UK Conservatives could, and should, shut down useless Trident nuclear deterrent
The Tories know Trident is a waste of money and only they can kill it off, Guardian Chris Mullin, 15 July 16 Our nuclear deterrent is purely symbolic but Labour would never be forgiven for letting it go A
few days from now parliament will be asked to make a final decision on whether or not to spend around £40bn renewing Trident. Many of the Labour MPs arguing in favour do so not because they regard nuclear weapons as an essential tool in our armoury, but because they are terrified of being thought “soft” on defence. And they are right to be worried. For years the British addiction to nuclear armaments has proved a devastating weapon in the hands of the Conservatives and their friends in the tabloid media, even if they are not much use against our enemies.
And yet just about anyone who has ever given the matter any thought knows it’s bonkers. Most Tories know in their heart of hearts that Trident is of little or no relevance to national defence in the 21st century. So, too, do a fair swath of the military. Indeed, our possession of nuclear weapons was never primarily about defending us from the Russians. On the contrary, it made us a target.
One has only to read the minutes of a top-secret cabinet subcommittee on 26 October 1946, at which the fateful decision to develop a nuclear arsenal was taken. Opinions were divided. The chancellor, Stafford Cripps, was against on the grounds that they were a luxury we couldn’t afford. Ernie Bevin, the foreign secretary, arrived late having nodded off after a good lunch. “What’s your opinion, Ernie?” he was asked. To which Bevin replied: “We’ve got to have that thing over here, whatever it costs … we’ve got to have the bloody union jack flying on top of it.” Why? Because, said Bevin, the Americans will never take us seriously, if we don’t.
And that in a nutshell is why British taxpayers have been saddled for 65 years with an expensive, but fundamentally useless weapons system. It is about keeping up appearances. Maintaining the pretence that we are a superpower, capable (to use a phrase much beloved by successive British prime ministers) “of punching above our weight”. …….https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/14/tories-trident-waste-money-nuclear-deterrent-symbolic-labour
Teresa May’s backward step in abolishing Climate Change Department
Climate change department closed by Theresa May in ‘plain stupid’ and ‘deeply worrying’
move Campaigners called for ‘urgent reassurance from the new government’ that the fight against climate change and pollution will not be ‘abandoned’ Independent Ian Johnston Environment Correspondent , 15 July 16 The decision to abolish the Department for Energy and Climate Change has been variously condemned as “plain stupid”, “deeply worrying” and “terrible” by politicians, campaigners and experts.
One of Theresa May’s first acts as Prime Minister was to move responsibility for climate change to a new Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy.
Only on Monday, Government advisers had warned of the need to take urgent action to prepare the UK for floods, droughts, heatwaves and food shortages caused by climate change.
The news came after the appointment of Andrea Leadsom – who revealed her first question to officials when she became Energy Minister last year was “Is climate change real? – was appointed as the new Environment Secretary……..
Green Party MP Caroline Lucas described the decision as “deeply worrying”.
“Climate change is the biggest challenge we face, and it must not be an afterthought for the Government,” she said.
“Dealing with climate change requires a dedicated Minister at the Cabinet table. To throw it into the basement of another Whitehall department, looks like a serious backwards step.”
She said she would work with any Minister “willing to take climate change seriously”, but added she would seek to hold Government to account for “any backpeddling on our climate change commitments”.
Craig Bennett, chief executive of Friends of the Earth, pointed out that a major report into the effects of climate change on Britain had made clear that it was already happening.
“This is shocking news. Less than a day into the job and it appears that the new Prime Minister has already downgraded action to tackle climate change, one of the biggest threats we face,” he said…….
A letter by DECC’s permanent secretary, Alex Chisholm, to staff in his department, which was leaked to Civil Service World, confirmed that its responsibilities were being transferred to the new Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, under its new Secretary, Greg Clark…….http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-department-killed-off-by-theresa-may-in-plain-stupid-and-deeply-worrying-move-a7137166.html
Teresa May and the nuclear “Letter of Last Resort.”
The Grim Task Awaiting Theresa May: Preparing for Nuclear Armageddon In her first hours as Britain’s new prime minister, May will take part in a time-honored tradition: Handwriting what’s known as a “Letter of Last Resort.”Politico Magazine By Garrett M. Graff July 14, 2016 If tradition holds, in her first hours as the United Kingdom’s new prime minister, Theresa May will meet with the British defense leadership and receive an eye-opening briefing about the nation’s nuclear plans.
