nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Extinction Rebellion climate activists block Faslane nuclear base

Extinction Rebellion block Faslane nuclear base entrance,  Climate activists set up a blockade at the Faslane nuclear base by attaching themselves to plant pots.  https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-56941041 30 Apr 21,

Members of Extinction Rebellion Scotland staged the protest at the north gate of the base on the Gare Loch in Argyll and Bute.

The all-female group placed three planters painted with the words “Safe”, “Green”, and “Future” on the road.

Police Scotland said they were made aware of the incident at 06:20 and officers were at the scene.

HMNB Clyde – known as Faslane – is the Royal Navy’s main presence in Scotland.

It is home to the core of the submarine service, including the UK’s nuclear weapons, and the new generation of hunter-killer submarines.

The protest group said they were demanding a future “safe from the threat of nuclear weapons and environmental destruction”.

Extinction Rebellion said the action was part of the Peace Lotus campaign, a global day of anti-war resistance celebrating the anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War.

An HMNB spokesman confirmed police were in attendance and assisting Ministry of Defence officers in dealing with the protest. He added: “Well-established, fully co-ordinated procedures are in place to ensure the effective operation of HMNB Clyde is not compromised because of protest action.”

May 1, 2021 Posted by | UK, weapons and war, Women | 1 Comment

Many hurdles to jump before Bradwell nuclear station starts construction. Meanwhile renewables race ahead

Nuclear Engineering International 29th April 2021. JUST BEFORE THE TURN OF the year, on 18 December, UK energy regulator Ofgem granted an electricity generation licence to Bradwell Power Generation Co
Ltd. The company is planning to build a new nuclear station at Bradwell on
the UK’s Essex coast, near where one of the country’s first nuclear
stations is in a ‘care and maintenance’ decommissioning phase.

The licence was welcomed by Bradwell Power Generation chief executive Alan
Raymant, who called it, “an important milestone on the journey to
completing the Bradwell B project and demonstrates our continued
progress”.

But what may sound like the culmination of a process is in
fact an early step, and Raymant admitted, “The generating licence is one
of many licences and permits we will need in order to develop, construct
and operate Bradwell B”.

Support for the Bradwell project is mixed. The
UK government generally acts on the assumption that nuclear will continue
to supply around a fifth of electricity supply, as it has over the last two
decades. But that is largely because it was thought that replacing this
large tranche of zero-carbon power with renewables sources was too
ambitious.

The scale of the renewables roll-out has put that assumption
under pressure in some quarters. The GDA process has been under way since
January 2017 and in February 2020 it reached step four, the final step,
which ONR describes as “Successful completion of the high-level technical
assessment of the design”. ONR estimates that step 4 will be completed by
the start of 2022. As part of this process, in January the Environment
Agency opened a consultation on its assessment of the design.

The EA’s role is to regulate “specific environmental matters at nuclear sites in
England by issuing environmental permits to cover site preparation,
construction, operation and decommissioning”. EA provides a statement
about a design’s acceptability at the end of the GDA. During the GDA, it
works by identifying concerns.

So-called ‘GDA Issues’ are significant,
but resolvable, and must be resolved before construction of the reactor
starts and before GDA can be completed. ‘Assessment Findings’ are
matters best resolved at the site- specific stage. In a consultation now
under way EA has listed six potential GDA Issues and 40 Assessment
Findings.

The GDA Issues are: While operational experience is used to
support safety case documentation, the Environment Agency and ONR have
noted that it is not used consistently across the project. The Requesting
Party has not addressed a Regulatory Observation about this. The Requesting
Party has shown that it has considered the environmental aspects of the
station design. However, it still has to demonstrate that it has adequately
considered the safety aspects of the design.

Where safety aspects are still
under review the Requesting Party must ensure that environmental protection
is given appropriate consideration. The Requesting Party has proposed using
rectangular filters in the heating, ventilation and air conditioning
system. It must demonstrate that these are equivalent or better than
cylindrical types, which are considered best practice in the UK.

ONR/EA have not yet received design requirements for the spent fuel, which define
the specifications for an interim store which will be used before the fuel
is disposed of in a geological disposal facility. The Requesting Party has
yet to confirm its strategy for disposing of the in-core instrument
assemblies and that this will not affect disposal of the waste in-core
instrument assemblies.

The Requesting Party has still to get advice from
Radioactive Waste Management Ltd on whether the higher activity waste from
the UK HPR1000 will be able to be disposed of in the latter’s planned
geological disposal facility. No date for submission of the final
application to the Planning Inspectorate have been published by Bradwell
Power Generation, but it is likely to be after 2022.

https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurethe-development-clock-is-ticking-on-bradwell-b-8707354/

May 1, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

UK’s £41 billion nuclear submarine project beset by delays, safety problems, cost overruns

Times 25th April 2021, HMS Anson trundled out of Devonshire Dock Hall on Tuesday to a ripple of
applause, before its 7,400-tonne bulk slipped into the water for the first time. The launch of the Royal Navy’s fifth Astute submarine was a milestone for the defence giant BAE Systems, which builds the boats at its cavernous factory at Barrow-in-Furness on the Cumbrian coast.

But despite the fanfare, it was also a reminder of the growing risks that haunt this most sensitive corner of the defence industry. HMS Anson, a hunter-killer submarine powered by a nuclear reactor but armed with conventional weapons,
has been almost a decade in the making. It is years late and is still some way off being ready. It may have to undergo years of trials before being accepted into service. Its launch was delayed by problems with HMS Audacious, the fourth Astute.

