New nukes
Two of the UK’s chief green advisers yesterday launched a ferocious attack on government saying the national fight against climate change will be hindered by the decision to encourage nuclear power. Sir Jonathon Porritt, the chairman of the government’s Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), speaking for the first time since the announcement last week, said that responding to climate change with nuclear power was a “technological megafix”. “What is disturbing is that government is failing to understand that the more urgent that dealing with climate change becomes, the less relevant that nuclear power is. Solutions have to be found on waste, cost, and decommissioning. They have not been found on any of those issues. It reveals how poor is the understanding by government of the importance of climate change,” he said. He was joined by the SDC’s chief economist, Professor Tim Jackson, who said the decision to opt for nuclear power was “a blatant failure of moral vision”.
Guardian 16th Jan 2008 more >>
Tim Jackson: The government is flouting expert advice. CoRWM made clear that its recommendations did not suggest a green light for new nuclear build. “The political and ethical issues raised by the creation of more wastes are quite different from those relating to committed – and therefore unavoidable – wastes,” the committee argued. The challenge of climate change demands commitment to fiscal reform, support for renewable energy, reductions in energy demand, changes in the way we live, and some basic understanding of our obligations to the future. Sweeping aside these commitments with an ill-thought-out gesture towards nuclear power is a blatant failure of moral vision.
Guardian 16th Jan 2008 more >>
Britain has ambitious plans for nuclear power expansion but it will not subsidise this development, Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks said on Tuesday. The government will let private utilities set up the country’s energy mix, Wicks also said in a press briefing at the British Embassy in Paris.
Reuters 15th Jan 2008 more >>
The great nuclear revival announced by the Government yesterday is certainly a step in the right direction – but, excuse the cliche, it may turn out to be too little, too late. It is important to understand what was announced yesterday and what was not. For a start, despite the spin, this is not a decision by Downing Street to build new nuclear power stations.
Daily Mail 10th Jan 2008 more >>
The nuclear white paper made a great play of the fact that nuclear plants have, once or twice, actually been built to schedule, and Romania was cited. Hmmmm. A cursory examination by officials at the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform would have shown that the plant at Cernavoda was built on the double because: the Romanian government ignored or declined to consult the public; did not assess the consequences of accidents or earthquake risks; failed to take into account that it may have to shut down every time there is a major drought; and neglected to assess how the site would be decommissioned or how the radioactive waste would be stored.
Guardian 16th Jan 2008 more >>
Tom Burke: The arithmetic is clear. The coal will be burnt. But we know what we need to do to make this coal burn carbon neutral: we must install carbon capture and storage on all new and existing coal plants. It will not be cheap, but it is an imperative, not an option. The decision to help revive Britain’s nuclear industry may have been “tough”, but it was also wrong. The right tough decision would have been to install carbon capture and storage on the recently announced coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth in Kent.
Guardian 16th Jan 2008 more >>
Nuclear Costs
Letter from Prof Steve Thomas: David Newbery claims that with innovative use of insurance and financial instruments, nuclear power plants could be built in the UK without subsidies or other government support (“Be creative and reduce the risk of nuclear investment”, January 9). This would reduce the high cost of capital that applies in a competitive electricity market, particularly for an economically risky technology such as nuclear power. The reality is that no amount of innovative juggling can make risk disappear. The cost of bearing that risk has to be paid for and, in this case, it will be the public that pays for it, either taxpayers or electricity consumers.
FT 16th Jan 2008 more >>
Progress Energy Florida is going to have to spend more than originally planned to build two nuclear reactors in Levy County, the utility’s top executive said. The St. Petersburg-based utility won’t disclose how much more expensive the project will be until it’s presented to state regulators within 90 days. Based on new industry estimates, the revised cost could be two to three times more expensive than the projection Progress issued more than a year ago. That’s because the cost of concrete, steel, copper, labor and reactor technology has soared as energy companies move forward with plans to build more than 30 new reactors nationwide. Also, Progress Energy’s initial estimate excluded the cost of land, inflation, interest payments and new transmission lines.
Tampa Tribune 15th Jan 2008 more >>
Finland
Building more nuclear power plants to reduce global warming emissions is not the way to fight global climate change, Finland’s prime minister said on Monday. Many energy experts say one key to cutting back carbon dioxide emissions that heat the Earth’s atmosphere would be to rely more on nuclear power to generate electricity instead of coal-fired plants. But Finnish Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen said reducing energy consumption, especially from automobiles, would do more to fight climate change.
Reuters 14th Jan 2008 more >>
As the first EPR to be built, the world has been watching to see if Olkiluoto 3 will deliver everything it promises. In Britain, the EPR is one of four designs competing to be given the go-ahead from UK regulators. The company wanting to build a similar reactor here, Areva, is one half of the consortium behind the ill-fated construction of Olkiluoto 3, with Siemens the other partner. Yet to say that Finland’s experience bodes well would be optimistic to say the least. It was not long before Olkiluoto 3 was hit by a slew of safety concerns, building blunders, spiralling costs and chronic delays. The 1,600MW-capacity reactor, which was meant to be producing energy by 2009, is now around two years behind schedule. It is more than E1bn over budget, without taking into account the cost of the lost electricity production time which, rough estimates suggest, could run to E600m. After Finland’s government rejected greener energy sources for being too expensive, that has angered many Finns.
Independent 16th Jan 2008 more >>
Nuclear Waste
The government must commission a new study to find storage solutions for waste from new nuclear build says the chair of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), Professor Robert Pickard.
New Civil Engineer 15th Jan 2008 more >>
MINISTERS have been told Nottingham is not a suitable location for a nuclear waste dump. The city council has told the Government the city’s geology means it is “unlikely” there would be any suitable sites. The Government wants areas to volunteer potential sites to deal with waste from existing nuclear power stations and the new generation which is expected to be built. But city council experts have made it clear Nottingham will not be putting itself forward.
Nottingham Evening Post 15th Jan 2008 more >>
Devon will not be a location for nuclear waste.
Herald Express 15th Jan 2008 more >>
A nuclear waste store could be created north of the border to stop radioactive material being transported to west Cumbria. Waste vaults may be built in Scotland with speculation that the former power plant at Chapelcross, near Annan, is among the potential sites. The store proposals were unveiled in a planning framework proposal, published just days after the UK Government announced plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations.
Pendle Today 15th Jan 2008 more >>
Carlisle News and Star 15th Jan 2008 more >>
Gulf
France has agreed a £2 billion deal to build nuclear power stations in the Gulf and in return has secured a military base there.
Times 16th Jan 2008 more >>
Companies
Five years ago the mantra for all the oil multinationals was probably “more oil and even more gas”, but this week Total said that it was teaming up with Suez and Areva to bid for nuclear power projects in the Gulf. Meanwhile, BP is muddying its green image with investments in Canadian oil sands. Shell is toying with new technology to turn wood chips into fuel. Only ExxonMobil is refusing to play the new game, arguing that renewables won’t deliver many of the megawatts we need.
Times 16th Jan 2008 more >>
