UK Government decision to withhold nuclear power plant information unlawful
Government decision to withhold nuclear power plant information unlawful.
A ruling by the Information Commissioner (IC) requiring the Secretary of
State for Energy Security and Net Zero requesting the disclosure of
information in respect of a proposed nuclear power plant on Anglesey was
upheld by the General Regulatory Chamber (GRC) which concluded that the
public interest supported its disclosure.
Planning Resource 11th April 2024
Nuclear energy ‘now an obstacle to delivering net zero’ – Greenpeace.
Nuclear energy has been touted as key to the global transition,
but concerns around costs and timescales have generated scepticism.
According to Greenpeace director of policy Doug Parr: “Nuclear power
can’t bridge the gap between anything and anything. It is too slow. It is
too expensive. It is a massive distraction.”
Speaking about the role of
nuclear energy in the UK’s transition, Parr tells Energy Monitor: “It
doesn’t help with the kind of grid system that we need, which is going to
be renewables heavy. I think the UK focus on nuclear power is now an
obstacle to delivering net zero because it is sucking up time, energy and
political bandwidth, which can be spent on more useful things.”
Parr argues that governments should be investing in more immediate solutions. He
points to investment in Sizewell C – the 3.2GW power station set to be
built in the English county of Suffolk – where construction is set to
commence this year. It is likely to take between nine and 12 years to
complete, but delays at Hinkley C (of which Sizewell C will be a close
copy) have stirred doubt.
“We will be putting a lot of money into
something like Sizewell C, when actually we will find that it is a white
elephant by the time it has opened,” he contends. “We will have spent
all that time, energy and effort, which could have been put into improving
our housing stock, improving our grid or improving the ability of electric
vehicles to meet the needs of people through a proper charging network –
things that would actually would deliver this decade, not in 15 years time.
So, we would cut a lot more carbon, we would get something done that is
useful and we wouldn’t have piles of messy radioactive waste that we
still don’t know what to do with.”
Energy Monitor 10th April 2024, https://www.energymonitor.ai/features/nuclear-energy-now-an-obstacle-to-delivering-net-zero-greenpeace/
Why you probably shouldn’t become a Community Interest Company
by preorg, https://preorg.org/why-you-probably-shouldnt-become-a-community-interest-company/
Imagine you have sacrificed hundreds of hours of your volunteering time to a non-profit organisation doing good work. After years of effort, often exhaustion, you discover that the directors don’t care that much about whether you succeeded in helping those people you intended to help. They care mostly about how much time they can spend at the swimming pool at their second home in Spain. Your volunteer hours have helped fund that lifestyle.
How could such a situation arise? Aren’t charities supposed to have boards of governors that keep the organisation on track? But wait, it wasn’t a charity! It was a Community Interest Company. Now, I should say that I don’t currently know of any such dramatic betrayals of people’s goodwill. But what I will argue here is that this situation arising in some CICs is bordering on inevitable, given the operating parameters of CICs. Given the weakness of regulation of the companies, almost boasted about by the CIC Regulator, it’s only a matter of time.
Why would I think that? Most people seem happy with CICs; Community Interest Companies are a success story, we are told. There are now many thousands of CICs in the UK, all having appeared within the space of ten years. This rapid rise in fact means that many people have chosen a form the long-term resilience of which has yet to be tested. It would be exciting to write an article about all the horribly failed CICs littering the social economy landscape. But I don’t know of any; I can only do a much less exciting job: pointing out what’s wrong with CICs before they start to fail. My contention is that, with the help of an FOI request to the CIC Regulator, we can see that certain types of failure are predictable. As for why we haven’t seen the failures yet, it is largely because CICs are young and in most of them the founders are still in charge.
The CIC was designed for organisations with social goals. It must operate in the ‘community interest’, which is defined in the articles of the organisation. It is also chosen over charities as an organisation that can more easily buy and sell commercially. But among the people I have asked, the main reason for opting for a CIC has been that it is easy. It is a lightweight structure, it is unencumbered by bureaucracy. It can be set up in a couple of days and can adapt quickly to changing conditions since it doesn’t have long lists of rules in its constitution. More like a standard profit-making company then, but with social objectives built in. Supposedly. More on that later.
