Jeremy Corbyn now vice-president of Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Jeremy Corbyn named vice-president of Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Guardian, Matthew Taylor, 17 Oct 15
Labour leader due to address CND conference, described by organisers as the most important gathering of anti-nuclear activists in a generation. Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour party leader, is to accept a new role as vice-president of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament as figures show a sharp upturn in support for the organisation.
Corbyn, who is currently vice-chair of CND, will accept the position during a two-day conference in London on Saturday. His acceptance of the role underlines his opposition to nuclear weapons in the face of criticism from within the shadow cabinet.
The Labour leader has long opposed nuclear weapons and said last month that he would tell defence chiefs never to use the Trident nuclear weapons system if he became prime minister…….
Kate Hudson, general secretary of the CND, welcomed the move and said the conference would be the most important gathering of anti-nuclear activists in a generation.
“[The] conference takes place at a moment when, for the first time in a generation, the opportunity not to replace Trident collides with a massive popular upsurge against the criminal waste and sheer anachronism of nuclear weapons,” she said.
“Austerity has led many more to question the need to spend £100bn on replacing a nuclear weapons system that doesn’t tackle the real security threats we face. Terrorism, climate change, pandemics and cyberwarfare require a fresh approach.”
CND has seen a big increase in support since Corbyn launched his election campaign. The organisation was attracting about 30 new members a month in June but now has a sign-up rate of more than 200 a month.
A spokesman said the support was still gathering pace, with more than 100 new members joining in the last seven days and thousands of non-paying supporters signing up since the summer……
The UK has four Trident ballistic missile submarines, and a final decision about whether to replace them is due to be taken in 2016. Previously both the Labour and Tory leaderships were committed to replacing the fleet, a project that is likely to cost well over £100bn over its 30-year lifespan. But now Corbyn has committed Labour to a review of its Trident policy, to be headed by Eagle.
Hudson welcomed Labour’s stance and said the anti-nuclear campaign would continue to gather momentum in the coming months. “Our own organisation has experienced its own surge in membership and we’re preparing for a major national Stop Trident demo ahead of the parliamentary decision in 2016,” she said. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/17/jeremy-corbyn-vice-president-campaign-nuclear-disarmament
Hinkley deal raises fears about China’s power over Britain’s nuclear project
Security fears over China nuclear power deal, BBC News, 17 Oct 15 Downing Street is playing down security fears about plans to give China a stake in Britain’s nuclear power industry.
A final decision on the new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point, Somerset, could be announced next week during Chinese president Xi Jinping’s state visit.
Security sources have told The Times the scheme poses a threat to national security – and a senior Tory MP has called for an inquiry.
But No 10 said it would not sign the deal if it thought security was a risk.
Chancellor George Osborne has already announced a £2bn government guarantee to secure Chinese funding for the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station, to be jointly built with French energy giant EDF at an estimated cost of £24.5bn.
The final go-ahead for the deal could be announced next week – paving the way for a second new reactor to built by the Chinese and French consortium at Sizewell, in Suffolk.
If an agreement is reached, work could then start on the first Chinese-designed and built nuclear reactor in Europe, at Bradwell, in Essex, where a previous British-built reactor is in the process of being decommissioned.
How concerned should we be?………….
Construction of the first Hualong One reactor began in May in China’s Fujian province, according to World Nuclear News.
Gaining regulatory approval from the UK authorities for the design would be a major boost to the Chinese National Nuclear Corporation’s hopes of exporting the technology around the world.
‘Trapdoors or backdoors’
But senior UK defence and security sources reportedly are concerned that the state-controlled company, which helped develop China’s nuclear weapons, poses a national security risk.
They fear “trapdoors or backdoors” could be inserted into IT systems, allowing Beijing to bypass British security measures……..
