UK « nuclear-news

Nuclear power and nuclear weapons – two sides of the same coin

In March 2024, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak explicitly linked nuclear weapons production capability with civil nuclear power generation development. This is because nuclear reactors are used to create tritium – the radioactive isotope of hydrogen – necessary for nuclear weapons.

The government has admitted its push for nuclear energy expansion is linked to its strategic military interests

by Peter Wilkinson, 12 May 2024, o https://eastangliabylines.co.uk/nuclear-power-and-nuclear-weapons-two-sides-of-the-same-coin/

The government’s apparent answer to climate change and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is to triple the amount of nuclear generated electricity in the belief that it generates ‘low carbon’ electricity. But a recent admission by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak suggests there is a strong military component to what looks on the surface to be a civil matter.

The UK review of the energy sector, prompted by the invasion of Ukraine, offered a golden opportunity to address the need to drive down demand for electricity and energy more generally. This could be achieved by retrofitting insulation to the housing stock and buildings, mandating solar panel use for all new homes, investing heavily in renewables, in emerging battery technology and in decentralisation. Instead, the government has focused on a massive expansion of nuclear-generated electricity.

The dual nuclear agenda

Now the reason has finally been openly admitted. Maintaining and improving the supply chain and the knowledge and skills base in the workforce for the UK’s £100bn Trident nuclear weapons renewal programme relies on the civil nuclear sector.

While this claim has been regularly made by anti-nuclear campaigners – and just as regularly denied by minister after minister – it is now openly acknowledged. The Roadmap states quite clearly that it is important to align civil and military nuclear ambitions across government, to strengthen the interconnections between civil and military industries’ research and development, and thereby reduce costs for both the weapons and power sectors.

The cat which was so carefully and fraudulently hidden for decades is finally out of the bag: ministers now have to acknowledge that the civil nuclear programme owes more to maintaining weapons of mass destruction – weapons that were outlawed by the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons which entered into force in January 2021 – than it has to do with salvation from the existential crisis that is climate change.

Debunking myths: the truth behind nuclear ambitions

Its brave new world aims for a nuclear sector generating upto 24 Gigawatts of electricity by 2050. That’s comparable to seven new 3.2 Gw capacity Hinkley Point Cs or Sizewell Cs or forty-eight Sizewell A-size reactors at around half a Megawatt output.

The locations for a proposed ‘mix’ of ‘gigawatt-sized reactors’ such as the European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) planned for Sizewell C, and ‘small modular’ and ‘advanced modular’ reactors (SMRs and AMRs respectively) is the subject of the government’s ‘Nuclear Road Map’.

It is, necessarily, largely a work of fiction laced with eulogies to nuclear power and liberally interspersed with admissions of hope over expectations. The truth is that Hinkley Point C is now expected to cost an eye-watering £40+bn from its original £20bn, and Sizewell C has already cost the taxpayer £2.4bn in sweeteners to the private sector.

Commercial SMRs don’t yet exist, and they are not small, unless you consider that Sizewell A falls into that category. AMRs have remained a fantasy for decades and are likely to remain so. Mention them to a nuclear regulator, and you’ll probably get a raised eyebrow in response.

Nuclear revival: promises vs reality

The Sizewell project has yet to be granted multiple construction and operating permits and licences and no final investment decision has been made. Other issues which make Sizewell C a terrible idea include:

A multi-billion hole existing in its finances
There is no reliable and guaranteed supply of potable water – of which an average of 2.2 million litres a day are required in the country’s most water-scarce area
It is situated in a flood zone
It is in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
It sits on the fastest-eroding coastline in northern Europe
An estimated 46 hectares of woodland have already been flattened
The Environment Agency (EA) has authorised the dumping of 1,590 tonnes of dead and dying fish back into the North Sea each year as a consequence of the Sizewell C cooling water intake (not to mention the 100s of millions of fish, fish larvae and other marine biota)
In addition, there will be an estimated 171 million sacrificial sand goby, none of which are acknowledged by the EA.
Radiological discharges from Sizewell C to the sea and air have contested health impacts

EDF ploughs on

The Supreme Court is still considering the merits of a judicial review appeal against the original planning approval. None of these uncertainties and deficiencies have stopped EDF devastating the areas around the development with the sanction of the local planning authority.

The tragedy is that nuclear is now a redundant technology which takes too long to come to our climate-change rescue and is not fit to be in the front-line of defence against climate change. It does not represent a plan of great urgency to meet the accelerating existential threats of climate change.

It has a rapidly narrowing window in which to contribute its electricity to the job of reducing climate change risks. When compared to renewables and conservation measures, nuclear is slow, costly and unreliable in terms of the new technology embodied in the EPR design. The Flamanville project in France, using a Sizewell EPR-type reactor, is still offline, is twelve years late and will cost four times the original budget.

