nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Minimal role for nuclear in UK government agency’s Clean Energy plan

NFLA 6th Nov 2024 https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/minimal-role-for-nuclear-in-government-agencys-clean-energy-plan/

The Nuclear Free Local Authorities have noted that a report from Labour’s new National Energy System Operator (NESO) just out identifies a miniscule contribution from nuclear in Britain’s future clean energy mix.

Clean Power 2030 highlights the priorities for the new agency and two primary pathways – one with and one without a flexible contribution from biomass, hydrogen and Carbon Capture and Storage – to achieve a clean power network by the end of this decade.

In a network generating 143 gigawatts (GW) through a mix of renewable technologies, nuclear is only earmarked to provide a supplement of 4.1 GW.

The report calls for a tripling in offshore wind generation from 15 to 43 – 50 GW, a doubling in onshore wind from 14 to 27 GW, and a tripling of solar panel generation from 15 to 47 GW.

NESO also emphasises the need to dramatically increase battery storage capacity from 5 GW to over 22 GW, to increase long-duration storage capacity from 3 to 8 GW, and to invest significant sums to quickly roll out the necessary enhanced transmission system to support the transition of heat, industry and transport to electrification[i].

The derisory contribution from nuclear is clearly a sop to the nuclear industry and unions, and a means to retain the necessary transferable knowledge to maintain Britain’s nuclear arsenal.

It is calculated by assuming that one reactor at Hinkley Point C will come on-line by 2030 and that an existing Advanced Gas Cooled reactor plant and Sizewell B remain in operation[ii].

Generation from Hinkley’s second reactor will come sometime beyond that date, and any deployment of Small Modular Reactors and development of Sizewell C remains uncertain.

Commenting NFLA Chair Councillor Lawrence O’Neill said: “NESO recognises that a clean power future means our reliance upon electricity generated by renewables. Renewable generation can be delivered quicker and cheaper, without risk or radioactive contamination, deliver many new jobs, and provide this nation and its people with homegrown energy security.

“Not so long ago there was much talk of the need for nuclear power as a baseload, but in this report, this myth is destroyed as the contribution of nuclear power is identified as marginal. Its inclusion in the mix is clearly them a sop to the nuclear industry and unions, and a means to retain the necessary transferable knowledge to maintain Britain’s nuclear arsenal.

“Nuclear and clean power should not be seen in the same room for how can nuclear be clean when the National Audit Office has recently identified that to ‘clean up’ the radioactive legacy at Sellafield could cost taxpayers up to £253 billion in a mission lasting a further 100 years?”

“Nuclear and clean power should not be seen in the same room for how can nuclear be clean when the National Audit Office has recently identified that to ‘clean up’ the radioactive legacy at Sellafield could cost taxpayers up to £253 billion in a mission lasting a further 100 years?”

.For more information contact NFLA Secretary Richard Outram by email to richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk

[i] Page 18, https://www.neso.energy/document/346651/download

[ii] Page 28, Ibid

November 10, 2024 Posted by | ENERGY, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear lobby continues its infiltration of education

Alde Valley Academy students design Sizewell C power station

Alde Valley Academy students design Sizewell C power station. Students were
tasked with a unique challenge to design the planned Sizewell C nuclear
power station using digital Lego bricks.

East Anglian Daily Times 8th Nov 2024

November 10, 2024 Posted by | Education, UK | Leave a comment

UK budget outlines nuclear power plans (new nuclear not a high priority)


 Nuclear Engineering International 5th Nov 2024

The first budget of the UK Labour Government included decisions related to both the Sizewell C NPP and to plans for small modular reactors (SMRs). However, this was clearly not a high priority in the 170-page budget. The small eight paragraph section on the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero (DESNZ) included just two short paragraphs on nuclear.

DESNZ was allocated total funding of £14.1bn ($18.2bn) in 2025-26 up 22.0% from 2023-24. The main paragraph (4.75) notes that “Making Britain a clean energy superpower is one of the five missions of this government. Great British Energy (GBE) will be at the heart of the mission.” GBE is allocated £100m million capital funding in 2025-26 “for clean energy project development” and £25m to establish GBE as a company, headquartered in Aberdeen. Investment activity will be undertaken by the National Wealth Fund, “helping it to make initial investments as quickly as possible”.

The budget says “new nuclear will play an important role in helping the UK achieve energy security and clean power while securing thousands of good, skilled jobs” (para 4.80). It provides £2.7bn to continue development of Sizewell C through 2025-26. “The process to raise equity and debt for the project will shortly move to its final stages and will conclude in the Spring. As with other major multiyear commitments, a Final Investment Decision (FID) on whether to proceed with the project will be taken in Phase 2 of the Spending Review.” Phase 2 is expected in the Spring.

