BMJ 25th July 2017, A group of leading doctors and healthcare professionals have called on
Britain to work towards multilateral nuclear disarmament. In a letter to
the Daily Telegraph published on 25 July, 15 doctors and health
professionals wrote that Britain should “take a lead in making the world
safer” by working towards multilateral disarmament. The letter’s
signatories include Fiona Godlee, editor in chief of The BMJ, Richard
Horton, editor in chief of the Lancet. http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3600
July 28, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
UK, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Radiation Free Lakeland 27th July 2017, Peter Bullard the Director of Cumbria Wildlife Trust told campaigners:
“Cumbria Wildlife Trust has been holding this event on the beach at St
Bees for a number of years. You have been raising the issue of safety for a
number of years. The beach is considered a safe place for children to play
by the relevant authorities. We have carried out a risk assessment of the
event and will be holding the event again this year.”
On 30th July. Radiation Free Lakeland point out that the Sellafield Annual Report(pdf)
states that one of the last radioactive particles to be picked up from St
Bees was a tiny metal particle of Cobalt 60 which is a synthetic
radioactive isotope of cobalt with a half-life of 5.2714 years. It is
produced artificially in nuclear reactors.
CWT insist that all radioactive particles have been picked up from St Bees beach. However, Sellafield
themselves admit that their monitoring is limited, they do not pick up all
radioactive particles, monitoring stops over Easter, Summer and Christmas
in order not to frighten beach users. The tide comes in twice a day.
As well as the award Cumbria Wildlife Trust will receive a new report
commissioned by Radiation Free Lakeland and written by the Edinburgh Energy
and Environment Consultancy. The report focuses on the environmental impact
of nuclear reactors and states: “…scientific ignorance of the subject
was so great that eventually the nuclear industry was forced to admit that
sea disposal, particularly in the Irish Sea, had really been an enormous
experiment, but an unfortunate one.
In fact, both soluble and insoluble nuclides can travel for at least several hundreds of kilometres and both
are available for transport out of the sea area of their initial discharge.
Deposition of suspended sediments and their associated radioactivity occurs
(under the influence of a range of mechanisms) into estuarine and coastal
sub tidal sediments, estuarine and coastal fringing inter-tidal mud and
salt flats and offshore sub-tidal sediment deposits.
https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2017/07/26/the-last-radioactive-particle-has-been-removed-from-st-bees-cumbria-wildlife-trust-presented-with-award/
July 28, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
environment, UK |
Leave a comment
Telegraph 26th July 2017, Do we have enough power to deal with the growth in electric vehicles?
National Grid has warned that the boom in the number of people charging up
their cars could result in a surge in peak demand, requiring hundreds of
billions of pounds worth of investment in new power plants – unless the
electric vehicle revolution is properly managed.
In one scenario National Grid estimates that electric vehicles alone could cause peak power demand
to climb by 1.3 GW a year between 2025 and 2045. This would require the
UK’s shrinking generation capacity to grow by the equivalent of two large
gas-fired power units a year or one £18bn Hinkley Point C nuclear plant
every three years. By 2030 the UK would need 8GW, almost three extra
Hinkley projects, to meet the need of drivers who choose to top up their
vehicles during peak hours.
Fortunately, there’s a better way to accommodate the charge-up demand which could cut the extra power needed by
more than half to a more manageable 3GW increase by the end of the next
decade while saving consumers money. Earlier this week Business Secretary
Greg Clarke fired the starting gun on a battery boom through a £246m
research and development competition, and a new plan to put home batteries
at the heart of its industrial strategy.
The support should help the electric vehicle drive, but also help the energy system to cope with the
higher demand caused by the fleet of new cars. A heady roll out of electric
vehicles is expected to drive the cost of battery storage down at an even
faster rate than expected, meaning drivers could be parking their electric
cars next to affordable home batteries, which are linked to cheap solar
panels.