The government has been in thrall to nuclear power for a long time. Perhaps with the admission of its connection to its strategic miliary goals, we can now better understand why that is. But the knowledge only deepens and entrenches the divide between the hawks and the doves.

May 14, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Reference, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

RAF Lakenheath protest to make airbase nuclear-free zone

By Tom Cann , TomCann97, Community Report, 12 May, https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/24314379.raf-lakenheath-protest-make-airbase-nuclear-free-zone/

Residents and local councillors from across East Anglia came together to protest against the US plans to station nuclear weapons at an air base in Suffolk.

Protestors and activists went to RAF Lakenheath to declare the site a nuclear-free zone.

In January, it was revealed that the US was planning to put warheads three times as strong as the Hiroshima bomb at RAF Lakenheath.

They previously stationed nuclear missiles at the site but these were removed in 2008 when the Cold War threat from Moscow had receded.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) lead a nationwide day of action on May 11.

A declaration was read out in front of the base, calling on the British government to work for global nuclear disarmament by refusing delivery of any US nuclear weapons and instead making Lakenheath a nuclear-free zone.

Sophie Bolt, from CND, said: “We know that US plans to deploy its nuclear bombs here at Lakenheath.

“This will not make us safer, but – on the contrary – make the world far more dangerous.

“With tensions still dangerously high between NATO and Russia, siting these weapons of mass destruction in Britain puts us all on the frontline of a nuclear war.”

Previously, an RAF Lakenheath spokesman said: “We recognise and support the right to peaceful protest as a fundamental aspect of a democratic society, however, it’s a long standing Ministry of Defence policy that we do not discuss the location or status of nuclear weapons.”

Activists plan more protests in July.

May 14, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

Sizewell C nuclear station ‘absolutely not inevitable’ says campaigner – Can investors be found?

The official cost of Sizewell C has been put at £20bn by the government, but many observers expect the final bill to be much higher due to increased building costs.

who would want to invest in an expensive project which will take 12 years to build, with no guarantee of a return for many more years?

Andrew Sinclair – Political editor, BBC East, Sun, 12 May 2024 https://au.news.yahoo.com/sizewell-c-absolutely-not-inevitable-091834059.html

A leading campaigner against the Sizewell C nuclear power station has said its construction is still not inevitable.

The planned energy plant, on the Suffolk coast, has just been granted its nuclear site licence.

But Alison Downes, director of campaign group Stop Sizewell C, has questioned whether the government will be able to attract enough private investment.

Ministers, who have already contributed £2.5bn to the project, have said they remain committed to the scheme.

The decision to grant Sizewell C a nuclear site licence on 7 May was described by the project team and local business groups as a “huge milestone”.

It came just months after the government granted a Development Consent Order to Sizewell C and pledged further funding to the project. Ministers have regularly referred to Sizewell C when discussing the country’s nuclear programme.

Andrew Bowie, Minister for Nuclear and Renewables, said: “Sizewell C will be the cornerstone of the UK’s clean energy transition, supplying six million homes with green energy for decades.”

But despite plenty of signs that the project could be coming closer to reality, Alison Downes insisted on BBC Politics East that “it’s absolutely not inevitable”.

“We still don’t know who is going to pay for it. The government is trying to raise funds at the moment, but there’s no guarantee it’ll be successful,” she said.

The government agreed to take a 50% stake in the development of Sizewell C after concerns about the involvement of Chinese investors and it is looking for investors to help fund the project.

Can investors be found?

The official cost of Sizewell C has been put at £20bn by the government, but many observers expect the final bill to be much higher due to increased building costs.

The prime minister told me last year that there had already been “encouraging early interest” from people wanting to invest.

But campaigners have questioned who would want to invest in an expensive project which will take 12 years to build, with no guarantee of a return for many more years.

Ms Downes, who also has concerns about the safety of the site from rising sea levels and the project’s impact on local habitats, said: “A lot of taxpayers’ money has gone into a project that has no absolute certainty of whether or not it’s going ahead.”

The argument for nuclear

But Richard Rout, the deputy leader of Suffolk County Council, told BBC Politics East that the demand for more homegrown green energy meant that Sizewell was essential.

“I think Sizewell C is now at a point where it has to happen. We need nuclear in this country to give us energy independence,” he said.

“We are now seeing Sizewell C move forward and for me [the priority now] is about minimising the impacts on the local community and maximising the benefits.”

But Alison Downes pledged to “absolutely keep fighting” .

A final decision on whether to go ahead with the project is expected to be taken by energy company EDF towards the end of 2024.

May 13, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

South Korean state energy monopoly in talks to build new UK nuclear plant.