It sat in the water for almost three years before leaving Barrow last year. Delays to the Astutes illustrate the
challenges facing Britain’s submarine enterprise, the biggest cost to the Ministry of Defence. Crucially, they point to the risks around the successor programme: the construction of four Trident nuclear warhead-armed submarines, Dreadnoughts, which are needed to sustain the UK’s policy of continuous at-sea deterrent.

Those risks range from delays refuelling the ageing Vanguard submarines they will eventually replace, to setbacks and
cost overruns on vital infrastructure projects, to management churn and weak scrutiny. They suggest that without drastic action, the MoD may have to adjust its expectations for the £41 billion project, particularly the assumption that the first boat will be in service in the “early 2030s”.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/are-britains-nuclear-subs-slipping-below-the-waves-3zt7658zq

April 29, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Call for debate and scrutiny of proposed nuclear fusion power plant


Call for debate and scrutiny of proposed nuclear fusion power plant, 28 Apr 2021  Nation CYMRU, Alex Seabrook, local democracy reporter

A call has been made for a proper debate and scrutiny over a proposed nuclear fusion power plant near Barry.

Vale of Glamorgan council put forward Aberthaw, a recently closed coal-fired power plant, as a potential site for a fusion prototype.

The UK government last year called for suggestions for possible sites to pioneer the technology which could generate electricity with low carbon emissions.

But opposition councillors on the Vale council have claimed the cabinet has “rushed through” its decision to suggest Aberthaw as a site.

Plaid Councillor Ian Johnson said: “It was strange that the council leadership did not consult with other parties or ask a cross-party scrutiny committee to consider issues before making the expression of interest about a possible future use of the Aberthaw plant.

“Even though it is an early point, many people will have questions about the technology, the impact of the development and the process, and discussing this in scrutiny would open up the debate and ensure transparency.”

Fusion technology is still in its infancy and no fusion reactor has ever created more power than it consumes. But scientists say it could be cleaner and safer than fission, the nuclear technology currently used to generate electricity.

If Aberthaw is chosen, the council is hoping the power plant could bring lots of high-tech high-paid jobs to the region. Westminster should decide on a site by the end of next year, and the power plant would be built by 2040, costing about £2 billion.

Controversial’ 

But the Vale’s cabinet used controversial emergency powers last month to put forward Aberthaw as a site, without consulting the full council or any scrutiny committees. Council leader Neil Moore said this was due to the deadline for suggestions at the end of last month.

However, Westminster made the initial call for suggestions in December last year, meaning the council had four months in total to debate and scrutinise the decision to put forward Aberthaw. The council debated the issue in a meeting this week, after the deadline passed.

Conservative Cllr Gordon Kemp said: “This is being dealt effectively without allowing any proper consideration or scrutiny. It’s an extremely significant matter, even if we ignore the issue of public concern over such a proposal.

“We’re looking at potentially a colossal, massive investment in the Vale. It could create many jobs, so I think it’s something that should have been discussed.

“I appreciate there are always deadlines on this. But I’m very concerned and surprised this wasn’t put before cabinet and scrutiny committees [earlier].”… https://nation.cymru/news/call-for-debate-and-scrutiny-of-proposed-nuclear-fusion-power-plant/

April 29, 2021 Posted by | technology, UK | Leave a comment

Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish

Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish, campaigners say

Environmental groups claim planned Suffolk power station will devastate marine life and key bird habitat, Guardian,
Karen McVeigh  27 Apr 21,

 More than 500 million fish, including protected species, could be sucked into the cooling system of a proposed £20bn nuclear power plant in Suffolk if construction goes ahead, environmental campaigners say.

A local campaign group, Together Against Sizewell C (Tasc), claims the subsequent deaths of millions of fish is “inhumane and unacceptable” and flies in the face of the government’s green agenda. Also opposing the development, the bird conservation group RSPB expressed concern over predicted levels of fish loss on the marine birds that feed on them…….

environmental campaign groups, including Greenpeace, argue that nuclear reactors are unnecessary and expensive, compared with a combination of renewable energy and battery storage technology. The RSPB and the local community group Stop Sizewell C said the reactor poses a risk to the natural habitats along the Suffolk coast and the adjacent Minsmere nature reserve.

Planning documents published by EDF have revealed that almost 8 million fish were “impinged” – or sucked into the cooling system – by the existing plant Sizewell B each year between 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating from these figures, Tasc has estimated that 28 million fish could be impinged in the cooling system of both plants each year, which is 560 million over the two decades the plants are expected to operate, between 2035 and 2055. The proposed plant is larger than Sizewell B and will take in 2.5 times the amount of seawater, Tasc said.

Pete Wilkinson, the chair of Tasc and a co-founder of Greenpeace UK, said the estimates were “staggering”. Such wildlife loss was the “tip of the iceberg”, he said, as it did not take into account fish fry, eggs, crustacea and other aquatic life.

“Tens of millions of fish, crustaceans and other marine biota will be sacrificed for the purposes of cooling a plant which is not needed to keep the lights on, which will do nothing to reduce global carbon emissions, which will be paid for from the pockets of all UK taxpayers and bill-paying customers, leaving future generations with a lasting legacy of an impoverished environment,” he said.

