Nuclear Energy UK – ABWR http://abwr.org/ Fri, 11 Jun 2021 22:30:37 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.7.2 https://abwr.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/default-150x150.png Nuclear Energy UK – ABWR http://abwr.org/ 32 32 Moorside nuclear fusion power plant takes the next step https://abwr.org/moorside-nuclear-fusion-power-plant-takes-the-next-step/ https://abwr.org/moorside-nuclear-fusion-power-plant-takes-the-next-step/#respond Fri, 11 Jun 2021 10:01:26 +0000 https://abwr.org/moorside-nuclear-fusion-power-plant-takes-the-next-step/ Edge of the moor Plans to use the Moorside site in western Cumbria for the UK’s first prototype fusion nuclear power plant have taken the next step. The site, adjacent to the Sellafield nuclear complex, was selected in March as the prime location for Cumbria to be submitted to the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) […]]]>


Edge of the moor

Plans to use the Moorside site in western Cumbria for the UK’s first prototype fusion nuclear power plant have taken the next step.

The site, adjacent to the Sellafield nuclear complex, was selected in March as the prime location for Cumbria to be submitted to the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) National Site Selection Competition, following a mini -selection competition organized by Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership (CLEP).

The app was then developed by CLEP, in collaboration with Copeland Borough Council and a range of other partners.

These partners have now been informed that Moorside will take the next step in the assessment process, led by the UKAEA, alongside 14 other sites across the UK.

A final shortlist is expected to be produced in the fall. The UKAEA will then make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, who will make a final decision on the site by the end of 2022.

It is expected that a fusion reactor concept, known as the Spherical Tokamak for Power Generation (STEP), will be developed by 2024.

Dr Rebecca Weston, Chair of CLEP’s Clean Energy Sector Panel, said: “I am delighted that the Moorside site has taken the next step in the process. It’s a very competitive process, but I have no doubts that Cumbria has a very strong case and I look forward to the next step in the process.

“I will work with partners to make sure we are ready to present the strongest case possible in the next round of competition.”

Jo Lappin, CEO of CLEP, said: “Cumbria LEP is fully committed to achieving net zero and will help achieve it by supporting clean energy production and business decarbonization.

“The STEP app was a tangible example of CLEP’s commitment to net zero and the delivery of activities that support clean energy production. I am confident that we have developed a solid app and look forward to the next step in the process.

Councilor David Moore, Copeland Borough Council’s portfolio holder for nuclear and business services, said: “STEP in Moorside makes perfect sense. Copeland is the original home of the UK’s nuclear industry and has been a pioneer in the development of clean power generation technologies for many decades.

“Last year we collaborated with Cumbria LEP on the Cumbria Nuclear Prospectus, which sets out our vision for a clean energy hub around Moorside – STEP at Moorside would be the catalyst.

“We know this is a truly competitive national process, so we are very happy that Moorside has taken the next step and will continue to work with colleagues from the UKAEA and Cumbria LEP to develop what is already a very solid proposition. “

Cumbria County Council

Councilor Stewart Young, Head of Cumbria County Council, said: “We are truly delighted to be a partner in developing the bid to the government to host the STEP fusion reactor prototype.

“If our offer succeeds at this next step, it will bring huge investments to Cumbria and put us on a global stage by demonstrating how we can generate clean energy from nuclear. “

Moorside had previously been identified as the proposed location for a new nuclear power generation site for NuGeneration, a UK subsidiary of Westinghouse Electric Company, owned by Toshiba.

However, this plan was unsuccessful. The site remains under consideration as a possible location for other forms of low carbon power generation. However, it was recognized that STEP would complement other potential developments.

UKAEA’s recommendation to government on the final site selection will be made following a rigorous validation and evaluation process, based on a set of key criteria covering three main areas:

  • Technical and operational aptitude
  • Alignment with the principles of socio-economic and community benefits of STEP
  • Support for the commercial advancement of the project



Source link

]]>
https://abwr.org/moorside-nuclear-fusion-power-plant-takes-the-next-step/feed/ 0
The complications of nuclear energy https://abwr.org/the-complications-of-nuclear-energy/ https://abwr.org/the-complications-of-nuclear-energy/#respond Thu, 10 Jun 2021 23:10:11 +0000 https://abwr.org/the-complications-of-nuclear-energy/ Sir, – Kevin Hargaden is right to list the under-discussed complications of nuclear power (Letters, June 9). The country strongly opposed its use in the Electricity Regulation Act 1999, in response to decades of opposition to a reactor project at Carnsore Point. Until recently, there was little point in discussing these complications. However, the circumstances […]]]>


Sir, – Kevin Hargaden is right to list the under-discussed complications of nuclear power (Letters, June 9). The country strongly opposed its use in the Electricity Regulation Act 1999, in response to decades of opposition to a reactor project at Carnsore Point. Until recently, there was little point in discussing these complications. However, the circumstances have changed. The demand for electricity has increased dramatically and shows no signs of slowing down. Climate change is reaching a critical point. We cannot continue to generate electricity by burning carbon and there is little hope that alternatives such as wind or solar power will completely replace carbon as an energy source. We need a stable and constant minimum supply to support the solar and wind energy variables. What should we do? Can we not even talk about nuclear energy, including complications? – yours, etc.,

JEAN MOLLOY,

Malahide, County Dublin.

Sir, – Kevin Hargaden of the Jesuit Center for Faith and Justice expresses his opposition to the development of fission nuclear power plants in Ireland.

There are power interconnections between Ireland and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. In addition, Ireland is in the process of building the Celtic interconnection between Ireland and France. This will help to develop “an integrated energy system for the European energy market”. Electricity will flow in and out of Ireland through all interconnections.

Both jurisdictions derive considerable levels of electricity from nuclear generation, around 20 percent in the case of the UK and 70 percent in France, the highest in the world. As the generators are withdrawn, these proportions will decrease but nuclear power will not disappear.

France is also the world’s largest net exporter of electricity, largely due to the very low cost of nuclear power generation. Its income from this source exceeds 3 billion euros per year.

Instead of worrying about the highly unlikely prospect of nuclear power plants in Ireland, Kevin Hardagen might consider another Jesuitical Irish solution to an Irish problem: importing the electricity produced by nuclear power plants while piously maintaining that we will never go. nuclear. – yours, etc.,

Dr DERMOT STOKES,

Dublin 4.



Source link

]]>
https://abwr.org/the-complications-of-nuclear-energy/feed/ 0
British civil society calls on MEPs to suspend approval of ‘green’ finance list https://abwr.org/british-civil-society-calls-on-meps-to-suspend-approval-of-green-finance-list/ https://abwr.org/british-civil-society-calls-on-meps-to-suspend-approval-of-green-finance-list/#respond Wed, 09 Jun 2021 21:50:36 +0000 https://abwr.org/british-civil-society-calls-on-meps-to-suspend-approval-of-green-finance-list/ Originally posted on Transport & Environment.By Eoin Bannon More than 90 environmental and consumer groups today called on the European Parliament not to accept the rules of sustainable finance that would allow logging and the burning of trees to be counted as green investments. In a public letter, groups such as Transport & Environment (T&E), […]]]>


Originally posted on Transport & Environment.
By Eoin Bannon

More than 90 environmental and consumer groups today called on the European Parliament not to accept the rules of sustainable finance that would allow logging and the burning of trees to be counted as green investments. In a public letter, groups such as Transport & Environment (T&E), WWF, Greenpeace and BEUC ask 705 MEPs to suspend the European Commission’s green investment taxonomy review until further texts Critical legislation on bioenergy, gas, nuclear energy, and agriculture is released later this year.

Intense lobbying from Sweden and Finland in particular has led to the removal of scientific criteria for forestry and bioenergy, write the 91 groups. As a result, indiscriminate cutting and burning of trees for energy purposes would be cleared by the delegated act on sustainable finance which MEPs were asked to approve by December.

William Todts, Executive Director of T&E, said: “This taxonomy will steer green finance towards good things like solar and wind power generation and electric cars and trucks. But without safeguards, it will also open the door to destructive forestry practices and highly emitting biomass. MPs should not let this pass until they can see the other green laws in the works. “

Civil society demands that ‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’, fearing that the Commission will try to dilute the bad news through a number of legal measures rather than submitting it to MEPs in one time. This is the first of three delegated acts that lists activities that can be marketed to investors as green.

MEPs are expected to withhold approval until the Commission says whether fossil-fueled power plants should be labeled sustainable – a decision postponed to a later delegated act. Parliament should also wait for Commission proposals to revise the main pieces of legislation on which the taxonomy is based. In July, the Commission will propose amendments to renewable energy (RED) and land use laws to make the bloc ‘fit for a 55% reduction’ in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. More later in the year, new EU strategies on forests and biodiversity will also be unveiled.

William Todts said: “The list is meant to help fight climate change, but instead calls cargo ships that burn bunker fuel and public buses that run on fossil gas green. A taxonomy that greens the use of fossil gas will have no credibility in the eyes of consumers, civil society and investors. Parliament should suspend its approval until it can see the big picture. “

The taxonomy regulation determines which financial investments can be labeled environmentally sustainable. The current list of environmentally friendly activities is being drawn up by the Commission and is supposed to be based on the recommendations of the expert group made up of NGOs, financial market companies and EU agencies . It must be approved by the European Parliament and governments before it becomes law.

Read more: Letter: MEPs should block EU list of ‘green’ investments – for now

Download the full report [PDF]: Letter: MEPs should block list of EU ‘green’ investments – for now

Image presented by Ales Krivec on Unsplash


Do you appreciate the originality of CleanTechnica? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician or Ambassador – or Patreon Patron.



Got a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise or suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.



Source link

]]>
https://abwr.org/british-civil-society-calls-on-meps-to-suspend-approval-of-green-finance-list/feed/ 0
Dungeness nuclear power plant will not be put back into service https://abwr.org/dungeness-nuclear-power-plant-will-not-be-put-back-into-service/ https://abwr.org/dungeness-nuclear-power-plant-will-not-be-put-back-into-service/#respond Wed, 09 Jun 2021 05:10:07 +0000 https://abwr.org/dungeness-nuclear-power-plant-will-not-be-put-back-into-service/ The Dungeness B plant in Kent will close permanently, seven years earlier than expected, after owner EDF deemed it beyond repair. Dungeness B, one of EDF’s eight nuclear power plants in the UK, has been out of service since September 2018, when inspections revealed corrosion of seismic stresses, pipelines and storage tanks. The corrosion was […]]]>


The Dungeness B plant in Kent will close permanently, seven years earlier than expected, after owner EDF deemed it beyond repair.

Dungeness B, one of EDF’s eight nuclear power plants in the UK, has been out of service since September 2018, when inspections revealed corrosion of seismic stresses, pipelines and storage tanks. The corrosion was so severe that the Office of Nuclear Regulatory (ONR) classified it as a Level 2, out of 7, incident on the International Nuclear Events Scale.

The plant was initially due to be put back into service in February 2019, but this date has been postponed several times because EDF has taken up a series of “unique, significant and continuous technical challenges” not present in its other UK plants. Most recently, Dungeness B was due to go live in August.

However, after spending £ 100million on repairs, EDF has seen other issues with the boilers inside the reactors that cannot be replaced.

EDF has now decided to start emptying the plant, going ahead with dismantling initially scheduled for 2028. Dungeness B started producing electricity in 1983.

John Benn, manager of Dungeness B station, said in a statement: “EDF had to make a tough decision, but it’s the right one. This gives our teams, our community and our business a clear understanding of the future. “

The GMB union, which represents the workers at the plant, said it was “stunned” by the speed of the decision-making and asked for assurances that workers’ jobs would be protected. The factory employs around 500 people, and 250 additional subcontractors work on site.

“What we need now is certainty and security for the workforce,” said Gary Carter, GMB country manager.

The emptying is the first step in a complex, multi-year nuclear power plant decommissioning process and will continue to require staff from EDF and supply chain companies, EDF said.

The closure of Dungeness B will mark the end of more than 50 years of nuclear production at the south coast site. The Dungeness A plant opened in 1965 and was decommissioned in 2006. Drainage was completed in 2012 and the turbine room was demolished in 2015, but the site will not enter the commissioning phase. service and maintenance only in 2027, which suggests that work will continue at Dungeness B for decades.

Folkestone and Hythe MP Damian Collins accepted assurances that jobs would be secure at Dungeness B for many years, but urged the region to continue playing a role in nuclear power.

“I will continue to push for next-generation nuclear power at Dungeness, through the deployment of small modular reactors,” he said.

Dungeness was not one of the eight sites planned by the government for future nuclear power plants in 2010, but could be the site of one of the 16 small modular reactors planned by Rolls Royce. The company has urged the government to commit £ 2bn to build the first two or three factories.

A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) said the closure of Dungeness B would not impact the UK’s energy supply and reiterated the government commitment to “the future of nuclear energy”.

The government “seeks to reach a final decision to invest in at least one nuclear power plant by the end of this legislature, in parallel with the exploitation of new nuclear technologies,” said the spokesperson.

However, few concrete plans have materialized. Of the UK’s nuclear fleet, only Sizewell B will still be online after 2030. A single successor, the £ 23 billion Hinkley Point C, is expected to start generating electricity in 2026. The government is reportedly on the line. not to grant EDF permission to build another, Sizewell C, in Suffolk. However, plans for two other plants failed due to the government’s lack of co-investment in the plan, and a proposed plant in Bradwell could be doomed by security concerns involving developer China General Nuclear (CGN).

The closure of Dungeness B follows EDF’s announcement of the early shutdown of two of its other plants, Hunterston B and Hinkley Point B, in 2021 and 2022, following the discovery of cracks in their graphite reactor cores. Meanwhile, a shutdown at Sizewell B will extend three months longer than originally planned, until August, after the discovery of wear on steel components in the reactor.



Source link

]]>
https://abwr.org/dungeness-nuclear-power-plant-will-not-be-put-back-into-service/feed/ 0
UK’s National Nuclear Laboratory hits net zero: Energy and environment https://abwr.org/uks-national-nuclear-laboratory-hits-net-zero-energy-and-environment/ https://abwr.org/uks-national-nuclear-laboratory-hits-net-zero-energy-and-environment/#respond Tue, 08 Jun 2021 13:13:52 +0000 https://abwr.org/uks-national-nuclear-laboratory-hits-net-zero-energy-and-environment/ June 08, 2021 NNL, the UK’s national nuclear fission laboratory, today launched its new strategic plan: It’s NNL. With legally binding targets in the UK to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, and more than 120 other countries moving towards the same target, it is “impossible to overestimate the magnitude of the challenge […]]]>


June 08, 2021

NNL, the UK’s national nuclear fission laboratory, today launched its new strategic plan: It’s NNL. With legally binding targets in the UK to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, and more than 120 other countries moving towards the same target, it is “impossible to overestimate the magnitude of the challenge ahead. come, ”NNL said.

NNL will focus on four strategic areas of national importance:

  • Clean Energy – “A thriving nuclear energy sector is a vital part of the UK’s path to net zero”;
  • Restoring the environment – “For 65 years, UK nuclear power plants have produced electricity, successfully supplying nearly one-fifth of its current global energy needs and two-fifths of its clean electricity”;
  • Health and Nuclear Medicine – “Each year, thousands of National Health Service patients benefit from advances in nuclear medicine in their treatment”;
  • Security and Non-Proliferation – “It is clear that nuclear science holds the keys to advancing many areas of our lives and can help governments and industry create a better planet for all of us.”

By fulfilling these four areas, NNL says it will also support the creation of highly skilled and well-paid jobs, mainly in the North West of England, where its four laboratories are located.

“Without nuclear, the UK will not meet this target on time. And without the work of NNL, the UK nuclear industry cannot deliver what is required,” said Paul Howarth, CEO of NNL. Modular reactors or delivering our first local supply of medical radioisotopes since the 1960s, NNL will be at the forefront of revolutionary advancements that will help transform the environment and people’s lives, today and in the future. “

The post includes an interview with NNL’s Scientific and Technological Director, Fiona Rayment, who said: ‘Our focus areas make perfect sense as they all have three qualities in common: they are all badly needed in the UK. are all areas in which we are. we are currently working on, and these are all areas where we have the capacity – i.e. infrastructure and skills – to grow and work with the entire nuclear industry to contribute successfully . “

She added: “Collaboration is essential in the nuclear industry because no area of ​​expertise resides in one organization. We would like to be in a situation where we are operating a user facility for our infrastructure, so that universities, other national laboratories and the entire supply chain can access it. It will be the nuclear industry that will continue to sell and use reactor technology, but our role is to support what the technology does, so that it can be successfully deployed in the commercial market. “

UK Energy Minister Anne-Marie Trevelyan says in the same publication that new and advanced nuclear is a key part of the government’s ten-point plan for a green industrial revolution, as nuclear power provides a reliable source of energy. low carbon electricity. “The National Nuclear Laboratory is at the forefront of pioneering innovation and remains a world leader in nuclear research and development. I am delighted that NNL is playing a vital role in the development of nuclear fuels and next generation fuel cycles, helping us to rebuild and eliminate the UK’s contribution to climate change, ”said the Minister.

Research and writing by World Nuclear News





Source link

]]>
https://abwr.org/uks-national-nuclear-laboratory-hits-net-zero-energy-and-environment/feed/ 0
Israeli bombing of Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 may have fueled Saddam’s nuclear ambitions https://abwr.org/israeli-bombing-of-iraqi-nuclear-reactor-in-1981-may-have-fueled-saddams-nuclear-ambitions/ https://abwr.org/israeli-bombing-of-iraqi-nuclear-reactor-in-1981-may-have-fueled-saddams-nuclear-ambitions/#respond Mon, 07 Jun 2021 19:20:27 +0000 https://abwr.org/israeli-bombing-of-iraqi-nuclear-reactor-in-1981-may-have-fueled-saddams-nuclear-ambitions/ Four decades ago, a squadron of Israeli fighter jets on a secret mission slipped over Saudi airspace and stormed in to destroy an Iraqi nuclear reactor site that was being built by French engineers and Italians just outside Baghdad. It was a surprise attack hailed by Israel’s defenders and cited as an example of effective […]]]>


Four decades ago, a squadron of Israeli fighter jets on a secret mission slipped over Saudi airspace and stormed in to destroy an Iraqi nuclear reactor site that was being built by French engineers and Italians just outside Baghdad. It was a surprise attack hailed by Israel’s defenders and cited as an example of effective derring-do, showing how raw military power could be used as a tool of arms control.

But a mine of previously secret US documents released Monday by a Washington organization strongly suggests that Iraq’s nuclear ambitions had already been secretly contained by the Europeans who were building the bombed Osirak research reactor. Moreover, the attack of June 7, 1981 may in fact have encouraged then Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to step up his quest for weapons of mass destruction.

The documents, obtained by the Washington-based National Security Archives through Freedom of Information Act requests, include cables from the White House, the State Department, and the CIA that summarize key diplomatic interactions and policies that preceded the attack. They also show attempts by US officials to combat the consequences.

At least 10 Iraqi soldiers and a French civilian were killed in the Israeli attack.

The documents, recovered and released as part of a project to promote transparency organized by George Washington University, are released at a time when Israel is trying to rally nations against Iran’s nuclear program.

For weeks in Vienna, the United States and other world powers have been trying to resurrect a nuclear non-proliferation deal with Iran that was sabotaged by former US President Donald Trump. Israel opposes a return to the agreement.

France has long insisted that the design of the nuclear power plant it was building made modernization to produce fissile material for a bomb impossible. But a very sensitive document in the treasury indicates that Paris had gone even further.

It recounts for the first time a meeting in Paris on July 25, 1980 between American diplomats and a senior French non-proliferation official – who insisted on absolute secrecy – about uranium shipments to Iraq. .

The official said the materials had been secretly chemically altered to make them unusable for weapon use.

“He outlined the precautions they have and are taking,” the State Department cable said. “They find themselves in a dilemma, however, as they are unable to describe some of the precautions they are taking, given that the Iraqis themselves were unaware of some of the preventative measures the French are taking.”

The main measure taken by the French was to pre-irradiate any enriched uranium they sent to Iraq, rendering it “unusable as a weapon material,” the document said.

Other less controversial precautions included allowing only one shipment of uranium to the reactor at a time, maintaining a French presence in Osirak at all times, and ensuring that French technicians monitor the enriched uranium during its transport.

But a document marked secret suggests there were fears that Italian and French contractors were competing to sell arms to Iraq. Some feared that Italy, in particular, would try to soften any deal by including advanced nuclear technology as part of its offers.

Days after the start of the Iran-Iraq war, Iraqi armed forces invaded the Osirak site, adding even more concerns about Baghdad’s ultimate intentions.

“Are French officials still on site and do they have access to fuel there? What is the condition of the fuel? demanded a US State Department cable of October 11, 1980 from Washington to Paris.

Other documents indicate that US officials fear Iraq is scouring the world for sensitive nuclear material.

On January 20, 1981, a new administration took over in Washington under the presidency of Ronald Reagan. There is a gap in the documents which may suggest that the new administration did not understand the urgency of the matter and the issues involved.

The documents show how concerned US officials at the time were not only about the Iraqi arms lawsuits, but also the possibility that Israel could provoke a larger war by attacking Osirak. Back then, the United States was seen as a much more neutral arbiter between Israel and the Arab states than it is today. Saudi officials told Americans they were furious that Israel used its territory to reach Iraq, with Israeli pilots falsely reporting they were Jordanians.

A redacted Saudi official told an American counterpart: “This is one of the most dangerous situations Saudi Arabia has ever faced. It is an insult to both Saudi Arabia and the United States and puts the Saudis in an embarrassing position vis-à-vis other Arabs, ”according to the report of a meeting at the White House obtained by the National Security Archives.

Washington demanded responses from Israel on specific information it had that arms work was being carried out in Osirak, but Israel only responded with vague worst-case scenarios, National Security Council document says . US officials could find no evidence for Israelis’ claims of a “secret bunker” under Osirak to be used for weapons work.

Reagan initially reacted harshly to the attack, suspending some arms sales to Israel and cooperating with Iraq to formulate a UN condemnation.

The attack led to Saddam Hussein’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction

(Getty)

But other officials backed down. A note prepared for the president by neoconservative White House official Douglas Feith, who emerged 22 years later as one of the main architects of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, blamed the predecessor of Reagan, Jimmy Carter, for the crisis and urged the administration not to criticize Menachem Begin, then Prime Minister of Israel.

“Your public statements must be framed by the diplomatic context of the raid lest they unduly oppose Israel,” he said.

Iraq, a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, has been forced to open its nuclear facilities to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. But the Israeli attack on Osirak, as well as the ongoing war then raging between Iran and Iraq, ended Iraqi cooperation with European nuclear companies, pushing the program underground.

A classified assessment by the State Department’s intelligence arm said that while the Osirak attack may have rolled back Iraq’s nuclear program, it may have done more harm than good, accurately predicting Iraq’s years-long attempt to evade inspectors and pursue mass weapons. destruction. International inspectors were shocked a decade later by Iraq’s covert advances in nuclear and chemical weapons following the US-led Gulf War in 1991.

“The bombings temporarily set back Iraq’s nuclear research program, which targeted an armament option, by limiting its access to material and technological assistance,” indicates the assessment of August 17, 1981.

“The raid may have, however, increased Iraq’s interest in eventually acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. “



Source link

]]>
https://abwr.org/israeli-bombing-of-iraqi-nuclear-reactor-in-1981-may-have-fueled-saddams-nuclear-ambitions/feed/ 0
Videos of demolition explosions show the collapse of the cooling towers of the old power plant https://abwr.org/videos-of-demolition-explosions-show-the-collapse-of-the-cooling-towers-of-the-old-power-plant/ https://abwr.org/videos-of-demolition-explosions-show-the-collapse-of-the-cooling-towers-of-the-old-power-plant/#respond Sun, 06 Jun 2021 12:28:13 +0000 https://abwr.org/videos-of-demolition-explosions-show-the-collapse-of-the-cooling-towers-of-the-old-power-plant/ Four cooling towers of a former Staffordshire power station were demolished in a controlled explosion. Families have been urged to stay in their homes to watch the demolition of Rugeley’s cooling towers online, Staffordshire Live reports. The Engie owners broadcast the event live on YouTube to prevent hundreds of viewers from flocking to the site. […]]]>


Four cooling towers of a former Staffordshire power station were demolished in a controlled explosion.

Families have been urged to stay in their homes to watch the demolition of Rugeley’s cooling towers online, Staffordshire Live reports.

The Engie owners broadcast the event live on YouTube to prevent hundreds of viewers from flocking to the site. However, the AP photos show a large crowd gathered to watch the show.

The 117m (384ft) concrete towers, which have dominated the South Staffordshire skyline since the 1950s, provide electricity to millions of homes. They were destroyed with explosives around 11:15 a.m. today.

The French energy company and former operator of the plant, Engie, plans to redevelop the site into housing and employment spaces.

A building permit was granted in April this year for 2,300 new “low carbon” houses and a school.

The larger development will include more than 12 acres of employment space, a new neighborhood hub and a country park near the Trent River, Engie said.

Video upload

Video unavailable

Construction of the Rugeley “B” coal-fired power plant began in 1965 and the facility was completed in 1972. It ceased all operations on June 8, 2016.

Energy Minister Anne-Marie Trevelyan said: “We are committed to rebuilding more environmentally after the pandemic and Engie’s low carbon regeneration project is a great initiative demonstrating how industrial sites can be. revitalized to provide a sustainable lifestyle.

“This innovative redevelopment will help breathe new life into the local community, creating new jobs, thousands of low-carbon homes and a new school, while supporting our ambitious climate commitments. “

The imposing monument represented one of the region’s last links with its proud coal heritage.

The remaining four towers made up Rugeley B which joined Rugeley A on the sprawling site when it was completed in 1970.

The first of five towers to be built at Rugeley A became the world’s first large dry cooling towers.

The closure of the nearby Lea Hill Colliery in 1991 required the transportation of coal by train to the kilns.

This led to the downfall of the plant with Rugeley A starting to be decommissioned in 1994.

It was demolished in 1996 after burning 40 million tonnes of coal in its lifetime.

Both sites were initially operated by the Central Electricity Generating Board before being privatized and transferred to National Power.

At its maximum capacity of 600 megawatts in 1983, the plant employed 850 people and Rugeley B supplied half a million homes.

When Rugeley B closed in 2016, 150 workers lost their jobs after the plan to switch to biomass combustion was abandoned.



Source link

]]>
https://abwr.org/videos-of-demolition-explosions-show-the-collapse-of-the-cooling-towers-of-the-old-power-plant/feed/ 0
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett to Build New Type of Nuclear Reactor in Wyoming | Bill Gates https://abwr.org/bill-gates-and-warren-buffett-to-build-new-type-of-nuclear-reactor-in-wyoming-bill-gates/ https://abwr.org/bill-gates-and-warren-buffett-to-build-new-type-of-nuclear-reactor-in-wyoming-bill-gates/#respond Sat, 05 Jun 2021 05:26:59 +0000 https://abwr.org/bill-gates-and-warren-buffett-to-build-new-type-of-nuclear-reactor-in-wyoming-bill-gates/ Power companies run by billionaire friends Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have chosen Wyoming to launch the first Natrium nuclear reactor project on the site of a retired coal plant. TerraPower, founded by Gates about 15 years ago, and power company PacifiCorp, owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, said on Wednesday that the exact site […]]]>


Power companies run by billionaire friends Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have chosen Wyoming to launch the first Natrium nuclear reactor project on the site of a retired coal plant.

TerraPower, founded by Gates about 15 years ago, and power company PacifiCorp, owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, said on Wednesday that the exact site of the Natrium reactor demonstration plant should be announced by end of the year.

Small advanced reactors, which run on fuels different from traditional reactors, are seen by some as a critical carbon-free technology that can complement intermittent energy sources like wind and solar as states work to reduce emissions that cause climate change. [See footnote]

“We believe Natrium will be a game-changer for the energy industry,” Gates said at a press conference to launch the project in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

TerraPower Founder and Chairman Bill Gates speaks via video link at the launch in Cheyenne. Photograph: Michael Cummo / AP

“This is our fastest and clearest route to going carbon negative,” Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon said. “Nuclear power is clearly part of my overall energy strategy” in Wyoming, the nation’s largest coal-producing state.

The project includes a 345 megawatt sodium-cooled fast reactor with molten salt energy storage that could increase the system’s output power to 500 MW during peak demand. TerraPower said last year that the plants would cost around $ 1 billion.

Late last year, the U.S. Department of Energy granted TerraPower $ 80 million in seed funding to demonstrate Natrium technology, and the department committed additional funding in the coming years subject to Congress credits.

Chris Levesque, president and CEO of TerraPower, said construction of the demonstration plant would take about seven years.

“We need this kind of clean energy on the grid in the 2030s,” he told reporters.

Nuclear power experts have warned that advanced reactors could pose higher risks than conventional reactors. The fuel for many advanced reactors is expected to be enriched at a much higher rate than conventional fuel, meaning the fuel supply chain could be an attractive target for activists seeking to create a brute nuclear weapon, according to one. recent report.

Lévesque said the plants would reduce the risk of proliferation because they would reduce overall nuclear waste.

  • This footnote was added on June 4, 2021 regarding the fuel used by the reactor. According to a June 2 Associated Press article on the Natrium project, the involved advanced modular reactor (AMR) will, like most traditional reactors, use uranium. A Guardian query on the fuel point has been sent to Reuters; further clarification may follow.



Source link

]]>
https://abwr.org/bill-gates-and-warren-buffett-to-build-new-type-of-nuclear-reactor-in-wyoming-bill-gates/feed/ 0
NSW Productivity Commission slammed for recommending nuclear power while ignoring offshore wind https://abwr.org/nsw-productivity-commission-slammed-for-recommending-nuclear-power-while-ignoring-offshore-wind/ https://abwr.org/nsw-productivity-commission-slammed-for-recommending-nuclear-power-while-ignoring-offshore-wind/#respond Thu, 03 Jun 2021 21:22:29 +0000 https://abwr.org/nsw-productivity-commission-slammed-for-recommending-nuclear-power-while-ignoring-offshore-wind/ Maritime Union of Australia The NSW Productivity Commission is under fire for recommending that the NSW government lift the state’s ban on nuclear power while ignoring proven and cheaper renewable energy sources such as offshore wind. Among the 60 recommendations to boost productivity and economic growth, the NSW Productivity Commission white paper released this week […]]]>


Maritime Union of Australia

The NSW Productivity Commission is under fire for recommending that the NSW government lift the state’s ban on nuclear power while ignoring proven and cheaper renewable energy sources such as offshore wind.

Among the 60 recommendations to boost productivity and economic growth, the NSW Productivity Commission white paper released this week proposed lifting the ban on nuclear generation for small modular reactors.

The same report made no mention of offshore wind generation, despite the proven technology producing an increasing share of electricity globally and several major proposals awaiting approval off the coast of New South Wales.

This is despite CSIRO’s most recent power generation cost report showing SMR nuclear reactors cost around $ 16,000 per kilowatt, or nearly three times offshore wind. A recent analysis in the UK revealed that the cost of developing offshore wind is even lower.

The Maritime Union of Australia said it was astounding that the NSW Productivity Commission recommended that resources be invested in small modular nuclear reactors – technology that does not yet exist – instead of cheaper, cleaner technologies. and proven as offshore wind power.

“It’s amazing that the NSW Productivity Commission is proposing a major regulatory overhaul for a theoretical technology that doesn’t work anywhere on earth, without even mentioning one of the fastest growing forms of power generation,” said the MUA Deputy National Secretary Warren Smith. .

“Rather than wasting years debating a theoretical technology, which will entail huge costs and significant safety concerns, the NSW government should continue to support the development of reliable, inexpensive offshore wind resources. and abundant.

“The focus by the NSW Productivity Commission on an industry that doesn’t even exist, while ignoring proven technology that can provide power and jobs for NSW right now, shows that an ideological agenda is pro- nuclear power has been placed before the economic interests of the state.

“Small nuclear reactors have been promised for half a century, but none yet exist. Most countries with nuclear power are moving away from technology, with new reactors hugely exceeding their budget, requiring massive subsidies from taxpayers and blocking higher electricity prices for consumers.

“In contrast, offshore wind technology continues to mature, offering massive growth at ever lower prices.

“Australia has the advantage of long coastlines close to population centers, as well as highly skilled sailors and offshore oil and gas workers who could be used to build local wind projects.

“The development of an offshore wind industry would also provide an opportunity to transition highly skilled workers from the fossil fuel industries to a clean and green alternative.

“With the urgent need to cut carbon emissions to combat global warming, it is absurd that the NSW Productivity Commission would suggest sitting on our hands for a decade in the hope that a theoretical technology will magically solve the problem. while we already have solutions available.

“NSW has the opportunity to become a major exporter of clean, renewable energy, securing our economy for the future, but only if the Berejiklian government takes immediate action to support proven technologies. “

/ Public distribution. This material is from the original organization and may be ad hoc in nature, edited for clarity, style and length.



Source link

]]>
https://abwr.org/nsw-productivity-commission-slammed-for-recommending-nuclear-power-while-ignoring-offshore-wind/feed/ 0
Letters: who will pay our energy bills if we ever become self-employed? https://abwr.org/letters-who-will-pay-our-energy-bills-if-we-ever-become-self-employed/ https://abwr.org/letters-who-will-pay-our-energy-bills-if-we-ever-become-self-employed/#respond Thu, 03 Jun 2021 04:00:02 +0000 https://abwr.org/letters-who-will-pay-our-energy-bills-if-we-ever-become-self-employed/ MAY I add a little addition to the enlightened letters of MM. Lindsay, Moore, Baird and Parkin (Letters, June 1)? Maybe when Mr McDougall admires Whitelee from his bike, he might want to consider that to date this wind farm has been given over £ 143million to go out. The Renewable Energy Foundation keeps track […]]]>


MAY I add a little addition to the enlightened letters of MM. Lindsay, Moore, Baird and Parkin (Letters, June 1)? Maybe when Mr McDougall admires Whitelee from his bike, he might want to consider that to date this wind farm has been given over £ 143million to go out. The Renewable Energy Foundation keeps track of these strain payments on their website, which I visit regularly. This constantly growing amount comes from our invoices.

The UK total to date is just over £ 982million, of which over £ 911million is donated to Scottish wind farms by everyone in the UK. I wonder who will pay the Scottish share if Scotland ever becomes independent?

Massive concrete bases are sunk into the ground, often deep peat moss that we are continually told to preserve, and access roads built through a previously untouched landscape. How many other industries are paid so much for doing nothing when they cause so much environmental damage?

Brenda Herrick, Thurso.

THINGS SHOULD CHANGE

YOUR recent correspondence from climate change deniers and renewable energy proponents (Letters, May 31, June 1 and 2) ignores the fact that there are elephants in theaters on both sides of the argument. The elephant of climate change deniers is that we have to find a way to fuel our economies / lives using methodologies that do not produce CO2. The elephant of renewable energy is that the production of renewable electricity is inevitably intermittent. So if we admit that climate change is a reality, and this seems to be the view of the vast majority of the informed public, a solution to the CO2 issue must be found.

There are currently two possible solutions, nuclear fission and renewable energies. Public appetite for nuclear seems limited, which leaves us with renewables. So, rather than always complaining about renewable energy issues, we should strive to overcome the issues. Are there any solutions? Of course there are and they include pump storage systems, batteries, electrolysis to produce hydrogen, and I’m sure many other technologies that will be developed with proper funding.

Whether carpers and climate deniers like it or not, things need to change and, with the right investment and imagination, we can change things with as little disruption as possible.

John Palfreyman, Coupar Angus.

THE FINANCIAL MODEL IS BROKEN

MALCOM Parkin (Letters, June 1) asks how the current energy position in the UK came about.

One explanation I would suggest is that the financialization of the economy since the 1970s has meant that the products of our education system have become bean counters rather than Newton’s and Kelvin’s science skills.

On this planet, perpetual motion is impossible. Energy engineering that ignores the laws of thermodynamics is also very problematic. Morag Watson (Letters, May 31) would do well to reconsider his claims with these two facts in mind.

Each wind turbine has been costly in carbon dioxide emissions in its manufacture, transport and erection. Each “hydrogen generator” will have to be powered indirectly by fossil fuels. Other examples of energy blindness are the “space exploration” activities much praised by Struan Stevenson (“Wind farm march destroys Scotland’s beauty – but we can stop it”, The Herald, May 27). and resulting pollution.

Every solar panel has required fossil fuels for its manufacture. Each electric car battery requires energy extraction activities in its components and production. The infrastructure for charging vehicles is far from carbon-free.

The words of Nate Hagens (Post Carbon Institute, USA) explain the world energy situation with a brilliant analogy: “Our culture is blind to energy. We derive the principle from it and consider it to be of interest. ”

These are words that the business fraternity would do well to consider after the 50 years that the rapid increase in energy consumption and more and more energy absorbed in energy extraction has been supported by a financial model. failing.

John Caldwell, Bothwell.

LISTEN TO 97%

YOUR non-rare publication of letters from anthropogenic opponents of global warming reminds me of the criticisms the BBC has been subjected to in relation to its news or documentaries on climate change. For the sake of “balance”, he would question, for example, Nigel Lawson, known for his determination to contradict overwhelming scientific evidence.

However, the evidence was so conclusive, accepted by rational scientific, governmental, public (and now judicial: “Court Orders Royal Dutch Shell to Cut Carbon Emissions”, The Herald May 26) opinion that the BBC has ceased to give an instinctive screen. time to Lord Lawson and his half-baked tastes and beliefs.

Unfortunately, it would be inappropriate to suggest that the letter writers adopt a similar attitude. He would be in terrible trouble if he did; the pages are said to be full of cries of “eco-fascism”, “slippery slopes” and accusations of choking free speech despite the debate being closed.

And so, having made my point, I am left with the only option of suggesting to your readers that they reject opposing views and instead listen to those of the 97% of actively publishing climate scientists who agree that humans are at the origin of global warming. .

John Milne, Uddingston.

DESCEND AT NITTY GRITTY

NEIL Mackay’s analysis of the current state of Scottish politics and the crucial points he makes around the current stage of the independence debate (“The Five Key Truths about Scotland and the Union” , The Herald, June 1) was objective and very precise. The only point I would question is when he writes about the Tories’ ‘disrespect’ for Scotland, especially around Brexit. The Tories’ stance on Brexit was clear and when a British majority voted to leave Scotland, as part of that British entity, had no choice but to submit . The Tories are not disrespectful, they have simply argued for a drastically altered UK-wide relationship with the EU and, with their argument prevailing, are now implementing their UK-mandated policy.

Brexit is perhaps the most dramatic, but by no means the only example of how over the last decades political and social opinion, one could almost say the view of the world, of Scotland and the rest of the Kingdom. -United have diverged. Without being a nationalist waving flags or wearing a kilt, this difference of point of view remains for me the best argument in favor of the independence of Scotland.

Of course, this argument can be called emotional, but I fully agree with Mr Mackay that the arguments for independence in trade, currency and other matters must be convincing.

Brian Harvey, Hamilton.

WE ARE NOT ALL FANATIC

PETER A Russell (Letters, June 2) refers to Nicola Sturgeon and “her fanatical Yes movement”. The Yes movement does not belong to Nicola Sturgeon; he belongs to our nation of Scotland and she, like me and about half the nation, supports his goals.

The fact that we are all labeled fanatics by Mr. Russell suggests that he is untimely in his selection of adjectives. Nicola Sturgeon was born into an ordinary, law-abiding working-class family in Ayrshire and first became a lawyer and then a talented and much admired politician. If Mr. Russell has achieved comparable success and distinction in his career, he deserves to join the rest of us in the fanatic category.

Willie Maclean, Milngavie.

SNP VECTORS SHARE THE BLAME OF FERRIES

Whichever angle you look at the provision of ferry services to our islands, it is a complete shambles. The well-documented problems have been on the rise for years, long before Covid, and constitute a situation designed, created and managed by Scottish government agencies, overseen by the Scottish government.

As for SNP PSMs, representing the interests of the local population as usual comes second after aligning with HQ orders; that is, we can’t blame the UK for this one so don’t jump up and down pointing out the mess we made of things and demanding action.

Locals must be delighted that after the recent elections are over, their MSPs have “requested” a meeting with the new Transport Secretary. Let’s go back to the airbrushing over the past five years where this should have been properly addressed.

Putting aside all the Scottish taxpayers who will have to pay the hundreds of millions of pounds too much for just two new ferries, you should have immense sympathy for the Islanders.

And yet, for the majority of the local population, it cannot be such a problem. The recent elections should have been the time to bleed their PSM, instead it was more or less the same.

You reap what you sow.

Steven Clark, Edinburgh.

Read more: The nine key cards Scotland can play in the rUK talks



Source link

]]>
https://abwr.org/letters-who-will-pay-our-energy-bills-if-we-ever-become-self-employed/feed/ 0