Kepco has held early-stage discussions with British officials over
mothballed Wylfa site. South Korea’s state energy monopoly is in talks
with the UK government about building a new nuclear power station off the
coast of Wales, in what could be a big boost to Britain’s plans for a new
nuclear fleet.

Kepco has held early-stage discussions with British
officials about a new facility at the Wylfa site in Anglesey, and a
ministerial meeting is expected this coming week, according to people
briefed on the matter.

In his March Budget, chancellor Jeremy Hunt
announced the government would buy the mothballed site and another from
Hitachi for £160mn. In 2019, the Japanese industrial group scrapped its
plans to develop a nuclear project at Wylfa, writing off £2.1bn in the
process.

Hunt’s move was designed to facilitate a fresh deal with a new
private sector partner to build a power station at Wylfa, which could boost
the government’s plans to replace Britain’s current ageing fleet of
nuclear power stations.

A consortium including US construction group
Bechtel and US nuclear company Westinghouse has already proposed building a
new plant on the Wylfa site using Westinghouse’s AP1000 reactor
technology.

Another industry figure said Wylfa’s future would depend on a
decision by GB Nuclear, the government quango which now owns the site. GBN
could give the go-ahead for a large reactor or reactors at Wylfa or judge
that it is a suitable site for building a cluster of new “small modular
reactors”.

Supporters of SMRs claim their modular design would make them
relatively quick and cheap to build. “Wylfa is now the next priority site
for the UK so it makes sense that Kepco are interested, but they just need
GBN to make a decision soon about whether they do want a traditional
nuclear power station there,” the figure said.

One senior Korean
government official struck a cautious note about the prospect of Kepco
buying the site, saying that building nuclear power stations in the UK was
“difficult”.

FT 12th May 2024

https://www.ft.com/content/3404a203-158e-4fe1-9f5d-f5fb64032ffc

May 12, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, South Korea, UK | Leave a comment

Fixation on UK nuclear power may not help to solve climate crisis

Waste and cost among drawbacks, as researchers say renewables could power UK entirely

Paul Brown 10 May 24, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/10/fixation-on-nuclear-power-in-uk-may-not-help-to-solve-climate-crisis

In the battle to prevent the climate overheating, wind and solar are making impressive inroads into the once dominant market share of coal. Even investors in gas plants are increasingly seen as taking a gamble.

With researchers at Oxford and elsewhere agreeing that the UK could easily become entirely powered by wind and solar – with no fossil fuels required – it seems an anomaly that nuclear power is still getting the lion’s share of taxpayer subsidies to keep the ailing industry alive.

Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic are backing as yet unproven small modular reactors (SMRs) as an indispensable part of the answer to the climate crisis and are running competitions to get this industry started. These reactors, from tiny ones of the type that power nuclear submarines, to scaled-up versions that can, in theory, be factory produced and built in relays to provide steady power, are all still in the design stage.

As the Union of Concerned Scientists in the United States points out, whichever model is chosen they have all the drawbacks of existing nuclear power stations; expensive, even without cost overruns, and the still unsolved waste problem. The biggest disadvantage, the group says, is that even if the technology worked it would be too little, too late, to keep the climate safe.

May 12, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Moscow threatens to strike British military facilities following Cameron’s remarks

U.K. foreign secretary’s words confirm London’s growing involvement in military operations on the side of Kyiv, according to the Kremlin.

Politico, BY PIERRE EMMANUEL NGENDAKUMANA, 6 May 24

Russia said on Monday it could strike British military installations and equipment both “inside and beyond” Ukraine if British weapons are used by Kyiv to attack its territory.

“Any British military facilities and equipment on the territory of Ukraine and beyond could be a response to Ukrainian strikes with the use of British weapons on the territory of Russia,” the Russian ministry of foreign affairs said in a statement.

The Kremlin also summoned the British Ambassador to Moscow “to express a strong protest” in connection with recent comments by U.K. Foreign Secretary David Cameron……………………….

Cameron told Reuters last week that Ukraine has the “right” to use British-supplied weapons to strike Russia inside its own territory.

“Russian side views Cameron’s words as evidence of a serious escalation and confirmation of London’s growing involvement in military operations on the side of Kyiv,” according to the Russian foreign affairs ministry……………………

Earlier on Monday, Russia announced it has started preparing for nuclear weapons exercises, accusing Western officials of making “provocative statements and threats” by deepening their support for Ukraine. https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-threaten-strike-british-military-facility-david-camerons-remark-war-ukraine/

May 11, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Russia, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear lobby infiltrates West Lakes Academy and the Energy Coast University Technical College

West Cumbrian students challenged to design nuclear decommissioning robots

Business Crack, by Adam Lewis, May 9, 2024

West Cumbrian youngsters have been tasked by the Robotics and AI Collaboration (RAICo) and the Industrial Solutions Hub (iSH) to design and build robots which will be showcased at a major robotics and artificial intelligence industry event.