Wilkinson said he expected Cefas (The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science) to condemn the impact on fish at the inquiry stage of the Sizewell C planning process.

“Cefas’s stated aim is ‘to help keep our seas, oceans and rivers healthy and productive, and our seafood safe and sustainable … ’ Instead, it seems that Cefas appears quite at ease presiding over the deaths of millions of fish and clearly feels the huge number of fish deaths is acceptable in that the overall health of fish stocks will not be compromised.”

Adam Rowlands, the RSPB’s Suffolk area manager, said: “It is our position that the project should not go ahead. The potential impacts on the environment are too great. Fish impingement is one of our concerns. These fish provide a valuable food supply to rare birds nesting and breeding in the area.”

Protected species breeding in the area include little and common terns and in the winter there are a number of internationally important red-throated divers. “They won’t feed on dead fish,” Rowlands said…….

If the plant goes ahead, it will be built on part of Sizewell marshes, a site of special scientific interest. It will also be adjacent to the southern boundary of the RSPB-owned Minsmere nature reserve, a Ramsar (internationally important wetland) site and special protection area. Minsmere is one of only five sites in Britain to receive the Council of Europe European Diploma for protected areas award, whose renewal depends on Sizewell C not causing any damage………

The Sizewell C planning process began in May 2020 and an examination is now under way by the Planning Inspectorate. This stage of the process is expected to take about six months, during which local people and organisations can make representations.  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/28/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-could-kill-500m-fish-campaigners-claim

April 29, 2021 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear safeguards changed, new regulations to fit in with Brexit

Reuters Practical Law 26th April 2021 , Nuclear safeguards regulations amended to take into account Amending
Protocol to UK-Japan nuclear agreement: Brexit SI. The Nuclear Safeguards
(Fissionable Material and Relevant International Agreements) (EU Exit)
(Amendment) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021/492) came into force on 22 April
2021.

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I036e8fada42a11ebbea4f0dc9fb69570/View/FullText.html

April 29, 2021 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

The health effects of Chernobyl nuclear disaster as far away as Scotland

SCND 23rd April 2021. Ian Fairlie: April 26, 2021 marks the 35th anniversary of the world’s largest nuclear disaster at Chernobyl. Several days later, clouds containing the radioactive caesium-137 released by the reactor passed over Scotland about 1,400 miles or 2,500 kilometres away.

Although we got off lightly in comparison to nearer neighbors, rain brought radioactivity to the ground contaminating parts of southern and central Scotland. Understandings of the impact of radioactivity on human health are constantly being revised but scientists generally agree that any additional radiation over natural levels in the environment can have negative effects particularly on women and children. Even here, it is likely that some cancers will have been caused by Chernobyl.

https://www.banthebomb.org/index.php/news/2138-chernobyl-at-35

April 27, 2021 Posted by | health, UK | Leave a comment

Scots financial firms invested £7bn in nuclear weapons

Scots financial firms invested £7bn in nuclear weapons,   Billy Briggs  The Ferret, April 25, 2021, Three major Scottish financial institutions — NatWest Group, Lloyds Banking Group and Standard Life Aberdeen — invested a total of £7bn in nuclear weapons over a two year period.

A new report, seen by The Ferret, also reveals two Scots universities held £2.4m of investments in companies that undertake work related to nuclear weapons, while 11 council pension funds together had £275m invested in 20 firms in the sector.

The study is by Don’t Bank on The Bomb Scotland, a network of organisations campaigning for banks, universities, pension funds and public bodies to divest from companies involved in the production of nuclear weapons. It says these organisations together held investments worth £7.2bn in nuclear weapons producers between 2018 and 2020.

Don’t Bank on the Bomb is calling for divestment. It argues that organisations investing in nuclear weapon producers are “supporting activities that contravene commitments made under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty”……

Medact Scotland, Scottish CND, Pax Christi Scotland and the Edinburgh Peace and Justice Centre are all members of Don’t Bank on the Bomb Scotland.

The umbrella group says there is a heightened global nuclear risk at the moment. It points to tensions between the US, Israel and Iran over the latter’s nuclear programme, and deadly clashes between nuclear-armed nations India and China in the western Himalayas. ……..

International law on nuclear weapons was strengthened in January 2021 by the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), the study says. The treaty prohibits the development, production, testing, possession, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons. 

Don’t Bank on the Bomb’s report says the treaty is important to note for investors because financial assistance may be viewed as unlawful under international law.

The roles of three major financial groups based in Edinburgh are highlighted by the report. It says Natwest Group, formerly RBS, held investments worth £2bn in 15 companies between January 2018 and January 2020. These investments were made primarily in the form of loans and through the underwriting of bond issuances, while shareholdings make up a small proportion of the total. 

Natwest has a policy which “only partially restricts investment in nuclear weapons producers”, the report claims. Meetings were held with the bank in 2020 and March 2021 and Don’t Bank On The Bomb said it sent an open letter to it, drawing attention to the “catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences of nuclear weapons” and the recent entry into force of the TPNW.

The letter called on the bank to exclude nuclear weapons from investment and was co-signed by over 40 civil society organisations, including trade unions, faith organisations and environmental NGOs.,……

Lloyds Banking Group, which is registered in Edinburgh, is also named. It invested £3.4bn in 10 nuclear weapons producers between January 2018 and January 2020, the report says. These investments were made primarily in the form of loans and through the underwriting of bond issuances. ……….

