Hinkley Mud Dumping - meeting/protest @ Eisteddfod

Protest Meeting in Cardiff Bay THURSDAY
  the Cafe-Bar is close to the top of Roald Dahl Plass: 36 James St.  CF10 5EY 
  close to Butetown Police Station and the no.89 bus stop
Very convenient after your visit to the Eisteddfod in and around the Millenium Centre
  (apologies that the meeting room is up one flight of stairs)

All Welcome
 Neil McEvoy  AM  who took the issue through the Senedd
 Richard Bramhall   rep. of Low Level Radiation Campaign
 Max Wallis   Friends of the Earth  Barry&Vale
Richard is also chair of the revived Wales Anti-Nuclear Alliance

Hinkley Point mud - phoney claims of 'safe'

  response to Hinkley Point C estuary sediment assessed as safe  NRW 27 March

 W Mail Letters 2 April 2018

Reject waste dumping in Severn Estuary   

The latest test samples do not show the radioactivity levels are “safe”, as NRW asserts (Western Mail, March 28), only that they are within the “de minimis” level for dumping at sea under the London Convention.

A lot of difference! Governments have long agreed that no radioactivity can be called “safe”.

The real issue is that the authorities have ignored the obvious – that the Severn Estuary is not the sea. The Convention document (IAEA-TECDOC-1375) says “disposal at sea is assumed to occur in relatively shallow well-mixed near coastal waters. The disposal is assumed to take place a few kilometres off the coast so the actual shape of the coastline does not influence the dispersion significantly.”

What are the implications in the Severn Estuary waters that slosh up and down for months before reaching the sea? First, the marine life absorbs the radioactive pollutants and concentrates them many times over in the food chain, into fish and seabirds.

Second, the pollutants concentrated in surface biofilms contaminate sea spray from bursting bubbles, which dry up as microparticles carried inland on breezes. The expert you cite, Tim Deere-Jones, gave evidence on this to the Petitions Committee, but the NRW and EdF representatives stick with the “de minimus” criterion. It was a dialogue of the deaf.

Our Vale of Glamorgan council objected to the dumping – it’s not “disposal” as NRW’s John Wheadon claims, but dispersal of the excavated mud in the Severn Estuary’s strong currents – but the council was given the false “de minimis” story. We in Friends of the Earth continue to demand they reject it.

Max Wallis, Friends of the Earth Barry&Vale

The dumping area is a mile offshore from Penarth beach
which is destined to probably receive the biggest deposit of mud

Renewables Okay, no Nuclear Power Programme, says N.I.C.

Assessment of the UK future power system - to meet the 2050 zero carbon target - has just been issued by the National Infrastructure Commission.  

    Thumbs down for Nuclear Power; best to go for 80-90% renewables by 2050

It includes an assessment of the proposal for a fleet of tidal lagoons. 

This agrees that the ‘gappy’ nature of tidal lagoon generation is a big deficiency.  Moreover, off-shore wind power is now cheaper and will be increasingly economic - 2030s without subsidies – while  lagoon power never becomes competitive.  Whilst tidal can be considered a more predictable source of generation than offshore wind, it adds additional constraints to the system as it is only able to generate power at fixed times of the day. This leads to low load factors and 10.2 GW more tidal capacity to generate the same amount of electricity as the displaced offshore wind.

The study considers the UK’s power system as a whole.  Decarbonising heat is taken seriously – replacing natural gas either by hydrogen/green gas or switching to electrical-heating plus heat pumps.

A high fraction of renewable, 80%  or 90% is more cost-effective

   ▪ Renewable integration costs tend to be higher in a hybrid system where carbon targets are met by a mixture of renewables and nuclear

   ▪ High levels of renewable integration require a high degree of system flexibility

   ▪ This flexibility can be provided by:  Interconnectors / Storage / DSR / Fast-ramping thermal generation

   ▪ Nuclear is typically not a great source of flexibility due to high ramping costs

It recommends no further nuclear power plants, or not more than one further after Hinkley Point C, saying that investments could prove sub-optimal over the long term, particularly given the potential for rapid decline in costs of renewable sources and battery storage.  It finds that very high levels of renewable penetration (80-90%) allow us to reach carbon targets cost-effectively without new nuclear, providing further  interconnector capacity is added and demand-side management used.  They include widespread introduction of electric vehicles, whose batteries may be ‘smart’, used for balancing purposes.

Swansea Lagoon rejection leaves way clear for better-value Marine Energy

Friends of the Earth Barry&Vale say the huge cost of power from the Swansea Lagoon has long been clear.  It was not acceptable as “pathfinder” for a second larger lagoon off Cardiff, which has strong wildlife, fish and navigation impacts.  The government should have decided long ago, so to clear the way for other marine energy projects. Tidal stream and wave-power projects have been unable to proceed, when Welsh politicians focus all on the dodgy lagoon.

Our FoE group belongs to the Marinet network of coastal environmental groups, who are strongly supportive of renewable energy from the sea.  We were critical of the Swansea Lagoon proposal 5 years ago and agreed in January 2017 that the economics condemned it: “it would be folly for the Government to agree to progress the Swansea Bay project further”.

The Hendry report on power from tidal lagoons had a major problem. Power generation around high or low tide is interspersed with slack mid-tide periods  Charles Hendry still ignores how to fill in the gaps (W Mail, 10th May).

Hendry accepted TPL's claim that a series of lagoons around the coast would combine to give near steady generation. But their second lagoon at Cardiff would be in phase with Swansea and assessment of other lagoon sites (north Wales, Humber etc.) shows substantial gaps remain.  A related issue is the variation between spring tides and neap tides produces seasonable variations that are out of sync with demand.  

The Swansea lagoon on its own is not a 'pathfinder'.  It needs additions to fill in the gaps. The National Grid does not want gappy power.  Fossil-fuelled power plants to fill the gaps would be high cost and high in CO2.  Hendry did not consider the economics of such an overall system.

Alternatives of pumping to increase the peak and deliver on demand, or combination with a second 'storage' lagoon have been proposed.  Or modern high-power storage systems using batteries or fuel cells could be an option.  

These mean that the simple lagoon cannot be Hendry's "pathfinder" project; only a lagoon in combination with gap-filling generation could be that. That requires reconsideration of the whole design and assessment of upcoming technology.

Nor can it be a pathfinder to the much bigger Cardiff lagoon off the Penarth headland as TPL want [see separate button at top of this Page] .  Friends of the Earth argue as do RSPB (W.Mail 10 May) that the conservation designations make that location problematic.  TPL have no way to create bird feeding grounds in mitigation of those their scheme would destroy.  The same stumbling block helped sink the Severn tidal barrage from Lavernock to Weston-super-Mare.

Yet the company demanded a commitment to public funding for 90 years with huge subsidy - twice that for gappy power from off-shore wind which is for 6 times less (15 years only).  It requires the National Grid to cope with the system problems of its gappy power, a further hidden public subsidy.  Hendry's two-year old report was no basis for the public taking on these liabilities, or for Carwyn Jones's offer of Welsh subsidies on top. 

The scheme would have severely changed tidal currents and flows throughout the Swansea Bay, as angler groups have emphasised.  The picture shows a typical calculation of changes, with major new currents in and out of the turbine wall to the south-west of the lagoon structure. Swansea Bay beaches become a backwater, instead of swept by the general east-to-west circulation.  Would mud deposits replace the sand?  It's unknown.

Compare the progress with tidal power in Scotland:  a 6MW tidal array in the Pentland Firth entered its 25 year operational phase in April, a major milestone for the  MayGen project.

Its owner, Atlantis Resources, bought up the Welsh tidal current scheme for the Anglesey Skerries .  This has planning consents, but was put on hold pending the Pentland Firth scheme.  The company offers well below the Hinkley price (£75/MWh; 40% of the Swansea lagoon) for its follow-up tidal project, but is looking to France rather than Wales.  Atlantis also plan a ‘pathfinder’ tidal barrage project, but in the river Wyre rather than the Severn, half the capacity of the Swansea Lagoon for a sixth of the price.   

Wales has missed out by politicians concentrating on the Lagoon.  FM Carwyn Jones gaily offered £100 or £200 million towards it, but nothing to attract Atlantis back to Wales.

The PrivateEye exposure of the "Shorrock Horror" from the Commons hearing is here:

Revert to Separated Recycling in the Vale, at last!

The Vale Council has consulted on limiting black-bag numbers to two per household, but the change to the waste collection system is much more significant.

   Their switch to co-mingled recycling in 2011 is now shown wrong.  Waste Officer Cliff Parish knew then about future legislation on separate collection - deadline January 2015 - but he was coming up to retirement and left the problem for others.   Now the Vale has to comply with the TEEP legislation to qualify for Welsh Government grants needed for the intended re-cycling centre on the Atlantic Trading Estate. 

10. It was always known that the legislative revisions would have an impact on the Council's kerbside collection methods and that it was likely that the Council would have to revert to its previous pre 2011 collection system of source separated recycling and adopt the WG’s ‘Collections Blueprint’ methodology.… the collection of recycling from households via kerbside sort to ensure compliance to the revisions of the WFD and to ensure high rates of high quality recycling, cost savings and improved sustainable development outcomes.

  The present co-mingled collection breaks up glass and contaminates paper and plastics with glass shards. Merthyr Council uses separate collection and is able to sell its paper to UK re-processors whereas most of the Vale's waste paper is contaminated (by glass) and sent abroad.  No figures are given, but the Vale probably pays for disposal of its paper, while Merthyr gets revenue.

  The Council proposes to establish a recycling separation and bulking centre at Atlantic Trading Estate.  This recalls the proposal of Brian Mayne when Recycling Officer over a decade ago, which included a "recycling village" for companies re-processing and using some of the separated waste - real implementation of dealing with our own wastes and building a circular economy for material use.  The current proposal would save vehicle and transport costs ("a burden to the service") with most wastes going on congested roads into Cardiff.  It depends on the estimated £2.5-3 million project getting grants from the Welsh Government.
  The WRAP study annexed to the main report gives some details in its options analysis, that we have to pay £60 per tonne to the Viridor incinerator (Welsh govt pays £20/t on top) and almost as much for using Lamby Way to separate co-mingled recyclables.  The Vale pays them £34/t to take garden waste (compare £25/t on farm in the Vale) and £44/t to take food waste (figures from 2016).  The drop in residual (back-bag) waste from the new limit is estimated as about 20%, with people recycling more and disposing of their own rubble.

Contaminated Hinkley mud to hit beaches at Penarth and Barry

The regulator "Natural Resources Wales" announced 6th June that conditions on the license are now complete for dumping 300 000 tonnes of contaminated sludge in the Estuary off Penarth Head.

The license but not the monitoring is at

http://www.naturalresources.wales/CardiffGroundsSedimentDisposal  (= https://t.co/f8WHxV0WlI)

Further questions may be put to NRW via marinelicensing@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk

This is Barry&Vale FoE's new publicity leaflet on the issues.

** Why call it "Hinkley's mud".  It's not 'nuclear sludge' from inside the reactor, not mud from the nuclear operations, but estuary mud that picked up radioactive elements from the plant's liquid discharges (with microparticle 'dirt'). While these discharges were licensed at the time, limits were not necessarily enforced and current permits are stricter. What's in the mud is largely unknown; the few samples taken of 'historical' mud in 2009 at a few metres below the seabed show elevated levels of uranium and radium.  Those samples have been lost so cannot be re-tested.  There may be plutonium, since its production was a major purpose of Hinkley Point A station, but this was secret.

Metro-trams unacceptable on Penarth Rd thru Grangetown

Battery-driven trams welcome - but not on-street through Grangetown

We welcome the choice of KeolisAmey’s battery-driven trams for the Cardiff region metro, says Max Wallis of Friends of the Earth Barry&Vale.  While they can switch to overhead power lines for some stages, on-street overhead lines are avoided, likewise on the spur to Penarth in Cardiff.

We call on the company to drop the plan of Transport for Wales to route the Penarth trams on-street through Grangetown. 

Reconstruction at Grangetown Station to get the trams between Penarth Road and the overhead rail line would be substantial. 

The trams will be caught up in the traffic jams; journey times Penarth to Cardiff would be much longer than the present 11 minutes. 

Unless battery-trams are allowed to run on the ordinary rail lines, through to Central and Queen St stations, FOE doesn’t want them on the Penarth line.  Let us keep diesel trains as on the Barry Island and Vale of Glamorgan lines, with modern rolling stock too.  We regret that those services are not to be electrified, but let’s avoid Cardiff’s hotch-potch with on-street battery-trams.

www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/huge-investment-running-billions-transform-14738004

https://penarthnews.wordpress.com/2018/06/04/keolis-amey-promises-new-trains-for-penarth-rail-commuters/