‘Fait accompli’
Bernard Jenkin, Conservative MP for Harwich and North Essex, where the Bradwell plant would be built, has called for the government to produce a “comprehensive assessment of the national security implications” of the Chinese scheme……..http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34549478
Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) plan legal action against Hinkley nuclear power project
Anti-nuclear group legal threat against Hinkley power plant, http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Anti-nuclear-group-legal-threat-Hinkley-power/story-27984093-detail/story.html By WMN_PGoodwin October 14, 2015 Britain’s first new nuclear power station for 20 years, in Somerset, will waste billions of pounds without solving the country’s energy needs, a new report claims.
Hinkley Point C is expected to supply 7% of the UK’s electricity needs – powering around six million homes – and create thousands of jobs locally and more widely in the nuclear industry across the UK. The £20 billion scheme could get the green light next week when Chinese president Xi Jinping arrives in London on a state visit which could see a massive investment in the reactor agreed.
French state-owned energy firm EDF, who are behind the project, and the British Government have been hoping the president will visit the site which has been prepared next to the two existing nuclear power stations on the Bristol Channel.
TASC is threatening to take legal action if the Government fails to review its national policy statements for energy. Using data from the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) the TASC study says every alternative to nuclear would “without exception” be an improvement, costing less, preventing power cuts, causing less pollution and meeting emissions targets.
Local campaign Stop Hinkley welcomed publication. Spokesman Roy Pumfrey added: “There are plenty of ways of providing our energy needs which are cheaper than any Government scenario for energy involving nuclear power.“The total savings to the UK economy of going for much more energy saving instead could be very large indeed and more successfully reduce greenhouse gases and provide energy security. “Nuclear power only hampers the achievement of these objectives.”
The construction came a step closer last month when Chancellor George Osborne approved an initial Government guarantee worth £2 billion for the proposed plant during a visit to China. Mr Osborne said that new nuclear power was “essential” to ensure the lights stay on as ageing nuclear and coal plants are retired.
Britain fawns over Xi Jinping – preparatory to China taking over UK’s nuclear industry
Why is Xi Jinping getting a royal reception in Britain? eji insight, Mark O’Neill, 15 Oct 15 “………..Britain wants to become the preferred European country for Chinese investment, state and private, and London the city where Chinese firms build their European headquarters and do business in renminbi.
Top of the agenda is Hinckley Point C, Britain’s first new nuclear power station for several decades, with a total cost of 24.5 billion pounds (US$37.9 billion). It will be the first of three such new plants.
For months, there have been intensive talks between Electricite de France (EDF) Energy, China National Nuclear Corp. and China General Nuclear Corp. Early this month, Vincent de Rivaz, head of EDF Energy, said he hoped the two Chinese firms would take a 40 per cent stake in the project, with an agreement to be signed during Xi’s visit. The project is backed by the governments of Britain, France and China.
But EDF and the two Chinese firms have been arguing over their respective shares and the financial burden they will take on.The next nuclear project is Bradwell in Essex with 1,000 megawatts; China is expected to take the lead role and take a majority stake.
The two plants are very capital-intensive, requiring enormous investment before the investors receive a return.
In western countries, nuclear plants are controversial and are vulnerable to a second Fukushima disaster.
These would be the first nuclear stations built by China in a western country and make it a front-line competitor with Areva, the world’s largest builder of nuclear power stations. Areva posted a loss of 4.8 billion euros (US$5.5 billion) last year.
China may take an equity stake in the ailing French firm. Osborne has promised a taxpayer guarantee of 2 billion pounds if Xi puts Chinese money into the Hinckley project………http://www.ejinsight.com/20151015-why-xi-jinping-getting-royal-reception-britain/
Overwhelming costs of Britain’s Trident nuclear submarines – cannot be measured
The Conservative government has not given an up-to-date estimate of the program costs. Previously, it has said the submarines would cost between £11 billion and £14 billion at 2006 prices and estimated an overall cost of up to £20 billion when infrastructure and other costs are wrapped in……….