However, on 30 August DESNZ announced a Sizewell C Development Expenditure (Devex) Scheme that would benefit from up to £5.5bn in subsidies to get to a FID with support mainly comprising equity injections by the UK government. The £2.7bn announced in the budget is not new funding and would be taken either from £5.5bn already made available or through a separate subsidy scheme that would be established at the point of the FID.

Sizewell C, in Suffolk, is expected to host two EPR reactor units producing 3.2 GWe similar to the Hinkley Point C plant, under construction in Somerset. EDF Energy submitted a development consent order (planning application) for the plant in May 2020, which was granted in July 2022. In March 2023, the Environment Agency granted environmental permits for the plant.

The UK government in August 2023 made available a further £341m of previously allocated funding to help prepare the site for construction on top of the government’s existing £870m investment made available from the DESNZ Capital Budgets. EDF said in November 2022 that construction of Sizewell C remained subject to a FID that depended on the achievement of certain key stages, in particular the ability to raise the necessary financing. DESNZ said that, subject to receiving the relevant approvals, the government said then it was aiming to reach FID before the end of 2024. However, the FID will now be taken in Phase 2 of the Spending Review.

The decision was criticised by opponents of the Sizewell C project. Alison Downes from Stop Sizewell C noted: “For a government that criticised the opposition for playing fast and loose with the nation’s finances, the Chancellor is surprisingly happy to do the same, allocating another £2.7bn of taxpayers’ money on risky, expensive Sizewell C, without making any guarantee of a Final Investment Decision being taken.

Jenny Kirtley, Chair of Together Against Sizewell C described the decision as appalling. “It’s staggering that Labour, even though they cast doubt about the future of the project by stating, “a Final Investment Decision on whether to proceed with the project will be taken in Phase 2 of the Spending Review”, have increased the outlay of UK taxpayer funds on EDF’s Sizewell C white elephant by a further £2.7bn.”

On SMRs, the Budget said: “Great British Nuclear’s (GBN’s) Small Modular Reactor competition is ongoing and has entered the negotiation phase with shortlisted vendors.” (para 4.81). In September, GBN concluded the initial tender phase of the competition and down-selected four companies – GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy International, Holtec Britain, Rolls-Royce SMR, and Westinghouse Electric Company UK. GBN then said it expected the final decision on the technologies to be supported would be taken by the end of the year. It had previously been set for summer 2024. The Budget has now deferred that decision until the Spring 2025………………
https://www.neimagazine.com/news/uk-budget-decision-on-sizewell-c-and-smrs/

November 9, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Hinkley workers ‘unfair’ pay claim leads to action

Workers involved in the construction of the Hinkley Point nuclear power
plant have started industrial action after claiming they are being paid
unfairly. Employed by the firm Alten – a supplier for EDF’s Hinkley Point C
– the workers say they have not had a cost of living pay rise in four
years. They walked out of their Bristol office for 24 hours on Tuesday and
have now begun action which Prospect Union described as “short of a
strike”.

BBC 7th Nov 2024,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgdlg1ql5no

November 9, 2024 Posted by | employment, UK | Leave a comment

Radioactive pollution from bomb plant sparks cancer fears

The Ferret Rob Edwards, November 4, 2024

Radioactive air pollution from the nuclear weapons plant at Coulport, on the Clyde, has more than doubled over the last six years, prompting cancer warnings from campaigners.

Emissions of the radioactive gas, tritium, from the Royal Naval Armaments Depot on Loch Long, have risen steadily between 2018 and 2023 from 1.7 billion to 4.2 billion units of radioactivity, according to the latest official figures.

Campaigners say that tritium is “very hazardous” when it is breathed in, and can increase the risk of cancers. But according to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa), the emissions are well within safety limits.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has declined to say what has caused the increased pollution. Tritium is known to leak from ageing nuclear submarine reactors, and is also an essential component of nuclear bombs.

Coulport, eight miles from the nuclear submarine base at Faslane on the Gareloch, is where Trident missiles and nuclear warheads are stored. They are loaded on and off Vanguard nuclear-powered submarines at an explosives handling jetty.

The rising tritium emissions from Coulport have been revealed in Sepa’s Scottish Pollution Release Inventory. The inventory was updated in October 2024 to include figures for 2023.

Rising tritium pollution from Coulport

YearTritium emitted to air (MBq)
20181,770
20192,046
20202,298
20213,038
20223,472
20234,224
Total16,848

Source: Scottish Pollution Release Inventory

The inventory also disclosed that Faslane has discharged liquids contaminated with tritium into the Gareloch, amounting to a total of over 50 billion units of radioactivity from 2018 to 2023. The discharges peaked at 16.6 billion units in 2020.

A report released by Sepa under freedom of information law revealed that in 2019 it changed the rules to allow certain tritium-contaminated effluents from nuclear submarines at Faslane to be discharged into the Gareloch.

“Low levels” of tritium had been discovered in waste, sewage and ballast water from submarines. Sepa agreed a “minor variation” to radioactive waste regulations to allow the continued treatment and disposal of the effluents.

