Even pro nuclear ‘experts’ want to scrap Hinkley ( are they pushing for ‘small nuclear’?)
UK’s most aggressive nuclear lobby is pushing for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors and Thorium Reactors. They’ve even got themselves classed as a Charity!!! So, is the veiled co-operation between the old Big nuclear camp, and the new geewhiz Little nuclear camp now wearing thin in Britain?
Pro-nuclear environmentalists in call to scrap Hinkley C plans
Three leading experts urge government to end nuclear project saying delays will create panicked scramble back to fossil fuels, Guardian, Terry Macalister, 19 Sept 15 Three leading environmentalists who broke ranks to give their support to a new generation of nuclear plants have now urged the government to scrap plans for Hinkley Point C.
The call comes as George Osborne and Amber Rudd, the secretary of state for energy and climate change, head off to China, where they will discuss Beijing’s proposed investment in the new nuclear plant in Somerset.
George Monbiot, Mark Lynas and Chris Goodall say the soaring cost and delays to the Hinkley project leave ministers with no option but to pour the estimated £24.5bn worth of investment into other low-carbon technologies
“Hinkley C bears all the distinguishing features of a white elephant: overpriced, overcomplicated and overdue. The delay that was announced recently should be the final straw. The government should kill the project,” they write in a comment piece for the Guardian.
“The new delay should not surprise anyone who’s aware of the technological issues,” said Tony Roulstone, who runs the masters programme in nuclear engineering at Cambridge University. He argues that the plan for Hinkley C is like “building a cathedral within a cathedral”. It is, he concludes, “unconstructable”………
EDF, the French energy group, promoting Hinkley, has already won a generous financial aid package from the government through its “contract for difference” mechanism but has yet to sign the definitive deal it needs with Beijing investors.
This is expected to happen when the Chinese premier visits the UK next month, leaving EDF in a position to finally give the green light to the first nuclear plant to be built in the UK for 20 years.
But the energy company and its French engineering partner, Areva, have been beset by problems, leaving a growing number of former supporters from the world of energy and the City to question the viability of the whole project…….http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/18/nuclear-environmentalists-scrap-hinkley-c-plans
Jeremy Corbyn and Britain’s nuclear weapons plans
Britain’s nuclear plans: the Corbyn factor https://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/britains-nuclear-plans-corbyn-factor
In the debate about replacing the Trident nuclear system, there is space for options that link British to international experience. Jeremy Corbyn, the new leader of Britain’s Labour Party, has long been opposed to the country’s possession of nuclear weapons. But he has also made it clear that this personal commitment does not extend to forcing this policy on the party he now heads. What he does want is an open debate and to convince others of the value of his views.
The replacement of the country’s Trident nuclear system is now being discussed (see “Britain’s defence policy: the path to change“, 7 May 2015). If this were to go ahead and a similar system put in place, the development and lifetime costs will approach £100 billion. Almost everyone in the Conservative government and parliamentary party, and many Labour MPs themselves, believe that a replacement should be built and that Britain should remain a nuclear-weapons power. Yet there is a substantial minority across the electorate that agrees with Corbyn. This view has gained far more traction since it was adopted by the Scottish National Party, a shift prompted not least by the persistent campaigning of nuclear disarmers north of the border, including the Faslane 365 initative. Yet political polarisation means it will be difficult to realise Corbyn’s aims.
The pro-Trident position has an uncompromising military rationale. It entails keeping a ballistic-missile submarine on station and ready to launch at all times – what is called “continuous at-sea deterrence” (CASD). In turn this requires maintaining four submarines, in order to allow one available for round-the-clock patrol, as well as substantial naval back-up. The latter includes what is euphemistically called “deterrence support”, an element that isn’t much talked about in polite circles.
The reason why is that deterrence support is onerous. There is a certain assumption that a Vanguard-class Trident-armed missile-submarine can disappear from its base at Faslane in western Scotland and go on secret patrol almost independently of the rest of the system. The reality is different: there is a continual need to protect Faslane, the Clyde estuary and the seas close to Scotland. Moreover, it is usual practice to have on patrol an attack-submarine, such as one of the new Astute-class boats (nuclear-powered but not nuclear-armed) between the general region of the Trident submarine’s area of operation and the perceived direction of threat. That, of course, means having several such attack-submarines available, which demands a substantial commitment.
The anti-Trident argument tends to the view that Britain’s nuclear weapons are little more than an historical anachronism (see “Britain’s nuclear endgame“, 28 September 2012). The ability to kill 5 million or more people in forty minutes may represent an inkling of great-power status, or a delusion of post-imperialgrandeur (of a kind shared with France). In practice, though, sufficient numbers of people still stick to the old thinking that the choice can be other than “all or nothing”. Corbyn’s supporters may need to recognise this.
A two-stage strategy
An earlier column in this series pointed to one way forward (see “Two steps to zero“, 17 July 2008). This was to scale down Britain’s nuclear forces to a background capability, involving the following steps:
* Cancel the plans to replace the current Vanguard-class boats and a new generation of nuclear warheads
* Reduce warhead numbers from around the current 160 to 30 (an 80% reduction); then have modified warheads available to deploy, if this were ever thought necessary, with cruise-missiles on attack-submarines, such as the new Astute-class (which can already deploy such missiles with conventional warheads)
* Phase out the entire Trident system as soon as this much-reduced force is available
* Adopt an openly stated policy of “no first use” of nuclear weapons and aspire to the elimination of nuclear weapons in Britain when international progress allows.
This would essentially be a residual force. If embraced, it could be less than a decade or so before the very idea of maintaining nuclear forces might be dropped, with Britain then joining the ranks of the 186 member-states of theUnited Nations out of 195 which do not possess nuclear weapons.
What is often forgotten here, including by anti-nuclear activists, is that several countries have given up nuclear weapons on their territory. South Africa actually developed its own small arsenal and then dismantled it. Furthermore, a number of states have in the past decided against developing their own nuclear arsenals after active consideration; they include Argentina, Brazil, Sweden and Switzerland, and probably also South Korea and Taiwan.
At the level of elite power, British nuclear weapons are a symbolic indication of standing in the world. The habit is so strong that it would be easier to give them up in two stages: a radically scaled down and far cheaper force that could then be allowed to wither away.
Whether that becomes an option depends very much on domestic party politics. But the point about revisiting Britain’s nuclear-weapons policy is that the starting-point does not have to be a rigid “for” or “against”. The option just outlined is just one among several. Their very existence means that the debatenow getting underway can be much better informed and less hidebound by increasingly meaningless issues of imaginary great-power status
Bloomberg Finance gives 5 good reasons not to build Hinkley nuclear station
FIVE REASONS NOT TO BUILD HINKLEY [Excellent graphs] Bloomberg Finance http://about.bnef.com/landing-pages/five-reasons-build-hinkley/ The endgame for the UK’s new reactor project at Hinkley Point is nearing. A Chinese state visit to the UK in October may be the make-or-break point for the project to get the go-ahead. As that moment approaches, we give five reasons not to build the plant. This is an excerpt from our EU Power Weekly, which is available to our BNEF EMEA and BNEF All clients.
Last week, French energy giant EDF announced delays to two key new reactor projects. Firstly, Flamanville 3 in France will only come online in 2018, six years behind the initial plan and three times over budget. Also, Hinkley Point C in the UK will not be completed by 2023 due to delays in reaching a final investment decision. This adds to the uncertainty around the 3.2GW reactor project. Here are five reasons not to build Hinkley.
- It is extremely difficult to build
Hinkley C uses Areva’s troubled EPR (European Pressurised Reactor) technology. All current EPR plants under construction are suffering from severe delays, and there is are substantial concerns about the integrity of some of the reactor vessels. - It is very expensive
Carrying an all-in financing cost of GBP 24.5bn, Hinkley Point C is the most expensive new reactor project around. On a GW basis, it is even more expensive than fellow EPR projects Flamanville and Olkiluoto, which are both multiple times over budget. (good graph) - It may not be necessary
- In our view, UK power consumption is in long-term decline. Combined with continued growth of wind and solar capacity and interconnectors to the European mainland, the remaining market might be too small for a mammoth plant such as Hinkley to make sense.
GB annual power consumption and renewable output, 2015-2030 (TWh) - Hinkley won’t play nice with wind and solar
Also, Hinkley might not help to integrate variable wind and solar. Firstly, the massive 3.2GW plant will not help relieve increasingly apparent constraints in the distribution grid. Secondly, it might not be flexible enough to respond to fluctuations in solar and wind output: in sunny and windy days, Hinkley would need to reduce its output significantly, a feature it is not designed for. Other technologies such as small gas-fired peakers might be better suited — read more about them here, or deploying small, more flexible modular reactors (SMRs) that should be available for commercial deployment by 2022-24.
- It is a cost for future generations
Hinkley will be costly to decommission, even if these costs will only arise in the second half of this century. The decommissioning cost of San Onofre, a 2.3 GW nuclear plant in California, is estimated at $4.4bn (an unusually high cost given its location, other small reactors decommissioning costs are closer to $1bn). For comparison: cleaning up one MW of San Onofre costs as much as a MW of onshore wind. (Also on decommissioning: the German government is trying to ensure German utilities are held liable for the cost of cleaning up their old reactors).
UK nuclear lobby is seeking a blank cheque from the governmnet
So where is the British flight into ‘nuclear power is cheap somewhere’ fantasy leading us? Well, to nationalisation, of course
What the pro-nuclear lobby now wants is for limitless sums of money to be siphoned off from public spending on education, health and whatever else and spent on building nuclear power stations. The money will be notionally borrowed, a contract that will be concocted that will claim that the electricity consumer will pay the money back at a later date, and the balance will be paid for by, well, less schools, hospitals etc. Meanwhile a story will be manufactured about how all of this is cheap.
The state will end up giving the whole project a blank cheque so that the disastrous construction process can be bankrolled entirely from a bottomless pit of state finances.
The notion that nuclear is cheaper somewhere else is a myth http://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/the-notion-that-nuclear-is-cheaper.html by Dr David Toke The British attitude to the notion that nuclear power is not cheap after all is a bit like a child who first hears that Father Christmas does not, after all, exist. Disbelief, and in this case a belief that if only Father Christmas is nationalised, then it will still be true. The psychologists call this cognitive dissonance, in other words if a fact is uncomfortable to you, you believe that the fact is wrong.
UK govt on brink of sealing Hinkley and Sizewell nuclear deal with China
David Cameron gives go ahead to build Chinese nuclear reactor in ESSEX http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/603390/China-nuclear-reactor-Essex-nuclear-power
DAVID Cameron is poised to sign a landmark deal next month to allow China to build a prototype nuclear reactor in Bradwell, Essex – which would become the first Chinese-operated facility in the West.
The plant is the price Beijing wants in return for its agreement to help pay for two new plants to be built by France’s EDF Energy – one at Hinkley Point in Somerset and the other at Sizewell, Suffolk.
EDF has admitted that Hinkley Point – Britain’s first atomic power station in almost two decades – is already facing delays. It was originally scheduled to open in 2017, but disputes over how it will be funded have held up the start of work – with EDF admitting it would not open before 2024. Problems with the EPR reactor design have also halted progress.
However, David Cameron is adamant to get the project off the ground – which is at the core of the Government’s drive to replace Britain’s ageing fossil fuel plants with low-carbon alternatives.
A similar EDF plant in Flamanville, France, has gone three times over budget and fallen six years behind schedule.
Hinkley Point, which will be twice as big, is on course to become the world’s most expensive power station.
The Chinese – who are currently have 26 nuclear power reactors in operation – are vital to Britain’s low-carbon initiative.
Whitehall officers are said to be hammering out the final details of an agreement under which two of Beijing’s state power companies – China General Nuclear and China National Nuclear Corporation – will take a large minority stake in Hinkley Point. They would also become junior partners, and cover part of the costs for a follow-on plant at Sizewell.
The construction and operation of both sites would be led by EDF.
In return for Beijing’s support on those plants, EDF would sell its right to a development site it owns at Bradwell.
The French, who would become a minority partner, would assist the Chinese through Britain’s approval process for a new reactor design – which the Chinese would use as a selling point as it bids to become the world leader in nuclear technology.
The Chinese design is expected to be capable of producing one gigawatt of electricity – enough to power 1m homes.
Hinkley Point will comprise of two larger EPR reactors – each with a capacity of 1.6GW – which will generate seven per cent of Britain’s electricity needs.
However, the plans for the nuclear plant have stirred controversy because of the huge subsidies the Government has agreed to pay EDF and its Chinese partners – which will be tacked on to taxpayers’ household bills and pay out until 2060.
The starting rate of £92.50 per megawatt hour of power produced is more than double the current wholesale rate and will rise every year with inflation.
A growing number of critics have begun to lobby against Hinkley Point.
EDF admits Hinkley Point Nuclear Station won’t be ready by 2023
Nuclear delay: EDF admits Hinkley Point won’t be ready by 2023 Britain’s first new nuclear plant in a generation has been delayed and will not start generating power in 2023 as planned, French energy giant EDF admits Telegraph UK, By Emily Gosden, Energy Editor
2:04PM BST 03 Sep 2015……a decision has yet to be taken, following a protracted EU state aid inquiry and extended negotiations with the UK Government over subsidies and with Chinese investment partners.
Although a decision is now expected in October, Mr Levy admitted the 2023 start date for the project, which will be subsidised by households through their energy bills, would no longer be met………
Mr Levy also disclosed that the final investment decision would be based on solely EDF and Chinese investment, after failing to tie up deals with any other potential investment partners in time.
EDF said in 2013 it planned to retain only a 45pc to 50pc stake in Hinkley, with Chinese groups China General Nuclear Corporation and China National Nuclear Corporation taking a combined stake of 30pc to 40pc.
Areva, the reactor maker, was expected to take 10pc and other “interested parties” were expected to take up to 15pc. But financial troubles at Areva have forced it to sell its nuclear business to EDF, and Mr Levy said no other investors would be confirmed by the time of FID……
in the first phase EDF and the Chinese will be the investors at the final investment decision.”
It is understood EDF will now retain a majority stake, although the precise share to be taken by Chinese investors is still under discussion.
Hinkley Point was once supposed to be ready in time for Christmas 2017 but has suffered numerous delays and setbacks.
Fears have grown that the project will suffer a similar fate to that of EDF’s troubled Flamanville reactor in France, which uses the same technology as the proposed Hinkley plant.
Flamanville was originally due to cost €3bn and be ready by 2012 but has seen costs spiral. On Thursday EDF said Flamanville would now not start generating until 2018, a year later than the most recent estimates, and would cost €10.5bn………http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11841733/Nuclear-delay-EDF-admits-Hinkley-Point-wont-be-ready-by-2023.htm
UK govt pre-empts Parliament on more money for Trident nuclear weapons
Trident: pre-empting Commons vote on new nuclear weapons project, Guardian, Richard Norton-Taylor, 1 Sept 15 Key questions remain over relevance of nuclear weapons to Britain’s security. George Osborne’s carefully-timed announcement that the government will spend £500m more on the Trident nuclear missile submarine base at Faslane in Scotland – on top of the £3bn already spent on replacing the existing Trident fleet – appears designed to pre-empt a parliamentary vote and close down a much-needed debate.
It was, as Osborne made clear on Monday, a politically-motivated announcement, whatever defence officials may say about the need to spend early on such long-lead items as components for nuclear missile submarines…….
Which country, now or in the future, threatens our national security with a nuclear attack? Russia, as concerned as the UK is about what both nations consider to be a real threat – violent Islamist terror groups?
China, a country with no interest apart from a commercial one, in Britain, a country also deeply concerned about terrorism? Are the Scandinavian countries, or Germany, less secure, because they do not posses nuclear weapons ?
Would the US sit back and happily give a green light to Britain firing a nuclear weapon in a conflict in which it was not a protagonist?
I ask these questions in the spirit of inquiry around the key issue, namely, is the UK’s nuclear arsenal a credible deterrent? (Is the French nuclear arsenal, for that matter?)
The biggest threat to Britain’s national security is from terror groups (who might get their hands on chemical and biological ones, though not nuclear ones). They are unlikely to be deterred by Britain’s long-range Trident intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Or is it a question of Britain’s status and prestige?…….http://www.theguardian.com/news/defence-and-security-blog/2015/sep/01/trident-pre-empting-commons-vote-on-new-nuclear-weapons-project
Yet more delay for New Hinkley Point nuclear power station
New Hinkley Point nuclear power station may be further delayed, Guardian, Terry Macalister, 4 Sept 15
France’s EDF gives no definite schedule for construction of £24.5bn plant, which still awaits firm’s final investment decision The planned new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset has been hit by another setback, with its developer EDF admitting the project may be further delayed.
The news came as the French energy group said a more advanced sister project at Flamanville in Normandy would now not start operating until 2018, at a cost of €10bn (£7.3bn). It was originally slated to open in 2005 and cost €3bn.
No definite schedule has been given for power to be switched on at Hinkley, but it means the £24.5bn facility, which still awaits EDF’s formal go-ahead, may not be ready by 2023 – a date that has already been put back several times…….
The latest problem follows continued speculation that China General Nuclear Power Corp and China National Nuclear Corp were pushing the UK government for concessions before committing to a cash investment at Hinkley.
Critics have repeatedly told the government that it was foolish to rely on a new generation of nuclear power stations to meet Britain’s energy crunch, because such huge projects have a record of coming in late and over budget. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/03/new-hinkley-point-nuclear-power-station-may-be-further-delayed
UK under pressure to buy nuclear reactors – from GE/Hitachi, Westinghouse/Toshiba and Areva/Mitsubishi
Hitachi has made no secret of its motive for trying to export reactor technology saying it needed a fresh outlet for reactors after Tokyo shut down Japan’s nuclear plants
failure to agree a final deal between EDF Energy and the Government on Hinkley “threatens not only the first new nuclear power station for a generation, but potentially all those that will come in its wake,”
ABWRs – one of the least reliable reactors in the world nuClear news No.77, September 2015
Introduction – Anglesey: a victim of Abenomics? Exporting nuclear technology is a key element of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s economic strategy – “Abenomics”. Nuclear exports are seen as a way to rev up Japan’s long struggling economy, and tackle the persistent trade deficit made worse by the
need to import energy – especially Liquid Natural Gas – to replace reactors shutdown after Fukushima.
Japan’s top three nuclear engineering companies — Hitachi, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Toshiba — which had a combined profit in their energy and infrastructure businesses of about 242 billion yen ($3.14 billion) in the fiscal year 2010/11, were keener than ever to look overseas for business after Fukushima put the domestic nuclear industry on hold. Continue reading
Concerns over reliability, safety, chemistry of planned Advanced Boiling Water Nuclear Reactors (ABWR)
No2NuclearPower nuClear news No.77, September 2015 ABWRs According to World Nuclear News (WNN) there are four operable Advanced Boiling Water Reactors (ABWR) in Japan while two more are under construction. Another two are being built in Taiwan and two planned for Lithuania, although another two have been shelved in the USA. The design is already licensed in Japan and the USA. WNN points out, disturbingly that ABWRs can run on a full core of mixed oxide (MOX) nuclear fuel, raising the prospect of armed plutonium shipments travelling from Sellafield to Anglesey and Gloucestershire. (6)Will UK government lock Britain into Hinkley Nuclear White Elephant?
while these might be reasons for the Government to pull out of the project, it won’t be able to once the deal has been signed. And if the problem is that the strike price is too high, it’s unlikely that EDF or the other funders will want to pull out either.
At the Hinkley point of no return, is this a nuclear white elephant? The Independent, A deal for the £24.5bn power plant in Somerset could be signed in October after the Government agreed terms with the energy giant EDF. But, writes Tom Bawden, environmentalists are far from alone in opposing an ‘expensive mistake’ TOM BAWDEN 27 August 2015 One of Britain’s most controversial energy projects for decades – the £24.5bn nuclear power development at Hinkley Point in Somerset – is poised to get the green light.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has gone so far as to say households will be £74 a year better off in today’s money by 2026-30 than they would be without Hinkley Point C.
But the detractors are not in the least bit convinced, with analysts, politicians and even some rival power companies dismissing the project as a colossal waste of money. Shortly before his sudden departure from RWE Npower this week, the chief executive of the big six provider, Paul Massara, said future generations would look back on Hinkley Point C as an “expensive mistake”.
Despite the strength of opposition to the project, David Cameron is expected to sign a final deal in October during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to the UK; the Chinese are big backers of the project….
We look at some of the main challenges to completion.
The political justification
An in-depth report into Hinkley Point C by HSBC bank saw “ample reason for the UK Government to delay or cancel the project”. It argued that the justification for the plant was “receding” because the UK’s energy consumption is falling just as a threefold rise in the number of giant interconnectors, hooking the country up with mainland Europe, means we could import energy much more cheaply than generating it at Hinkley Point.
Furthermore, while UK electricity generation is set to fall, capacity looks set to hold up surprisingly well, in part because of rising wind and solar power. As a result, the strike price is very difficult to justify, HSBC argued.
But while these might be reasons for the Government to pull out of the project, it won’t be able to once the deal has been signed. And if the problem is that the strike price is too high, it’s unlikely that EDF or the other funders will want to pull out either.
Engineering problems
The new reactors at Hinkley Point will use the EPR – European Pressurised Reactor – model, a highly sophisticated new design that is supposed to be safer and more efficient than older reactors, but which has been fraught with problems and is not yet up and running at any site in the world.
The three other sites planning to use the new model have all suffered huge delays – in Finland, France and China – and Hinkley Point would be the fourth. Concerns about EPRs have mounted this year after a potentially catastrophic mistake was identified in the construction of an identical EPR power plant in Flamanville, Normandy……….
Problems at Areva
Areva, the French state-owned reactor designer behind the EPR model, has fallen deep into the red. It has not sold a new reactor since 2008 as problems with its reactors have pushed plants in France and Finland billions of euros over budget.
But EDF and the French government have moved to address Areva’s financial weakness, meaning it is unlikely to cause problems for the Hinkley Point project by going bust. EDF has agreed to take control of Areva’s main reactor division in a deal orchestrated – and with the implicit financial support of – the French government.
Legal problems
Austria has launched a legal challenge to the European Commission’s ruling that the guaranteed price for the new Hinkley Point reactors amounts to legal state aid. The case is expected to drag on for two to three years…… http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/at-the-hinkley-point-of-no-return-is-this-a-nuclear-white-elephant-10475849.html
UK’s Hinkley Point C nuclear station is now officially mothballed
Hinkley C Mothballed – Is it in its Death Throes? http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/comment/hinkley-c-mothballed-is-it-in-its-death-throws/ Two very recent articles in Click Green and Professional Engineer indicate that Hinkley Point C is now officially mothballed. Indeed the project seems to be in its death throes.
We already knew that site preparation work at Hinkley Point C was stopped in April 2015, up to 400 construction workers were laid off, and the Final Investment Decision was delayed until the autumn. (1) What wasn’t clear at the time was that NNB Genco – the consortium planning to build the reactors which consists of EDF Energy, China General Nuclear Corp and other investors – put a cap on future spending on the project. (2)
On 1st July the site entered Care and Maintenance which means that activity at the site is limited to the management of material stockpiles and water management zones, remediation of asbestos contaminated land and archaeological surveys. (3)
The budget cap seems to have been greater than the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) was expecting. ONR, of course, charges NNB Genco for all the work it carries out to regulate its activities.
ONR says it has taken the decision to suspend the production of future inspection reports until a Final Investment Decision is made. It has also suspended attendance at the local liaison committee – the Cannington Forum. These suspensions are most likely because NNB Genco no longer has the budget to pay for them, so the consortium will have asked ONR to stop visiting the site to do inspections and stop attending the forum because it can’t afford to pay. In retaliation ONR says it is “monitoring the impact of the budget constraint upon NNB Genco’s competency and capability”. In other words NNB Genco had better watch out or it will lose its status as an organisation competent and capable of holding a nuclear license.
ONR says its inspectors “continue to engage with the programme of design and safety case activities” related to the start of nuclear safety related construction. Its August newsletter said that further submissions are expected in September this year and the Pre Construction Safety Case related to nuclear island construction was ready for ONR to begin initial engagement at the end of July this year. (4)
So while some desk work appears to be continuing all major work on-site appears to have stopped and NNB Genco is so uncertain that the final investment decision will be positive it has asked ONR to stop as much work as possible to save money – even to the point of threatening its own status as a nuclear capable organisation. The Click Green website says:
“Despite recently publishing a list of preferred suppliers for the £24 billion project, the French firm were in behind-the-scenes talks with the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), during which they informed them of their decision to mothball the site.”
It looks as though it may be all over for Hinkley Point C bar the shouting.
(1) Gloucestershire Echo 2nd April 2015 http://www.gloucestershireecho.co.uk/400-jobs-lost-Barnwood-based-EDF-stops-site-work/story-26271600-detail/story.html
(2) Click Green 20th Aug 2015 http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/news/national-news/126381-exclusive-edf-mothballs-planned-hinkley-c-nuclear-power-site.html
(3) Professional Engineering 20th Aug 2015 http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2015/08/construction-halted-at-hinkley-point-c-nuclear-project-site.html
(4) See page 7 ONR Regulation Matters August 2015http://www.onr.org.uk/documents/2015/regulation-matters-issue-1.pdf
Protest by 3 middle aged women costs nuclear firm €1million
Anti-nuclear demo ‘cost firm €1million’ http://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/news/13610163.Anti_nuclear_demo____cost_firm____1million___/?ref=twtrec AN anti-nuclear protest by three women that blocked the main road into Hinkley B power station cost EDF approximately one million euros, it it was claimed at Taunton Magistrates Court on Friday.
Ornella Saibene, 55, Marian Connelly, 61, and Caroline Hope, 73, effectively prevented all access to the power plant on April 1 this year when they chained themselves together and lay across the road, preventing workers from accessing the site.
The protest started just after 7am and caused a three-mile build up of traffic until they agreed to move at 90.30 a.m.
The women – all from Bristol – were each fined £200 and ordered to pay £105 costs after pleading guilty to obstructing the route. Joanne Pearce, prosecuting, said: “The closure cost one million euros. Their disregard to safety and the security of a nuclear power station cannot be tolerated.”
Connelly, Saibene and Hope argued they were exercising their democratic right to civil disobedience and had not committed a criminal offence.
She read out a statement from Green West Euro MP Molly Scott Cato comparing nuclear power stations to “ageing dinosaurs.”
PCAH says…1:04pm Wed 19 Aug 15
UK government trashing environmnental policies, promoting nuclear power and fracked gas
[The new Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Amber Rudd,] will try to meet the UK’s carbon reduction commitments with nuclear power and fracked gas.
(Of course, this is the same Amber Rudd who said that if nuclear reactors were just prettier, everyone would like them. ed.)
commentators from industry, politics and the financial sector have been lining up to condemn the Government’s plans to subsidize the first new reactors proposed at Hinkley.
What is happening in the UK? The new government makes a sharp move away from clean energy in favor of costly polluting sources. Greenworld, 14 Aug 15 The headlines flash daily about major changes in energy policy in the UK; none of them good news. The slashing of support for solar, energy efficiency and other clean energy programs and at the same time an apparent intent to spend absolutely mind-blowing amounts of money on new, untried, and highly risky nuclear power reactors. From the point of view of an America where, haltingly but steadily, clean energy is gaining a true foothold and is moving ahead, it seems incomprehensible that our closest ally would move in the opposite direction of most of the world’s industrial economies. Could that really be true?
So we asked veteran UK activist Pete Roche to explain what is happening in the UK. And no, the news really is not good.
David Cameron’s Conservative Government has now been in power in the UK, without the constraining influence of the Liberal Democrats, for 100 days. From the point-of-view of the environment his new government has been an unmitigated disaster; marked by a sharp embrace of dirty energy sources in a fashion most advanced nations, even including the U.S., are stepping away from.
From the moment the new Government was elected it set about burning the green policies of the previous coalition government. Subsidies for new onshore wind farms, paid for through consumers’ bills, are to end from April next year as are subsidies for solar farms. There will be a review of the feed-in tariff threatening subsidies for solar panels on domestic and commercial roof tops. And other proposed changes will make it much harder for community renewable projects to obtain finance.
The Government has also killed off the Green Deal scheme which provided loans to households for energy efficiency improvements. The scheme was a damp squib but what’s striking is there are no proposals to replace it. And a decade-long plan to force all new homes to be ‘zero carbon’ from 2016 has been dumped. On top of all this the exemption for renewables from the Climate Change Levy–a kind of carbon tax–has been removed, effectively imposing cuts to the income of renewable projects already up and running retrospectively.
The new Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Amber Rudd, told Members of Parliament (MPs) that carbon reduction targets are a bigger priority than meeting renewable energy targets, signalling that she is prepared to miss the UK’s European Union Renewable Target of meeting 15% of our energy needs (not just electricity) from renewable sources by 2020. Continue reading
UK’s nuclear waste dumping must overcome a “nuclear perception problem”
‘Nuclear waste dumping must overcome public opposition’ – expert concedes https://www.rt.com/uk/312735-nuclear-waste-dumping-fears/ 18 Aug, 2015 Nuclear lobbyists have admitted that public opposition to radioactive waste is a major challenge to finding new disposal sites for the deadly material.
A government agency tasked with nuclear waste management conceded that “nuclear dread” was a common feeling among British citizens, who fear the idea of living near radioactive waste dumps. Continue reading
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (92)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 