nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

A year of losses for Namibia’ Rossing uranium mine

Namibia’s Rossing Uranium revenue tumbled in 2014 – official, Star Africa May 19, 2015  The impact of lower prices and the lower production figures in 2014 has strained Rossing Uranium’s revenue, which declined by 19 per cent compared to the previous year, leading to a net loss after tax of N$91 million (about US$8 million), compared to N$32 million (about US$2.7 million) profit in 2013.

The company’s turnover in 2014 was N$2.4 billion (about US$201 million), down from N$2.9 billion (about US$243 million) in 2013.

Managing director Werner Duvenhage revealed in a statement issued to APA on Tuesday that 2014 was a tough year due to continued decline of uranium globally, putting substantial pressure on the business.

“The challenging times currently experienced in our industry are mainly because of global influences. It was a tough year because the uranium price continued to decline globally, putting substantial pressure on our business, with the average uranium spot market price at US$33 (N$333) per lbs, much lower than the US$38 (N$418)) per lbs average in 2013,â€� he explained……….

Unfortunately, the uranium price declined further during the first half of the year, leading to a management and board decision to curtail production and meet only contractual commitments, with the resulting curtailment production plan effective from August 2014,� he said.

“The 2011 tsunami in Japan and its impact on the Fukushima nuclear plant still continued to plague the uranium market in 2014, with excess supply causing a decline in market prices.

“Nuclear plants in Japan remained off-line for most of the year. Supply has increased over the three years since the Fukushima incident.

“This is a recipe for continued weak prices in the near term. Utilities are holding large stocks in all forms, which defer their need to buy for one to three years on averageâ€�……http://en.starafrica.com/news/namibias-rossing-uranium-revenue-tumbled-in-2014-official.html

May 20, 2015 Posted by | business and costs, Namibia, Uranium | Leave a comment

Safety problems may mean the end for AREVA’s EPR nuclear reactor

the International Energy Agency’s World Economic Outlook 2014 report:

  • that nuclear growth will be “concentrated in markets where electricity is supplied at regulated prices, utilities have state backing or governments act to facilitate private investment”;
  • and that “nuclear power faces major challenges in competitive markets where there are significant market and regulatory risks.”.

Finland cancels Olkiluoto 4 nuclear reactor – is the EPR finished?, The Ecologist,  Dr Jim Green & Oliver Tickell 15 May 15 A negative learning curve on steroids

“……What to make of the EPR saga? First, Areva is backing the wrong horse – the outcome of current political debates will result in a declining role for nuclear power in France, coupled to the growth of renewables.

A new report by ADEME, a French government agency under the Ministries of Ecology and Research, concludes that a 100% renewable electricity supply scenario is feasible in France. The report estimates that the electricity production cost would be €119 per megawatt-hour in 2050 in the all-renewables scenario, compared with a near-identical figure of €117 / MWh with a mix of 50% nuclear, 40% renewables, and 10% fossil fuels.

Areva has also backed the wrong-sized wrong horse: a giant reactor with a giant price-tag. That said, the backers of ‘small modular reactors‘ are having no more success than Areva.

Areva has backed the wrong-sized wrong horse at the wrong time – the Global Financial Crisis and its aftermath, stagnant energy demand, the liberalization of energy markets, the political fallout from the Fukushima disaster and other factors have dampened demand for new reactors and made it more difficult to secure finance (or government subsidies) for huge projects.

The EPR saga undermines the rhetoric of standardised, simplified reactors designs ushering in a new era of nuclear growth. It also shows that developing modified versions of conventional reactors (in this case pressurised water reactors) can be complicated and protracted and can end in failure.

How much more difficult will it be to develop radically new types of reactors? The French government’s Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety has recently produced an important critique of Generation IV nuclear power concepts.

It states that there “is still much R&D to be done to develop the Generation IV nuclear reactors” and it is sceptical about the safety claims made for Generation IV concepts.

The EPR saga shows that even countries with extensive nuclear expertise and experience can mess things up. The EPR might have demonstrated the potential for mass production to drive down costs – but in reality it is demonstrating the opposite.

Even before the EPR fiasco, the large-scale, standardised French nuclear power program was subject to a negative economic learning curve – costs were increasing over time. The EPR represents a negative learning curve on steroids.

That point is emphasised by construction cost estimates of £16-24.5 billion (US$24.3-37.2b; €21.7-33.2b) for two planned EPRs (with combined capacity of 3.2 gigawatts) at Hinkley Point in the UK. In the mid- to late-2000s, the estimated construction cost for an EPR was £2 billion; current estimates are 4-6 times higher.