Tritium discharges into the Clyde from Faslane

YearTritium discharged to water (MBq)
20185,817
20196,510
202016,609
202113,416
20221,582
20236,946
Total50,880

Source: Scottish Pollution Release Inventory

Increasing tritium air pollution from Coulport was described as “worrying” by Dr Ian Fairlie, an expert on radioactivity in the environment and a former UK government advisor. He is now vice-president of the UK Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

“First, they are large, more than four billion becquerels per year; second, they are steadily increasing; and third, they are of tritium – which is very hazardous when it’s inhaled or ingested,” he told The Ferret.

The discharges from Faslane into the Gareloch were also of concern, he said. “Any dose of radiation is hazardous to some degree, so that these discharges – especially of tritium – are disquieting.”…………………………………………………………………………………
https://theferret.scot/radioactive-tritium-coulport-cancer/

November 7, 2024 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

UK says it voted against UN nuclear war panel because consequences already known

 The UK was one of three countries to vote against creating a UN scientific
panel on the effects of nuclear war because, the Foreign Office argued, the
“devastating consequences” of such a conflict are already well known
without the need for a new study. The UK, France and Russia were the only
countries to vote on Friday night against a UN general assembly committee
resolution drafted by Ireland and New Zealand to set up an international
scientific inquiry to take a fresh look at the multifaceted impact of
nuclear weapons use.

 Guardian 4th Nov 2024 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/04/uk-joins-russia-and-france-in-voting-against-un-nuclear-war-inquiry

November 7, 2024 Posted by | politics international, UK | Leave a comment

Hinkley Point and Sizewell nuclear plant engineers go on strike.

Specialist workers say they have not had a pay rise in four years and that cheap
foreign labour from India and Nigeria is being used to undercut British
workers. The cabling and pipework engineers, represented by the
professional trade union Prospect, work on the Hinkley Point C nuclear
power station being built in Somerset by EDF, as well as the Sizewell C
project planned for Suffolk.

They claim that since beginning their dispute
last year with their employer Alten, which provides engineering services
for the projects, they have discovered foreign colleagues brought in from
outside the UK and EU, from places such as India and Nigeria, are being
paid about half their wages. A source told The Times: “We started the
dispute about pay rises before it emerged that foreign colleagues were
being brought in on vastly lower wages.

“We are all on between £50,000
and £75,000 but it has since emerged that these foreign colleagues are
being paid less than £30,000. That is absolutely ridiculous for the type of
work they are doing and it is being done to drive down costs and the
internal market rate for these roles.”

The Times 5th Nov 2024 https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/energy/article/hinkley-point-and-sizewell-nuclear-plant-engineers-go-on-strike-xv0fk93dl

November 7, 2024 Posted by | employment, UK | Leave a comment

US nuclear weapons could be sited in RAF Lakenheath in spring, CND protest hears

“We are standing on the edge of the nuclear abyss. And our governments have the responsibility to keep us safe; and what are they doing? They are pushing us over the edge.”

US nuclear weapons could be sited at RAF Lakenheath as early as spring, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) has warned.

The CND’s new general secretary Sophie Bolt told dozens of protesters outside the Suffolk airbase on Saturday: “We are very very concerned about the threat of a nuclear escalation between nuclear-armed Nato and nuclear-armed Russia.

“What’s happening here at this base is absolutely central to this growing nuclear threat in eastern Europe.

“It’s also the horrific genocidal war we are seeing in the Middle East because again it’s F35-A jets here and fighter pilots based here that are involved in that war.

“This base completely ties the UK to the complicity of genocide that is being carried out against Palestinian people.”

Green Party peer Jenny Jones said it is “obviously incredibly dangerous” to site nuclear bombs in Britain due to its size and international importance.

She added: “If Russia decide to get really heavy not just with Ukraine but other countries, then we could be a target even if they just think we have nuclear weapons here.

“Secondly, it’s really undemocratic. We need a public debate about the common sense or the lack of it in siting nuclear weapons in Britain.

“We should have a debate in Parliament about this and it should be a free vote as well so we can see exactly what all MPs say about this issue.”


Former Australian minister Melissa Parke, executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, noted last month’s serious fire at BAE Systems nuclear submarine shipyard in Cumbria; Sellafield nuclear processing plant’s fines for cyber security failings; and maintenance issues on Britain’s nuclear fleet.

She said: “So fires, cyber security failings, maintenance problems on nuclear subs, I mean what could possibly go wrong?

“We are standing on the edge of the nuclear abyss. And our governments have the responsibility to keep us safe; and what are they doing? They are pushing us over the edge.”

Nuke Watch’s Peter Burt described detailed analysis of official documents by scientists, plane spotters and campaigners.

He said: “It’s very clear that we need to keep a close eye on what’s happening here.

“What there is no substitute for is eyes on the ground … in the same way we had in the 1980s we had the Cruise Watch Network, who kept tabs on what’s happening at Greenham Common.”

