NuClear News No 90 26 Nov 16 Radio Four’s Costing the Earth has been investigating whether it is safe to keep reactors running long past their expected lifespan of about 30 years. Five of Britain’s seven AGRs are already older (Torness and Heysham 2 are only 27 years old). Hinkley Point B and Hunterston B are already 40 years old but EDF energy wants them to continue operating for at least another 7 years.
In 2005 the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (now the Office for Nuclear Regulation -ONR) expressed concern about the structure of the reactor core. The core is made up of 6,000 graphite blocks. Around half of these are 1 metre tall with a bore or channel running through each block. Around 200 of these channels contain rods of nuclear fuel. If anything goes wrong control rods are inserted between the channels to dampen the nuclear reaction and shut down the reactor.
Nuclear Engineering consultant John Large explains that graphite is not elastic, it doesn’t bend, and it is not particularly strong. And now the graphite bricks are cracking. The core is an assembly of several thousand bricks, loosely stacked together and the expectation was that the core would never fail, so there was no facility to replace any individual blocks if they did become damaged. But now there are physical changes occurring in the core, in the individual bricks – cracking and fracturing – that must result in some loss of strength – not only of the individual bricks, but of the core as a whole.
The BBC used a Freedom of Information request to obtain a number of documents. One paper from ONR reveals that one third of the channels inspected at Hinkley B and Hunterston B contain what they describe as significant cracks. EDF says the cracks were anticipated at this stage in the reactors’ life and it is safe to operate for years to come. It says evidence suggests that its predictions about cracking are accurate.
Brian Cowell, director of nuclear operations, says: “in fact we are looking to extend life further (than 2023) if we can.” The analysis suggests that we can have more than 1,000 axial cracked bricks and still operate with massive margins of safety. 1,000 cracked bricks would exceed the current safety limit set by ONR, but the regulator is considering changing that limit.
Mark Foy – Deputy Chief Nuclear Inspector says the percentage of cracked bricks ONR is currently happy to accept is 10%, but they are considering increasing that to 20%. Foy says that the original safety case provided by EDF was on the basis of 10% cracking. As experience is gained and analysis and research is undertaken it allows EDF and ONR to gain a more informed and accurate view of what is acceptable and what isn’t.
EDF has now provided ONR with a safety case for allowing 20% cracking. This is based on the analysis EDF has undertaken; samples they’ve taken and the inspections they’ve undertaken. The focus has been to look at the likelihood of core disruption after an earthquake which could prevent the control rods being inserted. ONR is considering the new safety case.
Keyway Route Cracking
The ONR is also investigating a very specific and more concerning form of cracking. The keyway is a slot that holds each brick to the adjacent brick, the bricks underneath and the bricks on top. These keyways, which are acknowledged to be the limiting factor in the life of these reactors, are beginning to fracture. John Large points out that this will make the graphite blocks a very loose set of bricks.
Prof Paul Bowen of Birmingham University sits on the graphite technical advisory committee for ONR. He says the keyway cracks could potentially prevent the entry of the control rods. If the core distorts too much, it’s easy to see how trying to feed anything in could become very difficult
Seven of the keyways have been discovered to have cracks at Hunterston B. John Large believes the presence of keyway cracks casts doubt on the safety of the reactor in the event of an emergency like an earthquake. We have a cracked and deteriorating core that’s lost its residual strength and we don’t know by how much. Some of the design case accidents will test the core – one of these would be a seismic shake where the whole core is wobbled. If the core becomes misaligned, and the fuel modules get stuck in the core, the fuel temperature will get raised and could undergo a melt. If the radioactivity gets into the gas stream and the reactor is venting because it’s over pressurised then you have a release to the atmosphere and you have dispersion and a contamination problem.
ONR agrees keyway cracks could compromise safety. One of the documents the BBC obtained said the discovery of keyway route cracks at Hunterston invalidates the previous safety case. EDF had to consider what information to present to ONR to satisfy them that the reactor was still safe to operate. EDF brought in articulated control rods and nitrogen injection systems to address the extra risks posed by the keyway route cracking. The new rods are bendy making them easier to insert into a distorted core and an injection of nitrogen could buy several hours of invaluable time in the event of an accident.