Standard Life Aberdeen, headquartered in Edinburgh, is also cited. The report says the company offers customers some socially responsible investment funds that exclude nuclear weapons producers but adds that most of its funds do not. 

“The company owned or managed shares worth over £1.5bn in 20 of the world’s top 28 nuclear weapons producers between January  2018 and January 2020. Standard Life Aberdeen should stop investing in weapons of mass destruction,” the report says. ……..

Both Glasgow University and Strathclyde University also invest in the nuclear weapons industry. The former held shares worth £1.9m in 16 companies as of 30 September 2020. Strathclyde University owned shares worth £473,633 in two companies – BAE Systems and Thales.

Don’t Bank on The Bomb calls for “student activism” to “persuade” these universities to change their investment strategies. It claimed the University of Edinburgh changed its policy on arms investments in 2016 in response to a five year “responsible investment campaign”, led by students. ……….

The report adds that at least six Scots universities have policies that either explicitly or implicitly restrict investment in nuclear weapons producers. “It is clear that the University of Glasgow and the University of Strathclyde are outliers when it comes to nuclear weapons investments in the Scottish higher education sector,” the study says……….

On council pension funds, the study found that 11 funds collectively held shares worth over £275m in 20 companies that undertake work related to nuclear weapons as at 30 September 2020.

Lothian Pension Fund was the largest investor in nuclear weapons, holding shares worth nearly £126m in five nuclear weapons producers. This includes £102m invested in the world’s largest arms company, Lockheed Martin. Strathclyde Pension Fund came second, holding shares worth £120m in 16 companies.

Don’t Bank On the Bomb Scotland said: “Most Scottish local authority pension funds are reluctant to exclude harmful industries from investment. However, a growing number of Scottish councils are taking a stand against nuclear weapons investments by passing a resolution that calls on their pension fund to divest from nuclear weapons producers……. https://theferret.scot/scots-financial-firms-invested-7bn-nuclear-weapons/

April 26, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Extinction Rebellion exposes Zion Lights as yet another nuclear propaganda front

 

Extinction rebellion 16th Sept 2020, There have been a number of stories in the press in the last few weeks with criticisms about Extinction Rebellion by Zion Lights, UK director of the pro-nuclear lobby group Environmental Progress. It appears that Lights is engaged in a deliberate PR campaign to discredit Extinction Rebellion.
 
For any editors who might be considering platforming Lights, we would like to make you aware of some information about the organisation she works for and her employer, Michael Shellenberger. Environmental Progress is a pro-nuclear energy lobby group. While the group itself was only established in 2016, its backers and affiliates have a long and well-documented history of denying human-caused climate change and/or attempting to delay action on the climate crisis.
 
A quick look at groups currently promoting Zion Lights through their social media channels include climate deniers and industry
lobbyists such as The Global Warming Policy Foundation and the Genetic Literacy Project (formally funded by Monsanto). The founder of Environmental Progress, Michael Shellenberger, has a record of spreading misinformation around climate change and using marketing techniques to distort the narrative around climate science. He has a reputation for downplaying the severity of the climate crisis and promoting aggressive economic growth and green technocapitalist solutions.

https://extinctionrebellion.uk/2020/09/16/statement-on-zion-lights-michael-shellenberger-and-the-breakthrough-institute/

 
 

April 26, 2021 Posted by | spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment

UK govt has a ”contingency plan”, in case Scotland becomes independent, and wants removal of nuclear weapons bases.

UK nuclear subs could leave Scotland for Devon as Indy referendum fears rise

MINISTRY of Defence planners have re-examined a contingency plan to move the Navy’s nuclear deterrent submarines from Scotland to Devon, according to senior sources last night.

EXPRESS, UK, By MARCO GIANNANGELI  25 Apr 21, It comes as the SNP prepares to fight next month’s Scottish Parliament elections on a manifesto that promises a fresh referendum on independence from the UK. Britain’s nuclear weapons system, made up of four Vanguard-class submarines which carry Trident strategic missiles, has been based at HM Naval Base Clyde on Scotland’s west coast since the 1960s. The base is made up of two sites – Faslane on Gareloch, where the submarines are based, and Coulport on Loch Long two miles away, where the warheads are stored.

Last month’s Integrated Review announced the most significant change to its nuclear weapons policy in at least two decades with the decision to abandon a self-imposed cap of 225 warheads, increasing it to 260.

In 2014 the Government ruled out moving the location of its nuclear deterrent bases ahead of Scotland’s referendum, citing the large costs involved, and still outwardly holds to that line.

But the SNP continues to pledge that it would ban nuclear weapons on Scottish soil, should it become independent…….

One senior Whitehall source confirmed last night: “A contingency plan is now in place should circumstances change and an independent Scottish government decide it no longer wants to host Britain’s nuclear deterrent.”

