Multibillion pound plant at Sellafield would convert UK's nuclear power plant residue into fuel
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 November 2011 17.41 GMT
General Electric set out proposals on Wednesday to build a new nuclear reactor at Sellafield that would convert the UK's stockpile of radioactive plutonium into electricity.
The multibillion pound project would take plutonium – the residue from the UK's nuclear power plants – and use it as fuel for a 600MW reactor that could provide power for 750,000 homes, according to GE Hitachi.
The company's "Prism" reactor has been in use for more than 30 years in the US, but if the new plant goes ahead it would be the first such plant in private operation outside the US.
However, the government has still not decided which option it prefers for dealing with the UK's plutonium – others include long-term storage, converting it for use in a thorium reactor or building a new mixed oxide fuel ('mox') processing plant – and GE's proposal is likely to face competition. Ministers have been increasingly talking about the future of the stockpile, which costs about £2bn a year to maintain, and some in government want the plutonium to be classed as an asset rather than a liability.
Sir David King, former chief scientific adviser, urged ministers earlier this year to find a use for the stockpile. A government decision is expected "shortly", but no firm date has yet been set.
Some nuclear experts contacted by the Guardian were sceptical of GE's proposals, pointing out that the company had provided little data on which to assess its credibility as a solution to the UK's plutonium stockpile, and that government-sponsored research into the available options had suggested that a mixed oxide plant was the best use.
The Prism reactor works by taking the existing plutonium oxide powder in cans, and converting it to metal. That metal is in turn converted into an alloy and mixed with uranium and zirconium, which is put into a fuel bundle and used in a fission reactor. After the fuel is spent, the waste product that is left would be safer than plutonium in the form in which the UK stores it today, because it would be less liable to be used in weapons and would be more easily stored, the company said.
"The waste is much the same as that produced by new light water reactors," said Eric Loewen, chief engineer on the Prism project.
The new plant could be built on Sellafield property. There would also be enough room to construct a separate new nuclear power plant, as one of the newbuild reactors that the government wants to see built.
GE would not say how much the plant would be likely to cost, or how much profit it could make, but said the investment would be "multibillion" if it went ahead.
One alternative is to convert the plutonium into fuel that could be used for a thorium-based plant. Thorium was explored several decades ago as an alternative to current reactors until the research was discontinued, but some experts believe it could provide a safer, cleaner and more environmentally friendly alternative to current nuclear designs.
Friday, 2 December 2011
Trading standards warning over bogus 'energy saving' plugs
The £99 plug-in device claims to save users 40% on energy bills, but actually poses a risk of fire and electrocution
Jill Insley
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 1 December 2011 10.03 GMT
Trading standards says the 'energy saving' plug-ins do not save users money and could in fact be a fire risk. Photograph: Trading Standards Institute
Rogue telephone fraudsters are targeting older people with the offer of "energy saving devices" that could result in fire or electrocution.
The Trading Standards Institute (TSI) is dealing with more than 200 complaints about people who have claimed to be a victim's energy supplier, or working in partnership with them, and are offering a plug-in device costing £99 which they say can save users 40% on energy bills. But trading standards has had a number of the devices tested and found that they not only failed to satisfy electrical safety standards because the pins are too short and the internal connections faulty, but they do not deliver any tangible energy savings.
Ron Gainsford, TSI chief executive, said: "Consumers are warned not to use the product as they pose a risk of fire and electrocution, and a safety recall has been issued for the items traced so far.
"Unscrupulous criminals are using the rising energy prices as an opportunity to lure cash strapped consumers – elderly people seem to have been deliberately targeted. The number of complaints we are currently dealing with is bound to be only the tip of the iceberg."
The City of Westminster Trading Standards Service has been investigating the scam as the caller gives a London W1 Oxford Street address for the company, but this belongs to a "virtual" office provider.
Sue Jones from Westminster trading standards said: "The companies involved in these scams are not actually situated there. We believe the call centre they use is based abroad and the appliances appear to be distributed by a number of individuals in the UK."
She said complainants had told trading standards the caller always appears to be very credible, already knowing a consumer's details, their energy supplier and sometimes some or all of the digits of their credit or debit card.
"Often consumers do not realise that they have been defrauded until they receive the dodgy looking device with instructions in broken English and the accompanying invoice which names an unknown supplier and often gives an American address," Jones said.
So far, four different suppliers have been named – 1 Stop Marketing Solutions, ITC Development Corp, Power Saver, and Athico Ltd – but the fraudsters could be operating under other names too. Some of these names could be very similar to genuine companies: for example, Power Saver Ltd based in Tonbridge, Kent, is not involved in this fraud.
The director of Athico Ltd appears to have been a victim of the scam himself. He fully co-operated with trading standards and the company has now ceased trading. He has also conducted a recall of the items that he distributed and refunded the customers. Trading standards says it knows there are other as yet unidentified distributors in the UK.
If consumers have responded to one of these cold calls they should report the matter via Action Fraud's website or call 0300 123 2040 , or call Consumer Direct on 0845 404 0506 . They should also contact their bank to stop their debit or credit card. If a device has been received they should not use it and dispose of it carefully.
The plugs involved have the model number SD 001 and are manufactured by MacroPlus, B1208 City Square, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Trading standards said consumers should be cautious about giving out any personal or financial information. They should independently verify a caller's identity before agreeing to purchase any goods or services.
Geoengineering techniques need more study, says science coalition
The Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative says geoengineering could be 'plan B' for climate change
Hanna Gersmann
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 1 December 2011 22.01 GMT
More research on the risks and governance of geoengineering the planet's climate by reflecting sunlight into space is needed, a grouping of science bodies and a green NGO have said, as the end of the first week of UN climate talks nears.
Concern about such techniques is significant and so more dialogue and research is needed on the risks and benefits, said the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative, a coalition formed in March 2010 of the Royal Society, Italian-based academy of science for the developing world Twas, and US non-profit, the Environmental Defence Fund.
Various techniques for combating global warming by reducing the amount of the sun's energy reaching the earth have been proposed, from huge space reflectors in orbit to stratospheric aerosols released in the upper atmosphere. A UK-backed plan to test the mechanics of inserting such aerosols, using a hosepipe attached to a giant balloon, was postponed in September and the so-called Spice project was criticised by scientists writing in Nature earlier this month.
Steven Hamburg, the chief scientist for the Environmental Defence Fund and co-chair of the SRMGI, said: "Solar radiation management might sound, at first, like something from science fiction – but it's not. There are already serious discussions beginning about it, and that's why we felt it was urgent to create this governance initiative. Solar radiation management could be a Plan B to address climate change, but first we must figure out how to research it safely. Only then should we even consider any other steps."
The SRMGI's co-chair, John Shepherd, said: "Unless the apparent lack of political will to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions changes soon, geoengineering may be needed and SRM methods could be used in unregulated and possibly reckless ways by individuals, corporations or individual countries. "
He added: "We must also work outside our national borders, bringing together interested parties from around the globe to debate the issues of geo-engineering, agree appropriate governance structures and ensure that any research is undertaken in a safe, transparent and socially acceptable manner. The question of whether solar geo-engineering will prove to be helpful or harmful will largely depend on how humanity can govern the issue and its political implications, and avoid unilateral action."
But Silvia Ribeiro, the Latin American director of the ETC Group, which campaigns against geoengineering, said: "This report is dominated by scientists engaged in geoengineering research in the UK, US and Canada. They are advocates for more research, several of them have claimed patents and have significant financial, institutional and professional interests in the field of geoengineering research. There are the same familiar names that we have seen in a whole series of recent reports: John Shepherd or David Keith."
In September, Shepherd wrote in the Guardian that research would be "sadly necessary". In October, David Keith of Harvard University, a member of the SRMGI working group, and founder and president of Carbon Engineering, a geo-engineering company with 10 employees funded with around $6m (£3.8m) by Bill Gates, wrote a study that said the public strongly reported research into solar geoengineering. Some 72% of the 3,105 participants in the UK, US and Canada said they somewhat or strongly supported general research when asked: "Do you think scientists should study solar radiation management?"
Ribeiro went on: "Solar radiation management technologies are high-risk and extremely dangerous and they should be treated under international law like nuclear weapons – except, unlike nuclear weapons, we have an opportunity to ban their testing and their proliferation them before the technology is fully developed, rather than trying to prevent their proliferation after the fact. This is where we should be looking to for guidance on governance. We need to ban these technologies, not facilitate their development."
The SRMGI said a ban on geoengineering would not work: "A moratorium on all SRM-related research would be difficult if not impossible to enforce. The range of SRM research runs from computer simulations and laboratory studies right up to potentially risky, large-scale experiments in the real world. While most SRMGI participants were comfortable with low risk research, there was much debate over how to govern any research outside the lab," said the coalition's report, published on Thursday.
Hanna Gersmann
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 1 December 2011 22.01 GMT
More research on the risks and governance of geoengineering the planet's climate by reflecting sunlight into space is needed, a grouping of science bodies and a green NGO have said, as the end of the first week of UN climate talks nears.
Concern about such techniques is significant and so more dialogue and research is needed on the risks and benefits, said the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative, a coalition formed in March 2010 of the Royal Society, Italian-based academy of science for the developing world Twas, and US non-profit, the Environmental Defence Fund.
Various techniques for combating global warming by reducing the amount of the sun's energy reaching the earth have been proposed, from huge space reflectors in orbit to stratospheric aerosols released in the upper atmosphere. A UK-backed plan to test the mechanics of inserting such aerosols, using a hosepipe attached to a giant balloon, was postponed in September and the so-called Spice project was criticised by scientists writing in Nature earlier this month.
Steven Hamburg, the chief scientist for the Environmental Defence Fund and co-chair of the SRMGI, said: "Solar radiation management might sound, at first, like something from science fiction – but it's not. There are already serious discussions beginning about it, and that's why we felt it was urgent to create this governance initiative. Solar radiation management could be a Plan B to address climate change, but first we must figure out how to research it safely. Only then should we even consider any other steps."
The SRMGI's co-chair, John Shepherd, said: "Unless the apparent lack of political will to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions changes soon, geoengineering may be needed and SRM methods could be used in unregulated and possibly reckless ways by individuals, corporations or individual countries. "
He added: "We must also work outside our national borders, bringing together interested parties from around the globe to debate the issues of geo-engineering, agree appropriate governance structures and ensure that any research is undertaken in a safe, transparent and socially acceptable manner. The question of whether solar geo-engineering will prove to be helpful or harmful will largely depend on how humanity can govern the issue and its political implications, and avoid unilateral action."
But Silvia Ribeiro, the Latin American director of the ETC Group, which campaigns against geoengineering, said: "This report is dominated by scientists engaged in geoengineering research in the UK, US and Canada. They are advocates for more research, several of them have claimed patents and have significant financial, institutional and professional interests in the field of geoengineering research. There are the same familiar names that we have seen in a whole series of recent reports: John Shepherd or David Keith."
In September, Shepherd wrote in the Guardian that research would be "sadly necessary". In October, David Keith of Harvard University, a member of the SRMGI working group, and founder and president of Carbon Engineering, a geo-engineering company with 10 employees funded with around $6m (£3.8m) by Bill Gates, wrote a study that said the public strongly reported research into solar geoengineering. Some 72% of the 3,105 participants in the UK, US and Canada said they somewhat or strongly supported general research when asked: "Do you think scientists should study solar radiation management?"
Ribeiro went on: "Solar radiation management technologies are high-risk and extremely dangerous and they should be treated under international law like nuclear weapons – except, unlike nuclear weapons, we have an opportunity to ban their testing and their proliferation them before the technology is fully developed, rather than trying to prevent their proliferation after the fact. This is where we should be looking to for guidance on governance. We need to ban these technologies, not facilitate their development."
The SRMGI said a ban on geoengineering would not work: "A moratorium on all SRM-related research would be difficult if not impossible to enforce. The range of SRM research runs from computer simulations and laboratory studies right up to potentially risky, large-scale experiments in the real world. While most SRMGI participants were comfortable with low risk research, there was much debate over how to govern any research outside the lab," said the coalition's report, published on Thursday.