Sir Nicholas Houghton, the 61-year-old chief of the Defence Staff who is due to retire this month to become the constable of the Tower of London, will, as one of his final acts, walk Prime Minister May through the country’s nuclear plans and the damage that could result in the event of nuclear attack on her country.
Then, amidst the all the public pomp and circumstance of assuming her office and determining a course of action for the country following the world-changing “Brexit” vote, one of the first things May will be tasked with doing in her new office is perhaps the most grim duty of any head government official in the world: Handwriting what’s known as a “Letter of Last Resort”—the secret instructions, to be remain sealed until after Armageddon, about what the nation’s submarine commanders should do with the UK’s nuclear weapons, housed on their subs, if the country has been destroyed. Actually, she’ll write four of them—all identical—one to each sub commander in the U.K. fleet.
Throughout the Cold War, each nuclear power struggled to figure out how it would approach Armageddon. The Soviet Union ultimately built a rocket that could beam launch orders to Soviet silos even after the human chain of command had been destroyed, a “Dead Hand” machine ultimately uncovered by nuclear historian Bruce Blair in 1993 and made famous by journalist David Hoffman’s eponymous 2009 book. The United States, meanwhile, built a complex network of planes, trains, ships, communication networks and bunkers that could ensure control over the nation’s nuclear systems even amidst a devastating attack.
The British approached a nuclear holocaust differently, and in an appropriately British fashion. Rather than rely on high-tech gadgetry, their prime ministers handwrote “Letters of Last Resort,” and then locked those letters inside of a safe inside of another safe, and placed them in the control rooms of the nation’s nuclear submarines. The safes will only be accessible to the sub’s commander and deputy, who must decide together when Britain has been entirely destroyed.
Britain has long charted its own course when it comes to nuclear weapons, so much so that the secrets of one prime minister often surprise the next………
as the scale of nuclear devastation began to boggle the imagination, Britain faced a unique threat among the nuclear superpowers: Its comparatively tiny island—and its heavily concentrated population and government centers—could be easily obliterated by the power of later generations of atomic and hydrogen bombs. Whereas even a relatively large attack might have left much of the United States or the Soviet Union untouched and allow enough survivors to reconstitute the so-called “National Command Authority,” the military and civilian leaders who can order a nuclear launch, and plan a retaliatory strike, even a small-scale surprise attack from the Soviet Union would have likely destroyed all remnants of Whitehall and the British command chain. Plus, given its geographic proximity to the Soviet Union, Soviet subs, bombers and ICBMs could strike quickly, with little warning and little time to evacuate the nation’s leadership to protective bunkers readied in the English countryside.
And thus was born the tradition of the “Letter of Last Resort.”
It has become a moment when British leaders must wrestle personally with the awesome new responsibilities embodied in their nuclear control………
one might draw some clues from her legislative agenda in the weeks ahead: She’s said she’s eager to push ahead with replacing the aging Vanguard submarines, which will be obsolete in the middle of the next decade. Maintaining the nation’s nuclear deterrence will likely to cost north of $250 billion, but she’s said it’s critical to Britain’s international role post-Brexit. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/the-grim-task-awaiting-teresa-may-preparing-for-nuclear-armageddon-214049#ixzz4EQ4PMC9e
UK Parliament prepares to deliberate on whether to ban the bomb
The nuclear option. Parliament prepares to deliberate on whether to ban the bomb , The Economist 16 July 16 NINE countries are believed to have nuclear weapons. On July 18th Britain will decide whether it wants to remain in that club, when its MPs debate whether to renew the country’s Trident nuclear deterrent. Theresa May, the new prime minister, has said it would be “sheer madness” to give it up, and the vote is expected to pass easily. Perhaps 150 of Labour’s 230 MPs will vote in favour of the plan, rebelling against their leader, Jeremy Corbyn.
Trident’s detractors argue that a lot has changed since the programme was approved in 2007. For one thing money is tighter. Around one-quarter of defence spending on new equipment procurement will be on submarine and deterrent systems by 2021-22. There has also been a surge in support for independence in Scotland, where the submarines are based. It is unlikely that the government would choose to site the capability north of the border if the renewal process began again now, says William Walker of St Andrew’s University. The Scottish government opposes the plan; almost all of the 59 Scottish MPs at Westminster are expected to vote against it (though polls suggest that public opinion in Scotland is more mixed). If Scotland were to become independent—now more likely because of Brexit—Britain could well have to relocate its subs, at further expense.Birmingham protest against the trucking of nuclear weapons through their city
Warning over nuclear weapons being shipped past Birmingham, Birmingham Mail, 14 JUL 2016 BY GRAEME BROWN, Warheads from Britain’s nuclear weapons system Trident are shipped past the city on the M6 Campaigners say Birmingham is being put at risk by nuclear weapons being driven past the city six times a year
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) will host a public meeting in Birmingham on July 23 to raise awareness of the fact that nuclear weapons are routinely driven past the city.