The Labour Party, the main opposition party, has previously been committed to a credible nuclear deterrent, but the recent election of the left-winger Jeremy Corbyn as the party leader has thrown that policy into confusion…….
Nuclear Sub Project Poses UK’s Biggest Financial Challenge, Defense News By Andrew Chuter October 15, 2015 LONDON — Britain’s nuclear submarine effort is a monster-sized undertaking that keeps the Ministry of Defence’s top civil servant awake at night, the official admitted to the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee Wednesday.
Jon Thompson, the permanent undersecretary at the MoD and the man responsible for keeping defense spending in check, told lawmakers that renewing Britain’s nuclear deterrent was the biggest project the ministry was ever going to tackle.
“The project I worry about the most in relation to future financial risk is the nuclear enterprise. It’s a significant element of the overall equipment plan … it most keeps me awake at night,” he told the committee during a session examining the MoD’s progress in improving financial management.
The defense nuclear enterprise covers the equipment, infrastructure and people required to deliver the UK deterrent and nuclear powered submarines, including the new Astute-class hunter killer boats and Trident missile boats. Continue reading
UK’s Hinkley C nuclear plan is not only a financial disaster: it fails on other counts too
Hinkley C’s claimed benefits evaporate under scrutiny http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2985648/hinkley_cs_claimed_benefits_evaporate_under_scrutiny.html Paul Dorfman 6th October 2015 To explain their desperation to commit an estimated £76 billion of public money to the Hinkley C nuclear project, writes Paul Dorfman, the Treasury and its Chancellor, George Osborne, claim there are other benefits that justify this vast expenditure. So what exactly are they? And do the claims survive critical examination?
So much has been written about the plan to build two new EDF reactors at Hinkley Point that you might think that it’s all been said [1].
So far, the main focus has been on the cost of the thing – but money is really only just part this nuclear deadlock.
Of course, Osborne knows Hinkley is much, much too expensive. That battle has been fought, and he lost it some time ago.
But the real nuclear war has just begun – as, when pushed, Osborne, the Treasury and DECC all say that the big picture is really about a rats nest of issues facing the UK energy market.
These are: security of supply; diversity of supply; decarbonisation – all set in the context of electricity price stability and affordability. So let’s take a look at each in turn and see if any make sense – just to make sure.
Security of supply
Osborne says that we need a secure supply of nuclear baseload electricity. But Steve Holliday, CEO of National Grid, the company that operates the power transmission networks in the UK and in the northeastern US, says the idea of large nuclear power stations to be used for baseload power is outdated:
“The world is clearly moving towards much more distributed electricity production and towards microgrids. The pace of that development is uncertain. That depends on political decisions, regulatory incentives, consumer preferences, technological developments. But the direction is clear.” [2]
And unlike Germany, who are cutting consumption, Osborne’s energy policy is based on the assumption that there will be increasing energy supply demand. But is he really unaware that since 2005 overall energy use in the UK has fallen by 18%?
Just in the last year, even while GDP grew by 2.8%, energy sales fell by 6.6%. In fact, we are now using 5% less energy than 50 years ago, even though our wealth has practically tripled. So serious energy efficiency policy scenarios show that the UK economy could flourish whilst using significantly less energy.
Osborne says that Hinkley is needed to ‘stop the lights going out’ – yet any ‘generation gap’ is already forecast by Ofgem before 2020. So the real security of supply challenge happens well before Hinkley could begin generation.
Putting aside the inevitable construction cost and time over-runs, the fact is that Hinkley wont make it on-time to help with our security of supply problem – since, according to EDF, it’s not supposed to come on-line until 2024 at the very earliest, and that date is looking more and more optimistic.
And there’s a misconception that all except one of the UK’s eight nuclear power plants will be closed in 2024. Rather, EDF, the owner of most of them, say that five of their seven operating UK reactors will continue to 2027-31 and even longer.