However, concern remains because we can’t be certain how many keyway route cracks there are. John Large explains that to examine where the cracks are you have to take the fuel out of the reactor and put a camera down to inspect the inside of the bore, but these keyway cracks are on the outside of the bricks so you can’t actually see them.
It’s very hard to inspect the channels in which the fuel sits. Around 10% are inspected each time the reactor is shutdown. So there may be keyway route cracks that have never been seen at Hunterston and Hinkley. In the absence of a full visual inspection a mathematical model is used to work out the likelihood of cracks in particular parts of the reactor. The trouble is the model has already been shown to be flawed.
Paul Bowen says they haven’t been able to get the exact timing of the cracks right. The industry argued that cracks would appear first in layers 4 and 5, but they actually appeared in level 6. John Large says the model relied upon by ONR is not working, so they can’t predict the strength of the core. More to the point they can’t work out where to put their investigative probes to see where cracking is taking place. So they’re in the dark.
If the ONR gives the go-ahead for an increase in the number of cracked bricks from 10 to 20%, it might be difficult for people living near theses reactors to understand why the definition of “safe” seems to be changing. http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo90.pdf
NucClear News, 26 Nov 16 New Reactor Notes The Environment Agency is planning to launch a consultation on its preliminary conclusions on the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor design which Horizon Nuclear is proposing to build at Wylfa on Anglesey and Oldbury in Gloucestershire. The consultation will run between 12 December 2016 and 3 March 2017. (1) EA will hold a consultation meeting on 24th January 2017 at the Botanical Gardens, Birmingham. This should give participants an introductory understanding of the reactor design currently being assessed through the GDA. (1)
The second stage of a public consultation into the two EPR reactors planned for Sizewell in Suffolk has been launched.
The magic circle firm has been advising the Department of Energy and Climate Change in connection with the £18bn plans to build Hinkley Point C, which will be the UK’s first new nuclear power station for 20 years.
The fees were revealed in a freedom of information (FoI) request by The Times, which showed that Slaughters received nearly three times more in fees than the next best paid adviser, big four accountant KPMG, which received £4.4m. Financial adviser Lazards has been paid £2.6m, with management consultancy Leigh Fisher securing £1.2m according to the FoI.
Slaughters’ team on the long-running matter is being led by financing partner Paul Stacey, banking partner Robert Byk, corporate partner Robert Chaplin and competition special adviser Jackie Holland.
The controversial development has secured roles for numerous firms, including Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF), which advised French energy company EDF on its planning application; Pinsent Masons, which advised the local authorities on the planning application; Eversheds, which advised China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) on its investment in the project; and Ashurst, which acted for China General Nuclear Power Corporation on the deal.
HSF fielded a team of more than 30 lawyers on the project, led by planning partner Matthew White. Other HSF partners to have been involved in the project include UK real estate head Julian Pollock, energy partner Julia Pyke and disputes partner Nusrat Zar.
Clifford Chance (CC) is also acting for EDF on matters such as the £6bn investment in the project by CNNC and on helping secure European state aid approval from the European Commission.
The CC team is being led by London energy partner John Wilkins and also includes Paris energy partner Richard Tomlinson, London corporate partner Jenine Hulsmann and Paris corporate partner Thierry Schoen.
Pinsents’ team for the local authorities was led by planning partners Richard Ford and Jonathan Riley, Eversheds’ was led by Beijing corporate partner Jay Ze and London energy partner Rob Pitcher, and the lead Ashurst partners were energy lawyer David Wadhamand corporate partner Robert Ogilvy-Watson.
The Somerset-based power plant is expected to be first operational in 2025.
Dr Clowes said: “There’s been a proposal to develop Wylfa Newydd for some years now and we believe passionately this is not the right way forward for either energy or employment on the island. “It’s going to cause as many problems as it may potentially solve and it leaves a legacy which is wholly inappropriate for future generations. “There are better more effective, more efficient ways of producing energy now and we need to address those rather than waste our time and money indeed on something that may not happen at the end of the day.
“The economic case for nuclear is falling apart. We’ve seen already this week Vatenfall, a Danish company, is aiming to produce electricity with offshore wind at something like half the price, 45 pence per kiolwatt hour that the Government has agreed for Hinkley C with EDF.
“So it’s a no brainer for an economist or a Government minister they should be seriously looking at the way ahead and it’s not nuclear.” Dylan Morgan of PAWB (People against Wylfa B) claims Hitachi’s Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) which they are proposing for Wylfa B is not a proven technology.
