Delays to nuclear plants giving Sizewell B a new lease of life
EDF is considering plans to keep the power station in Suffolk going for an extra
20 years to underpin Britain’s net zero ambitions after building new
plants proves tricky. Sizewell B in Suffolk, the nuclear power plant that
provides about 3 per cent of the UK’s electricity and has been in the
midst of a 47-day maintenance outage.
Nuclear power has dwindled to about
14 per cent of the UK’s electricity mix, down from about a quarter in the
late 1990s. Of the five plants still running, all of which are operated by
EDF, the French state-backed power group, only Sizewell B is set to be
still running by the end of the decade.
Efforts to revive the industry have
been beset by delays and soaring costs, with Hinkley Point C, the first
plant to be built in Britain in more than two decades, running up to six
years behind schedule and billions over budget. Sizewell B, which began
generating power in 1995, was the last. It is against this backdrop that
the operators of Sizewell B will make the case to EDF in Paris to extend
the life of the plant, capable of powering two million homes, by another 20
years.
Keeping the plant running until 2055 is set to cost roughly £700
million. The plant has relatively fixed costs and has already forward-sold
the majority of power set to be generated next year. However, the
volatility in power prices since the pandemic, exacerbated by the Russian
invasion of Ukraine, has complicated the business case for keeping Sizewell
B running for longer.
The French energy group, which has an 80 per cent
stake in Sizewell B alongside Centrica’s 20 per cent, is attempting to
pay down a debt pile of almost £45 billion. Here in the UK, it is in talks
with private investors to raise between £4 billion and £5 billion to help
meet the spiralling bill to complete Hinkley Point C. Sizewell C is also
competing for EDF capital, even if the company intends to eventually sell
down its stake in the project from 50 per cent to about 20 per cent. Two
nuclear power stations with identical designs in America — Wolf Creek and
Callaway — have already been granted extensions to their operating
licences that will see them run from 40 years to 60 years, providing a
precedent.
Times 2nd Dec 2024 https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/energy/article/delays-to-nuclear-plants-giving-sizewell-b-a-new-lease-of-life-r6fdzx9j5
Nuclear industry selects site in northwestern Ontario for waste disposal amidst regional opposition
Assembly of First Nations calls for new approach to Indigenous consultation and consent
Warren Bernauer and Elysia Petrone / December 3, 2024 https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/nuclear-industry-selects-site-in-northwestern-ontario-for-nuclear-waste-disposal-amidst-regional-opposition
Indigenous groups are raising awareness about plans to construct a series of caverns deep underground in the heart of Treaty 3 territory, to be filled with all of Canada’s high-level nuclear waste.
On November 28, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) announced it had selected Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation and the municipality of Ignace as “host communities” for all of Canada’s high-level nuclear waste. According to NWMO resident and CEO Laurie Swami, the decision to dispose of nuclear waste in northwestern Ontario “was driven by a consent-based siting process led by Canadians and Indigenous peoples.” Yet the extent to which the people of northwestern Ontario consent to the proposed waste repository is, at best, unclear.
The NWMO is a not-for-profit corporation, founded and funded by the nuclear power industry, which has been tasked with the management of Canada’s nuclear waste. Since 2005, the NWMO has been advancing plans to construct a deep geological repository (DGR), intended to be the final resting place for all spent nuclear fuel from reactors in Canada. As part of its site-selection process, it has been searching for a “willing host” community. In 2020, the NWMO narrowed its candidates to two Ontario municipalities, both of which have since signed “hosting agreements” with the NWMO: Ignace and South Bruce.
The NWMO has also committed to seeking the consent of the Indigenous communities on whose territories the DGR would be situated. Indigenous consent to nuclear waste disposal is required under the terms of international human rights covenants like the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). According to Article 29 of UNDRIP, “States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of Indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.”
Before announcing that it had selected northwestern Ontario for its waste repository, the NWMO had been negotiating with both the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation (near Ignace, in northwestern Ontario) and Saugeen Ojibway Nation (near South Bruce, within the water shed of Lake Huron).
Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation says ‘yes’ but stops short of consent
On November 18, members of Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation voted ‘yes’ to continuing with the NWMO’s site-selection process. Rather unsurprisingly, the NWMO has characterized Wabigoon Lake’s vote as confirmation that it is “a willing host community for Canada’s repository for used nuclear fuel.”
Yet public communication from Wabigoon Lake stops short of declaring their consent to the proposed DGR. According to a press release from the First Nation, “the yes vote does not signify approval of the project; rather, it demonstrates the Nation’s willingness to enter the next phase of in-depth environmental and technical assessments, to determine safety and site suitability.”
At present, the question Wabigoon Lake members voted on, the official results, and the details of the agreement the First Nation has signed with the NWMO have not been publicly released. It therefore remains unclear whether the NWMO has succeeded in obtaining the consent it requires to move forward with its proposed DGR.
According to a recent newsletter from regional anti-nuclear group We the Nuclear Free North:
NWMO has to date failed to establish that Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation is a ‘willing host’ or to extract from WLON a ‘compelling demonstration of willingness’. The NWMO has repeatedly stated that the project will only be located in an area with an informed and willing host, with acceptance supported by a ‘compelling demonstration of willingness’ and with surrounding communities working together to implement the project.
It is also unclear what sort of financial benefits were offered to Wabigoon members in exchange for agreeing to moving to the ‘site characterization’ stage of the NWMO’s process. There has been significant controversy surrounding the financial payments the NWMO has made to Indigenous and municipal governments, with some suggesting that it is buying or ‘bribing’ its way to community support.Regional opposition
The NWMO’s decision was made in the context of significant regional opposition to NWMO’s plans for a DGR near Ignace.
In September, Darlene Necan led a walk to protest the proposed disposal of nuclear waste in northwestern Ontario. A member of the Ojibway Nation of Saugeen—a First Nation situated north of Ignace, not to be confused with the Saugeen Ojibway Nation near South Bruce—Necan has led annual anti-nuclear protests since 2019. According to Ricochet, the 2024 walk involved roughly 30 participants who walked from Ignace and Wabigoon, along the Trans Canada Highway, to the proposed DGR site.
Multiple First Nations and municipalities along the proposed transportation route, as well as those that are downstream from the proposed Ignace DGR site, have passed resolutions and issued statements opposing the NWMO’s proposed repository.
This past fall, 12 First Nations wrote a joint open letter to NWMO President and CEO Laurie Swami, notifying her that they “say ‘no’ to nuclear waste storage and transport in the North.”
The First Nations behind the letter—including Asubpeeschoseewagong Anishinabek (Grassy Narrows), Kitchenuhmaykoosib Innnuwug, Wapekeka First Nation, Neskantaga First Nation, Muskrat Dam First Nation, Ojibways of Onigaming, Wauzhushk Onigum Nation, Gull Bay First Nation, Netmizaaggamig Nishnaabeg, Fort William First Nation, Gakijiwanong Anishinaabe Nation, and Shoal Lake 40 First Nation—are situated on or near the proposed transportation route and downstream of the proposed DGR.
“Our Nations have not been consulted, we have not given our consent, and we stand together in saying ‘no’ to the proposed nuclear waste storage site near Ignace. We call on you to respect our decision.”
Regional First Nations organizations have similarly indicated their opposition to transporting and storing nuclear waste in northwestern Ontario. For example, in October, Grand Council Treaty 3 passed a resolution reaffirming its opposition to the storage of nuclear waste in Treaty 3 territory, which includes the proposed DGR site near Ignace. The resolution states, “a Deep Geological Repository for the storage of nuclear waste will not be developed at any point in the Treaty 3 territory.”
The NWMO’s announcement that it has selected northwestern Ontario for the proposed repository makes no mention of this groundswell of regional opposition.
NWMO’s ‘willingness’ process criticized by Assembly of First Nations
The NWMO decision also comes at a time when its approach to identifying ‘willing hosts’ is coming under increased scrutiny.
A recent report issued by the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) raises serious questions about the NWMO’s approach to Indigenous consultation and consent, which focuses on obtaining the consent of individual ‘host’ communities. Instead, the AFN argues that seeking consent “from all impacted First Nations is imperative.”
The AFN report is from its Dialogue Sessions on the Transportation and Storage of Nuclear Wastes. The dialogues were hosted by the AFN in Fredericton, Toronto, Thunder Bay, and Vancouver in spring 2024. The report includes a series of recommendations to the NWMO. The NWMO’s decision to select northwestern Ontario for its waste repository appears to ignore one of the AFN’s central recommendations.
The report’s first recommendation calls upon the NWMO to rethink its approach to consulting First Nations about its proposed DGR, including a need to seek the consent of nations that are situated on the transportation route or downstream from the repository, before selecting a site for Canada’s high-level nuclear waste:
The AFN respectfully urges that comprehensive and meaningful dialogue, consultation, and engagement be undertaken with all affected First Nations throughout the site selection process, and before any critical decisions are made regarding the Deep Geological Repository or transportation routes. It is essential that the perspectives of all First Nations who rely on the same watershed as the proposed site, as well as those along the transportation route, be respected and fully integrated, in a manner that honors their inherent right to self-determination.
Resistance likely to continue
Now that the NWMO has selected a site for its proposed DGR, the next step is for it to submit a formal proposal to federal and provincial regulators. The proposed DGR will then undergo impact assessment and licensing processes. Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation has also indicated that the NWMO’s proposal will also have to satisfy the First Nation’s own internal regulatory processes and procedures.
Given the recent upsurge in opposition to the NWMO’s proposed activities in northwestern Ontario, it seems almost certain that resistance to the proposed DGR will continue.
Warren Bernauer is a non-Indigenous member of Niniibawtamin Anishinaabe Aki and research associate at the University of Manitoba where he conducts research into energy transitions and social justice in the North.
Elysia Petrone is a lawyer and activist from Fort William First Nation and a member of Niniibawtamin Anishinaabe Aki.
Lifespan of four nuclear power stations extended
Kevin Keane, BBC Scotland environment correspondent, 3 Dec 24
The lifespan of Scotland’s last remaining nuclear power station and three other plants in England are to be extended.
EDF Energy says Torness, in East Lothian, and its sister site Heysham 2, in Lancashire, will continue generating for an extra two years until 2030.
Two other sites – Hartlepool and Heysham 1 – will continue for an extra year until 2027.
The French state-owned company says it will now invest £1.3bn across its operational nuclear estate over the next three years.
Torness employs about 550 people with a further 180 contractors also working on site.
It began generating electricity in 1988 and was originally due to be decommissioned last year.
Construction work on Hartlepool power station started in 1968, taking 15 years to complete. Heysham 1 began generating in 1983 followed by Heysham 2 five years later.
In 2016, a decision was taken to extend Torness’ life until 2030 – but the discovery of cracks in the graphite bricks, which make up the reactor cores of some advanced gas-cooled power stations, led to a review.
As a result, it was announced in 2021 that the closure dates for Torness and Heysham 2 would be brought forward again by two years to 2028.
EDF says it has spent several years studying the progress of cracking and engineers feel they have a better understanding of the issues.
It says regular inspections will be carried out to ensure the sites can continue to operate safely.
……………………………………………The company made the decision following a year-long review into the four sites.
A separate review is looking at the possibility of extending its Sizewell B facility in Suffolk for a further 20 years…………………. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c33dvekx021o
Why NuScale Power Stock Slumped Today
By Rich Smith – Dec 2, 2024
https://www.fool.com/investing/2024/12/02/why-nuscale-power-stock-slumped-today/
Key Points
GE Vernova is much bigger, with much more cash, and already profitable.
CNBC reported on GE Vernova’s ambitions to dominate the building of small modular reactors.
NuScale Power is a pioneer in this industry, but its business is small and unprofitable.
Will GE Vernova crush NuScale’s nuclear dreams?
NuScale Power Corporation (SMR -0.08%) stock fell 3% through 11:25 a.m. ET — and it has General Electric to blame for it.
NuScale develops small modular nuclear reactors designed to be cheaper and faster to build than traditional nuclear power plants. And as it’s fond of pointing out, NuScale is “the first and only SMR to have its design certified by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.” But leaders aren’t necessarily winners, and as CNBC reports this morning, NuScale faces serious competition from a much bigger nuclear player, GE Vernova (GEV 3.56%), the former energy arm of General Electric.
GE Vernova’s threat to NuScale
NuScale and GE Vernova both aim to develop small modular reactors, but “small” is a relative term. If a standard nuclear power plant produces 1,000 megawatts of electricity, Vernova’s BWRX-300 reactor aims to cut that output to 300 megawatts (which is still substantial, enough to power a small city of 200,000 homes), while NuScale’s Voygr reactor goes even smaller with a 77-megawatt output.
In other respects, the two companies are more direct competitors. Both Vernova and NuScale advertise their ability to deploy multiple modules of their basic SMR in a single location, to amp up total power production capacity.
Both target a global market, with GE Vernova “aiming to deploy small nuclear reactors across the developed world over the next decade,” according to CNBC.
Is NuScale Power stock a sell?
What really sets the two companies apart, though, is their financial capacity to deliver on their promises. While valued at $3 billion in market cap, NuScale boasts less than $10 million in annual revenue and is losing $80 million a year. Analysts don’t expect the company to turn profitable before 2030 at the earliest.
GE Vernova is a $92 billion behemoth earning more than $1.2 billion a year and growing its profits at 40% a year. Just the cash alone on Vernova’s balance sheet is worth twice the price of NuScale’s stock. In any direct contest, I know which stock I’d bet on to win — and unfortunately, it’s not NuScale.,
The First Seven Billionaires Trump Has Tapped for Top Jobs
Out of America’s 800 billionaires, president-elect Trump has so far plucked seven for top spots in his administration.
by Sarah Anderson, December 03, 2024, https://inequality.org/great-divide/billionaires-trump-has-tapped-for-top-jobs/
President-elect Donald Trump has selected an unprecedented total of seven reported billionaires for senior positions in his administration. Including himself, that makes eight.
This figure could continue to grow as Trump fully staffs up. After all, he has nearly 800 additional U.S. billionaires to choose from.
Here’s a quick rundown of the “original seven” members of the nine-figure club on Trump’s employee wish list:
Elon Musk
Position: Co-leader of a new Department of Government Efficiency, a presidential advisory commission tasked with slashing spending and regulations
Estimated net worth: $330 billion
Source of wealth: SpaceX, Tesla, and other businesses
2024 campaign donations: $200 million
Warren Stephens
Position: Ambassador to the UK
Estimated net worth: $3.4 billion
Source of wealth: CEO of private Arkansas-based investment bank Stephens Inc.
2024 campaign donations: $22.7 million (includes $2 million-plus for Nikki Haley’s failed bid for the Republican presidential nomination)
Linda McMahon
tion: Education Secretary
Estimated net worth: $2.5 billion (with her husband, Vince McMahon)
Source of wealth: World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE)
2024 campaign donations: $24 million
Howard Lutnick
Position: Commerce Secretary
Estimated net worth: $2 billion
Source of wealth: majority ownership of investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald
2024 campaign donations: $13.1 million in PAC donations and also hosted a $15 million fundraising event at his home in the Hamptons
Vivek Ramaswamy
Position: Co-leader of the planned Department of Government Efficiency
Estimated net worth: $1.1 billion
Source of wealth: founder of pharmaceutical firm Roivant Sciences
2024 campaign donations: $25,000 (He’d just blown $30.7 million of his own funds on his failed presidential bid.
Doug Burgum
Position: Secretary of the Interior
Estimated net worth: undisclosed. Several media have identified him as a billionaire, while Forbes analysts say he’s worth “at least” $100 million and likely much more if you consider trusts for his adult children
Source of wealth: sold Great Plains Software, which creates accounting packages for small and medium-size businesses, for $1.1 billion in Microsoft stock in 2001
2024 campaign donations: $8,000 (He’d spent $13.9 million of his own funds on his failed presidential bid. This includes the cost of giving $20 gift cards to more than 40,000 donors who gave his campaign at least $1. That expensive but crafty maneuver succeeded in drumming up enough donors to qualify for participation in the presidential debate)
Scott Bessent
Position: Treasury Secretary
Estimated net worth: undisclosed
Source of wealth: Wall Street investments, including as founder of hedge fund Key Square Group
2024 campaign donations: $3.2 million
Campaigners lose bid to challenge Sizewell C licence decision in High Court
TEAGS claimed that the ONR unlawfully failed to include sea defences in its considerations when issuing a nuclear site licence for the development
Rayo 3rd Dec 2024
A campaign group has lost a High Court bid to challenge a regulator’s decision to issue a licence for the Sizewell C nuclear site in Suffolk.
Theberton and Eastbridge Action Group on Sizewell Limited (TEAGS), which campaigns under the name Stop Sizewell C, claimed that the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) unlawfully failed to include sea defences in its considerations when issuing a nuclear site licence (NSL) for the development.
Barristers for TEAGS told a hearing on Tuesday that the legal challenge over the decision should be allowed to continue while lawyers for the ONR and Sizewell C Limited (SZC), which owns the site, claimed it should be thrown out.
In a ruling, Mrs Justice Lieven dismissed the claim, ruling that the challenge had “no chance of success” and was “totally without merit”.
She said: “The fundamental argument advanced by the claimant is, in my view, plainly wrong.”
……………………………….Philip Coppel KC, for TEAGS, said in written submissions the challenge to the issuing of the NSL was “arguable” as the licence does not “cover the event of an accident or other emergency in respect of” sea defences.
In court, he said: “Sea defences have the obvious potential to affect safety.”
He continued: “The regulator cannot treat the consequences of such a mistake as an acceptable risk in the operation of a nuclear reactor.”
…………………Following the ruling, Paul Collins, of Stop Sizewell C, said “We are disappointed and surprised that the Court concluded that the 1965 Nuclear Installation Act did not require the imposition of a condition, when the Sizewell C nuclear site licence was granted, to deal with a safety issue – namely the sea defences – that was well known at that time.
“The judge fully acknowledged that the sea defences are critical for the safety of Sizewell C’s reactors.”
Alison Downes, also of Stop Sizewell C, said: “It remains the case that we are deeply concerned about this issue.
“There is still no final design of the sea defences let alone guarantees that the construction is feasible. We thank our legal team and supporters and are considering our position.” https://hellorayo.co.uk/hits-radio/suffolk/news/campaigners-lose-bid-challenge-sizewell-c-licence-decision-high-court/
Midlands Regional Hub for Nuclear Skills officially launched
A new Midlands Regional Hub for Nuclear Skills has been endorsed by the
Nuclear Skills Delivery Board to help develop the future nuclear workforce.
The Hub was launched at an event hosted by the University of Derby with
Rolls-Royce as the prime sponsor.
The government, in partnership with the
civil and defence nuclear industry, are making significant long-term
investments in nuclear skills, jobs and education to help the sector fill
40,000 new jobs by the end of the decade. The National Nuclear Strategic
Plan for Skills (NNSPS) was launched in May 2024 to address the national
nuclear skills shortage and sets out targeted action that the UK will take
to ensure it has the required skills to support the UK’s nuclear
ambitions. Ensuring the delivery of the NNSPS is the Nuclear Skills
Executive Council (NSEC) which brings together CEOs from across key sector
organisations.
Derby University 2nd Dec 2024 https://www.derby.ac.uk/news/2024/midlands-regional-hub-for-nuclear-skills-officially-launched/
EDF Brings Sizewell Back Online, Balancing UK’s Nuclear Grid
EDF Energy has successfully brought the Sizewell B-2 reactor back online,
strengthening the UK’s nuclear power grid as several reactors remain
offline for scheduled maintenance. With Sizewell B-2 back in action, only
five reactors remain offline. Currently undergoing maintenance are Sizewell
B-1, Heysham 2-8, Heysham 1-2, Torness 2, and Hartlepool 1, leaving a 3,015
MW capacity unavailable. These outages aim at ensuring long-term
reliability, with more maintenance planned through 2025.
Notably, Heysham
1-1, Heysham 1-2, and Hartlepool are nearing decommissioning by 2026, which
could pose future challenges unless new capacities are developed.
Finimize 1st Dec 2024 https://finimize.com/content/edf-brings-sizewell-back-online-balancing-uks-nuclear-grid
‘Great British Nuclear Fantasy’ Mirrors SMR Hype in Canada
While Canada touts small modular nuclear reactors and U.S. investors run for cover, the United Kingdom will waste billions watching the industry slowly crumble, writes veteran journalist Paul Brown.
Paul Brown, Dec 01, 2024, https://energymixweekender.substack.com/p/great-british-nuclear-fantasy-mirrors
According to the United Kingdom’s Labour government, the country is forging ahead with large nuclear stations and a competition to build a new generation of small modular reactors.
Great British Nuclear, a special organization created by the last Conservative administration and continued by Labour, is charged with finding sites for new large reactors and getting a production line running to produce the best small modular reactors. These will be mass produced in as yet non-existent factories.
The state of play in the UK mirrors the unbridled hype in Canada, with provinces like Ontario putting nuclear ahead of more affordable, more genuinely green energy options and the industry brazenly hiring departing provincial cabinet ministers to guide its lobbying efforts. That’s in spite of independent analysts declaring SMRs a “Hail Mary” unlikely to succeed and pointing out that, in contrast to the private power market in the U.S., Canada’s mostly public utilities make it easier for SMR proponents to avoid transparency on costs—and let taxpayers/ratepayers assume the risk if things go wrong.
The UK government is cheered on by both the country’s trade unions and the right-wing press which otherwise spends much time attacking the renewables industry and pouring scorn on Labour’s drive to reach net zero.
However, two distinguished academics who have much spent of their careers studying the electricity industry have produced a comprehensive study that says this latest nuclear “renaissance” won’t happen. Better for the country to cut its losses now and cancel the program than continue to waste billions more pounds letting the nuclear industry crumble slowly, they say.
Prof. Stephen Thomas, emeritus professor of energy policy at Greenwich University in London and Prof. Andy Blowers, emeritus professor of social studies at the Open University, pull no punches. Their report is titled: “It is time to expose the Great British Nuclear Fantasy once and for all.”
Currently, the French electricity giant EDF is building two 1,600-megawatt European pressurized water reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset. The project is 13 years later than EDF’s original schedule, and the cost has escalated from £18 billion when contracts were signed in 2016 to £35 billion in 2024 (and that is in 2015 prices). The first of the two reactor’s start-up date has this year been postponed until 2030 at the earliest.
With this flagship project costing so much, EDF, already deeply in debt, has declined to finance the second planned twin reactors of the same design at Sizewell C in Suffolk. Site preparation work for this station is under way and the British government has sunk £8 billion into the project already without yet making a final investment decision, even though it was promised earlier this year. This is because the government cannot yet find the private capital required to build the reactors. The two professors say the government should cut its losses now and pull the plug on the project.
Even more pointless according to the two academics is the small modular reactor competition which has four companies, Rolls Royce, Westinghouse, Holtec, and GE Hitachi, putting forward designs. All have the same basic idea, which is to build the reactors in factories and assemble them at sites all over Britain. This, they claim, would be more efficient than building large reactors, and therefore produce cheaper electricity.
The government has said it is prepared to spend £20 billion through 2038 to get these up and running. But the report points out that none of the designs have been completed, let alone tested, so there is no evidence that the claims for them can be justified. They point out nuclear power has “a long history of over-promising and not delivering.”
“Rigorous regulatory and planning processes are essential but are necessarily time-consuming, expensive, and place significant hurdles in the way of an accelerated nuclear program,” the report states. “Some projects may fail to gain site licences or planning permission and all will face substantial delays to the commencement of development.”
The report also points to climate change as a potential problem, since nearly all the potential sites are on coastlines vulnerable to sea level rise and storm surges.
“Despite the sound and fury, the Great British Nuclear project is bound to fail,” Blowers and Thomas conclude.
“No amount of political commitment can overcome the lack of investors, the absence of credible builders and operators, or available technologies, let alone secure regulatory assessment and approval,” they write. “Moreover, in an era of climate change, there will be few potentially suitable sites to host new nuclear power stations for indefinite, indeed unknowable, operating, decommissioning, and waste management lifetimes.”
The two authors acknowledge that “abandoning Sizewell C and the SMR competition will lead to howls of anguish from interest groups such as the nuclear industry and trade unions with a strong presence in the sector. It will also require compensation payments to be made to organizations affected. However, the scale of these payments will be tiny in comparison with the cost of not abandoning them.”
So “it is our hope that sanity and rationality may prevail and lead to a future energy policy shorn of the burden of new nuclear and on a pathway to sustainable energy in the pursuit of net zero.”
Zelensky Says He’s Willing To Cede Territory in Exchange for NATO Protection
Zelensky’s suggestion is a non-starter for Moscow but reflects a shift in his position on peace talks
by Dave DeCamp , December 1, 2024, https://news.antiwar.com/2024/12/01/zelensky-says-hes-willing-to-cede-territory-in-exchange-for-nato-protection/
On Friday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said he was willing to temporarily cede territory to Russia to bring an end to the war in exchange for NATO protection over Ukraine.
“If we want to stop the hot stage of the war, we should take under [the] NATO umbrella the territory of Ukraine that we have under our control,” Zelensky told Sky News. “That’s what we need to do fast, and then Ukraine can get back the other part of its territory diplomatically.”
Zelensky’s suggestion is almost certainly a non-starter for Russia since the invasion was launched to keep Ukraine out of NATO, but it does reflect a shift in his position. Zelensky previously maintained that his war goals included driving Russia out of all of the territory it has captured since February 2022, as well as Crimea.
In a recent conversation with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Russian President Vladimir Putin pointed to a speech he made earlier this year that outlines his conditions for peace, which include a Ukrainian withdrawal from all territory Russia has annexed, Ukrainian neutrality, and the lifting of all Western sanctions on Russia.
Ukrainian neutrality was Russia’s main demand during short-lived negotiations that took place in the early days of the invasion. Ukrainian and Russian officials held talks in March and April of 2022, but the negotiations were discouraged by the US and its allies.
In the interview with Sky News, Zelensky said Ukraine wouldn’t agree to a ceasefire without guarantees of NATO protection. “We need [NATO protection] very much, otherwise [Putin] will come back. Otherwise, how are we going to go to a ceasefire? So for us, it’s very dangerous,” he said.
While Zelensky and Putin’s terms are extremely far apart, the Ukrainian side could be forced to make more concessions if President-elect Donald Trump follows through with his campaign promise to end the war and pressures Zelensky to negotiate.
Decommissioning old nuclear sites to cost £130bn in blow to Miliband
The figures mean the cost of the UK’s nuclear clean-up alone is close to the total value of electricity produced by atomic power stations since the 1950s.
If the cost of building Britain’s 20-odd past and present nuclear power stations were included – around £30bn each in today’s money – the total cost of several hundred billion pounds would far exceed the value of the power produced, say experts.
Expense to taxpayer of cleaning up former power plants is higher than previously estimated, say auditors
Jonathan Leake, Telegraph, 29 Nov 24
Ed Miliband faces a bill of almost £130bn to clean up Britain’s old nuclear sites after estimated costs jumped.
It will cost £128.8bn to safely wind down old facilities, according to an investigation by the National Audit Office (NAO) – £23.5bn more than previously expected, after factoring in the cost of shutting eight power stations that are currently operational.
Seven nuclear stations are due to shut down in 2028 at which point operator EDF, France’s state-owned energy firm, will hand them back to the British Government for decommissioning.
Another station, Sizewell B, is expected to keep operating into the 2030s when it too will be decommissioned at taxpayer expense.
The NAO report, which looked at the overall operation of Mr Miliband’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Desnz), said: “The current best estimate is that the eight existing sites will each cost £23.5bn to defuel and decommission.”
This is in addition to £105.3bn already set aside for dealing with other legacy projects, chiefly waste stockpiled at Sellafield in Cumbria.
Desnz oversees a Nuclear Liabilities Fund set up to save the money needed for decommissioning the eight stations, but the NAO said this had proven woefully inadequate.
It also warned that the final costs and taxpayer contributions could rise even higher.
The NAO said: “Costs could rise further, particularly if defuelling takes longer than planned … There is a risk that further taxpayer contributions may be required.”
However, the cost of decommissioning the UK’s remaining working nuclear stations is dwarfed by the amount which the NAO found was needed for dealing with legacy waste since the 1950s.
About 70pc of the costs relate to the Sellafield site in Cumbria, where thousands of tonnes of highly radioactive waste are stored in buildings and cooling ponds that are up to 70 years old – many considered extremely hazardous.
The figures mean the cost of the UK’s nuclear clean-up alone is close to the total value of electricity produced by atomic power stations since the 1950s.
Figures released by the Department of Energy and Climate Change show that since Britain’s first nuclear power station opened in 1956, they have generated 2.6bn megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity with a wholesale value of about £200bn at today’s prices.
If the cost of building Britain’s 20-odd past and present nuclear power stations were included – around £30bn each in today’s money – the total cost of several hundred billion pounds would far exceed the value of the power produced, say experts.
The NAO report also looked at the system of Contracts for Difference (CfD) – a financing method created by the UK to guarantee investors in wind farms, solar farms and nuclear power stations sufficient income.
Such schemes, it warned, were already set to cost consumers £89bn by the 2030s – but the final sums could be far higher because of unreliable estimates for the amount of power likely to be produced……………………… https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/11/29/decommissioning-old-nuclear-sites-to-cost-130bn-in-blow/
Biden to Zelensky: ‘Our $210 billion not enough…send 18 year olds to die in our Russian proxy war
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL, 2 Dec 24
In 34 months of Russian war in Ukraine provoked by US NATO expansion, the US has squandered $185 billion of our precious treasure to keep Ukraine men dying by hundreds of thousands in a lost US foreign misadventure.
But as President Biden heads for the White House exits, he’s demanding and will get another $25 billion from Congress, making the total cost pushing a quarter trillion dollars.
Not a single military or administration strategist believes that will make any difference in American’s unwinnable proxy war. Even Biden’s National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan fessed up “Our view has been that there’s not one weapon system that makes a difference in this battle. It’s about manpower, and Ukraine needs to do more, in our view, to firm up its lines in terms of the number of forces it has on the front lines.”
Biden concurred and now demands Zelensky lower the draft age from 25 to 18. Zelensky lowered the draft age last April from 27 to 25, also at US, urging, but it has done nothing to stem the inexorable Russian advancement fueled by overwhelming manpower. Why? Upwards of 200,000 Ukrainian soldiers have deserted. They are voting against senseles war with their feet.
After squandering $185 billion of US treasure and a half million Ukrainian men, Biden wants more, more, more of both.
Biden could toss a trillion dollars and another half million young Ukrainian cannon fodder into the US proxy war without a prayer of victory on America’s terms.
But a worse fate awaits all of us. By allowing Ukraine to fire long range US missiles into Russia, Biden is risking nuclear war. If that occurs, all discussion about a squandered quarter trillion on weapons and another half million dead Ukrainian youth will be moot.
Gaza’s Civil Defense Says Nearly 100 Killed by Israeli Attacks Over 24 Hours
A strike on a house Jabalia killed over 40 Palestinians
by Dave DeCamp December 1, 2024, https://news.antiwar.com/2024/12/01/gazas-civil-defense-says-nearly-100-killed-by-israeli-attacks-over-24-hours/
Gaza’s Civil Defense said Sunday that Israeli attacks killed nearly 100 over the previous 24 hours as Israeli strikes continued to hit targets across the Strip.
“Nearly 100 martyrs were killed in the Gaza Strip within 24 hours as a result of the continuous Israeli bombing operations on homes and citizens’ gatherings,” the agency said, according to Al Jazeera.
Gaza’s Health Ministry put out a lower death toll in its daily update, saying 47 were killed, based on the number of dead and wounded Palestinians brought to hospitals. “The Israeli occupation committed six massacres against families in the Gaza Strip, resulting in 47 martyrs and 108 injuries arriving at hospitals during the past 24 hours,” the ministry wrote on Telegram.
The ministry noted that there are a “number of victims” trapped under the rubble or in areas where rescue crews cannot reach them. The Civil Defense statement said it has been unable to work in northern Gaza, which has been under siege since early October as part of Israel’s ethnic cleansing campaign.
“Until this moment, civil defense crews are prevented from exercising their duties in northern Gaza, and this has led to hundreds of citizens remaining under the rubble,” the agency said.
The Civil Defense statement said the most deaths occurred in an Israeli strike on a house sheltering displaced Palestinians in Jabalia, northern Gaza, on Saturday. More than 40 Palestinians were killed in the attack.
Also on Saturday, an Israeli strike on a vehicle in the southern city of Khan Younis killed five people, including three aid workers with the US-based World Central Kitchen. Israel claimed without evidence that one of the aid workers was a “terrorist.”
WCK said that it suspended its operations in Gaza following the strike. “We are heartbroken to share that a vehicle carrying World Central Kitchen colleagues was hit by an Israeli air strike in Gaza,” the group said in a statement.
Gaza’s Health Ministry said that its death toll since October 2023, based on its numbers, has risen to 44,429 martyrs, and the number of wounded has reached 105,250.
A group of American healthcare workers who volunteered in Gaza estimated in an open letter to President Biden in October that the US-backed Israeli onslaught has killed at least 118,908 Palestinians, a total that includes indirect deaths caused by the Israeli siege. Dr. Feroze Sidhwa, who led the letter, told Antiwar.com in a recent interview that the estimate was the bare minimum they came up with by looking at the available data.
Mass desertions crippling Ukrainian army – AP
29 Nov 24 https://www.rt.com/russia/608398-ukraine-troops-desertion-ap/
Entire units are walking away as forcibly conscripted soldiers refuse to take orders, the news agency has reported,
Mass desertion is “starving” the Ukrainian Army and “crippling” Kiev’s battleplans, as troops flee in their tens of thousands, the Associated Press reported on Friday, citing two soldiers who went AWOL, as well as lawyers and a dozen officials, most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity.
“We have already squeezed the maximum out of our people,” an officer with the 72nd Brigade told the American news agency, explaining why the problem became so acute.
The Prosecutor General’s office lists more than 100,000 soldiers who have been charged over desertion, nearly half of whom quit this year alone, but the actual number is likely significantly higher, AP said. It may be as high as 200,000, one MP told the agency. In some cases, entire units have fled their frontline positions, it was told.