Diversity of supply
There is good evidence to predict that UK onshore wind and PV will be at zero operational cost by 2025, and offshore wind will have a far lower operational cost than nuclear [3]. In response, Osborne says he doesn’t prefer nuclear, its just that he needs it for a balanced portfolio of power sources.
But the flip side to investment in Hinkley is low investment in renewable energy generation. This is because the government Levy Control Framework imposes a strict cap on low carbon energy financed from the public purse (from levies on the bills of energy consumers) [4].
And because the government will be contractually obliged to provide on-going State Aid for the incredibly long 35 year Hinkley contract, there will simply be very little money left over for renewables – as the Levy Control Framework budget will have been already consumed by nuclear.
So Hinkley will crowd out investment in renewables. Greedy nuclear will have ‘eaten all the pies’ before renewables get a look in, and progress towards achieving overall targets for low-carbon renewable energy will inevitably falter.
All this being so (which it is), we can see why the government has been chopping and slashing at UK renewable funding, and why there is widespread concern at the failure to consider a purposeful energy efficiency stimulus for real diversity of supply.
Decarbonisation
Ramping climate change means we need to de-carbonise quickly. Osborne has reframed nuclear as a response to climate change. But Hinkley, together with its radioactive waste stores, including spent fuel, will be sited on the coast, increasingly vulnerable to sea-level rise, flooding and storm surge from climate change.
Sorry to say that, as the UK Institute of Mechanical Engineers state: “Nuclear sites based on the coastline may need considerable investment to protect them against rising sea levels, or even abandonment or relocation in the long term.” [5]
Osborne maintains that nuclear is low-carbon. Yet serious analysis shows that, factoring in the full nuclear life-cycle from uranium mining, through transport, fuel enrichment, plant construction and operation, decommissioning and waste management, nuclear CO2 emissions have a mean value of 66g CO2e/kWh.
That’s significantly higher than for wind (2,8-7,4 g/kWhel), hydropower (17-22 g/kWhel), photovoltaic (19-59 g/kWhel), and energy efficiency measures (which are at least ten times more cost effective) [6].
Affordability and price stability
Osborne says Hinkley is good value. But it’s difficult to comprehend how Hinkley might contribute to affordability, price stability and least-cost for the UK energy consumer.
In fact, Hinkley would be the most expensive piece of nuclear kit ever built [7], and the agreed price for its electricity must inevitably lead to significantly higher prices for the UK energy consumer [8].
However, it does remain true that the deal would prove very profitable to French and Chinese nuclear corporations during the lengthy 35-year Contract period, including the very generous proposals for an inflation-indexed deal.
Essentially, all this means that the Government is willing to add £19 billion to the deficit, and will impose £2 billion/year on the energy bills of hardworking families in order to support Chinese and French state owned industries provided wholesale electricity prices do not fall, in which case the imposition on bills will be even greater.
Signed, sealed, delivered?
Osborne says he will sign a deal with the Chinese President Xi JinPing in late October 2015. But there are problems for the boyish Chancellor. The governments of Austria and Luxembourg, and six German Stadtwerke have launched a legal challenge through the EC Court of Justice [9].
They say that UK nuclear State Aid subsidies runs counter to EU Law. Whatever the outcome, based on the average time-spans of similar cases, this legal action is likely to delay Hinkley for three to four years [10]. In any event, how on earth can any real decision about Hinkley be made when it’s subject to a serious European governmental law suit?
Also, it’s become clear that EDF have been aware for some time of critical anomalies in the EPR reactor planned for Hinkley [11]. France’s nuclear safety regulator, ASN, are still carrying out critical tests on ‘serious’ flaws in the steel housing in the reactor core – and if there’s one place you don’t want any flaws it’s the reactor pressure vessel itself.
So how can Osborne come to any decision about Hinkley before these fundamentally important, critical safety tests are carried out, and the results anaysed?
This means that, for key legal and technical safety reasons, anything Osborne may or may not sign just wont be sealed or delivered. On top of this, it’s clear that Osbornes ‘big arguments’ for Hinkley just don’t stack up. It won’t make a timely contribution to UK security of supply or decarbonisation, and won’t contribute to affordability, price stability and least-cost for the UK energy consumer.