“Since the explosions and triple meltdowns at nuclear reactors in Fukushima in March 2011, none of the four ABWRs which were operating in Japan are now operational. “One nuclear power complex shut down in June 2006 after only running from its start up in January 2005.
“Also a plan to build an ABWR in the USA was abandoned in March 2011 because nobody wanted to invest in it,” he said.
The meeting also considered why small nuclear reactors should not be built at the site of the now decommissioned nuclear power station at Trawsfynydd near Blaenau Ffestiniog or anywhere else.
A competition to develop a miniature nuclear power station at Trawsfynydd earlier this year attracted interest from 38 companies from around the world.
Small modular reactors (SMRs) have been compared to the nuclear reactors that have been used to power submarines since the 1950s.
Last year the UK Government announced £250m in funding over the next five years for nuclear research and development, including a competition to identify the best value SMR design for the UK.
The US was responsible for at least seven nuclear weapon designs during the Cold War that now seem outlandish or ill-advised. But the US wasn’t alone in its willingness to build seemingly absurd weapons systems to gain some kind of advantage over the Soviets.
In the 1950s, the UK designed a nuclear landmine that would be placed in West Germany to stop a hypothetical Soviet assault on the rest of Europe, the BBC reports. The landmine, dubbed Operation Blue Peacock, would be operated remotely so that it could be detonated at the moment when it could inflict maximal damage on the invading Red Army.
But the weapon had a major hitch. Buried underground, it was possible that the mine would become cold to the point that the detonator would be unable to trigger a nuclear blast. In 1957, British nuclear physicists found a solution: chickens.
“The birds would be put inside the casing of the bomb, given seed to keep them alive and stopped from pecking at the wiring,” the BBC notes. The chickens’ body heat would be enough to maintain the triggering mechanism’s working temperature. In all, the chickens would be estimated to survive for a week, after which time the bomb would return to a possibly cooled and inoperable state.
In all, the landmines designed in Operation Blue Peacock were thought to yield a 10-kiloton explosion which would produce a crater 375 feet in diameter, according to the American Digest. Such destructive potential ultimately led to the abandonment of the project as the British realised that there would be an unacceptable amount of nuclear fallout from such a blast — never mind the complicated issue of burying nuclear weapons within the territory of an allied nation.
By 1958, after the production of only two prototypes, Operation Blue Peacock was abandoned.
UK launches nuclear innovation program, WNN 07 November 2016 The UK’s Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has announced its commitment of £20 million ($25 million) for an initial phase of a new nuclear research and innovation program. This covers five major themes: advanced fuels; materials and manufacture; reactor design; advanced recycling; and strategic toolkit.
BEIS said on 3 November: “At Spending Review 2015, government committed to invest in an ambitious nuclear research and development program. This funding forms a part of government’s wider commitment to double the UK’s energy innovation spend, such that by 2021 it will have doubled to over £400 million per year.
“As part of this commitment, over £20 million will be provided to support innovation in the civil nuclear sector across five major areas from 2016-18, building on the recommendations set out by the Nuclear Innovation Research Advisory Board (Nirab).”
This funding includes: £6 million towards maintaining the UK’s leading edge work on advanced nuclear fuels which could provide greater levels of efficiency; £5 million for research that underpins the development, safety and efficiency of the next generation of nuclear reactor designs; £5 million to develop the UK’s capability in materials, advanced manufacturing and modular build for the reactors of the future; £2 million to research fuel recycling processes that may reduce future environmental and financial burdens; and £2 million to continue with the development of a suite of toolkits and underpinning data that will enhance government’s knowledge basis for future decision making in the nuclear sector, up to 2050.
The deadlines for the procurements are, respectively, 16 December 2016 for those on the website of the Official Journal of the European Union, and 18 January 2017 for the Small Business Research Initiative procurement……..
Last November, the government announced plans to invest at least £250 million over the next five years in a nuclear research and development program including a competition to identify the best value small modular reactor (SMR) design for the UK. The first phase of that competition, a call for initial expressions of interest, was launched in March. It has also announced that an SMR Delivery Roadmap will be published later this year.
Nirab chair Sue Ion said the BEIS announcement “acts on the government’s commitment to spend at least £250 million on an ambitious nuclear research and development program over the next five years.” She added: “It’s a significant step forward for the UK in our drive to be a leading nation at the forefront of nuclear research.”