By comparison both charities and co-operatives or community benefit societies (BenComs) have a lot more rules. Rules! How annoying! How limiting! But hang on a moment, why, if rules are so tedious, do those other organisations bother with them? The answer is that most of the rules are about accountability. In the case of a charity, the board of trustees, who must be consulted on significant matters, exist to keep the charity in line with its social aims. In co-ops and BenComs it is the membership who must constantly be consulted, and who choose who leads the organisation. Democracy certainly can be quite annoying.
By comparison a standard CIC is at the mercy of its directors, who needn’t even be many in number. That’s fine, I hear some say, I am the director, and I trust myself to make good decisions. Perhaps, but do you intend to lead the organisation forever? Even if you plan to live forever, what happens if you get ill, or leave through some other reason beyond your control? The purpose behind many accountability mechanisms is that they transcend the ideals of one particular person. They embed the ethics and goals into the DNA of the organisation, whoever may be running it at a given time. So how long do you want your organisation to last?
There is one supposed accountability mechanism in CICs: the government regulator. In theory the Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies has a lot of power to force CICs to stick to their aims. In practice it appears to do very little, priding itself on being a ‘light touch’ regulator. When I contacted the Regulator, they explained that in the last year they received 57 complaints, only 3 of which resulted in an intervention by the regulator. None of these 3 were related to the community benefit requirements. The Regulator has so far never wound up a CIC or stripped one of its CIC status. The Regulator has no records of intervening in a CIC on the basis of the standard paperwork submitted each year, which in part reports on the organisation’s performance under its community benefit requirement. That is to say, there appears to be no pro-active monitoring of whether CICs are operating for community benefit.
Even Social Enterprise UK, a fan of the CIC form, has raised questions over the strength of the Regulator. This accountability mechanism begins to look weak, to say the least. I’m not sure it will ever improve either. I doubt the regulator will ever be well enough funded to investigate what is going on in tens of thousands of organisations. We should not look for accountability in the CIC regulator.
Let’s move on to another question, a special case of the accountability problem: what profits can be made from a CIC, often presented as a non-profit structure? There is a CIC limited by shares that is allowed to make a profit. Previously there was a dividend cap of 20% of share value in any given year. This was considered by the government to be ‘inhibiting investment’ so in 2014 they removed the cap. Say that again? Annual 20% profits inhibiting investment?
Let’s leave that aside. In fact the majority of CICs are limited by guarantee and are more genuinely non-profit in form. There are, however, a couple of massive catches. The directors of a CIC can pay themselves whatever they can argue could reasonably be seen as necessary, as long as they are still fulfilling their social objectives. As determined by the aforementioned ‘light touch’ regulator. A CIC with a turnover of some millions a year could in theory pay the directors a million a year, if they could argue that without the salary they couldn’t retain the talent they need. Is it still a non-profit? This raises the aforementioned scenario of people putting in hundreds of volunteer hours for a supposed non-profit while the directors are buying holiday homes in the Mediterranean.
The second problem is that nobody is paying any attention to who CICs contract out work to. If a CIC pays huge ‘management fees’ or overpays on a cleaning contract to a company that happens to be owned by, say, the partner of a director, any money in the organisation can very easily be siphoned out to profit-making enterprises. In a charity the board and regulator would keep a sharp eye on this type of activity; the CIC regulator barely seems to glance at the paperwork.
You, the current director, might not abuse your position so, but can you be so sure of your successors? We only need to look at Housing Associations for a case study in organisational mission drift, in part driven by the high salaries CEOs have been able to pay themselves.
A word too on putting an informal democratic structure on top of an undemocratic CIC: I’m told that the Centre for Alternative Technology in Wales acted for years like a co-operative, and those involved assumed that’s what it was. But it never took a co-operative legal form, so when it ran into trouble, new leadership bulldozed aside the democracy people had assumed was one of the core values of the organisation. CAT is at least a charity, but the lesson is that informal structures can be dispensed with any time the CIC directors get tired of them.