The students, aged between 16 and 18 from West Lakes Academy and the Energy Coast University Technical College are taking part in the challenge, with the aim of each school developing a small robot capable of transporting a mock nuclear waste barrel.

…………………..The RAICo-supported event is designed to showcase the region’s RAI capability and offers a chance for students to network with industry professionals, listen to keynote speeches and find out about career opportunities in the sector.

………..RAICo is a collaboration between the UK Atomic Energy Authority, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), Sellafield Ltd and the University of Manchester.

……..Sophie Finlinson, project manager at RAICo said: “This educational outreach initiative offers practical exposure to students interested in STEM subjects. It could represent a pivotal step in someone’s journey towards a successful career in our industry. ………………………….. https://businesscrack.co.uk/2024/05/09/west-cumbrian-students-challenged-to-design-nuclear-decommissioning-robots/

May 11, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Education, UK | Leave a comment

The UK makes licensing for nuclear fusion easier: developers can lead site selection

Fusion plants will not be subject to the same nuclear site licensing
process as fission reactors, with the UK government instead proposing
developer-led site selection and their designation as nationally
significant infrastructure projects.

World Nuclear News 9th May 2024

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UK-consults-on-new-planning-process-for-fusion-rea

May 11, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | technology, UK | Leave a comment

UK Taxpayers to fund fast-tracked nuclear fusion reactors

Planning exemptions and financial support proposed in bid to boost UK energy industry

Jonathan Leake, 8 May 2024

Pioneering nuclear fusion power plants are to be fast tracked through the planning process and supported with taxpayer money as Britain attempts to become a world leader in the technology……………. (Subscribers only) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/08/nuclear-fusion-reactors-britain-fast-tracked-taxpayer/

May 10, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Hinkley Point C: New public inquiry planned over environmental impact

New saltmarshes could be created to mitigate the power station

Somerset Live, By Daniel Mumby, Local Democracy Reporter, 8 May 24

The environmental impact of Somerset’s new nuclear power station will be the subject of a new planning inquiry which could be held in the next 18 months. Around 11,000 people are currently working at the Hinkley Point C construction site near Stogursey, with this number expected to rise to 12,000 in the coming months.

EDF Energy secured planning consent for the power station back in 2013, with construction beginning three years later – a consent which include a number of measures to offset the environmental impact of the new facility. The company is seeking to make a number of changes to the agreed measures, which will require the approval of the Planning Inspectorate – resulting in a new public inquiry where residents can have their say.

The new inquiry was confirmed in a recent report by Councillor Ros Wyke, Somerset Council‘s portfolio holder for economic development, planning and assets. She said: “EDF Energy is proposing to make some material (and non-material) changes to the development consent order (DCO) for the Hinkley Point C project.

“As a DCO, any material changes will need to be authorised by the relevant secretary of state. EDF Energy expect to submit proposals to the secretary of state in the spring of 2025.

“This is likely to result in a public examination, which would begin by the autumn of 2025.” DCOs are detailed planning consents which are issued by central government for major infrastructure projects, such as the dualling of the A303 between Podimore and Sparkford.

EDF is proposing to make the following changes to the current DCO:

Removing the need to install an acoustic fish deterrent in the Bristol Channel
Providing ecological mitigation to counter the potential loss of fish stocks from this deterrent – taking the form of new saltmarshes near the River Parrett
Changing the agreed interim spent fuel store from a wet store to a larger dry
store…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Councillor Leigh Redman, who is standing for Labour in the new Bridgwater constituency, said that he had serious concerns about the saltmarshes proposal, including how effective it would be given the other environmental factors at play. Mr Redman (who represents the Bridgwater North and Central division on the council) said: “The Bristol Channel and Severn estuary are hugely important habitats for species including salmon and eel.

“According to the government’s Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, between 18 and 46 tonnes of fish could be lost a year if the acoustic fish deterrent plan is abandoned. Saltmarshes are vulnerable to erosion caused by factors, such as stormy conditions, wave action, and human activities, particularly in this area of the tidal River Parrett.

“This erosion can lead to habitat loss and a decrease in the protective function of the marsh against flooding and coastal erosion. I really do feel that we must listen to local people that know their area.

I feel that this particular element of the mitigation needs much more thought before any decision can be made, particularly in this area of the Parrett.” Councillor Claire Sully – who is standing for the Liberal Democrats in the same constituency – has been fighting against the new saltmarshes as part of the Save Pawlett Hams campaign.

