EDF’s financial woes increases delay on decision about Hinkley nuclear plant
EDF funds shortfall adds to nuclear plant delay Michael Stothard in Paris and Kiran Stacey in London, Ft.com 14 Feb 16 High quality global journalism requires investment.
EDF has still not secured funding for a £18bn nuclear plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset, further delaying one of the UK’s biggest energy projects.
Board members at the French utility will meet on Monday to sign off on the company’s annual results. Some supporters of the Hinkley Point plant had hoped they would use the meeting to give the scheme their final approval, but two people close to the process told the Financial Times EDF has not secured the necessary funding.
The final investment decision is not on the formal agenda, those people said, with one person saying it could be several months before all the financing is lined up…….
The market turmoil this year has made discussions over the financing more difficult, one person close to the talks said. EDF is in discussions with the French government to help find financing.
EDF is also spending at least €1.25bn to buy a majority stake in Areva reactor unit, Areva NP, as part of a government-backed bailout. It also faces a €100bn bill to upgrade its ageing nuclear power stations by 2030.
EDF said in September last year that the plant it is building in Flamanville, Normandy — already years overdue — would be delayed another year until 2018 and would cost €10.5bn, up from an initial budget of €3bn.
The UK government and EDF executives had hoped a final investment decision would swiftly follow the company’s agreement in October with CGN, the Chinese state-owned nuclear group, on how much of the deal each would finance. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/34a0fbee-d1a0-11e5-92a1-c5e23ef99c77.html#axzz40BFAOtmS
Defective pressure vessel could seal the tomb of the EPR nuclear reactor
French Nuclear Safety Authority has discovered a serious fault in the construction of the pressure vessel http://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/news/14275656.LETTER__the_French_Nuclear_Safety_Authority_have_discovered_a_serious_fault_in_the_construction_of_the_pressure_vessel/ Allan Jeffery, Bridgwater 14 Feb 16 Before Hinkley C can be built, the EPR reactor of the same design being built at Flamanville in France must be completed and be established generating before 2020, or else the UK government’s guarantees and financial agreements fall apart.
So it is not surprising that EDF tried to go unnoticed as it drove a convoy carrying the steel lid and pressure vessel from Chalon, where it was produced across France to Flamanville, though this was documented and publicised by Greenpeace last week.
In April the French Nuclear Safety Authority, (the ASN) discovered a very serious default in the composition of the steel used in the pressure vessel. Tests showed excessive presence of carbon, which makes the steel more brittle and subject to breakage. The pressure vessel contains the huge amounts of atomic fission energy in the core.
EDF was quick to minimise the problem and promised other tests. If EDF was serious with the safety measures the company should await the validation of the ASN of the test results that might be released in late 2016 or early 2017.
As Yannick Rousselet from Greenpeace France quoted, “Once again, EDF is turning a blind eye to all the issues, continuing as though no one else would notice and going forward anyway until there is no turning back.”
The nuclear industry is desperate and that new failure in safety could have serious consequences, not only in France, but also in China (Taishan) and England at Hinkley Point, which are among the other vessels produced with the same steel.
If the tests confirm the safety problem, EDF would have to replace the whole vessel, and have to break open and remove the first pressure vessel at Flamanville, adding huge costs and further delays, which would bring the final blow to the industrial jewel already dying.
This defective lid could seal the tomb of the EPR reactor!
English countryside dotted with nuclear bunkers from the Cold War
There are hundreds of secret nuclear bunkers in Britain ready and waiting for WW3
RUSSIA has announced that we are in a new Cold War after the relationship between the West and them have become more and more strained. http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/494567/cold-war-nuclear-apocalypse-world-war-three-how-could-you-survive-russia-north-korea-bomb By Helen Whitehouse [Good Photos] 14th February 2016 Russian president Dmitry Medvedev said: “One could go so far as to say we have slid back to a new Cold War” after describing NATO’s policies towards Russia as “unfriendly and opaque”.
