2020 January 04 « nuclear-news

UK’s Sizewell C nuclear project not viable, due to escalating costs?

Could escalating costs mean ‘game over’ for nuclear power and Sizewell C? East Anglian Daily Times, January 2020, Andrew Hirst

The growing cost of nuclear power could mean ‘game over’ for Sizewell C, experts claim. While much of the debate in Suffolk around EDF Energy’s proposals have focussed on the local impacts, recent reports from energy forums have started to question how viable the industry is for the UK – and globally.

At a recent debate, Paul Dorfman of the University College London’s Energy Institute went head to head with Paul Spence, director of strategy and corporate affairs at EDF to discuss the future of the sector.

Dr Dorfman, who also founded the Nuclear Consulting Forum, said the “massive cost escalations” of nuclear power together with the increasing competiveness of renewables meant there was “little rationale for new nuclear builds”.

Costs for offshore wind have plummeted to around £40 per MWh – making it now one of the cheapest forms of power available.

Meanwhile, the costs government agreed to pay EDF for Hinkley Point C, is more than twice as expensive at £92.50 per MWh.

The latest World Nuclear Industry Status Report warned of “substantial challenges” and a decline in usage, with fewer reactors in operation today than 30 years ago.

Globally, while investment in renewables has increased to around $350bn per year, nuclear fell to just $17bn. Dr Dorfman said: “In this context, nuclear power at the expense of more flexible, safe, productive, cost-effective and affordable technologies really does seem to be rather foolish.”

He said it could mean “game over” for nuclear projects, including Sizewell…….

The government consulted earlier this year on the “Regulated Asset Base model”, which is intended to incentivise private investment in public projects by guaranteeing a return for developers. It would mean developers can raise revenue, potentially though customer bills, and reduces their risk. ……

although EDF claims RAB could save money for consumers – critics say it merely leaves the public with all the risk.

“Under RAB, the plan is for the burden of risk to pass to hard-pressed UK consumers and/or taxpayers labouring under post-Brexit conditions,” said Dr Dorfman.

“Not only that, but the revenue stream will include a variable strike price – with taxpayers and/or electricity consumers forced to write, what is essentially, a ‘blank cheque’.

Earlier this year it was reported a “Sizewell surcharge” could add £6 to annual energy bills under the RAB model. A petition opposing the surcharge was signed by more than 36,000 people.

Concerns were further compounded by EDF’s precarious financial position. The company is €37.4billion net debt and its stock lost 34% of its value this year.

Professor Steve Thomas, a researcher in energy policy at the University of Greenwich, questioned the company’s credentials ahead of a seminar organised by the Nuclear Free Local Authorities in Colchester last month.

“EDF is in deep financial crisis and will only be able to survive with heavy French government support and radical restructuring,” he said. “It is unclear how EDF will be able to finance Hinkley Point C, much less Sizewell C, and the UK government must resist pressures to throw more public money at these ill-conceived projects and abandon them now.”

Lord Deben, former secretary of state for the environment, said he was sceptical about the costs “because in the end the public are going to have to pay for this. https://www.eadt.co.uk/business/growing-costs-of-nuclear-power-versus-renewables-1-6449788

January 4, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Environmental and technical worries, as Russia extends the life of old Kola Nuclear Power Plant

One of Russia’s oldest nuclear reactors set to run until 2034 https://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2020-01-one-of-russias-oldest-nuclear-reactors-set-to-run-until-2034

The second reactor unit at the Kola Nuclear Power plant near Murmansk has received the nod from Russian regulators to operate until 2034, making it one of the longest running commercial reactors in the world and raising a host of environmental and technical concerns. January 2, 2020 by Charles Digges

Currently, the longest serving reactor ever is the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in the United States, which, after running for 49 years, was finally shut down in 2018. Should the Kola plant’s No 2 reactor run out the term of its new lifetime extension, it would be 59 by the time it is retired.

Kola’s No 2 reactor, which came online in 1975, is not alone. The plant’s other three units, which are all VVER-440 reactors, are likewise operating on sometimes numerous lifetime extensions that would bring them to ripe old age before their operations are stopped. The No 1 reactor at the Kola plant, which started generating power 1973, was granted a second runtime extension two years ago, and won’t retire until 2033. The No 3 and No 4 reactors – which came online in the early 1980s – will operate until 2027 and 2029, respectively.