“If there’s no end term [to military service], it turns into a prison – it becomes psychologically hard to find reasons to defend this country,” said one of the deserters, who was named by AP. He was charged shortly after being interviewed.
Earlier this year, Kiev adopted sweeping military service reform, hoping it would bolster the rate of mandatory conscription. The US is now reportedly pushing the Ukrainian government to lower the minimum draft age to 18, down from 25.
Conscription is being brutally enforced by officers and their civilian helpers. One such official said handling his targets is like “dealing with a cornered rat,” The Telegraph newspaper reported earlier this week.
Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky signed a bill into law this week, which waives criminal responsibility for first-time deserters if they volunteer to go back and fight.
In July 2023, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that a shortage of manpower was the biggest problem facing the Ukrainian military, after a failed “counteroffensive” conducted against Russia earlier that year.
“Ukrainian units have suffered huge losses in their suicidal attacks. Tens of thousands of casualties,” he said during a Russian Security Council meeting.
“Despite constant raids, the never-ending waves of total mobilization in Ukrainian cities and villages, the current regime is finding that sending reinforcements to the front line becomes increasingly difficult,” he added. “The country’s mobilization reserve is being depleted.”
Zelensky has been consistently blaming a shortage of Western-donated weapons for Ukrainian setbacks on the battlefield. Meanwhile Russian officials have accused him of waging a war “to the last Ukrainian” on behalf of the US.
EDF set to extend life of UK nuclear plants as Government replacement plans falter
Power plants in Hartlepool, East Lothian and Heysham are set to have their lifespan extended before the end of the year .
By Ben Gartside, December 2, 2024, https://inews.co.uk/news/nuclear-plants-uk-edf-extend-replacement-3408994
Energy giant EDF is set to announce that it will extend the lifespan of four nuclear power plants across the country amid delays to replacement projects, The i Paper can reveal.
It is the second time EDF has asked to extend the lifespan of the plants in Hartlepool and East Lothian, as well as two in Heysham, despite safety concerns at at least two of the sites.
The decision by EDF is set to be announced before the end of the year. However, The i Paper understands that all four are set to be extended.
The scale of delays to the Government’s nuclear projects including Sizewell C and the Small Modular Reactor Programme, due to Brexit and rampant inflation, was revealed earlier this year.
It threatened to derail Energy Secretary Ed Miliband’s plan to decarbonise the energy grid by 2030 before Labour even entered Downing Street.
The National Energy System Operator has raised doubts over the Government’s ability to deliver on its net zero grid commitments in just five years’ time.
The extension of the four power plants is likely to keep the grid cleaner in the coming years, while new nuclear projects await launch.
Heysham 1 and Hartlepool had been due to close in March this year, but were extended until 2026 by EDF in 2023. They have now been extended beyond 2026.
Heysham 2 and Torness nuclear power stations are currently due to close in 2028, but are set to be extended under the plans.
Torness, near Edinburgh, had its lifespan reduced by two years in 2021 due to cracking in the bricks, according to an Office for Nuclear Regulation report.
It has been reported that any extension to the Torness plant would have been conditional on EDF proving its ability to keep operating beyond 2028.
Meanwhile, a recent steam leak at Heysham 1 could have seriously injured staff according to an Office for Nuclear Regulation report, after a valve controlling stream from the reactor failed.
A number of safety notices have been given this year to EDF by the nuclear regulator, which some in the industry claim is a sign of the ageing power plants.
An industry source said that some of the reactors had already been “extended pretty far”, and that more issues would be likely.
A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesperson said: “The extension of any nuclear power station is a decision for the operator and the independent regulator, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, based on safety and commercial considerations.
“EDF’s ambition is to further extend the lives of four generating nuclear power stations, subject to inspections and regulatory approvals, and a decision will be taken by the end of 2024.”
An EDF spokesperson said: “A decision will only be made after a rigorous review of all the technical factors involved in running these stations and future operation will always be subject to regular inspections and oversight from the independent regulator, the ONR.”
A spokesperson for the Office for Nuclear Regulation, said: “We are conscious of the nation’s energy challenges and government aspirations to achieve net zero and would constructively work with EDF should it have ambitions to extend the lifetime of any of its power stations.
“The ongoing safety of operations at any nuclear site must be fully demonstrated to us as part of ongoing regulation which will be informed though our extensive inspection and assessment regime.
“We will always endeavour to regulate in an enabling manner, but we would not allow any facility to operate unless we are satisfied that it is safe to do so.
1 This Month
Read the Public Inquiry Report, the Commissioners’ report, Surrendering Australia: The AUKUS Deception is available to download for free at aukuspublicinquiry.com. Or just watch the replay of the National Press Club Luncheon.
19 November – Webinar – The Reality of Reprocessing
Time: 11:00 AM Pacific Time (US & Canada) / 2:00 PM Eastern / 7:00 PM UK / 8:00 PM CET
Register for the Zoom Event Here
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- November 2026 (109)
- October 2026 (302)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
