Professor John Robertson OBA
Frances McKie has just alerted me to this reserved report from Reuters on the Civaux 2 nuclear reactor in France:
PARIS, June 11 (Reuters) – European power contracts jumped on Wednesday on concerns France might have to reduce its nuclear output after the industry regulator said it had identified “hints” of possible stress corrosion in a reactor. The ASNR watchdog said testing had highlighted possible defects in the Civaux 2 reactor, but that there was no confirmation of corrosion at this stage and more testing was required.
On it’s own and with that wording, it does not seem too worrying and is certainly less so than the reports of more than 400 cracks in the Torness reactor in Scotland, but in November 2022, Frances fed me the information to reveal far more serious, longer term, worries about the French nuclear energy system:
On June 16th this year, Reuters reported that in France- frequently cited by nuclear lobbyists as a successful example of nuclear investment- 57% of nuclear reactors were off-line as a result of corrosion.
The same report confirmed that the struggle to complete the construction of the now notorious EPR reactor at Flammanville was 4 times over budget (nearly 13Billion Euros) and over 10 years late. Failure of materials and welding were cited as the key problems.
The implications for the UK government’s similar project at Hinckley Point in Somerset are stark reminders of the fundamental problems associated with nuclear power: faulty designs, failure of materials, containment and welding and – above all- insurmountable corrosion. Its lethal vulnerability to natural disasters (Fukushima) , human error (Dounreay, Sellafield, Chernobyl) and missile attack (Zaporizhzhia) is a separate but very serious issue.
Nuclear protagonists also refuse to acknowledge the unimaginable costs of decommissioning and nuclear waste disposal. In 1976, Westminster accepted the findings of the “Flowers Report” that “There should be no commitment to a large programme of nuclear fission power until it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that a method exists to ensure the safe containment of long-lived highly radioactive waste for the indefinite future” .
In 2022 the UK government still has no proven method for safe storage of high level nuclear waste. On the contrary, highly radioactive, potentially lethal particles of nuclear spent fuel now contaminate the beaches and sea-bed around Dounreay in Caithness. According to SEPA- they are irretrievable. At Sellafield there are leaking ponds of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel rods for which there is still no solution. That kind of environmental destruction- for most people- makes nuclear power an unacceptable risk. The days of Scottish communities being nominated as expendable areas for such experiments with nuclear, fracking or any other gamble with safety- are over.
There is -indeed- an alternative, cleaner, safer and more reliable future.
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
Alas, the colonial media that so disfigures discourse in Scotland, is gung ho in favour of Scotland paying for new nuclear plants to supply England, no matter the damage to Scotland.
Our European neighbours would LOVE to access Scotlands excess electricity.
European community or UK Colony? It’s up to us to decide, but…..don’t believe what you read in the press…….better still, don’t READ the press!
gavinochiltree
LikeLiked by 4 people
Hear, hear…
On your first point, not only paying for it but hosting it – Scotland has passed the point where renewables only need increased storage to be to effectively 100% reliable, although it would be prudent to retain gas as backup, and not just for ourselves – We need to keep reminding people that Scotland was already using 57% of what renewables produce WITH curtailment because it has nowhere to go, not even to southern england desperate for it – Scotland doesn’t need nuclear, southern england does…
On your second – A norwegian pal told me during the recent energy crisis which hit Norway (long story) that regret had been expressed over dropping the Peterhead interconnect in favour of Drax – Were we independent, there’d be a queue at the door for new interconnects.
I disagree with not reading Press output, it’s far better to read what the bastards are trying on then counter it with facts as above – There will always be a Martin Williams platforming bullshit from Tom Greatrex or nonsense from the State of a Secretary for Greggs of the never recorded dead calm across the UK – We need to embarrass the hell out of them not ignore them…
LikeLiked by 3 people
Not surprised to hear it’s a ‘reserved’ Reuters article, the free press has increasingly become available to the highest bidder…
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is not just corrosion in its nuclear reactors that France has to worry about.
The high temperatures that France now regularly experiences -at the moment 40oC or above – affects the nuclear reactors and can lead to them being taken off-line. The high temperatures also heat up river water etc and reduce the water available making it difficult to cool the reactors leading to shut downs.
All in all not a good time to go nuclear when the climate is changing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This report from 2015 about nuclear waste at Sellafield should also give people pause for thought when it comes to embracing the nuclear option
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530053-800-shocking-state-of-worlds-riskiest-nuclear-waste-site/
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t know if there is any truth behind this but if so why no mention of it on GM Scotland.
A man has been arrested at a English railway station for singing the Flower of Scotland I assume he is a Scot.
LikeLiked by 1 person