The biggest ever bombing raid is currently taking place in Syria, pounding anti-Assad rebels.
But the US, Britain and France claim that air strikes against the rebels are helping ISIS, causing tensions to rise between them and Russia.
The last Cold War, spanning from the 1960s right to the 1990s saw the UK bracing for a nuclear attack – and this could be looking likely once again.
The doomsday clock is set very close to midnight, North Korea have recently announced they successfully tested the H-Bomb and Russia are claiming a new Cold War.
Should the UK be preparing for the nuclear apocalypse?
If that is the case, luckily there could be a specially re-enforced concrete bunker to protect you from atomic attack within minutes of your front door.
Thousands of bunkers were built in the last Cold War when nuclear attack seemed more a likelihood than a possibility.
And a lot of these structures still remain dotted around the English countryside – but the bad news is you would never be able to use them.
Instead of offering protection to normal people, these would be manned by teams of specially trained officers sending vital information across the country.
And although in the event of another nuclear war we might be able to use the remaining bunkers as protection, less than 1% of the general population would be able to seek shelter.
The biggest UK shelter in Burlington, Wilts, potentially had space for 100,000 people but only a fraction of that would be housed in the event of an attack.
In the last Cold War, those really desperate for a safe spot could volunteer at one of the 1,500 small boltholes dotted within ten miles of every home.These were manned by four members of the public who would gather information on what the world was looking like after the attack and send it into the bigger bunkers for officials to process.
People did volunteer for these positions – but if a bomb did go off, it would have meant leaving family behind.
One of the remaining sites is a bunker in York which gives an insight of what might go on as the UK braces for war.
It once would have housed staff and officials monitoring the dire situation on the outside – and had supplies and equipment stockpiled in the event of an attack.
It is open to the public and still in working order as it was in the 80s when tensions over nuclear war were last at the highest.
Rachael Bowers, English Heritage site manager said: “When a nuclear bomb explodes, it generates heat, blast and radiation – all of which are harmful to humans.
“The thick concrete walls of the bunker are covered with a layer of brick, three layers of asphalt to make it watertight and almost a metre of soil.”
She added that, like the other bunkers in the UK, all the doors are fitted with a seal to keep radioactive material out and the bunker would be pressurised – meaning no dust particles could end up inside.
In the event of a nuclear attack, radiation sickness would kill of those not immediately obliterated by the blast.
It would be a long, painful way to go – so in the event of a bomb, it’s important to have systems in place to keep people safe from the radiation.
The prospect of this was so terrifying in the last Cold War that police would have manned the bunker door if a bomb went off to stop general people attempting to rush inside.
There would be enough supplies stockpiled inside for occupants to survive 30 days, the most harmful period after a nuclear bomb hit.
There are still hundreds of these concrete shells around the UK. But if we came under threat of a nuclear attack, could we run and hide in these safe rooms?
Nick Catford, author of Cold War Bunkers, says the shelters were designed only to provide a place for officials to work safely through the crisis.
He says that the concrete shells could be used as protection against the aftermath of the bomb but would need kitting out with more up-to-date tech.
He also added that no bunker could ever take a direct hit from a weapon and survive especially with the stronger, more sophisticated bombs we have today.
“None of the shelters were designed to take a direct hit. Many of them would survive a near miss and those that are still in use would continue to function. The problem with the old bunkers is that all the life support plant, if it is still there, will no longer be operational so if any are to be brought back into use they would have to be completely refurbished and probably refitted.
“If we refurbished some of our old bunkers they would really only be any uses as fallout shelters as they equipment they were designed for would be totally obsolete.”
During the Cold War members of the public were advised to build their own shelters in their homes.Advice was to stock up on food, re-enforce the walls with sandbags and even paint windows white to reflect heat.
Whereas the specially built bunkers had air conditioning and sealed doors, the general public was encouraged to use sandbags and heavy objects to re-enforce walls and stop as much radiation seeping through as possible.
No nuclear weapon ever went off in the UK, so it was never tested how successful this advice would be.