But surely there must be a right situation for a CIC? Perhaps. A CIC could be right for an organisation that is mostly a trading organisation and is for a short-term project which won’t exist for long. If the project is intended to run long-term, I don’t believe the CIC is a reliable form. It is at the mercy of the leadership that follows you, if not your own leadership. The CIC Regulator is not the safety net you need. For most people it would be worth choosing an organisational type that seems more ‘difficult’ in the short term, but will almost certainly be more sustainable and accountable in the long run.
For existing successful CICs, why would they bother to change if they are doing well as they are? Let’s remember they are still young organisations. Do we want to wait twenty years to see the emergence of accountability and mission-drift problems that are, I am suggesting, rather predictable? Mission-drift that the Regulator will never pick up on unless someone reports it?
There are a few ways to mitigate the risks here. The best option for many would be to convert into a co-operative CIC. Co-ops UK offers one set of model rules for this, and the Somerset Rules can also convert a CIC into a multi-stakeholder co-op. It will cost time and money, it is true, to change the rules, but it will surely not be as painful as the organisation going off track in a few years’ time after the founders have retired.
The second best option is to add democratic rules to the CIC. It is a benefit of CICs that they are very flexible. The CIC Regulator offers model rules of a participatory organisation of large membership, though it is still very much director-controlled. It is theoretically possible to set up a more democratic membership structure without being a co-operative. While this method may miss out on embedding some of the checks and balances that co-ops have developed over the years, it could make the organisation more accountable. But remember, rules that can be added can be taken away. Only co-ops and their cousins, community benefit societies, lock democracy in permamently.
Finally, if actual democracy seems too great a task, it is at least possible to simply install more directors onto the CIC board, preferably those affected by what the organisation does, and so establish a strong democratic culture among the CIC directors. It’s not a perfect fix, but increased collective decision-making will mitigate the problems of a top-down culture reliant on the goodwill of two or three people.
For those who haven’t started their organisation yet, this is a plea to consider that a sustainable organisation is an accountable one, and democracy is one of the best ways to ensure accountability. Thankfully others, in the form of the co-operative movement, have already paved the way for us.
Five Years At Belmarsh: A Chronicle Of Julian Assange’s Imprisonment.
Kevin Gosztola, Apr 11, 2024, https://scheerpost.com/2024/04/12/five-years-at-belmarsh-a-chronicle-of-julian-assanges-imprisonment/
Calls for Assange’s freedom are renewed as the WikiLeaks founder marks five years in Belmarsh prison.
At the behest of the United States government, the British government has detained WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in His Majesty’s Prison Belmarsh for five years.
Assange is one of the only journalists to be jailed by a Western country, making the treatment that he has endured extraordinary. He has spent more time in prison than most individuals charged with similar acts.
Since December 2010, Assange has lived under some form of arbitrary detention.
He was expelled from Ecuador’s London embassy on April 11, 2019, and British police immediately arrested him. Police transported Assange to Belmarsh, a maximum-security facility often referred to as “Britain’s Guantanamo.”
Around the same time, the U.S. Justice Department unsealed an indictment that alleged that Assange had conspired with U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning to commit a “computer intrusion.” The following month the DOJ issued another indictment with 17 additional Espionage Act charges.
2019
On May 1, Assange was sentenced by a British court to 50 weeks in prison as punishment for seeking political asylum from Ecuador while Sweden was attempting to extradite him. His sentence was longer than the six-month sentence that Jack Shepherd, the “speedboat killer” received for “breaching bail.”
Continue readingBUSINESS AS USUAL FOR BRITAIN’S WEAPONS EXPORTS
WEAPONS MADE ON MY DOORSTEP ARE HELPING TO KILL PEOPLE IN GAZA
British voters want to stop arming Israel, so why are spineless politicians ignoring them, asks Amy Hall.
