Wednesday 29 April 2015

UK nuclear disarmament obligations ignored by atomic advocates


Letter submitted to The Times on 29 April

I was interested to note the multiple signatories to the letter on “Defence of Britain (April 29), comprising former senior military, experienced politicians, along with retired civil servants who held defence and security responsibilities, contained no retired officials from the Foreign Office.(http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/letters/article4425219.ece).

There may be a good reason for this.
As the letter was being assembled, the biggest global conference addressing nuclear security and disarmament opened on Monday this week at the United Nations in New York. (http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2015/)
The190-member state Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), dating from 1968, and for which the UK, along with United States and Russia, is a depositary state, sets out at its article 6:
 “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament….”
Foreign Office minister, Baroness Anelay of St Johns, told the NPT conference plenary on Monday afternoon:
 “Let me be clear: the UK is here to negotiate in good faith, and we will continue to strive to build the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons. That is why we are making parallel progress on the building blocks for global nuclear disarmament.”
Yet your military-experienced letter signatories do not consider this eventuality, which is a legal obligation upon the UK Government. Rather they assert that nuclear disarmament steps should only be taken :
“if it can be proved that it does not compromise  minimum levels of nuclear deterrence.”
Perhaps the pro-Trident renewal advocates could explain why if nuclear weapons, at whatever level are essential for national defence, why the Governments of Germany, Italy, Spain Japan, Indonesia, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, Nigeria, and 180 or so others, do not agree, and remain determinedly non-nuclear?

Friday 24 April 2015

Challenging the mainstream 'consensus' for nuclear power


 

No way nukes! Challenging the mainstream 'consensus' for nuclear power

Dr David Lowry

The Ecologist , 22nd April 2015


 

All the 'main' political parties are backing nuclear power in bold defiance of all the evidence that it's expensive, dangerous and not even low-carbon, writes David Lowry. Even George Osborne just admitted that Hinkley C is 'unaffordable' - but supports it anyway. For a rational nuclear policy, the way is Green.

How does a project that's 'unaffordable' using low-interest Treasury finance suddenly become a good deal by using much higher cost speculative finance, adding in copious measures of corporate profit, and palming off the expense onto energy users?

On Monday this week the Labour Party published its 'Green Plan', in which it stated: "Labour also supports the development of new nuclear in the UK as part of a more balanced, secure and low carbon energy supply for the future."

In a televised debate on green issues hosted on the BBC on the same day, Labour's shadow energy secretary Caroline Flint pontificated, as if spinning from an EDF Energy briefing sheet, that "nuclear is an important part of the energy mix going forward."

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats make strikingly similar arguments in their manifestos. And let's not forget that at the 2010 election, the LibDems were firmly anti-nuclear - only to become nuclear cheerleaders the moment they got into power.

Then, on Tuesday morning, The Guardian - probably Britain's greenest daily - ran an editorial, 'The Guardian view on Britain's 2015 choice: energy policy', which contained lot of sense on energy sustainability and efficiency.

However it also contains some nonsense on nuclear power, for which it asserted "there is a decent case" in proposing "The deal with EDF on the new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point is the most significant single contribution to meeting the targets for a decarbonised energy supply.

They are all are wrong.

Osborne admits: Hinkley C is unaffordable

By Tuesday afternoon, Conservative Chancellor George Osborne, who, in Autumn of 2013 had travelled to Beijing to fix up finance for the Hinkley Point EPR nuclear power plant gave an interview to the Western Daily Post - the local newspaper covering the Hinkley Point area - in which he revealed that there was no way that Britain as a nation could afford to build the controversial nuclear plant.

Osborne warned that a host of projects from the electrification of the West Country's railways to the proposed tunnel under Stonehenge would have to be scrapped if the Government was forced to step in and fund the building of a the new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point.

"The approach we're taking with the building of Hinkley Point is done in a way that doesn't cost the British taxpayer a huge sum of money", he insisted - referring to his attempts, so far entirely unsuccessful, to lure in investors on the promise of very high guaranteed prices for the power generated, while also providing £10 billion in construction finance guarantees.

It's true that most of the capital cost will be carried not by 'taxpayers' (unless the Treasury guarantee is called in to play) but by energy users through a levy on their bills. But he really was stretching the truth when he added: "Because we are taking this approach we can get modern power stations so families have cheaper and more reliable electricity."

But that will still leave potentially huge taxpayer liabilities for decommissioning, waste disposal and all the clean-up costs in the event of any serious accident.

Moreover, Osborne failed to address this key question: how does a project that's 'unaffordable' using low-interest Treasury finance suddenly become a good deal by using much higher cost speculative finance, adding in copious measures of corporate profit, and palming off the expense onto energy users?

Pressure vessel flaws

This is the latest blow to the Hinkley C project coming after revelations last week from France that serious safety troubles have been discovered with the steel used in the in the pressure vessel for Hinkley C's French reference plant at Flamanville, under the latter stages of construction in Normandy.

France's nuclear safety regulator, Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire (ASN) revealed that the steel ordered for the safety casings or 'pressure vessels' for six EPR reactors have been made inaccurately by the Creusot Forge in Burgundy, owned by French nuclear design and construction company Areva, now close to backruptcy.

Astonishingly, two of those pressure vessels were fabricated specifically for Hinkley Point without the order ever being officially placed by EDF - and now it looks like the already failing Areva may have two 'white elephant' billion-euro reactor pressure vessels on its hands with no buyers in sight.

The ASN, which has ordered an investigation, said in a statement: "The nuclear pressure equipment regulation requires that the manufacturer limits the risks of heterogeneity in the materials used for manufacturing the components most important for safety. In order to address this technical requirement, AREVA carried out chemical and mechanical tests on a vessel head similar to that of the Flamanville EPR."

Carbon footprint

Nearly ten years ago The Guardian ran an article by me explaining how and why nuclear power is not low carbon, primarily due to the high carbon footprint of uranium mining, milling and the very energy intensive enrichment to make the uranium suitable for manufacture into nuclear fuel.

The Ecologist further explored the theme recently with an article by Keith Barnham in which he warned: "there is as yet no solid scientific evidence that the carbon footprint for the EPR will be below the Climate Change Committee recommendation of 50 gCO2/kWh. Indeed once the additional carbon emissions are taken into account, it's certain to be considerably above that figure."

A month ago, Brussels-based environment reporter, Arthur Neslen, revealed in an exclusive piece on line that the UK Conservative-LibDem coalition Government had signed up to a lobby letter - with seven other EU countries - calling on the European Commission for increased nuclear aid funding.

In the latter the signatory states misleadingly described nuclear-generated electricity as "carbon-free electricity". This is an important policy debate. But it should be conducted with facts, not fact-free propaganda from nuclear proponents.

So with the Conservatives, Labour and the LibDems resolutely in favour of nuclear power in a stupendous triumph of optimism over evidence, is anyone opposing it? Yes - the Green Party for a start. Its policy EN261 is a rare wonder of rationality in the nuclear debate:

"We will cancel construction of new nuclear stations and nuclear power will not be eligible for government subsidy; the Green Party opposes all nuclear power generation and is particularly opposed to the construction of new nuclear power stations, electricity from which is likely to be significantly more expensive per unit supplied than other low-carbon energy sources, and too slow to deploy to meet our pressing energy needs.

"Cancellation will avoid the costs and dangers of nuclear energy and waste being passed on to future generations long after any benefits have been exhausted."

Tuesday 21 April 2015

Nuclear's negative carbon contribution

Letter sent on 21 April
 
Your editorial http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/20/guardian-view-britain-choice-2015-energy-policy  (“The Guardian view on Britain’s 2015 choice: energy policy,” 21 April) contains lot of sense. However it also contains some nonsense on nuclear power, for which you assert “there is a decent case” in proposing “The deal with EDF on the new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point is the most significant single contribution to meeting the targets for a decarbonised energy supply."
The day before, Labour published its own ‘Green Plan’, in which it stated - in agreement with the Guardian:  “Labour also supports the development of new nuclear in the UK as part of a more balanced, secure and low--carbon energy supply for the future.”  (https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/labourclp328/pages/339/attachments/original/1429517150/150419_Labour_Green_Plan.pdf?1429517150)
The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats make strikingly similar arguments. All are wrong!
 
Nearly ten years ago you published an article from me explaining how and why nuclear power is not low carbon, primariliy due to the high carbon footprint of uranium mining, milling and the very energy-intensive enrichment to make the uranium suitable for manufacture into nuclear fuel ("There is nothing green about Blair's nuclear dream, 20 October 2005, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/oct/20/greenpolitics.world).

A month ago your environment  reporter, Arthur Neslen, revealed in an exclusive piece on line ( "UK joins Romanian push for new EU nuclear aid package," Guardian, 5  March,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/04/uk-joins-romanian-push-for-new-eu-nuclear-aid-packagethathte  the UK Conservative–Lib.Dem coalition Government had signed up to a lobby letter - with seven other EU countries -  calling on the European commission for increased nuclear aid funding, in which the signatory states misleadingly described nuclear-generated electricity as “carbon-free electricity.”
 
This is an important policy debate. But it should be conducted with facts, not fact-free propaganda from nuclear proponents.

Monday 20 April 2015

Trident renewal and NPT review conference

 
letter sent to the Independent, 20 April 2015
 
On Monday next week the quinquennial review of th e190-member state Nuclear Non Proliferation Conference (NPT) – for which the UK is one of three depositary states with the US and Russia-  begins at the United Nations in New York, running from 27 April–22 May.
The SNP manifesto launched on Moday  pledges to get rid of the UK’s nuclear weapons system, Trident:  this would be compatible with the UK’s obligations under article 6 of the NPT, which requires each member state to undertake


“to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament….”
Yet in your report on the SNP  policy on dumping Trident, you cite Conservative Chairman,  Grant Shapps as dismissing this  as “giving the SNP what it wants, weaker defences.” (report, 20 April). David Cameron described it as a “match made in hell” And Tory Defence Secretary Michael Fallon asserted on Sky News that  the SNP manifesto as “the most expensive ransom note in history”.


However, in a Parliamentary debate (on 20 January) on the Trident WMD programme the same  Mr Fallon told MPs
"we also share the vision of a world that is without nuclear weapons, achieved through multilateral disarmament.” (emphasis added) http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm150120/debtext/150120-0001.htm#15012040000001)


Why is the Defence Secretary determined to continue a process that will result in £100 thousand million (£100 billion) on a replacement nuclear weapons system when he has put it on the Parliamentary record as recently as January he wants to realise a world without any nuclear weapons of  mass destruction at all; and when senior British diplomatic officials will later this month be in New York negotiating such a future?

Thursday 16 April 2015

Trident and nuclear disarmament obligations


 
Letter submitted to Financial Times on 16 April
 
Your correspondent Tim Hare, writing as a former Director of Nuclear Policy at the Ministry of Defence (1999-2002) asserts in his letter (“Submarine-based Trident remains the optimum capability for the UK,” April 16) that opting for nuclear-tipped cruise missile over a like-for-like Trident replacement “would be a quite unsatisfactory option for the UK on a number of grounds including implications for the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).”

It would be, but not for the reason he suggests, as the NPT requires under article 6 that all signatories, including the five nuclear weapons states parties – comprising the UK, US, China, France and Russia – to undertake”

“to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament…”

 

Indeed, the NPT will have its quinquennial review at the United Nations in New York, from 27 April–22 May.


Papers available in the National Archives in Kew show that on 23 January 1968, Fred (later Lord) Mulley, as the British Government's minister of state for foreign affairs, addressed the 358th plenary meeting of the Eighteen Nation Committee on Disarmament (ENDC) in Geneva, (the predecessor committee to the current day Conference on Disarmament) explaining why nations should sign up to the newly negotiated NPT, telling the ministerial delegations:

"As I have made clear in previous speeches, my government accepts the obligation to participate fully in the negotiations required by [NPT] Article VI (on nuclear disarmament by nuclear-armed states) and it is our desire that these negotiations should begin as soon as possible and should produce speedy and successful results. There is no excuse now for allowing a long delay to follow the signing of this treaty."(emphasis added)

Much more recently, US President Obama said in March: “As I stated in Prague in 2009, reinforced in Berlin in 2013, and again reaffirmed last month in my National Security Strategy, the United States seeks the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”


Indeed, in a Parliamentary debate (on 20 January) on the Trident nuclear weapons system, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon told MPs
"we also share the vision of a world that is without nuclear weapons, achieved through multilateral disarmament.” (emphasis added) http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm150120/debtext/150120-0001.htm#15012040000001)
Why is the Defence Secretary determined to continue a process that will result in £100 thousand million (£100 billion) on a replacement nuclear weapons system when he has put it on the Parliamentary record as recently as January he wants to realise a world without any nuclear weapons of  mass destruction at all; and when senior British diplomatic officials will later this month be in New York negotiating such a future?

Monday 13 April 2015

Labour's cognitive dissonance on nuclear WMDs


Labour’s 86-page Election Manifesto, published today, says at the start of its opening paragraph:” Every policy in this manifesto is paid for. Not one commitment requires additional borrowing.”


 

Ed Miliband asserts in his Foreword “An economy built on strong and secure foundations, where we balance the books.”

 

But  when it comes to national security, the Manifesto  swerves off message: it pledges “Labour remains committed to a minimum, credible, independent nuclear capability, delivered through a Continuous At-Sea Deterrent.”

 

But, despite the upfront commitments to explain how expenditures will be paid for, Labour has no word of how it is going to find the £100 billion for Trident replacement.

 

Labour goes on to assert “ We will actively work to increase momentum on global multilateral disarmament efforts and negotiations, and look at further reductions in global stockpiles and the numbers of weapons.”

 

So it will first spend taxpayers’ money to build Trident’s replacement, than spend even more taxpayers’ money to dismantle it.

 

This madness is shared by the Conservatives too. In a Parliamentary debate on 20 January this year on the Trident nuclear weapons system, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon, who last week criticised Labour for having a secret plan to dump Trident in cahoots with Scottish Nationalists,  told MPs:
"we also share the vision of a world that is without nuclear weapons, achieved through multilateral disarmament.” (emphasis added) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm150120/debtext/150120-0001.htm#15012040000001)

 

Labour’s Manifesto also pledges “One of our first acts in government will be to conduct a wide-ranging review of Britain’s place in the world and how we can best uphold our values and the national interest.” and adds “We will conduct a Strategic Defence and Security Review in the first year of government, with an inclusive national debate on the security and defence challenges facing the country.”

 

This is complete cognitive dissonance: believing two diametrically opposite things at the same time. Doesn’t the British electorate deserve better than this from the political parties from whom the next Prime Minister will certainly come?

Tuesday 7 April 2015

Nuclear sense and nonsense

Letter sent to Morning Star on 7 April
 
I agreed with CND Cymru vice chair, Ray Davies's letter (Peace movement is slowly winning the argument," letters, 6 April) except for his mistaken assertion that the 1982 Labour Party conference voted for unilateral disarmament. It never did any such thing: rather, it voted for unilateral  nuclear disarmament. That word is very important, as without it, Labour would have been open to criticism that it did not see any need to defend the nation, a charge former Tory  Defence secretary Michael Hesletine always tried to falsely pin on Labour, and the peace movement more widely in the 1980s.
 
On the same day as Mr Davies' letter was published, Labour's Scottish leader, Jim Murphy, launched the Scottish Labour Manifesto in Neilston. He had ten major pledges ( http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/blog/entry/jim-outlines-our-10-pledges-for-the-general-election) to impress the Scottish voters who, opinion polls consistently report, are planning to abandon Labour for the Scottish National Party (SNP) in droves at the General Election.
 
Despite his  3000 word address, Mr Murphy forgot to mention Labour's commitment to replace the Trident nuclear WMD system - including its submarines- using £100 billion of taxpayers' money.
 
Presumably, Mr Murphy did notice the big rally against Trident over last weekend in Glasgow ("Glasgow: Thousands turn out for mass protest against Trident" , April 6), including excellent speakers like Labour candidate Katy Clark,  even if he did not attend it . Unless Labour pays attention to the unpopularity of spending such a vast amount of the people's money on this obscenity  of a weapon of mass destruction, the voters will continue to hemorrhage to the SNP who sensibly - and with principle - pledge to get rid of it. Think again Labour, and you will be able to fund those ten pledges with money saved by canceling Trident renewal
 
And I write as an internationalist, not a nationalist.

Wednesday 1 April 2015

Labour's mistaken atomic aficionados


Sent to the Morning Star on 31 March
 
I agree with your Star Comment (“Fake fawning for fetid firms,” March 31)  that Labour’s pledge  of greater investment in infrastructure is a creditable component of Labour’s Business Manifesto.(http://www.labouremail.org.uk/files/uploads/626d5d42-afbb-30b4-397e-9d4f87b5f066.pdf)


The idea of meeting Britain’s long term infrastructure needs by setting up an independent National Infrastructure Commission is a good one.


However, Labour spoils the good work by  failing to discriminate between sensible infrastructural investment in the energy sector, and pouring taxpayers’ money into a great black hole.


The Business Manifesto promises: “we will introduce a new long term funding and policy framework for science and innovation, and support vital sectors such as construction and advanced manufacturing to make long term investments in low carbon technologies and the ‘green’ economy. In order to clean up your power supply and give business confidence to invest, we will put in place a legal target to decarbonise our electricity supply by 2030, and support our energy intensive industries to deal with an increasingly challenging environment.”


This is sensible


But it is undermined by then including nuclear power, alongside renewables and carbon capture and storage in the long term energy plan for a secure, affordable and low carbon energy mix, which would be achieved by leveraging investment by ending the uncertainty on a date for delivering borrowing powers to the Green Investment Bank and create an Energy Security Board


Why does Labour insist on backing a  power generation technology with billions of pounds of taxpayers' money for new nuclear at Hinkley Point C, that will produce electricity a double the current price of other power generating technologies such as  gas, guaranteeing a foreign company, France’s EDF,  profits that will be repatriated to Paris for 35 years? Is that a sustainable way of keeping electricity bills down and fighting fuel poverty?


I think not. Think again Labour!