200 of the shelters are still left in tact and dotted around the country but it would never ever be an option for civilians to use them as protection.
So anyone concerned about the Cold War heating up this time best get building their own bomb shelter.
UN ruling on Julian Assange, and Constitutional Law
Whether or not you believe Mr. Assange is guilty of a sexual offence, whether or not you think he is a self-publicist deliberately resisting arrest, the fact remains that the authorities could use less restrictive means without compromising the initial investigation into the allegations regarding his sexual conduct in Sweden
Liora Lazarus: Is the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Decision on Assange ‘So Wrong’?UK Constitutional Law Association 13 Feb 16 The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention handed down its decision on Julian Assange on Friday 5 February 2015 (A/HRC/WGAD/2015/54). It has been met with almost universal ridicule from a line of British officials, legal academics and the press. The decision has been described as ‘ridiculous’ by the UK Foreign Secretary, Phillip Hammond, and former Director of Public Prosecution Ken MacDonald argues that describing Assange’s conditions as ‘arbitrary detention’ is ‘ludicrous’. The press is equally incredulous. ………
Factual background
Mr. Assange is wanted for questioning in Sweden to answer allegations of sexual assault. The Swedish prosecutorial authorities have issued a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) which the UK authorities are bound to implement. Mr. Assange, after arrest of 10 days and house arrest thereafter, was granted asylum by Ecuador after his appeal against the EAW failed. This is when he took up residence in the Ecuadorian Embassy in 2012. Assange argues that he fears ultimate extradition from Sweden to the USA on the grounds of his involvement in Wikileaks.
This is obviously no small fear, given the sentencing and treatment of Chelsea Manning in the USA, and the decision of Edward Snowden to take up asylum in Russia. The Swedish authorities refuse to grant Assange any guarantee of non-refoulement to the US, and his right to asylum has also not been recognized by the UK or Sweden. ……..
Mr. Assange argues that he is not free to leave the Embassy; he would have to accept the conditions of his immediate arrest, his extradition to Sweden and his subsequent questioning there. He would have to undertake the risk that he would be extradited to the US, and the subsequent risks to his rights were that to happen.
The mandate of the UN WGAD and the test for ‘deprivation of liberty’
In order to establish its competence, and to decide upon the case, the UN WGAD has to decide whether there is a ‘deprivation of liberty’ under Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This involves a more severe restriction of motion within a narrower space than mere interference with liberty of movement. (This is explained in General Comment 35 by the UN Human Rights Committee, para. 5……..
The UN WGAD is given a very specific mandate by the United Nations and its Members to decide on these very issues. ……..
The European Arrest Warrant and the Swedish investigation
As easy as it might be in the press to simplify the issues surrounding this case, it is worth elaborating on some key technicalities. The UK authorities are acting pursuant to the conditions of a EAW issued by Sweden who are asking to question Mr. Assange on allegations of sexual assault in order to decide whether to charge him.
The prosecutorial authorities in Sweden re-opened the case against Assange, despite an earlier preliminary investigation (in which Assange had co-operated while in Sweden) that decided there was no case against him in respect of the alleged rape. There is to date no charge against Mr. Assange. The EAW has been at the core of Sweden’s approach, and there had been no attempt by Swedish prosecutors to make use of ‘mutual assistance protocols’ in which Mr. Assange could be interviewed by video-conference (a procedure available under Article 9 of Second Additional Procotol on ‘mutual assistance’)………
Assange’s lawyers have offered co-operation on this alternative a number of times. The Swedish prosecutorial authorities have refused to explore these alternatives, relying instead on the EAW they have issued. They have also failed to disclose the full case against Assange.