The action group held a ‘Run the Hams’ event on Sunday (May 5) to raise awareness of the issues, following a ‘Rock the Hams’ concerns held at Pawlett Pavillion at the end of April. Ms Sully – who represents the Mendip South division on the council – claimed that the new nature reserve would cost up to £50m to deliver, arguing the acoustic fish deterrent was “essential” to preventing damage to the Severn estuary.

………..Pawlett Hams is well known in aquatic beetle circles and the EDF proposals would certainly lead to a serious diminishing of freshwater aquatic biodiversity for little seeming biodiversity gain, and a huge loss of fish from the Severn estuary.

“Other wildlife that could be lost include great crested newts, water voles in the ditches, and hares.” The Planning Inspectorate will confirm the precise dates of the public inquiry once EDF has formally submitted its plans to alter the DCO for the power station.

Hinkley Point C is currently expected to be operational by 2031, following EDF’s announcement in January 2023 that it would not meet its then-target date of 2027.

https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/hinkley-point-c-new-public-9268906
—

May 10, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | environment, UK | Leave a comment

Sizewell C in Suffolk granted nuclear site licence

Campaigners ‘appalled’ as French energy company EDF gets go-ahead for next stage of project

Jillian Ambrose, 8 May 24, https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/may/07/sizewell-c-suffolk-granted-nuclear-site-licence-edf

A planned nuclear power station at Sizewell in Suffolk has been granted the first site licence in more than a decade as investors and government officials race to finalise a deal for the multibillion-pound project this year.

The licence from the nuclear regulator is considered a milestone for EDF, which plans to build Sizewell C as a replica of its Hinkley Point C project in Somerset, which has been dogged by delays and cost overruns.

The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has granted only two site licences to build new nuclear plants in more than 35 years: the first for Hinkley Point C in 2012, and the second for Sizewell.

It was granted as EDF works to reach a final investment decision on the Sizewell C project by the end of this year, depending on a government framework to finance the project and fresh investment to cover its construction costs.

EDF holds just under 50% stake in the project, while the UK government holds just over 50%. They are searching for further investment after EDF’s partner at Hinkley Point, China’s CGN, was barred from the successor project over security concerns.

Mina Golshan, a director at Sizewell C, said the licence was a “show of confidence” from the UK’s nuclear regulator that the company had a suitable site and was ready to begin large-scale construction work on a safe design replicated from Hinkley Point C.

“It’s a huge milestone and demonstrates that this project is firmly on track,” Golshan said.

EDF has blamed inflation, Covid and Brexit for a four-year delay and cost overruns at the Hinkley Point C site. It believes that by learning the lessons from Hinkley it will be able to build Sizewell C in about nine years.

Mark Foy, the ONR chief nuclear inspector and its chief executive, said the licence was granted after “extensive engagement and review” by the ONR team and would allow the regulator to take greater regulatory oversight and challenge the company as it progressed its plans.

“The licensing process is fundamental in confirming that operators of a nuclear site are ready and able to meet their obligations under the nuclear site licence, to protect their workforce and the public,” Foy said.

A group campaigning against the nuclear plant, Stop Sizewell C, said it was “appalled that a nuclear site licence has been issued when matters critical to the future safety of the site remain unresolved.

“There isn’t even a final design of the sea defences, which will be necessary to keep this vulnerable site safe for the next century and a half, at the very least. This seems to us like kicking the can down the road, on the assumption that some future generation will be able to clear up the mess,” the group said.

May 10, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety, UK | Leave a comment

The mad waste of public money by UK’s leading nuclear giants to pursue costs against a whistleblower at your expense

But perhaps this is the real reason for using public money in this way is to silence anybody else who might be thinking of exposing the dark secrets inside Sellafield. She is not the only whistleblower.

May 3, 2024 by davidhencke

One aspect of the second recent cost hearing against whistleblower and human resources consultant Alison McDermott by Sellafield and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority which was not covered is the cost to the public and us the taxpayer.

During the hearing Deshpal Panesar, KC Sellafield’s lawyer from Old Square Chambers, rather pompously told the hearing that the fact Sellafield was claiming £20,000 off Alison was ” to protect the public purse”. He and the Nuclear Commissioning Authority which was also claiming £20,000 made a huge point that her “unreasonable behaviour” by pursing them at a tribunal meant she should pay a penalty.

What is now emerging from Freedom of Information requests is that the cost to bring this action far outweighs the money they will receive even if they are 100 per cent successful.

Both nuclear giants have already spent a huge sum – nearly £700,000 of taxpayer’s money – fighting Alison, whose consultancy was terminated, after her report revealed bullying and fear among staff at the nuclear site in Sellafield.

Now it is known from FOI that both organisations have spent £59,000 between them on preparing the case for the second hearing on top of money they had already spent for the first costs hearing. This doesn’t include the cost of hearing itself which is about another £20,000 considering Sellafield’s lawyers Deshpal Paneser. KC charges £5500 a day for the hearing and Emma Mills, from DLA Piper, who charges £3000 a day . The NDA employed another barrister, Rachel Levene and solicitors Pinsent Mason. Plus there were paralegals at the hearing.

Now one would think that after a High Court judge had ruled that the first costs decision was ” unsafe” and said his view should be taken into account by judge Stuart Robertson, who has heard the second hearing, there would be pause for thought. Both nuclear organisations are also lucky they will not face an appeal. So any sane organisation would decide to leave it there.

Instead we have the economic madness, which no commercial company conducting a risk assessment would follow, of throwing more money at bringing a second case when there is not the slightest chance of getting their money back. Indeed even if they were 100 per cent successful they stand to lose £40,000 and that is by no means certain they will get that. It is only that it is our money from the taxpayer they can throw it around like confetti.

So why are they doing it? The decision must have been endorsed by Euan Hutton, the new chief executive.

Despite previously serving as a Mental Health Champion alongside Ms. McDermott to foster a kinder and more supportive work environment, Mr. Hutton is now relentlessly pursuing costs against her.

In various YouTube videos, Mr. Hutton espouses the importance of treating people with kindness, yet his actions towards Ms. McDermott are anything but. He actually says that “kindness is putting in the time to think about how different people act differently, that’s what kindness is all about” [second video from 20 seconds onwards]. By hounding her for costs related to her whistleblowing for the second time, he has subjected her to immense stress and anguish, betraying the values he once claimed to champion.

See https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1938802916244720

Now Sellafield receives £6.7 million daily from taxpayers. Mr. Hutton’s decision to waste these funds on a vindictive legal battle against a whistleblower is an egregious misuse of public money. It is a slap in the face to taxpayers who trust Sellafield to use their contributions responsibly.

The Guardian has reported that the National Audit Office will investigate Sellafield’s substantial expenditure.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/15/spending-watchdog-launches-investigation-into-sellafieldI intend to make the National Audit Office aware of this blog post, as it highlights the unethical and hypocritical behaviour of Mr. Hutton. I think the public would strongly disapprove of their money being used to persecute a brave individual who spoke out against wrongdoing.

Mr. Hutton should be held accountable for his actions, which have caused harm to Ms. McDermott and undermined Sellafield’s commitment to employee wellbeing and to a culture of openness.

I approached Sellafield and the NDA about this waste of money but both said

“These issues are still subject to legal proceedings. We cannot comment further at this stage.”

May 8, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

UK’s Nuclear roadmap is a massive detour

UK plan reveals true ‘energy’ agenda is pathway to nuclear weapons sector

By Jonathon Porritt, Beyond Nuclear 6 May 24

After 14 years of Tory mismanagement, the UK finds itself bereft of an energy strategy.

This was finally confirmed in the release of the Government’s new Nuclear Roadmap. At one level, it’s just the same old, same old, the latest in a very long line of PR-driven, more or less fantastical wishlists for new nuclear in the UK. But at another, it’s a total revelation.

For years, a small group of dedicated academics and campaigners have suggested that the UK Government’s Nuclear Energy Strategy is being driven more by the UK’s continuing commitment to an “independent” nuclear weapons capability than by any authoritative energy analysis. For an equal number of years, this was aggressively rebutted by one Energy Minister after another, both Tory and Labour.

The new Nuclear Roadmap dramatically changes all that. It sets to one side any pretence that the links between our civil nuclear programme and our military defence needs were anything other than small-scale – and of no material strategic significance. With quite startling transparency and clarity, the Roadmap not only reveals the full extent of those links, but positively celebrates that co-dependency as a massive plus in our ambition to achieve a Net Zero economy by 2050.

“Startling” is actually an understatement. Such a comprehensive volte-face is rare in policy-making circles. Every effort is usually made by Ministers to obscure the scale (let along the significance) of any such screeching handbrake turns. That is so not the case with the new Roadmap.

Courtesy of the latest forensic work done by Professors Andy Stirling and Phil Johnstone at Sussex University (who have been absolutely at the forefront of seeking to bring these links into the public domain over many years – often with mighty little support from mainstream environmental organisations, let alone “independent” commentators), chapter and verse of this volte-face can be laid bare. Just a couple of examples from the Roadmap:

“Not only does this Roadmap set a clear path for the growth of nuclear fission…it acknowledges the crucial importance of the nuclear industry to our national security, both in terms of energy supply and the defence nuclear enterprise.”
“Government will proactively look for opportunities to align delivery of the civil and nuclear defence enterprises, whilst maintaining the highest standards of non-proliferation.”
“To address the commonalities across the civil and defence supply chains, and the potential risk to our respective nuclear programmes due to competing demand for the supply chain, the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) is working closely with the Ministry of Defence and the Defence Nuclear Sector.”

And there’s a whole lot more than that! As Andy Stirling has said: “Without any reflection on what this says about previous efforts to suppress discussion of this issue, the Government is now openly emphasising its significance.”

Indeed!

As usual, the UK’s ill-informed and unbelievably gullible mainstream media would appear to have missed the significance of this gobsmacking inflection point. So one can hardly expect them to have grasped its even more significant implications for UK energy strategy as a whole. In every single particular.

Let me briefly unpack some of those particulars:

Nuclear

The new Roadmap reads like an outing to a massive nuclear sweet shop. On top of Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C, we’ll have one more big one. And then we’ll have lots of Small Modular Reactors, all over the country. And we’ll have a new fuel processing plant. And a new Geological Disposal Facility – at some much more distant point. And so on and on. 24 fantastical Gigawatts to be designed and delivered by 2050.

The reality couldn’t be more different:

We will indeed end up with Hinkley Point C – at a staggering of cost of somewhere between £26 billion and £30 billion, with consumers paying twice as much for its electricity as they will for offshore wind. And it will almost certainly not come online until the end of the decade, 15 years on from the time it was meant to be up and running.
We may possibly get Sizewell C, though the Government cannot currently guarantee the required level of investment. So a Final Investment Decision is unlikely before the next Election. At which point, Starmer may come to his senses and kill off this absurd white elephant.
We will never get a third big reactor. The economics are literally impossible to justify.
We are unlikely to get more than a couple of hugely expensive Small Modular Reactors, at some indeterminate point in the future, even with a new “flexible approach” to planning and financial inducements. Even that may prove to be an illusion. As Professor Steve Thomas has written: “Advocates of Small Nuclear Reactors claim they are cheaper and easier to build, safer, generate less waste, and will create many jobs compared to existing large reactor designs. These claims are unproven, misleading, or just plain wrong. Worldwide, no commercial design of SMR has even received a firm order yet.”
And we may or may not get life extensions for the last five power stations in the “legacy fleet” – subject to regulatory approval, which may not be all that easy given extensive cracking in their reactor cores.

In short, the Roadmap is just a massive diversion from reality. Entailing incalculable opportunity costs. And putting at risk our entire Net Zero by 2050 strategy.

Ministers know all that. But they don’t really care. Our nuclear weapons programme (including upgrading Trident) will be protected as a consequence of this, via an unceasing flow of public money into the civil nuclear cul-de-sac, at a time when our defence budget is already massively overstretched. So who cares about the missing 24GW?

Renewables

We’ll continue to see new investment into renewables here in the UK, despite (not because of) government policy, which has seriously messed up our offshore wind industry, maintained a de facto ban on onshore wind, couldn’t care less about solar, witters on vapidly about tidal without doing anything etc etc.

Meanwhile, on a global basis, renewables continue to boom………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The reasons for this almost complete silence can be traced back to successive governments’ grim intent to hang onto our so-called “independent nuclear deterrent”. At literally any costs……………………………… more https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/05/06/nuclear-roadmap-is-massive-detour/

May 7, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | 1 Comment

Military interests are pushing new nuclear power

in this supposedly “civil” strategy—are multiple statements about addressing “civil and military nuclear ambitions” together to “identify opportunities to align the two across government.”

A 2007 report by an executive from submarine-makers BAE Systems called for these military costs to be “masked” behind civil programs.

Rolls Royce even issued a dedicated report, marshaling the case for expensive “small modular reactors” to “relieve the Ministry of Defense of the burden of developing and retaining skills and capability.”

The UK government has finally admitted it

By Andy Stirling and Philip Johnstone, 6 May 24, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/05/06/military-interests-are-pushing-new-nuclear-power/

The UK government has announced the “biggest expansion of the [nuclear] sector in 70 years.” This follows years of extraordinarily expensive support.

Why is this? Official assessments acknowledge nuclear performs poorly compared to alternatives. With renewables and storage significantly cheaper, climate goals are achieved faster, more affordably and reliably by diverse other means. The only new power station under construction is still not finished, running ten years late and many times over budget.

So again: why does this ailing technology enjoy such intense and persistent generosity?

The UK government has for a long time failed even to try to justify support for nuclear power in the kinds of detailed substantive energy terms that were once routine. The last properly rigorous energy white paper was in 2003.

Even before wind and solar costs plummeted, this recognized nuclear as “unattractive.” The delayed 2020 white paper didn’t detail any comparative nuclear and renewable costs, let alone justify why this more expensive option receives such disproportionate funding.

A document published with the latest announcement, Civil Nuclear: Roadmap to 2050, is also more about affirming official support than substantively justifying it. More significant—in this supposedly “civil” strategy—are multiple statements about addressing “civil and military nuclear ambitions” together to “identify opportunities to align the two across government.”

These pressures are acknowledged by other states with nuclear weapons, but were until now treated like a secret in the UK: civil nuclear energy maintains the skills and supply chains needed for military nuclear programs.

The military has consistently called for civil nuclear

Official UK energy policy documents fail substantively to justify nuclear power, but on the military side the picture is clear.

For instance, in 2006 then prime minister Tony Blair performed a U-turn to ignore his own white paper and pledge nuclear power would be “back with a vengeance.” Widely criticized for resting on a “secret” process, this followed a major three volume study by the military-linked RAND Corporation for the Ministry of Defense (MoD) effectively warning that the UK “industrial base” for design, manufacture and maintenance of nuclear submarines would become unaffordable if the country phased out civil nuclear power.

A 2007 report by an executive from submarine-makers BAE Systems called for these military costs to be “masked” behind civil programs. A secret MoD report in 2014 (later released by freedom of information) showed starkly how declining nuclear power erodes military nuclear skills.

In repeated parliamentary hearings, academics, engineering organizations, research centers, industry bodies and trade unions urged continuing civil nuclear as a means to support military capabilities.

In 2017, submarine reactor manufacturer Rolls Royce even issued a dedicated report, marshaling the case for expensive “small modular reactors” to “relieve the Ministry of Defense of the burden of developing and retaining skills and capability.”

The government itself has remained coy about acknowledging this pressure to “mask” military costs behind civilian programs. Yet the logic is clear in repeated emphasis on the supposedly self-evident imperative to “keep the nuclear option open”—as if this were an end in itself, no matter what the cost. Energy ministers are occasionally more candid, with one calling civil-military distinctions “artifical” and quietly saying: “I want to include the MoD more in everything we do”.

In 2017, we submitted evidence to a parliamentary public accounts committee investigation of the deal to build Hinkley Point C power plant. On the basis of our evidence, the committee asked the then MoD head (who—notably—previously oversaw civil nuclear contract negotiations) about the military nuclear links. His response:

We are completing the build of the nuclear submarines which carry conventional weaponry. We have at some point to renew the warheads, so there is very definitely an opportunity here for the nation to grasp in terms of building up its nuclear skills. I do not think that that is going to happen by accident; it is going to require concerted government action to make it happen.

This is even more evident in actions than words. For instance hundreds of millions of pounds have been prioritized for a nuclear innovation program and a nuclear sector deal which is “committed to increasing the opportunities for transferability between civil and defense industries.”

An open secret

Despite all this, military pressures for nuclear power are not widely recognized in the UK. On the few occasions when it receives media attention, the link has been officially denied.

Other nuclear-armed states are also striving to maintain expensive military infrastructures (especially around submarine reactors) just when the civilian industry is obsolescing. This is true in the US, France, Russia and China.

Other countries tend to be more open about it, with the interdependence acknowledged at presidential level in the US for instance. French president Emmanuel Macron summarizes: “without civil nuclear power, no military nuclear power, without military nuclear, no civil nuclear.”

This is largely why nuclear-armed France is pressing the European Union to support nuclear power. This is why non-nuclear-armed Germany has phased out the nuclear technologies it once lead the world in. This is why other nuclear-armed states are so disproportionately fixated by nuclear power.

These military pressures help explain why the UK is in denial about poor nuclear performance, yet so supportive of general nuclear skills. Powerful military interests—with characteristic secrecy and active PR—are driving this persistence.

Neglect of this picture makes it all the more disturbing. Outside defense budgets, off the public books and away from due scrutiny, expensive support is being lavished on a joint civil-military nuclear industrial base largely to help fund military needs. These concealed subsidies make nuclear submarines look affordable, but electricity and climate action more costly.

The conclusions are not self-evident. Some might argue military rationales justify excessive nuclear costs. But history teaches that policies are more likely to go awry if reasons are concealed. In the UK—where nuclear realities have been strongly officially denied—the issues are not just about energy, or climate, but democracy.

Andy Stirling is Professor of Science & Technology Policy in the Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex. Philip Johnstone is Research Fellow, SPRU, University of Sussex.

May 7, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The undersea nuclear graveyard now more costly than HS2

Behind the much delayed plan to store the radioactive waste generated over decades

A vast subsea nuclear graveyard planned to hold Britain’s burgeoning piles of radioactive waste is set to become the biggest, longest-lasting and most expensive infrastructure project ever undertaken in the UK… ……………………………..(Subscribers only) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/05/66bn-nuclear-graveyard-became-expensive-challenge/

May 6, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | oceans, UK, wastes | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »