|
China Holds Firm on No First Use of Nuclear Weapons https://allthingsnuclear.org/gkulacki/china-holds-firm-on-no-first-use-of-nuclear-weapons
GREGORY KULACKI, CHINA PROJECT MANAGER AND SENIOR ANALYST | JULY 24, 2019, Ever since I took this job 17 years ago US colleagues of all political and intellectual persuasions have been telling me that sooner or later China would alter, adjust, amend or qualify the policy that China will never, under any circumstances, use nuclear weapons first. Yesterday, the Chinese Ministry of Defense released a much-anticipated new white paper on China’s national defense policies. Here’s what it says about nuclear weapons:
China is always committed to a nuclear policy of no first use of nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances, and not using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states or nuclear-weapon-free zones unconditionally. China advocates the ultimate complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons. China does not engage in any nuclear arms race with any other country and keeps its nuclear capabilities at the minimum level required for national security. China pursues a nuclear strategy of self-defense, the goal of which is to maintain national strategic security by deterring other countries from using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against China.
It would be difficult to compose a more emphatic rejection of claims that China’s no first use policy is changing. The statement also indicates it is not Chinese policy to use nuclear weapons first to forestall defeat in a conventional military conflict with the United States. China does not have an “escalate to de-escalate” nuclear strategy.
China is not preparing to fight a nuclear war with United States. It does not have “battlefield” or “tactical” or “non-strategic” nuclear weapons. Chinese nuclear strategists don’t think a nuclear war with the United States is likely to happen. And they seem sure it won’t happen as long as the US president believes China can retaliate if the United States strikes first.
That’s not a high bar to meet, which is why China’s nuclear arsenal remains small and, for the time being, off alert.
China sees its comparatively modest nuclear modernization program as a means to convince US leaders that a few Chinese ICBMs can survive a US first strike and that these survivors can penetrate US missile defenses. Chinese nuclear planners might be willing to slow or scale back their nuclear modernization efforts if the United States were willing to assure China’s leaders it would never use nuclear weapons first in a military conflict with China. Chinese experts and officials have been asking the United States to offer that assurance for decades. US experts and officials consistently refuse.
In the absence of a no first use commitment from the United States, Chinese nuclear strategists believe continued improvements to their nuclear arsenal are needed to assure China’s leaders their U.S. counterparts won’t take the risk of attacking China with nuclear weapons. Chinese experts know US efforts to develop a working ballistic missile defense system are not going well, but they still feel the need to hedge against continued US investment in the system with incremental improvements in the quality and quantity of China’s small nuclear force.
Given the impassioned attack on constructive US-China relations currently sweeping US elites off their feet, along with the continued proliferation of misinformation about Chinese nuclear capabilities and intentions, many US commentators are likely to brush aside the new white paper’s reiteration of China’s longstanding nuclear no first use policy. It doesn’t fit in the emerging US story about a new Cold War. That’s unfortunate, especially as the US Congress threatens to ramp upa new nuclear arms race its supposed adversary has no intention to run.
|
|
July 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
China, Reference, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Nuclear: A poor investment strategy for clean energy https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/07/24/nuclear-a-poor-investment-strategy-for-clean-energy/
Study claims that investment in a new 1GW nuclear power plant leads to average losses of approximately 4.8 billion euros. It further argues that the technology’s dangerous radioactivity emissions and proliferation risks do not qualify it as a ‘clean’ energy solution to be considered for addressing climate change. Yet still, governments are incorporating the technology into clean energy plans around the world.
JULY 24, 2019 ERICA JOHNSON Nuclear energy has always been unprofitable in the private economy, according to a new report from one of Germany’s leading economic research institutes, DIW Berlin. Its historical analysis explains that large state subsidies have been provided in cases where private capital financing has been used for the nuclear industry in the past, and goes on to further examine the current and future profitability of nuclear power plants.
The study undertook an empirical survey of the 674 nuclear plants that have ever been built to demonstrate that private economic interests were not the motive, but instead have been driven by military interests.
“Nuclear power was never designed for commercial electricity generation; it was aimed at nuclear weapons. That is why nuclear electricity has been and will continue to be uneconomical,” says Christian von Hirschhausen, coauthor of the study.
In its Monte Carlo simulation model developed for the net present value of a 1 GW nuclear plant, the study found that expected loss of revenues range between 1.5 and 8.9 billion euros. The model built in a variety of factors including the wholesale cost of electricity (20-80 euros/MWh), specific investment costs (4,000-9,000 euros/kW) and the weighted average cost of capital (4-10%). In the Monte Carlo analysis, researchers argue that, in all cases, nuclear investment would generate significant financial losses.
Expanding beyond lacking economic sustainability, the report goes on to further undermine international debates and policies which support nuclear as a part of climate action strategies. “Nuclear energy is by no means clean. Its radioactivity will endanger humans and the natural world for over one million years,” says von Hirschhausen.
The report calls out the International Energy Agency for recently suggesting nuclear energy in a clean energy system and for its encouragement of subsidies to the technology and its suppliers. Policies and frameworks around the world have incorporated nuclear power into the mix of future energy production. The EU Clean Energy Package built to support climate protection contains service life extensions for a number of nuclear plants and also recommends building more than 100 new plants by 2050.
“Describing nuclear energy as “clean” ignores the significant environmental risks and radioactive emissions it engenders along the process chain and beyond,” the report concludes.
Despite DIW’s warnings against costs and dangers, nuclear power capacity is increasing worldwide, even though solar and wind are taking front-runner positions as the cheapest grid-connected sources of energy. According to the World Nuclear Association, there are currently 50 reactors under construction, with more than 100 nuclear power reactors are on order or planned, and more than 300 additional plants proposed.
July 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
2 WORLD, politics international, Reference |
Leave a comment
Tepco says it will decommission nuclear reactors at Fukushima No. 2 plant https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/07/24/national/tepco-says-will-decommission-nuclear-reactors-fukushima-no-2-plant/#.XTjRFugzbIU, 24 July 19,
Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc. will decommission the Fukushima No. 2 nuclear plant, its president, Tomoaki Kobayakawa, told Fukushima Gov. Masao Ochibori at a meeting Wednesday.
The facility is the second nuclear plant that the utility company has decided to decommission after accepting it would need to shutter the nearby Fukushima No. 1 plant, which was crippled by the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami disaster in the world’s worst nuclear crisis since Chernobyl.
Tepco’s decision to scrap Fukushima No. 2, which is expected to cost some ¥280 billion ($2.6 billion), will be formally approved at the company’s board meeting later this month if local municipalities accept the plan.
The prefecture has demanded the utility scrap the reactors at Fukushima No. 2, saying their existence would hamper its reconstruction efforts. The plant has been offline since its operations were suspended due to the 2011 disaster.
If the plan goes ahead, all 10 nuclear reactors in the prefecture — four at the No. 2 plant and six at the No. 1 facility — will be scrapped.
It will also leave the utility company with only the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant in Niigata Prefecture and the planned Higashidori nuclear plant in Aomori Prefecture.
Kobayakawa said at the meeting, also attended by the mayors of the two towns — Naraha and Tomioka — that host the plant, that Tepco plans to build a new on-site storage facility for spent nuclear fuel from the reactors at the Fukushima No. 2 plant.
The fuel will be placed in metallic containers and cooled using a dry storage approach, according to the operator.
No decision has been made regarding final disposal of the spent fuel, raising concerns that the radioactive waste may remain on-site for a long time.
The Fukushima No.2 plant currently has around 10,000 assemblies of spent fuel cooling in pools.
July 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
decommission reactor, Japan |
Leave a comment
Renewable energy providing more electricity than coal and nuclear power combined in Germany Independent Solar, wind, biomass and hydroelectric power generates nearly half of country’s output. Emma Snaith, 25 Jul 19,
Renewable sources of energy produced more electricity than coal and nuclear power combined for the first time in Germany, according to new figures.
Solar, wind, biomass and hydroelectric power generation accounted for 47.3 per cent of the country’s electricity production in the first six months of 2019, while 43.4 per cent came from coal-fired and nuclearpower plants.
Around 15 per cent less carbon dioxide was produced than in the same period last year, according to figures published by the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems (ISE) in July.
However, some scientists have attributed the high renewable power output to favourable weather patterns and “market-driven events”.
Fabian Hein, from the think tank Agora Energiewende, told Deutsche Welle the 20 per cent increase in wind production was the result of particularly windy conditions in 2019……..
Renewables accounted for 40 per cent of Germany’s electricity consumption in 2018, according to government figures.
While in the UK, 29 per cent of electricity was sourced from renewables last year.
Germany is aiming to phase out its nuclear power plants by 2022. Its renewable energy has been rising steadily over the last two decades thanks in part to the Renewable Energy Act (EEG), which was reformed last year to cut costs for consumers.
But Germany still relies heavily on coal, gas and lignite for its energy needs.
Germany’s reluctance to end its dependence on coal saw hundreds of climate activists storm one of the country’s biggest open-pit coal mines in June to protest against fossil fuel use.
..electricity production from solar panels rose by six per cent, natural gas by 10 per cent, while the share of nuclear power in the country’s electricity production has remained virtually unchanged.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/renewable-energy-germany-electricity-coal-nuclear-power-a9017821.html
July 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Germany, renewable |
Leave a comment
|
 Dave Toke’s green energy blog, https://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.com/2019/07/a-laymans-guide-to-regulated-asset-base.html, 23 July 2019
The Government’s proposed new ‘Regulated Asset Base’ (RAB) means of funding nuclear has just been published, and it is living as far down to its expectations as could be expected. I’ve ploughed through the sometimes (deliberately?) convoluted description of the scheme and translated a few key passages to help you understand it all.
The Government failed to learn from the days when nuclear power were constructed from the 1950s to the 1990s. In those days nuclear power was very expensive, but the Government was able to con the public into believing that it was cheap. They did this by making sure the public could not understand the vaguaries of nuclear power funding and by putting all of the cost overruns that building the power stations involved onto consumer bills without them noticing. Basically, we are reurning to these days when the public was kept in the dark about the cost of building nuclear power plant and the same public will be paying for the cost overruns resulting from the project. The Government made the mistake of giving a contract price for Hinkley C. Although it featherbedded the developers EDF by giving an ultra long premium price contract (35 years) and the promise of Government lending to cover the bulk of the costs, the contract (CfD) allowed some sort of comparison to be made with competitior sources. Solar and wind power’s costs have fallen well below the price given to Hinkley C (£92.50 in 2012 prices).
So now the Government, having learned this mistake, has produced the RAB. This will allow the Government, though an appointed ‘Regulator’ to launder electricity consumer’s money to pay for the inevitable cost overruns, whilst the Regulator assures the public that this all represents ‘value for money’. The project that is earmarked for RAB funding is Sizewll C, involving the same reactor type (EPR) as is being constructed at Hinkley C.
What some key passages mean:
1. ‘Despite the progress at HPC, the challenges facing the global nuclear industry have meant that replicating a CfD model for further new nuclear projects has proved very challenging. Few project developers have a balance sheet that can accommodate the £15-20bn cost of delivering a new nuclear project, and financial investors have been unwilling to invest during the construction phase given the long construction period and risk of cost increases and delays. We are therefore looking to work with the sector to develop an alternative funding model for new nuclear projects that can attract private finance at a cost that represents value for money to consumers and are considering its wider applicability to other firm low carbon technologies’ (page 9)
Translation: The Hinkley C contract (CfD) was a big boobie by the UK Government since it showed just how expensive nuclear power could be even if we believe the developers own (French Government backed) hopes that the project works out as planned. The nuclear industry around the world has tanked – all the projects in the West this century have been monumental disasters and even the French EPR model built in China took twice as long to build as planned. (As a rule of thumb the cost is more or less directly proportional to its construction time). So no private investor in their right minds would invest in nuclear power. So, essentially, we’ve got to give the next nuclear project a state-backed blank cheque and cover this up by having a Regulator publish a lot of accountancy jargon that will fool the public into thinking they’re getting a reasonable deal
2. ‘A large-scale new nuclear project bears some similarities with the Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT) project, in that it is a complex single asset construction project with a significant upfront capital expenditure requirement, long construction period and a long asset life. In developing a potential nuclear RAB model, we have taken the model used for TTT, which was also developed under a RAB, as a starting point, whilst recognising that new nuclear projects are greater in scale and face specific challenges that were not relevant to TTT’ (page 11)
Translation: Nuclear power stations are not real power plant, but rather they are giant civil engineering projects involving lots of radiation when they get switched on, and thus complex measures to protect the public. However, this great complexity means they are much more prone to cost overruns compared to projects like the TTT, so we have to make sure that the consumer picks up the tab for the cost overruns, whilst pretending that this is a normal well run civil engineering project, which it isn’t of course.
3. ‘A target total construction cost would be set for the project company which would be used as the Baseline for incentivisation and risk sharing. If construction costs increased above the Baseline, a portion of the additional costs would be added to the RAB, such that the impact would be shared between investors and suppliers (and through them, their consumers) (page 14)…(this approach will) ‘provide clarity and certainty to investors, suppliers and consumers, which is particularly important for a large single-asset project with a complex and relatively long construction period’ (page 15)
Translation: The Regulator will produce lots of impenetrable accountancy jargon based on hilariously optimistic projections about construction times and costs which the regulator will swallow whole. When the inevitable happens and costs overrun the investors will still get a reasonable rate of return on their investments and the electricity consumers will pay for most of the cost overruns.
4. ‘Role of the Regulator
We currently consider that the Regulator should have responsibility for protecting the interests of consumers, whilst having regard to the ability of the project company to finance the project i.e. construction and operation of the plant’ (page 19)
Translation: The Regulator will have no choice but to adopt the ridiculously optimistic cost projections and construction time estimates made by the developers (EDF). They will declare the whole project great value for money for the consumer, whilst in practice allowing the developer to run up whatever bills they want and pass most of them onto the consumer. A facade of an auditing system will be set up, but since EDF have all the information anyway, the Regulator will not be able to make more than token adjustments even if they wanted to.When the time comes for the consumer to shell out for cost overruns the Regulator will not want to point this out too much as they will get the blame.
‘The EPR technology has now started commercial operations in China’ (pages 8-9)
Translation: So far the constructions of the EPR have been disastrous in all cases, in Finland, France and even in China. The last one is a bit of a shocker. It took twice as long as planned to get the first reactor at Taishan generating electricity – that’s despite the fact that the Chinese have a massive reserve of workers and engineers compared to us, and, as our Office for Nuclear Regulation has put it, a different approach to health and safety compared to what is practiced in the UK. Of course EDF are announcing a ‘triumph’ of early construction at Hinkley C – yet they have only just started seriously constructing the project in March this year having spent a lot of money since 2013 acheving remarkably little. But EDF have the French Government to rely upon to fund its own (French state owned) reactor model at Hinkley. In the case of Sizewell C, through the aegis of the so-called RAB mechanism, it will be the British electricity consumer who will be paying for the cost overruns.
|
|
July 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, UK |
Leave a comment
Guardian 23rd July 2019 Let’s face it: nuclear power is hideously dear and far from ideal. The
government should be backing renewables, not tying itself to an expensive
nuclear future. That bill-payers got stuffed in the deal that brought the
Hinkley Point C project into existence is beyond dispute these days.
Even government ministers barely quibble with the National Audit Office’s
assessment that consumers will be paying through the nose for 35 years.
Instead, the defence has tended to run along these lines: don’t worry,
we’ve triggered a “resurgence” in the nuclear industry in the UK and
the next reactors will be relative bargains.
Now here’s the government’s latest effort to resurrect the show – “an innovative
funding model”. Of course, it’s not really innovative. The “regulated
asset base” (RAB) approach, which could be used at Sizewell B in Suffolk,
and is intended to copy the design of Hinkley, is common in other parts of
the utility world.
Aside from exposing consumers to the cost of overruns,
RAB in effect also requires them to provide financing at zero interest, a
point made by the National Infrastructure Commission last year. Little
wonder, then, that the juice should be cheaper than Hinkley’s – some of
the costs will be hidden from view.
The same NIC report said: “There is limited experience of using the RAB model for anything as complex and risky as nuclear.” Second, no financing model can disguise the core truth about
nuclear – the technology is hideously expensive. Even after recognising
the need to have secure “baseload” supplies, it recommended
commissioning only one more nuclear plant, on top of Hinkley, before 2025.
That remains a commonsense analysis. Renewables are winning the price race.
Let us pray, then, that a love-in with RAB does not reignite ministerial
fantasies about a “resurgence” in nuclear. We don’t want a
resurgence. We want to build as few new reactors as possible.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2019/jul/23/lets-face-it-nuclear-power-is-hideously-dear-and-far-from-ideal
July 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, UK |
Leave a comment
Idaho nuclear research site shuts down some operations because of wildfire
The public has not been threatened as the 90,000-acre blaze burns near the Idaho National Laboratory, NBC News, July 24, 2019, By Phil Helsel
A brush fire that has burned about 90,000 acres in Idaho has curtailed much of the staff at one of the nation’s leading nuclear research facilities, officials said Tuesday.
No injuries have been reported, and there has been no damage or threats to buildings at the Idaho National Laboratory since the fire was sparked in grassland near the center about 6:30 p.m. Monday.
“The public has not been threatened at all,” Juan Alvarez, chief operations officer for the national lab, said at a news conference Tuesday…….. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/idaho-nuclear-research-site-shuts-down-some-operations-because-wildfire-n1033266
July 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
climate change, USA |
Leave a comment
Rolls-Royce gets government commitment for mini nuclear reactors UK aero-engine maker seeks to spearhead development of export-led industry https://www.ft.com/content/32ee2100-ad43-11e9-8030-530adfa879c2 Sylvia Pfeifer in London, 24 July 19,
Although the initial commitment is just £18m, it will allow the consortium to mature the design of the reactors. The move, which is subject to a final sign-off, would still require significant levels of additional investment before the reactors can become a commercial reality. The UK aero-engine maker has long argued that its technology in this sphere should be regarded as a “national endeavour” to develop nuclear skills that can be used to create an export-led industry.
A consortium spokesperson said on Tuesday that the £18m investment would be used to “mature the design, address the considerable manufacturing technology requirements and to progress the regulatory licensing process”. He added: “We believe with early co-investment by the government, this power station design is a compelling commercial opportunity.”
Rolls-Royce and its team, which includes Laing O’Rourke and Arup, was one of several consortiums that bid in an initial government-sponsored competition launched in 2015 to find the most viable technology for a new generation of small nuclear modular reactors (SMRs). Most of these will not be commercial until the 2030s
Supporters argue that they can deliver nuclear power at lower cost and reduced risk. They will draw on modular manufacturing techniques that will reduce construction risk, which has plagued larger-scale projects. However, when a nuclear sector deal was finally unveiled last June, the government allocated funding only for more advanced modular reactors.
MRs, which typically use water-cooled reactors similar to existing nuclear power stations, were omitted from funding even though they were closer to becoming commercial. Rolls-Royce threatened last summer that it would shut down the project if there was no meaningful support from the government.
Ministers have in recent months scrambled to recast Britain’s energy policy after the collapse of plans to build several large reactors and on Monday evening published proposals to finance new nuclear plants by having taxpayers pay upfront through their energy bills. The government added that, as part of its plans to fund advanced nuclear technologies, it would make an “initial award” of up to £18m under the industrial strategy challenge fund to the Rolls-Royce-led consortium in the autumn. The consortium has said any government funding will be matched in part by contributions from the companies as well as by raising funds from third-party organisations.
July 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK |
Leave a comment
Using Commercial Satellites To Control Nuclear Weapons Is A Bad Idea — But
It’s Being Discussed Forbes, Loren Thompson 24 July 19, “……. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the appearance of new
threats, though, the sense of urgency about nuclear security has waned. The
infrastructure supporting nuclear deterrence has decayed to a point where all three
legs of the strategic “triad”—land-based missiles, sea-based missiles and long-range
bombers—need to be replaced. Meanwhile, the architecture used to command and
control nuclear forces has changed little since the Reagan era.
Against this backdrop, the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force said something curious at a meeting of
the Mitchell Institute on June 26. The institute recently produced a report focused on the need to
modernize technology for nuclear command and control. General David Goldfein opined that ongoing
efforts to network the Air Force were as relevant to control of nuclear forces as conventional forces.
In particular, he mentioned the “rapid and exciting expansion of commercial space”
as a trend that might facilitate the creation of resilient links for communicating with
nuclear forces. I was unaware of the chief’s comments until I saw a story by Mandy
Mayfield of National Defense Magazine entitled, “Air Force Wants To Utilize
Commercial Satellites For Nuclear Command, Control.” The Air Force is responsible
for most of the 200 systems comprising the nuclear command and control system, so
General Goldfein’s thoughts have to be taken seriously even if they are just random
musings.
This particular idea is dangerous.
Commercial satellites lack virtually all of the security features that would be
necessary to assure control of the nuclear arsenal in a crisis. First of all, they are not
survivable against a wide array of threats that China and Russia have begun posing
to U.S. orbital assets, ranging from kinetic attacks to electronic jamming to
electromagnetic pulse. Second, they are susceptible to cyber intrusion via their
ground stations that could impede their performance. Third, they frequently contain
foreign components, including in-orbit propulsion technology made in Russia, which
might be manipulated in a crisis or simply become unavailable during wartime.
Air Force planners presumably know all this, so why would General Goldfein suggest
relying on commercial satellites to execute the military’s most fateful decisions?
Perhaps for the same reason that the Army is backing into reliance on commercial
satellites for its next-generation battlefield networks. There are so many commercial
constellations in operation that it seems unlikely America’s enemies could shut them
all down in wartime, and they are a lot cheaper to use than orbiting dedicated military
satcoms with the requisite capacity and redundancy.
“Resilience” has become the watchword for modernizing military space activities, and
one way of creating resilience is to proliferate the pathways available for vital
communications to a point where adversaries can’t keep up with all the possible
options available to U.S. commanders. The same logic is leading technologists to
propose large numbers of cheap satellites in low-earth orbit as an adjunct to existing
military satcoms.
These “cheapsats” wouldn’t be anywhere near as capable as the secure
communications assets that Washington has placed in geostationary orbits, but there
would be so many that links could be sustained even in highly stressed
circumstances, such as the “trans-attack” phase of a nuclear war.
Or at least, so the reasoning goes.
……But the idea of relying on commercial satellites for command and control of
nuclear forces takes this reasoning a step too far, because market forces preclude
any of the hardening and other protective features that might be required in dedicated
military birds
……… think of all the ways an adversary like China might seek to interfere with
commercial satellites through their ground stations and uplinks, such as insertion of
malware via hacking and jamming of signals. ……..
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2019/07/23/using-commercial-satellites-to-control-nuclear-
weapons-is-a-bad-idea-but-its-being-discussed/#2da6f0751dfa
July 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
USA, wastes, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
|
 This Texas Oil Town Actually Wants the Nation’s Nuclear Waste, Bloomberg
By Ari Natter and Will Wade July 24, 2019,
But Roberts, 29, has his eye on what he hopes will be the next big thing for the area: nuclear waste. As president of the local chamber of commerce, knows that oil booms are inevitably followed by busts.
He is supporting a plan to establish a repository in the desert about 30 miles outside of town for as much as 40,000 metric tons of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel and waste from power plants…….
Local support for the project is strong, said County Judge Charlie Falcon, who presides over the four-member Andrews County Commissioners’ Court, which functions as the county’s board of commissioners.
The panel approved a resolution in 2015 backing the idea to accept high-level nuclear waste at the designated site, and is likely to reiterate its support with a letter in the near future, Falcon said during an interview in his chambers in the brick courthouse on Main Street.
…….. The plan by Interim Storage Partners LLC, a joint venture between Orano CIS LLC and Waste Control Specialists LLC, calls for waste to be shipped by rail from around the country. Then it would be sealed in giant concrete casks and stored above ground for as long as 100 years, or at least until a permanent repository is built.
Opponents say that could be never…….
In the meantime, the U.S. has no permanent place of its own to store radioactive material that will remain deadly for several thousand years. …
Not everyone in Andrews is on board with the idea of storing waste that can remain radioactive for thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years.
“We don’t need to put it right in the middle of the biggest oil field in the world,” said Tommy Taylor, director of oil and gas development for Fasken Oil and Ranch Ltd. of Midland, Texas, which is part of a coalition of oil and gas producers and landowners opposed to the nuclear dump.
More than 4 million barrels of crude are produced every day in the Permian Basin and drillers say a leak or terrorist attack could put the oil boom at risk. “It would shut the whole Permian down. The result would be catastrophic for us,” he said.
Said Andrews resident Elizabeth Padilla: “It only takes one accident and we would become the Chernobyl of West Texas.”
Some surrounding counties and cities have adopted resolutions against the plan. It’s also drawn opposition from national environmental groups……….
A panel of administrative judges from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently convened a hearing at the neighboring Midland County Courthouse and heard arguments from environmentalists, oil industry representatives and other groups. Outside, protesters gathered around an eight-foot-tall, green-and-black inflatable replica of a storage cask bearing a sign reading “Say No To Radioactive Waste.”
Kevin Kamps, an official with Takoma Park, Maryland-based group Beyond Nuclear, who drove to Midland for the hearing, said in an interview that high-level nuclear waste bound for Andrews would travel through major cities.
“The transport risks are for the entire country and they haven’t even been alerted,” Kamps said.
Other opponents expressed worry about the site’s proximity to the Ogallala Aquifer, a underground reservoir that spans eight states that supplies water for drinking and irrigation to millions of people. …..
The project has powerful backers. As Texas Governor, Rick Perry encouraged storing high level nuclear waste in the state and, as U.S. Energysecretary, he has been supportive of interim nuclear waste storage. The current governor, Greg Abbott, is opposed.
Scott State, the chief executive officer of Waste Control Specialists, which is owned by J.F. Lehman & Co., said he was optimistic the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would approve the license for the project, though additional approvals, such as plans for transporting waste, need to be approved before storage can begin, he said.
Rose Gardner, a 61-year-old grandmother who owns a floral shop in Eunice, N.M., about five miles away from the proposed nuclear dump, said she will do everything in her power to stop that from happening.
“We will appeal and appeal and appeal,” she said in an interview. “We will do whatever we have to throw a monkey wrench inside their plans to open a deadly dump.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-24/one-texas-oil-town-actually-wants-the-nation-s-nuclear-waste
|
|
July 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA, wastes |
2 Comments
Wiscasset could get $8 million for storing nuclear waste https://www.pressherald.com/2019/07/24/wiscasset-could-get-8-million-for-storing-nuclear-waste/ A bill before Congress would compensate communities who store spent nuclear fuel that the federal government has failed to remove.
BY KATHLEEN O’BRIEN, TIMES RECORD KOBRIEN@TIMESRECORD.COM 24 July 19, WISCASSET — Wiscasset could collect more than $8 million for the 64 containers of nuclear waste stored at the former Maine Yankee power plant site.
U.S. Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Tammy Duckworth, D-Illinois, introduced the Sensible, Timely Relief for America’s Nuclear Districts Economic Development (STRANDED) Act earlier this month, aimed at providing financial relief to communities like Wiscasset stuck with storing nuclear waste.
Should the Stranded Act pass, Wiscasset, home to decommissioned Maine Yankee, would be eligible to receive $15 per kilogram of nuclear waste currently being housed at the site, which is the rate for impact assistance established under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
There are about 542 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel stored at Maine Yankee, meaning Wiscasset would collect over $8 million from the government. According to Maine Yankee, it costs roughly $10 million per year to maintain the 64 canisters of radioactive waste.
“In the absence of a permanent (disposal) site, this will help alleviate the burden communities face and may help encourage Congress to take action on a long-term solution for nuclear waste, which is something Collins supports,” said Christopher Knight, a spokesperson for Collins.
Maine Yankee operated from 1972 to 1996. The company’s board voted to cease operations rather than invest in fixing expensive safety-related problems to keep the plant running.
The spent nuclear fuel is housed in 64 dry storage casks, which stand on 16 3-foot-thick concrete pads. Each concrete cask is comprised of a 2.5-inch thick steel liner surrounded by 28 inches of reinforced concrete.
The federal government was contractually obligated to remove the radioactive waste by 1998, but that commitment was never fulfilled.
Plans to build a permanent disposal site in the Yucca Mountains in Nevada were scrapped in 2009 by the Obama Administration. The Trump Administration has made no plans to revive the Yucca Mountains project.
A federal judge has awarded the owners of three nuclear power plants millions of dollars. This money pays for the operation of the fuel storage site so local taxpayers, including those in Wiscasset, aren’t left to foot the bill.
“The Yankee companies collectively have to date recovered about $575 million on behalf of our ratepayers in the ongoing litigation with the Department of Energy,” said Eric Howes, Maine Yankee director of public and government affairs. “Maine Yankee’s portion of the $575 million total is about $176.5 million.”
This money was amassed as a result of four separate lawsuits against the Department of Energy. When the U.S. government loses a lawsuit, the money lost comes from a Judgment Fund, which is funded by taxpayers.
“The Nuclear Waste Policy Act says those who benefit from nuclear power would be responsible for the removal of the spent nuclear fuel,” Howes said. “The cost of disposing Maine Yankee’s fuel has been fully paid for by the ratepayers. The government, however, has not met its obligation to remove the material from the site, and that’s true at every nuclear waste site in the country.”
Howes said Maine Yankee’s goal is to go out of business.
“It’s our responsibility to store this material in accordance with all the federal regulations,” Howes said. “When the government finally removes the spent nuclear fuel, we’ll go out of business, but I don’t know when that will be.”
There are 24 permanently and announced shutdown nuclear sites across the U.S. Five are in New England.
July 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA, wastes |
Leave a comment
Guardian 23rd July 2019 The government has confirmed plans for consumers to begin paying for new nuclear reactors before they are built, and for taxpayers to pay a share of
any cost overruns or construction delays. In a consultation document
launched on Monday night, officials said the model is “essential” to
attract private investors to back the UK’s new nuclear ambitions at a
price that is affordable for bill payers. The public purse would also
compensate nuclear investors if the project was scrapped. The new funding
structure could be used to prop up EDF Energy’s £16bn plans for a new
nuclear reactor at Sizewell B in Suffolk, which was left in doubt after
fierce criticism of the costs surrounding the Hinkley Point C project in
Somerset.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/23/new-uk-nuclear-plants-government-cost
July 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, UK |
Leave a comment
Nuclear funding proposal ‘essential’ for restarting Wylfa, BBC, 23 July 2019
July 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, UK |
Leave a comment
Leaked government analysis reveals UK demand for new nuclear power plants, Times, 23 July 19, Britain needs to build a fleet of nuclear or carbon-capture power plants equivalent to a dozen Hinkley Point Cs to hit climate change targets, a leaked government analysis suggests.
Up to 40 gigawatts of non-intermittent low carbon power stations could be needed in 2050 to reduce Britain’s emissions to “net zero”, ministers believe.
Just one is under construction: EDF’s 3.2-gigawatt Hinkley Point C nuclear power station in Somerset.
Greg Clark, the business secretary, disclosed the estimates to industry in a private meeting on Monday as his department published plans for a new funding model to support such plants.
The proposed “regulated asset base” (RAB) model would see consumers pay for the plants on their bills during construction, but would expose them and taxpayers to the… (subscribers only) https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/reforms-in-funding-planned-to-meet-demand-for-nuclear-power-plants-j3n0mln0l
July 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, UK |
Leave a comment
North Korea just revealed one of its most potentially dangerous weapons yet
The revelation is clearly a message for Trump.
July 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
North Korea, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
nuclear-news 