After years of avoiding extradition, Julian Assange’s appeal is likely his last chance. Here’s how it might unfold (and how we got here)
On February 20 and 21, Julian Assange will ask the High Court of England and Wales to reverse a decision from June last year allowing the United Kingdom to extradite him to the United States.
There he faces multiple counts of computer misuse and espionage stemming from his work with WikiLeaks, publishing sensitive US government documents provided by Chelsea Manning. The US government has repeatedly claimed that Assange’s actions risked its national security.
This is the final avenue of appeal in the UK, although Stella Assange, Julian’s wife, has indicated he would seek an order from the European Court of Human Rights if he loses the application for appeal. The European Court, an international court that hears cases under the European Convention on Human Rights, can issue orders that are binding on convention member states. In 2022, an order from the court stopped the UK sending asylum seekers to Rwanda pending a full review of the relevant legislation.
The extradition process has been running for nearly five years. Over such a long time, it’s easy to lose track of the sequence of events that led to this. Here’s how we got here, and what might happen next.
Years-long extradition attempt
From 2012 until May 2019, Assange resided in the Ecuadorian embassy in London after breaching bail on unrelated charges. While he remained in the embassy, the police could not arrest him without the permission of the Ecuadorian government.
In 2019, Ecuador allowed Assange’s arrest. He was then convicted of breaching bail conditions, and imprisoned in Belmarsh Prison, where he’s remained during the extradition proceedings. Shortly after his arrest, the United States laid charges against Assange and requested his extradition from the United Kingdom.
Assange immediately challenged the extradition request. After delays due to COVID, in January 2021, the District Court decided the extradition could not proceed because it would be “oppressive” to Assange.
The ruling was based on the likely conditions that Assange would face in an American prison and the high risk that he would attempt suicide. The court rejected all other arguments against extradition.
The American government appealed the District Court decision. It provided assurances on prison conditions for Assange to overcome the finding that the extradition would be oppressive. Those assurances led to the High Court overturning the order stopping extradition. Then the Supreme Court (the UK’s top court) refused Assange’s request to appeal that ruling.
The extradition request then passed to the home secretary, who approved it. Assange appealed the home secretary’s decision, which a single judge of the High Court rejected in June 2023.
This appeal is against that most recent ruling and will be heard by a two-judge bench. These judges will only decide whether Assange has grounds for appeal. If they decide in his favour, the court will schedule a full hearing of the merits of the appeal. That hearing would come at the cost of further delay in the resolution of his case.
Growing political support
Parallel to the legal challenges, Assange’s supporters have led a political campaign to stop the prosecution and the extradition. One goal of the campaign has been to persuade the Australian government to argue Assange’s case with the American government.
Cross-party support from individual parliamentarians has steadily grown, led by independent MP Andrew Wilkie. Over the past two years, the government, including the foreign minister and the prime minister, have made stronger and clearer statements that the prosecution should end.
On February 14, Wilkie proposed a motion in support of Assange, seconded by Labor MP Josh Wilson. The house was asked to “underline the importance of the UK and USA bringing the matter to a close so that Mr Assange can return home to his family in Australia.” It was passed.
In addition, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus confirmed he had recently raised the Assange prosecution with his American counterpart, who has the authority to end it.
What will Assange’s team argue?
For the High Court appeal, it is expected Assange’s legal team will once again argue the extradition would be oppressive and that the American assurances are inadequate. A recent statement by Alice Edwards, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, supports their argument that extradition could lead to treatment “amounting to torture or other forms of ill-treatment or punishment”. She rejected the adequacy of American assurances, saying:
They are not legally binding, are limited in their scope, and the person the assurances aim to protect may have no recourse if they are violated.
The argument that extradition would be oppressive remains the strongest ground for appeal. However, it is likely Assange’s lawyers will also repeat some of the arguments which were unsuccessful in the District Court proceedings.
One argument is that the charges against Assange, particularly the espionage charges, are political offences. The United States–United Kingdom extradition treaty does not allow either state to extradite for political offences.
Assange is also likely to re-run the argument that his leaks of classified documents were exercises of his right to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights. To date, the European Court of Human Rights has never found that an extradition request violates freedom of expression. For the High Court to do so would be an innovative ruling.
The High Court will hear two days of legal argument and might not give its judgement immediately, but it will probably be delivered soon after the hearing. Whatever the decision, Assange’s supporters will continue their political campaign, supported by the Australian government, to stop the prosecution.
How British Intelligence Framed Julian Assange As Russian Agent
KIT KLARENBERG FEB 19, 2024
February 20/21st could mark WikiLeaks founder-and-chief Julian Assange’s final opportunity to avoid extradition to the US. London’s High Court has scheduled two days of arguments over whether he can ask an appeals court to block his transfer Stateside. If unsuccessful, he could be sent across the Atlantic, where he faces prosecution under Washington’s draconian Espionage Act, and penalties ranging from 175 years in a “supermax” prison, to death, for exposing the lies and crimes of US global empire.
It is the most important press freedom case of all time. Yet, at no point during Julian’s seven years of arbitrary detention in London’s Ecuadorian embassy, or five years at His Majesty’s Pleasure in Belmarsh Prison, Britain’s “Gitmo”, have the mainstream media or international human rights groups taken a serious interest in his plight. Many Western citizens – including those who had hitherto full-throatedly supported WikiLeaks, and Julian’s crusade against official secrecy – were also indifferent over, if not outright supportive of, his violent explusion from the Ecuadorian embassy.
Much of this conspiracy of silence and apathy can be attributed to a concerted campaign of calumny, incubated in London and Washington DC, designed to extinguish public sympathy for Julian. As Nils Melzer, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture, wrote in a June 2019 op-ed Western media refused to publish, he was “systematically slandered to divert attention from the crimes he exposed,” and once he’d been “dehumanized through isolation, ridicule and shame, just like the witches we used to burn at the stake, it was easy to deprive him of his most fundamental rights without provoking public outrage worldwide.”
A prominent libel against Julian was that he operated upon the orders, and in the interests, of the Kremlin. Built up as an omnipotent villain on the world stage following the February 2014 Western-sponsored Maidan coup in Ukraine, and all manner of domestic political upheaval in Europe and North America small and large framed as somehow Moscow-orchestrated ever after, anyone and anything branded as even vaguely sympathetic to Russia automatically became an FSB and/or GRU chaos agent.
When British police forcibly hauled Julian handcuffed out of the Ecuadorian embassy, many mainstream outlets – and a great many Russiagaters – cheered, believing he would soon be indicted for his GRU-assisted role in subverting the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election. No such charges have been forthcoming. And in September 2021, Yahoo News inadvertently let an incongruous cat out of the bag. The outlet revealed the CIA had explored plans to surveil, kidnap, and even kill Julian while he was ensconced in the Ecuadorian Embassy.
The explosive report was almost entirely ignored by the mainstream media – although one fundamental aspect of the article even its advocates and promoters largely overlooked was the disclosure that the CIA possessed no evidence Julian or WikiLeaks had any ties whatsoever with Russia. “Difficulty” in proving he or his organization had operated “at the direct behest of the Kremlin” was reportedly a “major factor” when, in April 2017, Mike Pompeo, then-C.I.A. director, designated WikiLeaks a “non-state hostile intelligence service.” That unfounded assertion opened the floodgates for the Agency’s untrammeled surveillance, harassment, and persecution of Julian and his collaborators. It also served as justification for its assassination plots.
There is another dimension to this mephitic myth that has largely remained unexplored. Integrity Initiative, a covert British intelligence information warfare operation, was pivotal to perpetuating the narrative of Julian as Kremlin asset. This sordid tale reveals just how flimsy Western propaganda campaigns are concocted and then disseminated through compliant media. Now, with Julian facing extradition to the US, it has never been more urgent to expose.
Killing Hope
A major component of the Integrity Initiative scandal was the organisation’s construction of cloak-and-dagger “clusters”. These were – and may well remain today – clandestine networks of journalists, scholars, politicians and military and intelligence operatives, which the Initiative could mobilise to disseminate black propaganda, therefore influencing policy and perceptions, targeting domestic and overseas adversaries. One little-known example of the potency of clusters was an aggressive campaign to falsely connect Julian with the Kremlin.
The Initiative’s Spanish cluster was particularly instrumental in this regard. The largest and most influential of any Initiative cluster outside the UK, its ranks include a number of prominent journalists, academics, think tank representatives, lawmkaers from several parties, government ministers, and military officials.
Initiative documents leaked in November 2018 by Anonymous, the “hacktivist” collective, detail how this nexus has successfully subverted the Spanish political process. There is, for instance, the case of Pedro Baños, a colonel in the Spanish army and formerly chief of counterintelligence and security for the European Army Corps. His fate is highly relevant to the Initiative’s role in framing Assange as a Russian asset.
In June 2018, the spook-staffed Initiative learned Madrid’s governing Socialist Workers’ Party was to appoint Baños director of Spain’s National Security Department, roughly the equivalent of the US Department of Homeland Security. Baños had repeatedly appeared on RT and Sputnik in the months prior, and publicly called for constructive, harmonious relations between the European Union and Moscow.
The Initiative couldn’t tolerate his appointment to such an influential post. Within hours of learning this confidential information, the Spanish cluster covertly passed dossiers on the colonel to local and international media outlets and activated its overseas clusters to publish negative comments about the proposed move on social media, to “generate international support” for its blockage.
The Initiative’s London-based team also set up a dedicated WhatsApp group “to coordinate Twitter response, get contacts to expand awareness and get people retweeting the material.”
The cluster, moreover, sent material to El País and El Mundo, leading Spanish dailies. Representatives of the People’s Party—which has cluster operatives within its ranks—and Ciudadanos, another centrist party, publicly called for Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez to block the appointment, while some Spanish diplomats also expressed their “concerns.” As the day drew to a close, it was confirmed Baños was no longer in the running for the post……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The cluster, moreover, sent material to El País and El Mundo, leading Spanish dailies. Representatives of the People’s Party—which has cluster operatives within its ranks—and Ciudadanos, another centrist party, publicly called for Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez to block the appointment, while some Spanish diplomats also expressed their “concerns.” As the day drew to a close, it was confirmed Baños was no longer in the running for the post.
Even more damningly, McGrath found Julian featured in just 17 of 596 stories about Catalonia published by RT and Sputnik from September – December 2017. Meanwhile, of the 1,508 tweets shared by the pair’s English- and Spanish-language Twitter accounts on Catalonia within this timeframe, a mere 22 – 1.46% – mentioned him. Ironically, El País published considerably more stories referencing Julian than Sputnik and RT combined during this period. McGrath concluded:
“Claims about fake news, especially those published in the media and brought before legislative bodies, need to be more thoroughly scrutinized. It is important to conduct further research to understand how widespread of an issue fake news about fake news is and how these unfounded allegations come about. It is necessary to explore how claims of fake news can themselves be used as a manipulative tactic and understand the impact this has on society.”……………………………………………………………………………………..
This egregious saga is a particularly pitiful example of the ease with which Western intelligence agencies can flood corporate media with outright fiction on the flimsiest of bases, in the knowledge credulous, pliable “journalists” will peddle their fallacious lies as fact in the manner of religious conviction, and never face consequenceso.
If and when their lies are exposed, they can pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened, safely clinging to their legitimizing awards, sanitised Wikipedia entries, and plaudits. Meanwhile, Julian is approaching the fifth anniversary of his arrival in “Britain’s Gitmo”. Each and every day since, his mental and physical health has deteriorated.
Now, his only path to liberation from that hellish structure may be a 175–year sentence in a supermax prison, situated not far from the headquarters of a spying agency that not long ago drew up elaborate plans to murder him in cold blood. https://www.kitklarenberg.com/p/how-british-intelligence-framed-julian-088?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=552010&post_id=141816575&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&utm_medium=email
US Threatens to Veto New Gaza Ceasefire Resolution at UN Security Council
The US has vetoed two similar resolutions
by Dave DeCamp February 18, 2024, https://news.antiwar.com/2024/02/18/us-threatens-to-veto-new-gaza-ceasefire-resolution-at-un-security-council/
—
The US is threatening to veto a resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza at the UN Security Council as the US continues to provide political cover for the Israeli massacre of Palestinians.
US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield said in a statement that if the resolution, which is being drafted by Algeria, was brought to a vote, it would not be adopted.
Thomas-Greenfield justified US opposition to a ceasefire by pointing to US efforts to push for a new hostage deal between Israel and Hamas. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vetoed hostage talks last week, and Qatar, the mediator of the negotiations, said Saturday that things were not looking “promising.”
Thomas-Greenfield said Algeria’s resolution would “run counter” to US efforts on the hostage deal. “We have communicated this concern repeatedly to our colleagues on the Council. For that reason, the United States does not support action on this draft resolution. Should it come up for a vote as drafted, it will not be adopted,” she said.
The US has already used its veto power on the Security Council to veto two resolutions calling for an end to the onslaught. The Biden administration has also dismissed the International Court of Justice’s ruling that it’s “plausible” Israel is committing genocide and continues to provide unconditional military support for the slaughter.
Thomas-Greenfield said the resolution would get in the way of US “diplomacy” related to pushing for a hostage deal. “It is critical that other parties give this process the best odds of succeeding, rather than push measures that put it — and the opportunity for an enduring resolution of hostilities — in jeopardy,” she said.
Nuclear news – week to 19 February
Some bits of good news – Sea Otters Returned to a Degraded Coastline Ate Enough Crabs to Restore Balance and Cut Erosion by 90%.England set a biodiversity benchmark. Wind power awards and wildlife photography: Positive environmental stories from 2024.
TOP STORIES. Chris Hedges: Julian Assange’s Final Appeal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvdTG56UbdcAustralian PM Albanese and 85 Other MPs Vote to End Assange Incarceration.
Biodiversity: the first ever State of the World’s Migratory Species report released.
Nuclear Illusions Hinder Climate Efforts as Costs Keep Rising. Nuclear Delays, Cost Overruns Imperil UK’s Net-Zero Goals .
Surviving an Era of Pervasive Nuclear Instability.
***************************************
From the archives. The war-mongering of Israel and USA.
Climate.Collapse of Ocean Currents Could Cause Major Climate Problems.
Nuclear. The U.S. industry is pretty quiet, still licking its wounds oveer the NuScale small nuclear reactor fiasco. Not so -Britain. The UK is in a turmoil (actually over lots of things) – but especially over MONEY – and the obscene costs of its Great British Nuclear Policy – not going too well at all!
Noel’s notes: Israel, USA, the “West” can’t hide their atrocious guilt any more. Again – the power of the Zionist lobby. 11 year old boys and nukes in space.
************************************************************
AUSTRALIA. Australian Parliament votes in favour of bringing Julian Assange home. Dutton goes nuclear on government’s renewable plans. Australia’s nuclear future and the legal ramifications of ratifying the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Wind and solar are delivering an energy transition at record speed.
NUCLEAR ISSUES
| ECONOMICS. UK: Spending watchdog launches investigation into Sellafield nuclear waste site. The UK’s biggest nuclear waste dump faces an inquiry by the National Audit Office (NAO) over its soaring costs and safety record. UK Nuclear financing comes unstuck. Energy company Centrica boss says it could fund Suffolk nuclear plant Sizewell C. France: EDF’s setbacks weigh down the relaunch of nuclear power in Europe. France’s first 6 EPR2 nuclear reactors will cost much more than the planned 52 billion euros. Energy company Centrica boss says it could fund Suffolk nuclear plant Sizewell C. | ENVIRONMENT. AI, climate change, pandemics and nuclear warfare put humanity in ‘grave danger’, open letter warns. The Saltwater Threat: A Death Sentence for Freshwater Life as EDF plans to flood area, in service to Hinkley Nuclear Project . | HEALTH. Radiation. Breakthrough research unveils effects of ionizing radiation on cellul |
| POLITICS. UK: Britain must pay more for Hinkley, says France. UK government keen to take control of Anglesey site for Westinghouse to build Wylfa nuclear power station. Planned UK nuclear reactors unlikely to help hit green target, say MPs. Environmental Audit Committee urges UK Government to clarify nuclear SMR strategy UK’s Nuclear Strategy Faces Criticism: Uncertainty Looms for Small Modular Reactors. Nuclear Free Local Authorities call on nuclear industry to spend more on social action. Radiation Free Lakeland urges East Riding Councillors to Withdraw from GDF process. PM Trudeau dismisses Algonquin concerns over Chalk River nuclear waste dump. “Unbelievable” U.S. government bailouts fund zombie nuclear projects. | POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. Nuclear weapons and poison pills: Washington, Beijing warily circle AI talks. EU nuclear weapons ‘unrealistic,’ says German defense committee chair. Shameless Emmanuel Macron demands British taxpayers cough up more cash for nuclear power. | SAFETY. Congress takes aim at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Nuclear regulator raps EDF over safety flaws. Latest Fukushima leak exposes failures in nuclear crisis management. Safety panel urges Fukushima nuclear plant operator to better communicate with public. The Complexity of Nuclear Submarine Safeguards Impacts the Current Landscape. |
| SECRETS and LIES. South Korea’s nuclear mafia. | SPACE. EXPLORATION, WEAPONS. The ‘disturbing’ intel roiling the Hill is about Russian nukes in space. From Russia with nukes? Sifting facts from speculation about space weapon threat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xl0C6K2Nug – Long video – but worth it.SpaceX deorbiting 100 older Starlink satellites to ‘keep space safe and sustainable’. ‘Everyone needs to calm down’: experts assess Russian nuclear space threat. Is there really a nuclear weapon in space? | SPINBUSTER. The War on Gaza: Public Relations vs. Reality. Russian ‘nukes in space’ scare by Biden admin is nonsense. Exploding Alberta’s Myths about Small Nuclear Reactors. |
Chris Hedges: Julian Assange’s Final Appeal
Julian Assange will make his final appeal this week to the British courts to avoid extradition. If he is extradited it is the death of investigations into the inner workings of power by the press.
By Chris Hedges / ScheerPost, 18 Feb 24
LONDON — If Julian Assange is denied permission to appeal his extradition to the United States before a panel of two judges at the High Court in London this week, he will have no recourse left within the British legal system. His lawyers can ask the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) for a stay of execution under Rule 39, which is given in “exceptional circumstances” and “only where there is an imminent risk of irreparable harm.” But it is far from certain that the British court will agree. It may order Julian’s immediate extradition prior to a Rule 39 instruction or may decide to ignore a request from the ECtHR to allow Julian to have his case heard by the court.
The nearly 15-year-long persecution of Julian, which has taken a heavy toll on his physical and psychological health, is done in the name of extradition to the U.S. where he would stand trial for allegedly violating 17 counts of the 1917 Espionage Act, with a potential sentence of 170 years.
Julian’s “crime” is that he published classified documents, internal messages, reports and videos from the U.S. government and U.S. military in 2010, which were provided by U.S. army whistleblower Chelsea Manning. This vast trove of material revealed massacres of civilians, torture, assassinations, the list of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay and the conditions they were subjected to, as well as the Rules of Engagement in Iraq. Those who perpetrated these crimes — including the U.S. helicopter pilots who gunned down two Reuters journalists and 10 other civilians and severely injured two children, all captured in the Collateral Murder video — have never been prosecuted.
Julian exposed what the U.S. empire seeks to airbrush out of history.
Julian’s persecution is an ominous message to the rest of us. Defy the U.S. imperium, expose its crimes, and no matter who you are, no matter what country you come from, no matter where you live, you will be hunted down and brought to the U.S. to spend the rest of your life in one of the harshest prison systems on earth. If Julian is found guilty it will mean the death of investigative journalism into the inner workings of state power. To possess, much less publish, classified material — as I did when I was a reporter for The New York Times — will be criminalized. And that is the point, one understood by The New York Times, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, El País and The Guardian, who issued a joint letter calling on the U.S. to drop the charges against him.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and other federal lawmakers voted on Thursday for the United States and Britain to end Julian’s incarceration, noting that it stemmed from him “doing his job as a journalist” to reveal “evidence of misconduct by the U.S.”
The legal case against Julian, which I have covered from the beginning and will cover again in London this week, has a bizarre Alice-in-Wonderland quality, where judges and lawyers speak in solemn tones about law and justice while making a mockery of the most basic tenants of civil liberties and jurisprudence.
How can hearings go forward when the Spanish security firm at the Ecuadorian Embassy, UC Global, where Julian sought refuge for seven years, provided videotaped surveillance of meetings between Julian and his lawyers to the CIA, eviscerating attorney-client privilege? This alone should have seen the case thrown out of court.
How can the Ecuadorian government led by Lenin Moreno violate international law by rescinding Julian’s asylum status and permit London Metropolitan Police into the Ecuadorian Embassy — sovereign territory of Ecuador — to carry Julian to a waiting police van?
Why did the courts accept the prosecution’s charge that Julian is not a legitimate journalist?
Why did the United States and Britain ignore Article 4 of their Extradition Treaty that prohibits extradition for political offenses?
How is the case against Julian allowed to go ahead after the key witness for the United States, Sigurdur Thordarson – a convicted fraudster and pedophile – admitted to fabricating the accusations he made against Julian?
How can Julian, an Australian citizen, be charged under the U.S. Espionage Act when he did not engage in espionage and wasn’t based in the U.S when he received the leaked documents?
Why are the British courts permitting Julian to be extradited to the U.S. when the CIA — in addition to putting Julian under 24-hour video and digital surveillance while in the Ecuadorian Embassy — considered kidnapping and assassinating him, plans that included a potential shoot-out on the streets of London with involvement by the Metropolitan Police?
How can Julian be condemned as a publisher when he did not, as Daniel Ellsberg did, obtain and leak the classified documents he published?
Why is the U.S. government not charging the publisher of The New York Times or The Guardian with espionage for publishing the same leaked material in partnership with WikiLeaks?
Why is Julian being held in isolation in a high-security prison without trial for nearly five years when his only technical violation of the law is breaching bail conditions when he sought asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy? Normally this would entail a fine. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Julian’s lawyers will attempt to convince two High Court judges to grant him permission to appeal a number of the arguments against extradition which Judge Baraitser dismissed in January 2021. His lawyers, if the appeal is granted, will argue that prosecuting Julian for his journalistic activity represents a “grave violation” of his right to free speech; that Julian is being prosecuted for his political opinions, something which the U.K.-U.S. extradition treaty does not allow; that Julian is charged with “pure political offenses” and the U.K.-U.S. extradition treaty prohibits extradition under such circumstances; that Julian should not be extradited to face prosecution where the Espionage Act “is being extended in an unprecedented and unforeseeable way”; that the charges could be amended resulting in Julian facing the death penalty; and that Julian will not receive a fair trial in the U.S. They are also asking for the right to introduce new evidence about CIA plans to kidnap and assassinate Julian.
If the High Court grants Julian permission to appeal, a further hearing will be scheduled during which time he will argue his appeal grounds. If the High Court refuses to grant Julian permission to appeal, the only option left is to appeal to the ECtHR. If he is unable to take his case to the ECtHR he will be extradiated to the U.S.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. No other contemporary journalist has come close to matching his revelations.
Julian is the first. We are next. https://scheerpost.com/2024/02/18/chris-hedges-julian-assanges-final-appealchris-hedges/—
UK Nuclear financing comes unstuck
‘It would be madness to give Sizewell C the final go-ahead while the questions of whether Hinkley C can be finished, and who pays, are not resolved.
It all seems a bit desperate.
All in all, despite attempts to talk it up at COP28, nuclear seem to be facing a real problem with finance, if nothing else, a problem not shared by renewables- they are mostly getting cheaper.
SMR’s look likely to be an expensive diversion.
, https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2024/02/uk-nuclear-financing-comes-unstuck.html
The Prime Minister Rishi Sunak says that nuclear power is the ‘perfect antidote to the energy challenges facing Britain’, but things seem to be going a bit amiss with nuclear finance. Basically, not many want to fund new nuclear projects any more, as costs and delays escalate along with political sensitivities.
For example, China’s CGN has halted funding for UK’s part-built Hinkley Point C European Pressurised-water Reactor. CGN may yet restart payments, but, if not, its developer, the French company EDF, will have to fund the completion of the plant alone.
Some portrayed CGNs withdrawal from Hinkley as due to China being ‘miffed’ by its exclusion from the Sizewell project. The UK government had earlier taken over CGN’s initial stake in EDF proposed next project, Sizewell C, after concerns about over-reliance on Chinese funding. That would not have gone down well in China. But it was also claimed that CGN was upset by the large Hinkley overrun costs and delays. Well maybe that’s true too, but CGN was within its rights to exit. It was contractually allowed to only meet any cost overruns on a voluntary basis. And it’s evidently decided not to. Though of course it will still own a share of any profits, if the project still goes ahead.
However, Hinkley prospects now looks even more uncertain, with EDF saying its start date could be delayed from 2027 to 2031 and it cost expand to £35bn or even more, with knock-on effects also likely for Sizewell C.
So some plans seem to be coming adrift, with France and the UK potentially falling out over what happens next. France has already called on the UK to pay more for Hinkley. It could even be that it will pull out of financing Sizewell. Certainly, even if that is avoided, nuclear funding all looks a bit uncertain, with China out of it and EDF strapped for cash.
Under the UK’s proposed RAB funding system, consumers are set to be tapped to in effect provide some of the up-front capital needed for Sizewell, thus talking on some the risk faced by this investment. But as Alison Downes of the Stop Sizewell C campaign group said: ‘It would be madness to give Sizewell C the final go-ahead while the questions of whether Hinkley C can be finished, and who pays, are not resolved. Sizewell C is bound to take longer and cost more, but this time it would be we consumers who would bear the risk and pay the price through the “nuclear tax” on our energy bills.’
However, new private investors are still being sought, and to keep the show on the road the UK government has provided an extra £1.3bn, bringing the proposed UK tax payers funding so far to £2.5 bn.
But will it still happen? As Utility week noted ‘The Sizewell C plant, which has yet to receive a final investment decision by the government, will not be fully commissioned until 2038’. And that could be rather optimistic. More like 2040! All of which could mean that future security of supply may also be uncertain. With Hinkley delayed, EDF now says it wants to keep its old AGR plants running (even) longer, despite their safety issues, to maintain output and its cash flow! It is also talking about running the (already existing) Sizewell B PWR an extra 20 years.
It all seems a bit desperate. Prof. Rob Gross, director of UK Energy Research Centre, said the delays to Hinkley made increasing gas burn in the meantime ‘almost inevitable’. He added Wind or solar are unlikely to plug the gap because the UK is already ‘struggling to connect all the renewables schemes already in the pipeline for 2027/28’. But surely we can do better than that – if we stop wasting money on nuclear dead ends and focus instead on linking up new renewables.
For example, there are new grid technologies which can help green power network integration, including advanced composite-core conductors which, according to a US study, ‘can cost-effectively double transmission capacity within existing right-of-way (ROW), with limited additional permitting’. It claimed that ‘this strategy unlocks a high availability of increasingly economically-viable RE resources in close proximity to the existing network’, and it could upgrade the system very cost effectively. However, it’s not just a matter of better grid technology, or even less money. It also about reducing bureaucracy and getting rid of policy blocks, for example, in the UK context, in relation to on shore wind, which, despite pronouncements otherwise, is still in effect, being blocked.
Cost over-runs and delays with nuclear projects are of course not just British issues. As Counterpunch noted, reactor construction delays and costs hikes are also common elsewhere. ‘The cost of EDF’s EPR reactor being built in France at Flamanville and still incomplete, has more than quadrupled to close to $15 billion. Another EPR, at Olkiluoto in Finland, went from $3.2 billion to more than $12 billion and launched 12 years late. On U.S. soil, two AP 1000 reactors at the Vogtle nuclear power plant site in Georgia, will likely come in at a total price tag of at least $35 billion, $20 billion more than originally estimated, with the second of the two reactors still not on line’.
All in all, despite attempts to talk it up at COP28, nuclear seem to be facing a real problem with finance, if nothing else, a problem not shared by renewables- they are mostly getting cheaper. The nuclear lobby’s last ditch hope is small modular reactors- still a very long shot, with none yet in existence. So far SMR’s look likely to be an expensive diversion. And too late to be much help meeting climate/energy targets. For example, the chair of the UK’s Environmental Audit Committee has said that ‘the first SMR is unlikely to be in operation by 2035, the date ministers have set for decarbonising the electricity supply. So, what role will SMRs have in an energy mix dominated by renewables and supplemented by existing and emerging large-scale nuclear?’
Arguably, ‘big nuclear’ is also unlikely to be favoured for new capacity in many places: potential financiers are more likely to stick with what already works well and is cheaper …At COP28, 22 countries, including the UK, talked about tripling nuclear by 2050. But over 117 committed to tripling renewables by 2030. Arguably a much more credible and useful target.
ICJ Hearings to Examine 57 Years of Israeli Occupation of Palestine
“Decades of injustice will finally face scrutiny,” said U.N. human rights official Francesca Albanese ahead of next week’s Hague hearings on the legal consequences of Israel’s illegal occupation.
Brett Wilkins, Common Dreams, 16 Feb 24 ,
https://www.commondreams.org/news/israeli-occupation
More than 50 countries are set to participate in next week’s hearings at the International Court of Justice focusing on Israel’s illegal 57-year occupation of Palestine, a forum that follows the Hague tribunal’s finding last month that Israel is “plausibly” committing genocide in occupied Gaza.
The ICJ—also known as the World Court—will hold a week of hearings on the legal consequences of Israel’s occupation of Palestine, which dates to the Israeli conquest of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip, Syrian Golan Heights, and Egyptian Sinai Peninsula during the 1967 Six-Day War.
“The International Court of Justice is set for the first time to broadly consider the legal consequences of Israel’s nearly six-decades-long occupation and mistreatment of the Palestinian people,” Human Rights Watch senior legal adviser Clive Baldwin said in a statement. “Governments that are presenting their arguments to the court should seize these landmark hearings to highlight the grave abuses Israeli authorities are committing against Palestinians, including the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution.”
The West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights remain under Israeli military occupation six decades after their conquest. The United Nations—to which the ICJ belongs—and many international NGOs contend that, despite removing its troops and settlers from Gaza two decades ago, Israel continues to occupy Gaza by controlling the besieged enclave’s airspace, territorial waters, and the entry and exit of people and goods.
Since the October 7 Hamas-led attacks on Israel, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have killed or wounded more than 100,000 Palestinians in Gaza while forcibly displacing around 90% of the population. Numerous Israeli leaders have called for the renewed physical occupation, Jewish resettlement, and ethnic cleansing of the strip.
During the current assault on Gaza, occupation forces have also killed at least 388 Palestinians, including 99 children, in the West Bank, according to U.N. human rights officials.
Israeli settlers have for decades been steadily colonizing the occupied territories under the protection of the IDF, while ethnically cleansing Palestinians whose lands and homes they steal.
Next week’s hearings come on the heels of the ICJ’s provisional ruling last month in a case led by South Africa—which will be the first nation after Palestine to present at next week’s hearing—that Israel is “plausibly” committing genocide in Gaza. The tribunal ordered Israel to “take all measures within its power” to adhere to its obligations under Article II of the Genocide Convention.
Earlier this week, South Africa urgently appealed to the ICJ to act amid the looming threat of an Israeli ground invasion of Rafah. More than 1.5 million Palestinians, most of them refugees ordered to flee to the south of Gaza by invading Israeli forces, are crammed into what is now one of the world’s most densely populated places.
On Friday, the ICJ declined to take any additional action against Israel, while reiterating that the “perilous situation” in Rafah “demands immediate and effective implementation of the provisional measures indicated by the court” in last month’s ruling.
Exploding Alberta’s Myths about Small Nuclear Reactors
Small nuclear reactors are unproven and years away from being in use. But the Alberta government is presenting them as a way to keep fossil fuels flowing.
The untested technology is more about greenwashing than about cutting emissions.
Tim Rauf 15 Feb 2024, The Tyee
Alberta’s government is really excited about nuclear power.
More specifically, about novel and unproven small modular nuclear reactors. It hopes to use these to help lower the province’s carbon emissions while letting the energy industry continue operating as usual — an enticing prospect to the government given its intention to increase oil and gas production, while still having the energy sector get to net zero by 2050.
Small modular nuclear reactors produce less than one-third of the electricity of a traditional reactor.
The premise is that small reactors are easier to place and build, and cheaper.
Alberta hitched its horse to this wagon with Ontario, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan in 2022, taking part in a strategic plan for small modular reactor development and deployment. Alberta Innovates, the province’s research body, had a feasibility study conducted for it by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The study focused on using the reactors for greenhouse-gas-free steam emissions for oilsands projects, electricity generation in our deregulated market and providing an alternative to diesel when supplying power to remote communities.
More recently, Ontario Power Generation and Capital Power out of Edmonton entered into an agreement to assess SMRs for providing nuclear energy to Alberta’s grid. Nathan Neudorf, Alberta’s minister of affordability and utilities, was gleeful. “This partnership represents an exciting and important step forward in our efforts to decarbonize the grid while maintaining on-demand baseload power,” he said of the announcement.
All of this buzz makes it seem like SMRs are just over the horizon, an inevitability that will allow the province to evolve to have a cleaner, modern energy landscape.
But small modular reactors are nowhere near ready for deployment, and won’t be in Alberta for about a decade. That means for 10 years, they’ll provide no GHG-free steam to mitigate emissions.
“It’s still in the design phase,” Kennedy Halvorson said, speaking about the reactors. Halvorson is a conservation specialist with the Alberta Wilderness Association. The reactors are “so far off from being able to be used for us,” Halvorson added. “The earliest projections would be 2030. And we need to be reducing our emissions before 2030. So, we need to have solutions now, basically.”
With SMRs unable to stem the emissions tide for years, it’s confusing as to how they could make enough of a difference to get Alberta to net zero by 2050 (in line with United Nations emissions reduction targets to keep global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees).
Capital Power made similar projections………………………………………………………………………..
Construction itself is only one piece. Adding to that is the need to build a regulatory framework, which Alberta doesn’t have for nuclear…………………………………………………….
Ontario’s nuclear troubles
Listening to these public voices is prudent. We can look east to see what happens when the government and power utilities sidestep the process of getting explicit consent from communities that stand to be affected.
With its status as the nuclear activity hub in Canada, we can use Ontario as a litmus test of sorts and gauge Canada’s track record of care with nuclear. The report card isn’t great. There have been multiple cases of improper consultation with Indigenous Peoples on whose lands the waste, production or extraction sites are placed………………………………………………………………………..
Small reactors face a critical economic challenge
Adding to the timeline troubles are questions as to whether small reactors truly offer that much of an economic advantage, if any, compared with their larger counterparts.
In a previous article Ramana wrote, he pointed to the first reactors as an indication of the answer.
The first reactors started off small. Their size, though, coupled with the exorbitant price tag of nuclear development, meant they couldn’t compete with fossil fuels.
The only thing they could do to reduce the disadvantage was to build larger and larger reactors, Ramana said.
A large reactor that could produce five times as much electricity didn’t cost five times as much to build, he said, improving the return from the investment.
Economically the SMR can’t seem to compete with its larger sibling. Adding this to the delays abundant with nuclear, controversies around construction and communities, and the misalignment of timelines for meeting climate commitments, we need to ask why we’re seeing such a fervent enthusiasm for small modular reactors.
Greenwashing by any other name
The answer is likely a simple one: The Alberta government wants to keep the taps on. Their friends in the energy industry do too. Like carbon capture and sequestration before it, SMRs are the next way to stave off pesky talk of divestment and transition…………………………………………………………….
Deflecting and delaying isn’t the only greenwashing happening either, Halvorson argued. She noted there’s a special kind of tactic that comes with nuclear and other “clean” technology, where only carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas offsets are counted.
“When we reduce it all to just how much CO2 something emits, we’re not getting the full picture of environmental impacts,” Halvorson said. She pointed to water use in nuclear as an example.
“Most nuclear technologies require a massive input of water to work. And as we know, right now we’re in a drought in Alberta. Our water resources are so precious. We already have industries that are using way too much water as is, in a way that’s not allowing our environments and ecosystems to replenish their reserves, like their water resources,” she said.
Despite the cheerleading for nuclear Alberta, where small nuclear reactors will let us enjoy the fruits of fossil fuels (and even produce more) in a cleaner way, the bones don’t read that way. The argument that we can keep on drilling so long as we have that newest silver bullet hasn’t stood up to scrutiny before, and it doesn’t now. https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2024/02/15/Exploding-Alberta-Myths-Small-Nuclear-Reactors/
Julian Assange’s Final Appeal at the Royal Courts of Justice 20-21 Feb. What to Expect.
Day X is here! Julian Assange’s Final Appeal at the Royal Courts of Justice.
STELLA ASSANGE, FEB 19, 2024, Stella Assange – The Fight to Save my Husband
The new public hearing dates are upon us. We will be gathering outside the Royal Courts of Justice on Tuesday and Wednesday, 20-21 February. It may be the final chance for the UK to stop Julian’s extradition.
Date: 20-21 February 2024
Location: Royal Courts of Justice
Time: 8:30 am GMT
On Wed 21 Feb, there will be a march to Downing St after the hearing.
Here’s what to expect on the two days.
Meet our presenters that will be live outside the Royal Courts of Justice…………………….
JADC (The Committee to Defend Julian Assange), one of the oldest grassroots groups here in the UK will be helping us to sell T-shirts, bags, badges and our new hoodies. So, make sure to come by and say hi to Emmy and Jeannie who will be manning our table.
There will be speakers throughout the two days! Including:
Apsana Begum
Tim Dawson
John Hendy
Richard Burgon
Peter Oborne
Jeremy Corbyn
John McDonnell
Zarah Sultana
Chris Hedges
Andrew Feinstein
Andrew Wilkie
Tariq Ali
Rebecca Vincent
Ben Westwood
PEN International
Clare Daley
Mick Wallace
Chip Gibbons
Here’s how you can help………………………………………..
Australian PM Albanese and 85 Other MPs Vote to End Assange Incarceration
“Enough is enough,” PM Albanese said.
By Diego Ramos , ScheerPost, 15 Feb24, https://scheerpost.com/2024/02/15/australian-pm-albanese-and-85-other-mps-vote-to-end-assange-incarceration/—
The Australian House of Representatives voted on Wednesday in favor of a motion supporting the end of Julian Assange’s incarceration and to bring him back to Australia. Among the supporters of the motion is Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who, regarding the long term prosecution and detention of Assange, declared, “enough is enough.”
In the motion introduced by MP Andrew Wilkie, the argument is made for the release of Assange from Belmarsh Prison in the UK and returned to Australia. This comes ahead of next week’s court ruling on Assange’s extradition appeal.
Wilkie said, “It will send a very powerful political signal to the British government and to the US government that the British government should not entertain the idea of Mr Assange being extradited to the US.”
86 members of the house of representatives, including Albanese, voted in favor of the motion; 42 members voted against it.
Wilkie, speaking to Parliament about Assange stated, “Surely this man has suffered enough. The matter must be brought to an end.”
Adam Bandt, member of Australian Parliament and leader of the Australian Greens, said, “…[T]his sets an incredibly chilling precedent for journalists in the future and for journalists’ ability to hold governments to account, to say uncomfortable things about governments … and to know that you can tell the truth without facing imprisonment and without facing a risk to your own life.”
If Assange’s appeal is rejected, he faces immediate extradition to the United States, where he would be set to face trial for various charges, including the release of confidential military records and diplomatic cables in 2010.
Wilkie said the vote demonstrated that Australia stood “as one,” on the Assange case and “[r]egardless of what you might think of Mr Assange, justice is not being served in this case now.”
Below is a transcript of the motion authored by MP Andrew Wilkie: [on original]
Nuclear Delays, Cost Overruns Imperil UK’s Net-Zero Goals
For the first time, the department’s nuclear road map was honest about why Britain and France are still so keen on nuclear, as opposed to much cheaper renewables. The roadmap mentions 14 times the link between civil and military nuclear power and the need to strengthen ties between the two to reduce costs. This military link was consistently denied in the 1990s, and in the earlier years of this century.
February 12, 2024, Paul Brown, https://www.theenergymix.com/nuclear-delays-cost-overruns-imperil-uks-net-zero-goals/
Électricité de France (EDF), the owner of the biggest construction project in the world—the giant nuclear power plant under construction at Hinkley Point in the southwest of Britain—recently announced further cost increases and delays to its completion, adding to doubts that the United Kingdom can fulfill its legal pledges to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.
The French government, which owns EDF, wants the UK to chip in billions of pounds to help bail the project out, but London says it has no obligation to do so. This is leading to tensions between the two governments, with French taxpayers objecting to paying for British nuclear power stations when their own nuclear industry is struggling with under-investment and a massive debt burden. It leads to doubts that a second power station of the same size, this time on the Suffolk coast in the east of England, will ever be built.
The overoptimistic miscalculations made by EDF mean the cost estimates for the Hinkley Point project have now doubled from the 2015 estimate of £18 billion (US$22.8 billion) to between £31 and £34 billion. But that makes the problem sound better than it is: the figures are calculated in 2015 prices, and the true cost with inflation is now said to be £46 billion (US$58 billion) and still rising.
EDF is faced with making up this funding gap when it is already deep in debt and needs vast capital reserves to modernize its own fleet of more than 50 reactors and start a promised new build program. Just before the French government re-nationalized the company last year, its debts were already a staggering €54.5 billion (US$59 billion)/
When the Hinkley Point power station was first planned, the company famously predicted that UK consumers would be cooking their Christmas turkeys on power from the station by 2017. That date has been revised several times, and stood at 2027 until the third week in January. Now it has slipped back in the best case to 2029, but more likely to 2031. As one commentator put it: “The turkeys would have died of natural causes by then.”
The problem is that both governments are relying on their nuclear industries for a large part of their emission reductions. Both have to reach net-zero targets by 2050. Hinkley Point would in theory be producing 7% of British electricity by 2030 as an interim target date, displacing existing gas stations. But Hinkley Point was only part of the net-zero plan—EDF is in partnership with the British government to build a second identical power plant at Sizewell, on the Suffolk coast.
Both Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C are twin European Pressurised Reactors (EPRs), designed by EDF. Each station is supposed to produce enough power to supply six million British homes. But it is a design that has proved difficult to construct. EDF started one in Flamanville in Normandy in 2009 which was expected to be running in 2013, but is still not complete. Yet the UK is intent on continuing to allow EDF to build four reactors of the same design in Britain.
The British government has so far sunk £2.5 billion into the Sizewell C project but is not making a final investment decision while it looks for private investors. Up to now, it has found no takers.
So while the future of this power station remains in doubt, the timetables are slipping badly, and even if it does go ahead not many would bet on it producing power before 2050.
One of the odd aspects of this situation is that, in an election year in Britain, there is no political debate about what looks like a serious crisis for the nuclear industry and the UK’s climate targets. The Labour party supports the building of nuclear power stations, too, and will not be drawn into debate for fear of antagonizing the trade unions in the sector that are strongly in favour of giant power stations.
Suffolk campaigners, however, are not so reticent. “Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C epitomise the definition of insanity—doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result,” said Alison Downes of Stop Sizewell C. “EDF and its EPR reactors are an unmitigated disaster, and it stretches credulity that Sizewell C is affordable. Indeed the government seems too embarrassed to publish the cost of Sizewell C. It should cancel the project immediately instead of handing over scarce billions that could be used instead for renewables, energy efficiency, or—in this election year—schools and hospitals.”
Stop Sizewell C and a number of other groups are challenging the Conservative government in the courts over its failure to fulfill its legal obligations under its own law that bound the UK to reach net-zero by 2050. Further delays to the nuclear power station construction program may add to the campaigner’s case.
Last month, the UK government produced a new nuclear roadmap projecting a massive new build program to bolster the industry, both for these large reactors and dozens of small modular reactors. The Department for Energy Security & Net Zero (DESNZ) remains optimistic about the nuclear industry despite the delays, but said it would not be bailing out EDF.
Hinkley Point C “is not a government project,” the department said in a statement, so “any additional costs or schedule overruns are the responsibility of EDF and its partners and will in no way fall on (UK) taxpayers”.
For the first time, the department’s nuclear road map was honest about why Britain and France are still so keen on nuclear, as opposed to much cheaper renewables. The roadmap mentions 14 times the link between civil and military nuclear power and the need to strengthen ties between the two to reduce costs. This military link was consistently denied in the 1990s, and in the earlier years of this century.
While Labour, which has a massive lead in the opinion polls going into election year, refuses to engage in a nuclear debate, it does differ from the Conservatives on the role of renewables. The current government encourages offshore wind and some solar power but has effectively blocked onshore wind farms for nearly a decade. Since this is the cheapest form of electricity production in these windy islands, and the public overwhelmingly support onshore turbines, Labour says it will at least overturn this blocking policy.
Nuclear Delays, Cost Overruns Imperil UK’s Net-Zero Goals
For the first time, the department’s nuclear road map was honest about why Britain and France are still so keen on nuclear, as opposed to much cheaper renewables. The roadmap mentions 14 times the link between civil and military nuclear power and the need to strengthen ties between the two to reduce costs. This military link was consistently denied in the 1990s, and in the earlier years of this century.
February 12, 2024, Paul Brown, https://www.theenergymix.com/nuclear-delays-cost-overruns-imperil-uks-net-zero-goals/
Électricité de France (EDF), the owner of the biggest construction project in the world—the giant nuclear power plant under construction at Hinkley Point in the southwest of Britain—recently announced further cost increases and delays to its completion, adding to doubts that the United Kingdom can fulfill its legal pledges to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.
The French government, which owns EDF, wants the UK to chip in billions of pounds to help bail the project out, but London says it has no obligation to do so. This is leading to tensions between the two governments, with French taxpayers objecting to paying for British nuclear power stations when their own nuclear industry is struggling with under-investment and a massive debt burden. It leads to doubts that a second power station of the same size, this time on the Suffolk coast in the east of England, will ever be built.
The overoptimistic miscalculations made by EDF mean the cost estimates for the Hinkley Point project have now doubled from the 2015 estimate of £18 billion (US$22.8 billion) to between £31 and £34 billion. But that makes the problem sound better than it is: the figures are calculated in 2015 prices, and the true cost with inflation is now said to be £46 billion (US$58 billion) and still rising.
EDF is faced with making up this funding gap when it is already deep in debt and needs vast capital reserves to modernize its own fleet of more than 50 reactors and start a promised new build program. Just before the French government re-nationalized the company last year, its debts were already a staggering €54.5 billion (US$59 billion)/
When the Hinkley Point power station was first planned, the company famously predicted that UK consumers would be cooking their Christmas turkeys on power from the station by 2017. That date has been revised several times, and stood at 2027 until the third week in January. Now it has slipped back in the best case to 2029, but more likely to 2031. As one commentator put it: “The turkeys would have died of natural causes by then.”
The problem is that both governments are relying on their nuclear industries for a large part of their emission reductions. Both have to reach net-zero targets by 2050. Hinkley Point would in theory be producing 7% of British electricity by 2030 as an interim target date, displacing existing gas stations. But Hinkley Point was only part of the net-zero plan—EDF is in partnership with the British government to build a second identical power plant at Sizewell, on the Suffolk coast.
Both Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C are twin European Pressurised Reactors (EPRs), designed by EDF. Each station is supposed to produce enough power to supply six million British homes. But it is a design that has proved difficult to construct. EDF started one in Flamanville in Normandy in 2009 which was expected to be running in 2013, but is still not complete. Yet the UK is intent on continuing to allow EDF to build four reactors of the same design in Britain.
The British government has so far sunk £2.5 billion into the Sizewell C project but is not making a final investment decision while it looks for private investors. Up to now, it has found no takers.
So while the future of this power station remains in doubt, the timetables are slipping badly, and even if it does go ahead not many would bet on it producing power before 2050.
One of the odd aspects of this situation is that, in an election year in Britain, there is no political debate about what looks like a serious crisis for the nuclear industry and the UK’s climate targets. The Labour party supports the building of nuclear power stations, too, and will not be drawn into debate for fear of antagonizing the trade unions in the sector that are strongly in favour of giant power stations.
Suffolk campaigners, however, are not so reticent. “Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C epitomise the definition of insanity—doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result,” said Alison Downes of Stop Sizewell C. “EDF and its EPR reactors are an unmitigated disaster, and it stretches credulity that Sizewell C is affordable. Indeed the government seems too embarrassed to publish the cost of Sizewell C. It should cancel the project immediately instead of handing over scarce billions that could be used instead for renewables, energy efficiency, or—in this election year—schools and hospitals.”
Stop Sizewell C and a number of other groups are challenging the Conservative government in the courts over its failure to fulfill its legal obligations under its own law that bound the UK to reach net-zero by 2050. Further delays to the nuclear power station construction program may add to the campaigner’s case.
Last month, the UK government produced a new nuclear roadmap projecting a massive new build program to bolster the industry, both for these large reactors and dozens of small modular reactors. The Department for Energy Security & Net Zero (DESNZ) remains optimistic about the nuclear industry despite the delays, but said it would not be bailing out EDF.
Hinkley Point C “is not a government project,” the department said in a statement, so “any additional costs or schedule overruns are the responsibility of EDF and its partners and will in no way fall on (UK) taxpayers”.
For the first time, the department’s nuclear road map was honest about why Britain and France are still so keen on nuclear, as opposed to much cheaper renewables. The roadmap mentions 14 times the link between civil and military nuclear power and the need to strengthen ties between the two to reduce costs. This military link was consistently denied in the 1990s, and in the earlier years of this century.
While Labour, which has a massive lead in the opinion polls going into election year, refuses to engage in a nuclear debate, it does differ from the Conservatives on the role of renewables. The current government encourages offshore wind and some solar power but has effectively blocked onshore wind farms for nearly a decade. Since this is the cheapest form of electricity production in these windy islands, and the public overwhelmingly support onshore turbines, Labour says it will at least overturn this blocking policy.
UK’s Nuclear Strategy Faces Criticism: Uncertainty Looms for Small Modular Reactors
The UK’s nuclear strategy faces increasing criticism from MPs due to lack of clarity on small modular reactors (SMRs). Concerns about timelines, waste management, and costs cast doubt on their role in the future energy mix.
Rafia Tasleem, 14 Feb 2024, https://bnnbreaking.com/politics/uks-nuclear-strategy-faces-criticism-uncertainty-looms-for-small-modular-reactors
The UK government’s nuclear strategy, specifically its approach to small modular reactors (SMRs), faces mounting criticism from Members of Parliament (MPs) for its lack of clarity and the ensuing uncertainty in the nuclear sector.
A Murky Vision for Nuclear Power
MPs have expressed serious concerns about the timeline for SMR projects, potential waste management issues, and the overall vision for the sector. Despite promises of support and investment, the government’s plans for SMRs remain obscure, casting doubts on their role in the future energy mix.
The Environmental Audit Committee has voiced strong criticisms, citing the unclear strategy as a significant obstacle for the nuclear industry. This ambiguity not only undermines industry confidence but also raises questions about potential cost implications for taxpayers.
Hinkley Point C: A Cautionary Tale
The ongoing saga of Hinkley Point C serves as a stark reminder of the challenges and uncertainties surrounding UK energy policy and developments, especially in the face of the climate crisis.
Initially greenlit in June 2016, the project’s funding was divided between the government, EDF, and China General Nuclear (CGN). However, in a surprising turn of events, CGN withdrew its funding in December 2022, leaving the government to shoulder the shortfall in investment.
Furthermore, the opening of Hinkley Point C has been delayed until at least 2029, with the projected cost ballooning from £25 billion to at least £35 billion—a staggering increase that has raised eyebrows and ignited debates on the feasibility of nuclear power as a sustainable and cost-effective solution.
The Future of UK Nuclear Power
With the UK government aiming to have 24 gigawatts of nuclear capacity by 2050, the choice lies between additional large-scale reactors like Hinkley Point C or a combination of large and SMRs. However, the escalating costs and delays associated with Hinkley Point C have cast a long shadow over the nuclear sector.
The current state of affairs raises pressing questions about the future of nuclear power in the UK, especially in light of the climate crisis and the need for sustainable and reliable energy sources. As MPs and industry experts grapple with these concerns, the search for clarity and a coherent strategy becomes ever more urgent.
As of February 15, 2024, the UK government faces a critical juncture: to address the concerns surrounding its nuclear strategy and provide a clear path forward, or risk further uncertainty and potential setbacks in the nation’s quest for a sustainable energy future.
1 This month
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
