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

End nuclear energy talks with Saudi Arbai – 5 Republican senators tell Trump

Republican senators ask Trump to end nuclear energy talks with Saudi Arabia By Karoun Demirjian October 31  

Five Republican senators sent a letter to President Trump on Wednesday imploring him to end ongoing discussions with Saudi Arabia on nuclear energy cooperation in the wake of Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi’s killing at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul.

The senators also threatened in the letter to file legislation to block any civil nuclear agreements with Saudi Arabia if Trump will not agree to suspend negotiations “for the foreseeable future.”

“We already held serious reservations about negotiations for such an agreement,” Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Todd C. Young (R-Ind.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Dean Heller (R-Nev.) wrote in the letter, first reported by NBC.

“The ongoing revelations about the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, as well as certain Saudi actions related to Yemen and Lebanon, have raised further serious concerns about the transparency, accountability, and judgment of current decision-makers in Saudi Arabia.”

Congressional dissatisfaction with the U.S.-Saudi relationship was on a slow ascent before the prominent journalist’s disappearance earlier this month. But his apparent murder — which most lawmakers believe occurred at the behest of Saudi leaders, including Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman — has precipitated unprecedented calls for consequences, from sanctions to an end to arms sales and military support for the Saudi kingdom in its controversial regional engagements, particularly in Yemen’s civil war.

Saudi officials have acknowledged that Khashoggi, a self-exiled critic of the Saudi government, was killed in the consulate, but deny that the action had their authorization.

[Turkish prosecutor says Khashoggi was strangled and dismembered in Saudi Consulate]

The senators’ letter indicates yet another layer of distrust in Saudi leaders: concern that the kingdom may try to adapt nuclear technologies acquired in a civil-use deal for weapon-making purposes.

Saudi Arabia has never agreed to terms that would prohibit it from turning a civil nuclear program dedicated for energy production into a tool to enrich uranium, reprocess plutonium and pursue other weapons-grade uses “that can bring a nation within weeks of producing a nuclear weapon,” they wrote, pointing out that the United Arab Emirates did accept such terms for a similar deal.

The senators suggested that it would be hypocritical and dangerous for the United States to accept anything less than a Saudi pledge to abide by terms of an Emirates-style deal — terms known as the “Gold Standard” — especially when the administration is demanding such behavior from Iran.

“Given your Administration’s ongoing efforts to press the Iranian regime — in the words of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo — to ‘stop enrichment and never pursue plutonium reprocessing,’ we have long believed that it is therefore critical and necessary for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to accept and uphold this ‘Gold Standard’ for responsible nuclear behavior,” the senators wrote.

November 1, 2018 Posted by | politics international, Saudi Arabia, USA | Leave a comment

A new source of expert information about matters nuclear – the Nuclear Consulting Group (ncg)

Nuclear Consulting Group 1Nov 18,  Nuclear Consulting Group (ncg) comprises leading academics and experts in the fields of environmental risk, radiation waste, energy policy, environmental sustainability, renewable energy technology, energy economics, political science, nuclear weapons proliferation, science and technology studies, environmental justice, environmental philosophy, particle physics, energy efficiency, environmental planning, and participatory involvement. The group members are listed below.

Dr Abhishek Agarwal

Senior Lecturer, Energy Strategy
Aberdeen Business School

Prof Frank Barnaby

Nuclear Issues Consultant
Oxford Research Group

Prof Keith Barnham

Emeritus Professor of Physics
Imperial College London
Co-Founder and CTO QuantaSol Ltd

Duncan Bayliss MRTPI

Senior Lecturer in Geography
University of the West of England

Dr Margaret Beavis MBBS, FRACGP

Secretary, Medical Association for the Prevention of War
Member, ICAN

Oda Becker

Independent Nuclear Consultant

Dr Katherine G Begg

Research Institute for Geography and the Lived Environment
School of Geosciences
University of Edinburgh

Craig Bennett

Chief Executive Officer
Friends of the Earth (FoE)
England, Wales and Northern Ireland

Prof Andy Blowers

Emeritus Professor
The Open University

Prof Stefan Bouzarovski

School of Environment and Development
University of Manchester

Prof Peter Bradford

Adjunct Professor, Vermont Law School
Member of the China Sustainable Energy Policy Council
Vice Chair of the Board of the Union of Concerned Scientists
Former Member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Paul Brown

Co-Editor, Climate News Network
Author, ‘Global Warning: The Last Chance for Change’

