New nukes
It would be churlish not to recognise that the Conservative Party under David Cameron has come a long way on energy policy. The interim report of the party’s energy review this week argues that nuclear power should be used only as “a last resort”. Of course, it would have been preferable if the Tories had ruled out nuclear power altogether. But this is still a significant shift for a party that has historically smiled on the nuclear industry. Meanwhile, the Labour Party under Tony Blair has been moving just as fast in the opposite direction. The Prime Minister told the Commons Liaison Committee this week that he had “changed his mind” on nuclear power. All the signs are that next week’s energy review will call for additional nuclear power stations to be built.
Independent Editorial 8th July 2006
Jeremy Warner says: No prizes for guessing the outcome of next week’s Energy Review. Unless those drafting it are completely out of touch with the wishes of the Prime Minister, there will be plenty of lip-service towards renewables but also the go-ahead for a new generation of nukes. Labour was originally elected on an anti-nuclear platform. There is a world of difference between accepting the case for nuclear and ensuring its delivery. There are two main prerequisites. Planning constraints have to be removed, allowing the construction of new nuclear power plants to be fast-tracked. If, as occurred with Sizewell B, it takes five years for the proposals to get through planning procedures, nobody is going to bother to build them. Second, there has to be a long-term solution on nuclear waste, which almost certainly means construction of a deep repository. The only problem is that nobody wants one of these things on their back doorstep. Even if these two prerequisites are met, I’m personally sceptical that a new generation of nuclear power plants can be financed without government intervention, either directly by way of guarantee or subsidy, or indirectly through market subversion. All the main contenders for new nuclear build – Areva of France, GE of the US, and the Japanese-owned Westinghouse – naturally insist otherwise, yet none of them appear willing to finance the things themselves; we are engineers, not financiers, they all say as if reading from the same hymn sheet. So who would finance nuclear and what would persuade them to do so? Ultimately, it would have to be the City, but how much of a risk are private investors prepared to take? History doesn’t give much encouragement. In Britain at least, nuclear power has proved hopelessly uneconomic.
Independent 8th July 2006
Nuclear Weapons
The defence secretary, Des Browne, yesterday strongly hinted he would join other senior ministers in supporting the retention of a British independent nuclear deterrent. He highlighted “the terrifying prospect” of a state with nuclear weapons linking up with a terrorist group.
Guardian 8th July 2006
There may be a Commons vote but the outcome appears set: the Trident system will be upgraded and replaced, to keep Britain’s place at the table of nuclear players.
Guardian 8th July 2006
Britain does not need nuclear weapons any longer, former Defence Secretary Denis Healey has said.
BBC 7th July 2006
North Korea
The United States, facing opposition to proposed U.N. sanctions against North Korea for this week’s missile tests, said on Saturday it backed China’s proposal for informal talks to re-engage the reclusive state.
Reuters 8th July 2006
Scotland
ALEX Salmond yesterday put nuclear power at the heart of next year’s election campaign when he published the SNP’s environmental proposals, vowing never to allow more nuclear power stations in Scotland.
Scotsman 8th July 2006
Iran
Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator says he feels positive about an incentives package agreed by world powers on Tehran’s nuclear programme. But Ali Larijani said Iran should not be given a deadline for its response to the offer, which is aimed at suspending Tehran’s uranium enrichment work.
BBC 8th July 2006
Devonport
Devon dockyard said it has changed its procedures after it emerged a flask carrying radioactive fuel was not transported correctly. A valve plate on the flask was fixed the wrong way round as it was moved from HMS Talent, a nuclear submarine at Devonport Dockyard, in April 2005.
BBC 7th July 2006
Western Morning News 7th July 2006
Devonport Management Limited has been warned to tighten up safety after two spillages of radioactive liquid in three months. The Environment Agency has issued a formal notice to dockyard managers because of “weaknesses” identified in management, operations and maintenance. The agency also reported that in a third incident, in May, the overalls of maintenance staff on board a submarine were found to be contaminated with a trace amount of radioactive material.
Western Morning News 7th July 2006
CoRWM
Nuclear waste should only be kept near communities that “volunteer” to host special storage facilities, ministers will be told this month. After a three-year investigation, Britain’s Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) is poised to present its final recommen-dations to the government about the long-term storage of hazardous material, whether it comes from power plants, hospitals or the military.
Norfolk Now 7th July 2006
