#tasc — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #tasc, aggregated by home.social.
-
🚨 "Is Ireland facing democratic backsliding? The Dáil speaking rights row isn’t just political drama - it risks undermining opposition oversight. When democracy erodes, it starts small."
Latest article from TASC: https://www.tasc.ie/blog/2025/03/27/the-speaking-rights-row/
#MastoDaoine #DáilÉireann #Parliament #SpeakingRights #Democracy #Ireland #TASC
-
Happy New Year! To kick things off, here are the notes to the latest episode (part 6) of The Art & Science of CAP with Daniel Hutzel. Please let us know in the comments what you think. Useful? Not so much? Something needs explaining further? We'd love to hear from you. #SAPCAP #HandsOnSAPDev #TASC 👉 https://qmacro.org/blog/posts/2024/12/20/tasc-notes-part-6/
-
This weekend, catch up with yesterday's episode of The Art and Science of CAP with Daniel Hutzel? Glimpses into the near future, explanations of why things are as they are, and priceless hints & tips. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZCOQpxC118 #SAPCAP #TASC #HandsOnSAPDev @sap
-
We'll be LIVE in 1 hour from now, join Daniel Hutzel and me for part 6 of The Art & Science of CAP. Everyone welcome! 🚀 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZCOQpxC118 #SAPCAP #TASC #HandsOnSAPDev @sap
-
Greetings! Just a reminder that we have a festive part 6 of The Art and Science of CAP, with Daniel Hutzel tomorrow (Fri 20 Dec) LIVE at the usual time at 0800 GMT / 0900 CET / 1330 IST / 1900 AEDT. Join us, everyone welcome! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZCOQpxC118 🚀 #SAPCAP #HandsOnSAPDev #TASC @sap
-
Greetings earthlings, there's one more Art and Science of CAP episode before the holidays, join Daniel Hutzel and me this Fri 20 Dec at the usual time! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZCOQpxC118 #SAPCAP #TASC #HandsOnSAPDev
-
@htammen (and @sap et al) the notes for last Friday's part 4 of The Art and Science of CAP have now been published. A little lengthier and more indulgent than previous notes, let me know if it's "too much" #SAPCAP #TASC
👉 https://qmacro.org/blog/posts/2024/12/10/tasc-notes-part-4/
-
Hey folks, just a reminder that we have part 5 of The Art and Science of CAP, with Daniel Hutzel, this Fri 13 Dec at the usual time at 0800 GMT / 0900 CET / 1330 IST / 1900 AEDT. Join us, everyone welcome! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpTDnYxoNXI&list=PL6RpkC85SLQAe45xlhIfhTYB9G0mdRVjI&index=6 🚀 #SAPCAP #HandsOnSAPDev #TASC
-
Miss this morning's episode of The Art and Science of CAP with Daniel Hutzel? Don't worry, we have you covered, with the recording, notes & links from today and previous episodes, plus lots more, all in a single place: a new summary blog post "The Art and Science of CAP" (top right in pic). Please repost for a wider coverage, and enjoy the series - KTHXBAI! 🚀 https://qmacro.org/blog/posts/2024/12/06/the-art-and-science-of-cap/ #SAPCAP #TASC #HandsOnSAPDev
-
Greetings earthlings! Starting in 1 hour from now, join Daniel Hutzel and me LIVE for part 4 of The Art and Science of CAP, on the SAP Developers YT channel as always. Everyone welcome, bring your comments, chat and coffee! 👉 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwxvyiC-6FI&list=PL6RpkC85SLQAe45xlhIfhTYB9G0mdRVjI&index=5 #HandsOnSAPDev #SAPCAP #TASC
-
Hey folks, just a reminder that we have part 4 of The Art and Science of CAP, with Daniel Hutzel, tomorrow (Fri 06 Dec) at the usual time at 0800 GMT / 0900 CET / 1330 IST / 1900 AEDT. Join us, everyone welcome! 🚀 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwxvyiC-6FI #SAPCAP #HandsOnSAPDev #TASC
-
This coming Fri 06 Dec at 0800 UK join us LIVE for part 4 of The Art and Science with CAP, with Daniel Hutzel, where we continue to examine the background and philosophy of CAP. We continue our look at both good and bad practices, but more importantly, understand WHY which practice is in which category. Everyone welcome! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwxvyiC-6FI #SAPCAP #TASC #HandsOnSAPDev
-
Something for the weekend? Why not catch up on The Art and Science of CAP with Daniel Hutzel, and get ready for part 4 next Fri 06 Dec? We have a playlist ready for you with all the links. Share & enjoy! 👉 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6RpkC85SLQAe45xlhIfhTYB9G0mdRVjI
-
Happy Thursday! Just a reminder to you all that we'll be LIVE tomorrow (Fri 29 Nov) with Daniel Hutzel and part 3 of "The Art and Science of CAP"!
See you there, everyone welcome!