This week, Foreign Secretary David Cameron confirmed that the UK government will not join the handful of Western countries that have stopped sending arms to Israel. Weapons exports from the UK will continue. The majority of voters are in favour of a ban and three British aid workers were among the seven killed by an Israeli air strike last week. But for Cameron and his cronies, it’s business as usual.
Britain has a long-standing commitment to arming the violence of the Israeli state and its occupation of Palestine. According to the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, Britain licensed around $556 million worth of arms to Israel between 2015 and 2022.
Those of us in Britain who are devastated and incensed by the endless death and destruction in Gaza are apparently to take reassurance from Cameron’s insistence that government ministers have ‘grave concerns around the humanitarian access issue’ there.
But these concerns appear not to be grave enough to challenge Britain’s own arms industry and its role in Israel’s ongoing genocidal campaign on Gaza. The weapons manufacturing taking place in my city assures me of that.
NO BOMBS FROM BRIGHTON’
Just a few kilometres from where I live in Brighton & Hove, on the South Coast of England, locals have set up a protest camp near to a factory that has been oiling the global war machine for many years. L3Harris makes bomb release mechanisms for F35 and F16 fighter jets, used by government armies including the Israeli Defence Forces.
Since 15 March, Brighton Peace Camp has been welcoming visitors, hosting everything from storytelling for kids to workshops on topics ranging from local antifascist history to Dabke, a Palestinian folk dance. The camp has also hosted an Iftar/Shabbat meal organized by Brighton and Hove Jews Against the Occupation.
‘We need to take every action in our power to stop the genocide in Gaza,’ said Sarah, from the group Brighton Against the Arms Trade. ‘We need to look at where the weapons are produced and disrupt the production and supply chain. L3Harris in Brighton is a critical part of that.
‘We demand a just transition towards the development of renewables, which must and can start now. Production at the factory must stop immediately and all components must be decommissioned.’
Local people have been campaigning against L3 Harris (formerly EDO MBM Technology Ltd) for decades. The company is now seeking to further solidify its mark on the city by making permanent an extension to its factory that was built in 2018. But thanks to intense opposition from local people, including some members of Parliament and city councillors, Brighton & Hove City Council (BHCC) has been under pressure not to grant planning permission. Nearly 650 objections were submitted to the application.
The local campaign against the arms factory, StopL3Harris, is asking people to call on their political representatives to join the calls to refuse the planning request. It was due before BHCC’s planning committee in March but was delayed as the Council seeks legal advice. Two out three of the city’s MPs: the Green Party’s Caroline Lucas and Labour’s Lloyd Russell-Moyle have submitted objections. The third MP, Labour representative Peter Kyle, has not.
Brighton is not the only British city where this kind of manufacturing is taking place. CAAT estimates that British industry makes 15 per cent of every F35 combat aircraft that Israel uses in its assault on Gaza. The campaign has mapped UK companies involved in manufacturing components for the F35 and estimates that the value of Britain’s supplies to be worth at least $422 million since 2016.
EXPORTS TO ISRAEL CAN BE STOPPED
In response to growing pressure, a number of countries have already stopped sending arms to Israel. ‘Denmark and Canada have both recently ruled to halt arms sales to Israel – so why not the UK?’ said Marnie, a Brighton & Hove resident who is taking part in the Peace Camp.
In February, a court of appeal in the Netherlands ordered the Dutch government to stop arms exports to Israel within the F35 programme, stating that it would violate the EU Common Rules for Arms Exports and the UN Arms Trade Treaty.
The UN welcomed the decision and called for arms exports to Israel to ‘stop immediately’, as any transfer of weapons or ammunition that would be used in Gaza is likely to violate international humanitarian law.
More than 600 lawyers have also warned the British government that arms exports to Israel risk legal violations. A senior MP for the leading Conservative party has said that the government has kept under wraps advice from its own lawyers that Israel has broken international law.
Too many of our elected representatives seem to be living in a parallel universe, dismissive of international law and apparently unperturbed by the suffering of the Palestinian people. Yet those of us who support a weapons ban, continue to watch in horror the endless stream of videos of crying children carrying their dead siblings, images of skeletal children starved to death, and the massacres of civilians and aid workers in the simple act of delivering food.
Cameron should be more than ‘concerned’ about the six children killed each day during the current offensive in Gaza. If our politicians were serious about the humanitarian situation, our politicians would be pushing for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, an end to the blockade of the Gaza strip, and an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestine.
Until then, as the money keeps flowing and the bombs keep dropping, we will continue to march, boycott, protest, donate, camp and cry until Palestine is free.
Hunterston: Scottish National Party see no nuclear future due to terrorism risk.
Largs and Millport, 11th April, By Calum Corral @CalumCorral, Senior Reporter
The SNP has warned of a possible terrorism risk in North Ayrshire if Scotland were to return to nuclear power.
The warning came after one of the party’s North Ayrshire Council opponents raised a motion asking the authority to back calls to consider Hunterston and Ardeer as sites for
‘small modular nuclear reactors’ (SMRs). Todd Ferguson (Conservative, North
Coast) lodged a motion asking that the council’s chief executive write to
the UK Government asking them to consider the two North Ayrshire sites for
SMR developments, “thereby protecting our excellent nuclear workforce and
providing vital employment for generations to come.”
During the debate in the council chamber, Councillor Eleanor Collier (SNP, North Coast) praised the contribution of Hunterston A and B nuclear power stations to the
Scottish electricity supply since 1964 and 1976 respectively.
But she said it was “time to move to a safer more acceptable zero carbon alternatives to
meet our energy requirements and look at renewable employment
opportunities”. Cllr Collier added: “The Scottish Government is clear that
nuclear power is not wanted nor needed. “The objective of energy policy is
to progressively increase the generation of renewables and clean energy and
renewables to migrate away from dependency on nuclear power.
“I think we all know that nuclear power generation is more expensive than renewables,
and it leaves the problem of nuclear waste and how to deal with the
redundant facilities afterwards. There are inherent risks with the
process.
“It is important to note that Sellafield [in Cumbria] has shut its
doors to taking in spent nuclear fuel rods, so if we did have nuclear rods
to deal with they would have to be disposed of locally, not to mention the
risk of theft and misuse by terrorists of uranium products.
“There are many questions around the cost effectiveness and safety of these new SMR
designs. “SMRs are smaller, but because of that they lose the economy of
scale, and the unit price rises.” Cllr Collier also cited scientific
studies which stated that SMRs generate more radioactive waste than
conventional nuclear power stations, and use more plutonium.
She said that zero carbon and renewables were the way ahead for Hunterston and pointed to the £1.4bn XLCC cable manufacturing project, which is projected to bring
900 jobs to the area over the coming years. Conservative councillor Tom
Marshall said; “We are talking about a climate change emergency. “The
Scottish Government is missing its targets, but nuclear power could help
meet those targets.
Largs & Millport Weekly News 11th April 2024
**CoRWM**
CoRWM Minutes of Meeting 12th Sept 2023.
CoRWM 11th April 2024
CoRWM Minutes of Meeting 28th November 2023 CoRWM 11th April 2024
Hinkley Point C joins Community Interest Company “Passion for Somerset”
MNR Journal, By Jacob Manuschka, AI Assisted Reporter, 11th April
A NUCLEAR power station that will provide zero-carbon electricity has joined a not-for-profit Somerset organisation as a principal partner.
Hinkley Point C, the first in a new generation of nuclear power stations providing electricity for around six million homes, has teamed up with Passion for Somerset.
Passion for Somerset is a not-for-profit Community Interest Company that works with individuals, communities and businesses throughout the county.
