wind. Constable added that the REF had
“no blanket policy” on renewables – but that the charity did not see
them as a large part of the net zero strategy. He added: “Each proposal
must be judged on its own merits, and providing that local environmental
concerns offer no obstacle, niche applications may be suitable, as they may
be for all renewables.”
Guardian 5th April 2022
Does EDF really need even more subsidies for Sizewell C nuclear project?
By doing so, our beloved leaders are ensuring
that Sizewell C will now have subsidised development, subsidised
construction, subsidised power production and subsidised waste management,
for a project still being run by Europe’s most subsidised company,
Electricité de France. Free markets? Don’t you believe it.
Does EDF really need even more subsidies for Sizewell C?even more subsidies for Sizewell C? Under new
legislation, our normally parsimonious government has just earmarked a
further £1.7 billion towards meeting their (uncosted) promise to ensure
that another new nuclear fission power plant may possibly begin being built
before the next election.
By doing so, our beloved leaders are ensuring
that Sizewell C will now have subsidised development, subsidised
construction, subsidised power production and subsidised waste management,
for a project still being run by Europe’s most subsidised company,
Electricité de France. Free markets? Don’t you believe it.
Electrical Review 6th April 2022 https://electricalreview.co.uk/2022/04/06/does-edf-really-need-even-more-subsidies-for-sizewell-c/
 | |||
Elon Musk joins the frenzy for small nuclear reactors in Wales, despite local opposition to nuclear development.
A company backed by investor in Elon Musk’s businesses is the latest to
say that it wants to build a nuclear power plant in Wales. Last Energy is
now the third company that wants to build nuclear power plants in Wales,
having settled on a not yet named site within the country.
They would join a Rolls-Royce led consortium who have mooted Wylfa on Anglesey and
Trawsfynydd in Gwynedd as the locations of new modular reactors. US nuclear
company Westinghouse have also put together a consortium with construction
group Bechtel to revive plans for two nuclear reactors at Wylfa since
Hitachi, a Japanese conglomerate, abandoned their own plans in 2019.
According to the Sunday Telegraph, Last Energy’s plans are very similar
to those of Rolls-Royce. They want to build a first “mini-nuclear”
power plant in Wales by 2025, as part of a plan to spend £1.4bn on 10
reactors by the end of the decade. Elon Musk, who is the world’s richest
person with assets worth an estimated £220bn, said on Twitter last month
that he was keen on investing in nuclear energy.
More nuclear power at Wylfa is not without its critics with campaign groups CADNO and PAWB among
the local opposition. Writing for Nation.Cymru, Dylan Morgan of PAWB
(People Against Wylfa B) warned that “nuclear power is a dirty, outdated,
dangerous, vastly expensive technology which threatens both human and
environmental health”. “It would also steal much-needed resources from
renewable technologies which are cheaper, much quicker to build and more
effective to combat the effects of climate change.”
Plaid Cymru leader Adam Price, whose party currently controls Anglesey Council, also spoke out
against nuclear power last week, calling it “the wrong answer” to
Wales’ energy needs. “We do not support nuclear power. It’s the wrong
answer. Renewables absolutely is the way to go. And I fear that, you know,
nuclear power, very expensive and unnecessary distraction,” he said.
Nuclear Free Local Authorities back international challenge to UK nuclear weapons policies in UN Human Rights Council
Nuclear Free Local Authorities have this week backed a challenge to the British Government’s nuclear weapons policies in the UN Human Rights Council.
The NFLA has joined with international partners in charging that the UK Government’s policy of retaining, and reserving the right to use, a nuclear weapons arsenal is in violation of the Right to Life, a right enshrined in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the UK is a signatory. The NFLA is a partner member of ICAN, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.
“The destructive power of these weapons is truly frightening, and their primary targets are cities and their civilian populations,” said Councillor David Blackburn, Chair of the NFLA Steering Committee. “Any nation contemplating their use must realise that their victims would be millions of innocent men, women and children peacefully going about their daily lives. In no way can the possession or threat of use by any state be compatible with that state’s obligations under international law to maintain the right to life. The UK is such a nuclear weapon armed state and that is why the NFLA is backing this challenge.”
The report has been submitted to the Human Rights Council by the Basel Peace Office, in cooperation with other civil society organisations, as part of the UN periodic review of the obligations of the United Kingdom under international human rights law, including the ICCPR.
Russia has recently made nuclear threats to the USA and NATO if they intervene in the invasion of Ukraine, whilst in the past a British defence secretary threatened a pre-emptive strike on Russia. Such threats highlight the importance of addressing the risks associated with nuclear deterrence policies. Nine states continue to possess nuclear weapons and maintain the option of initiating nuclear war.
“In times of high tensions involving nuclear-armed and/or allied states, plans and preparations for the use of nuclear weapons elevate the risk of nuclear war which would be a humanitarian catastrophe, severely impacting rights of current and future generations,” says Alyn Ware, Director of the Basel Peace Office. “Compliance with the Right to Life with respect to nuclear weapons is therefore an urgent matter, impacting not the rights of all humanity and of future generations.”
The UK deploys about 160 nuclear warheads (40 on each of their 4 strategic nuclear submarines) which are ready to be fired at any time, including, according to a revised government policy, in response to threats from chemical and biological capabilities or emerging technologies that could have a comparable impact.
In 2018 the UN Human Rights Committee affirmed that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is incompatible with the Right to Life, and that signatories to the ICCPR have obligations to refrain from developing, acquiring, stockpiling and using them, and also have obligations to destroy existing stockpiles and pursue negotiations in good faith to achieve global nuclear disarmament.
he submission makes several recommendations to enable the UK Government to comply with its obligation to maintain the Right to Life. These include adopting no-first-use policies, cancelling plans to renew nuclear weapons systems, taking measures to phase out the role of nuclear weapons in their security doctrines and advancing at the 2022 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference a goal for the global elimination of nuclear weapons by 2045, the 75th anniversary of the NPT.
The submission also highlights the connection between nuclear weapons and climate change, with a recommendation to the UK Government to re-allocate nuclear weapons budgets to renewable energy development and climate action financing.
If the UN Human Rights Council decides to pick up on the challenges and recommendations in the submission and direct these to the UK Government, they are required to respond.
To see the submission to the Human Rights Council please go to this link:
http://baselpeaceoffice.org/sites/default/files/imce/HumanRights/submission_to_the_human_rights_council_regarding_uk_nuclear_weapons_policies_and_practices_final_version_with_annex.pdf
UK government’s energy strategy relying on massive nuclear expansion will fail credibility test
The government is expected finally to publish its much-delayed energy
strategy review on Thursday. The review is urgently needed both to address
the soaring energy prices that are inflicting financial hardship on many
households but also to end Britain’s reliance on Russian oil and gas so
as to avoid funding Vladimir Putin’s war machine. The clear test of the
credibility of whatever the government announces must be whether and how
quickly it reduces Britain’s dependence on expensive hydrocarbons for the
bulk of its energy.
The chances of meeting that test look slim, given the
rifts within the government and Conservative Party that have so far held up
the review for more than a month. Bizarrely, Tory MPs have fought furiously
in favour of restarting fracking, which would do nothing to reduce
Britain’s reliance on hydrocarbons, while fiercely resisting any reversal
of the de-facto ban on new onshore wind farms, which would be by far the
quickest and cheapest way to bring new energy on stream.
Both would of course be difficult to deliver since they are beholden to local planning
decisions. But whereas polls indicate that the public is overwhelmingly
opposed to fracking, they reveal strong public support for onshore wind.
Indeed, a YouGov poll last year found that nearly 70 per cent of the public
would support onshore wind farms near where they live. Polls indicate that
support rises higher if it means cheaper energy for residents. A large
expansion of onshore wind ought to be a key feature of a credible strategy,
yet comments yesterday by Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, suggest
that opposition in cabinet rules this out.
On the other hand, an energy
strategy that rests upon a massively expanded role for nuclear risks
failing the credibility test. That’s not because there isn’t a role for
nuclear as a source of baseload electricity for when solar and wind
supplies are low. There is a strong case for expanding Britain’s nuclear
fleet of 11 reactors, all but one of which are due to be deactivated by
2030, with only one new one, Hinkley Point C, under construction.
The
problem is the same one that has dogged all recent efforts to expand the
nuclear fleet: vast costs of construction. The energy review needs to
contain realistic plans with deliverable timelines. Boris Johnson’s hopes
of delivering six or seven new nuclear power stations by 2050 look
implausible given that Britain has succeeded in starting construction of
one in the past 16 years and even that is nearly a decade behind schedule
and far over budget.
What’s more, under the government’s preferred funding model, construction costs would be passed on to consumers long before any electricity is delivered, further pushing up energy bills.
The review must therefore include plans to expand other sources of baseload,
including battery storage and carbon capture for gas-fired power stations.
Finally a credible strategy must include plans to reduce energy demand as
well as expand supply. The government needs to turbo-charge the drive to
improve home insulation, the switch to heat-pumps and the optimisation of
the energy network. A smart grid that allows differential pricing and
households to sell electricity from home solar panels and electric car
batteries could dramatically reduce energy supply requirements. Such plans
may lack the glamour of Mr Johnson’s fantasy of a floating wind farm in
the Irish Sea. But they would show that the government is serious.
Times 4th April 2022
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-britains-energy-strategy-power-play-p8g9hp0qp
Nuclear safety incidents in UK, as inspection numbers fall
Four nuclear safety incidents reported to ministers in 2021 as inspection
numbers fall. Incidents included a reactor shutdown in Lancashire, a fire
at Sellafield, and a package of radioactive material found in a London
street. Four nuclear safety incidents were reported to UK Government
ministers due to their severity last year, i can reveal, with experts
raising fears over the declining number of inspections.
In the most serious
safety breach, on 22 July, the Heysham One nuclear power station in
Lancashire had a complete loss of 400kV power after a National Grid
transformer failed. Both reactors tripped automatically and were cooled and
safely shut down, according to an Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR)
report.
On 11 September, a package of radioactive materials was found in
the street by a member of the public after being lost in transit between
two London hospitals. The ONR said there was no risk to the public or the
environment.
Two incidents at Sellafield in Cumbria also met ministerial
reporting criteria under nuclear safety laws. An analysis of reports from
the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) revealed the four incidents in
2021, which met ministerial reporting criteria under nuclear safety laws.
The overall number of Incident Notification Forms documenting security
issues at UK nuclear facilities was 368 in the first 10 months of last
year. This is 72 per cent higher than the 214 submitted in 2018. However,
the number of nuclear security inspections carried out by the ONR appears
to have fallen. Data shows there were 136 inspections up to 17 December
2021, compared with 169 in 2019. The Heysham One incident, which was stood
down after 16 hours, was rated as level 2 – the third lowest on the
International Nuclear Event Scale, which ranges from zero to seven. The
report said there were “no radiological consequences”.
iNews 4th April 2022
Why UK Labour’s green policies are fatally undermined by its ‘nuclear first’ stance
Dave Toke’s green energy blog, https://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.com/2022/04/why-labours-green-policies-are-fatally.html
It is now clear from Labour’s stance in the House of Commons, that nuclear power comes before every thing else. Indeed, aside from Keir Starmer’s emphasis on ‘nuclear first’ attacks on the Government in the House of Commons, Labour’s allegedly massive green energy spending strategy seems likely to be swallowed up almost entirely by its pledge to rush to embrace the Sizewell C development.
The Treasury knows full well that to get Sizewell C going reasonably quickly the Government will have to commit to a potential bill of £30 billion or more in public spending. This must come, either or both, from hard-pressed energy consumers by adding to their bills, or directly from Treasury coffers. The Department of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy’s (BEIS) spending plans are closely controlled by the Treasury, and the commitment to Sizewell C will swamp the budget and reduce Labour’s ability to spend on things like insulation and heat pumps to a trickle.
Keir Starmer thinks he has seen a weak point in the Conservative’s energy strategy in that it is finding it difficult to turn the commitment to support Sizewell C into reality. But that’s because funding Sizewell out of a public commitment is likely to present the Government with a crippling financial burden. It is especially crippling because Starmer will refuse to acknowledge the fact that to get Sizewell C going will require the Government to fund a black hole of spending as cost overruns inevitably escalate on the project.
It’s a cynical ploy on Labour’s part. They know full well that the Government’s difficulties with launching Sizewell C are to do with the sheer financial unviability of new nuclear power, not from any lack of faith in nuclear power on the part of the Government. But apparently, Starmer does not care about this, and it also seems that he takes the green energy lobby for granted in that he expects that it will support him regardless.
But if other Labour commitments to support really big programmes in areas like heat pumps and insulation are to happen, there’s just not enough money going to be made available for them if BEIS’s budgets are swallowed up by the commitment to support Sizewell C.
So how should green energy supporters react to this? Well, there’s plenty of other parties to vote for. Indeed if this Government does actually go ahead and reverse the English planning ban on onshore wind, there’s probably not going to be much difference, in practice, between Labour and Conservatives on energy. Except of course that the Conservative will be more cautious, it seems, on accepting unmanageable commitments to new nuclear power!
To wean UK off Russian gas – the key is energy efficiency + wind projects – not nuclear power, says new research.
Fixing energy-leaking homes and funding wind projects – not nuclear power stations – is key to weaning the UK off Russian gas, a new studysays, amid cabinet clashes over policy.
Boris Johnson is pushing to get 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity from nuclear power – requiring up to
six new power stations – at a cost that is alarming Rishi Sunak, the
chancellor.
Meanwhile, cabinet rows over relaxing planning rules to lift
the block on onshore wind turbines are also holding up a new energy
strategy, prompted by the Ukraine crisis. Now an analysis by the climate
change think tank E3G says a strategy that “starts at home” is the
route to reducing reliance on Vladimir Putin’s gas supplies.
Dramatically improving the energy efficiency of the UK’s buildings “could secure an
80 per cent cut in the amount of gas we import from Russia this year”, it
is arguing. If combined with government funding for solar and onshore wind
projects already in the planning pipeline, “the UK could cut the amount
of gas we get from Russia by 100 per cent within a year”.
“Energy security starts at home,” said Ed Matthew, E3G’s campaigns director,
ahead of the expected release of the “energy independence plan” this
week. “By ramping up the energy efficiency of UK buildings and
accelerating renewables deployment, the government can take an axe to UK
gas demand.
Independent 3rd April 2022
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/energy-russia-gas-wind-turbines-b2049677.html
UK Business Secretary Kwarteng boasts about new nuclear plants, but admits that local consent will be needed
Britain could build up to seven new nuclear power stations as part of a
radical expansion of homegrown energy following Vladimir Putin’s invasion
of Ukraine, the Business Secretary has said. In an interview with The
Telegraph,…………………
but, in the face of significant opposition from ministers and backbenchers, Mr Kwarteng acknowledged: “Anymovement has to have a large measure of local consent.” The Great British
Nuclear delivery body is likely to be a government-owned company
Telegraph 2nd April 2022
BAE shipyard – home to nuclear submarine construction ‘set to flood’ due to impact of climate change
BAE shipyard in Barrow ‘set to flood’ due to impact of climate change 31st March DAN TAYLOR, CHIEF REPORTER BARROW’S shipyard is at ‘very great’ risk of flooding in the near future, according to a report.
Findings by the Nuclear Consulting Group suggest BAE’s shipyard would be left ‘profoundly vulnerable’ to flooding from sea-level rises due to the impact of climate change.
It claimed the shipyard was among nine nuclear sites that are threatened by the possibility of increased rainfall and a rise in sea levels.
The report is based on models predicting sea levels in 2050 following the effects of climate change.
…….. Writing in the report Dr Paul Dorfman, the chair of the Nuclear Consulting Group think tank, said: “Present UK coastal military nuclear infrastructure is profoundly vulnerable to flooding from sea-level rise, storm intensity and storm surge – with inland nuclear facilities also facing inundation and flooding.
“Ministry of Defence and nuclear regulatory mitigation efforts will become obsolete, and sooner than planned.
“In other words, UK nuclear military bases are set to flood.”
The next generation of Trident nuclear submarines are being built in Barrow, alongside the Astute hunter-killer boats.
And raising concern about the shipyard, Dr Dorfman warned: “Despite the key role the shipyard plays in the UK nuclear military enterprise, climate change (even in lower-mid range projections) will challenge the utility and viability of the facility due to the combined impact of future sea-level rise, storm surge and flooding.”………… https://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/20028594.shipyard-flood/
Low-lying Dungeness threatened by climate change – sea level rise.
Dungeness could find itself underwater within 30 years, threatening both a
tourist hotspot and a vital conservation area. Dungeness and its nature
reserve are low-lying, which means that they are particularly vulnerable to
climate change and rising sea levels.
Climate Central is an organisation
dedicated to researching the impact of global warming. The organisation
uses UN-approved data to predict which areas of the world could be most
threatened by rising sea levels, with variables concerning pollution levels
and extreme weather events. Here’s an example of one of Climate
Central’s maps, [on original] showing what Dungeness could look like in 2050 should
global warming continue at its current rate. The red parts show areas
beneath the tide level.
Time Out 30th March 2022
https://www.timeout.com/news/dungeness-could-be-underwater-by-2050-033022
1 This Month
petition to oppose the rapid increase of space-military industry threatening Jeju Island and the region.
[Petition by April 19th (KST)] Stop the joint military-Hanwha Systems-Jeju Provincial Government Sea Launch!
World Nuclear Power. Reactors 1951-2026, 75 Years of Nuclear Power.
Interactive Map– https://dv.worldnuclearreport.org/
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
of the week–London Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (211)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 