Warheads from Britain’s nuclear weapons system Trident are shipped past the city on the M6 from their base in Scotland to be refurbished in Berkshire.
The Ministry of Defence said the strictest safety measures were taken to move the weapons – and no incidents had occurred in 50 years.
The Ministry of Defence said the strictest safety measures were taken to move the weapons – and no incidents had occurred in 50 years.
Matt Hawkins, project officer at ICAN-UK, said the weapons travel in lorries past schools, hospitals, and homes.
He said: “The Government has a duty to protect its citizens but, by possessing nuclear weapons and driving them past our towns and cities, they are needlessly putting us in great danger.
“Our aim with this meeting in Birmingham is to let people know that nuclear weapons are driven so close to their doors – we think it is their democratic right to know this. “We then want to give the people of Birmingham the chance to raise their concerns with the politicians who are supposed to be protecting us all from danger, not putting our lives at risk.”
The meetings come as MPs face a vote on renewing the UK’s Trident nuclear weapons system……..http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/warning-over-nuclear-weapons-being-11611290
Reject nuclear weapons – say Scottish bishops
Scottish bishops urge Britain to reject nuclear weapons, Crux, Simon Caldwell July 14, 2016
All eight bishops issued a joint statement calling for nuclear disarmament ahead of a July 18 vote in Parliament on whether to renew the Trident submarine-based nuclear weapons system.
The bishops also suggested the $272 billion cost of replacing the aging arsenal of nuclear weapons could not be morally justified.
“The bishops of Scotland have, for a long time, pointed out the immorality of the use of strategic nuclear weapons due to the indiscriminate destruction of innocent human life that their use would cause,” they said.
Theresa May, the incoming prime minister and leader of the ruling Conservative Party, is keen to retain a nuclear capacity, but the Labor Party leadership and the Scottish National Party want to scrap the warheads.
The intervention by the Scottish bishops represents the second time in a decade and the third in 35 years that they have called on Britain to rid itself of nuclear weapons.
The statement comes less than a year after Pope Francis marked the 70th anniversary of the day the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan, by inviting humanity to reject war and to “ban nuclear weapons and all weapons of mass destruction.”
It also comes as the Washington Post reported that U.S. President Barack Obama will use his final six months in office to push for a radical reduction of nuclear weapons globally, in the hope that the policy might lead to eventual abolition.MANCHESTER, England – The British government must take “decisive and courageous steps” toward ridding the country of nuclear weapons, the Catholic bishops of Scotland have said.
They said Britain had an obligation under the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty “to work toward the disposing and elimination of all nuclear weapons.”
“Britain should take more decisive and courageous steps to revive that aspect of the treaty and not seek to prolong the status quo,” the bishops said in the July 12 statement.
UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) compares falling costs of renewables with rising costs of nuclear power
Nuclear competitiveness falling with rise of renewables, says government watchdog, businessGreen, Jocelyn Timperley, 14 July 16, A new report on the future of Britain’s electricity supply from the government spending watchdog has highlighted the falling costs of renewables compared with nuclear, with figures projecting onshore wind and solar will be the cheapest ways of generating electricity by 2025.
The report examines how new sources of electricity can be used to meet the looming capacity gap the UK faces over the coming decade while supporting emissions targets and keeping energy bills affordable.
Its findings show that renewables may be a cheaper option than conventional energy sources, with Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) forecasts for the levelised cost of energy of wind and solar in 2025 having decreased since 2010. The cost forecast for nuclear during the same time period has increased while it has remained constant for gas.
“Supporting early new nuclear projects could lead to higher costs in the short term than continuing to support wind and solar,” the report concludes. “The cost competitiveness of nuclear power is weakening as wind and solar become more established.”………
The NAO also lays out how the projected costs of Hinkley Point C have skyrocketed since the strike price was initially agreed based on an estimated cost of £6.1bn in October 2013. Projections laid out in the report show the top-up subsidy payments for the nuclear plant have changed along with forecasts of the wholesale price of power, with the most recent estimate in March 2016 valuing the payments at £29.7bn.
In addition, the NAO warned of the risks for consumers of signing up to the 35-year Hinkley Point C contract, expected to begin in 2025, due to the difficulty in predicting how wholesale electricity prices will fluctuate, as well as how other energy technologies will develop. “Over a longer time frame there is greater potential for technological changes that reduce the competitiveness of nuclear compared with other power sources,” the report says.
The new report comes just days after DECC vastly raised its estimate of how much the Hinkley project would cost in subsidies over its lifetime, suggesting it will cost £37bn in total subsidies, more than double its £14.4bn estimate a year ago……..
Among a host of other environment and energy decisions, Theresa May will soon have to make the long-awaited decision on whether to go ahead with Hinkley Point. And the NAO report makes clear it will be as much a strategic and political decision as an economic one. http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/2464823/nuclear-competitiveness-falling-with-rise-of-renewables-says-government-watchdog
UK taxpayers up for an extra £30bn for Hinkley Point C nuclear project?
Report reveals top-up fees for Hinkley Point C could cost us an extra £30bn http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/report-reveals-top-up-fees-for-hinkley-point-c-could-cost-us-an-extra-30bn/story-29511798-detail/story.html A government spending watchdog has warned tax payers could cost energy consumers £30 billion in “top-up payments” for Hinkley Point C. By David_Clensy July 14, 2016The deal for the Somerset nuclear power station sees the government paying EDF a fixed price for electricity generation over 35 years from 2025. But if the wholesale price falls, the government pays EDF a top-up fee.
The National Audit Office had previously estimated that this top-up fee would amount to £6.1 billion during the 35 year period, but in its latest report the watchdog has scaled up the estimate to £29.7 billion – nearly doubling the cost of the £37 billion construction project.
The report also expressed fears that taxpayers could end up with a range of other payments under debt guarantees agreed by the government with EDF. “Supporting early new nuclear projects could lead to higher costs in the short term than continuing to support wind and solar. The cost competitiveness of nuclear power is weakening as wind and solar become more established,” the report, Nuclear Power in the UK, states.
Environmental lobbying group Greenpeace has jumped upon the opportunity to call upon the new Prime Minister to scrap the entire project.
John Sauven, director of Greenpeace UK, said: “The government’s line that Hinkley is a good deal for billpayers is falling apart. Today’s damaging report from the NAO should kill this myth once and for all. It makes the government’s slash and burn approach towards help for homegrown renewable energy companies look completely out of step with reality. Unlike nuclear the cost of renewables is falling every year.”
Britain’s new Government axes climate department
Government axes climate department By Paul RinconScience editor, BBC News website, 14 July 16, The government has axed the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) in a major departmental shake-up.
The brief will be folded into an expanded Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy under Greg Clark.
Ed Miliband, the former energy and climate secretary under Labour, called the move “plain stupid”.
It comes at a time when campaigners are urging the government to ratify the Paris climate change deal…….One of the most pressing items on the environment agenda is the ratification of the Paris climate deal, which was inked last year.
The climate “sceptic” group Global Warming Policy Forum has long demanded the demise of Decc, so alarm bells are ringing loudly for some green groups……
The Green Party and Friends of the Earth, for instance, see the move as potentially a major downgrade for climate as a government priority.
Decc has made the UK a world leader in climate policy, and scrapping the department removes the words “climate change” from the title of any department. Out of sight, out of mind, in the basement, perhaps…….http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36788162
Chilcot says Britain shirking its responsibilty to help clean up radioactive destruction in Iraq
Chilcot: UK refusing to help clean up Iraq after raining down radioactive shells https://www.rt.com/uk/350804-iraq-chilcot-depleted-uranium/#.V4VPdDurb8w.facebook 12 Jul, 2016 Britain has no intention of cleaning up its deadly radioactive legacy in Iraq or even monitoring the terrifying impact depleted uranium (DU) shells will have on the population in the future, it has been claimed.
Writing in the Ecologist on Tuesday, Doug Weir, who is coordinator of the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW), says that hidden within the Chilcot report is a previously classified military document setting out the UK’s rejection of any duty to cleanse Iraq of DU of unexploded ordnance (UXO).
In it, the clearance of unexploded ordnance and DU is considered and the Ministry of Defence [MoD] argues that it has: “… no long-term legal responsibility to clean up DU from Iraq” Weir writes.
“Instead it proposes that surface lying fragments of DU only be removed on ‘an opportunity basis’ – i.e. if they come across them in the course of other operations.”
This indicates, according to Weir, that the UK has effectively swerved any obligation to clear up after itself in Iraq.
“In other words, the UK’s stance is that chemically toxic and radioactive DU ‘ash’ from spent munitions is strictly the problem of the country in which the munitions were used – in this case Iraq – and that the UK, which fired the DU shells, has no formal responsibility of cleaning up the mess.”
DU ammunition is used in only two UK weapons systems – the Royal Navy’s PHALANX Close-In Weapon System and in the Charm 3 ammunition fired by the Challenger 2 main battle tank.
However, the route to shirking responsibility may not be as easy as the UK government seems to hope. In October, the UN will meet to debate a sixth resolution on DU weapons. It’s a move which will give succor to the government of Iraq, which in 2014 called for the international community to help clean up DU.
Weir remains hopeful that the UN meeting may be able to encourage governments to take responsibility for the use and fallout of the weapons.
“When the United Nations last discussed DU two years ago, 150 governments recognised the need for states to provide assistance to countries like Iraq,” he wrote.
“This October, our Coalition will add our voice to those of the states affected by DU weapons in calling for an end to the use of DU weapons and for the users to finally accept responsibility for their legacy,” he added.
Warning to Teresa May on climate threats to Brexit Britain
May warned on climate threats to Brexit Britain Climate Home 12/07/2016, The incoming government must prepare for floods and heatwaves even as EU negotiations dominate politics, say advisers By Megan Darby
When Theresa May takes over as prime minister of Britain on Wednesday, climate change might not be top of her agenda.
The former home secretary has to renegotiate relations with the EU, the rest of the world and heal a divided country. But the impacts of global warming are not going away, a report by the independent Committee on Climate Change (CCC) warns.
Heatwaves like the one that killed an estimated 2,000 British citizens in 2003 are projected to become the norm by the 2040s. To prevent more excess summer deaths, government needs to regulate for cooler buildings today, the CCC advises.
It is one of six priorities for action, in a review of evidence pulled together by 80 authors over three years.
Many of the issues are unchanged since the CCC last undertook a similar assessment five years ago.
Flooding remains at the top of the list, a status only reinforced by hundreds of millions of pounds worth of damage wreaked by storms in Cumbria last December. “The risks don’t change because of Brexit,” said Lord Krebs, chair of the adaptation sub-committee. But he added: “Some of the legislation that might underpin our resilience and preparation for future climate changes is EU legislation and therefore there will be a need in due course to replace that with national legislation.”
Meanwhile, the uncertainty is denting confidence for investment in resilient infrastructure, said report co-author Swenja Surminski, from the London School of Economics………
While May has not been vocal on the issue, as a member of the National Security Council, she was involved in a 2015 review that outlined how global warming could trigger political instability, conflict and migration.
“Our long-term objective is to strengthen the resilience of poor and fragile countries to disasters, shocks and climate change,” it concluded. “This will save lives and reduce the risk of instability.” http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/07/12/may-warned-on-climate-threats-to-brexit-britain/
British Parliament to vote on renewing Trident nuclear missile system, as Brexit problems loom
A UK nuclear vote, as Brexit looms http://thebulletin.org/uk-nuclear-vote-brexit-looms9650 By John Mecklin, 10 July 16 In a somewhat unexpected move, United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron—who has already declared he will resign in September because of his country’s vote to exit the European Union—announced a quick parliamentary vote on replacing the country’s fleet of nuclear-missile submarines.
The announcement, made at a NATO summit in Warsaw, seems designed to underscore the UK’s commitment to the alliance. This Reuters piece suggests Parliament is likely to vote in favor of renewing the submarine fleet, in large part because of support from Cameron’s Conservative Party.
But amid the political turmoil over possible paths to a “Brexit” from the EU, there will almost certainly be opposition from some in the Labour Party and the Scottish Nationalist Party, which is on record as wanting the Scotland-based submarines decommissioned.
Renewal of Trident nuclear weapons system opposed by British Labour and Scottish National Party
Trident: David Cameron confirms date for vote on renewal of nuclear weapons system MPs will vote on the future of the controversial weapons system in the House of Commons, The Independent Siobhan Fenton @siobhanfenton 10 July 2016 Parliament will vote on the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons system on 18 July, David Cameron has announced.
Replacement for the system is estimated to cost between £15bn and £20bn. The force currently consists of four submarines which are each capable of carrying up to 16 ballistic nuclear missiles which are capable of hitting targets up to 7,500 miles away……
The fleet will need to be replaced in 2028 and a decision is required by Parliament this year whether to renew the system.
The controversial scheme has proved divisive in Parliament…….
The Labour party has previously supported it but current leader Jeremy Corbyn has been a long-time opponent of renewal. It is expected Labour MPs may be given a free vote on the issue.
Mr Corbyn told Sky News: “We are having a look at all the issues surrounding it. I believe security in the world is achieved through peace, through democracy, through justice, through human rights.
“I do not believe that nuclear weapons actually enhance security, I support the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which we are signed up to, which is trying to bring together collective disarmament. Those are the views that I will be putting forward.”
The Labour party has commissioned a defence review about its policy on nuclear weapons. A draft version has reportedly indicated the party will leave open the option of retaining nuclear weapons on a smaller scale, thereby providing a compromise between total disarmament and renewal.
The SNP has been vocal in its opposition of the scheme. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-david-cameron-confirms-date-for-vote-on-renewal-of-nuclear-weapons-system-a7128466.html
Britain’s nuclear submarines’ radioactive wastes will NOT be going to Scotland
Chapelcross site ruled out for nuclear submarine waste BBC News 8 July 2016 The Ministry of Defence has ruled out a Scottish site as a possible location to store waste from nuclear submarines.
Chapelcross near Annan was on a shortlist of five potential locations.
Capenhurst in Cheshire has been selected to store the nuclear components, with Aldermaston in Berkshire as a “fall back” option. The Scottish site was ruled out along with Sellafield in West Cumbria and Burghfield in Berkshire following public consultation…….
The nuclear components are from 18 redundant submarines and nine still in service.
The redundant Royal Navy submarines are currently stored afloat at Devonport in Plymouth and Rosyth in Fife, but cannot be dismantled until the reactor components have been removed.
The radioactive parts will be stored until after 2040, when the UK’s Geological Disposal Facility, for the permanent disposal of spent fuel and nuclear waste, is planned to come into operation……..http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-36745287
Old submarines’ nuclear waste – leaks – trash to be sent to North of England
Nuclear waste from scrapped Plymouth subs to be sent up country, Herald, UK WMNlynbarton July 08, 2016Radioactive fuel cells on a dozen disused nuclear submarines languishing in Plymouth are to be removed and taken to a site in the North of England for storage and eventual disposal.
The Ministry of Defence yesterday revealed the fate of the boats which are currently stationed at Devonport but said no date has yet been fixed for the process to begin
Defence Minister Philip Dunne said the highly toxic part of the decommissioned submarines would be removed at a date to be set.
“When submarines in the Royal Navy fleet reach the end of their lives, we need to dispose of them in a way that is safe, secure and environmentally sound,” he said………
It emerged last year that the ministry was spending £16million to store the vessels, with the ones in Plymouth having been taken out of service in 1994.
The MoD said it was working on a plan to safely dispose of the Reactor Pressure Vessels (RPV), the thick steel containers which weigh between 90-135 tonnes and held nuclear fuel when the reactors operated.
There have been a number of leaks of nuclear waste associated with the submarines based in Devonport.
*March 25, 2009: radioactive water escaped from HMS Turbulent while the reactor’s discharge system was being flushed.
*November 2008: 280 litres of water likely to have been contaminated with the radioactive isotope tritium, poured from a burst hose as it was being pumped from the submarine.
*October 2005: 10 litres of water leaked out as the main reactor circuit of HMS Victorious as it was being cleaned to reduce radiation.
*November 2002: Around ten litres of radioactive coolant leaked from HMS Vanguard……..In May this year, it was revealed extra radioactivity could be discharged into the atmosphere during the refit of a nuclear submarine at Devonport Dockyard.
Babcock’s Devonport Royal Dockyard Limited submitted an application for a variation to an environmental permit which covers operations on their Dockyard site in Plymouth.
If approved, the application will enable them to increase discharges of carbon-14 to the atmosphere during the refit of the Royal Navy submarine, HMS Vanguard…..http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/disused-nuclear-submarines-at-devonport-will-be-broken-up-says-mod/story-29490710-detail/story.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