Assange has tried but failed to challenge the European Arrest Warrant against him in Sweden and in the UK. In a judgment handed down on 11 May 2015, the majority of the Swedish Supreme Court held that the EAW was valid, but a dissent in this case by Justice Svante Johansson also argued that the arrest warrant was ‘in violation of the principle of proportionality’, as the reasons for continued detention did not ‘outweigh the intrusion and inconvenience’ caused to Assange. According to the Guardian coverage of this case, the ‘Swedish Supreme court also stated … that the investigating authorities “must examine what alternative investigative opportunities are available to drive the investigation forward”. Former Legal Counsel to the United Nations and Legal Adviser to the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Hans Corell, has stated that he “does not understand why the prosecutor had not questioned Julian Assange during all the years he has been at the Ecuadorian Embassy”………….
The main arguments of Assange’s lawyers
The central argument of Assange’s lawyers’ proceed on the basis that his confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy ‘cannot … be characterized as volitional’ (para 13). He is not free to leave, because he is protecting himself from the violation of other human rights: ‘the only way for Mr. Assange to enjoy his right to asylum was to be in detention’ (para 11). If Assange were to leave he would be arrested in the UK and extradited pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued by Sweden. Consequently, he would expose himself to the risk of a ‘well founded fear of persecution’ were he to be extradited to the US from Sweden (para 12).
In the UK, Assange’s challenge goes to the validity of the EAW under UK law……….
Evaluation
In essence, the UN WGAD had to decide two questions. Firstly, whether there was a ‘deprivation of liberty’ as opposed to a ‘restriction of liberty’. Secondly, assuming the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether that deprivation of liberty was ‘arbitrary’.
In response to the first question, the UN WGAD clearly accepted the argument that Assange’s conditions are not volitional, or self-imposed……..
the UN WGAD was persuaded that the confinement was arbitrary. The most compelling grounds were those based on proportionality. In short, there could have been another, less restrictive way of proceeding. Before issuing a European Arrest Warrant, the Swedish authorities could have followed the normal practice of interviewing Assange in a British police interview room. After Assange, sought asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy they could have questioned Assange by video link. He could have been provided the chance to respond to the allegations against him, or provided with an assurance related to his refoulment to the US. But his conditions currently are based on the legitimacy of an EAW which two UK Supreme Court justices consider invalid under UK law, and which one Swedish Supreme Court judge considers disproportionate……….
There is still no charge against Mr. Assange. He has, under international, European, and domestic law, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. He has offered to respond to the process in other ways, and would co-operate fully if he had a further guarantee of non-refoulment.
Whether or not you believe Mr. Assange is guilty of a sexual offence, whether or not you think he is a self-publicist deliberately resisting arrest, the fact remains that the authorities could use less restrictive means without compromising the initial investigation into the allegations regarding his sexual conduct in Sweden. ……….
Reasonable (and even judicial) minds have clearly differed on these issues, which suggests that the UN WGAD decision cannot fairly be described as ‘ridiculous’, ‘ludicrous’, or ‘so wrong’. No doubt views on this may be coloured by our particular position on the integrity of Assange’s himself. But human rights are not meant to favour the popular amongst us; they are meant to favour us all.
Liora Lazarus is a Fellow of St. Anne’s College and an Associate Professor in Law at Oxford University. https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/02/09/liora-lazarus-is-the-united-nations-working-group-on-arbitrary-detention-decision-on-assange-so-wrong/
Arbitrary detention of Julian Assange – United Nations finding
Julian Assange arbitrarily detained by Sweden and the UK, UN expert panel finds United Nations Human Rights Office GENEVA (5 February 2016) – WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been arbitrarily detained by Sweden and the United Kingdom since his arrest in London on 7 December 2010, as a result of the legal action against him by both Governments, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention said today.
In a public statement, the expert panel called on the Swedish and British authorities to end Mr. Assange’s deprivation of liberty, respect his physical integrity and freedom of movement, and afford him the right to compensation (Check the statement: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17012&LangID=E)
Mr. Assange, detained first in prison then under house arrest, took refuge in Ecuador’s London embassy in 2012 after losing his appeal to the UK’s Supreme Court against extradition to Sweden, where a judicial investigation was initiated against him in connection with allegations of sexual misconduct. However, he was not formally charged.
“The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention considers that the various forms of deprivation of liberty to which Julian Assange has been subjected constitute a form of arbitrary detention,” said Seong-Phil Hong, who currently heads the expert panel.
– See more at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17013&LangID=E#sthash.oPdlDR4g.dpuf
The experts also found that the detention was arbitrary because Mr. Assange was held in isolation at Wandsworth Prison, and because a lack of diligence by the Swedish Prosecutor’s Office in its investigations resulted in his lengthy loss of liberty.
The Working Group established that this detention violates Articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and Articles 7, 9(1), 9(3), 9(4), 10 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Check the Working Group’s Opinion on Julian Assange’s case (No. 54/2015), adopted in December: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Detention/A.HRC.WGAD.2015.docx
NOTE TO EDITORS:
The Opinions of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention are legally-binding to the extent that they are based on binding international human rights law, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The WGAD has a mandate to investigate allegations of individuals being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary way or inconsistently with international human rights standards, and to recommend remedies such as release from detention and compensation, when appropriate.
The binding nature of its opinions derives from the collaboration by States in the procedure, the adversarial nature of is findings and also by the authority given to the WGAD by the UN Human Rights Council. The Opinions of the WGAD are also considered as authoritative by prominent international and regional judicial institutions, including the European Court of Human Rights.
……… http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17013&LangID=E#sthash.oPdlDR4g.dpuf http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17013&LangID=E
Hinkley Nuclear Project: trials and Tribulations Continue, and EDF is in dire financial straits
nuClear News, No 82 Feb 2016, Hinkley’s Troubles Continue The resignation of the man in charge of building Hinkley Point C capped a month of very bad news for the proposed £18bn nuclear power plant. Chris Bakken announced that he would be returning home to the US to take up the post of chief nuclear officer for Entergy beginning on April 6 to “spend more time with his family.”
Huge production of radioactive trash would come from Hinkley point C nuclear reactor
nuClear News No 82 Feb 16 The Impact of a New Reactor Programme on the UK’s Radioactive Waste Inventory The proposed Hinkley Point C nuclear power station would produce radioactive wastes and spent fuel with a radioactivity inventory equal to roughly 80% of the radioactivity in all of the UK’s existing radioactive wastes put together.
A catelogue of safety failures revealed in mock nuclear accident tests
Top secret mock nuclear accidents reveal catalogue of failures, The Ferret, Rob Edwards on February 9, 2016 Top secret mock nuclear accidents testing the responses of the military and emergency services have revealed numerous mistakes that would have led to “avoidable deaths”, according to official assessments.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) was so concerned about the problems that it carried out “an overarching, fundamental review” of arrangements for handling serious nuclear weapons incidents behind closed doors last year.
Assessments of emergency exercises by the MoD’s internal watchdog, theDefence Nuclear Safety Regulator (DNSR), expose a string of mishaps including life-threatening delays, equipment shortages, coordination failures and communication breakdowns. One report criticises officials for “substantially understating” the scale of the dangers facing the public in a staged briefing for the media.
The MoD took more than two years to agree to hand over reports on three nuclear bomb exercises in 2011 and 2012, despite freedom of information lawrequiring documents to be released within 20 working days. The reports, redacted by the MoD to keep details confidential, are being published today by The Ferret, in tandem with The Guardian (see below).
Two of the exercises imagined aircraft carrying nuclear weapons ingredients crashing and spreading plutonium and other radioactive contamination up to five kilometres away. They were both codenamed Astral Bend, one taking place at the Caerwent military base in south Wales on 24 February 2011, the other at Heyford Park in Oxfordshire on 27 March 2012.
At the 2011 exercise there was a major mix-up over how to deal with contaminated casualties. The fire service was criticised by DNSR for refusing to allow ambulance teams to take away seriously injured people until they had been decontaminated.