November 5, 2024 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

F-35 components sent to Israel from Royal Air Force base

Parts for Israel’s most advanced fighter jet have been secretly shipped from a British military base during the assault on Gaza.

Declassified UK JOHN McEVOY, 31 October 2024

  • The shipments have continued under Keir Starmer’s Labour government

Reported in partnership with Irish news site The Ditch

F-35 fighter jet parts have been secretly transported to Israel from a British air force base in Norfolk, it can be revealed.

At least seven arms shipments have been sent from RAF Marham to Israel’s F-35 airbase at Nevatim since the Gaza bombing began.

Two of the deliveries took place this summer shortly after Keir Starmer became UK prime minister.

The information is contained within cargo documents reviewed by The Ditch and Declassified.

The documents show that the UK government has not only been approving F-35 export licences to Israel, but actively facilitating their transportation through British military sites.

F-35 supplies have become particularly controversial after it emerged that Israel used one of the planes to bomb a designated safe zone in Gaza, Al-Mawasi, killing 90 people.

Campaign Against Arms Trade’s Sam Perlo-Freeman told Declassified: “The F-35 plays a major part in Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza and brutal bombardment and invasion of Lebanon”.

He added that “the UK is not only licensing the supply of spare parts, but actively using UK military assets to facilitate their delivery. This makes UK ministers and potentially even military personnel complicit in war crimes”.

The International Criminal Court is currently considering arrest warrants for Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defence minister Yoav Gallant. Human Rights Watch has warned that countries supplying Israel with arms could be complicit.

F-35 shipments

The seven shipments of F-35 parts from RAF Marham took place on 11 November 2023, 13 January, 21 January, 7 February, 28 April, 28 July, and 6 August 2024.

In six of those cases, the registered sender was the Lockheed Martin UK Integrated Systems office which is based in Havant, a town near Portsmouth.

Lockheed Martin is a major US arms corporation and the lead player in the international consortium that produces the F-35 fighter jets.

The Havant site is Lockheed Martin’s main headquarters in Britain, employing over 500 staff and working on the F-35 programme.


The components were transferred from RAF Marham to Heathrow Airport, and then transported to Tel Aviv on cargo flights operated by Israeli airline El Al……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Munitions for Israel

Labour suspended some arms export licences to Israel last month but will continue to allow shipments of F-35 components to Israel through “global hubs”.

The UK Ministry of Defence did not dispute that F-35 parts had been supplied directly to Israel from RAF Marham on the dates found by The Ditch and Declassified………………………………………………………………..more https://www.declassifieduk.org/f-35-components-sent-to-israel-from-royal-air-force-base/?utm_source=drip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ICYMI+-+Weekly+Roundup

November 5, 2024 Posted by | Israel, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Why Nimbys are wrong about solar farms

Opponents of solar farms often say that solar panels should be put on roofs and that fields should be left for agriculture so i asked the experts on whether they agreed

By Tom Bawden, Science & Environment , November 3, 2024 ,
https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/why-nimbys-are-wrong-about-solar-farms-3355702

Tory leadership loser Robert Jenrick said that solar panels are “for roofs not fields” when asked byi last month if he supported a proposed giant solar farm in his Nottinghamshire constituency.

He is by no means alone in that view, which is a common argument given by opponents of solar farms.

Those who protest against solar farm developments argue fields would be better used for growing food, while solar panels could and should be concentrated on roofs, of which there are quite literally millions in the UK.

“I’ve said that we must ban solar farms from prime agricultural land and I mean it. These facilities are despoiling our beautiful countryside and jeopardising our food security. We must end it,” Mr Jenrick added.

But since Labour came to power Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has approved four of the five biggest solar farms to be given planning permission in the UK.

Mr Miliband has vowed to take on “the blockers, the delayers, the obstructionists” who oppose large solar and onshore wind development to help the UK meet its ambitious targets to make the country’s energy supply virtually carbon neutral in just six years.

As the Government steps up its campaign to drive through new solar and wind projects, it is likely we will be seeing more projects of a similar scale too that opposed by Mr Jenrick in the coming years.


i
 asked experts whether it was feasible for the UK to do without new solar farms and instead confine new solar panel installations to the rooftops of households, offices and other business properties, and what effect this could have on food security.

The sale of the solar challenge

Experts were clear that there needs to be a huge and rapid increase in renewable energy generation if the UK is to have any chance of meeting its highly ambitious climate targets.

And, as the cheapest source of renewable energy – now costing less than onshore and offshore wind, according to government figures – solar will inevitably play a key role in the transformation of the UK’s energy supply.

The Conservative’s British Energy Strategy in April 2022 outlines the need for 70 gigawatts (GW) of solar power to be installed by 2035 – enough to power 20 million homes, according to National Grid.

As of June 2024, the UK only had about 17GW installed capacity (powering around 4.5million homes), meaning the country needs to quadruple its solar power generation in the next 11 years.