The research into new fuel, advanced manufacturing, reactor design, improved recycling processes and strategic tools aligns with Nirab’s recommendations and will “plug gaps in the UK’s current activity”, she said. “It will begin to equip our universities, national labs and industry with world leading skills and capability and act as a stimulus to national and international collaborative working.”
In October, Rolls-Royce announced it had submitted a paper to BEIS, outlining its plan to develop a fleet of 7 GWe of SMRs with its consortium. Other participants in the UK’s SMR competition include French-owned EDF Energy and its partner China National Nuclear Corporation, Westinghouse and the US developer NuScale Power.
Tom Mundy, managing director for the UK and Europe at NuScale Power, said the company welcomes the government’s “continued commitment to nuclear innovation and interest in the development of small modular reactor technology.” He added: “We look forward to the progression of the government’s competition, which aims to identify the best value SMR design for the UK.”
Industrial strategy
The UK’s Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) today called for the government “to work with industry to ensure the industrial strategy has energy infrastructure front and centre”, in its submission ahead of the Autumn Statement, due on 23 November.
The Autumn Statement is one of the two statements the Treasury makes each year to Parliament upon publication of economic forecasts, the other being the annual Budget……
the NIA has called for four developments.
Firstly, the roadmap for delivery on SMRs, following the Phase 1 competition, “to be released as soon as possible, so industry can capitalise on increasing international interest and for the UK to benefit from the supply chain and intellectual property developed here”.
Secondly, “clarity” following the UK’s decision to leave the European Union, to give investors in key infrastructure developments “the confidence that a stable policy framework will be maintained to deliver vital new projects that promote growth”.
Thirdly, “assurance” that the Levy Control Framework, or successor mechanism, is set for the period beyond the current 2020-21 funding cap, to accommodate Contracts for Difference agreed for further low-carbon energy infrastructure, including new large-scale nuclear power stations at Moorside in Cumbria and Wylfa Newydd in Wales.
These projects belong, respectively, to NuGeneration (NuGen) and Horizon Nuclear Power.
NuGen, a joint venture between Toshiba and Engie, plans to build a nuclear power plant of up to 3.8 GWe gross capacity at Moorside. NuGen will use AP1000 nuclear reactor technology provided by Westinghouse Electric Company, a group company of Toshiba.
Horizon aims to provide at least 5.4 GWe of new capacity across two sites – Wylfa Newydd and Oldbury – by deploying Hitachi-GE UK Advanced Boiling Water Reactors. Established in 2009, Horizon was acquired by Hitachi in November 2012.
Fourthly, “sustained and predictable” funding for decommissioning the nuclear legacy, and maintaining progress made in recent years, while also promoting the country’s advanced supply chain and decommissioning expertise in export markets…..
The government’s strategy “must not stop at Hinkley”, NIA Chief Executive Tom Greatrex said, “but focus on the next line of new build developers, who will need to attract investment to build the new infrastructure we need, as well as providing clarity on the policy direction for an SMR program.” http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-UK-launches-nuclear-innovation-program-07111601.html
Nuclear waste to remain at old UK plants rather than moved off-site
Leaving more contaminated soil and rubble on-site instead of moving it to dedicated dumps is cheaper and allows for quicker clean-ups, say officials, Guardian, Adam Vaughan, 10 Nov 16 More contaminated soil and rubble will remain at the sites of Britain’s old nuclear power plants rather than going to a dedicated dump, under government-backed proposals.
But officials said that the sites would not be left in a hazardous state because international radiological standards would still be upheld.
They argued the changes would mean former nuclear sites could be cleaned up more quickly, less waste would need to be moved around the country, and decommissioning would be cheaper than under today’s regime.
Experts were split over the proposals. Some said that it showed the UK did not know what to do with its nuclear waste, but others welcomed it as a way of saving money.
The government said a change to the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, outlined in a discussion paper last week, is needed now because several sites will reach the final stage of cleanup in the early 2020s, such as Winfrith in Dorset and Dounreay in Caithness.
The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) currently oversees the licensing of 17 nuclear sites that are slated for decommissioning and cleanup. The final stage involves dealing with large amounts of rubble, concrete, brick and soil, some of which is radioactive and designated low level waste (LLW). That waste currently goes to the UK’s only LLW site, at Drigg in Cumbria, which is almost full……..
nuclear critics said the changes showed the government lacked a long-term plan on nuclear waste.
“It’s another example of how much of the stuff we have and we don’t really know what we’re going to do with it, we’re just leaving it [the LLW]. It’s an appalling choice,” said Dr Paul Dorfman of University College London, who was involved in the decommissioning of Harwell in Oxfordshire, a former nuclear research site which is now partly used as a business park.
“The notion of the acceptability about LLW being just low level: you can say low, but this stuff is dangerous. You don’t want this stuff near you,” he said.
Under the proposed changes, former sites would no longer be considered “nuclear” at the end of their cleanup, and therefore no longer the responsibility of the ONR. Regulation would fall instead to the Health and Safety Executive and environment agencies.
“What the government is suggesting is, they’re turning off the liability but they’re not turning off the risk or hazard,” said John Large, a nuclear consultant who has advised the UK government on nuclear issues.
He said one of the drivers behind the change might be the pressure on the ONR from regulating and overseeing the new nuclear reactors planned in the UK, such as EDF’s new reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset, and the regulator wanting to lighten its load. “I suspect the ONR are cutting their cloth here, I suspect they are hard pushed,” he said.
Government could part-fund new UK nuclear plants, NuGen suggests, Telegraph UK, Emily Gosden, energy editor 5 NOVEMBER 2016
Taxpayers could shoulder the multibillion-pound cost of civil engineering works for new nuclear power plants to make them easier to finance and reduce their impact on energy bills, the company seeking to build reactors in Cumbria has suggested.
Tom Samson, chief executive of NuGen, proposed reviewing how the different elements of new nuclear plants could be “carved up in different way to allow the Government to take a role in some of the enabling infrastructure”.
This could include funding major aspects of construction such as “the civil works”, he told a House of Lords committee.Mr Samson’s company wants to build three Westinghouse reactors at Moorside, near Sellafield in Cumbria, in a 3.8-gigawatt project he said was expected to cost up to £15bn.
But financing presents a major challenge for the project, which is 60pc owned by Japan’s Toshiba and 40pc by France’s Engie, formerly GDF Suez. It has been in talks with potential investors for months about a deal.
Under the funding model used for the £18bn Hinkley Point nuclear plant, developer EDF is to shoulder the full cost of construction in return for a 35-year contract from the Government guaranteeing it subsidies for the electricity it eventually produces.
These will be levied on consumer energy bills and could cost as much as £30bn.
But the model has been criticised as inefficient and expensive.
Even EDF, which is majority-owned by the French government, struggled to raise enough funds for the construction, raising major questions about how non-state-owned groups like Toshiba could hope to…….
NuGen is already lobbying via the Cumbrian Local Enterprise Partnership for Government assistance in improving the transport infrastructure in the Cumbrian area to help support both decommissioning operations at Sellafield and the proposed construction site at Moorside.
Ministers are reported to have commissioned a study earlier this year to consider alternative funding models, which also suggested the Government could take direct stakes in future projects.
There’s no safe way to move nuclear waste’: Scottish Politicians slam nuke flight that needed armed cop convoy Daily Record 18 SEP 2016 BY JIM LAWSON
Green MP John Finnie and Caithness MP Paul Monaghan among those to voice concerns about flying nuclear waste to the US. THE first flight believed to be carrying British nuclear waste to America took off from Wick Airport amid tight security yesterday.
Scots politicians and anti-nuclear campaigners have slammed the deal, brokered by David Cameron and Barack Obama, to move the waste.
The airport was closed from early morning as armed police patrolled the perimeter.
Twenty miles away in Thurso, more armed officers escorted a lorry from the Dounreay nuclear plant through the town. It was carrying two heavily reinforced containers……
Dr Richard Dixon, director of Friends of the Earth, said: “There is no truly safe way to move this waste.”
Caithness MP Paul Monaghan said the deal was “morally reprehensible” and Green MP John Finnie said people would be stunned that nuclear waste was being transported by plane.
Nuclear expert John Large said: “The risk in transport by air is the fuel being engulfed in fire, the packages breaking down and the fuel igniting.”
The runways at Wick have been extended at a cost of £18million to take the US planes, and Highland Council have published an order allowing local roads to be closed for five hours at a time until March 2018.