The development of diverse, sustainable and affordable low carbon energy is a growing economic sector with huge potential for job creation in the UK.
To limit this diversity for political face-saving reasons through inflexible and costly support of nuclear power, at the expense of other, more flexible, safe, productive, cost-effective and affordable technologies seems, at the very least, unwise.
Dr Paul Dorfman is Honorary Senior Research Fellow at the Energy Institute, University College London (UCL); Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust (JRCT) Nuclear Policy Research Fellow; Founder of the Nuclear Consulting Group (NCG); Executive Board Member of the International Nuclear Risk Assessment Group (INRAG).
References
How UK govt helped the nuclear industry hide the truth on the Fukushima catastrophe
Revealed: British government’s plan to play down Fukushima Internal emails seen by Guardian show PR campaign was launched to protect UK nuclear plans after tsunami in Japan
Internal emails seen by the Guardian show how the business and energy departments worked closely behind the scenes with the multinational companiesEDF Energy, Areva and Westinghouse to try to ensure the accident did not derail their plans for a new generation of nuclear stations in the UK.
“This has the potential to set the nuclear industry back globally,” wrote one official at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), whose name has been redacted. “We need to ensure the anti-nuclear chaps and chapesses do not gain ground on this. We need to occupy the territory and hold it. We really need to show the safety of nuclear.”
Officials stressed the importance of preventing the incident from undermining public support for nuclear power.
The Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith, who sits on the Commons environmental audit committee, condemned the extent of co-ordination between the government and nuclear companies that the emails appear to reveal.
“The government has no business doing PR for the industry and it would be appalling if its departments have played down the impact of Fukushima,” he said.
Louise Hutchins, a spokeswoman for Greenpeace, said the emails looked like “scandalous collusion”. “This highlights the government’s blind obsession with nuclear power and shows neither they, nor the industry, can be trusted when it comes to nuclear,” she said…….
Tom Burke, a former government environmental adviser and visiting professor at Imperial College London, warned that the British government was repeating mistakes made in Japan. “They are too close to industry, concealing problems, rather than revealing and dealing with them,” he said.
“I would be much more reassured if DECC had been worrying about how the government would cope with the $200bn-$300bn of liabilities from a catastrophic nuclear accident in Britain.”……http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/30/british-government-plan-play-down-fukushima
Britain’s national embarrassment – the failing Hinkley nuclear white elephant
The Hinkley Saga is a National Embarrassment no2 nuclear power nuCLEARnews No 78 October 2015 Two of the world’s biggest ratings agencies have warned that EDF and its Chinese partners face credit-rating downgrades if they press ahead with the £24.5 billion Hinkley Point C nuclear project, according to The Times. And the Chinese appear to be refusing to take a 40% equity stake in the project – opting instead for 30% or less.
UK’s new National Infrastructure Commission – first casualty may be Hinkley nuclear
The National Infrastructure Commission nuCLEAR news No 2 nuclear power October 15 At the Conservative Party Conference George Osborne announced the establishment of a National Infrastructure Commission (NIC). (1) It looks as though this will take control over the entire energy policy brief out of the Department for Energy and Climate Change.
Oliver Tickell, writing in the Ecologist, asks if this could be a way out of the Hinkley C debacle for the Government. (2) Osborne told the Conference that he wants the NIC and its chairman Lord Adonis to begin work immediately: “to make sure Britain has the energy supplies it needs.” Tickell says: “It was notable that in his speech on Monday Osborne had absolutely nothing to say about nuclear power or Hinkley C – even though he had only just returned from a trip to China to drum up controversial Chinese investment in Hinkley C and other nuclear power stations.