The prolonged operations of these reactors has been cause for concern among some experts, who say that bringing the units into step with current industry safety demands is difficult, given their aging design.

n the shadow of the 2011 Fukushima disaster, which resulted in a triple reactor meltdown, worldwide nuclear building standards have tightened across the board in ways that some fear have left the Kola Nuclear Power Plant’s reactors behind.

Yet more and more often, extending runtime extensions is becoming a general practice throughout the nuclear industry – and not only in Russia. Throughout central and western Europe, there are some 90 nuclear reactors that are currently under review for lifespan extensions, including many in countries like France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Finland. Six of the 15 Soviet-built nuclear reactors in Ukraine are operating on extended lifespans, with the remaining expected to follow.

For its part, Germany has elected altogether to shutter its nuclear power plants – a goal it hopes to reach by 2022. But the move is proving politically and technically complex. The waste resulting from the closures – thought to eventually comprise some 2,000 containers – must be stored in safely the same spot for 1 million years, and experts are short on ideas about where, exactly, to do that. The costs, too, are astronomical, with the phase-out expected to reach nearly $73 billion.

t is expenses like these that are so deviling to Russia’s nuclear industry, which has failed to build up a robust savings account for decommissioning expenses. Like other countries, Russia collects decommissioning funding through electricity tariffs charged to customers. But unlike other countries, Russia has only been doing this since 1995, shortly after the fall of the Soviet regime and the introduction of a market-based economy. As a result, issuing lifetime extension to elderly reactors offers Moscow a cheap – and what many countries consider a safe – alternative to the more costly route of dismantlement.

Still, environmentalists are right to be nervous. Scientific research on how nuclear reactors age – and on the kinds of problems that emerge as they do – has come mostly from studies in research reactors. While these studies have offered some insight on how reactors weather over time, many experts say that the data on how commercial reactors behave in their twilight years are still too inconclusive to be trusted.

But Rosatom officials insist that the extended reactors at the Kola Nuclear Power Plant are safe, and offers figures to back up its claims. According to a report in the Barents Observer, the corporation spent some 4.5 billion rubles – or about $72 million – on upgrades to the No 2 reactor before regulatory officials granted the runtime extension. Plant officials likewise eliminated numerous safety violations and are in the process of eliminating them.

January 4, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Russia, safety | Leave a comment

Tennessee Valley Authority unfairly fired a nuclear whistleblower

Labor department rules TVA cooked up cause to fire nuclear whistleblower, Jamie Satterfield, Knoxville News Sentinel Jan. 3, 2020 The U.S. Department of Labor says the Tennessee Valley Authority fired a nuclear engineer who blew the whistle on safety concerns and lied about it.The labor department is ordering TVA to give Beth Wetzel her job back and shell out more than $200,000 in back pay, lost bonuses and benefits, compensatory damages and legal fees.

TVA said it fired Wetzel for badmouthing supervisor Erin Henderson, but the labor department ruled Wetzel properly raised safety concerns about the nuclear program and – when asked by a TVA attorney – gave her “honest” opinion Henderson was too inexperienced for her post and ignored safety complaints…….. https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/crime/2020/01/03/labor-department-tva-cooked-up-cause-fire-nuclear-whistleblower/2794793001/

January 4, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

The escalation of nuclear tension between USA and Iran

Timeline: How tensions escalated with Iran since Trump withdrew US from nuclear deal

President Trump’s decision to leave the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran was followed by an escalation of rhetoric, sanctions and attacks between the countries. George Petras, Jim Sergent, Janet Loehrke, Karl Gelles and Javier Zarracina, USA TODAY, 3 Jan 2020,

July 25, 2015

Iran, the United States and other nations approve a deal in which Iran agrees to shift its nuclear program from weapons production to peaceful commercial use for 10 years. Iran allows international inspectors on its nuclear weapons sites.

In exchange, the United States and the United Nations Security Council lift energy, trade, technology and financial sanctions against Iran.

The pact, established during the tenure of President Barack Obama, is an executive agreement, not a treaty, which means it isn’t formally approved by Congress. Republicans oppose the deal and question its legality.

Leaving the deal

October 2016

Presidential candidate Donald Trump says Iran should write the United States a thank you letter for “the stupidest deal of all time.” Trump says the United States will withdraw from the deal if he’s elected.

May 8, 2018

President Trump announces the withdrawal from the Iran deal. Iran, France, Britain and Germany say they will stay in the pact.

US increases pressure

U.S.-Iran relationship status: It’s complicated

The United States and Iran have been lobbing threats, fighting proxy wars, and imposing sanctions for decades. USA Today looks at over 60 years of this back-and-forth.

JUST THE FAQS, USA TODAY

August-November 2018

The United States reimposes economic sanctions targeting Iran’s energy, financial, shipping and shipbuilding industries. Iran says it will take unspecified actions regarding the nuclear deal if Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China don’t help it engage in international trade.

April 8, 2019

Trump says he will designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards as a foreign terrorist organization. The Pentagon opposes the change, saying it increases the possibility of retaliation against American military and intelligence personnel.

April 22

May 5

John Bolton, Trump’s national security adviser, says the United States will send an aircraft carrier strike force and Air Force bombers to the Middle East. The deployment shows Iran that “any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.”

Iran retaliates

May 8

Iran says it will increase its production of enriched uranium and heavy water.

May 12

Four oil tankers – two from Saudi Arabia, one from the United Arab Emirates and one from Norway – are attacked in the Persian Gulf. The United States says Iran is behind the attacks.

June 13

Two oil tankers – one from Norway, the other from Japan – are attacked in the Gulf of Oman. The United States blames Iran, which denies responsibility.

June 20

Iran shoots down a U.S. surveillance drone it says violated Iranian airspace. The U.S. Central Command says the aircraft was in international territory.

June 20

Trump orders retaliatory attacks against Iran but cancels the strikes shortly before they are to be launched. Four days later, he imposes more sanctions against Iran.

July 1

Iran says it’s exceeded the amount of low-enriched uranium it was allowed to build under the 2015 agreement.

US-Iranian tensions rise………

Jan. 2 2020

Iranian military leader Qasem Soleimani and five others are killed in a U.S. drone strike at Baghdad airport. U.S. officials call it a “defensive action,” saying Soleimani planned attacks on U.S. diplomats and troops. https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2020/01/03/us-iran-conflict-since-nuclear-deal/2803223001/

January 4, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, politics international, USA | 1 Comment

Nuclear’s ‘safe and green’ image is the industry’s devious hoax

Nuclear’s ‘safe and green’ image is the industry’s devious hoax, https://www.barnstablepatriot.com/opinion/20200103/nuclears-safe-and-green-image-is-industrys-devious-hoax Dana Franchitto, South Wellfleet, Jack Edmonston is hardly alone in embracing the nuclear industry’s hoax that such energy is a “safe and green” fossil fuel alternative (“Climate change is scarier than nuclear power,” My View, Dec. 28).Writing in a 2008 issue of Extra, a publication of the watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, journalism professor Karl Grossman reveals the links among the media, the government and the industry. For example, nuclear plant manufacturer General Electric owned NBC until 2013, while Westinghouse for years owned CBS. The New York Times systemically promotes nuclear energy. And “liberal,” “independent” National Public Radio “has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from nuclear operator Sempra Energy and Constellation Energy,” according to Grossman.

The lie, lately gaining momentum, is that nuclear energy is carbon-free. Not so. True, up-and-running plants emit no greenhouse gases. However, what the Nuclear Energy Institute and its puppet, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, fail to mention is that the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining and milling to enrichment, fuel fabrication and disposal of radioactive waste are greenhouse gas-intensive, according to Michel Lee, chairwoman of the Council of Intelligent Energy and Conservation Policy. She adds that nuclear power “is actually a chain of highly energy-intensive industrial processes.” Sobering in light of an MIT study postulating the construction of 1,500 new plants in the coming years.

Grossman nailed it: “The only thing green about nuclear power is the nuclear establishment’s dollars.”

January 4, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | general | Leave a comment

Radiation-free medical imaging

Medical City Frisco Launches Radiation-Free Imaging System, Healthcare 01/3/2020| by Will Maddox, Medical City Frisco is working to replace intraoperative radiation devices by using a radiation-free tool to aid spine and cranial procedures. The device will allow surgeon to safely place spinal implants or remove cranial tumors while improving patient safety.

The system is called the Machine-Vision Image Guided Surgery platform, which uses camera technology to identify anatomy and guide tools during procedures. The technology uses only visible light and not radiation to create the image, and is similar to what is used in self-driving vehicles……https://healthcare.dmagazine.com/2020/01/03/medical-city-frisco-launches-radiation-free-imaging-system/

January 4, 2020 Posted by Christina Macpherson | health | Leave a comment