Police refused to comment on yesterday’s operation for security reasons.The first flight believed to
be carrying British nuclear waste to America took off from Wick Airport amid tight security yesterday. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/gun-cop-8859315
Hinkley Point deal under fire as construction ‘milestone’ hit before contract signed, Telegraph, Emily Gosden, energy editor 30 OCTOBER 2016
The Government is facing fresh criticism over the Hinkley Point nuclear deal after it emerged a condition supposed to ensure the £18bn plant was being built on schedule had already been met before contract was signed.
A clause in the subsidy deal gives ministers the right to cancel the contract if EDF, which has been plagued by delays building reactors elsewhere, has not hit a construction “milestone” within 33 months of taking its final investment decision.
The milestone requires the “commissioning of the main concrete batching plant” at the Somerset site.But the Telegraph can disclose that EDF believes it has already “achieved that milestone”, after two concrete batching plants were commissioned earlier this year, months before the deal was inked in September.
While the meeting of the condition still has to be officially signed off by the Government agency handling the contract, EDF expects this to be “completed shortly”.
This renders the milestone clause largely pointless and leaves no other lever to ensure construction is proceeding as planned in coming years.
Ministers argue EDF has an incentive to build Hinkley by its 2025 target date because it will not receive any income until it starts generating.
However, the contract, which has been widely criticised as too generous, allows EDF to retain the same subsidy deal if Hinkley is up to four years late and only lets the Government cancel if it is still not running by 2033.
Alan Whitehead MP, Labour’s shadow energy minister, said ministers must confirm whether they knew the concrete plants has already been built when the subsidy contract was signed.
If they did, it would be “a pretty alarming reflection on the way this particular contract may have been drawn up” and raised “serious questions”, he said.
Milestones were intended as a “protection of public money” to enable ministers to act “where funding is going into something which it is evident is not going to happen”, he said.“You could be forgiven for the suspicion that this was a potentially deliberate clause which could have been designed to make it impossible for the milestone agreement to be breached,” he said………http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/30/hinkley-point-deal-under-fire-as-construction-milestone-hit-befo/
Cracks found in Scots nuclear reactor spark fears over core safety , Daily Record, 31 OCT 2016 BYSALLY HIND
OFFICIAL documents revealed the nuclear regulator’s concerns over fractures in the core structure of Hunterston B power station in Ayrshire. CRACKS found in a nuclear reactor have sparked fears that it could not be shut down in an emergency.
Official documents revealed the nuclear regulator’s concerns over fractures in the core structure of Hunterston B power station in Ayrshire.
Operators EDF Energy say the cracks pose no threat to safety at the site.
But paperwork obtained through a freedom of information request shows the Office for Nuclear Regulation have raised concerns over fractures in the brick keyways that lock together the core in reactor three.
It’s feared the same problem could arise at EDF’s sister station – Hinkley B in Somerset. The ONR have agreed the stations can continue operating safely after making changes to the reactor shutdown process of the 70s structures.
by opening up this kind of wider discussion, social science can undertake its trickiest – but arguably most useful – task in any controversy. The stakes in this particular case transcend nuclear debates alone – and raise questions about the overall health of British democracy.
Hinkley C shows the value of social science in the most toxic public debates
Social science can provide a better understanding of why different perspectives disagree – and help (when possible) to identify common ground. Hard-pressed policymakers often find it useful to understand how to foster trust, confidence and “acceptance” of their institutions and procedures.
For powerful interests in any setting, social research can also play a useful role in helping to justify, present or implement favoured policies. Here, social science can be part of the closing down of debate – helpfully enabling political attention to move on.
But what if, on deeper reflection, powerfully-backed policies are a bad idea (perhaps as with the Hinkley decision? History is replete with examples – like asbestos, heavy metals, carcinogenic pesticides, chlorine bleaches, toxic solvents and ozone depleting chemicals – where it only emerged in retrospect that the pictures being given of “sound science” or the “evidence base” at the time were unduly shaped by vested interests or constrained imaginations.
It is here that social science can play a further crucial role: helping to open up policy debates where they are being prematurely “locked-in”. This focuses less on society as a target for policymaking, and more on the processes of policymaking themselves. The production and interpretation of evidence is, after all, as much a social phenomenon as public attitudes or political mobilisation.
our research suggests there is a further – seriously neglected – factor that may underlie the intense attachment of successive UK governments to civil nuclear power. This involves parallel UK commitments to maintain nuclear submarine capabilities. Without the cover provided by lower-tier contracts in civil nuclear construction, the diminished UK nuclear manufacturing sector would simply not be able to build these formidable technological artefacts. Nor could they easily be operated without civil infrastructures for nuclear research, design, training, maintenance and regulation.
So a consequence of withdrawing from nuclear power might also be very serious for a particular version of British identity – especially in the coming post-Brexit era. It is nuclear military prowess that supposedly allows the UK to “punch above its weight” on the world stage. Yet, although this rationale for continued UK nuclear commitments is clearly documented on the military side, it is unmentioned anywhere in official civil nuclear policy statements – and in energy debates more widely.
What this might mean for policy is a moot point. But by opening up this kind of wider discussion, social science can undertake its trickiest – but arguably most useful – task in any controversy. The stakes in this particular case transcend nuclear debates alone – and raise questions about the overall health of British democracy.
Wylfa Newydd protesters brand nuclear power ‘dangerous and dirty’, Daily Post, 28 Oct 16
People Against Wylfa B say it’s ‘ironic’ the Japanese company behind the new plant are not building in their own country. Nuclear is an “old fashioned, dangerous and dirty technology” according to a group opposed to a new plant being built on Anglesey.
Pawb (People Against Wylfa B) have responded to Horizon Nuclear Power’s latest consultation by questioning the Japanese firm’s commitment to construct the £12bn power station in view of no new nuclear plants being planned in Japan……..
Last year, the Prime Minister of Japan at the time of the disaster, Naoto Kan, visited Anglesey and urged residents to oppose the Wylfa plant.
Dylan Morgan, a founding member of Pawb, said Hitachi, who own Horizon, are being “totally irresponsible” in persisting with its nuclear “obsession”. He added: “The technology is old fashioned, dirty, dangerous and very expensive.
“It’s ironic that a Japanese company are so adamant that a reactor is built here in Wales, when they can’t do so in their own country.
Public support for renewables rises as nuclear and fracking falls, Edie.net 27 October 2016, source edie newsroom
Public backing for nuclear energy and fracking has fallen in recent months while support for clean energy continues to surge, according to the latest opinion tracker from the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS).
The new figures highlight a negative impact on support for nuclear and shale gas exploration in the wake of Government energy policy decisions, with the majority of people across the UK voicing support for the use of clean technologies.
Public backing for the use of nuclear energy significantly fell in the past three months, with support falling to 33% from 36% in the previous quarterly review. A quarter were opposed to nuclear strategy, in the wake of the Government’s recent controversial decision to give the go-ahead to the Hinkley Point C power station.
In terms of support for shale gas extraction, half of respondents stayed neutral (48%) or said they were unsure (2%), reflecting a general lack of detailed public knowledge. One-third were opposed to fracking, while only 17% provided their backing, representing the lowest level of public support since the tracker began in 2012. The report identified the loss or destruction of natural environment as a major reason for a shift towards opposition.
Nuclear picnic?
Renewable energy continued its high level of popularity at 79%, up two points from the previous tracker in May. Opposition to clean technologies was very low at 4%, with only 1% strongly opposed. Solar technology achieved the highest support at 82%, while back for wave and tidal energy remain very high at 75% each.
Commenting on the results, renewable energy company Good Energy chief executive Juliet Davenport said: “Renewable energy still remains the UK’s favourite form of energy – it’s local, it’s sustainable and it’s pioneering.
“Government should listen to public opinion, champion renewable energy and throw its weight behind tackling climate change. What would you rather picnic next to – a wind turbine or a nuclear reactor? I know which one I’d choose.”
Cold war 2.0: how Russia and the west reheated a historic struggle
As chasm grows between a resurgent Russia and a divided US and Europe, diplomats say conflict is now more dangerous, with ‘no clear rules of the road’, Guardian, Patrick Wintour and Julian Borger Washington 25 October 20160
Gen Sir Richard Shirreff remembers the moment he realised Nato was facing a new and more dangerous Russia. It was 19 March 2014, the day after Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine.
Shirreff, then deputy supreme allied commander Europe, was at Nato’s military HQ in Mons, Belgium, when an American two-star general came in with the transcript of Putin’s speech justifying the annexation. “He briefed us and said: ‘I think this just might be a paradigm-shifting speech’, and I think he might have been right,” Shirreff recalled.
The Russian president’s address aired a long list of grievances, with the west’s attempts to contain Russia in the 18th to 20th centuries right at the top.
The French foreign minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, said: “The reality is that behind the appearance of consensus … a form of world disorder took hold. We are now paying the price for that error of assessment that gave westerners a feeling of comfort for two decades”.
In the UK, the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, said in his party conference speech that the west had been mistaken in its belief that “the fall of the Berlin Wall meant the world had come to a moment of ideological resolution after seven frozen and sometimes terrifying decades of communist totalitarian rule”.
Others such as Sir John Sawers, the former head of MI6, warned: “We are moving into an era that is as dangerous, if not more dangerous, as the cold war because we do not have that focus on a strategic relationship between Moscow and Washington.” But unlike the cold war, there are now “no clear rules of the road” between the two countries.
The German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, an advocate of dialogue, made the same point: “It’s a fallacy to think that this is like the cold war. The current times are different and more dangerous.”………
Many acknowledge the west must take its share of the blame for the collapse of relations. The mistakes are real, notably the scale of Nato expansion to the east and in the Baltics. Russia also feels deeply that it was duped into accepting a UN resolution criticising Muammar Gaddafi in Libya in 2011, only to find it was used as cover for regime change. Hillary Clinton, then at the State Department, did little to mange the Russians. Russia has not voted for humanitarian action at the UN since……….
The issue in Europe and the US now is how to respond to Putin? Some believe Russian statehood requires a more aggressive foreign policy. The Kremlin, faced by an ailing economy and declining population, needs external threats of war and violence in the media because Putin “has no civilian project to offer to society”, said Dr Andrew Monaghan at Chatham House. Putin instead offers a mobilisation strategy. The answer is to confront and push back, acknowledging that Putin sees offers of dialogue as a sign of weakness.
Others insist the west must continue to engage and keep pressing the reset button because coexistence is the only option.
In the US and Europe, the question about what to do with Russia is far from settled, something Putin is likely to continue to exploit……
The German chancellor, who has probably devoted more hours to the Putin relationship than any other western politician, is exasperated. She is a dealmaker, but in 2014 – following a conversation with Putin on Ukraine’s annexation – she told Obama that the Russian president was “living in a different world”. But a second round of sanctions in an election year is not attractive.
In Britain, the pre-eminent home for anti-Russian rhetoric since Cameron’s failed attempt at detente in 2011, Johnson has warned Russia that if it continues on its path it could be deemed a rogue nation.
But there are British voices urging calm. Tony Brenton, Britain’s ambassador to Moscow from 2004 to 2008, calls for realism. He argues that the post-war international system – or “liberal hegemony” as he puts it – no longer works. “We have failed with Russia and we are failing with China,” he said.
Brenton’s answer is to accept the limits of 21st-century western influence. “We are going to have to moderate our own ambitions. We can defend ourselves. We can protect our interests. But telling other bad countries how they should behave is less and less possible,” he said.
What’s next? How the west could respond to Russian threatsThe EU, in search of a policy response, is reaching again for sanctions. They have been estimated to have cost the Russian economy $280bn in capital inflows and to be taking roughly 0.5% a year off the GDP. In a society devoid of internal political and institutional constraints on the behaviour of the elite, extended sanctions could weaken Putin’s grip on power………
ultimately the key decisions will be taken in the new White House. Anthony Cordesman, a strategic analyst at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said the new administration must confront three realities. “First, Russia is a now broad strategic rival and is likely to remain so at least as long as Putin is in power. Second, the US can’t rebalance to Asia away from Europe or the Middle East. And third, short of being chased off the stage, the United States will have to play out a weak hand in Syria to limit and contain Russian influence.”
“There are no easy answers to the Russians,” said a Washington-based European diplomat. “They are deploying such aggressive rhetoric and policy. During the cold war there was an accepted vocabulary between the sides. There was a game, there was an accepted game,” the diplomat said. “Now the danger is there is no order. There is no accepted language. We are not talking the same language”. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/24/cold-war-20-how-russia-and-the-west-reheated-a-historic-struggle
nuclear-news 