That could reflect that fact that there is still no agreement over key elements of the proposed deal. Meanwhile questions proliferate – over safety fears, ballooning costs, why the UK energy consumer should be financing the Chinese Communist Party, and the wisdom of having the very company that makes China’s nuclear weapons running nuclear plants in the UK.”
The first casualty of handing over decisions about energy to the NIC, which is answerable to the Treasury, could be Hinkley Point C. The Treasury’s information page on the NIC indicates some welcome strategic thinking on energy – something that has been almost entirely lacking in recent government policy. “The UK’s power sector has a growing problem in matching demand and supply, meaning that keeping the lights on requires a level of redundancy in the system – generation which is not always used.
The NIC will look at how to optimise solutions to this problem, including through large scale power storage – where innovation is needed to bring down costs; demand management – how to incentivise flexibility in demand so we don’t need as many power stations; and interconnection – how we best link the UK to the markets in the rest of Europe.” (3) ……..http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo78.pdf
Dangers of UK-China plan for nuclear power at Bradwell Estuary
Will Bradwell get a Chinese Reactor? nuCLEAR news No 2 nulcear power October 2015 It is now pretty clear that David Cameron will sign an agreement with the Chinese Government, at the time of the State Visit of President Xi Jinping on 20th October, that will enable two Chinese state-owned nuclear companies to develop the site at Bradwell which is currently owned by EdF, says the Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group. (BANNG)
The development could happen rather quicker than anyone might have imagined, says the group because of the financial problems and delays with Hinkley Point. “Cameron’s folly means the sacrifice of the Blackwater estuary,” said Professor Andy Blowers, Chair of the Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG). “Basically, the estuary will be trashed if this goes ahead.”
“This love-in between the British and Chinese Governments takes absolutely no account of the impact and implications that will be unleashed on the Blackwater estuary. The obstacles, including the problems of cooling water from such a shallow estuary, are massive”. Barry Turner, Vice Chair of BANNG, commented: “For BANNG, the simple fact is that the Bradwell site is totally unsuitable for a new power station no matter who the developer might be.
The delicate Blackwater estuary cannot cope with the demands of a new nuclear power station without its effective destruction. The long-term risks from rising sea-levels and coastal change will be phenomenal leaving not only a power station with all its inherent dangers but an everlasting residue of dangerous radioactive wastes on a site that is likely to disappear over the next two centuries. There is no thought for the future in this and it is immoral to be undertaking such an enterprise on such a location.
Bringing such a monster to the Blackwater is nothing short of monstrous”. In return for helping out with the increasingly expensive Hinkley Point plant in Somerset, the Chinese have been told they can use the site of an old nuclear power station at Bradwell-on-Sea, on the Blackwater estuary, to build a reactor of their own design. “I am not worried about the Chinese. I am worried about us”, says Charles Clover writing in the Sunday Times.
For it is an open question whether British standards of regulation are up to the expectations of people who live in places such as West Mersea, just across the water from Bradwell. “We have some excellent regulations in Britain, but the problem is that all too often we choose to ignore them. I believe the public can live with the risks of the nuclear industry as long as there is transparency, and that there is not an instant return to the culture of secrecy and political influence over regulators that some of us remember from Sellafield in the bad old days. For if we wish to have both electricity and oysters, the problem is ourselves, not the Chinese.” (2) A peaceful protest including a flotilla of boats was held on Mersea Island by campaigners on 4th October. (3)…. http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo78.pdf
Scotland’s Labour MPs join Jeremy Corbyn in supporting nuclear disarmament
Neil Findlay convinced unilateral nuclear disarmament campaign will win Trident debate, Courier UK,
By PRESS ASSOCIATION, 8 October 2015 Jeremy Corbyn’s closest ally in Scotland has said he is “absolutely convinced” those in favour of unilateral UK nuclear disarmament will win the argument.
Labour MSP Neil Findlay clashed with party colleague Jackie Baillie at Holyrood today over the best tactics to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
Two other Labour MSPs, Malcolm Chisholm and Elaine Smith, signed an SNP motion opposing the renewal of Trident – in a foretaste of the wider debate expected at the Scottish Labour Party conference later this month.
Mr Findlay, Mr Corbyn and Shadow Scottish Secretary Ian Murray favour unilateral UK disarmament in the hope it will convince other countries to follow suit, but they are at odds with Labour’s multilateralist support for Trident renewal.
UK Labour reaffirmed its support for Trident at its conference last month but Mr Corbyn caused confusion by admitting he would never launch a nuclear attack.
Scottish Infrastructure Secretary Keith Brown, a former marine, said it is “deeply immoral” for Labour to advocate spending £100 billion on weapons it would not use……. http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/neil-findlay-convinced-unilateral-nuclear-disarmament-campaign-will-win-trident-debate-1.904087
Time to give up the irrational doctrine of ‘nuclear deterrence’
a doctrine of mutual assured destruction……..in the case of nuclear arms, retaliation – whereby, in response to half the world being destroyed, you decide to destroy the other half – would not only be morally inexcusable, but irrational. Welcome to the nuclear hall of mirrors…..
there’s one thing that deterrence doesn’t protect against – the possibility of nuclear accident.
If a world without nuclear weapons is achievable, it will require political leadership. A country giving up its own would be a rare and shining thing: an altruistic act in world affairs. The cost would be minimal, the savings great, and it would make us far more convincing when trying to dissuade others from acquiring nuclear capability. Britain should do it.
It’s time to leave the nuclear hall of mirrors, Guardian, David Shariatmadari, 6 Oct 15
Deterrence isn’t enough to keep us safe: the prospect of a nuclear accident alone justifies ridding the world of these weapons. Britain should lead the way “Nuclear weapons can wipe out life on Earth, if used properly.” Despite being found in the liner notes of a Talking Heads album, this is the sentence I think best captures the bizarre contradictions of the atomic age. Human beings have manufactured bombs explicitly designed to unleash destructive forces equivalent to hundreds of thousands of tonnes of TNT. Deploy them and millions die; civilisation as we know it could disappear. And yet, they’re not actually supposed to be used. In fact, their proper function is to remain in the ground, or at sea, or in the air. Launch, fire or drop ‘em and the whole system has failed. Is there any other device so intricately constructed in order to decrease the likelihood of its own use?
Last week, Jeremy Corbyn, a man with at least a chance of being entrusted with the launch codes for 225 British warheads, stated that he would never press the nuclear button. I asked philosopher Jonathan Glover, whose book Humanity: A Moral History of the 20th Century, includes a study of the Cuban missile crisis, about the comments. He confirmed most analyses so far. “On the assumption that if he’s PM he has full say, that would indeed get rid of any deterrence”. In other words, were Corbyn to gain power, those weapons would become immediately impotent. His shadow defence secretary, Maria Eagle, called the remarks “unhelpful”.
Corbyn had let the air out of the nuclear balloon, given the game away. Continue reading
Serious questions about China’s involvement in Britain’s new nuclear power projects
Serious issues for George Osborne on China’s role in the UK’s nuclear future The Conversation, Jeffrey Henderson Professor of International Development, University of Bristol October 5, 2015 George Osborne will address the Conservative party conference on Monday fresh from a sales trip to Beijing. His efforts to drive more trade between the two nations saw Chinese state-owned companies invited to participate in the development of nuclear generating plants in Britain. They will have the chance to work with French state-owned company, EDF at Hinkley Point, Somerset and will be the sole operators at Bradwell, Essex. The move has already attracted doubts but there are other vital issues that have yet to be aired. These can be crystallised into five clear questions that Osborne and his government must answer.
Safety concerns
Two Chinese companies are involved with Hinkley Point: China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) and China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGN). The latter was responsible, under its previous guise (China Guangdong Nuclear Power) for building and running China’s first nuclear station, Daya Bay, near Hong Kong. It was initially improperly built – with reinforcement rods missing from the concrete base under the reactor – and there have since been reports of minor leakages of radioactive materials (though this is difficult to check, given China’s lack of transparency).