While the SNP is not expected to have a majority at next month’s Holyrood elections, support from Scottish Greens would still ensure a mandate to seek independence…….https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1427576/UK-nuclear-submarines-Scotland-devon-faslane

April 26, 2021 Posted by | politics, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

”Advanced” nuclear reactors not necessarily better. NuScale’s ”small” nuclear reactors not really small

  Johnson Loves Pie in the Sky nuClear News N0. 131 April 2021 ………….. NuScale In Jan 2021, a UK company, Shearwater, announced a partnership with US NuScale to develop 3GW hybrid off-shore wind/SMR plant to produce electricity & hydrogen. (9) The NuScale option, whether as a standalone plant or a hybrid with offshore wind, suffers from the fact that while the individual reactors are small, they are designed to be in as cluster of 12 – about 1GW capacity – making it effectively a large reactor. Until a project being built in the USA is completed and operating efficiently and economically, it will remain an unproven and risky investment. 
The NuScale SMR design is further ahead than Rolls Royce’s, since they have been working on it since 2003. It is a 77MW reactor designed to be deployed in clusters of 12 – so 924MW altogether. NuScale has only one potential project – Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) – with USDOE funding for part of the project but not sufficient investors yet for rest of project. 

M.V. Ramana (Liu Institute for Global Issues, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, The University of British Columbia) argues that higher construction and operational costs per unit of    electricity generation capacity will make electricity from SMRs more expensive than electricity from large nuclear power plants. An assessment of the markets for these technologies, suggests they are inadequate to justify constructing the necessary manufacturing facilities. (10) 
Economics of scale would suggest that SMRs would be more expensive per unit of electricity than large-scale reactors. Proponents argue that they can make up for the lost economies of scale by savings through mass and modularized manufacture in factories and resultant learning. Learning in this context refers primarily to the reduction of cost with increased construction. It is often quantified through a learning rate, which is defined as the percentage cost reduction associated with a doubling of units produced. Sustained learning would require just one or two standard reactor designs to be built in large quantities. However, there are roughly six dozen SMR designs are in various stages of development in multiple countries.

Although there is no data on jobs from SMRs—because SMRs have not been deployed at any meaningful level to measure employment figures—the literature is clear that nuclear power generates fewer jobs than renewables like solar and wind energy per unit of energy generated. (11) (12) 
Several advocates have argued that SMRs are capable of load following to balance intermittent renewables. From a technical point of view, shutting down, restarting, or varying the output power are all more challenging for nuclear power plants, especially water-cooled reactors, compared to other electricity sources. Further, although load following may be technically possible, operating reactors in this mode would decrease their economic competitiveness. The challenge arises from the fact that nuclear power plants have high fixed (capital) costs. Therefore, it makes more economic sense to operate them continuously near their maximum capacity in order to improve the return on investment. Given the already poor economic prospects for SMRs, this penalty will essentially rule out deployment of these technologies in a load-following mode.   

Ramana concludes that pursuing SMRs will only worsen the problem of poor economics that has plagued nuclear power and make it harder for nuclear power to compete with renewable sources of electricity. The scenario is even more bleak as we look to the future because other sources of electricity supply, in particular combinations of renewables and storage technologies such as batteries, are fast becoming cheaper. Finally, because there is no evidence of adequate demand, it is financially not viable to set up the manufacturing facilities needed to mass produce SMRs and advanced reactors. All of these problems might just end up reinforcing The Economist magazine’s observation from the turn of the century: ‘‘nuclear power, which early advocates thought would be ‘too cheap to meter’, is more likely to be remembered as too costly to matter’’.

 Professor Dave Elliott is also sceptical about claims that SMRs can reduce costs. Delivery of power at £40-60/MWh is promised, but there is still some way to go before any project actually goes ahead and we can see if the promises hold up in practice. He says most designs are basically variants of ideas proposed, and in some cases tested, many decades ago, but mostly then abandoned. The most developed is the NuScale reactor, which is basically PWR technology. Rolls Royce is also promoting a mini-PWR design, which, it is claimed, will be ready for grid use by 2030. Some of the other SMR proposals are less developed and may take more time to get to   that stage. But it is claimed that one of the more novel design, the Natrium fast reactor system, proposed by Terrapower and backed by Bill Gates, will be on line this decade. Given that this makes use of liquid sodium and molten salt heat storage, that is quite a claim.

If they are going to be economically viable, some say that SMRs will have to be run in Combined Heat and Power ‘Cogen’ mode, supplying heat for local used, as well as power for the grid. That implies that they will have to sited in or near large heat loads i.e. in or near urban areas. Will local residents be keen to have mini-nuclear plants nearby? That issue is already being discussed in the USA, with some urban resistance emerging. A key issue in that context is that it has been argued that since they allegedly will be safer, SMRs will not need to have such large evacuation zones as is the norm for standard reactors, most of which are sited in relatively remote area. (13)


  “Advanced” is not always better The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), examines all the proposed new types of reactor under development in the US and fails to find any that could be developed in time to help deal with the urgent need to cut carbon emissions. 

The US government is spending $600 million on supporting these prototypes. While the report goes into details only about the many designs of small and medium-sized reactors being developed by US companies, it is a serious blow to the worldwide nuclear industry because the technologies are all similar to those also being underwritten by taxpayers in Canada, the UK, Russia and China. This is a market the World Economic Forum claimed in January could be worth $300 billion by 2040. Edwin Lyman, who wrote the report, and is the director of nuclear power safety in the UCS Climate and Energy Program, thinks the WEF estimate is extremely unlikely. He comments on nuclear power in general: “The technology has fundamental safety and security disadvantages compared with other low-carbon sources.” He says none of the new reactors appears to solve any of these problems. The industry’s claims that their designs could cost less, be built quickly, reduce the production of nuclear waste, use uranium more efficiently and reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation have yet to be proved. The developers have also yet to demonstrate that the new generation of reactors has improved safety features enabling them to shut down quickly in the event of attack or accident. (14)   

One of the industry’s ideas for using the power from these reactors to produce “green hydrogen” for use in transport or back-up energy production is technically feasible, but it seems likely that renewable energies like wind and solar could produce the hydrogen far more cheaply, the report says. 