“The interpretation of the absolute necessity to decontaminate every casualty or person from within the determined “hot zone” did, and would in the event of such an incident, lead to avoidable deaths,” concluded the DNSR report………
DNSR pointed out that exercises had shown the need for “an overarching, fundamental review” of emergency response arrangements. This review was carried out in 2015, according to the MoD, but it has not been published.
The independent nuclear consultant,John Large, argued that if there were an accident close to an urban area the emergency response “would be totally inadequate to protect many hundreds if not thousands of members of public.”……….
Anti-nuclear groups claimed that the exercise assessments exposed “major weaknesses” in the MoD plans for responding to nuclear accidents. “The MoD’s rickety old nuclear safety arrangements are not up to the job of keeping the public, emergency responders, or MoD personnel safe,” said Peter Burt from the Nuclear Information Network.
He added: “While ministers are racing ahead to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system, work on improving nuclear emergency plans seems to be a much lower priority and is proceeding at a much more sedate place.”
An earlier Astral Bend exercise on 12 May 2010 envisaged a US plane carrying nuclear weapons crashing and spreading radioactive contamination. Official assessments released in 2011 concluded that the MoD specialist response team “struggled to manage”…….
John Ainslie from the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament suggested that a nuclear weapons accident was “inherently very dangerous” and the emergency response was likely to be inadequate. He said: “If there is a real incident then we can expect there to be fatal delays in treating casualties and misleading information provided to the public,” he said.
The reports released by the Ministry of Defence…….. Photos thanks to Nukewatch. https://theferret.scot/nuclear-bomb-accidents-could-cause-avoidable-deaths-say-mod-reports/
£100 billion Trident nuclear weapons system could all too soon become obsolete
The Trident nuclear weapons system could become obsolete during its lifetime, Labour warns The shadow defence secretary says new technologies are being developed to expose submarines, Independent Jon Stone @joncstone 9 Feb 16 The Trident nuclear weapons system could become technologically obsolete within its lifetime, Labour’s shadow defence secretary has warned.
Emily Thornberry said that emerging technologies could render Trident ineffective as a nuclear deterrent during its 30-year lifetime. She said the development of under-sea drones and other technologies on the horizon might make a long-term lifetime spending commitment of between £100 billion and £160 billion unwise.
“The idea of the Trident replacement is that it can hide in the sea – if technology is moving faster than that then it may well be that Trident is not able to hide,” she told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “If that’s right and we are to bet everything on mutually assured destruction then we have to be assured that it’s going to work. If it can’t hide any more that is a problem.
“It is right for the opposition to make sure that it works before voting for a commitment that according to Crispin Blunt would cost £167 billion.”
The shadow defence secretary is currently leading a review of Labour’s policy on nuclear weapons………
The independent Trident Commission estimated that the system would cost £100 billion over its lifetime, though estimates compiled by Reuters with the help of Tory MP Crispin Blunt and official Ministry of Defence statistics suggest the cost could be as high as £167 billion http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-labour-policy-nuclear-weapons-deterrent-obsolete-emily-thornberry-a6862501.html
Confusion about financing of UK’s Hinkley nuclear power project
nuClear News, No 82 Feb 2016, Hinkley’s Troubles Continue ……..The original idea for financing Hinkley was for the promoters to put in £7.5bn in equity and then to borrow £17bn supported by UK Government Credit Guarantees (for which a premium would be paid). This £24.5bn total was made up of £16bn cost plus £8.5bn interest. Now the cost seems to have gone up to £18bn (or adjusted for today’s prices). But EDF Energy seems to be talking about largely funding this out of equity. EDF said on 21st October: “The project is due to be equity funded by each partner, at least during a first stage.” (19) Of course, there is no indication given by EDF of how long the “first stage” would last. However The Telegraph reported that EDF had originally been expected to use project financing for Hinkley, backed up by up to £16bn in UK Government guarantees via Infrastructure UK. But Mr Lévy announced in October a “radical change” to what he said was a “more efficient” option of delivering its £12bn share of the project from EDF’s own balance sheet. (20)
Sizewell A final investment decision on Hinkley is expected to trigger the launch of the next round of public consultation over plans for Sizewell C. (26) But if EDF is struggling to find its 66.5% share of Hinkley C, how will it ever find the 80% it is expected to put into Sizewell C? References ……http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo82.pdf
UK govt spurns the success of renewable energy, follows the dodgy chimera of “Small Nuclear reactors”
nuClearNews No 82 Feb 16 Progress on Small Modular Reactors as renewables head off the cliff , In response to a letter about energy policy in The Times on 26th January 2016, Energy and Climate Change Secretary Amber Rudd listed the top 10 things the government is doing to secure investment in clean secure energy. Besides committing to Hinkley Point C, Rudd also mentioned spending £250m for nuclear innovation and Small Modular Reactors. (1) Oddly enough there was no mention of the rest of the 19GW of new reactors proposed – (up from 16GW now that Bradwell B has been added to the theoretical list)…….
Busting the obsolete “baseload” myth, and other myths that hold back renewable energy
nuClear News No 82 Feb 16 Towards 100% Renewables As Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Lisa Nandy, re-iterates the myth that nuclear power is an “important as part of the energy mix [if] we’re going to meet the commitments we made in Paris” we investigate how the UK could move to a 100% renewable energy system. Although Nandy says she is not happy with the Hinkley deal she says “we know we will need nuclear power as part of the mix”, but is she right? (1)
UK may be getting Beautiful Nuclear Cathedrals! (Amber Rudd will be pleased)
Moorside: Developers launch competition to design visually beautiful nuclear power station
The shortlisted designs will be selected by an independent panel of architects, landscape designers and ecologists including Sir Terry Farrell, who created the MI6 building in London. Their challenge will be to come up with something striking and beautiful which can work around the sensitive construction of the site’s nuclear reactors.
Sebastien Ricard, a director at WilkinsonEyre architects who is currently involved with the multibillion-pound redevelopment of Battersea Power Station in London, said industrial buildings were increasingly regarded by architects as 
the “cathedrals of the modern era” as they offered the chance to work with innovative technologies on a grand scale….
it is hoped that the winning plans will succeed in blending the site into its surroundings and perhaps even turn Moorside into a destination in its own right……http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/moorside-developers-launch-competition-to-design-visually-beautiful-nuclear-power-station-a6859311.html
The UK ghost ships with the deadly nuclear cargo
Guarded from terrorists by Royal Navy sub and 50 commandos…the UK ghost ships with enough nuclear fuel for 80 missiles, Daily Mail,
- Pacific Heron and Pacific Egret ships will sail to Japan for plutonium
- Precious 331kg load could make an incredible 80 nuclear warheads
- Vessels are accompanied by military ships and armed with cannons
By MARK NICOL DEFENCE CORRESPONDENT FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY 7 February 2016
Two top secret British ‘ghost ships’ carrying enough plutonium for a huge nuclear arsenal wend their way through the world’s oceans –guarded against terrorists by 50 commandos.
It may sound like a tantalising target for a villain in a James Bond film, but what is potentially the most dangerous secret mission in history is deadly reality.
Two vast container ships – the Pacific Heron and the Pacific Egret – left Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, last month on the first leg of their incredible journey.
Their mission is to sail to Japan to collect 331kg of plutonium – enough to make 80 nuclear warheads – which was leased by the UK to a Japanese research facility.
The ships are almost certainly shadowed by a Royal Navy submarine and surface vessels and are heavily armed with 20mm cannon.
They are sailing across the Atlantic before passing through the Panama Canal and into the Pacific on their way to Japan.
Their ultimate destination is a US nuclear storage facility in South Carolina, and the return journey to the American eastern seaboard from East Asia would normally again be made via the Panama Canal.
But this would leave the vessels vulnerable to attack – and their terrifying radioactive cargo could in theory devastate much of Central America.
So instead, they are likely to take the long and dangerous journey around the storm-lashed Cape Horn at the tip of South America, one of the most hazardous shipping routes in the world.
The Heron and the Egret, which each weigh about 6,700 tons when fully loaded, belong to the UK’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA). It is expected that each ship will be guarded by as many as 25 commandos.
Nuclear expert John Large told The Mail on Sunday last night: ‘The cargo is invaluable and part of a secret trade in fissile materials between the likes of the UK and US. The biggest risk is a fire or an external missile strike.
‘This is bomb-grade nuclear material and a terror group or rogue state would want to intercept it.’…..http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3435476/Guarded-terrorists-Royal-Navy-sub-50-commandos-UK-ghost-ships-nuclear-fuel-80-missiles.html
Britaion and Sweden rejecting UN panel’s finding on Julian Assange
No release in sight despite UN panel decision. Julian Assange: ‘sweet’ victory soured by British and Swedish rejection Founding WikiLeaks founder is being arbitrarily detained at Ecuador embassy, Guardian, Esther Addley,Owen Bowcott,David Crouch in Gothenberg, andJessica Elgot A UN panel may have found that Julian Assange is subject to “arbitrary detention” and called for him to be allowed to walk free, but the WikiLeaks founder remains exactly where he has been for the past 44 months – inside Ecuador’s London embassy and locked in a three-nation war of words.
Britain and Sweden immediately rejected the UN report, which declared that Assange had been “arbitrarily detained” since his arrest in 2010 and during his lengthy stay in the embassy, where he sought asylum in June 2012. The British foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, described the findings as “ridiculous” and the Australian as a “fugitive from justice”.
However, the panel’s findings, leaked on Thursday and published in full on Friday morning, were a welcome victory for Assange, and a moment he intended to savour fully. At 4.01pm he emerged on to the balcony of the west Londonembassy to greet a crowd of several hundred supporters and journalists, pausing first, just briefly, to glance at the sky he has rarely seen for more than three years.
“How sweet it is,” said Assange, holding aloft a copy of the UN report while supporters shouted: “We love you, Julian!” It had been, he said, “a victory of historical importance”, and a decision reached after a process to which both Britain and Sweden had made submissions. “They lost. UK lost; Sweden lost.”
The Swedish government, however, has insisted the report changes nothing, and that it cannot interfere in an independent prosecutor’s ongoing attempt to extradite Assange for questioning over an allegation of rape dating from 2010, which he denies.
Meanwhile, for Ecuador – the Australian’s (mostly) willing host – the findings meant it was time for the two countries to allow Assange to walk free, and to compensate both him and them for the lengthy period he has been holed up in one of its few rooms……
After exhausting all his legal options in the UK and Sweden some time ago, there is no question that the report represents a boost for Assange’s legal team.
Reaching their conclusion by a three-to-one majority after a fifth member recused herself, the panel called on the Swedish and British authorities to end Assange’s “deprivation of liberty”, respect his physical integrity and freedom of movement, and offer him compensation.
Assange, they found, had been unable “to access the full-intended benefit” of the asylum status granted by Ecuador, and “the continuing and disproportionate denial to him of such access … had become cumulatively harsh and disproportionate”.
In particular, the panel offered an excoriating critique of Sweden’s prosecution process, which they said had been in a state of “indefinite procrastination”. With Quito and Stockholm still unable to agree on arrangements to allow Swedish prosecutors access to the London embassy, Assange has yet to be interviewed over the alleged offences. Britain said on Thursday it was “deeply frustrated” by the deadlock.
But for all Assange’s jubilation, he remains in the embassy, the extradition warrant still stands, and Britain and Sweden remain adamant that the report changes nothing.
Assange also remains fearful of a potential future extradition to the US, where a secret grand jury has been looking into whether to prosecute him over WikiLeak’s publishing activities……..
the former chair of the UN working group, Mads Andenas, defended its finding, saying: “There is no doubt that the normal course of action for the Swedish authorities would have been to interview Assange in London. The extradition request was disproportionate…….http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/05/julian-assange-sweet-victory-soured-by-british-and-swedish-rejection
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