Two thirds of the current solar power is generated by solar farms with panels on the ground – known as “ground mount” – with the remaining third coming from the rooftops of businesses and over 1.5 million homes.

Meanwhile, government advisor the Climate Change Committee estimates that we will need 90GW of solar by 2050 (5.3 times current capacity) if we are to hit our legally binding target of becoming Net Zero.

Dr Simon Harrison, a member of the Government’s new advisory commission to help make the UK’s power generation virtually carbon neutral by 2030, told i the task is so great that it’s “going to require vastly more renewable energy generation” – meaning that “in practice both solar farms and roof top solar will be needed at scale to meet our needs”.

“There’s a significant role for both,” added Professor Rob Gross, who also sits on the commission.

What are the advantages of solar farms?

The first major advantage of solar farms is the sheer amount of energy they produce.

The 600 MW Cottam Solar farm that was granted planning permission in September would be the UK’s largest – supplying 180,000 homes, or 1,500 homes for every 5MW of energy generated.

By contrast, large solar rooftop installs, say over an airport or large of space, typically generate hundreds of kilowatts (kW) potentially up to a few megawatts (MW).

While the average solar rooftop installation size on someone’s home for their own use is typically 4kW.

So the Cottam Solar project would generate at least 200 times the electricity of the very largest commercial roof top installations and around 150,000 times as much as a typical household solar panel setup.

Tony Slade, technical director of Beaverbrook Energy, which designs, finances and builds low-carbon energy generators, told i: “Ground mounted solar farms also suffer from less ‘shading’ (blocking of direct sunlight through obstacles and obstructions) and ‘directional losses’ by being angled in the wrong direction.

“About 50 per cent of roofs face the wrong way and of those that face the right way about 25 per cent suffer from shading issues,” he said.

Are solar farms cheaper than roof panels?

Yes, in part because they benefit from economies of scale. In other words, the bigger the solar farm, the cheaper each unit of electricity will be, as more panels can benefit from the infrastructure.

Professor Gross, who is also director of the UK Energy Research Centre coalition of researchers, told i “the principal advantages are economic”.

“It is far cheaper to install each solar panel in a large array of thousands of panels than it is to install a handful of panels on a roof.

“Ground mounted is cheapest, followed by larger arrays on commercial units, followed by new build, followed by residential retrofit. All categories are getting cheaper but it is impossible to get away from the fundamentals – the cheapest solar will always be the simplest to install, in the largest arrays,” he said.

“And ground mounted developers building large schemes may also be able to negotiate the best deals for panels and equipment,” he added.

Mr Slade explains that greenfield ground mount solar panels on fields typically cost two thirds as much, per unit of energy, as large scale solar panel arrays on commercial buildings such as warehouses, shopping centres and factories – as well as new build domestic and commercial buildings, where the solar panels are fitted as part of the original construction.

Meanwhile, installing solar panels above car parks is typically twice as expensive as wind farms and retrofitting homes is about three times as expensive, he said.

What about food security?

Opponents of large solar farms often argue that the land would be better used for agriculture and that too many of them could impact food security.

But the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero firmly rebuts those suggestions, arguing the amount of agricultural land involved would make very little difference to the UK’s food production.

“Our plans to boost solar power do not risk the UK’s food security. The total area of agricultural land used for solar is very small and is often the lowest grade quality for food production.

“Even in the most ambitious scenarios, solar would still occupy less than 1 per cent of the UK’s agricultural land, while bringing huge benefits for the British public and our energy security,” the spokesperson added.

Meanwhile, in July, National Farmers’ Union boss Tom Bradshaw warned MPs against making “sensationalist” claims about food security.

“It’s a small amount of land which is being taken out of production,” he told the Politico Europe website.

The role of rooftop solar panels

“They can potentially play a very important role, accounting for perhaps 40 per cent of new installation of solar. But it’s important to be clear that rooftop and ground based are additive not competitive,” Professor Gross said.

Dr Harrison says “there are serious considerations to make on where solar is placed”, meaning that sometimes roof top solar power can be far more suitable than those in fields.

“In the simplest terms, there is more space in rural areas for solar panel installations and it is often easier to optimise their positioning for greater energy capture. But they are generally further from existing grid connections and with sometimes competing requirements for land use,” he said.

“On the other hand, rooftop solar, most commonly in urban settings, often avoids use of congested electricity networks, especially when combined with local batteries, and when used in homes tends to drive greater awareness and action by residents in other areas such as energy efficiency improvements, as well as reducing bills. In practice both will be needed at scale to meet our needs.”

The Government estimates there are 250,000 hectares of south-facing, industrial roof space across the country. That’s an area bigger than London and Manchester combined, with the potential for a vast amount of solar panels.

Even a very conservative estimate suggests that this commercial roof space could provide an area big enough to generate approximately 25GW of energy.

This amounts to nearly half the total amount recommended by the Climate Change Committee (CCC), according research by University College London for the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).

Mr Ramandani agrees that fields and rooftops can play different, complementary, roles in UK energy generation.

“We need about 18GW more of rooftop solar to hit 70GW by 2035 to keep us on the right path to Net Zero. So it will play a massive role,” he said.

“Rooftop solar can power people’s homes and business onsite without needing to pull from the grid, and excess generation can be stored or exported back to the grid, which supports the flexibility and security of the grid. And they operate at a smaller scale with some export to the overall grid system.

“Solar farms, meanwhile, are not onsite generation – they operate at a much bigger scale and power the grid with greater quantities of energy, which is used by the whole system and not specific to a home or business (before they export the excess generation that they don’t use or store).”

Is there a big role for household solar panels?

UK households are already waking up to solar panels, receiving record sums last year for the amount of excess energy they generated that they sold back to the grid, Ofgem said last week.

Homeowners received more than £30m for the energy they didn’t need in the year to March 2024, four times the £7.2m they made the previous year.

Although this amounted to a relatively small amount of energy – enough to power 88,000 homes – experts say there is considerable scope to increase this and they expect this to happen in the coming years.

“There is definite major role for rooftop solar in the UKs future energy mix,” said Mr Slade. “As installations become cheaper and the market for excess generation becomes fairer to the home owner rooftop domestic solar will continue to grow,” he said.

Mr Ramandani says: “Onsite solar rooftop generation takes money off consumer’s bills as they purchase less from the grid, and excess generation can be exported to the grid for income. This in turn creates a stable grid system with less demand side pressure, as well as supplementary energy generation from homes and businesses.

For a typical house, installing a PV system could lower bills by the equivalent of nearly 330 every year over the 30-year lifespan of the system, according to a study by Cambridge University and the Think Three property development company for Solar Energy UK.

November 5, 2024 Posted by | renewable, UK | Leave a comment

101 BBC journalists say it is biased against Palestine

Sat 2 Nov 2024, https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/101-bbc-journalists-say-it-is-biased-against-palestine/

JVL Introduction

The BBC has been accused of bias against Israel but here over 230 people, including 101 BBC journalists have argued that there is a strong bias towards Israel and certainly the Israeli narrative.  The letter was sent to the Independent arguing that Broadcaster bias is failing to hold Israel to account.

It is noteworthy that only 72 of the 230 signatories felt able to sign openly and this included none of the BBC journalists.  Distrust of mainstream media is growing but there is a real need for unbiased reporting.  The BBC has previously claimed that the fact it receives complaints from those in support of Israel as well as those in support of Palestine shows its impartiality.  This letter, and many other articles and letters before, show this to be nonsense.

LL

This article was originally published by Digi on Fri 1 Nov 2024. Read the original here.

Hundreds of journalists and personalities accuse BBC of bias in favor of Israel and call for a return to “fairness and impartiality”

More than 230 members of the media industry and personalities, including 101 BBC employees, accuse the British media outlet of providing favourable coverage of Israel and call on the public broadcaster to “recommit to fairness, accuracy and impartiality” in its reporting on the Gaza Strip.

Digi

In a letter sent to Tim Davie, signed by more than 230 members of the media industry, including 101 anonymous BBC employees, the corporation is criticized for failing to enforce its own editorial standards by lacking “fair evidence-based journalism in its coverage of Gaza.”

Seen exclusively by The Independent, the letter, which was also signed by Baroness Sayeeda Warsi and actress Juliet Stevenson, calls on the BBC to report “without fear or favour” and “to recommit to the highest editorial standards – with an emphasis on fairness, accuracy and due impartiality.”

The letter also calls on the broadcaster to implement a number of editorial commitments, including “reiterating that Israel does not offer foreign journalists access to Gaza; clarifying when there is insufficient evidence to support Israeli claims; clarifying where Israel is the perpetrator in article titles; including the usual historical context before October 2023; and firmly challenging the Israeli military and government in all interviews.”

The BBC denied these claims, insisting that it “strives to live up to our responsibility to provide the most reliable and impartial news”.

“When we make mistakes or have made changes in the way we report, we are transparent. We are also very clear with our audience about the limitations imposed on our reporting – including the lack of access to Gaza and restricted access to certain parts of Lebanon, as well as our continued efforts to attract reporters to those areas,” a spokesperson said.

Other signatories on the list include historian William Dalrymple, Dr. Catherine Happer, lecturer in sociology and director of media at the University of Glasgow, Rizwana Hamid, director of the Centre for Media Monitoring, and broadcaster John Nicolson.

This is not the first time the BBC has been criticised for bias during the Gaza war. In September, the BBC rejected claims that it had violated its own guidelines more than 1,500 times following a controversial report that claimed some BBC correspondents had excused or downplayed Hamas’ activities. A BBC spokesperson said at the time that it would “carefully consider” the complaint, but denied the allegations of bias.