The deeply corrupt environment in which many Chinese companies operate compounds the possibility of these companies being lax on safety measures and it’s simply not good enough to say that Britain has one of the tightest nuclear safety regimes in the world. Confronted with the power of the Chinese government and the British government’s enthusiasm for unceasing flows of Chinese investment, the risk must be that the regulatory agency will be sidestepped or unable to cope………
Who builds what and with which workers?
The public needs to know whether Chinese construction companies will be involved in building Hinkley Point and other power stations and, if so, whether they will seek to use workers from China. ……..
One of the companies involved at Hinkley Point – China National Nuclear – produces China’s nuclear weapons. This means that as well as the Communist Party, CNNC is almost certainly controlled by the People’s Liberation Army (as all Chinese military-related companies are). Given geopolitical uncertainty (with rising tensions between China, Japan and the US over China’s territorial claims in the East and South China Seas), allowing such a company anywhere near Britain – not to mention in an industry as strategic as power generation – verges on the insane. Has MI5 been consulted on this, and if it has, what was its advice?
At its heart, the question of Chinese state (and thus Communist Party) involvement in Britain’s power generation, is a matter of national security. In its desire to help financial services (the only economic sector it privileges) penetrate the Chinese market, the government’s nuclear quid pro quo means it is set to embark on a potentially very dangerous path. Had this deal been negotiated by Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister, the media would have been wondering if he were in the pay of the Chinese government. But George Osborne? Surely not.
Osborne may address some of these concerns in Monday’s speech, but it seems unlikely. In any case, before any binding commitments are made, it’s vital that the government’s proposal be opened up to public debate and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. https://theconversation.com/serious-issues-for-george-osborne-on-chinas-role-in-the-uks-nuclear-future-48541
Cyber security danger to nuclear stations
Nuclear power plants ‘highly vulnerable’ to cyber-attacks,Rt.com 6 Oct, 2015 British nuclear power plants are at risk of cybe-attack, thanks to a “culture of denial” regarding the risks, a report by security think tank Chatham House claims.
The “Cyber Security at Civil Nuclear Facilities: Understanding the Risks” report involved a study of cyber-security at plants across Europe and interviews with 30 senior officials in the nuclear industry and the governments of Japan, France, the UK and the US.
“Cyber security is still new to many in the nuclear industry,” Caroline Baylon, the report’s author, told the Financial Times. “They are really good at safety and, after 9/11, they’ve got really good at physical security. But they have barely grappled with cyber,” she said, adding the industry suffers from a “culture of denial.”
The security issues stem from the increasing digitization of nuclear facilities by using relatively easily available technology to trim expenditure.
“The cyber security risk is growing as nuclear facilities become increasingly reliant on digital systems and make increasing use of commercial ‘off-the-shelf’ software, which offers considerable cost savings but increases vulnerability to hacking attacks,” the report argues.
“Meanwhile, hacking is becoming ever easier to conduct, and more widespread: automatic cyber-attack packages targeted at known and discovered vulnerabilities are widely available for purchase.”
The report says there is a real risk of a devastating incident like the one which occurred at the Fukushima plant in Japan in 2011, when an earthquake and resulting tsunami hit and badly damaged the facility………https://www.rt.com/uk/317774-nuclear-terrorism-cyber-attacks/
Rating agencies warn EDF of downgrade, if they continue with Hinkley nuclear station plan
EDF faces threat of credit downgrade over Hinkley Point Two of the world’s biggest ratings agencies have warned that EDF and its Chinese partners face credit-rating downgrades if they press ahead with a £16 billion nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset.
Amid growing doubts about the deal, Moody’s said the project would have a “credit negative effect” on the companies because of the dangers of big cost overruns and delays to EDF’s untested EPR French reactor technology……. (subscribers only) .http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/utilities/article4574734.ece
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