Private companies have pulled out of EPR projects in several countries (Italy, the US, the UK, etc.). Thus the EPR fiasco reinforces points made in the International Energy Agency’s World Economic Outlook 2014 report:

 

May 20, 2015 Posted by | business and costs, France | Leave a comment

Cut-throat competition between nuclear companies to export reactors

Survival of the fittest? World’s major nuclear builders are in for a long stretch in the red, Bellona, May 18, 2015 by ,  MOSCOW  “……..Rosatom: not much to brag about, either

In Arab countries and in Asia, in South Africa, and even inside the European Union borders, the French nuclear industry regularly bumps into competition: Russia’s state corporation Rosatom. The Russian company is selling the VVER-1200, a reactor type similar to – though less powerful than – the EPR. The official price cited for a VVER-1200 is around €5 billion. But independent observers, in the case of Rosatom’s new project in Finland, Hanhikivi NPP, estimate expenses per one reactor at over €7 billion. This is close to the current cost of the troubled EPR project in the same country……….

Beyond the EU borders

The confrontation between Russia and Ukraine that started last year has made it essentially impossible for Rosatom to complete the construction of Units 3 and 4 of Khmelnitsky NPP in Western Ukraine. Still, at the end of last year, the Russian corporation claimed it had a sheaf of orders to the tune of over $100 billion – 27 new reactor orders, predominantly, in developing countries. At the end of 2013, $74 billion’s worth of new orders was cited.

These figures should be taken with a grain of salt. In most cases, what is meant is not specific contracts, but rather agreements of a general nature. Effectively, these are obligations that are yet to be committed to paper. For instance, one such agreement on a strategic partnership in the development of nuclear energy was signed last fall with South Africa – something that Russian media presented as an order for eight new reactors and a range of nuclear power infrastructure sites to a total amount of approximately $40 billion.

But when details of the deal – which the government of South Africa kept secret – eventually found their way to the public, a scandal broke out: The document stipulates no liability on the part of Russian suppliers in case of a nuclear accident, provides for tax exemptions, and includes a restriction that forbids South Africa’s cooperation with any other countries without Russia’s permission. The country’s government so far insists it has not yet chosen the future contractor and claims agreements have been signed with France, South Korea, China, and other countries besides Russia. Last February, meanwhile, reports surfaced in the media that the implementation of the South African nuclear program was being postponed by several years due to political opposition.

If any new construction is happening at all in Rosatom’s projects, it’s only the new plants in China and Belarus (not long ago, it was also India, with Kudankulam-2, which was recently reported by the Russian media as completed). Back home, Rosatom promised to launch three new reactors in 2014, but only one started operation, at Rostov NPP in Southern European Russia. All new Rosatom construction sites where any work is being done are plagued by lengthy delays that translate into substantial cost rises. In Belarus, official statements made recently said the new NPP in Ostrovets would be completed at a later date than was scheduled initially.

One other important aspect is that Rosatom’s resources – including the corporation’s production capacities – are limited. It is very doubtful that Rosatom is capable of building dozens of new reactors across the world, as its claimed order book would suggest, within the next decade. Even in Russia, actual reactor construction rates are perpetually behind those stated in project schedules. Additionally, in the next several years, Rosatom is going to face the same problem that awaits France: decommissioning old reactors. ……….

Distress or demise?

Rosatom’s circumstances are unenviable. Last year, generous promises were given by the corporation to build dozens of new reactors in many different countries. India, China, Iran, Algeria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia – these are just some of the purported customers on the list. In 2015, Rosatom was planning to sign contracts in South Africa and, possibly, in Kazakhstan. A new addition is Egypt, though there is little clarity as to what documents exactly were signed there and whether they imply any specific commitments. It remains just as unclear how Rosatom is going to fulfil its promises if an order for a new reactor is actually made……..http://bellona.org/news/uncategorized/2015-05-survival-fittest-worlds-major-nuclear-builders-long-stretch-red

 

May 20, 2015 Posted by | 2 WORLD, marketing of nuclear | Leave a comment

Danger to Jaitapur Nuclear Plant In Earthquake Zone

In Earthquake Zone, Jaitapur Nuclear Plant Could Be Courting Calamity  Huffington Poast  18/05/2015  “.A nuclear power plant is a controlled atom bomb. But it can blow because of a natural disaster, design fault or errors in operating it. An earthquake, by unsettling its foundations, can lead reactors to malfunction, to uncontrolled fission, release of immense heat, a meltdown of the reactor core, and the spread of lethal radioactivity ending, perhaps, in less physical destruction but in dangerous radiation poisoning of the surrounding air, land and water bodies.

Nothing can be done to prevent earthquakes, considering that the Indian subcontinent is on a moving tectonic plate that is constantly crashing into the Himalayan range and pushing under the Eurasian plate at the rate of 5cm per year. Some areas are thus seriously earthquake-prone owing to aggravated faultlines and fissures in the earth.

Mixing earthquakes and nuclear power plants, therefore, would seem like courting a nightmare, which is what Jaitapur may be facing. This town, located on the unspoilt Ratnagiri coast of Maharashtra, is at the confluence of seismic zones 3 and 4, the latter the penultimate category in the national system for assessing earthquake-sensitive areas and identified as a “High Damage Risk Zone”. It is also the site prospectively for the largest nuclear power complex in the world, expected to pump 9,900 MW of electricity into the national grid………http://www.huffingtonpost.in/bharat-karnad-/post_9370_b_7303336.html

 

May 20, 2015 Posted by | India, safety | Leave a comment

Britain outsources guarding of its nuclear facilities to private company

Command and control contract for Britain’s armed nuclear police outsourced to Capita The Independent 19 May 15 A contract for the command and control centre of Britain’s heavily armed nuclear police is being outsourced to the private company Capita.

The outsourcing giant is to play a technology support role at the command centre of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, a heavily-armed special police service that protects nuclear power plants, waste dumps, and nuclear material in transit.

The deal will see Capita provide specialist support staff for the command centre’s systems and provide “enhanced support” to firearms commanders.

Most of the CNC’s officers are trained in the use of firearms and its officers are routinely equipped with assault rifles in their regular line of duty.

The force is not involved in Britain’s Trident nuclear weapons system, which comes under the jurisdiction of the armed forces.

Last year it was reported that a Capita-run army recruitment project beset by IT disasters and missed targets had made the firm over £100m of public money in a two-year period……….http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/command-and-control-contract-for-britains-armed-nuclear-police-outsourced-to-capita-10258611.html

May 20, 2015 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Indians fear a nuclear repeat of Fukushima or the Bhopal Gas Tragedy

What if an accident like Fukushima or the Bhopal Gas Tragedy repeats itself?, Express Tribune By Usman Ali Khan  May 18, 2015 “A nuclear accident anywhere is a nuclear accident everywhere”

Almost a billion Indians now face the fearsome prospect of living under the shadow of an Indian nuclear lust. The Indian nuclear power industry remains shrouded in secrecy and opacity, refusing to reveal details on safety.  Following the nuclear diplomacy of India, one of the crowning achievements by the government of India was the pact with the US which showered out India from the list of nuclear pariahs allowing full access to nuclear technology and materials without signing Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).  

The nuclear power generation is controlled by a government entity Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) which remains cloaked in secrecy. Details about leakages and accidents are not forthcoming and not transparent. However, the Indian establishment is pushing ahead with nuclear energy where chronically inadequate management continues to dog the program.

Around the world, safety concerns surrounding nuclear power have intensified as a result of Fukushima. Operating nuclear power plants requires sophisticated technical, industrial, institutional, and legal capacities. Even the most advanced countries can struggle to manage nuclear power when things go wrong. Also, important piece of evidence about past events remain classified, thereby empirical analysis on nuclear safety organisational designs and strategies is circumscribed. This can also be assessed on the basis of nuclear history that has witnessed three severe nuclear accidents such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and FukushimaDiachii.

Following the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, one might have expected nuclear power to lose much of its appeal. But in many developing countries, India among them, the desire for nuclear power has remained strong among officials, even if public may harbour deep concerns about governmental inability to operate nuclear facilities. This is music to the ears of the global nuclear establishment.

Concerns about nuclear power are prevalent in every country where the technology exists or is being developed, whereas India with abysmal records in disaster management, has simply hrugged off the Fukushima experience. It is a national catastrophe.

India plans a large expansion of power from nuclear energy over the next few decades. Many reactors and other facilities associated with the nuclear fuel cycle, and operated by the country’s Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) and its subsidiary organisations, have hadaccidents of varying severity. The DAE also does not appear to be learning the appropriate lessons, and this is demonstrated through repeated failures at different sites of nuclear power plants in India.

The absurdity is further demonstrated where numerous incidents of fires and structural damages have occurred in India’s civilian nuclear power sector and there may be many other accidents that we do not know about. Under the circumstances, other examples of oil leaks, hydrogen leaks, fires and high bearing vibrations have often shut plants, and sometimes not.

Taking into account all these scenarios, the probability of a serious accident still lingers around the nuclear industry of India. Inevitably, there is a price to be paid for such bull headedness where the government’s response to past disasters has often been poor. A simple question that still needs to be worried about is: What if such an accident like Fukushima and Bhopal Gas Tragedy were to occur? ………http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/27688/what-if-an-accident-like-fukushima-or-the-bhopal-gas-tragedy-repeats-itself/

 

May 20, 2015 Posted by | general | Leave a comment

    Next Entries »