Stacy Walker, Hinkley Point C stakeholder relations manager, said: “Britain’s new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C has seen another year of incredible engineering from under the seabed to the top of the world’s largest land-based crane, Big Carl………………………………… https://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/news/24246032.hinkley-point-c-joins-passion-somerset-organisation/
Rolls Royce taps funding for nuclear-powered space missions
Rolls-Royce has received a funding boost from the UK Space Agency to
develop nuclear-powered projects for the space sector. Some £1.2m is being
offered up to Rolls-Royce Submarines and the US-based nuclear supplier BWX
Technologies as part of a project to use fission nuclear systems for space
missions.
It comes as part of a wider £13m funding package unveiled by the
government to support 11 international space projects, ranging from
capturing high-res photos of the Moon and Mars to X-ray images of the
Earth’s Aurora. Other beneficiaries include Vertical Future, which is
developing a “robotic space arm” facility to grow plants in space, and
the University of Leicester, which is identifying potential space missions
for nuclear powered technologies.
City AM 8th April 2024 https://www.cityam.com/rolls-royce-taps-funding-for-nuclear-powered-space-missions/
UK revamps Sizewell C nuclear funding to avoid delays
The UK Government has announced revisions to the funding model for the
Sizewell C nuclear plant project in response to concerns over potential
delays and cost overruns. Following a consultation process, adjustments
have been made to the funding mechanisms to ensure the timely completion of
the project while also protecting consumers from financial risks. Sizewell
C is considered critical for enhancing the UK’s energy security.
There have been concerns about the sustainability of the funding model,
particularly in light of challenges faced by similar projects such as
Hinkley Point C, which experienced delays and rising costs. The government
aims to strike a balance that encourages private investment while
minimising the impact on consumers.
Energy Live News 9th April 2024
Rolls Royce misses out on government funding for their small nuclear reactors
Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC shares faced a blow as X-energy and Cavendish
Nuclear were awarded £3.34 million from the government to build
mini-nuclear reactors in Hartlepool. These funds will aid X-energy and
Babcock International PLC owned Cavendish’s plans to build 12 mini nuclear
generators, known as small modular reactors, in the County Durham town by
the early 2030s.
Proactive Investor 5th April 2024
British Rebellion Grows Against Arming Israel
London’s mayor, 50 Labour MPs and Winston Churchill’s grandson have joined widening calls to defy Israel’s impunity by demanding the U.K. stop sending it arms, reports Joe Lauria
Joe Lauria, in Bradford, England, Consortium News, April 4, 2024
Even Winston Churchill’s grandson is calling for Britain to stop shipping arms to Israel.
Asked whether it was time for Britain to stop sending weapons to Israel after it killed seven international aid workers this week, the Conservative peer Lord Nicholas Soames said, “It’s probably time that that happened now, yes, I think if we’re determined to show that we are not prepared to countenance these ongoing disasters.”
The rebellion within British ruling circles against knee-jerk support for is Israel is spreading after the killing of the aid workers and after leaked audio recordings on Saturday revealed the British government is ignoring the advice of its own lawyers not to continue supplying weapons to Israel for its Gaza operation without risking complicity in crimes against humanity.
[It took Westerners, including three Britons, being killed to spur this action after more than 32,000 Palestinians are dead. It also forced Israel on Friday to sack two military officers and reprimand two top commanders for “serious” errors in killing the aid workers, who were in marked cars. There’s nothing like the fear of an arms cutoff to make Israel try to do something.]
On Wednesday, more than 600 British lawyers, academics and retired senior judges — including three who sat on the country’s Supreme Court — wrote to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak imploring him to cut off military aid and even called for sanctions against the most senior Israeli leaders.
The rebellion is erupting in both major parties, as well as in the Liberal Democrats, which on Thursday wrote to No. 10’s ethics advisor to urge a probe into whether U.K. arms sales could be a breach of Britian’s ministerial code. The letter said “the UK must not be complicit in breaches of international humanitarian law,” The Guardian reported.
The Labour Party is in upheaval as the mayor of London and 50 Labour MPs on Thursday said Britain should no longer arm a state that is increasingly unable to hide its crimes. “In my view, the fact the government is not publishing the legal advice, one can only draw one conclusion,” Mayor Sadiq Khan told the Politics Joe website. “I think the government should be pausing all sales of weapons to Israel. I think we should be holding to account the Israeli government.” He added: It’s got to stop.”
As he tries to unify a fractious party over the issue, Labour leader Keir Starmer has not gone beyond calling for the legal advice mentioned in the leaked audio to be made public.
Britain exported £42 million of weapons to Israel in 2023. Figures since Oct. 7 last year have not yet been released. A British break with Israel on Gaza would be politically more significant than the size of the arms transfers.
Tories Imploding Too
Rebellion is breaking out in the ruling Conservative Party as well. Churchill’s grandson has been joined by Lord Hugo Swire and three Tory MPs – Paul Bristow, Flick Drummond and David Jones – in demands that arms shipments be halted.
Sir Alan Duncan, a figure reviled by Julian Assange supporters for gleefully organizing his arrest from the Ecuador Embassy in April 2019, is being investigated by the Conservative Party for potentially “anti-semitic” remarks after he criticized pro-Israel Tory “extremists.”
“The time has come to flush out those extremists in our own parliamentary politics, and around it, some of whom are at the very top of government, or have been,” he told a radio interviewer on Thursday. “They have never been called to account by journalists to say: Do you agree with your own party’s policy? Do you condemn illegal settlements?’”
Duncan, a former minister in Conservative Theresa May’s government, added: “Conservative Friends of Israel has been doing the bidding of [Benjamin] Netanyahu, bypassing all proper processes of government, to exercise undue influence at the top of government.”
David Cameron, the former prime minister, current foreign secretary and prospective Tory leader once again, is reportedly under pressure from these party “extremists” because he doesn’t share their fanatical devotion to Israel. This is a man who as prime minister once called Gaza an “open-air prison.” He is far more restrained in his criticism now. But he’s feeling the heat in party backrooms……………………………. more https://consortiumnews.com/2024/04/04/british-rebellion-grows-against-arming-israel/
Dounreay workers vote to strike
Workers at the Dounreay nuclear power complex in Caithness have voted to
strike after long-running pay talks stalled. The GMB union said members at
the plant had overwhelmingly backed industrial action including strikes,
working to rule and an overtime ban. It comes after a pay offer was
rejected. GMB said its vote delivered a “crushing majority” on a
turnout of 85%. Other unions, Unite and Prospect, are also balloting
members.
Press and Journal 4th April 2024
Inside Sellafield behind the razor wire gun- toting guards and blast barriers at the toxic nuclear site
The 700-acre Sellafield complex means different things to different
people. To UK authorities it is a decommissioning hub being used to
spearhead the clean-up of Britain’s early nuclear industry mistakes, made
before the issue of long-term waste disposal was a priority.
In Ireland,
about 180km away, Sellafield is mostly seen as a potential hazard, a byword
for danger. A former reprocessing site for lethal spent nuclear fuel rods,
it was also known for a now-defunct power plant that was tacked on, Calder
Hall, but this was only ever a minor part of it. Reprocessing was the main
activity.
These days, Sellafield is seen as more of a nuclear dump for the
most radioactive material from all over the UK, with work ongoing in a
100-year, £134 billion (€156 billion) decommissioning project.
Yet another view of Sellafield: in the eyes of one nuclear industry source, the
site is a “gravy train” for well-paid staff and big contractors. Sellafield Ltd, the site’s UK state-owned operator whose mission is to make it safe, spends more than £2.5 billion each year on the clean-up strategy. It is also a bustling 24-hour workplace for 11,000 people paid an
average of €91,000 each annually.
The site’s critics, including the UK academic and radioactivity adviser to the Irish State, Dr Paul Dorfman, warn that the nuclear industry tries to dazzle outsiders with glossy public
relations. Sellafield, meanwhile, says it is only trying to be honest and
open about what it does.
The company, which answers to the UK government
through the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), confirms that The
Irish Times is the first media outlet from the Republic to be granted
recent access to the site and its inner sanctum, where the most dangerous
nuclear material is handled. Thirty years after U2′s Bono landed on a
nearby beach in a Greenpeace protest, and almost 20 years after the
Republic last tried to sue the UK over its safety risks, its existential
relevance to Ireland remains.
Sellafield hasn’t gone away, you know. The battle to keep it safe goes on.
Irish Times 30th March 2024
How much will extra decades of nuclear decommissioning work at Dounreay cost?
By Gordon Calder gordon.calder@hnmedia.co.uk, 28 March 2024
The cost of extending the decommissioning work at Dounreay is expected to
be published in the summer, according to a spokeswoman at the site.
She was responding to questions from the John O’ Groat Journal, following last
week’s announcement that the clean up-operation at the nuclear plant will
continue until the 2070s – almost 40 years longer than the previous date of
2033. The cost of the programme was previously said to be about £2.9
billion.
Asked about the estimated cost of extending the decommissioning,
the spokeswoman said: ” The estimate for delivering the revised lifetime
plan to take the Dounreay site to its interim end point, will form part of
the Nuclear Provision, and be published in the NDA (Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority) 2023/24 annual report in the summer. We are committed to
delivering the Dounreay mission as effectively and efficiently as
possible.”
John O’Groat Journal 28th March 2024
Sprawling Sellafield Nuclear Waste Site Prosecuted for Cybersecurity Failings
UK regulator said that one of the world’s most toxic sites accumulated cybersecurity “offenses” from 2019 to 2023
Dark Reading Staff, Dark Reading, April 2, 2024, https://www.darkreading.com/ics-ot-security/sellafield-nuclear-waste-site-prosecuted-cybersecurity-failings
Sellafield Ltd, the managing company of the Sellafield nuclear site, will be prosecuted by the UK’s independent nuclear safety regulator for alleged cybersecurity offenses.
According to the safety regulator, the infractions were garnered over a four-year period from 2019 to 2023. However, the regulator noted in its announcement that there is nothing to suggest that public safety has been compromised over these “information technology security offenses.” The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) provided little comment regarding what the specific issues are, or the legal proceedings, but noted that “details of the first court hearing will be announced when available.”
This is not the first time the company has been under scrutiny. Its cybersecurity issues were also addressed in the Chief Nuclear Inspector’s annual report on the country’s nuclear industry, released last September. And in December, the Guardian released a bombshell report that advanced persistent threats (APTs) backed by Russia and China have been breaching the Sellafield’s IT systems as far back as 2015 — attacks that the paper alleged have been consistently covered up by senior staff at the site, which holds a vast store of radioactive waste and the world’s largest store of plutonium
Though it’s not currently known whether any senior managers were involved in these security failings and, if so, whether they’ll face charges, if convicted, an individual can face a maximum of two years in prison.
A nuclear reactor is located on the Sellafield grounds. Even though it was closed in 2003, it is still Europe’s largest nuclear site, and the ONR considers it to be “one of the most complex and hazardous nuclear sites in the world.” That’s likely a big part of the reason why the company’s cybersecurity failings are of notable concern.
Though cyberattacks on power plants aren’t necessarily common, they have occurred on rare occasions, such as the 2017 spate of attacks using Triton malware, also known as Trisis and HatMan, that was used to target a Middle East petrochemical facility at the hands of the Russian Central Scientific Research Institute of Chemistry and Mechanics (TsNIIkhM). The threat actor moved through IT and operational technology (OT) networks to gain entry to the safety system and targeted the Schneider Electric Triconex safety instrumented system, which allows initiation of a safe shutdown process in case of emergencies. With the system modified by malware, it could have led to damages to the facility, operational shutdown, and even fatalities.
That said, what kind of damage a cyberattack would cause Sellafield and whether it could have a similar catastrophic fallout is unknown, since the nuclear reactor is no longer operational.
1 This Month
10 June – Assessing Canada’s Investments in Small Modular Nuclear Reactors – https://zoom.us/meeting/register/IiqHA5feRhaEBycOLNTJlA#/registration
Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State
PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees”
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- June 2026 (79)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 