-
This Fri 29 Nov at 0800 GMT / 0900 CET / 1330 IST / 1900 AEDT we have part 3 of the magical mystery tour of CAP, otherwise known as "The Art and Science of CAP", with the one and only Daniel Hutzel! Not to be missed. Subscribe, set an alert, and get ready to join us live on Friday, via this playlist (where you can get to and watch the previous episodes) https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6RpkC85SLQAe45xlhIfhTYB9G0mdRVjI #TASC #SAPCAP
-
Something for the weekend? How about catching up with yesterday's live stream, with Daniel Hutzel on part 2 of The Art and Science of CAP, a series that digs in to the foundation, origins, philosophy and magic of CAP. A series for the curious ... and if you're a developer, a _good_ developer, then that means YOU! https://www.youtube.com/live/gXsqOFArqCw
Let me know what gems you pick out of this episode, we can all learn from each other here.
-
We'll be LIVE on the #HandsOnSAPDev show in 1 hour from now - join Daniel Hutzel (and me) for part 2 of The Art and Science of CAP at 0800 GMT / 0900 CET / 1330 IST / 1900 AEDT 🚀
Join us, everyone welcome!
-
The second of a series of short posts explaining gems from Daniel Hutzel's inaugural episode of The Art & Science of CAP is available: "Restricting access via facets with masked elements" https://qmacro.org/blog/posts/2024/11/03/restricting-access-via-facets-with-masked-elements/
It's a short read, highlighting the way the an association in a projected entity was deliberately masked and replaced with a flat element, all in one simple move. A thing of beauty, you might say. Anyway, let me know what you think!
-
Following on from Daniel Hutzel's inaugural "The Art & Science of CAP" session at #Devtoberfest last month, here's a short post (one of a small series) that highlights some of the gems of wisdom in that session.
"Keeping things simple in domain modelling with CDS" https://qmacro.org/blog/posts/2024/11/02/keeping-things-simple-in-domain-modelling-with-cds/
Share & enjoy!
-
Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish, campaigners say
#Environmental groups claim planned Suffolk power station will devastate marine life and key bird habitat
by Karen McVeigh
Wed 28 Apr 2021 08.15 EDTArticle image: Sizewell B nuclear power station looms over the RSPB Minsmere wetlands. The proposed plant would be built on nature reserve’s southern boundary.
"More than 500 million fish, including #protectedspecies, could be sucked into the cooling system of a proposed £20bn #NuclearPowerPlant in Suffolk if construction goes ahead, environmental campaigners say.
"A local campaign group, Together Against Sizewell C (#Tasc), claims the subsequent deaths of millions of fish is 'inhumane and unacceptable' and flies in the face of the government’s #GreenAgenda. Also opposing the development, the #birdconservation group RSPB expressed concern over predicted levels of fish loss on the #marinebirds that feed on them.
"The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), a government agency, has assessed the marine impacts of the plant and said it was confident the mortality rates caused by Sizewell C would be 'sustainable' and the impact on the wider marine community 'insignificant'.
"#EDF, the French state-owned company behind the plan to build Sizewell C, claims the proposed plant could generate 3.2GW of electricity, enough to provide 7% of the UK’s electricity needs, or power 6m homes. The Nuclear Industry Association describes it as “a vital next step” in the UK’s efforts to secure new low-carbon electricity as older nuclear reactors are shut down.
"However, environmental campaign groups, including #Greenpeace, argue that nuclear reactors are unnecessary and expensive, compared with a combination of #RenewableEnergy and #BatteryStorage technology. The RSPB and the local community group #StopSizewellC said the reactor poses a risk to the natural habitats along the Suffolk coast and the adjacent Minsmere nature reserve. Campaigners say a new nuclear power station will have a severe impact on marine life.
"Planning documents published by EDF have revealed that almost 8 million fish were “impinged” – or sucked into the cooling system – by the existing plant Sizewell B each year between 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating from these figures, Tasc has estimated that 28 million fish could be impinged in the cooling system of both plants each year, which is 560 million over the two decades the plants are expected to operate, between 2035 and 2055. The proposed plant is larger than Sizewell B and will take in 2.5 times the amount of seawater, Tasc said.
"Pete Wilkinson, the chair of Tasc and a co-founder of Greenpeace UK, said the estimates were “staggering”. Such wildlife loss was the “tip of the iceberg”, he said, as it did not take into account fish fry, eggs, crustacea and other aquatic life.
“Tens of millions of fish, crustaceans and other marine biota will be sacrificed for the purposes of cooling a plant which is not needed to keep the lights on, which will do nothing to reduce global carbon emissions, which will be paid for from the pockets of all UK taxpayers and bill-paying customers, leaving future generations with a lasting legacy of an impoverished environment,” he said.
Wilkinson said he expected Cefas to condemn the impact on fish at the inquiry stage of the Sizewell C planning process.
“Cefas’s stated aim is ‘to help keep our seas, oceans and rivers healthy and productive, and our seafood safe and sustainable … ’ Instead, it seems that Cefas appears quite at ease presiding over the deaths of millions of fish and clearly feels the huge number of fish deaths is acceptable in that the overall health of fish stocks will not be compromised.”
“Adam Rowlands, the RSPB’s Suffolk area manager, said: 'It is our position that the project should not go ahead. The potential impacts on the environment are too great. Fish impingement is one of our concerns. These fish provide a valuable food supply to rare birds nesting and breeding in the area.'
“Protected species breeding in the area include little and common terns and in the winter there are a number of internationally important red-throated divers. 'They won’t feed on dead fish,' Rowlands said.
“Asked what impact such a loss of fish might have, Rowlands said: 'We haven’t seen evidence to convince us that removing that amount of fish from the population wouldn’t have an impact.'
“If the plant goes ahead, it will be built on part of Sizewell marshes, a site of special scientific interest. It will also be adjacent to the southern boundary of the RSPB-owned Minsmere nature reserve, a Ramsar (internationally important wetland) site and special protection area. Minsmere is one of only five sites in Britain to receive the Council of Europe European Diploma for protected areas award, whose renewal depends on Sizewell C not causing any damage.
“A spokesperson for Cefas said: 'There is no scientific evidence that the proposed new nuclear developments will cause large-scale destruction of marine life or impact protected species.'
“Its role in relation to the Sizewell C project was to ensure 'the marine evidence base is scientifically robust, to fully assess the potential marine impacts and, where feasible, to work with EDF engineers to reduce potential impacts by design optimisation', the spokesperson said, adding that issuing any objection to the proposal was outside its remit.
‘”Our objective is to ensure that the adverse impacts of human activities don’t affect the long-term viability of communities, habitats, or populations of vulnerable and declining species.
“‘Where impacts do occur, such as mortality of fish on power station intake screens, we assess these against other sources of mortality (natural and anthropogenic) and the ability of the population to withstand such losses. Compared to the natural population size, relatively few fish will be impacted and we are confident that mortality rates caused by the new nuclear industry are sustainable and the impact on the wider marine ecosystem will be insignificant.'
“It said it had produced three chapters of the environmental statement, including on marine ecology and fisheries, submitted by Sizewell C to the planning process for public and regulatory scrutiny. It added: 'In undertaking this nationally important work for EDF to develop UK’s new nuclear capability, we avoid conflicts of interest by not providing advice to government regulators on new nuclear developments.'
“A spokesperson for Sizewell C said: 'Our assessments show that the fish impacted are mainly sprat and herring. The intake of these species by Sizewell C is 0.01% of the stock in the area. Fisheries scientists describe the impact of new nuclear power stations on the marine ecosystem as ‘insignificant’.'
“The spokesperson said they would use a more modern 'fish returns system' than the one at Sizewell B, to ensure higher survival rates and that the returned fish that did not survive would be 'eaten by other sea life'.
“A spokesperson for the Environment Agency said it was responsible for 'stringent regulation' of the nuclear industry to prevent harm to the environment and local communities. Speaking about an #EDF subsidiary created to build and run #HinkleyPoint C and Sizewell C nuclear power stations, they said: 'We are currently considering NNB Generation Company’s environmental permit application for their proposed cooling water discharge, and will determine it once we have assessed the impacts to the marine environment – including fish populations.'
“The Sizewell C planning process began in May 2020 and an examination is now under way by the Planning Inspectorate. This stage of the process is expected to take about six months, during which local people and organisations can make representations."
-
Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish, campaigners say
#Environmental groups claim planned Suffolk power station will devastate marine life and key bird habitat
by Karen McVeigh
Wed 28 Apr 2021 08.15 EDTArticle image: Sizewell B nuclear power station looms over the RSPB Minsmere wetlands. The proposed plant would be built on nature reserve’s southern boundary.
"More than 500 million fish, including #protectedspecies, could be sucked into the cooling system of a proposed £20bn #NuclearPowerPlant in Suffolk if construction goes ahead, environmental campaigners say.
"A local campaign group, Together Against Sizewell C (#Tasc), claims the subsequent deaths of millions of fish is 'inhumane and unacceptable' and flies in the face of the government’s #GreenAgenda. Also opposing the development, the #birdconservation group RSPB expressed concern over predicted levels of fish loss on the #marinebirds that feed on them.
"The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), a government agency, has assessed the marine impacts of the plant and said it was confident the mortality rates caused by Sizewell C would be 'sustainable' and the impact on the wider marine community 'insignificant'.
"#EDF, the French state-owned company behind the plan to build Sizewell C, claims the proposed plant could generate 3.2GW of electricity, enough to provide 7% of the UK’s electricity needs, or power 6m homes. The Nuclear Industry Association describes it as “a vital next step” in the UK’s efforts to secure new low-carbon electricity as older nuclear reactors are shut down.
"However, environmental campaign groups, including #Greenpeace, argue that nuclear reactors are unnecessary and expensive, compared with a combination of #RenewableEnergy and #BatteryStorage technology. The RSPB and the local community group #StopSizewellC said the reactor poses a risk to the natural habitats along the Suffolk coast and the adjacent Minsmere nature reserve. Campaigners say a new nuclear power station will have a severe impact on marine life.
"Planning documents published by EDF have revealed that almost 8 million fish were “impinged” – or sucked into the cooling system – by the existing plant Sizewell B each year between 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating from these figures, Tasc has estimated that 28 million fish could be impinged in the cooling system of both plants each year, which is 560 million over the two decades the plants are expected to operate, between 2035 and 2055. The proposed plant is larger than Sizewell B and will take in 2.5 times the amount of seawater, Tasc said.
"Pete Wilkinson, the chair of Tasc and a co-founder of Greenpeace UK, said the estimates were “staggering”. Such wildlife loss was the “tip of the iceberg”, he said, as it did not take into account fish fry, eggs, crustacea and other aquatic life.
“Tens of millions of fish, crustaceans and other marine biota will be sacrificed for the purposes of cooling a plant which is not needed to keep the lights on, which will do nothing to reduce global carbon emissions, which will be paid for from the pockets of all UK taxpayers and bill-paying customers, leaving future generations with a lasting legacy of an impoverished environment,” he said.
Wilkinson said he expected Cefas to condemn the impact on fish at the inquiry stage of the Sizewell C planning process.
“Cefas’s stated aim is ‘to help keep our seas, oceans and rivers healthy and productive, and our seafood safe and sustainable … ’ Instead, it seems that Cefas appears quite at ease presiding over the deaths of millions of fish and clearly feels the huge number of fish deaths is acceptable in that the overall health of fish stocks will not be compromised.”
“Adam Rowlands, the RSPB’s Suffolk area manager, said: 'It is our position that the project should not go ahead. The potential impacts on the environment are too great. Fish impingement is one of our concerns. These fish provide a valuable food supply to rare birds nesting and breeding in the area.'
“Protected species breeding in the area include little and common terns and in the winter there are a number of internationally important red-throated divers. 'They won’t feed on dead fish,' Rowlands said.
“Asked what impact such a loss of fish might have, Rowlands said: 'We haven’t seen evidence to convince us that removing that amount of fish from the population wouldn’t have an impact.'
“If the plant goes ahead, it will be built on part of Sizewell marshes, a site of special scientific interest. It will also be adjacent to the southern boundary of the RSPB-owned Minsmere nature reserve, a Ramsar (internationally important wetland) site and special protection area. Minsmere is one of only five sites in Britain to receive the Council of Europe European Diploma for protected areas award, whose renewal depends on Sizewell C not causing any damage.
“A spokesperson for Cefas said: 'There is no scientific evidence that the proposed new nuclear developments will cause large-scale destruction of marine life or impact protected species.'
“Its role in relation to the Sizewell C project was to ensure 'the marine evidence base is scientifically robust, to fully assess the potential marine impacts and, where feasible, to work with EDF engineers to reduce potential impacts by design optimisation', the spokesperson said, adding that issuing any objection to the proposal was outside its remit.
‘”Our objective is to ensure that the adverse impacts of human activities don’t affect the long-term viability of communities, habitats, or populations of vulnerable and declining species.
“‘Where impacts do occur, such as mortality of fish on power station intake screens, we assess these against other sources of mortality (natural and anthropogenic) and the ability of the population to withstand such losses. Compared to the natural population size, relatively few fish will be impacted and we are confident that mortality rates caused by the new nuclear industry are sustainable and the impact on the wider marine ecosystem will be insignificant.'
“It said it had produced three chapters of the environmental statement, including on marine ecology and fisheries, submitted by Sizewell C to the planning process for public and regulatory scrutiny. It added: 'In undertaking this nationally important work for EDF to develop UK’s new nuclear capability, we avoid conflicts of interest by not providing advice to government regulators on new nuclear developments.'
“A spokesperson for Sizewell C said: 'Our assessments show that the fish impacted are mainly sprat and herring. The intake of these species by Sizewell C is 0.01% of the stock in the area. Fisheries scientists describe the impact of new nuclear power stations on the marine ecosystem as ‘insignificant’.'
“The spokesperson said they would use a more modern 'fish returns system' than the one at Sizewell B, to ensure higher survival rates and that the returned fish that did not survive would be 'eaten by other sea life'.
“A spokesperson for the Environment Agency said it was responsible for 'stringent regulation' of the nuclear industry to prevent harm to the environment and local communities. Speaking about an #EDF subsidiary created to build and run #HinkleyPoint C and Sizewell C nuclear power stations, they said: 'We are currently considering NNB Generation Company’s environmental permit application for their proposed cooling water discharge, and will determine it once we have assessed the impacts to the marine environment – including fish populations.'
“The Sizewell C planning process began in May 2020 and an examination is now under way by the Planning Inspectorate. This stage of the process is expected to take about six months, during which local people and organisations can make representations."
-
Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish, campaigners say
#Environmental groups claim planned Suffolk power station will devastate marine life and key bird habitat
by Karen McVeigh
Wed 28 Apr 2021 08.15 EDTArticle image: Sizewell B nuclear power station looms over the RSPB Minsmere wetlands. The proposed plant would be built on nature reserve’s southern boundary.
"More than 500 million fish, including #protectedspecies, could be sucked into the cooling system of a proposed £20bn #NuclearPowerPlant in Suffolk if construction goes ahead, environmental campaigners say.
"A local campaign group, Together Against Sizewell C (#Tasc), claims the subsequent deaths of millions of fish is 'inhumane and unacceptable' and flies in the face of the government’s #GreenAgenda. Also opposing the development, the #birdconservation group RSPB expressed concern over predicted levels of fish loss on the #marinebirds that feed on them.
"The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), a government agency, has assessed the marine impacts of the plant and said it was confident the mortality rates caused by Sizewell C would be 'sustainable' and the impact on the wider marine community 'insignificant'.
"#EDF, the French state-owned company behind the plan to build Sizewell C, claims the proposed plant could generate 3.2GW of electricity, enough to provide 7% of the UK’s electricity needs, or power 6m homes. The Nuclear Industry Association describes it as “a vital next step” in the UK’s efforts to secure new low-carbon electricity as older nuclear reactors are shut down.
"However, environmental campaign groups, including #Greenpeace, argue that nuclear reactors are unnecessary and expensive, compared with a combination of #RenewableEnergy and #BatteryStorage technology. The RSPB and the local community group #StopSizewellC said the reactor poses a risk to the natural habitats along the Suffolk coast and the adjacent Minsmere nature reserve. Campaigners say a new nuclear power station will have a severe impact on marine life.
"Planning documents published by EDF have revealed that almost 8 million fish were “impinged” – or sucked into the cooling system – by the existing plant Sizewell B each year between 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating from these figures, Tasc has estimated that 28 million fish could be impinged in the cooling system of both plants each year, which is 560 million over the two decades the plants are expected to operate, between 2035 and 2055. The proposed plant is larger than Sizewell B and will take in 2.5 times the amount of seawater, Tasc said.
"Pete Wilkinson, the chair of Tasc and a co-founder of Greenpeace UK, said the estimates were “staggering”. Such wildlife loss was the “tip of the iceberg”, he said, as it did not take into account fish fry, eggs, crustacea and other aquatic life.
“Tens of millions of fish, crustaceans and other marine biota will be sacrificed for the purposes of cooling a plant which is not needed to keep the lights on, which will do nothing to reduce global carbon emissions, which will be paid for from the pockets of all UK taxpayers and bill-paying customers, leaving future generations with a lasting legacy of an impoverished environment,” he said.
Wilkinson said he expected Cefas to condemn the impact on fish at the inquiry stage of the Sizewell C planning process.
“Cefas’s stated aim is ‘to help keep our seas, oceans and rivers healthy and productive, and our seafood safe and sustainable … ’ Instead, it seems that Cefas appears quite at ease presiding over the deaths of millions of fish and clearly feels the huge number of fish deaths is acceptable in that the overall health of fish stocks will not be compromised.”
“Adam Rowlands, the RSPB’s Suffolk area manager, said: 'It is our position that the project should not go ahead. The potential impacts on the environment are too great. Fish impingement is one of our concerns. These fish provide a valuable food supply to rare birds nesting and breeding in the area.'
“Protected species breeding in the area include little and common terns and in the winter there are a number of internationally important red-throated divers. 'They won’t feed on dead fish,' Rowlands said.
“Asked what impact such a loss of fish might have, Rowlands said: 'We haven’t seen evidence to convince us that removing that amount of fish from the population wouldn’t have an impact.'
“If the plant goes ahead, it will be built on part of Sizewell marshes, a site of special scientific interest. It will also be adjacent to the southern boundary of the RSPB-owned Minsmere nature reserve, a Ramsar (internationally important wetland) site and special protection area. Minsmere is one of only five sites in Britain to receive the Council of Europe European Diploma for protected areas award, whose renewal depends on Sizewell C not causing any damage.
“A spokesperson for Cefas said: 'There is no scientific evidence that the proposed new nuclear developments will cause large-scale destruction of marine life or impact protected species.'
“Its role in relation to the Sizewell C project was to ensure 'the marine evidence base is scientifically robust, to fully assess the potential marine impacts and, where feasible, to work with EDF engineers to reduce potential impacts by design optimisation', the spokesperson said, adding that issuing any objection to the proposal was outside its remit.
‘”Our objective is to ensure that the adverse impacts of human activities don’t affect the long-term viability of communities, habitats, or populations of vulnerable and declining species.
“‘Where impacts do occur, such as mortality of fish on power station intake screens, we assess these against other sources of mortality (natural and anthropogenic) and the ability of the population to withstand such losses. Compared to the natural population size, relatively few fish will be impacted and we are confident that mortality rates caused by the new nuclear industry are sustainable and the impact on the wider marine ecosystem will be insignificant.'
“It said it had produced three chapters of the environmental statement, including on marine ecology and fisheries, submitted by Sizewell C to the planning process for public and regulatory scrutiny. It added: 'In undertaking this nationally important work for EDF to develop UK’s new nuclear capability, we avoid conflicts of interest by not providing advice to government regulators on new nuclear developments.'
“A spokesperson for Sizewell C said: 'Our assessments show that the fish impacted are mainly sprat and herring. The intake of these species by Sizewell C is 0.01% of the stock in the area. Fisheries scientists describe the impact of new nuclear power stations on the marine ecosystem as ‘insignificant’.'
“The spokesperson said they would use a more modern 'fish returns system' than the one at Sizewell B, to ensure higher survival rates and that the returned fish that did not survive would be 'eaten by other sea life'.
“A spokesperson for the Environment Agency said it was responsible for 'stringent regulation' of the nuclear industry to prevent harm to the environment and local communities. Speaking about an #EDF subsidiary created to build and run #HinkleyPoint C and Sizewell C nuclear power stations, they said: 'We are currently considering NNB Generation Company’s environmental permit application for their proposed cooling water discharge, and will determine it once we have assessed the impacts to the marine environment – including fish populations.'
“The Sizewell C planning process began in May 2020 and an examination is now under way by the Planning Inspectorate. This stage of the process is expected to take about six months, during which local people and organisations can make representations."
-
Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish, campaigners say
#Environmental groups claim planned Suffolk power station will devastate marine life and key bird habitat
by Karen McVeigh
Wed 28 Apr 2021 08.15 EDTArticle image: Sizewell B nuclear power station looms over the RSPB Minsmere wetlands. The proposed plant would be built on nature reserve’s southern boundary.
"More than 500 million fish, including #protectedspecies, could be sucked into the cooling system of a proposed £20bn #NuclearPowerPlant in Suffolk if construction goes ahead, environmental campaigners say.
"A local campaign group, Together Against Sizewell C (#Tasc), claims the subsequent deaths of millions of fish is 'inhumane and unacceptable' and flies in the face of the government’s #GreenAgenda. Also opposing the development, the #birdconservation group RSPB expressed concern over predicted levels of fish loss on the #marinebirds that feed on them.
"The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), a government agency, has assessed the marine impacts of the plant and said it was confident the mortality rates caused by Sizewell C would be 'sustainable' and the impact on the wider marine community 'insignificant'.
"#EDF, the French state-owned company behind the plan to build Sizewell C, claims the proposed plant could generate 3.2GW of electricity, enough to provide 7% of the UK’s electricity needs, or power 6m homes. The Nuclear Industry Association describes it as “a vital next step” in the UK’s efforts to secure new low-carbon electricity as older nuclear reactors are shut down.
"However, environmental campaign groups, including #Greenpeace, argue that nuclear reactors are unnecessary and expensive, compared with a combination of #RenewableEnergy and #BatteryStorage technology. The RSPB and the local community group #StopSizewellC said the reactor poses a risk to the natural habitats along the Suffolk coast and the adjacent Minsmere nature reserve. Campaigners say a new nuclear power station will have a severe impact on marine life.
"Planning documents published by EDF have revealed that almost 8 million fish were “impinged” – or sucked into the cooling system – by the existing plant Sizewell B each year between 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating from these figures, Tasc has estimated that 28 million fish could be impinged in the cooling system of both plants each year, which is 560 million over the two decades the plants are expected to operate, between 2035 and 2055. The proposed plant is larger than Sizewell B and will take in 2.5 times the amount of seawater, Tasc said.
"Pete Wilkinson, the chair of Tasc and a co-founder of Greenpeace UK, said the estimates were “staggering”. Such wildlife loss was the “tip of the iceberg”, he said, as it did not take into account fish fry, eggs, crustacea and other aquatic life.
“Tens of millions of fish, crustaceans and other marine biota will be sacrificed for the purposes of cooling a plant which is not needed to keep the lights on, which will do nothing to reduce global carbon emissions, which will be paid for from the pockets of all UK taxpayers and bill-paying customers, leaving future generations with a lasting legacy of an impoverished environment,” he said.
Wilkinson said he expected Cefas to condemn the impact on fish at the inquiry stage of the Sizewell C planning process.
“Cefas’s stated aim is ‘to help keep our seas, oceans and rivers healthy and productive, and our seafood safe and sustainable … ’ Instead, it seems that Cefas appears quite at ease presiding over the deaths of millions of fish and clearly feels the huge number of fish deaths is acceptable in that the overall health of fish stocks will not be compromised.”
“Adam Rowlands, the RSPB’s Suffolk area manager, said: 'It is our position that the project should not go ahead. The potential impacts on the environment are too great. Fish impingement is one of our concerns. These fish provide a valuable food supply to rare birds nesting and breeding in the area.'
“Protected species breeding in the area include little and common terns and in the winter there are a number of internationally important red-throated divers. 'They won’t feed on dead fish,' Rowlands said.
“Asked what impact such a loss of fish might have, Rowlands said: 'We haven’t seen evidence to convince us that removing that amount of fish from the population wouldn’t have an impact.'
“If the plant goes ahead, it will be built on part of Sizewell marshes, a site of special scientific interest. It will also be adjacent to the southern boundary of the RSPB-owned Minsmere nature reserve, a Ramsar (internationally important wetland) site and special protection area. Minsmere is one of only five sites in Britain to receive the Council of Europe European Diploma for protected areas award, whose renewal depends on Sizewell C not causing any damage.
“A spokesperson for Cefas said: 'There is no scientific evidence that the proposed new nuclear developments will cause large-scale destruction of marine life or impact protected species.'
“Its role in relation to the Sizewell C project was to ensure 'the marine evidence base is scientifically robust, to fully assess the potential marine impacts and, where feasible, to work with EDF engineers to reduce potential impacts by design optimisation', the spokesperson said, adding that issuing any objection to the proposal was outside its remit.
‘”Our objective is to ensure that the adverse impacts of human activities don’t affect the long-term viability of communities, habitats, or populations of vulnerable and declining species.
“‘Where impacts do occur, such as mortality of fish on power station intake screens, we assess these against other sources of mortality (natural and anthropogenic) and the ability of the population to withstand such losses. Compared to the natural population size, relatively few fish will be impacted and we are confident that mortality rates caused by the new nuclear industry are sustainable and the impact on the wider marine ecosystem will be insignificant.'
“It said it had produced three chapters of the environmental statement, including on marine ecology and fisheries, submitted by Sizewell C to the planning process for public and regulatory scrutiny. It added: 'In undertaking this nationally important work for EDF to develop UK’s new nuclear capability, we avoid conflicts of interest by not providing advice to government regulators on new nuclear developments.'
“A spokesperson for Sizewell C said: 'Our assessments show that the fish impacted are mainly sprat and herring. The intake of these species by Sizewell C is 0.01% of the stock in the area. Fisheries scientists describe the impact of new nuclear power stations on the marine ecosystem as ‘insignificant’.'
“The spokesperson said they would use a more modern 'fish returns system' than the one at Sizewell B, to ensure higher survival rates and that the returned fish that did not survive would be 'eaten by other sea life'.
“A spokesperson for the Environment Agency said it was responsible for 'stringent regulation' of the nuclear industry to prevent harm to the environment and local communities. Speaking about an #EDF subsidiary created to build and run #HinkleyPoint C and Sizewell C nuclear power stations, they said: 'We are currently considering NNB Generation Company’s environmental permit application for their proposed cooling water discharge, and will determine it once we have assessed the impacts to the marine environment – including fish populations.'
“The Sizewell C planning process began in May 2020 and an examination is now under way by the Planning Inspectorate. This stage of the process is expected to take about six months, during which local people and organisations can make representations."
-
Sizewell C nuclear plant could kill 500m fish, campaigners say
#Environmental groups claim planned Suffolk power station will devastate marine life and key bird habitat
by Karen McVeigh
Wed 28 Apr 2021 08.15 EDTArticle image: Sizewell B nuclear power station looms over the RSPB Minsmere wetlands. The proposed plant would be built on nature reserve’s southern boundary.
"More than 500 million fish, including #protectedspecies, could be sucked into the cooling system of a proposed £20bn #NuclearPowerPlant in Suffolk if construction goes ahead, environmental campaigners say.
"A local campaign group, Together Against Sizewell C (#Tasc), claims the subsequent deaths of millions of fish is 'inhumane and unacceptable' and flies in the face of the government’s #GreenAgenda. Also opposing the development, the #birdconservation group RSPB expressed concern over predicted levels of fish loss on the #marinebirds that feed on them.
"The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), a government agency, has assessed the marine impacts of the plant and said it was confident the mortality rates caused by Sizewell C would be 'sustainable' and the impact on the wider marine community 'insignificant'.
"#EDF, the French state-owned company behind the plan to build Sizewell C, claims the proposed plant could generate 3.2GW of electricity, enough to provide 7% of the UK’s electricity needs, or power 6m homes. The Nuclear Industry Association describes it as “a vital next step” in the UK’s efforts to secure new low-carbon electricity as older nuclear reactors are shut down.
"However, environmental campaign groups, including #Greenpeace, argue that nuclear reactors are unnecessary and expensive, compared with a combination of #RenewableEnergy and #BatteryStorage technology. The RSPB and the local community group #StopSizewellC said the reactor poses a risk to the natural habitats along the Suffolk coast and the adjacent Minsmere nature reserve. Campaigners say a new nuclear power station will have a severe impact on marine life.
"Planning documents published by EDF have revealed that almost 8 million fish were “impinged” – or sucked into the cooling system – by the existing plant Sizewell B each year between 2009 and 2013. Extrapolating from these figures, Tasc has estimated that 28 million fish could be impinged in the cooling system of both plants each year, which is 560 million over the two decades the plants are expected to operate, between 2035 and 2055. The proposed plant is larger than Sizewell B and will take in 2.5 times the amount of seawater, Tasc said.
"Pete Wilkinson, the chair of Tasc and a co-founder of Greenpeace UK, said the estimates were “staggering”. Such wildlife loss was the “tip of the iceberg”, he said, as it did not take into account fish fry, eggs, crustacea and other aquatic life.
“Tens of millions of fish, crustaceans and other marine biota will be sacrificed for the purposes of cooling a plant which is not needed to keep the lights on, which will do nothing to reduce global carbon emissions, which will be paid for from the pockets of all UK taxpayers and bill-paying customers, leaving future generations with a lasting legacy of an impoverished environment,” he said.
Wilkinson said he expected Cefas to condemn the impact on fish at the inquiry stage of the Sizewell C planning process.
“Cefas’s stated aim is ‘to help keep our seas, oceans and rivers healthy and productive, and our seafood safe and sustainable … ’ Instead, it seems that Cefas appears quite at ease presiding over the deaths of millions of fish and clearly feels the huge number of fish deaths is acceptable in that the overall health of fish stocks will not be compromised.”
“Adam Rowlands, the RSPB’s Suffolk area manager, said: 'It is our position that the project should not go ahead. The potential impacts on the environment are too great. Fish impingement is one of our concerns. These fish provide a valuable food supply to rare birds nesting and breeding in the area.'
“Protected species breeding in the area include little and common terns and in the winter there are a number of internationally important red-throated divers. 'They won’t feed on dead fish,' Rowlands said.
“Asked what impact such a loss of fish might have, Rowlands said: 'We haven’t seen evidence to convince us that removing that amount of fish from the population wouldn’t have an impact.'
“If the plant goes ahead, it will be built on part of Sizewell marshes, a site of special scientific interest. It will also be adjacent to the southern boundary of the RSPB-owned Minsmere nature reserve, a Ramsar (internationally important wetland) site and special protection area. Minsmere is one of only five sites in Britain to receive the Council of Europe European Diploma for protected areas award, whose renewal depends on Sizewell C not causing any damage.
“A spokesperson for Cefas said: 'There is no scientific evidence that the proposed new nuclear developments will cause large-scale destruction of marine life or impact protected species.'
“Its role in relation to the Sizewell C project was to ensure 'the marine evidence base is scientifically robust, to fully assess the potential marine impacts and, where feasible, to work with EDF engineers to reduce potential impacts by design optimisation', the spokesperson said, adding that issuing any objection to the proposal was outside its remit.
‘”Our objective is to ensure that the adverse impacts of human activities don’t affect the long-term viability of communities, habitats, or populations of vulnerable and declining species.
“‘Where impacts do occur, such as mortality of fish on power station intake screens, we assess these against other sources of mortality (natural and anthropogenic) and the ability of the population to withstand such losses. Compared to the natural population size, relatively few fish will be impacted and we are confident that mortality rates caused by the new nuclear industry are sustainable and the impact on the wider marine ecosystem will be insignificant.'
“It said it had produced three chapters of the environmental statement, including on marine ecology and fisheries, submitted by Sizewell C to the planning process for public and regulatory scrutiny. It added: 'In undertaking this nationally important work for EDF to develop UK’s new nuclear capability, we avoid conflicts of interest by not providing advice to government regulators on new nuclear developments.'
“A spokesperson for Sizewell C said: 'Our assessments show that the fish impacted are mainly sprat and herring. The intake of these species by Sizewell C is 0.01% of the stock in the area. Fisheries scientists describe the impact of new nuclear power stations on the marine ecosystem as ‘insignificant’.'
“The spokesperson said they would use a more modern 'fish returns system' than the one at Sizewell B, to ensure higher survival rates and that the returned fish that did not survive would be 'eaten by other sea life'.
“A spokesperson for the Environment Agency said it was responsible for 'stringent regulation' of the nuclear industry to prevent harm to the environment and local communities. Speaking about an #EDF subsidiary created to build and run #HinkleyPoint C and Sizewell C nuclear power stations, they said: 'We are currently considering NNB Generation Company’s environmental permit application for their proposed cooling water discharge, and will determine it once we have assessed the impacts to the marine environment – including fish populations.'
“The Sizewell C planning process began in May 2020 and an examination is now under way by the Planning Inspectorate. This stage of the process is expected to take about six months, during which local people and organisations can make representations."
-
@alexwild
#Harvard University’s former disinformation expert, head of #TechnologyAndSocialChangeResearchProject #TASC
... #JoanDonovan ... lays out in detail how she and her research team at Harvard’s #KennedySchool #HKS came under sudden scrutiny from the school’s dean, #DouglasElmendorf, ..., after they started working on #HaugenFacebookFiles – a cache Donovan describes as “the most important documents in the history of the internet.Dead horse or Harvard stinking?
-
#TogetherAgainstSizewellC (TASC)
June 22, 2023
"#TASC is sorry to have to announce that the long-awaited #SizewellC judicial review decision went against us. Obviously, we are devastated by the news, but we assure our supporters that the verdict in no way signals the end of our efforts. Together with our lawyers, Leigh Day, we are examining all possible options open to us and, in one form or another, TASC's campaign will continue.
"This decision enables EDF and the UK government to carry on with their plans to construct two EPR nuclear reactors, even though the Sizewell C project still has no guaranteed mains water supply for the 2.2 million litres needed daily to operate. In TASC’s opinion, the UK government’s determination to risk £billions of #UK taxpayer funds to build #EDF’s flawed EPR reactor design on #Suffolk's eroding coast, without a guaranteed mains water supply required for its 60 years of operation in what is already a #drought-prone area, is a travesty and will prove to be a financial and #environmental disaster."
#ClimateCrisis #ErodingCoastline #Nuclear
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/save-suffolks-heritage-coast-w/