Prof Tom Burke

Founding Director of E3G
Chairman of the Editorial Board of ENDS
Visiting Professor at Imperial and University Colleges

Shaun Burnie

Independent Nuclear Consultant

Prof Roy Butterfield

Professor (Emeritus) Civil Engineering
University of Southampton

Dr Noel Cass

Lancaster Environment Centre
Lancaster University

Dr Jason Chilvers

Lecturer, School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia

Dr Carl Iwan Clowes FFPH

Board Member, Public Health Wales

Dr Steve Connelly

Department of Town and Regional Planning
University of Sheffield

Dr Matthew Cotton

Sustainability Research Institute
School of Earth and Environment
University of Leeds

Dr Richard Cowell

Senior Lecturer in Environmental Policy and Planning
Cardiff School of City and Regional Planning
University of Cardiff

Emily Cox

Research Associate, Sussex Energy Group
Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU)

Dr Sarah J Darby

Senior Researcher
Lower Carbon Futures
Environmental Change Institute
Oxford University

Prof Jonathan Davies

Professor of Critical Policy Studies
Faculty of Business and Law
De Montfort University

Tim Deere-Jones

Marine Environment and Pollution Consultant

Dr Mark Diesendorf

Associate Professor and Deputy Director
Institute of Environmental Studies
UNSW Australia

Prof Andrew Dobson

Professor of Politics
University of Keele

Dr Charles W Donovan

Director, Centre for Climate Finance and Investment
Principal Teaching Fellow, Department of Management
Imperial College Business School

Dr Paul Dorfman

Founder, Nuclear Consulting Group
The Energy Institute, University College London
JRCT Nuclear Policy Research Fellow

Dr John Downer

Lecturer in Risk and Resilience
Global Insecurities Centre
University of Bristol

Prof David Elliott

Emeritus Professor of Technology Policy
The Open University

Herbert Eppel CEng CEnv

HE German Technical Translations
Founder member of Pro Wind Alliance

Dr Nick Eyre

Senior Research Fellow
Programme Leader, Lower Carbon Futures
Environmental Change Institute
University of Oxford

Dr Ian Fairlie

Independent Nuclear Consultant

Dr Ben Fairweather

Senior Research Fellow
Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility
De Montfort University
Editor, Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society

Prof Frank Fischer

Professor of Political Science
Rutgers University

Dr Jim Green

Editor, Nuclear Monitor (World Information Service on Energy and Nuclear Information & Resource Service)
National Nuclear Campaigner, Friends of the Earth, Australia

Rika Haga MSc

PhD Student
St Andrews University

Marcin Harembski

Civil Nuclear Monitor, Poland

Prof Gabrielle Hecht

Frank Stanton Foundation Professor of Nuclear Security
Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC)
Stanford University

Prof Jeffrey Henderson

Professor of International Development
University of Bristol

Dr Richard Hindmarsh

Associate Professor, Griffith School of Environment
Griffith University
Editor, Nuclear Disaster at Fukushima Daiichi: Social, Political and Environmental Issues

Pascal Hingcamp

Université de la Méditerranée, Bioinformatique et Génomique
Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS)

Dr Dan der Horst

School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences
University of Birmingham

Dr Kate Hudson

Chair, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND)

Charly Hulten

World Information Service on Energy (WISE)

Tetsunari Iida

Executive Director
Institute of Sustainable Energy Policies (ISEP)

Dr Phil Johnstone

Research Fellow
Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU)
University of Sussex

Dr Aled Jones FRSA

Global Sustainability Institute
Anglia Ruskin University

Dr Dominic Kelly

Lecturer in International Political Economy
Department of Politics and International Studies
University of Warwick

Tom Kelsey BA MA

PhD Candidate
Centre for Science, Technology and Medicine in History
King’s College London

Bruce Kent

Vice President CND

Dr Peter Wynn Kirby

Research Fellow
School of Geography and the Environment
University of Oxford

Prof Nic Lampkin

Executive Director
UK Organic Research Centre

Dr Peter Lee

School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences
University of Birmingham

Michel Lee

Senior Policy Analyst, Promoting Health and Sustainable Energy
Chair, Council on Intelligent Energy & Conservation Policy

Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen

Independent Consultant, Energy Systems

Jeremy Leggett

Founder and Chairman of Solarcentury and SolarAid
Author of The Carbon War and Half Gone

Dr Markku Lehtonen

Research Fellow, Sussex Energy Group
Science and Technology Policy Research (SPRU)
University of Sussex

Dr Mark Lemon

Principal Lecturer
Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development
De Montfort University