“Advanced” reactors often present greater proliferation risks, says Lyman. “In many cases, they are worse with regard to … safety, and the potential for severe accidents and potential nuclear proliferation. ‘Advanced’ Isn’t Always Better”. (15) 
Lyman says, if nuclear power is to play an expanded role in helping address climate change, newly built reactors must be demonstrably safer and more secure than current generation reactors. Unfortunately, most “advanced” nuclear reactors are anything but. A comprehensive analysis of the most prominent and well-funded non-light-water reactor (NLWR) designs   concluded that they are not likely to be significantly safer than today’s nuclear plants and pose even more safety, proliferation, and environmental risks than the current fleet. (16)    https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/nuClearNewsNo131.pdf

April 24, 2021 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK, USA | Leave a comment

Britain’s unlikely-to-succeed bet on Rolls Royce small nuclear reactors

 

…..Advanced Modular Reactors are unlikely to be available before 2045 if ever – much too late to be any help in tackling the climate emergency. .….

Small Modular Reactors s will only proceed if the risk to RR money is minimal. That means RR will only put serious effort into design development with government guarantees given now, before the design exists, and it has been reviewed by ONR, a demonstration plant has been completed, and costs are known. 

SMRs will only proceed if the risk to RR money is minimal. That means RR will only put serious effort into design development with government guarantees given now, before the design exists, and it has been reviewed by ONR, a demonstration plant has been completed, and costs are known. 

UK taxpayers would have to provide a large proportion of the cost of design development, navigating the regulators design assessment and assist in the setting up of component production lines. It would also have to guarantee orders for a minimum of 16 reactors, which, even on Rolls Royce’s unrealistic cost estimate, would be a commitment to spend nearly £30bn before it has progressed beyond a conceptual design.

Johnson Loves Pie in the Sky nuClear News N0. 131 April 2021, We saw in June 2020 (nuClear News No. 126) how the Nuclear Innovation and Research Advisory Board (NIRAB) has been advising the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) that we need three streams of nuclear product development and deployment:

 • large-scale Light Water Reactors (LWRs), which are currently available and suitable for baseload electricity generation;
 • small modular reactors (SMRs), which are based on the same proven technology and can offer additional flexibility to meet local energy needs;

 • advanced modular reactors (AMRs), which typically have a higher temperature output, enabling them to contribute to decarbonisation through heat and hydrogen production, as well as generate electricity at competitive costs. 

Small modular and advanced nuclear reactors are proposed, supposedly, as potential ways of dealing with some of the problems of large nuclear reactors —specifically economic competitiveness, risk of accidents, link to proliferation and production of waste. Yet Gregory Jaczko, Former Chair US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, says Advanced Nuclear Technologies should only be supported “if they can compete with renewables & storage on deployment cost & speed, public safety, waste disposal, operational flexibility & global security. There are none today.” (1) 

The UK Government’s Policy Paper on ‘Advanced Nuclear Technologies’ (ANTs) specifies two broad categories of ANT. Firstly, Generation III water-cooled reactors similar to existing nuclear power station reactors but smaller, it calls Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). This is despite the fact that the Rolls Royce design which it is supporting is 470MW – much larger than the maximum 300MW defined by IAEA as small.   

  Secondly, Generation IV which use novel cooling systems or fuels to offer new functionality (such as industrial process heat) it calls Advanced Modular Reactors (AMRs). (2) 

In July 2019 the UK Government gave an initial £18m to Rolls-Royce to help them develop the design for an SMR. This was to be matched with funding from the consortium led by Rolls-Royce (and including Assystem, SNC Lavalin/Atkins, Wood, Arup, Laing O’Rourke, BAM Nuttall, Siemens, National Nuclear Laboratory, and Nuclear AMRC). (3)

A year earlier, in June 2018, as part of the UK government’s £200 million Nuclear Sector Deal, £56 million was put towards the development and licensing of advanced modular reactor designs. Eight non-light water reactor (non-LWR) vendors each received £4 million to perform detailed technical and commercial feasibility studies. Those vendors were Advanced Reactor Concepts, DBD, LeadCold, Moltex Energy, Tokamak Energy, U-Battery Developments, Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation (USNC), and Westinghouse Electric Company UK. (4) This was Phase One of the Advanced Modular Reactor (AMR) Feasibility and Development Project. Then in July 2020 Phase Two was announced with 3 AMRs receiving a share of £40m: U-Battery (4MW hig   temperature reactor), Westinghouse (450MW lead-cooled fast reactor) & Tokamak (fusion). A possible further £5m was also made available to regulators to support this. (5) In November 2020, Boris Johnson’s 10 Point Plan confirmed the Government’s commitment to advancing large, small and advanced reactors, and announced an Advanced Nuclear Fund of up to £385 million which included:


 • funding of up to £215 million for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs); • up to £170 million for Advanced Modular Reactors (AMRs); • up to £40 million to develop regulatory frameworks and support UK supply chains to help bring these technologies to market.

According to the Energy & Climate Change Intelligence Unit (ECIU) the investment in small modular reactors (SMRs) was less than expected. “If I was in the SMR game I’d be disappointed with this because £2bn support for a small initial fleet of reactors has been paired back to just over £500M.” (6) 


Professor Steve Thomas says the 3 AMRs are unlikely to be available before 2045 if ever – much too late to be any help in tackling the climate emergency. (7) 

The Rolls Royce (RR) SMR design is still at an early stage. It was only announced in 2016. It is slightly larger than the first unit at Fukushima (470MW vs 439MW) and much larger than the Trawsfynydd Magnox reactors, which were 250MW. Rolls Royce claims the first reactor could be operational by 2030, but it’s hard to see how this can be achieved. Even if achieved it is probably too late. By 2030 only Sizewell B and possibly Hinkley Point C will be operating and if the UK is to meet its targets of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 68% by 2030 and 78% by 2035, we should by then be well on the road to a low carbon economy with a limited nuclear capacity   

  Thomas says SMRs will only proceed if the risk to RR money is minimal. That means RR will only put serious effort into design development with government guarantees given now, before the design exists, and it has been reviewed by ONR, a demonstration plant has been completed, and costs are known. 

Rolls-Royce told the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee in 2016 that 7GW of power would “be of sufficient scale to provide a commercial return on investment from a UKdeveloped SMR, but it would not be sufficient to create a long-term, sustainable business for UK plc.” Therefore, any SMR manufacturer would have to look to export markets to make a return on their investment.

 Rolls Royce is making extraordinary demands on the UK Government that it must commit to before further significant development work takes place. Thomas says RR would need:   

  •  Exclusive access to UK market; 

• Matched funding (minimum) up to end of Generic Design Assessment;   
  Sharing of costs for production line facilities (to produce 2 reactors per year); 

• Guaranteed orders for 7GW (16 reactors).

 UK taxpayers would have to provide a large proportion of the cost of design development, navigating the regulators design assessment and assist in the setting up of component production lines. It would also have to guarantee orders for a minimum of 16 reactors, which, even on Rolls Royce’s unrealistic cost estimate, would be a commitment to spend nearly £30bn before it has progressed beyond a conceptual design. The first plant must be made using production lines so all 16 reactors must be ordered now & by the time the first is completed, another 8 will be on their way. (8)   

 Rolls Royce claims a construction time of 4 years & costs (after 5 units) of £1.8bn (£3800/kW), which means electricity at £40-60/MWh. These claims are extraordinary but very similar to those made for Hinkley Point C. In 2000, it had been claimed the EPR would be built in four years or less and would cost $1000/kW (about £800/kW). In fact, all EPR’s that have been built have gone far over budget and all will take much more than 4 years to construct. The latest cost estimate for Hinkley Point C is about £27bn (2020 money) or about £8400/kW. Rolls Royce’s claims must therefore be taken with a very large pinch of salt. 

Steve Thomas comments: 
“The UK Government’s ‘Green Industrial Revolution’ 10-point plan of November 2020 seemed to include a major strengthening of the commitment to Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). However, closer examination shows much of the money is far from committed and the focus is on technologies that have little chance of contributing to meeting the UK’s target of zero-carbon by 2050. There remains no firm commitment to the Rolls Royce SMR and it must be hoped the government is unwilling to gamble the huge sums of money Rolls Royce is demanding to be promised if it is to progress the design from the early stage it is currently at.”   ………   https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/nuClearNewsNo131.pdf


April 24, 2021 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

*Net Zero Without Nuclear**

Jonathon Porritt 15th April 2021, Jonathon Porritt: Even as the prospects for nuclear power continue to decline, the industry is spending more and more money seeking to persuade Governments, commentators and ‘gullible greenies’ that we’re going to need new nuclear power to get us to a Net Zero economy by 2050.

I’ve spent the last six months looking into this mismatch: declining prospects, escalating hype. All captured in my new Report, ‘Net Zero Without Nuclear’ – accessible here: Net Zero Without Nuclear 15.04.21 ‘Net Zero Without Nuclear’ has been generously endorsed by Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the Green Party, CND and a host of experts in this critical scientific and policy area.

 http://www.jonathonporritt.com/net-zero-without-nuclear-the-case-against-nuclear-power/

April 17, 2021 Posted by | climate change, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear power combined with nuclear weapons – confronts Britain with an intractable problem.

Electrical Review 14th April 2021, Nuclear waste has been an intractable problem ever since nuclear power was
developed over 60 years ago. It has become a very expensive and politically embarrassing issue all around the world.

Not that the Johnson Government would admit this. Many in it still argue that nuclear power is the answer
to climate change, conveniently forgetting that they are passing the waste buck onto future generations. To those in power, the solution to the waste problem is always just around the corner, to be resolved just beyond their term of office.

But the history of nuclear over the last six decades, across the globe, is of dozens of failed schemes. Currently the UK is
undertaking its sixth search in 42 years for a nuclear waste dump site. Yet again wrestling with the problem of years of public consultations, planning inquiries and geological investigations, only to be finally rejected, even as scientists warn that continued neglect of the issue is placing citizens in increasing danger.

The problem is that civil nuclear industries, especially when, as in Britain, they are combined with a weapons programme, produce plutonium and other by-products in spent fuel that take as long as 100,000 years to decay. International law requires the country that produced the waste to dispose of it within its own boundaries. Identifying
somewhere to put this waste, where they could be safe for that length of time, requires stable geological formations that are very hard to find anywhere.

Nuclear power’s waste problem complicates it as a green energy solution

April 17, 2021 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Electricity customers pay excessive costs for nuclear power – Egypt, Turkey, UK, France, Russia

Part two | Nuclear energy in Africa, The second in this three-part series looks at how power purchase agreements raise the cost of electricity for consumers and act as major sources of inflationary pressure in economies. New Frame, By: Neil Overy, 1 Dec 2020   Recent deals brokered between host nations and nuclear power companies show how consumers ultimately bear the cost of building nuclear power plants because of power purchase agreements, which favour the vendor and lower their financial risk but often lead to hugely inflated electricity costs for consumers.  

No official details have yet been given to indicate what the price will be for electricity generated by the El Dabaa plant that Russia’s state-owned Rosatom is building in Egypt. But in 2016, one Egyptian energy expert predicted that prices per megawatt hour – how much it costs to produce one megawatt of energy for one hour – from El Dabaa would be at least four times more than from renewable power sources. Renewable energy prices have fallen significantly since 2016, while nuclear power has become more expensive. 

British consumers will pay excessive amounts for electricity from the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station that EDF is building for decades after the plant is completed. While construction does not follow the Build-Own-Operate model, EDF negotiated a 35-year power purchase price linked to inflation with the British government in 2016 to extract as much profit as possible. The British government’s Public Accounts Committee conservatively estimated that this deal will cost consumers an additional $40 billion (about R615 billion) over the 35 years of the contract compared with alternative energy sources such as solar and wind. 

A similar story is playing out in Turkey. Critics have pointed out that the price the government has agreed to pay Rosatom for electricity generated by the Akkuyu plant the Russian vendor is building will cost the country an additional $27 billion over the 15-year period of the power purchase agreement. This is because the price that has been agreed between Rosatom and the Turkish government is significantly above current electricity costs. A 2019 report by the Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects notes that electricity purchased from the plant will be at least 275% more expensive than alternatives.

Financial trouble

Despite such deals being signed, the long-term financial viability of state-owned nuclear vendors is questionable. EDF received significant cash injections from the French government and secured favourable loans backed by the British Treasury for Hinkley Point C, but was still forced to sell a third of its stake in the project to the China General Nuclear Power Group in 2016 because it was running out of money. 

And EDF remains in serious financial trouble. It is about $52 billion in debt and two major agencies have given it a negative credit rating. The French energy company’s problems stem from delays in the construction of Hinkley Point C, which is said to have cost it at least another $4 billion so far, and at other nuclear power stations it is building. The Flamanville 3 project in France is now four times over budget and 10 years late. In Finland, the Olkiluoto 3 project is also four times over budget and is now only expected to be running in 2022, 13 years after its original start-up date. Further delays at Hinkley Point C and Flamanville 3 are strongly anticipated, which will plunge EDF further into the mire, meaning that more bailouts from the French government are likely. 

Rosatom has experienced serious problems financing the Akkuyu nuclear power station. In 2016, it tried to sell a 49% share in the project because it could not raise the necessary capital to complete the plant. After failing to find any buyers, Rosatom was saved, at least in the short term, late last year by a $400 million loan from another Russian state-owned enterprise, Sberbank. Unsurprisingly, the completion of this plant is also delayed. Originally scheduled to be operational by 2019, its completion has already been pushed back twice and it is now predicted to be partially operational by 2023. 

That companies like EDF and Rosatom are reliant on the willingness of their respective governments to fund their survival is troubling. The economic consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic perfectly illustrate how susceptible both the global economy and individual economies are to unexpected shocks. Falling electricity sales in France owing to Covid-19 are resulting in intense speculation that EDF will need a significant emergency bailout from the French government sometime in early 2021 or face financial ruin. It is not clear what would happen to the plants it is currently building if EDF were to collapse. They could be abandoned, or taxpayers in host countries could be forced to pay even more for their completion. 

These financial difficulties are often the result of problems that emerge during the construction phase of nuclear power stations, which lead to delays. A study completed in 2014 revealed the extent of this problem, saying only 3% of nuclear power stations have been built on schedule. In 2018, researchers from the Centre for Environmental Policy at Imperial College London found that between 1955 and 2016, construction delays increased the cost of nuclear power plants by 18% on average over their original budgets. 

Consumers as cash cows

In effect, the public pays twice for these delays. In vendor countries such as France and Russia, taxpayers contribute to the bailouts of state-owned companies like EDF and Rosatom. In recipient countries, such as the United Kingdom, Egypt and Turkey, the public pays through artificially inflated electricity bills. 

Rather than reflecting on this double burden, vendors and compliant governments are inventing new ways to squeeze yet more money out of the public. To fund additional nuclear power plants in Britain, the government is now considering a new funding model called Regulatory Asset Base (RAB). 

The RAB model basically gives a blank cheque to vendors, allowing them to start charging customers for electricity during the construction phase of a power plant, before the station even produces electricity. In addition, it covers vendors for construction cost overruns of up to 30%, all of which would be paid for by consumers. It is proposed that the British government would cover any construction cost overruns of more than 30%. In effect, this funding model transfers almost all financial risk from investors to consumers, through hugely inflated electricity bills or tax transfers to vendors, or both.  

In September, EDF appeared to indicate that it would only bid for the contract to build the proposed $25 billion Sizewell C nuclear plant in Britain if the British government adopted the RAB funding model…………………https://www.newframe.com/part-two-nuclear-energy-in-africa/

April 15, 2021 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »