Hinkley Nuclear Project : A dramatic turn of events
Nu Clear News No 87 5 Aug 16 Hinkley : A dramatic turn of events It has now been a few days since the Government shocked the energy industry by announcing a further review of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station just a few hours after EDF approved the project.
Although we may never know exactly what has gone on behind the scenes it is clear that EDF had moved its final investment decision forward from September in order to bounce the new UK Government into giving its approval quickly before mounting problems become even more obvious to everyone.
Stop Hinkley spokesperson, Roy Pumfrey said
Much of the media seems to think this is just a temporary pause and that Hinkley Point C will eventually go ahead, but if Theresa May gives this scheme just a cursory glance she will see that we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke.
According to the Financial Times (2) the head of EDF, Jean-Bernard Lévy gave his fellow board members only two days to read 2,500 pages of contracts for a deal which one investment analyst described as “verging on insanity”.
The decision to review the project has been attributed by some to security concerns about Chinese involvement in the sector expressed by Mrs May’s chief of staff, Nick Timothy. The Stop Hinkley Campaign has itself expressed concerns in the past about making nuclear deals with a country with such a poor health and safety record.
Writing on the Conservative Home website last October Timothy said the Hinkley deal could lead to the Chinese designing and constructing a third nuclear reactor at Bradwell in Essex. Security experts – reportedly inside as well as outside government – are worried that the Chinese could use their role to build weaknesses into computer systems which will allow them to shut down Britain’s energy production at will. (5) For those who believe that such an eventuality is unlikely, the Chinese National Nuclear Corporation – one of the state-owned companies involved in the plans for the British nuclear plants – says on its website that it is responsible not just for “increasing the value of state assets and developing the society” but the “building of national defence.” MI5 believes that “the intelligence services of…China…continue to work against UK interests at home and abroad.”
Mandiant, a US company that investigates computer security breaches around the world, looked into the operations of just one Chinese cyber espionage group, believed to be the Second Bureau of the People’s Liberation Army of China, or ‘Unit 61398’. Mandiant found that Unit 61398 has compromised 141 different companies in twenty major industries.
There were 115 victims in the United States and five in the UK. The intellectual property stolen included technology blueprints, manufacturing processes, test results, business plans, pricing documents, partnership agreements, and emails and contact information. Timothy said
evidence like this makes it all the more baffling that the British Government has been so welcoming to Chinese stateowned companies in sensitive sectors. The Government, however, seems intent on ignoring the evidence and presumably the advice of the security and intelligence agencies. But no amount of trade and investment should justify allowing a hostile state easy access to the country’s critical national infrastructure. Of course we should seek to trade with countries right across the world – but not when doing business comes at the expense of Britain’s own national security. http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo87.pdf
Problems of UK and EU’s uranium supply from Russia, Kazachstan and elsewhere
Uranium from Russia, with love, Ecologist, 4th August, 2016 Uranium mining is a dirty business that we didn’t clean up but sourced out to less demanding countries, so why isn’t this being discussed in any debate about nuclear energy asks NICK MEYNEN
One issue is security. Reciprocal sanctions between Russia and the EU are now in place for over two years. If some recent polls in the US become reality and Trump becomes the new US president, things will get worse for the EU. Trump already hinted that a grim scenario (or much worse) could play out in Latvia or Estonia, EU countries with a Russian minority of over a quarter of the whole population. How hard can the EU bite in the hand that feeds it with the gas and uranium it so desperately needs? Putin will answer: not that hard.
Another issue is the future supply risk. Any power plant envisaged today will need uranium in 40 years from now. But both Russia and Kazachstan, the two biggest uranium exporters to the EU have plans to build new nuclear power plants for themselves. Kazachstan has gone from zero to hero: in 20 years it went from no production to supplying 40% of the world’s uranium. But aside from their own future needs, and those of nearby befriended Russia, analysts fear that mismanagement is likely to lead to a collapse in exports…………http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987988/uranium_from_russia_with_love.html
UK found not in compliance with The United Nations Espoo (EIA) Convention Compliance Committee
NucClear News August 2016 The Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) welcomes the recently published decision of the United Nations Espoo Convention Compliance Committee, following its investigation in whether the United Kingdom is compliant with international environmental law in the case of Hinkley Point C.
The Committee found that the United Kingdom was not in compliance with the Espoo Convention. The Espoo (EIA) Convention sets out the obligations of UN member states to assess the environmental impact of certain activities at an early stage of planning. It also lays down the general obligation of States to notify and consult each other on all major projects under consideration that are likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact across boundaries. Hinkley Point C comes into consideration for such a consultation.
Complaints raised by the German MP Sylvia Kötting-Uhl and the NGO ‘Irish Friends of the Environment’ to the Espoo Convention Implementation Committee argued that the UK Government had inadequately consulted other member states of the potential environmental impacts of the Hinkley Point C project.
In its findings, the Implementation Committee concluded that the UK Government should have notified more countries than just the Republic of Ireland of the potential impacts of Hinkley Point C. It concluded on the basis of the ‘Guidance on the Practical Application of the Espoo Convention’, that “notification is necessary unless a significant adverse transboundary impact can be excluded.” http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/3-august-2016/
Changing energy markets make it imperative for Britain to rethink Hinkley nuclear power plan
Why changing market forced re-think on UK nuclear power station http://www.afr.com/business/energy/nuclear-energy/changing-market-forces-rethink-on-uk-nuclear-power-station-20160804-gqligy 5 Aug 16 The UK government wants to do a rethink on the proposed rethink of Hinkley Point C nuclear power station because of a change in the structure of the UK energy market. Matt Cardy
Less than three years ago the British government struck a deal with EDF, a French state-owned utility, to subsidise the first new nuclear power station built in Britain since 1995: Hinkley Point C on the Somerset coast. The agreement was hailed by David Cameron, the then-prime minister, as “brilliant news”. But a lot has changed since then—and not just the incumbent at 10 Downing Street.
On July 28th, hours after EDF’s board narrowly endorsed a decision to go ahead with the £18 billion ($24 billion) Hinkley Point investment, the new government of Theresa May unexpectedly slammed the brakes on, launching a review of the project that it says it will finish by the autumn. It is understood to want to probe a deal with China General Nuclear Power, a Chinese state behemoth, which had offered to stump up one-third of the price tag in exchange for permission to build a nuclear-power station of its own at Bradwell, in Essex. The delay is the clearest sign that Mrs May is rethinking the open-door industrial policies of her predecessor.
Yet analysts say there is more to the delay than mere Sinophobia. Hinkley is “big and based on last-century technology, which is not what the UK’s power system needs for the future,” says Michael Grubb of University College London. A review of the assumptions prevailing when the government struck the deal reveals how flimsy the economic rationale was.
Price outlook changes Hinkley already operates as a nuclear power station. The plan was to expand with another reactor. But the changing demand for baseload power is now said to require a rethink. Andrew Matthews
In 2012 Britain’s energy boffins predicted that for the foreseeable future the price of non-nuclear fuels, such as natural gas, would be more than double where they are today. As a result, they estimated that wholesale electricity prices—the basis for determining the level of subsidy to EDF—would remain above £70 per megawatt hour. They are currently below £40. Last month the National Audit Office, a spending watchdog, said that forecasting error alone had almost quintupled the implied value of the subsidy, from £6 billion to almost £30 billion over 35 years.
At the time, the civil servants reckoned that by 2025, when Hinkley Point is due to open, the cost of producing electricity from a nuclear-power station would be lower than from a gas-fired one—and much lower than from wind farms and solar-power plants. They have since reversed those views (see chart). Since Hinkley became a serious proposal less than a decade ago, the cost of nuclear power has increased, that of renewables has fallen and the price of battery storage—which could one day disrupt the entire power system—has plummeted. What is more, EDF’s nuclear technology has failed to get off the ground in the two projects in Finland and France that have sought to use it. “When so much has changed, it would have been inappropriate not to pause,” says Professor Grubb.
Hinkley’s supporters counter that it would help to plug a looming gap in the country’s energy supply. Over the next 15 years, Britain plans to shut down its coal-fired power stations and decommission all but one of its ageing nuclear plants, losing 23 gigawatts (GW) of power-generating capacity. Hinkley Point C, with a capacity of 3.2GW, is intended to ensure there is enough clean energy to offset that, by kickstarting a broader revival of nuclear power in the country. It would also strengthen energy security, reducing reliance on Russian gas. And its power would be clean: without it, supporters say, Britain would fail to meet its obligation under the 2008 Climate Change Act to reduce greenhouse gases to 80% below their 1990 level by 2050.
Renewables have bigger share But these arguments fail to account for how quickly the energy landscape is changing. First, as their costs continue to drop, renewables are becoming a bigger part of the energy mix. They currently account for about one-quarter of Britain’s power output. But renewables are intermittent, generating little power on days that are calm or overcast. So they must be complemented by alternative sources of energy, which add to the total cost. Big power stations such as Hinkley Point cannot fill that role: nuclear power is hard to flex up and down. Combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) are cheaper and more nimble. As a backup to renewables, they can enable Britain to “muddle along” at least for another 20 years, says Deepa Venkateswaran of Bernstein Research, a firm of analysts. That would buy time to assess the progress of other clean technologies, such as battery storage and carbon capture.
Smaller businesses are also jostling to step into the breach, offering standby power when shortages occur. One such firm, UK Power Reserve, uses small gas-fired generators that can be switched on and off quickly. It calls itself a “scalpel” compared with a CCGT “sledgehammer”. Another, Upside Energy, proposes selling to the grid surplus power stored in battery systems that back up everything from office computers to traffic lights. Others enable companies to shift their power consumption to times of lower demand, cutting their bills. Such options may not provide the bedrock of power or thousands of jobs that EDF promises at Hinkley Point, and may require more innovative policymaking. But in terms of value for money, they could beat it hands down.
Strong support for renewables in UK public
What does the public really think of renewables? http://www.goodenergy.co.uk/blog/articles/2016/07/29/what-does-the-public-really-think-of-renewables Did you know that 76% of the UK public support renewables, while just 21% support fracking?
This week the newly named Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (DBEIS) released its latest public attitudes tracker, asking UK residents their opinion on various energy topics ranging from bills to fracking.
The surveys, which first began in March 2012, time and again reveal overwhelming public support for renewable energy.
Strong support for renewables
In the past 18 surveys, support for renewables has never dropped below 75%, and the proportion backing solar has always been 80% or higher.
Seven in 10 of us agree that renewable energy provides economic benefits to the country, something we’re dedicated to delivering through our Renewables Development Charter.
In comparison, support for nuclear and fracking is consistently overshadowed by renewables, with the latest stats revealing that 36% and 21% of the UK public support these technologies respectively.
Good Energy founder and CEO Juliet Davenport was thrilled with the news. She said: “Clean energy has always had the public’s support because it offers good value – it’s local, it’s sustainable and it offers a solution to climate change.”
“The gulf between what the public wants for our energy future and what our Government is imposing is growing.
“The newly formed BEIS department needs to listen to public support, take the lead in seizing new opportunities and keep us on the path to decarbonisation.”
Record breaking clean power These figures are a huge boost to renewables, and come at a time when clean sources of generation are breaking records.
25% of our power needs now comes from green energy, and it was recently announced that one million UK homes are generating electricity and heat using the power of British sunshine.
With 2016 a year of political change and uncertainty for the renewable energy industry, it is good news like this which demonstrates the progress we are making towards a truly low carbon future.
Join the clean energy revolution by switching to our 100% renewable electricity and Green Gas
Hinkley nuclear fiasco is a threat to French company EDF
Nu Clear News No 87 5 Aug 16 EDF’s future threatened. Perhaps of more immediate concern is that a go-ahead for Hinkley could threaten the future of the company itself. EDF is a company in a very precarious financial situation. The ratings agency, S&P, postponed a decision to downgrade its credit rating when the UK Government announced the review. (7) EDF has €37 billion of debt. The collapse in energy prices has pushed earnings down 68% in 2015. The Company needs to spend €50 billion upgrading its network of 58 ageing reactors by 2025. It is scrambling to sell €4 billion of new shares and €10 billion of assets to strengthen its balance sheet. EDF is also expected to participate in the €5 billion bailout of Areva, the bankrupt developer of EPR technology, by taking a 75 per cent stake. (8) About the last thing it needs is a new €15 billion millstone around its neck.
Roy Pumfrey said “The EDF Board should take the opportunity presented by this pause to see that its Nuclear SatNav has taken the Company down a dead end; it’s only a matter of time before we hear that voice saying “At the next opportunity, turn round!”‘
He continues: “Perhaps most disappointing if not unexpected has been the reaction of the big UK Union leaders. Whilst confessing themselves ‘baffled’ by the government’s ‘bonkers’ decision, they should ask why the French union leaders representing EDF’s own workers were (and are) solidly and vocally opposed to HPC. This project involves a reactor which many of EDF’s own staff regard as unconstructable, selling off the family silver to fund it and putting EDF and therefore their own livelihoods at risk. UK unions do not seem to appreciate that the fantasy 25,000 jobs on HPC are a conjurer’s trick. Only 30% will be ‘local’, which means 90 minutes drive time from HPC, and with only 5,600 on site on any one day, a job with a particular skill set will only be good for two years at most. That’s assuming that
HPC can be built in an optimistic ten years, even that too long to keep the lights on.”
Over recent months several different alternative to building Hinkley Point C have been detailed (10) Most recently consultancy firm Utilitywise has described the proposed nuclear station as an “unnecessary expense” Energy efficiency measures could save the equivalent amount of electricity along with £12bn
Roy Pumfrey said: “This Government review of Hinkley Point C provides us with a wonderful opportunity to turn Somerset into a sustainable energy hub for England. The alternatives would be better for jobs, better for consumers, would reduce the mountain of dangerous waste we don’t know how to deal with and save Somerset from a decade of disruption caused by one of the biggest construction projects in the world The sooner EDF and the UK Government come to their senses the better. http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo87.pdf
UK: Conservatives against Hinkley nuclear power project
Nu Clear News No 87 5 Aug 16 Anti-Hinkley Tories Perhaps most interesting amongst recent events has been the emergence of Conservative figures calling on the government to call time on the Hinkley proposals. The think-tank Bright Blue, whose advisory board includes Francis Maude, Nicky Morgan and former DECC minister Greg Barker, has said the government needs a new “plan A”. The group stresses that its position is not necessarily endorsed by all members of the organisation, which includes more than 100 parliamentarians. “The Government should abandon Hinkley C – pursuing it in light of all the evidence of cost reductions in other technologies would be deeply irresponsible,” said Ben Caldecott, associate fellow, Bright Blue. “We need a new ‘Plan A’. This must be focused on bringing forward sufficient renewables, electricity storage, and energy efficiency to more than close any gap left in the late 2020s by Hinkley not proceeding. This would be sensible, achievable, and cheap.” Zac Goldsmith, also a Bright Blue member, has welcomed the government’s rethink.New Nuclear UK : fears Hinkley uncertainty will affect Wylfa, Moorside, Sizewell and Bradwell
NucClear News No 87, 5 Aug 16 New Nuclear: Wylfa, Moorside, Sizewell and Bradwell. Horizon and NuGen are both insisting that their projects at Wylfa and Moorside are not dependent on EDF getting the go-ahead for Hinkley. But Industry experts have warned that confidence across the sector would be damaged if Theresa May pulls the plug, especially given the French energy giant has already invested £2.4bn in Hinkley with unstinting Government support until now. If Hinkley were cancelled without any reimbursement for EDF, this would “significantly undermine” other developers’ confidence and might prompt them to seek some sort of financial guarantee. (1)Energy efficiency cheaper and more effective than Hinkley nuclear power
Utilitywise champions merits of energy efficiency over Hinkley Point C http://www.decentralized-energy.com/articles/2016/08/utilitywise-champions-merits-of-energy-efficiency-over-hinkley-point-c.html, 03/08/2016, By Diarmaid Williams International Digital Editor
Utilitywise, the independent utility, energy and water cost management consultancy says that implementing energy efficiency makes much more sense for the UK than developing Hinkley Point C nuclear power project.The cost of implementing energy efficiency measures is estimated to be less than £6 billion, while the construction of the new nuclear plant Hinkley Point C is expected to cost around £18 billion.
The company’s strategy and innovation director Jon Ferris said the controversial nuclear power plant represented an “unnecessary expense,” believing better strategy in terms of technologies such as heating, for example, would be a better option.
“Consumers are increasingly looking at energy efficiency to reduce the impact of levies that are contributing more and more to the cost of electricity consumption.
“Not only can individual businesses make significant financial savings, but the UK could offset more than the expected output from Hinkley Point C by taking all the opportunities to save energy,” he said.
The consulting firm which carried out audits for around 200 UK businesses as part of the Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS) found that more efficient lighting and heating improvements would reduce energy consumption by more than 460 GWh.
China not happy with Theresa May’s ‘unwanted accusations’ over Hinkley Point nuclear project
China warns UK against ‘unwanted accusations’ over Hinkley Point Downing Street’s suspicions endanger ‘hard-won mutual trust’ between two countries, Beijing says. By Karthick Arvinth, IBT, August 2, 2016 China says it will not tolerate “unwanted accusations” over its investments in the UK after Theresa May’s government decided to review a controversial nuclear power project at the last minute.
A commentary published by the state-run Xinhua news agency on 1 August said Downing Street’s stance on Hinkley Point C risked damaging the “hard-won mutual trust” between the two countries fostered by Chinese President Xi Jinping’s state visit to Britain last year…
Xinhua warned that the “suspicious approach” towards China could deter other investors from investing in post-Brexit UK……..http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/china-warns-uk-against-unwanted-accusations-over-hinkley-point-1573739
Nuclear companies NuGen and Horizon keen for projects in UK, despite the Hinkley nuclear fiasco
UK new nuclear programme not dependent on Hinkley, say rivals, Telegraph, Emily Gosden, energy editor 2 AUGUST 2016 Nuclear developers NuGen and Horizon have played down fears that scrapping Hinkley Point would derail the wider UK new-build programme, insisting their projects are not dependent on EDF’s getting the go-ahead.
Industry experts have warned that confidence across the sector would be damaged if Theresa May pulls the plug on the £18bn project, especially given the French energy giant has already invested £2.4bn in Hinkley with unstinting Government support until now.
But NuGen, which is jointly owned by Japan’s Toshiba and France’s Engie, said it would continue developing its project at Moorside in Cumbria “irrespective of the status of other developers’ plans”.
Hitachi’s Horizon project, which plans reactors on Anglesey,also distanced itself from the worries over Hinkley, saying its “sole focus remains, as it always has been, on making strong progress with our own flagship Wylfa Newydd power station project”.
Despite Mrs May’s surprise review of Hinkley, a Horizon spokesman said it had “no qualms about the continued commitment of the Government to UK nuclear new build”.
Reports in recent days have suggested the UK Government could face compensation demands from EDF if it pulled out of Hinkley.
Peter Atherton, an associate at consultants Cornwall Energy, said EDF had been operating under “an implicit guarantee from the Government that, provided you can get your technology through the approval process, and we can reach a satisfactory contractual arrangement, the project will go ahead”.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on Tuesday reiterated that there would be no liabilities for the UK taxpayer or consumer if Hinkley were cancelled, as no contracts had been signed.
However, Mr Atherton said that if Hinkley were cancelled without any reimbursement for EDF, this would “significantly undermine” other developers’ confidence and might prompt them to seek some sort of financial guarantee.
“If I was them I would say to the Government, OK, if want us to carry on developing this project, we need you to fund it or to guarantee that if you pull the plug on us you pay those development costs,” he said.
Both Horizon and NuGen are privately keen to emphasise the differences between their projects and EDF’s.
Neither project has Chinese involvement, understood to be one of the key causes of concern for Mrs May over Hinkley, which would be one-third funded by Chinese state companies.
Both have also long been working to meet the Government’s expectation that they will be cheaper than Hinkley…..http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/02/uk-new-nuclear-programme-not-dependent-on-hinkley-say-rivals/
British support for use of nuclear weapons
Most Britons support the use of nuclear weapons A total of 59 percent of 
people surveyed said they would launch a nuclear strike if they were prime minister. http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Most-Britons-Support-Use-of-Nuclear-Weapons-20160730-0012.htmlA majority of Britons support their new prime minister’s proposal to deploy nuclear weapons, a recent poll by YouGov revealed on Saturday.
In a debate at the Parliament, new Prime Minister Theresa May said she would be ready to launch a nuclear strike that would result in the deaths of 100,000 people and urged lawmakers to back a renewal of Britain’s submarine-based Trident nuclear weapons system.
A total of 59 percent of people surveyed said they would do the same if they were in the prime minister’s shoes, while 66 percent say they support May in her assertion, with only 15 percent rejecting such a position.
Meanwhile, another survey found 44 percent of British people want to see Trident replaced. Three years ago YouGov made a similar survey, finding that 35 supported the nuclear program and 26 wanted to replace it, while another 25 percent said that Britain should give up nuclear weapons altogether.
Trident was created in 1980 under then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s rule with the purpose to “deter the most extreme threats to our national security and way of life, which cannot be done by other means.”
May became prime minister on July 13 following the resignation of David Cameron after Britons voted in a June 23 referendum to leave the EU, weakening the 28-nation bloc and creating huge economic uncertainty.
May is well known for her hawkish, pro-war positions. When she was leader of the Conservative Party she voted for the U.S.-U.K. invasion of Iraq in 2003. She has also supported other interventions, like the 2011 military intervention in Libya.
Theresa May not happy with Chinese nuclear investment plans for Britain
Britain’s May worried by China investment, intervened to delay nuclear deal, SMH, Kate Holton , 31 July 16 London: British Prime Minister Theresa May was concerned about the security implications of a planned Chinese investment in the new Hinkley Point nuclear plant and intervened personally to delay the project, a former colleague and a source said.
The plan by France’s EDF to build two reactors with financial backing from a Chinese state-owned company was championed by Mrs May’s predecessor David Cameron as a sign of Britain’s openness to foreign investment.
But just hours before a signing ceremony was due to take place on Friday, Mrs May’s new government said it would review the project again, raising concerns that Britain’s approach to infrastructure deals, energy supply and foreign investment may be changing.
The decision could prove a test for Mrs May, with any attempt to renegotiate the terms of the project potentially straining relations with Paris and Beijing at a time when Britain is seeking to build trade deals following the country’s vote to leave the European Union.
“When we were in government Theresa May was quite clear she was unhappy about the rather gung-ho approach to Chinese investment that we had,” Vince Cable, Britain’s former business secretary and a leading member of the Liberal Democrats, who governed in coalition with Mr Cameron, told BBC Radio.
He later told Sky News her concerns over China’s involvement were linked to national security. “This was an issue that was raised in general but it was also raised specifically in relation to Hinkley,” he said……..http://www.smh.com.au/world/britains-may-worried-by-china-investment-intervened-to-delay-nuclear-deal-20160731-gqhkm7.html
Britain’s history of supplying nuclear weapons technology to North Korea
What Theresa May forgot: North Korea used British technology to build its nuclear bombs.Ecologist, David Lowry 26th July 2016
When Theresa May proclaims in Parliament that we need the £200 billion Trident nuclear missile system to see off the North Korean nuclear threat, writes David Lowry, just bear this in mind. It is a threat that the UK, global nuclear proliferator in chief, created in the first place, providing both the reactor technology and vital centrifuge materials to make North Korea’s nuclear dream come true.
- ” … today the threats from countries such as Russia and North Korea remain very real.”
- “North Korea has stated a clear intent to develop and deploy a nuclear weapon, and it continues to work towards that goal, in flagrant violation of a series of United Nations Security Council resolutions.”
- “North Korea is the only country in the world to have tested nuclear weapons this century, carrying out its fourth test this year, as well as a space launch that used ballistic missile technology. It also claims to be attempting to develop a submarine-launch capability and to have withdrawn from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.”
- “Based on the advice I have received, we believe that North Korea could already have enough fissile material to produce more than a dozen nuclear weapons. It also has a long-range ballistic missile, which it claims can reach America, and which is potentially intended for nuclear delivery.”
It reminded me of the similarly ill-informed former Prime Minister Tony Blair, in his speeches to MPs trying to win them over with dodgy ‘advice’ from British intelligence, to go to war by invading Iraq in 2003.
MPs have short memories, despite the Chicot Report on the Iraq invasion disaster not yet two weeks old, and 472 motley MP fools backed May and Trident replacement. As with the Iraq invasion, MPs will in future have to admit their regrets at being fooled. And again, they ignord the thousands of demonstrators outside, calling for Trident to be abandoned.
Britain’s nuclear proliferation ‘secret’
But May was right in one way. North Korea has developed nuclear weapons. But what she did not say was they did it with copied British bomb-making technology.
There is significant evidence that the British Magnox nuclear plant design – which was primarily built as a military plutonium production factory – provided the blueprint for the North Korean military plutonium programme based in Yongbyon. Here is what Douglas (now Lord) Hogg, then a Conservative minister, admitted in a written parliamentary reply in 1994 to Labour MP Llew Smith:
“We do not know whether North Korea has drawn on plans of British reactors in the production of its own reactors. North Korea possesses a graphite moderated reactor which, while much smaller, has generic similarities to the reactors operated by British Nuclear Fuels plc. However, design information of these British reactors is not classified and has appeared in technical journals.”
The uranium enrichment programmes of both North Korea and Iran also have a UK connection. The blueprints of this type of plant were stolen by Pakistani scientist, A Q Khan, from the URENCO enrichment plant in The Netherlands in the early 1970s.
(see David Albright, Peddling Peril, 2010 pp 15-28, Free Press, New York)
This plant was – and remains – one-third owned by the UK government. The Pakistan government subsequently sold the technology to Iran, who later exchanged it for North Korean Nodong missiles……….
Lessons of history
This sorry tale has several important lessons for us today. First – and this must never be forgotten – the UK’s early ‘atoms for peace’ nuclear power programme was specifically designed and intended to produce plutonium for nuclear bombs. And it was not just nuclear waste from Calder Hall that went for plutonium extraction at Windscale, but from other sites that were meant to be purely civilian such as Hinkley Point.
The UK is therefore guilty of ‘breaking the rules’ that are meant to separate civil and military nuclear activities, and its complaints of other states doing the same all carry the unmistakeable whiff of ripest humbug.
Second, for all its public position of seeking to restrain nuclear proliferation, the UK is actually one of the world’s most egregious nuclear proliferators: providing arch-nuclear enemy North Korea with both the Magnox technology it has used to produce plutonium for atom bombs; and the high strength aluminium it has used for its uranium centrifuges.
So when Theresa May stands up in Parliament and proclaims that we need the Trident nuclear missile system to see off the North Korean nuclear threat, remember: it is a threat that the UK created in the first place, providing both the nuclear reactor technology and the centrifuge materials to make it happen.
And when the UK cites the nuclear threat from North Korea as a reason to spend an estimated £200 billion on the next generation of Trident, we can be sure that North Korea and other countries aspiring to their own nuclear weapons are applying precisely the same logic to the British nuclear threat.
And that considering the UK’s history of aggressive regime-changing interventions in Iraq and Libya, the hundreds of (up to 225) nuclear warheads in its possession, and its ability to target them accurately anywhere in the world, North Korea’s fears are probably a great deal better founded than Mrs May’s. http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987935/what_theresa_may_forgot_north_korea_used_british_technology_to_build_its_nuclear_bombs.html
After Brexit, concerns grow on Britain- Ireland nuclear agreements
Fears grow over nuclear power agreements with UK after Brexit Reports reveal ‘high operational risk’ if UK no longer has to adhere to EU rules on power plant , Independent ie Philip Ryan 31 July 16 senior Government officials have raised serious concerns over the impact Brexit will have on Ireland and Britain’s nuclear power agreements, the Sunday Independent can reveal. A risk assessment compiled by the Department of the Environment in the wake of the Brexit referendum warns of a “high operational risk” to arrangements Ireland has with the UK on nuclear policy.
The briefing document says environmental assessments and mandatory consultation processes “may prove more difficult” to enforce when Britain leaves the European Union (EU).
Ireland has bilateral agreements with Britain which entitle the government to information on the UK’s nuclear programme.
The UK will no longer be tied down by strict EU laws which underpin these agreements once it officially leaves the union.
Documents released following a Freedom of Information request reveal high-ranking civil servants fear information exchanges will be under threat once Britain leaves the EU.
Concerns were first raised two years ago in a risk assessment compiled by the Department of the Environment for the Taoiseach’s Office.
“There could be some issues for Ireland in the event of a change in the current EU/UK relationship in the area of nuclear policy,” the report said…….http://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/fears-grow-over-nuclear-power-agreements-with-uk-after-brexit-34925805.html
1 This Month
Read the Public Inquiry Report, the Commissioners’ report, Surrendering Australia: The AUKUS Deception is available to download for free at aukuspublicinquiry.com. Or just watch the replay of the National Press Club Luncheon.
19 November – Webinar – The Reality of Reprocessing
Time: 11:00 AM Pacific Time (US & Canada) / 2:00 PM Eastern / 7:00 PM UK / 8:00 PM CET
Register for the Zoom Event Here
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- November 2026 (103)
- October 2026 (302)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
-
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