However, the signatories of the letter insist that the BBC favors Israel. A current staff member who signed the letter told The Independent that some of their colleagues had left the institution because of its cover-up. “I have never witnessed, in my entire career, such low levels of confidence,” they said. “I have colleagues who have left the BBC in recent months because I simply don’t think our reporting on Israel and Palestine is sincere. Many of us feel paralyzed by fear.”

Another said they were “losing faith in the organisation they work for” after seeing a “huge difference” in the BBC’s approach to Israel. They added: “I really care about the future of the BBC and every day I see that we are losing the trust of audiences around the world. People change the channel to find the reality of what’s going on because we just don’t give it to them.”

Examples provided by staff include “dehumanizing and misleading headlines,” including the one given to an article about a six-year-old girl who was shot by the Israeli army in Gaza in January 2024. Speaking about the headline “Hind Rajab, 6, found dead in Gaza days after phone calls for help,” a signatory of the letter said: “This was not an act of God. The perpetrator, Israel, should have been on the front page and it should have been clear that she was killed.”

“Palestinians are always treated as an unreliable source and we consistently prioritise Israel’s version of events, despite the IDF’s well-documented history of lying,” says another BBC employee, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“It seems that we often prefer to drop Israel from the title, if possible, or question who might be to blame for the airstrikes. The level of verification expected for anything related to Gaza far exceeds what is the norm for other countries,” he said.

Other concerns raised by staff include coverage omissions, such as the failure to livestream the plea of South Africa’s genocide case against Israel to the International Court of Justice on January 11, but the choice to livestream Israel’s defense the next day.

Of the 237 signatories, 72 signed publicly, including former British Foreign Secretary and Baroness Warsi and actress Juliet Stevenson, as well as dozens of academics. The letter, while focusing on the BBC, also highlights the shortcomings of other media outlets, including ITV and Sky.

“This conflict is one of the most polarizing stories that people are reporting on, and we know that people feel very much about how it is presented, not only on the BBC, but in all media. The BBC holds itself to very high standards and we strive to fulfil our responsibility to provide the most reliable and unbiased news – weighing and measuring the words we use, fact-checking and seeking a wide range of interviews and expert opinions,” the BBC said.

While acknowledging that “the BBC does not and cannot reflect any worldview”, a spokesperson insisted that it receives an almost equal measure of complaints alleging bias against Israel. “This does not mean that we assume that we are doing something right and continue to listen to all criticism – from inside and outside the BBC and reflect on what we can do better,” the institution also said.

November 4, 2024 Posted by | media, UK | Leave a comment

Launch of papers on UK’s unachievable nuclear programme

Today, Friday 1 November we are launching two papers:

In our view, these papers irrefutably demonstrate why the government’s proposed vast expansion of nuclear power in the UK is unnecessary, unjustifiable but also impossible.

We believe it is imperative that government reviews and reconsiders its nuclear policy and recognises that it cannot proceed.

The longer paper provides our considered and detailed analysis which reveals that nuclear is too costly, takes too long, is technologically challenged and leaves an expensive and unmanageable burden of wastes for future generations. More than that, there are no suitable sites for new power plants and those that are supposedly ‘potentially suitable’ will all be vulnerable to the impending ravages of Climate Change during their lifetimes.

The shorter paper (which is available for publication) presents our arguments concisely, presenting a fundamental challenge to current orthodoxy on the case for nuclear. At a time of pressure on public spending, nuclear does not represent good value for money, nor is it attractive against other more pressing social welfare priorities.

Biographical Notes:

Andrew Blowers, OBE, Emeritus Professor of Social Sciences, Open University. Former member of Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) and Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RWMAC); author The Legacy of Nuclear Power.

Stephen Thomas, Emeritus Professor of Energy Policy, University of Greenwich. Editor-in-Chief of the journal Energy Policy.

November 4, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Why ‘British’ nuclear weapons are really very American

But the idea that this weapon system is “independent” involves just as much magical thinking and is more myth than fact. Unfortunately, such myths are not harmless but deadly dangerous for every one of us and for the future of our planet.

Lakenheath is RAF in name only as it is primarily populated by US personnel and equipment. US sources have revealed that permission has been given once again for Lakenheath to host US nuclear bombs without prior consultation with the population.

By Lynn Jamieson, Scottish CND, The National 3rd Nov 2024

THE approach of a US election is a good time to consider the reality of the so-called British nuclear weapon system – its integration with and dependence on the United States of America.

Since the first test and use of nuclear bombs in 1945, the heads of the UK Government have brushed aside efforts at international agreement to ban nuclear weapons.

After the Second World War, British prime ministers wanted Britain to have nuclear bombs to keep up with America. Now the British nuclear program can only exist because of “sharing” with America.

The UK Government ignores new efforts at banning nuclear weapons. This is despite knowing that any nuclear war will end comfortable liveable life across most of this planet and that the majority of non-nuclear countries in the world disagree with their viewpoint and support the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Deviating from this blinkered commitment to nuclear weapons would rupture the “special relationship” with the USA.

