Nuclear Power

Sizewell C Second Consultation: Responses

The consultation is now closed. I thought it would be useful for other groups campaigning against nuclear power to see what has been written since a lot of points would be relevant to other campaigns. Several responses are on the Together Against Sizewell C site plus the one from Theberton and Eastbrigdge Action Group.  


Posted in Nuclear Power | 3 Comments »

Question: What Is The Meaning Of “cost-effective”

During the recent stage 2 consultation on Sizewell C run by EDF, the company expressed a desire to maximise the use of rail and marine transport options in order to minimise the quantities of freight delivered by road. The consultation document sets out various scenarios for rail and marine freight, and concludes that at least […]


Posted in Nuclear Power | No Comments »

Mains Water Usage At Nuclear Power Plants

In a recent post we (Emma Bateman and myself) talked about mains water usage at Sizewell nuclear power plant1. This has created some confusing (not least amongst people working from EDF) which this post is intended to clear up. Below is a very simplified diagram of  the water flow in a pressurised water reactor (PWR). […]


Posted in Water Usage | 4 Comments »

Sizewell C 2nd Consultation: Mains Water

In the 321 pages of the 2nd consultation document there is no mention at all about the use of mains water. When I asked a Sizewell “expert? during the stage 2 consultation roadshow, he was unaware that Sizewell C would require 1,600 m3 mains water per day, and thought that I was asking about water […]


Posted in Water Usage | 2 Comments »

Sizewell C Second Consultation: Jobs and Employment

I have written several times about the affect on employment of new nuclear build: ‘Slave Labour’ building nuclear plants, Nuclear Jobs – Boom and Bust in Rural Communities, The local Impact of Sizewell C and D on employment and the economy For more see my page on Nuclear Power and scroll down to Jobs and […]


Posted in Jobs and Economics | 6 Comments »

Update: The Recent ‘Review’ Of The Hinkley C Project

My last post was about the ‘review’ of the Hinkley C project. I have now received the final decision from the BEIS over my Freedom Of Information request. I have not spent much time looking through the document by a link from a link does take you to some of the related documents. These can […]


Posted in Jobs and Economics | No Comments »

The Recent ‘Review’ Of The Hinkley C Project

In July 2016 the UK government announced a ‘review’ of project to build the ‘Hinkley C’ nuclear power plant1. In September 2016 they then announced the go ahead for the project2. I was, like many other people, interested in the details of the review but unfortunately it has not been made public. I therefore sent […]


Posted in Jobs and Economics | 3 Comments »

DNA Repair

This was going to be a reply to a comment on one of my posts. However, I think it is an important issue so I am writing this post. The comment referenced a study1 on DNA repair centres in human cells. I have no problem with the study itself however, I do with one of […]


Posted in Risk and Radiation | 5 Comments »

“No discernible changes in future cancer rates and hereditary diseases”?

It is often quoted that Fukushima will produce “No discernible changes in future cancer rates and hereditary diseases”. This quote is from the UNSCEAR report on the Fukushima1. While other reports2 go into various criticisms of the UNSCEAR report this post is about what that phrase actually means. This post is not about whether this […]


Posted in Risk and Radiation | 46 Comments »

Nuclear Safety Equipment Has “no impact on public health and safety”?

I recently saw a report that failure of a piece of safety equipment had “no impact on public health and safety”. If  so why is it there? I was going to write this post several months ago. However, a recent comment on one of my posts has prompted me to write it now. What originally […]


Posted in Accidents and Risks | 9 Comments »