Accident prone Oldbury restarts

Oldbury nuke has started again - it has only had one reactor operate for eight days since last August. Reactor 2 was shut down for two years due to concerns about its corroded reactor core and we've had the fire and a turbine failure. As I've said before it seems that an industry that hasn't even the cash to dismantle its defunct reactors is trying dangerously hard to still make some money from this 39 year old dinosaur. I again called for Oldbury to close. Read my news release here.

Meanwhile a couple of weeks ago the Professional Engineering magazine contacted me re Oldbury as they were doing a feature re the closures of various nuclear power stations across Europe - I didn't get a quote in the end but they did contact John Large - an independent nuclear scientist - and got loads of technical info re concerns from him. A copy of the magazine arrived a couple of days ago.

It has also been good to see some of the recent articles re nuclear - like The Guardian noting a worldwide expansion of nuclear power has little chance of significantly reducing carbon emissions but will add dangerously to the proliferation of nuclear weapons-grade materials and the potential for nuclear terrorism. The Oxford Research Group paper, funded by the Joseph Rowntree charitable trust, who research this issue says that the worldwide nuclear "renaissance" planned by the industry to provide cheap, clean power is a myth.

Another paper from Corporate Watch showed that throughout its fifty year history, Britain's nuclear industry has consistently failed to deliver on its promises: "Now, less than five years after the financial collapse of British Energy, the UK's commercial nuclear generator, the public, parliament, and the financial markets are being asked once again to believe that a new generation of nuclear power stations can produce electricity safely and without government subsidy. And once again, there is good reason to believe that the industry's predictions are as spurious as in previous decades."

Infact one power station is/was only available 34% of its 'life' and that the new power station in Finland is 18 months late after a build time of 2 and a half years! In fact the Guardian also covered a story re how governments pick up tab on nuclear waste costs - see here. Indeed don't get me going on nuclear waste - Greens in Glos have submitted detailed reports - indeed one re CoRWM was acclaimed as being one of the best on the topic - and what has the Government done...

First they responded that it would go ahead with geological disposal, despite the heavily qualified nature of CoRWM's recommendation, which stressed the vital role of interim storage because of concerns about disposal safety standards. Second, CoRWM'recommended an independent oversight body, similar to the Statutory Nuclear Waste Management Commission recommended by the House of Lords - this was rejected by the government.

Third it seems clear that the government's haste to approve a new generation of reactors before solving the nuclear waste problem undermines its previous willingness to respond so positively to CoRWM's widespread public consultation. The government, in order to sanction new nuclear power, appears to be looking for a geological "quick fix", without addressing the reasons why such a proposal failed a decade ago. But hey enough of this for now I'm for a coffee and croissant in the sun!

Was Oldbury threatened by recent floods?

The Channel 4 News report (still available on-line at 4m15 into the reel) had a remark by Jon Snow: "...and a nuclear installation that I'm not allowed to mention..."

Three years ago Oldbury got cut off in the floods so workers couldn't leave or enter the power station. However it seems more likely the reference by Jon Snow was to Aldermason - clearly with serious safety implications.