Archive for the ‘Regulation’ Category

ONR delays AP1000 GDA

Posted by Suzanna Hinson on December 8th, 2016

The UK’s Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has said in its latest quarterly report that although it expects to complete the Generic Design Assessment (GDA) process for the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) in December 2017 as planned, delays are expected with its other assessment, the AP1000 which is scheduled for completion in March.

The AP1000 is a Westinghouse design pursued by NuGeneration, a join venture of France’s Engie and Japan’s Toshiba. The reactor is planned for Moorside in West Cumbria but this delay will set back plans.

ONR said Westinghouse’s commitment to the process was “welcome” and they had already submitted “multiple revisions” of documents in some places. They claimed technical issues arising from assessments and a compression of the schedule as the key challenges.

Weinberg Next Nuclear argued in our last report that regulatory processes were posing an unnecessary delay to nuclear in the UK. The approval process is vital but ONR capacity should be expanded to prevent it being overly slow. The ONR is hiring and expanding but this delay to the AP1000 shows the process is still acting as a big hurdle to progress. Also in our report, we recommended that there should be more cooperation internationally over new reactor technology. The AP1000 has been approved for use in several countries, including the USA where there are four reactors already under construction. Working more closely with the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others around the world could lessen the workload for the ONR and improve progress.

The UK used to be a world leader in nuclear power and is currently embracing the need for sustainable, reliable, low carbon nuclear power to meet our current and future energy needs. However current designs, like the Hinkley European Pressurised Reactor, do not represent the best possible technology options for the UK. To move forward with new, advanced designs such as Small Modular and Molten Salt Reactors, the UK’s regulatory process needs attention so that it no longer poses as a barrier to progress.

Weinberg Next Nuclear are delighted to share this submission from May 2016 by Professor Wade Allison to the Science and Technology Committee of the UK Commons. Wade Allison is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford where he researched and taught for 40 years as a Fellow of Keble College. He has studied the risks involved in radiological and nuclear accidents as seen from medical, scientific and popular perspectives. He has published two excellent books, in 2009 Radiation and Reason: The Impact of Science on a Culture of Fearand in 2015 Nuclear is for Life: A Cultural Revolution, which Weinberg Next Nuclear highly recommend.

 

1. Summary

Life is naturally well protected against all but the very highest radiation exposures and evolutionary biology has ensured this so that life may survive. The low casualty record in all radiological and nuclear accidents confirms the effectiveness of this protection, as do laboratory experiments and the benefits of radiation as used in clinical medicine for over a century.

The commonly held view that radiation is exceptionally dangerous has been sustained by: a) residual memory of Cold War threats; b) unfamiliarity with the broad role of biology; c) a taste for the more exciting stories of accidents offered by the media; d) the guidance offered by a network of international safety committees that prefers caution to scientific evidence. This guidance has resulted in national regulations that specify that any exposure to radiation should be kept As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA), for no scientific reason.

While the radiation released in a radiological or nuclear accident has a small health effect, if any, the emergency procedures taken with international guidance themselves cause suffering, loss of life and severe socio-economic damage, sometimes on a global scale. Current policy that aims to appease public concern rather than educate people about radiation has caused plans for new nuclear plants to be strangled by unjustifiable regulatory hurdles and escalating costs, resulting in uncompetitive energy prices and increased carbon emissions.

Two conclusions:

•          Bottom up, on radiation and  nuclear energy we need a fresh programme of science-wide public education in schools and in the community as a whole via the media, omitting the ghoulish images used in the past. Local UK-based initiatives should contribute to worldwide re-education, for example through the BBC.

•          Top down, on radiation safety we need a complete change in international guidance. This should be based on scientific understanding and evidence, not the unjustified precaution inherent in the ALARA/LNT philosophy.[3]Initiatives for such a change should be pursued and supported by the UK more formally.[4]

2. Scientific background

Because radiation has always been part of the natural environment, life has evolved protection against attack by it. Biological experiments and a century of clinical experience with life-saving radiotherapy have confirmed the efficacy of this protection, even for quite high doses. As for accidents, only in a handful of instances have radiation dose rates been high enough for this natural protection to fail causing loss of life; the largest being 4 deaths at the radiological accident at Goiania (1987) and 43 deaths at the nuclear accident at Chernobyl (1986). Further, because radioactivity (and the radiation it emits) do not catch and spread in the way that fire and infectious diseases do, nuclear and radiological accidents have a rather low direct impact on life, in strong contrast to what is generally supposed.

3. The accident at Fukushima Daiichi

Two weeks after the accident[5] I published an article on the BBC World Service,[6] We should stop running away from radiation. It discussed why the response to the accident was scientifically and sociologically inappropriate. In December 2011 I made a written submission to the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee on the subject.[7] Since the accident I have visited Japan four times, given public lectures there and discussed with doctors, social workers, community leaders, evacuees, school teachers and others involved on the ground.

4. The public view

The real impact of such accidents is transmitted through public opinion and the media. The damage to health is essentially social and mental – it manifests itself as public panic and a loss of confidence in science and society. At Chernobyl and also at Fukushima those who were exposed to radiation felt themselves condemned as if by a curse, resulting in alcoholism, family breakup and attitudes of hopelessness.[8] Few knew anything about radiation except for the historical link in the public consciousness between radiation and nuclear weapons including testing. During the period of the Cold War and Nuclear Arms Race fear of radiation was heightened for political and strategic reasons. However most people are surprised to learn that 99% of those killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki died from the blast and fire and that only 1% died of cancer from the radiation explosion. Furthermore the medical records of the survivors families now available after fifty years confirm that there has been no detectable inherited effect from the radiation. The same is true for data from accidents and laboratory studies.

5. The view of the authorities

In their situation for the past 70 years national and international public authorities have been anxious to appease public concern about any radiological accident, and they have adopted an exceptional precautionary safety policy. By legalising radiation exposures only at a very low level it was believed that the public that they would come to no harm. Such a cautious approach may be appropriate for a technology before it is fully understood or when practical experience of it is limited, but for radiation high levels have been in regular clinical use worldwide for over a century so that this policy is restrictive. Nevertheless regulations in all nations do treat radiation as if it were an extraordinary hazard and safe limits are set As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) – in practice this means a small addition to the radiation that would be received anyway from natural processes. Thanks to the protection provided by nature this guidance is overly conservative by a factor in the region of a thousand.

6. When “the impossible” occurs

Under this draconian safety regime it is supposed that accidents should not happen, although this does not  reassure the public about nuclear safety, nor should it. There is no design of nuclear reactor that cannot be overwhelmed by nature and the public should be prepared for this unlikely event. Otherwise, when they see “the impossible” happening, they panic and loose all confidence in the authorities and in the ability of science to protect them – that is a fair description of the disaster that occurred at Fukushima in 2011. Recovery from such a loss of confidence is difficult. Unfortunately the nuclear authorities worldwide see their task in terms of engineering and management only, not radiobiology, teaching and psychology. Their natural reaction has therefore been to improve the physical safety of reactors even further. Unfortunately trying too hard to apply the wrong solution drives up costs without reason. This is the story of Hinkley C, perhaps, designed to be safe beyond the bounds of what is buildable, economic and necessary.

7. Education for confidence and safety

To be effective safety policy should concentrate on education to explain and make dangers more familiar. For example, fire drills are held regularly in institutions to train everybody so that they know what to do in the event of a fire. In addition from an early age every child is taught the danger of fire and how it can easily spread. Although nuclear radiation is far safer than fire people still need to become familiar with it, to know how it is detected with a simple alarm[9] and how to minimise personal exposure to it. Issuing instructions after an accident has occurred and the population is in a state of shock is too late. The public needs to understand beforehand so that individuals can take rapid and decisive action. This provides confidence at all times and informed response to an accident. What happened in March 2011 in Japan in response to the tsunami provides an example. The Japanese are taught about earthquakes and tsunamis at school and in public education. As a result they are prepared, and in the event 96% of those in the inundated region reached safety with only 30 minutes warning after the earthquake. The loss of 18,800 lives was seemingly understood and accepted, but the release of radioactivity from the damaged reactors at Fukushima Daiichi was not, even five years later. For this radiation there had been no public education and no proper plan. The result was widespread public shock even though there was no hospital admission due to the radiation itself – and the scientific evidence shows there will be no loss of life in the next fifty years. However the immediate loss of life caused by the inept and unnecessary evacuation has been put at 1600; wider social effects, from alcoholism to power shortages and increased reliance on carbon fuels, occurred as a result of the mutual loss of trust between the public and the authorities. None of this would have happened if there had been honest explanatory education about radiation, what it does to life (and what it does not), and discussion and familiarity with practice, as for earthquakes or fire.

8.  ALARA and the LNT Model

The authorities with responsibility for radiological accidents and radiation safety have pursued a policy based on ALARA dating back to the 1950s. Its rationale is a hypothesis called Linear No-Threshold (LNT) which basically says that any radiation exposure however slight is harmful. But this is not based on evidence. It is a pseudo-science like alchemy in earlier times. In that case the human emotion of avarice overrode the evidence encouraging the hope that base metals might be turned into gold. Here it is the human emotion of fear that makes the simplistic LNT attractive in spite of the contrary evidence. LNT contradicts the known principles of evolutionary biology and was discredited at length in a unanimous Joint Report published in 2005 by the Académie des Sciences and the Académie Nationale de Médecine, in Paris.[10] The evidence in this report has been denied by the international safety committees who also have not faced up to the cost and suffering for which their guidance based on ALARA/LNT is responsible. There is widespread concern amongst those who understand at this departure from science-based knowledge. In the past couple of years an international ad hocgroup of about 100 professional engineers, doctors, oncologists, biologists, physical scientists and others has joined forces to pursue this injustice in academic journals, internet media, professional societies, lectures, personal and political contacts in countries around the world. Of course it is very hard for any long-standing officially constituted international committee to execute a U-turn, but that is what is required and the policy of the UK should be to press for that.[11]Nations that first wholeheartedly embrace this new perspective of the human relationship with radiation should enjoy an important competitive advantage in the years ahead through cheaper energy, cultural leadership and a cleaner and safer environment.[12] The UK should be one of those nations.

 

Professor Wade Allison can be contacted for questions via this address: wade.allison@physics.ox.ac.uk

 


[1]ISBN 978-0-956275615  www.radiationandreason.com in paperback and Kindle editions

[2]ISBN 978-0-956275646  www.nuclear4life.com  in paperback and online editions.

[3]Acronyms for As Low As Reasonably Achievable and Linear No-Threshold hypothesis, see later

[4]A report quoting an example of such initiatives http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-nuclear-paradigm-shift-1449014295

[5]In this brief submission I use this accident as an example. The Goiania, Chernobyl and other accidents are covered elsewhere..

[6]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842

[7]http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/risk/m04.htm

[8]http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_2008_Annex_D.pdf

[9]The technology of a domestic smoke alarm could provide a cheap solution if built into a mobile phone.

[10]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16468064

[11]There is a superfluity of  such bodies UNSCEAR, ICRP, NEA, IAEA, WHO, etc. and many national ones too (in US: NAS, NRC, NCRP, EPA with more in UK and Japan).

[12]http://www.thomas-thor.com/blog/blog-61254160345

Weinberg’s response to the Industrial Strategy Consultation

Posted by Suzanna Hinson on September 29th, 2016

A commitment to industrial strategy is welcome, and must include sustainable development, decarbonisation and energy security at its core.

The debate on the extent of state involvement, in reference to climate change and sustainable development, is a valid one. However, the market is far from free. It would only be free if all externalities were included, but they are not. If there was a strong carbon price the government would be able to be less involved, but there will always be a need for some government intervention. Examples of this include research and development for industrial innovation that often requires initial government support.

The government must ensure that the Climate Change Act remains central. It has now been proven that the costs of action on climate change are far less than the costs of inaction (Stern review), with key industry and market leaders in agreement. The CBI says:

Ensuring that we maintain a secure, affordable and low-carbon supply is vital to British business. Additionally, we must continue to use energy more efficiently. The CBI is lobbying for government to provide a long-term, stable policy framework to enable continued business innovation and investment in the UK’s low-carbon transition.[1]

The Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney said:

The combination of the weight of scientific evidence and the dynamics of the financial system suggest that, in the fullness of time, climate change will threaten financial resilience and longer-term prosperity. While there is still time to act, the window of opportunity is finite and shrinking. [2]

Christine Laggard, of the International Monetary Fund, agreed saying:

If climate change issues are not adequately addressed—if we keep running those nice energy subsidies, if the price on carbon is not adequately set, if policymakers dont have it on their radar screens—then financial stability in the medium and long-term is clearly at stake.[3]

It is thus essential that this significant threat to industries, markets, and the environment is mitigated.

The government also needs to accompany the targets on climate change with action by investing in future solutions. Research and development must continue to nurture infant industries that not only have the potential to benefit the UK’s energy and environmental security, but could also offer exciting new export potential. Initiatives like the Swansea tidal lagoon (a world first), advanced nuclear power including the SMR competition, floating offshore wind farms, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and advanced bioenergy from algae are all great opportunities for the UK to pursue. Until externalities are internalised, low carbon energy industries will often require public financial support. The UK Government should provide this, where necessary, from taxes not consumer bills, and should also stop subsidies to unnecessary high carbon energy, including coal-fired power stations

An industrial strategy should be about developing new industries, whilst providing what existing industries need. Developing sustainable energy options not only consolidates the UK’s position in the growing green economy but also contributes to achieving affordable, sustainable and secure energy that is essential for existing industries. Some options, such as CCS, could give new life to declining existing heavy industry as a new report suggests[4] and development at already approved nuclear sites could help improve the rural economy in those areas. Combining heat and power provision through systems like district heating, also offer promising mutual benefits once the initial investment and development is made.

Industry needs security, but in the uncertainty wrought by the Brexit vote it also needs consistency. Blocking low cost, green solutions such as onshore wind, is unwise. A consistent approach should be used between energy sources. For example, if local communities are not allowed a veto vote over shale gas developments, they should also not be allowed a veto on wind farms. Whatever is decided on veto policy, it should be consistency across technologies.

Similarly, industry needs consistency over time. Regulatory stability and long-term agendas help investor confidence. One of the key mechanisms for delivering regulatory stability was EU membership. In the Brexit scenario that the UK now finds itself in, it is essential that a stable, consistent and long-term approach to policy is developed, to maintain confidence and ensure industrial progress.

The UK must also ensure it stays competitive and open to EU and global markets, whilst also maintaining its leadership in certain fields. One of these fields is emissions. The Industrial Emissions Directive, is a key policy that keep relationships with Europe strong whilst protecting our local and global environment. It is essential that that this, and other environmental initiatives are maintained and strengthened to allow the UK to continue to be a key part of Europe’s sustainable industrial future.

Finally, the UK should take inspiration from around the world. In the USA, Obama’s “all of the above” strategy allows security in energy to be achieved through variety of supply. Germany became a world leader in wind and solar development largely due to its Stromeinspeisungsgesetz law, ensuring a very attractive feed in tariff for renewables. This policy was so successful they now need to invest in storage and interconnection to integrate the renewables into a wider energy system. Sweden’s NUTEK created demand for new technologies with greater energy efficiency by technology procurement and government guarantees for market demands. By keeping abreast of these policy developments elsewhere, and future-proofing industry by investing in sustainability, the UK can ensure it continues to prosper.

A well-designed industrial strategy can propel the UK into a leading role in a number of policy areas, including energy, as well as provide some much needed clarity in the post-Brexit environment.

[1] http://www.cbi.org.uk/business-issues/energy/

[2] http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/speeches/2015/844.aspx

[3] http://www.wri.org/blog/2013/04/lord-nicholas-stern-identifies-3-obstacles-international-climate-action

[4] http://www.ccsassociation.org/news-and-events/reports-and-publications/parliamentary-advisory-group-on-ccs-report/

Our Summer Newsletter

Posted by Stephen Tindale on July 21st, 2016

The first half of 2016 has not exactly been stable in British politics.

In his March Budget the then Chancellor George Osborne announced a £30 million competition for Small Modular Reactors. This was in line with the recommendations in November 2015. But Osborne has now gone. The Department for Energy and Climate Change has been merged with the business department.  And no new nuclear capacity is being built: EDF have yet to make a Final Investment Decision for Hinkley.

Across Europe, nuclear energy is in decline. The European Commission and the nuclear industry itself expect nuclear to decline by a fifth by 2025. Switzerland is holding a referendum in November on whether to close existing nuclear stations early. An agreement between French socialist and green parties states that, if Flamanville becomes operational, another nuclear facility must be closed down.  Belgium has been formally committed to nuclear phase out since 1999, though the date of closing existing stations shifts according to who is in government.

A pro-nuclear civil society movement is needed to defend existing nuclear plants in these and some other countries. Such a movement is also needed to promote new nuclear, including advanced nuclear, in countries where the government is pro-nuclear, such as the Czech Republic, Finland, Poland and the UK.

The first article below is my suggestion of a progressive narrative for this civil society movement. Then comes an article by John Lindberg on why there is such strong anti-nuclear feeling in Germany. I do not think it would be worthwhile to spend time and resources arguing for nuclear in Germany – the nuclear argument has been lost there. But it is important for pro-nuclear campaigners to learn the lessons from Germany, so we can prevent other countries following Berlin’s example.

In the third article, I consider the state of energy policy in the UK and prospects for nuclear power.

If you would like to support or become involved in Weinberg Next Nuclear’s work, please get in touch.

Stephen Tindale, director
Stephen.tindale@the-weinberg-foundation.org

 

A progressive pro-nuclear narrative

Stephen Tindale

Nuclear energy is clean energy. It produces no air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions during operation. Reactors provides over half of European low-carbon electricity. But nuclear energy has a serious image problem. It is seen by many as too dangerous, too expensive and too old-fashioned to be part of the future. Solar is sexy, nuclear is not. As a result, nuclear energy is in decline across Europe.

It is quite possible to put together a statistics-based argument that nuclear power is clean. Fr example, the UK’s Parliamentary Office of Science at Technology finds that most estimates of nuclear’s lifecycle greenhouse gas footprint “fall below 26 gCO2eq/kWh”. Only large wind farms and run-of-river hydro have lower carbon footprints. Gas has a footprint of around 400, coal around 800. A think tank like Weinberg Next Nuclear needs to base its work on such studies: advocacy should always be evidence-based. But statistics are not inspiring to most people outside think tanks. Powerpoint presentations do not change the world. Alongside the facts and figures, we need a progressive narrative.

Pro-nuclear campaigners must not allow ourselves to be seen as defending the status quo or the energy establishment. If we allow that to happen, we will lose. Populist, anti-establishment political parties and movements are on the rise in many countries. A pro-nuclear movement must demand change, not just more of the same.

That does not mean we have to reject existing nuclear technologies. Before Fukushima, Angela Merkel spoke of nuclear as a necessary low-carbon bridge technology, to be used while Germany moves to become 100% reliant on renewables, which will take many decades. Merkel used the bridge metaphor as an argument against premature closure of Germany’s nuclear stations. This approach was clearly preferable to her post-Fukushima line of closing all nuclear by the end of 2022.

However, nuclear energy is more than just a bridge, because a goal of 100% renewable energy is not the best objective. Not everything renewable is low-carbon. If direct and indirect land use change are taken into account – as they ought to be – much bioenergy is not sufficiently low carbon to protect the climate. Bioenergy also produces air pollutants. In 2014 over half the renewable energy used in Europe was bioenergy.

Nuclear is a dense source of energy. This means that the physical and visual impact of nuclear is lower than that of, for example, wind or solar farms. More wind and solar farms are needed, but should not be constructed anywhere. Some biodiversity and landscape constraints are valid.

Wind, solar and hydro do not produce heat. Bioenergy can produce heat, but has the disadvantages mentioned above. Geothermal energy produces heat, but is only accessible in some locations. Much heat can be provided via electricity (increasing the need for low-carbon electricity). But not all industrial heat can be electric. Nuclear reactors produce heat, which could and should be used in industry. Switzerland is the leader in the use of nuclear heat; several central and eastern European countries also use nuclear heat, though the district heating systems used to transport the heat are communist-era and very inefficient.

Existing nuclear technology is good: clean, safe and reliable. Advanced nuclear – small modular reactors, molten salt reactors and fast reactors – will be even better. These reactors will be more flexible, so able to support intermittent renewables like wind and solar. They will almost certainly be less expensive to build than existing nuclear, because the designs are less complex.

We will not know the cost for sure until some have been constructed and operated. The nuclear industry has a history of promising cheap power (“too cheap to meter”) then delivering expensive power. Much better to under-promise then over-deliver.

What pro-nuclear campaigners can say is that a fleet of advanced nuclear reactors would help deal with spent fuel and plutonium, so substantially reducing the cost of waste management and disposal. Advanced nuclear could be part of an efficient resource economy, turning the legacy of past nuclear activities into an asset rather than a liability.

Advanced nuclear  should therefore be part of the long-term energy mix. With appropriate government support, some advanced nuclear designs could be commercially available within a decade.
However, this is where there is a need for a bridge technology. New nuclear facilities using existing reactor designs are necessary, to maintain or even expand nuclear’s proportion of the energy mix until advanced nuclear is commercialised and widely available.

Advanced nuclear technology should be an important part of the future energy mix. But other low-carbon energy sources will also be needed. The message of a pro-nuclear civil society campaign should not be that we need nuclear instead ofrenewables, but that we need nuclear and renewables.
The best form of energy is energy efficiency; ‘negawatts’. Much more must be done on this. But even if total energy use went down – which is not likely and not desirable given a growing global population and many millions needing more energy – demand for electricity would increase as heating and transport went electric.

So energy efficiency and all low-carbon power sources are needed. Weinberg’s next report, in the autumn, will set out the case for a clean energy alliance.

Progressive, pro-nuclear campaigners should:

  • promote advanced nuclear energy as part of the long-term low-carbon energy future;
  • support  technological innovation in order to deal with the legacy of past nuclear activities and produce reactor designs that are even better than existing reactors;
  • build a clean energy alliance and work alongside those promoting energy efficiency, wind, solar, marine energy, geothermal and carbon capture and storage.
 
Nuclear Metamorphosis: How we learned to start worrying and fear the reactors
John Lindberg
Nuclear power has for quite some time suffered from very poor public relations. Connotations are in most cases negative, with death and destruction frequently being associated with nuclear. The notion of a technology that is mere steps away from causing a nuclear explosion is widespread. These are all misconceptions about nuclear power, which is one of the safest sources of energy. But most arguments made by proponents of nuclear power about its benefits fall on deaf ears. Given this predominantly hostile environment, one might even draw the conclusion that nuclear power as a venture  should be scrapped, because  other forms of energy production would be less controversial.However, the realities of climate change are upon us and a source of low-carbon emission energy is desperately needed that can replace coal and gas for baseload generation, for the cloudy and windless days. So how did nuclear power end up in this situation?

Harnessing the immense power of the atom began as a military venture, and the very word nuclear stirs up ambiguous connotations. The original purpose of nuclear reactors – supplying materials to nuclear bombs – created a powerful legacy of dualism. Nuclear had a dual nature, either as a peaceful reactor providing bountiful clean and stable electricity, or as a potential bomb factory. The early years of civilian nuclear power were filled with optimism about the future, as nuclear promised a virtually limitless energy source.

The 1960s represent the beginning of a watershed in nuclear energy in terms of public perception. During the late 1950s and early 1960s, the number of atmospheric nuclear weapons tests steadily increased, with the fallout from these tests becoming a considerable source of public anxiety. Imagery was created portraying radioactive particles as ‘death dust’ that, regardless of its original source, posed a risk. Public pressure became significant until the signing of the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963.

After this treaty, ‘the public view of nuclear energy [underwent] a dramatic and unexpected metamorphosis.’ The fallout controversy led to an increased focus on the supposed dangers of radiation. Concerns about nuclear weapons –  the risk of technological errors that would accidentally lead to either a nuclear detonation or, worse still, nuclear war – were successfully transferred by the anti-nuclear movement which transferred to nuclear power.

Once the imagery and emotions had been transferred, it needed cementing, to create a lasting connection. The accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant presented such an opportunity for the anti-nuclear movement. The public worldwide followed the developments closely, and the situation played straight into the narrative of a technology out of control. This was further amplified by the fear that the reactor itself could explode, with similar consequences of a nuclear bomb. Whilst this risk was later found to have been greatly exaggerated by media and poor communication, the anti-nuclear movement successfully seized the moment. Nuclear power had, at least in the US, completed its journey from a saviour to a potential bringer of death.

This transformation of public opinion struck Europe a few years later, a fateful night in 1986. The Chernobyl disaster, the worst nuclear accident we have ever seen, came to be seen as a final watershed. The death toll from radioactive exposure from the accident is by, for example, Greenpeace claimed to be as high as 200,000. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) has repeatedly rejected numbers of this magnitude, with its chair Lars-Erik Holm calling them “unsubstantiated statements that have no support in scientific assessments”. The notion of mass death, as incorrect as it is, amplified the sentiment of a very dangerous technology, running out of hand. It also increased  fear of radiation.

News reports covering the accident amplified the nuclear fear that already existed. German, American and other Western media outlets widely used graphics from Chernobyl, graphics that frequently would explode. Imagery related to nuclear war was also used. The packaging efforts by anti-nuclear activists attempted to highlight the links between nuclear power and nuclear weapons, which is essential for any fear extension to take place. An excellent example of such packaging is given by Joschka Fischer, former German Vice Chancellor and leading figure of the (West) German Green movement, who states that every nuclear reactor is a potential nuclear bomb. This and the atomic ‘angst’ in Germany were further increased by the usage of ‘atomic cloud’ imagery. The cloud referred to was the radiation that was being spread from the damaged reactor, spreading nuclear fission material across the world. This notion of a cloud taps into the fears of radiation originally connected with nuclear weapons fallout.

By appealing to the fear that this evokes, the fear extension – creating the connections between nuclear weapons and nuclear power in terms of emotions and imagery – is easily made. The fear that Chernobyl’s fallout cloud generated should not be underestimated. It has had significant long-term ramifications that have come to cement the fear of nuclear, in particular accidents. The tremendously popular children’s novel ‘The Cloud’ by Gudrun Pausewang has come to play an important role regarding how Chernobyl is remembered in Germany. The scenes of an invisible killer, mass death, and widespread panic have created a lasting impact in terms of collective memory. Similar developments are seen across the world.

Challenging fear is never an easy task But on this occasion the stakes are too high to ignore. As proponents of nuclear power, we need to dismantle long established and commonly held prejudices. We need to challenge the lies, but more importantly, spread a message of hope and show how nuclear power offers a serious challenge to a failed fossil fuel status quo, a status quo that slowly is pushing humankind towards the edge.

John Lindberg is a MA Climate Change student at King’s College, London. He  is the former UK representative and Secretary-General of the Young European Council’s Energy and Climate Action Committee. Before moving to London he read Politics at the University of Glasgow and worked as policy adviser to former MSP Sir Jamie McGrigor.

We are the UK’s only charity advocating for safer, cheaper and cleaner next-generation nuclear energy. We have accomplished a lot with our small team and are eager to do more. Now we urgently need your support to build on the legacy of Dr. Alvin Weinberg to build a better, cleaner and more sustainable future.

PLEASE HELP BY MAKING A DONATION.

New British government: a step forward for climate strategy
Stephen Tindale

The UK no longer has a department with the words ‘climate change’ in its title. Climate policy is now the responsibility of a new Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. This could be seen as a downgrading of climate action – and has been condemned by some green groups. But I think it is a step forward.

Before 2008 energy policy had been the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry, and climate change dealt with by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). So different parts of the ‘energy trilemma’ – economic, social and environmental – were in different departments. The economic argument usually trumped the decarbonisation debate. The social part tended to get overlooked.

Before this month’s reshuffle there was some speculation that new prime minister May would return to this arrangement. She has not, which is a relief. Defra is not a powerful department within Whitehall. And climate change is not just an environmental issue: it affects health, the economy, foreign policy and much more.
DECC was also not a strong Whitehall department. During the 2010-15 coalition government, many Tories came to resent DECC as ‘a Lib Dem fiefdom’. After 2015 general election, there was a Tory DECC secretary, but DECC’s staff numbers were slashed, and many of the best officials left.

The new Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is likely to be stronger than DECC was. Its first secretary of state, Greg Clark, is an excellent appointment. He is clearly on the left of the Conservative party; indeed he was a Social Democrat activist while at university. He was an effective shadow DECC secretary before 2010, taking a pragmatic approach and being willing to listen and learn.

Clark’s new department is in charge of industrial strategy. Lib Dem Vince Cable spoke about industrial strategy when he was running the business department 2010-15, but his Tory successor Sajid Javid did not, wanting to leave pretty much everything to the market. An industrial strategy is necessary in order to deliver decarbonisation. If one thinks that names of departments matter (which I don’t particularly), having industrial strategy in the name of a strong department is more important than having climate change in the name of a weak one.

However, the new business department will only succeed if it is supported by those at the top of government. New Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond gave some strong speeches on climate change in his previous role as Foreign Secretary, highlighting the economic and security advantages of leading the decarbonisation effort. For example, in November last year he said:

“I do not accept that we have to choose between our future prosperity and safeguarding the future of our planet. This is not a zero sum game. As Conservatives, we choose both.”

New prime minister Theresa May has not been much involved in climate discussions: there is no great overlap with her previous portfolio of home affairs. But Carbon Brief has helpfully found two quotes. In December 2008 she said:

 “I am thrilled to see that after years of Conservative pressure, we have finally passed a necessary and ambitious piece of legislation on Climate Change. Britain is the first country in the world to formally bind itself to cut greenhouse emissions and I strongly believe this will improve our national and economic security. To stay reliant on fossil fuels would mean tying ourselves to increasingly unstable supplies which could endanger our energy security and the Climate Change and Energy Bills mark an important step for both the health of our economy and the health of our nation. It is now vital that we stick to these targets”

So the new prime minister accepts the need to move away from fossil fuels. Does she think that new nuclear reactors should be part of this move? That is less clear. In July 2006 she said:

“I welcome that the Government has responded to cross-party pressure to make it easier for homes in Maidenhead [May’s constituency] and across the country to install renewable energy like solar panels or mini-wind turbines. Where the Government offers positive, constructive and reasonable policies, they will have my support. But the Government could do far more to promote green energy, rather than giving unfair subsidies to new nuclear power stations.”

Does May regard all nuclear subsidies as unfair? Conservative party policy is pro-nuclear, mainly on energy security grounds. Clark is pro-nuclear. Hammond said on his first day in office that Hinkley will go ahead.

However, last week the UK’s public spending watchdog, the National Audit Office (NAO), published a report on Nuclear Power in the UK. While noting that much new generating capacity is needed in the UK, the report states that:

“There are particular value-for-money considerations for nuclear power compared to other generating technologies. The government is offering longer-term CfDs [Contracts for Difference] for new nuclear investment than other low-carbon technologies, reflecting the longer payback periods for nuclear power stations. This adds to price certainty for consumers but increases the risk that they do not benefit as much from any long-term changes, such as technological advances that reduce the cost of other low-carbon sources. The greater complexity and risk of nuclear power projects also could lead investors to require a higher return than for other low-carbon technologies.”

This complexity and financial risk applies to all nuclear pojects. But NAO also raises particular concerns about Hinkley Point C (HPC):

“With CfDs, taxpayers are not exposed to project risks such as cost overruns during construction. However, as part of the government’s deal for HPC, HM Treasury has provisionally agreed to guarantee up to £2 billion of bonds that NNBG [the partnership between EDF and Chines estate-owned nuclear companies] will issue to finance HPC’s construction repayable by NNBG’s shareholders in 2020. If the shareholders fail to repay and the government’s guarantee is ever called, or if the developer manages to negotiate further guarantees that are called, the funds required would be drawn from government budgets. Additionally, the HPC deal includes a Funded Decommissioning Programme, whereby the Department stipulates an amount that NNBG must set aside to cover decommissioning costs. The government will be liable for any decommissioning costs above the amount NNBG sets aside.”

As well as financial concerns, some have expressed national security concerns about Chinese involvement in UK nuclear infrastructure. May’s new joint chief of staff, Nick Timothy, has written that the Chinese might use this to build weaknesses in computer systems:

“For those who believe that such an eventuality is unlikely, the Chinese National Nuclear Corporation – one of the state-owned companies involved in the plans for British nuclear plants – says on its website that it is responsible not just for ‘increasing the value of state assets and developing the society’ but the ‘building of national defence’.”

Given May’s past comments about “unfair” subsidy, Timothy’s attitude to Chinese involvement and the recent NAO report, it is now likely that the Hinkley project will be seriously questioned – as it should be in my view. The European Pressurised Reactor, the design being built in France and Finland and proposed for Hinkley, is very complicated and so very expensive. Other existing nuclear options are less complex and so would require less subsidy.

All new nuclear facilities might well require more subsidy than renewable energy facilities. However, the UK is legally obliged, under the 2008 Climate Change Act, to meet carbon budgets. May has said, as quoted above, that it is vital to stick to these targets. To his credit, David Cameron found time in his last fortnight as prime minister to accept the advice of the Committee on Climate Change that the budget for 2028-32 should be 57% below 1990 emission levels. So the appropriate question for nuclear subsidy is not whether this is higher or lower than subsidies to other technologies, but whether it is possible to meet the carbon budget without new nuclear.

As the late David MacKay argued so effectively in Sustainable Energy – without the hot air, it is much more practical to include nuclear as part of the energy portfolio, and the carbon budgets are much more likely to be met. Size matters as well as cost. Cheaper options should be supported – including onshore wind which the Conservatives have stopped subsidising. But new nuclear must be part of the mix.

The impact of Brexit on clean energy

Posted by Stephen Tindale on June 27th, 2016

What will be the impact of Brexit on clean energy in the UK? Answer: nobody knows, because nothing is remotely clear in British politics now. Who will be prime minister? Will there be an early general election? What will be the relationship between the UK and the remaining EU member-states? Will there even be a UK?

However, some broad predictions can be made – and they are not optimistic.

In the short term, there will probably not be significant change in the policy framework. But there will be further slowdown in investment in energy infrastructure: potential investors do not like instability. Investment in renewables will be reduced because the UK will no longer be obliged to meet the 2020 legally-binding renewables target. Investment in new nuclear will also be reduced: progress on Hinkley looks even less likely this week than it did last. Investment in new  interconnectors will probably suffer less. Other countries’ governments may be very cross with Britain, but that will not stop them wanting to sell us more electricity.

In the medium- to long-term, some laws governing the energy sector will probably be revoked or weakened. The free market right of the Conservative party has been strengthened, and attacks on ‘Brussels red tape’ were frequent in the successful Leave campaign. There were criticisms of the EU’s 2010 Industrial Emissions Directive, which limits air pollution emissions from power stations and protects public health (http://www.thelancet.com/commissions/climate-change-2015). However, air pollution is quite high on the UK political and media agendas. So the Industrial Emissions Directive will probably remain in force post-Brexit.

Weaker climate policies

Climate policies look more vulnerable, because there is a significant overlap between Euroscepticism and climate scepticism. The UK’s Climate Change Act, which commits the UK to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 per cent (from1990 levels) by 2050, was passed with all party support in 2008 – only five MPs voted against. There are more climate sceptic Conservative MPs now than there were in 2008, and likely to be even more following a general election called by the new prime minister. But the new government is not likely to repeal the Act. Instead, it will probably weaken it by adopting less ambitious ‘carbon budgets’. The Act requires governments to set such budgets for four year periods, on advice from a Committee on Climate Change. The Cameron government has yet to accept the Committee’s latest recommendation.

The 2010-15 Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government implemented an Emissions Performance Standard banning the construction of new coal power stations unless they have carbon capture and storage. The opposition Labour party tried to get this applied to existing coal as well (as Obama is doing with his Clean Power Plan). There is now little likelihood of this happening. And the promise made by energy and climate secretary Amber Rudd (a leading Remain campaigner) to close unabated coal by 2025 looks unlikely to be met. Rudd said in her speech announcing this target that it would only be implemented if consistent with energy security. The slow down in energy infrastructure considered above makes the target much more challenging.

The coalition also introduced a ‘carbon floor price’: emissions allowances under the EU Emissions Trading System are not sold in the UK if the auction bid is lower than £18 per tonne of carbon dioxide. This raises around £2 billion a year, (https://sandbag.org.uk/site_media/pdfs/reports/Sandbag_Carbon_Floor_Price_190312.pdf ), so a Chancellor of the Exchequer will not want to abolish it. But making UK operators pay around three times the cost of allowances elsewhere in Europe does not help UK competitiveness, so the next Chancellor will come under considerable pressure to scrap it.

Advanced nuclear power

Post-Brexit, there will be less Europe-wide collaboration on energy R&D. This will hamper research. In the words of Universities for Europe:

“Working together, UK and European researchers can pool their resources, expertise, data and infrastructure to achieve more together than they could do alone. Many of today’s challenges are global, not national. In the EU, researchers can collaborate more easily to come up with solutions on an international scale, making the most of Europe’s diversity to achieve bigger and better results. EU frameworks, programmes and funding support collaboration are reducing the barriers to working across borders.” (http://www.universitiesforeurope.com/news/Pages/home.aspx)

This additional barrier does not make energy R&D impossible. The UK must continue to invest in energy innovation. Chancellor George Osborne promised in his 2015 Autumn Statement £250 million over five years for nuclear innovation. In his March 2016 Budget he allocated £30 million to a Small Modular Reactor (SMR) competition. The Department of Energy and Climate Change is currently talking to potential SMR developers.  This is in line with our recommendations (see http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Next-Steps-For-Nuclear-Innovation.pdf).  However, the referendum result means that the UK government has less money than expected. And a competition does not guarantee that money will be provided. The UK ran a competition on Carbon Capture and Storage but then cancelled it without giving any awards. The top priority for Weinberg Next Nuclear in the coming months will be to try to ensure that the SMR competition continues and leads to financial support to developers.

Weinberg Next Nuclear has been working closely with new reactor designers and finding out about the different innovations that companies are developing to provide a low carbon energy future. As part of this, our director, Stephen Tindale, recently interviewed the Co-Founder of Moltex Energy, Ian Scott, about their Stable Salt Reactor design. Ian talks about how he came up with this design from the work done by Alvin Weinberg decades earlier, and the benefits that come with this new design.

This interview is part of our current work on a report entitled “How Nuclear Innovation Should be Delivered”. The report has generously been sponsored by three Nuclear companies: Terrestrial Energy, Moltex Energy and URENCO on behalf of their reactor design, U-Battery. This project specific funding allows us resources to research and publish papers that we hope will have significant influence on the future success of the nuclear industry. Vital as this funding is to our work, we are careful to ensure it does not limit our objectivity and balanced view of the industry. Weinberg Next Nuclear retains editorial control and does not lobby for any particular company’s design. We are in agreement with our sponsors that nuclear power is vital for a sustainable future and we will continue to work together to achieve the changes necessary to achieve it.

In February, some of the Weinberg Next Nuclear Team travelled to Canada to learn more about the exciting developments that Canada is achieving in advanced nuclear. In this series of videos, Weinberg Next Nuclear’s director Stephen Tindale interviews Terrestrial Energy’s director Simon Irish in Tornoto about his reasons for joining the nuclear industry, opinions on the molten salt reactor design and views on the future of nuclear power. 

The Canadian trip and interviews are part of our current work on a report entitled “How Nuclear Innovation Should be Delivered”. The report has generously been sponsored by three Nuclear companies: Terrestrial Energy, Moltex Energy and URENCO on behalf of their U-Battery design. This project specific funding allows us resources to research and publish papers that we hope will have significant influence on the future success of the nuclear industry. Vital as this funding is to our work, we are careful to ensure it does not limit our objectivity and balanced view of the industry. Weinberg Next Nuclear retains editorial control and does not lobby for any particular company’s design. We are in agreement with our sponsors that nuclear power is vital for a sustainable future and we will continue to work together to achieve the changes necessary to achieve it.

Nuclear gaining acceptance as a clean energy source

Posted by Suzanna Hinson on March 3rd, 2016

Those in the scientific and industrial community have long accepted the fact that nuclear power produces zero-carbon energy once constructed. Nuclear has similar life-cycle greenhouse emissions to wind and has a considerably lower carbon footprint than solar does, even when mining and waste disposal are included.

Many politicians have taken much longer to accept this with nuclear more often being grouped with fossil fuels than with renewable energies. But now nuclear is starting to get the climate recognition it deserves. The State of New York Public Service Commission has declared that the state must include nuclear in its Clean Energy Standard portfolio. This represents a major step forward and hopefully the start of greater acceptance of nuclear power as a future friendly, sustainable form of energy. It is however, just a start.

As the Paris conference highlighted, nuclear is still struggling. Energy for Humanity reported over the Paris COP that since 2001, nuclear energy has been explicitly excluded from climate mitigation strategies. This includes a ban on nuclear projects receiving financial assistance from the climate pact’s development mechanisms and significantly hinders both acceptance and deployment of nuclear.

Increasingly, high profile climate experts are speaking out to combat this stigma and support nuclear. At the Paris Climate Conference in December, Dr Kenneth Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science said “the climate doesn’t care whether the electricity comes from a wind turbine or a nuclear reactor. The climate just cares about carbon”. Dr James Hansen, the former NASA scientist who brought climate change to the attention of the US government in the 1980s, argued, “it is wrong to pit renewables against nuclear power. We need all hands on deck.”

It must be hoped that New York is but the first step towards greater global acceptance of nuclear’s carbon credentials and that policy makers can revise their renewables-only pathways in favour of an ‘all of the above’ plan; reflecting the urgency and scale of today’s energy, environmental and climate challenges.

 

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-New-York-includes-nuclear-in-clean-energy-portfolio-2201167.html

South Australia could provide a long term solution to nuclear spent fuel

Posted by Stephen Tindale on February 22nd, 2016

by Priya Aggarwal

A Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission was set up in March, 2015 to independently look into South Australia’s potential future role in four prominent areas of the nuclear fuel cycle – exploration and extraction; processing of minerals and manufacture of materials containing nuclear substances; electricity generation from nuclear fuels; and, management, storage and disposal of radioactive waste. The commission will have to submit a final report by May, 2016 after considering the following:

     the effect on the environment;

     safety;

     the effect on other sectors of the State’s economy, in particular the tourism, wine and food sectors; 

     technical issues.

South Australia (SA) is currently home to four of Australia’s five uranium mines, and the possibility of the state developing nuclear power generation, enrichment and waste storage facilities have hitherto been contentious issues. The Royal Commission comes at a time of economic contraction for SA, which is suffering from job losses in mining and manufacturing sectors.

Since the commission saw no opportunity to commercially develop further uranium processing capabilities as it says the market is already oversupplied and uncertain, it sees SA could benefit from forging contracts with those that buy its uranium to store the waste products as well, as part of a concept entitled “fuel leasing”. Kevin Scarce, the Royal Commissioner, said the timeframe of building a deep geological disposal project would take 30 years, based on the timeframe it took for Sweden and Finland, who currently store their own waste at present (but, Sweden intends to receive waste from further afield) to set up similar successful projects buried 400 to 500m underground. While avoiding the nomination of a site for nuclear waste, the inquiry found the “likely” development of a storage and disposal facility of used nuclear fuel could be operational in the late 2020s.

Mr Scarce said SA could take 13% of the world’s nuclear waste and had unique characteristics that made it suitable, such as a stable geology and relatively stable seismologically. He feels confident about tapping the market’s potential in this segment and says, “Mind you, we’ve had waste now for 50 to 60 years and there has not been an international solution yet.” After revealing the tentative findings, a consultation period has now begun.

 

Referneces-

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Waste-disposal-offers-opportunity-to-South-Australia-1502164.html

 

http://yoursay.sa.gov.au/decisions/royal-commission-our-role-in-nuclear-energy/about

 

http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/tentative-findings/

 

Edit: Post previously included the line “The government also faces the task of convincing the locals at six shortlisted sites, of which three are in SA.” which was deleted as it is a separate and mostly unrelated issue.

 

 

 

Hitachi-GE’s improvement on the Boiling Water Reactor has progressed to the final stage of the UKs regulatory process. The office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR) announced the completion of Step 3 of the Generic Design Assessment on 30 October, with the whole assessment scheduled to finish in 2017.

Step three focuses on the safety and security of the ABWR and requires Hitachi GE to present arguments and evidence to support their safety and security claims. The assessment is designed to be extremely rigorous and continues to assess the safety of every aspect of the design throughout its process.

The fourth and final phase of the process includes a detailed assessment of the design as well is further scrutiny of the safety and security. The environmental impact of the reactor will also be assessed, with a consultation with the Environment Agency (EA) and National Resources Wales (NRW).

A completed Generic Design Assessment must be coupled with a nuclear site license and regulatory approval for the construction of the reactor before a new nuclear power station can be built. Horizon Nuclear Power, a subsidiary of Hitachi Ltd, plans to build two ABWR is in the UK; in Wylfa Newydd on the Isle of Anglesey and Oldbury-on-Severn in South Gloucestershire.

This milestone in the regulatory process for an updated reactor design is a step in the right direction for building new and improved nuclear power reactors in the UK, and possibly paves the way for the next generation of advanced reactors to follow in the ABWR’s footsteps.

© The Alvin Weinberg Foundation 2014
The Alvin Weinberg Foundation is a registered UK charity. Charity number: 1155255
The Alvin Weinberg Foundation web site uses cookies to record visitor patterns.
Read our data protection policy

Design by Tauri-tec Ltd and the Alvin Weinberg Foundation