The so-called British nuclear weapon system includes four nuclear-powered submarines each ready to simultaneously launch at least 40 nuclear bombs in clusters, fanning out from eight independently targeted missiles. That is eight regions to be totally obliterated by five bombs each.

This is the system described by this government and governments before it as “Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent”. This name combines the idea that the UK Government alone controls the nuclear weapon system – hence “independent” – and that it will stop any aggressor ever attacking – hence “deterrent”. Both the independent and the deterrent ideas are deeply flawed.

Many things are written about the failures and problems of deterrence, including the possible catastrophic mistakes in games of bluff and counter-bluff, the tendency towards constant escalation in nuclear arms, the target it puts on our back, the absurd costs, and the very real risks created by nurturing mass death machines in your own back yard.

But the idea that this weapon system is “independent” involves just as much magical thinking and is more myth than fact. Unfortunately, such myths are not harmless but deadly dangerous for every one of us and for the future of our planet.

The United States is involved at every level of the so-called British nuclear weapon system, from design and procurement to operation and targeting.

The flow of knowledge, technology, materials and military personnel between the US and the UK is made possible by a number of treaties, most importantly the Mutual Defence Agreement treaty. It was first signed in 1958 and has been extended and expanded multiple times since.

Nuclear bombs assembled in Britain are based on a US design and have components shipped from the USA. The USA also builds, supplies, and maintains the missiles used to “deliver” the bombs to their targets……………………………………………..

Neither the US base nor the subsequent development of the Faslane Royal Navy into a nuclear-armed, nuclear-powered submarine base involved consultation or agreement with Scottish people, a situation that many have resisted ever since………………………………………………………………………………………………

Lakenheath is RAF in name only as it is primarily populated by US personnel and equipment. US sources have revealed that permission has been given once again for Lakenheath to host US nuclear bombs without prior consultation with the population…………………………………………………….. https://www.thenational.scot/politics/24696487.british-nuclear-weapons-really-american/

November 4, 2024 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

After two months, Nuclear Free Local Authorities receive vague response on Advanced’ Gas-Cooled Reactors (AGRs)

After a two month wait, the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities has just received a cryptic reply from Labour’s Nuclear Minister in response to our concerns about the future of Britain’s aging ‘Advanced’ Gas-Cooled Reactor (AGR) plants.

Four AGR plants – Hartlepool, Heysham-1, Heysham-2, and Torness – remain operational, each equipped with two gas cooled reactors. They first began generating in either 1983 or 1988, with an estimated operational life of 30 years. The plants are currently expected to cease operations by 2028, but in the Labour Party energy manifesto ‘Mission Climate’, the party pledged to ‘extend the lifetime of the existing plants until 2030’.

The AGR fleet has been operating for many years longer than intended. The NFLAs are concerned that the graphite moderators within each reactor are degenerating, compromising safety. We have previously raised our concerns with senior officials in the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR). It is our view that it is this independent regulator which has the expertise and the legal responsibility to determine whether to further extend the operating dates that should do so, and that it is ‘frankly not the business of Ministers’.

Consequently in his letter to Nuclear Minister Lord Hunt, NFLA Chair Councillor Lawrence O’Neill posed the central question:

‘Can the Minister therefore please reassure me that Labour Ministers will not seek to apply pressure on EDF to make an application to operate these plants beyond 2028, unless they genuinely wish to do so, and more importantly will not apply pressure on the independent regulator ONR to automatically sign off on any application without rigorous scrutiny?’

In his reply, Lord Hunt says cryptically that:

‘Decisions regarding the future operation of the Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor fleet or any nuclear power station in Great Britain would be for the operator, EDF Energy, (and) the ONR. The ONR would not allow a reactor to operate, return to service or extend its operating life if it judged that it was not safe to do so’.

We are hoping that the Minister means that it will fall to the operator EDF Energy to determine if it wishes to apply to the ONR for permission to extend the operating life of any, or all, of the AGR plants, but that it will be the responsibility of the ONR to decide if it can grant that permission based upon the safety case submitted.

This is a situation that the NFLAs shall continue to watch.

November 4, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

The Wylfa nuclear power station site needs “better storage facilities for waste” 

New Civil Engineer 1st Nov 2024

The Wylfa nuclear power station site needs “better storage facilities for
waste” according to independent experts who visited. The Committee on
Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) shared a diary entry-style update
about a recent visit it made to Ynys Mon (Anglesey) for meetings and to see
the nuclear power plant.

The nuclear power plant on the island has two
reactors but Reactor 2 was shut down in 2012 and Reactor 1 was switched off
on 30 December 2015, ending 44 years of operation at the site .https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/wylfa-nuclear-site-needs-better-storage-facilities-for-waste-01-11-2024/

November 4, 2024 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment