Hitachi- from the country that brought the world Fukushima

Hitachi- from the country that brought the world Fukushima
We feel very sad for the people of Japan who want to end nuclear energy whilst a potential new government and big business are desperate for it

No Fukushima at Oldbury

No to Fukushima at Shepperdine!

No to Fukushima at Shepperdine!

Thursday, 29 March 2012

Our friends in Germany.....Urgewald

Dear All,


Below is the translation of an article from today's Handelsblatt (Germany's most important economic daily). Please let me know if you are still planning to come to the RWE and E.ON annual meetings.

Anyway, do let me know what your plans are.

All the best!

No new nuclear plants – RWE and Eon drop nuclear plans in Great Britain


E.ON and RWE are giving up their plans to build new nuclear power plants in Great Britain. Statements from company circles to the "Handelsblatt" confirmed this information.  The energy companies had planned investments running into the billions.


Düsseldorf/London: The energy companies RWE and E.ON have closed the file on their billion dollar plans for building new nuclear plants in Great Britain. On Thursday, RWE  announced its intention to exit the Horizon Joint Venture. „Parallel to this, E.ON also announced its exit“, according to reports. Amongst other things, the high costs were said to be a reason for the abandonment. „Now it´s our aim to find a buyer for Horizon Nuclear Power.“ The utilities' original idea was build several reactors in Great Britain, for which they had planned investments worth tens of billions. Both companies refused to provide an official statement on their change of plans.


Following the notification, the shares of E.ON und RWE continued to make losses. For the two biggest German energy providers Great Britain is one of the most important foreign markets. E.ON and RWE had founded the Horizon Joint Venture a few years ago in order to build new nuclear plants with a total output of 6000 MW by 2025. Over the past few years, E.ON and RWE had claimed that "this programme will cost around 18 billions Euro“.


Doubts about the project had been increasing. Uncertain political and economic conditions, significantly rising costs and building delays in the construction of nuclear plants in France and Finland as well as low electricity prices depressed the overall mood.


„These conditions definitely do not motivate to take on these risks“, E.ON board member Klaus-Dieter Maubach said recently. „It´s just not possible to build a nuclear power plant when electricity costs are at 60 Euro per MW“ Peter Terium, chef of RWE, had explained earlier. Terium has set the bar high.


Bitte unterstüŸtzen Sie unsere Arbeit durch eine Spende
GLS Bank / Konto 4035 295 900 / BLZ 430 609 67

urgewald e.V. ist als gemeinnüŸtzig und besonders fšörderungswŸrdig anerkannt.
Heffa SchüŸcking
Urgewald e.V.
Von-Galen-Straße 4
D-48336 Sassenberg
Tel. +49-2583-1031
+49-2583-9189937 (direkt)
Fax  +49-2583-4220
Mobil +49-160-96761436


E.on and RWE leave Horizon as a shell......

I am writing to inform you that, following a strategic review separately undertaken by our shareholders RWE npower and E.ON, they have taken the decision not to proceed with developing new nuclear generation in the UK.

Please find attached a statement from Horizon providing further information, along with press releases from both E.ON UK and RWE npower.

Clearly this is a significant development and one which will create some uncertainty. However, Horizon has created strong options for development at Wylfa and Oldbury and we will work with our shareholders as they investigate opportunities for new ownership. It is our intention to provide clarity on the next steps for Horizon as quickly as possible.

We will make available further information as soon as it is possible to do so.

Kind regards

Alan Raymant
Chief Operating Officer
Horizon Nuclear Power

Wednesday, 28 March 2012

Letter from Local Resident Concerned about New Build

Minister of State (Pensions)
 Steve Webb MP (LD)
Dear Prof Webb,
Nuclear Emergency Planning . South Gloucestershire
I   object most strongly to the building of new nuclear power stations at Hinkley Point , 60 km from my home, Oldbury, only 14 km from my home, or anywhere else.  I joined the Liberal Democrat Party in 1999 mainly because I supported  the party’s environmental policies. I  am now  very disappointed and puzzled at Ed Davey’s willingness to agree to  building new nuclear power stations, especially considering his statement in 2006, as follows:-
Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Rt Hon Mr Edward Davey MP (LD) 
As Lib Dem Trade and Industry spokesman in 2006 Mr Davey said: ‘in addition to posing safety and environmental risks, nuclear power will only be possible with vast taxpayer subsidies or a rigged market. ‘It is an issue that crops up in my postbag time and again. People don’t want nuclear, but they don’t know what the alternatives are. Now they do, and the alternatives are cleaner, safer, greener and better for the environment and the taxpayer.’”
 In my opinion any financial arrangements where nuclear energy can be classified as “renewable”, “clean” and “sustainable are unforgivable as nuclear energy certainly does not belong in any of these categories.

Nuclear radiation leaks and accidents do occur. I believe that residents  who live within a 1.5 km radius of Oldbury Nuclear Power Station are provided with instructions about  procedures of what steps to take in a nuclear emergency and also given  Potassium Iodate  Tablets to take to prevent the uptake of radioactive Iodine.  In 2004 South Glos FOE asked Boots in Thornbury to stock  Potassium Iodate 85 mg Tablets for the general public to buy, which was reported in the Gazette. I bought some of the tablets myself but unfortunately the tablets only have a shelf life of 30 months. 

In  August 2011 the nuclear accident in Japan was very much in my mind when I decided to personally investigate what were the nuclear power emergency procedures in Yate, South Glos, as I was under the impression that all public bodies hold a folder with specific instructions as what to do in case of such an emergency. I went into Yate Library to ask them if they had such a folder and the librarian did try to find out if such an item an existed and the librarian even emailed me at my home a few days later to say no, they hadn’t got such a specific folder on the premises. I then went into the new Health /Minor Injuries Centre in  Yate,  and the reply  was also that there not such a folder held by them . I finally went into Boots the Chemist, and spoke to a very helpful pharmacist. The Boots pharmacist said they had been overwhelmed with requests from members of the public wanting to buy Potassium Iodate Tablets when the Fukishima earthquake and tsunami caused the nuclear power reactor accident in Japan in March 2011. In particular she said flight crew members were trying to buy Potassium Iodate tablets as their employer airlines had asked them to do so. The sympathetic pharmacist had contacted Boots head office and was informed by them that as a company  Boots  do not stock the tablets and would not provide them.
            I think that all schools, hospitals, office blocks, public transport etc. should stock these tablets and have a responsibility to include awareness of nuclear radiation dangers as well as the usual health and safety and fire procedures. I am not sure if South Glos is a member of the Nuclear  Free  Local Authorities but others in this group  share my concerns, see below:_ 

 28th February 2012   Nuclear Free Local Authorities  raise nuclear emergency planning concerns in Greenpeace International report with Dept Energy and Climate Change and the Office for Nuclear Regulation.

The nuclear free local authorities have raised new issues around nuclear emergency planning following the publication of one of the most definitive analyses of the Fukushima disaster by Greenpeace International. The report „Lessons of Fukushima‟ has been developed by independent specialists for Greenpeace International as the first anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear disaster approaches on March 11th. A detailed chapter on nuclear emergency planning outlines that it was human factors and a weak nuclear emergency planning regime in Japan that was as much at fault as the natural disasters that hit north eastern Japan (1). The chapter on nuclear emergency planning was written by Professor David Boiller of the French ngo acro, a group that were also responsible for doing a considerable amount of independent marine sampling in the Fukushima area (2). Key points on nuclear emergency planning from the report include:
1  Emergency planning for dealing with the nuclear accident at Fukushima was not functional, and the evacuation process became chaotic, leading to many people being unnecessarily exposed to radiation.
2  Despite early public announcements that the radiation releases would not harm public health, the evacuation radiuses changed several times.
3  Evacuation planning based on circles with diameters of several kilometres is too rigid and hopelessly inadequate in the case of nuclear power plants.
4  Special software for predicting fallout patterns was not used correctly. In some cases, people were evacuated to areas with more, not less, radiation.
5 Evacuation procedures of vulnerable people failed. Patients from one hospital and a nearby home for the elderly were sent to shelters: 45 of 440 patients died after staff fled. In another incident, more than 90 elderly people were left without carers. Hospitals in Fukushima prefecture have had to suspend services because hundreds of doctors and nurses in the area resigned to avoid radiation.
6 The Fukushima crisis also exposed that one of the key principles of nuclear emergency plans – confinement (recommending people to stay in their homes to avoid radiation exposure) – simply does not work in practice.
7 Communities where people were confined for up to 10 days ran out of food, as well as fuel needed for eventual evacuation. In addition, specialised workers – such as drivers, nurses, doctors, social workers and firemen, who were needed to help those confined – were not prepared to stay in an area receiving large amounts of radiation.
8 The post-emergency situation is also riddled with problems – including dealing with contaminated food and land, higher radiation safety limits, insufficient monitoring of radiation levels and major problems with long-term decontamination.

The nuclear free local authorities have forwarded this report to leading officials in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Office for Nuclear Regulation and the UK nuclear emergency planning liaison group. A full review of uk emergency planning was expected to be completed by the end of 2011, but to date it has still not been published (3).  Some of these issues are also being considered by nuclear site stakeholders groups across the UK

.           Organising  such efficient and effective safeguards would add to the already  huge  financial burden of nuclear power on our country, the billions of pounds involved would be far better spent giving every householder and public building free solar panels and support for community truly renewable energy groups!
            Can you please express my concerns to Ed Davey about the disastrous financial  implications for many centuries to come  if   new nuclear power stations are built , and my fears for everyones’ safety.

            Yours sincerely,

Monday, 12 March 2012

News from Japan

Dear Friends all over the world,
On March 11th 2012, the first commemoration day of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, 16,000 people gathered in Koriyama City in Fukushima Prefecture, filled with anger against TEPCO and the Japanese Government.
Block restarting of any nuclear power plant in periodical inspection!
Stop exportation of nuclear power plants to Vietnam, Jordan and other countries!
Abolish all nuclear power plants immediately!
In Solidarity,
International Labor Solidarity Committee of Doro-Chiba

Sunday, 11 March 2012

Guess who is commercial manager of Horizon Nuclear Power

John Moriarty must be an excellent recruit for Horizon with his DECC background and his professed skills in government and parliamentary procedure

2nd John Moriarty
Commercial Manager at Horizon Nuclear Power
Gloucester, United Kingdom Utilities
Commercial Manager at Horizon Nuclear Power (Sole Proprietorship)
Policy manager at Department of Energy and Climate Change
Policy Manager at Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
University of Nottingham
Stonyhurst College
63 connections
Public Profile

Commercial Manager
Horizon Nuclear Power (Sole Proprietorship)
Sole Proprietorship; 51-200 employees; Utilities industry
July 2010 – Present (1 year 9 months)

Policy manager
Department of Energy and Climate Change
Government Agency; 501-1000 employees; Government Administration industry
July 2008 – June 2010 (2 years) Whitehall Place, London

Development of feed-in tariffs for small scale low carbon electricity generation
Policy Manager
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
June 2006 – June 2008 (2 years 1 month)

Head of microgeneration policy
Skills & Expertise

Energy Contract Management Business Planning IT Management Renewable Energy Nuclear Energy Financial Instruments Energy Policy Energy Trading Wind Energy Microgeneration distributed energy Government Parliamentary Procedure

Saturday, 10 March 2012

Vanilla Berens Handbags Nuke Lover Monbiot

Monbiot was blubbering and confused after a debate on Newsnight last night.

His normal bully boy tactics stood for nothing as Camilla dealt with his pathetic defence of his belief that nuclear and centralised power generation are good.

Subject: Fukushima anniversary media

and with the attchment...

Hi all

RE: Fukushima anniversary media

1.Heres Newsnight on Fukushima, starting @ 10.33 with Camilla Berens in
studio debate:

Susan Watts (Newsnights science reported asked me to brief her by phone and
through notes (see attched).

2. I debated post-Fukushima, post-Chernobyl health effects with Prof Roger
Cashmore FRS (former Principal of Brasenose), on R4 'Today', Sat 10 March,
prime-time 8.45am, see 1.45.30 into the programme


Dr Paul Dorfman
Warwick Business School
University of Warwick
Tel: +44 07972 385303

Thursday, 8 March 2012

Oldbury flooding risk, surprise! surprise!

What we already know:

  • Nuclear power

  • UK nuclear sites at risk of flooding, report shows

    Rising sea levels because of climate change put 12 of 19 sites at risk, unpublished government analysis shows

    • Map: sites at risk of flooding
    nuclear sites risk of flooding and coastal erosion : Sizewell nuclear power plant Southwold Suffolk
    Sizewell nuclear power plant, seen from across the sea at Southwold, Suffolk. Unpublished government analysis shows sites are at risk from flooding due to climate change. Photograph: Graham Turner for the Guardian
    As many as 12 of Britain's 19 civil nuclear sites are at risk of flooding and coastal erosion because of climate change, according to an unpublished government analysis obtained by the Guardian.
    Nine of the sites have been assessed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) as being vulnerable now, while others are in danger from rising sea levels and storms in the future.
    The sites include all of the eight proposed for new nuclear power stations around the coast, as well as numerous radioactive waste stores, operating reactors and defunct nuclear facilities. Two of the sites for the new stations – Sizewell in Suffolk and Hartlepool in County Durham, where there are also operating reactors – are said to have a current high risk of flooding. Closed and running reactors at Dungeness, Kent, are also classed as currently at high risk.
    Another of the sites at risk is Hinkley Point in Somerset, where the first of the new nuclear stations is planned and where there are reactors in operation and being decommissioned.
    According to Defra, Hinkley Point already has a low risk of flooding, and by the 2080s will face a high risk of both flooding and erosion.
    Other new reactor sites that face some risk now and high risk by the 2080s are Oldbury in Gloucestershire and Bradwell, Essex.
    The huge old nuclear complex at Sellafield, Cumbria, is said to face a medium risk of flooding now and later.
    The analysis was conducted by officials from Defra's floods and coastal erosion team as part of a major investigation into the impact of climate change on the UK. But when the results were published in January only summary numbers for the 2080s were mentioned and no individual sites were named.
    Defra has now, however, released its full analysis in response to a request under freedom of information legislation. As a result, the department's assessments of the risks for individual sites can be disclosed for the first time.
    Many of the sites date back to the 1950s and 1960s, and are unlikely to be fully decommissioned for many decades. Seven of those containing radioactive waste stores are judged to be at some risk of flooding now, with a further three at risk of erosion by the 2080s.
    Experts suggested the main concern was of inundation causing nuclear waste leaks.
    "Sea level rise, especially in the south-east of England, will mean some of these sites will be under water within 100 years," said David Crichton, a flood specialist and honorary professor at the hazard research centre at University College London. "This will make decommissioning expensive and difficult, not to mention the recovery and movement of nuclear waste to higher ground."
    The French nuclear company EDF Energy was confident that all its nuclear sites in Britain were adequately protected against storms and floods. "Without these arrangements in place the regulator would have the authority to close us down," said an EDF spokeswoman.
    Reports by the government's Office for Nuclear Regulation since the Fukushima nuclear accident a year ago had confirmed the "fundamental safety" of Britain's nuclear plants, the spokeswoman said. "Protection from flooding has also been factored into our new-build plans and will be covered by a robust regulatory regime, should consent be granted."
    The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the government body responsible for dismantling old nuclear plants, said flood risk at every site was reviewed at least every 10 years.
    New climate change hazards were likely to emerge slowly giving "time to develop and implement credible solutions", said an NDA spokesman.
    He continued: "Existing power stations are designed with flood protection measures to protect against a one-in-10,000-year flood event and planning requirements state that new nuclear plants are also designed to take account of climate change impacts."
    But Greenpeace accused the government and nuclear industry of covering up the real extent of flood and erosion risk. "It makes you wonder what other important information about the safety of our nuclear plants the government and EDF might be hiding," said the group's chief scientist, Doug Parr.
    A Defra spokesperson said: "As the nuclear regulator has said the UK's nuclear sites are fundamentally safe with protection against current and future flood risk built in. The Climate Change Risk Assessment analyses possible outcomes by 2080 if no actions were taken to protect against the effects of climate change. This is clearly not the case - nuclear operators are already well aware of the risk of flooding, now and in the future, and are taking the action necessary to protect sites."‬‪
    Site Meter