Currently consumers are only able to use around 30pc of the power
generated by solar panels because their demand picks up once the sun is
setting. But the battery boom means energy users can store the unused solar
power generated during the day to charge their cars at night, saving money
and easing the pressure on the grid.
Major wind farms, including the giant Burbo Bank project off the Liverpool coast, are already connected to
batteries so that energy stored during windy nights can power homes when
demand lifts in the morning. Using renewable energy more effectively also
means costs will fall too. The shift in economics is expected to trigger a
deluge of fresh investment into renewable power projects, without the need
for subsidies. The cumulative impact of more renewable power – and better
use of it – could help meet the demand created by electric vehicles in the
first place. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/07/26/electric-vehicles-have-put-energy-sector-road-change/
July 28, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
energy storage, UK |
Leave a comment
Morning Star 27th July 2017, TWO peace campaigners were released from prison in Scotland yesterday after
an unexpected U-turn by prosecutors who dropped bail demands that they stay
away from protests at nuclear bases.
Angie Zelter, 66, and Brian Quail, 79, both members of the nuclear disarmament campaign group Trident
Ploughshares, were arrested on July 13 during a protest outside the Royal
Naval Armaments Depot at Coulport, where Trident nuclear warheads are
stored.
The pair returned to the justice of peace court — the Scottish
equivalent of a magistrates’ court — in Dumbarton yesterday for an
intermediate hearing on the charges they face. In a surprise move, the
procurator fiscal (public prosecutor) withdrew the demand for the
undertaking to stay away from the two bases and they were given bail.
The pair headed straight to Faslane nuclear submarine base north-west of
Glasgow for another protest after their release. Jane Tallents of Trident
Ploughshares said: “Their principled action was to refuse to say they
would not protest. “The procurator just dropped the insistence on the
condition. http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-d0bc-Anti-nuclear-campaigners-out-of-prison-after-bail-restrictions-lifted
July 28, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
opposition to nuclear, UK |
Leave a comment
Morning Star 25th July 2017, AN ANTI-NUCLEAR protester being held in a Scottish jail will have her
appeal against special bail conditions heard today. Edinburgh’s Sheriff
Appeal Court will hear the case of Trident Ploughshares founder Angie
Zelter, 66, who was arrested after a blockade of the Coulport nuclear base
on Loch Long earlier this month. Ms Zelter, who was arrested with five
other activists, remains in prison after refusing to undertake not to go
within 100 metres of the Scottish nuclear weapons bases at Coulport and
Faslane. Seventy-nine-year-old retired teacher Brian Quail also refused to
accept the condition and remains in custody. At an initial hearing in
Dumbarton, Ms Zelter argued that, while she has no intention of lying in
the road again, she has every right to protest at the bases. Ms Zelter said
that the Trident nuclear weapons system is illegal as it is an
indiscriminate weapon that, if used, would cause the deaths of millions of
civilians. http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-881a-Anti-nuclear-protester-appeals-bail-conditions
July 28, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
opposition to nuclear, UK |
Leave a comment
Times 23rd July 2017,New questions are being raised about the UK’s £41bn programme to replace
its Trident nuclear deterrent after the cost of building the reactors that
will power the submarine fleet soared.
An extra £235m of taxpayers’ money is needed for the £1.465bn scheme to make and maintain the reactor cores
for the navy’s existing nuclear submarines and the four Dreadnought-class
ballistic missile submarines, the first of which is expected to enter
service in 2028.
Last week a government watchdog gave the project a damning “red” warning. The rating – the severest possible – by officials at the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA), which reports to the Cabinet
Office and Treasury, means a successful delivery of the project “appe ars
to be unachievable” under the original budget and that “there are major
issues on project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits
delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or
resolvable.” https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/red-alert-over-trident-reactorcosts-6np7vsr6b
July 26, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
UK, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Mark Johnson’s Blog 23rd July 2017, In the current UK debate about Euratom, there are three common errors.
July 26, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, UK |
Leave a comment
Independent 24th July 2017, In the first six months of 2017 enough power was generated to supply more
than all of Scotland’s national demand for six days. Wind power output in
Scotland has helped set a new record for the first half of the year,
according to an independent conservation group.
Analysis by WWF Scotland of data provided by WeatherEnergy found wind turbines provided around
1,039,001MWh of electricity to the National Grid during June. Renewable
energy figures show the power generated last month was enough to supply the
electrical needs equivalent to 118 per cent of Scottish households or
nearly three million homes.
In the first six months of 2017 enough power was generated to supply more than all of Scotland’s national demand for six
days. Turbines provided 6,634,585MWh of electricity to the National Grid,
which analysts say could on average supply the electrical needs of 124 per
cent of Scottish households, or more than three million homes.
Dr Sam Gardner, acting director of WWF Scotland, said: “The first six months of
2017 have certainly been incredible for renewables, with wind turbines
alone helping to ensure millions of tonnes of climate-damaging carbon
emissions were avoided. “Scotland is continuing to break records on
renewable electricity, attracting investment, creating jobs and tackling
climate change. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/scotland-renewable-wind-energy-power-electricity-three-million-homes-118-per-cent-of-households-a7855846.html
July 26, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
renewable, UK |
Leave a comment
Drop in wind energy costs adds pressure for government rethink https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/23/drop-in-wind-energy-costs-adds-pressure-for-government-rethink
Tories urged to look at onshore windfarms which can be built as cheaply as gas plants and deliver the same power for half the cost of Hinkley Point, says Arup, Guardian,Adam Vaughan, 24 July 17, Onshore windfarms could be built in the UK for the same cost as new gas power stations and would be nearly half as expensive as the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant, according to a leading engineering consultant.
Arup found that the technology has become so cheap that developers could deliver turbines for a guaranteed price of power so low that it would be effectively subsidy-free in terms of the impact on household energy bills.
France’s EDF was awarded a contract for difference – a top-up payment – of £92.50 per megawatt hour over 35 years for Hinkley’s power, or around twice the wholesale price of electricity.
By contrast, Arup’s report found that windfarms could be delivered for a maximum of £50-55 per MWh across 15 years.
ScottishPower, which commissioned the analysis, hopes to persuade the government to reconsider its stance on onshore windfarms, which the Conservatives effectively blocked in 2015 by banning them from competing for subsidies and imposing new planning hurdles.
Keith Anderson, the firm’s chief operating officer, told the Guardian that onshore wind could help the UK meet its climate targets, was proven in terms of being easy to deliver, and was now “phenomenally competitive” on price.
“If you want to control the cost of energy, and deliver energy to consumers and to businesses across the UK at the most competitive price, why would you not want to use this technology? This report demonstrates it’s at the leading edge of efficiency,” he said.
The big six energy firm believes that with a cap on top-up payments so close to the wholesale price, onshore windfarms would be effectively subsidy-free – but the guaranteed price would be enough to de-risk projects and win the investment case for them.
“What we are asking for is a mechanism that underpins the investment risk,” said Anderson.
The group believes that any political sting for Tory MPs concerned about public opposition to turbines in English shires would be removed because such a low guaranteed price would see only the windiest sites coming in cheap enough – which means windfarms in Scotland.
“You put these projects in the right place, you will get the correct level of resource out of them to keep the costs down and you will get public acceptance of people liking them,” Anderson said, citing the example of the company’s huge Whitelee windfarm near Glasgow.
Dr Robert Gross, director of the centre for energy policy and technology at Imperial College, said: “Onshore wind has been coming in at remarkably low prices internationally, so a contract for difference price of around £50-60 per MWh looks perfectly feasible for a good location in the UK, one of the windiest countries in Europe.
“Windfarms generally need fixed price contracts in order to secure finance, otherwise volatile electricity prices can make investing in wind risky.”
The Conservative manifesto was seen by some in industry as softening the party’s stance on onshore wind, saying that it did not believe “more large-scale onshore wind power is right for England” but not mentioning Wales and Scotland, which have some of the best potential sites.
The party also promised a review of the cost of energy which the Guardian revealed last week was likely to be led by the University of Oxford economist Dieter Helm, a critic of the cost of today’s renewable and nuclear power technologies.
However, Anderson said he saw the report, due in October, as a good opportunity.
“I would find it surprising if anybody else doing a costs review of the energy sector comes to a fundamentally different argument [to the Arup report],” he said.
Leo Murray, of climate change charity 10:10, said: “It looks increasingly absurd that the Conservatives have effectively banned Britain’s cheapest source of new power.”
July 26, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
renewable, UK |
Leave a comment
Plans to replace Trident slammed as “unachievable” by Westminster watchdog, http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15427620.Plans_to_replace_Trident_slammed_as____unachievable____by_Westminster_watchdog/ 23rd July, THE UK Government’s £43 billion plans to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system and build a new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines for the Clyde are “in doubt” or “unachievable”, according to a high-powered Westminster spending watchdog.
A new report from the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) to the Cabinet Office and the Treasury in London has condemned three major nuclear projects run by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) for being poorly managed, over-budget and beset by technical problems.
The financial rating for a submarine reactor manufacturing plant has been sharply downgraded for 2017, while two other nuclear submarine projects have had “major risks” every year for the last three years. All of the IPA’s assessment of a fourth £20bn plan to upgrade Trident warheads has been kept secret for national security reasons.
To try and combat the problems the MoD has launched a major reorganisation and set up a new Submarine Delivery Agency. It has also renamed the Trident replacement programme Dreadnought, and engaged in “rebaselining” to delay project delivery.
The IPA report, which covers 143 projects run by 17 UK Government departments, was posted online last week. Buried in a table and spreadsheet released at the same time were damning indictments of the MoD’s flagship nuclear projects.
A £1.7bn project to build new submarine reactor manufacturing plants at Rolls Royce in Derby called Core Production Capability is given the IPA’s worst rating of ‘red’ for 2017. “Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable,” said IPA.
“There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed.”
The reactor plants were £250 million over budget and needed “rebaselining” to meet target dates, IPA said. It had previously rated the plants as “amber” in 2015 and 2016, meaning they they had “significant issues” requiring management attention.
The £31.6bn project to build four new nuclear-armed Dreadnought submarines to replace Trident and a £9.9bn programme to build seven new conventionally-armed nuclear-powered Astute-class submarines were both rated as “amber/red” for the third year running. All the submarines are due to be based at Faslane on the Gareloch near Helensburgh.
According to the IPA an amber/red rating suggests the schemes may not be viable. “Successful delivery of the project is in doubt, with major risks or issues apparent in a number of key areas,” it said.
“Urgent action is needed to address these problems and/or assess whether resolution is feasible.”
Three of the Astute submarines have been delivered to the MoD, and four are still to be completed. “Overall affordability remains the programme’s key challenge,” said the IPA.
The date when the nuclear-armed Dreadnought submarines are currently scheduled to be ready to replace ageing Trident boats has been kept secret. The Vanguard-class submarines that carry Trident nuclear missiles have already had their lives extended from 25 to 38 years.
The IPA has also assessed the financial viability of the MoD’s £20bn Nuclear Warhead Capability Sustainment Programme to upgrade the weapons. But its verdict has been deleted from its report on the grounds that it is exempt from freedom of information law under national security and defence provisions.
The Scottish National Party argued that Trident costs were escalating out of control. “A billion here – a billion there – to add to the bill for these weapons of mass destruction,” said SNP defence spokesperson, Stewart McDonald MP.
“The Westminster obsession with Trident is already squeezing conventional defence expenditure as everything else is sacrificed for these redundant, eye-wateringly expensive weapons. The Tories need to get a grip on costs if they insist on Trident renewal.”
Arthur West, chair of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, pointed out that MoD projects kept going substantially over budget. “The Trident programme in particular continues to be a shambles from a cost point of view,” he said.
The Nuclear Information Service, which monitors nuclear activities, warned that the UK was going to encounter more problems building a new generation of nuclear weapons. “The delays and cost increases that we are already seeing cast further doubt on the MoD’s ability to deliver these projects on time and within budget,” said the group’s research manager, David Cullen.
The MoD has set aside a “contingency” of £10bn in case replacing the four Trident submarines costs more that the estimated £31bn. There were matters relating to nuclear weapons that it could not discuss openly, it said.
“These ratings reflect the complexity and scale of delivering the most advanced submarines ever commissioned by the Royal Navy, the ultimate guarantee of our national security,” stated an MoD spokesperson.
“We are determined to get our submarine programmes right. That’s why we have established a new Director General Nuclear sponsor organisation and a new Submarine Delivery Agency.”
July 24, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, UK, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Morning Star 21st July 2017, Reading headlines about Donald Trump pulling the US out of the Paris climate deal, Middle East heatwaves and the rampaging activities of the Gulf oil powers, you could be forgiven for thinking the world is crashingtoward a final oil-fuelled armaggedon.
But according to renewable energy investment experts, we are actually on the cusp of the greatest energy
revolution in history. The cost of renewables like solar and cell batteries for electric vehicles are making the carbon-based economy obsolete, with the turning point only a few years away.
Tony Seba, Stanford University professor and energy futurist, sees oil consumption collapsing after 2020
due to disruptive technologies and the fact that renewables are beating the old polluting energies where it matters most: market price. “The age of centralised, command-and-control, extraction-resource-based energy sources
(oil, gas, coal and nuclear) will not end because we run out of petroleum, natural gas, coal, or uranium,” he told investment specialists Southbank Research. “It will end because these energy sources, the business models
they employ, and the products that sustain them will be disrupted by superior technologies, product architectures and business models.
Compelling new technologies such as solar, wind, electric vehicles, and autonomous (self-driving) cars will disrupt and sweep away the energy industry as we know it. For the left and Labour to reap the benefits of these technology revolutions it must embrace the renewable sector, and not make the mistake of focusing purely on distribution, while leaving control
of the energy and transport technology to the market. Public ownership of energy utilities can be part of a planned energy revolution in which we collectively reap the benefits of decentralised non-carbon based energy
systems and resist the rent-seeking plans of monopoly capital.
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-0fd0-The-future-is-here-for-all-to-see
July 24, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
renewable, UK |
1 Comment
New European 21st July 2017, The Euratom row lays bare the innate flaws of Brexit. But it also gives pro-Europeans their biggest chance yet to regain the initiative. Our politicians have belatedly woken up to the fact that amongst the many complex implications of Brexit are some very serious issues to do with nuclear safety, nuclear waste and nuclear medicine.
These arise because the government’s Hard Brexit plan entails leaving the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) which, in turn, arises because although Euratom is not part of the EU it falls within the jurisdiction of the ECJ. Although the ECJ has in fact made very few judgments regarding Euratom, Theresa May has made leaving all forms of its jurisdiction a non-negotiable red line, and so leaving Euratom was included in both the Article 50 letter and the parliamentary Act which authorised her to send that letter.
This may now lead to a parliamentary rebellion amongst Tory MPs against, at least, this aspect of Brexit, meaning it is possible the government will not have a majority for it.
But what is happening with Euratom points up very sharply a whole series of extremely significant questions about Brexit in general. Perhaps the most important question – the nuclear question, so to speak – is that given there are very strong and obvious reasons for avoiding the chaos, damage, cost and complexity of leaving Euratom then do these not apply even more strongly to the entire matter of leaving the EU?
Could Euratom be the first major crack that will bring down the whole ill-conceived edifice of Brexit?
http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/what-euratom-really-stands-for-1-5117645
July 24, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics international, UK |
Leave a comment
Radiation Free Lakeland 22nd July 2017, Braving the rain in Carlisle today campaigners went to bear witness to the Nuclear Industry’s whitewashing of its seemingly never ending transports of mountains of spent fuel and nuclear materials.
The day is a great draw for thousands of railway enthusiasts who are in love with the diesel
engines. Many are unaware of the dangerous cargo of nuclear fuel, even those who live in Carlisle.
Created in 1994 by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (now the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority) to take over British Rail’s handling of nuclear material. DRS has since diversified into other freight operations including food. This diversification serves to take the focus away from the main purpose which is the transport of nuclear materials (the only publicly owned railway we are allowed to have is that bearing nuclear freight!) https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2017/07/22/beware-nuclear-trains-bearing-gifts/
July 24, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
safety, UK |
Leave a comment
Koreans target £10bn Welsh nuclear plant, John Collingridge July 23 2017, The Sunday Times A Korean state-owned power giant is drawing up plans to buy a slice of a new £10bn nuclear plant in north Wales.
July 24, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
marketing, South Korea, UK |
Leave a comment
Curious confusion over British threat to dump nuclear materials on EU http://drdavidlowry.blogspot.com.au/2017/07/curious-confusion-over-british-threat.html Letter to the Financial Times 21 July 17
Your report “UK issues coded warning to Brussels over nuclear waste” (Financial Times, 20 July; https://www.ft.com/content/0c56a4f2-6bc5-11e7-bfeb-33fe0c5b7eaa) is based on a curious confusion and a worrying level of ignorance by anonymous so-called nuclear experts your reporters say have advised the UK Government.
It a is both an empty and, frankly, a totally counter-productive threat to return fissile materials ( and radioactive wastes) to countries of origin in the EU, as part of a sui-disant negotiating posture on Brexit by the UK, in order to “
On 19 January this year, the UK Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) announced it had agreed to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) taking ownership of 600 kg of material previously owned by a Spanish utility, and of 5 kg of material previously owned by a German organisation.
BEIS asserted that “These transactions, which have been agreed by the Euratom Supply Agency, will not result in any new plutonium being brought into the UK, and will not therefore increase the overall amount of plutonium in the UK.” adding it had “agreed to these transactions on the grounds that they offer a cost-effective and beneficial arrangement, which allows the UK to gain national control over more of the civil plutonium located in the UK, and facilitates conclusion of outstanding contracts with the Spanish and German” (http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2017-01-19/HCWS422/).
And, earlier, in April 2013, BEIS’s predecessor department, DECC, announced in a statement on management of oversees owned plutonium it was taking over 750 kg of plutonium belonging to German utilities, 1,850 kg previously loaned from France, and 350 kg from Dutch firm GKN. At the same time, 650 kg of plutonium stored at Sellafield was transferred from German to Japanese ownership.(https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/written-ministerial-statement-by-michael-fallon-management-of-overseas-owned-plutonium-in-the-uk)
Thus the overseas ownership of plutonium in the UK has gradually been transferred to the UK. Thus there is no prospect of any ship sailing towards Antwerp (or any other EU port) as the nuclear expert cited fancifully imagined.
It is possible that some of reprocessing waste arising from the chemical separation of imported foreign spent nuclear fuel at Sellafield could be returned-to-sender in a fit of pique by DexEU. However, BEIS has already- through its predecessor department- indicated it wanted to adopt a policy of substitution” based on “radiotoxic equivalence” to the reprocessing nuclear waste stockpile to minimize the volumes of waste shipped back to continental Europe.
A BEIS official told me at a nuclear policy forum meeting of interested non-governmental parties on 18 July that the department has a team of dedicated staff looking in detail at all the ramifications of withdrawal from Euratom for UK nuclear policy. Perhaps DexEU officials should consult these in-house experts over Euratom before issuing empty threats.
July 22, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
EUROPE, politics international, UK, wastes |
Leave a comment
nuclear-news 