Dr David Lowry

Independent research consultant
Specialist in UK and EU nuclear & environment policy

Senator Scott Ludlam

Australian Greens Senator for Western Australia
Spokesperson for Nuclear Issues, Infrastructure and Sustainable Cities
Spokesperson Assisting on Defence, Resources and Energy

Yves Marignac

Director, WISE, Paris

Dr Darren McCauley

Department of Geography and Sustainable Development
School of Geography & Geosciences
University of St. Andrews

Jean McSorley

Former Head, Nuclear & Energy Campaign Asia, Greenpeace International
Author, Living in the Shadow, the Story of the People of Sellafield

Prof Ian Miles

Professor of Technological Innovation and Social Change
Manchester Institute of Innovation Research
Manchester Business School, University of Manchester

Craig Morris

Coauthor Energy Democracy, the first history of Germany’s Energiewende

Prof Maggie Mort

Professor of the Sociology of Science, Technology & Medicine
Dept of Sociology
Lancaster University, UK

Prof Carmel Mothersill

Department of Medical Physics and Applied Radiation Sciences
McMaster University, USA

Prof Hideki Murai

Professor of Environmental Accounting
Nihon University, Tokyo

Prof Majia Holmer Nadesan

Arizona State University
Author, Fukushima and the Privatization of Risk

Dr Jari Natunen

Independent Nuclear Consultant
Helsinki, Finland

Prof Jenny Nelson

Professor of Physics, Imperial College London
Fellow of the Royal Society, Faraday Medal and Prize

Dr Peter North

School of Environmental Sciences
Department of Geography
University of Liverpool

Prof Monica Oliphant AO

Adj A/Prof University of South Australia
Fellow Charles Darwin University
Former President, International Solar Energy Society

Andrey Ozharovskiy

Independent Nuclear Consultant
Bellona Russia

V T Padmanabhan

Independent Nuclear Consultant

Jinyoung Park

PhD student at School of Law
Member of Center for Energy & Environmental Law and Policy
Seoul National University, South Korea

Dr Stuart Parkinson

Executive Director
Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR)

Dr Mark Pelling

Reader in Geography
Department of Geography
King’s College London

Jonathon Porritt

Founder, Director and Trustee, Forum for the Future
Co-Director of the Prince of Wales’s Business & Sustainability Programme

Dr Jerome Ravetz

Institute for Science, Innovation and Society
Oxford University

Prof Susan Roaf

Emeritus Professor, Architectural Engineering, Heriot-Watt University
Author, Adapting Buildings and Cities for Climate Change

Pete Roche

Energy Consultant
Editor of No2NuclearPower
Policy Adviser to the Nuclear Free Local Authorities

Dr Alex Rosen MD

Vice-President of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) Germany
Scientific Council of the German Nuclear Waste Report
Environmental Health Committee of the German Medical Association

Prof Harry Rothman

Institute of Innovation Research
Manchester Business School
University of Manchester

Dr Gabor Sarlos

Senior Lecturer
School of Media
University of Wolverhampton
Author, Risk and Benefit Perceptions in the Discourse on Nuclear Energy

Prof Ingmar Schumacher

Professor in Environmental Economics
IPAG Business School, Paris

Dr Jonathan Scurlock

Chief Adviser, Renewable Energy and Climate Change
National Farmers’ Union (NFU)

Prof Benjamin K Sovacool

Professor of Energy Policy, University of Sussex
Professor of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University

Prof Andy Stirling

Director of Science for SPRU
Co-director Centre on Social, Technological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability
University of Sussex

Prof Peter A Strachan

Group Lead, Strategy and Policy Unit
The Robert Gordon University
Aberdeen Business School

Dr Johan Swahn

Director, MKG
Swedish NGO Office for Nuclear Waste Review

Prof Donald Swift-Hook FRSA

Visiting Professor, Kingston University
Director & Secretary to the Board of the World Renewable Energy Network

Prof Erik Swyngedouw

Professor of Geography
School of Environment and Development
Manchester University

Dr Joseph Szarka

Author on energy and climate policy in France and EU

N A J Taylor

Lecturer, Australian Indigenous Studies, The University of Melbourne
Honorary Associate, Environmental Humanities Collaboratory, Linköping University

Dr Alan Terry

Senior Lecturer in Geography
Geography and Environmental Management
Geography Research Unit, UWE

Prof Stephen Thomas

Professor of Energy Policy
Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU)
University of Greenwich

David Thorpe

Patron, One Planet Life
Sustainability Consultant and Author

Oliver Tickell

Editor, The Ecologist

Dr Youri Timsit

Director of Research
Institut de Microbiologie de la Méditerranée
French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS)

Dr David Toke

Reader in Energy Politics
Department of Politics and International Relations
University of Aberdeen

Prof Toshihide Tsuda MD, PhD

Graduate School of Environmental Life Science
Okayama University

Prof Scott Valentine

Associate Professor
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy
National University of Singapore
Co-author, The National Politics of Nuclear Power

Prof Gordon Walker

Chair of Environment, Risk and Social Justice
Department of Geography
Lancaster University

Dr John Walls

School of Geography, Earth & Environmental Sciences
University of Birmingham

Andrew Warren

Chairman, British Energy Efficiency Federation
Honorary President, Association for the Conservation of Energy (ACE)

Dr Matt Watson

Lecturer in Social and Cultural Geography
Department of Geography
University of Sheffield

Prof Dave Webb

Chair of CND
Emeritus Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies
Leeds Metropolitan University

Dr Philip Webber

Chair of Scientists for Global responsibility (SGR)
Non-Executive Director, YES Energy Solutions
Research Fellow, Leeds University

Prof Stuart Weir

Visiting Professor, Government Department
University of Essex

Dr Ian Welsh

Emeritus Reader in Sociology
University of Cardiff
Author, Mobilising Modernity: The Nuclear Moment

Prof Brian Wynne

Associate Director of CESAGen
Professor of Science Studies and Research Director of the Centre for the Study of Environmental Change (CSEC)

Dr Natasha Zaretsky

Associate Professor SIU, USA

Author Radiation Nation

November 1, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The vexed problem of who will pay if Japan has another nuclear disaster

November 1, 2018 Posted by | Japan, politics | Leave a comment

The tide is turning against nuclear power, following the IPCC Report

 NuClear News, Nov 18 Tide Turns Against Nuclear

Following the recent National Infrastructure Assessment which advised the Government not to build more than two new nuclear stations (about 6GW) (1) and the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) statement that “If new nuclear projects were not to come forward, it is likely that renewables would be able to be deployed on shorter timescales and at lower cost,” (2) we have now seen the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report making some pretty disparaging remarks about nuclear power. Perhaps the tide is finally turning.

The IPCC latest findings tell a nightmarish tale—one much worse than in previous reports— surveying the climate-change impacts we’re already experiencing with one degree of warming, and the severity of the impacts to come once we surpass 1.5 degrees of warming. Ten million more people would be exposed to permanent inundation, and several hundred million more to “climate-related risks and susceptible to poverty.” Malaria and dengue fever will be more widespread, and crops like maize, rice, and wheat will have smaller and smaller yields— particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central and South America. Security and economic growth will be that much more imperilled. “Robust scientific literature now shows that there are significant differences between 1.5 and 2 degrees,” Adelle Thomas, a geographer from the Bahamas and also one of the report’s lead authors, told the New Yorker. “The scientific consensus is really strong. It’s not just a political slogan: ‘1.5 to stay alive.’ It’s true.” (3)

But the IPCC report points out that “the transition from the energy system that would be needed to limit global warming to 1.5 ° C is underway in many sectors and regions of the world. The technical, social, economic and political feasibility of solar energy, wind energy, and electricity storage technologies has improved considerably in recent years, while nuclear energy and Carbon dioxide (CCS) storage in the electricity sector did not show the same improvements.”


Nuclear: too weak, too slow, too expensive and too risky The IPCC report continues saying the timeframe between the date of decision and the commissioning of nuclear power plants is between 10 and 19 years, and current deployment capacity is slowed by public concern about the risk of accidents and problems with nuclear waste. In addition, the IPCC notes, that “the costs of nuclear energy have increased over time in some developed nations, mainly because of the prevailing conditions, where increased investment risks in high-capital-intensive technologies have become important.” The theoretical benefits that nuclear energy could bring in the fight against climate change are therefore far too weak, too slow, too expensive and too risky. While the IPCC report requires us to quickly reduce emissions, it is not possible to choose the slowest and most expensive electric generation technology to deploy, as well as the dirtiest and riskiest. Nuclear power is disqualified from the race of the climatic fight. (4)


The IPCC report also says: “In spite of the industry’s overall safety track record, a non-negligible risk for accidents in nuclear power plants and waste treatment facilities remains. The long-term storage of nuclear waste is a politically fraught subject, with no large-scale long-term storage operational worldwide. Negative impacts from upsteam uranium mining and milling are comparable to those of coal, hence replacing fossil fuel combustion by nuclear power would be neutral in that aspect. Increased occurrence of childhood leukaemia in populations living within 5 No2NuclearPower nuClear news No.112, November 2018 3 km of nuclear power plants was identified by some studies, even though a direct causal relation to ionizing radiation could not be established and other studies could not confirm any correlation”.


An April 2018 report from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) shows, renewable energy and energy efficiency can, in combination, provide over 90% of the necessary energy-related CO2 emission reductions the world needs. Furthermore, this can happen using technologies that are safe, reliable, affordable and widely available. While different paths can mitigate climate change, renewables and energy efficiency provide the optimal pathway to deliver most of the emission cuts needed at the necessary speed. But renewable energy will need to be scaled up at least six times faster for the world to meet the decarbonisation and climate mitigation goals set out in the Paris Agreement.


The total share of renewable energy must rise from around 18% of total final energy consumption (in 2015) to around two-thirds by 2050. Over the same period, the share of renewables in the power sector would increase from around one-quarter to 85%, mostly through growth in solar and wind power generation. The energy intensity of the global economy will have to fall by about two-thirds, lowering energy demand in 2050 to slightly less than 2015 levels. This is achievable, despite significant population and economic growth, by substantially improving energy efficiency, the report finds. (6)


 So what is the UK Government doing?

On 15th October the UK Government wrote a joint letter with the Welsh and Scottish governments to the Committee on Climate Change to seek updated advice on meeting the 1.5oC target. (7) Specifically, the governments asked the CCC to report on the date by which they should look to set a net zero target, as well as the range which UK greenhouse gas emissions reductions would need to be within, against 1990 levels, by 2050 as an appropriate contribution to the global goal of limiting global warming to “well below” 2oC above pre-industrial levels. It has also asked for the corresponding emissions range for a 1.5oC target. But the letter said carbon budgets already covering the period 2018-2032 were out of scope of the request.


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that limiting global warming to 1.5oC by the end of the century would require “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society”, and that the world is currently heading for a 3oC rise in temperature. (8)

The exclusion of the period from 2018 – 2032 led to protests from green groups and the opposition. Labour’s Energy Spokesperson, Alan Whitehead, called on the government to strengthen its review of the UK’s long term carbon targets and allow the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) to assess whether existing near-term carbon targets are compatible with keeping temperature increases below 1.5C. CCC chief executive Chris Stark admitted he was surprised the letter explicitly stated that “carbon budgets already set in legislation (Carbon Budgets 3-5 covering 2018-2032) are out of scope of this request”. (9

The Scottish Government has now written separately to the CCC changing its position, and saying the previous request “should not therefore prevent you from advising on all of Scotland’s targets.” (10) No2NuclearPower nuClear news No.112, November 2018 4

Devastating Critique of UK policies on renewables

Meanwhile the BBC’s File on Four programme aired an unprecedented critique of the UK government’s undermining of renewables. The government says it is committed to green energy – its recent ‘Clean Growth Strategy’ claims plans are in place to cut greenhouse gases by more than half of 1990 levels by 2030. And yet, research shows investment in green energy fell 56% last year, the biggest drop of any country – with policy change, subsidy cuts and ‘stop-start’ support from ministers being blamed. So, do Britain’s plans for a greener future add up? File on 4 takes to the road to find out. On a trip around the North East of England, Simon Cox asks why, when the offshore wind industry has grown, other cheap, renewable energies like onshore wind, solar power and now biofuels are struggling to survive. He examines whether changes in policy are hitting crucial investment, and if ambitious climate targets will really be met.


While offshore wind expands, it’s not the same story for onshore. Changes to planning laws mean it’s pretty impossible to build them in England and Wales. The CCC has warned of big gaps in the Government’s programme. We are going to need more onshore wind and solar to meet our targets. Gareth Miller of Cornwall Insight told the BBC that “to simply shut out the two undeniably cheapest technologies … from being built to their maximum capacity in the UK seems to be very, very strange indeed … There is a question of how serious the Government is when it says it wants to decarbonise the power sector at the lowest cost to the consumer in a world where they are currently shutting out the cheapest technologies to make that happen … I think we’ll see a significant slowdown if we haven’t already.”


In 2015 the tariff for generating solar electricity was slashed by two-thirds for homeowners and large solar farms. The domestic market has now gone back to the level it was at before the feedin tariff came in. A lot of very good companies have gone bust or shrunk. Next April the remaining tariff for exporting electricity to the grid will disappear – a further blow to investors in solar power – it will ruin the financial case for putting solar panels on your roof. It will be the final end of the domestic solar market in the UK. You are looking at thousands and thousands of job losses across the country. One recent survey found over 40% of UK solar installers are considering quitting the industry. To survive British companies have been forced to look overseas. Solar Century, for example, wouldn’t be able to survive if it was just reliant on the UK. Jeremy Leggett, founder of Solar Century says:


“If I needed any more persuading that we are dealing with hostile forces who basically over many years have taken every opportunity to set us back while promoting the cause of more expensive nuclear and more expensive shale gas then this is it … of all the things they have done to harm our industry over the years this is arguably the worst … the prize for the Government in a country desperate for jobs would have been to build a domestic industry – that is not going to happen because so many big British companies have been driven to bankruptcy.”


The opportunity to build a really healthy British solar industry has been lost.

Dr Gem Woods from Imperial College says: “We now know that even what seemed like an impossibly stretching target of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 is not going to be anything like good enough. And so we have to think very fast (and do very fast) about what sort of systems that we need to be deploying over the next 5, 10 and 20 years – not the next 50 years. At the moment we have locked ourselves into a set of processes that in my view are really delaying meaningful implementation of the types of technologies and systems that will allow us and our children to have any kind of meaningfully good future.”


November 1, 2018 Posted by | climate change, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear company AREVA rebranded itself (Orano, Framatome) – but legal troubles linger

BFMTV 29th Oct 2018, Buyout of Uramin by Areva: the Paris Court of Appeal orders new indictments. In 2007, Areva, then led by Anne Lauvergeon, acquired this Canadian mining company for 1.8 billion euros. A financial fiasco on which justice leads several investigations.

The Paris Court of Appeal ordered further indictments including the former boss of the group.

November 1, 2018 Posted by | France, Legal | Leave a comment

Czech government might delay its nuclear power expansion plans

Reuters 29th Oct 2018 The Czech government may delay its decision for state-controlled utility
CEZ to build new reactors at its two nuclear power plants, Industry
Minister Marta Novakova was quoted as saying on Monday.

“The decision about building nuclear units can’t be done under pressure and we don’t
want to be put under pressure from suppliers or other entities,” Novakova
said in an interview published by Bloomberg. “The Finance Ministry is
also analyzing the risk of potential court disputes.” The project to
expand CEZ’s nuclear power plant fleet is the biggest investment ever
into Czech energy. CEZ operates two plants at Dukovany and Temelin that
together covered 38 percent of Czech energy needs last year.

November 1, 2018 Posted by | EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

USA’s new Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman vows to reject political influence

Facing Trump coal and nuclear push, new energy panel chief swears off politics, Washington Examiner,  by Josh Siegel, October 31, 2018 

New Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Neil Chatterjee vowed Wednesday to protect the independent body from political influence as it considers how to handle the growing number of retirements of coal and nuclear plants.

“We should be separate an

d apart from any political influence on either side,” Chatterjee said. “I intend to do everything in my power.”

“I have made very clear to all of the staff at the agency that the agency’s independence from political influence will continue,” Chatterjee, a sitting GOP commissioner, told reporters at a briefing one week after the White House designated him chairman, replacing Kevin McIntyre, a fellow Republican who is suffering from health issues.

Chatterjee sought to rebut critics who fear, because of his political background representing a coal-friendly state, that he may be more sympathetic to the Trump administration’s interest in saving uneconomic coal and nuclear plants by subsidizing their continued existence……….

FERC in January voted unanimously to reject a proposal from Energy Secretary Rick Perry to provide special payments to struggling coal and nuclear plants in the name of resilience and reliability, saying the grid faces no immediate risk without them.

McIntyre and Chatterjee both opposed the Perry plan.

FERC, in rejecting Perry’s plan, directed regional transmission operators to submit information on resilience challenges in their markets. The commission is reviewing those responses and could act on its own. President Trump has repeatedly pressed for action to save coal and nuclear plants, but the White House has reportedly stalled over an effort to use emergency executive authority.

Any potential action would likely come through FERC.

Chatterjee said he would follow the “rule of law” on any decision on the matter and take action, or no action if the evidence does not support it, based on facts.

“This won’t be a politically influenced decision,” he said. “My actions will be taken by the record, facts, and the rule of law.”

The new FERC chairman also said he would not veer from the commission’s other priorities……

November 1, 2018 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment