nuclear-news

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

Civil and military nuclear programmes: will they be derailed by skills shortages?

Because of the continuing problems, efforts are increasing to share resources and costs between the civilian and military nuclear programmes [11]. Rolls Royce is promoting ‘modular’ nuclear power stations with reactors similar to those used in submarines. Also the new industry recruitment website ‘DestinationNuclear.com’ abandons the old pretence that civil nuclear power is separate from the production of nuclear weapons:

 It is time for a nuclear reality check.

it looks likely that in future the contribution of nuclear power to UK energy supplies will be small.

Scientists for Global Responsibility 27th Nov 2024, https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/civil-and-military-nuclear-programmes-will-they-be-derailed-skills-shortages

Alasdair Beal takes a look at the UK nuclear industry – and finds that the proposed expansion has a workforce problem.

The incoming Labour government has inherited two major nuclear programmes – new power stations and new Trident missile submarines. Both are behind schedule and over-budget but the government says it wants them to continue. This article looks at the difficulties mobilising the skilled workforces required.

Nuclear programmes off-track

In 2010, the Conservative-led government announced its aim for work to be started on eight new nuclear power stations by 2025 [1]. Plans and timetables have been repeatedly revised since then but, currently, only one is actually under construction – Hinkley Point C (HPC) in Somerset. The 2024 ‘Civil Nuclear: Roadmap to 2050’ [2] stated that the aim is now to “secure investment decisions to deliver 3-7GW [gigawatts] every five years from 2030 to 2044, to meet our ambition to deploy up to 24GW of nuclear power by 2050.” This would amount to up to eight more plants the size of HPC. Even this appears unrealistic, given the serious problems building current reactor designs [3].

The military nuclear programme is also in trouble. Recently, Vanguard class submarines – armed with Trident nuclear missiles – have three times operated sea patrols lasting over 6 months, setting new Royal Navy records [4]. These occurred because two submarines were out of service for repairs, leaving only two in seaworthy condition. Numerous other problems have also been reported, including a faulty depth gauge leading to a nuclear-armed submarine taking a potentially catastrophic “unplanned dive” [5], and a major fire in the building used to assemble new submarines [6].

Construction of the Vanguard class submarines started in 1986 and they entered service between 1993 and 1999 with a design life of 25 years, later extended by 5 years. Construction of the replacement Dreadnought class began in 2016, with the first planned to enter service in 2028. However, this has now been delayed to “the early 2030s”, [7] which will require the existing submarines to operate until they are 40 years old, i.e. 15 years longer than their original design life and 10 years beyond their extended design life.

Major skills shortages

Skills shortages could also be a problem for both projects. In 2015, a government document [8] stated that to construct five or more new power stations by 2030, decommission existing power stations, and develop new nuclear missile submarines, “the workforce must grow by 4,700 people a year over the next 6 years. Over the same period 3,900 people are expected to leave the sector, mostly due to retirement. This means that the sector must recruit 8,600 people every year.”

Since then the schedule for new power stations has been delayed but there is now also a contract to construct new SSN-AUKUS nuclear-propelled ‘attack’ submarines. According to a House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee 2023 report [9]:

“If the UK is to achieve a contribution of 24GW of nuclear power by 2050 it will need to plan for, and achieve, a massive increase in the nuclear workforce … 50,000 full time equivalent employees would need to be recruited by 2040, even without an expansion of nuclear power … Under a scenario which envisages 19GW of nuclear capacity by 2050 … 180,000 workers will need to be recruited by 2050 – including an average of 7,234 recruits each year until 2028, compared to the current inflow of around 3,000 a year. Recently, vacancies in the nuclear sector are running at twice the rate of the general engineering and construction sector.”

With existing vacancies unfilled and recruitment insufficient to maintain present staff numbers, let alone those required for government expansion plans, the potential shortage of skilled staff is serious.

However, the situation is actually worse than the bare numbers suggest: those retiring will include many knowledgeable people with experience of designing and constructing previous nuclear submarines or power stations, or else of working with those who did. New recruits can fill the vacant seats but they cannot replace the loss of knowledge. Books, training courses and videos can help but in advanced engineering work nothing beats the passing on of accumulated knowledge and experience directly between generations of engineers.

Experience counts

I am a professional civil and structural engineer and after graduation I worked on long-span bridge design with the engineers who had designed and supervised construction of some of the biggest bridges in the world. I learned a lot from them – not only about stress calculations but also about the thinking required to produce a successful design. Much of this could not have been learned from courses or books.

The case of Rolls Royce in 1971 illustrates why this is important. Problems with their new RB211 jet engine had forced the company into liquidation and it had to be nationalised. To rescue the situation , the new directors had to persuade retired former senior engineers to return to work to lead the process of redesigning the engine to overcome the problems.

This issue may also be contributing to current problems at HPC. Existing UK nuclear engineers have only limited experience of Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) construction and in any case they are likely to be fully occupied decommissioning the UK’s old AGR reactors and dealing with historic nuclear waste. Therefore construction of HPC depends heavily on French expertise.

French companies have constructed 58 nuclear power stations based on the Westinghouse PWR design, the last of these being ordered in 1990. No more were ordered for 15 years until Finland ordered a power station based on the new European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR) design in 2005. By then many of the engineers and other workers who constructed France’s PWRs are likely to have retired or changed occupations, making it difficult to assemble teams with the necessary knowledge and experience to build a new power station to a new design. Maybe we should not be surprised that major problems have been encountered constructing the EPRs at Olkiluoto in Finland, at Flamanville in France – each of which has taken 17 years to build [10] – and at HPC.

Similar problems may also be affecting construction of the new Dreadnought submarines. By the time these were ordered in 2016, many of the engineers with experience of designing and constructing their predecessors would have retired or be close to retirement, taking their knowledge and experience with them.

Because of the continuing problems, efforts are increasing to share resources and costs between the civilian and military nuclear programmes [11]. Rolls Royce is promoting ‘modular’ nuclear power stations with reactors similar to those used in submarines. Also the new industry recruitment website ‘DestinationNuclear.com’ abandons the old pretence that civil nuclear power is separate from the production of nuclear weapons:

“Nuclear plays a vital role in shaping the UK’s future in broader ways. Nuclear power produces carbon-free electricity that lights homes, fuels businesses, and keeps the economy moving.

The impact of nuclear goes beyond power grids. The expertise within the sector plays a crucial role in ensuring the strength and effectiveness of the UK’s nuclear deterrent, contributing to global peace and security. Nuclear is not just an energy source; it’s a critical part in building a secure future for the UK.” 

While the claims made in this statement can be criticised on many grounds, most relevant for this article is the apparent assumption that people who are concerned about climate change are also likely to be enthusiastic about nuclear weapons – which could trigger a catastrophic ‘nuclear winter’ if used [12]. If they are, then public acknowledgement of the link between the civil and military nuclear programmes is a clever move and will boost recruitment. However, if they are not, this strategy could backfire badly.

Time for a rethink

It is time for a nuclear reality check.

In 1994, the UK had 16 functioning nuclear power stations (total capacity 12.7GW) but in 2024 there were only 5 (total capacity 5.9GW) and by the end of 2028 there will be just one: Sizewell B (1.2GW) [13]. Completion of the HPC first unit (1.6GW) is now expected between 2029 and 2031, with its second unit following some years later [14]. When the effects of potential skills shortages are considered alongside the problems of current nuclear reactor designs, the idea of achieving anything like 24GW capacity by 2050 seems like a fantasy. Given the rapid growth of renewable energy and related technologies – which is set to continue – it looks likely that in future the contribution of nuclear power to UK energy supplies will be small.

Meanwhile, the programme for new Trident nuclear missile-armed submarines is a gamble based on two risky assumptions: (i) despite industry skills shortages, there will be no further delays in completing the new submarines; and (ii) the existing submarines will be able to continue operating for at least 10 years after the end of their design life. If either assumption proves incorrect then, after all the arguments over ‘unilateral’ or ‘multilateral’ nuclear disarmament, we could end up instead with a rather British outcome: ‘Unintentional Nuclear Disarmament’. At that point, the government would finally have to face up to the dangerous flaws in the idea of ‘nuclear deterrence’ and plan instead for a nuclear-free future.

The conclusion is clear: current plans for new nuclear power stations and new nuclear missile-carrying submarines should both be cancelled and the resources diverted to:

(a)    reducing energy consumption and accelerating the development and deployment of alternative renewable energy supplies; and

(b)    supporting international arms control and disarmament initiatives, such as the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Alasdair Beal BSc CEng FICE FIStructE is a chartered civil engineer, based in Leeds, and a former member of SGR’s National Co-ordinating Committee.

References : …………………………………………………………………………………………..

December 1, 2024 Posted by | employment, UK | Leave a comment

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) Siting Process Fails to Achieve its Goal.

Nuclear Company Announces Site Selection Despite Major Missing Piece: a Willing Host

WE THE NUCLEAR FREE NORTH. November 29, 2024

Wabigoon, Ontario – First Nations and opposition groups are denouncing the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s announcement that they have selected the Revell site in northwestern Ontario as their preferred location for a deep geological repository for all of Canada’s high-level nuclear fuel waste.

“The NWMO announcement demonstrates the fickleness of the NWMO’s site selection process. It has allowed the NWMO to manufacture something they are calling consent, without actually gaining consent”, commented Charles Faust, a volunteer with We the Nuclear Free North and spokesperson for Nuclear Free Thunder Bay.

“They were looking for consent for their project – the transportation, processing and burial of all of Canada’s high-level waste in the heart of Treaty 3 Territory. The closest they could get from Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation was consent to continue in the site characterization process. It’s a small victory which they are going to play big.”

NWMO announced Thursday that they had selected Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation (WLON) and the Township of Ignace as the host communities for the future site for Canada’s deep geological repository for used nuclear fuel.

The two communities had been courted by the NWMO for over a decade as the nuclear waste company sought a declaration of “willingness” to have the Revell site used as a processing and burial site for the highly radioactive waste generated by nuclear power reactors. The Revell site is approximately equidistant between Ignace and Dryden and 20 km upstream from Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation, in the headwaters of both the Wabigoon and the Turtle-Rainy River watersheds.

NWMO has repeatedly said they would only proceed with an “informed and willing host”, which would have to make a “compelling demonstration of willingness”. In a statement released by Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation on November 18th following a community vote, WLON stated clearly that the referendum was to determine if WLON would progress into a site characterization process for NWMO’s project, and that “the yes vote does not signify approval of the project”.

Broad opposition to the project has been expressed by First Nations, municipalities and community organizations, including in a resolution passed by Grand Council Treaty #3 in October which affirmed an earlier declaration that made clear that a deep geological repository for nuclear waste would not be developed at any point in Treaty #3 Territory.

Opposition is expected to continue to grow following yesterday’s announcement, leading up to the start of a federal impact assessment process, which the NWMO says will get underway in 2028.

December 1, 2024 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

Iran says it could end ban on possessing nuclear weapons if sanctions reimposed

Comments made after nuclear inspectorate board passed motion censuring Iran for building uranium stockpile

Patrick Wintour in Lisbon,  Guardian 28th Nov 2024, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/28/iran-says-it-could-end-ban-on-possessing-nuclear-weapons-if-sanctions-reimposed

The nuclear debate inside Iran is likely to shift towards the possession of its own weapons if the west goes ahead with a threat to reimpose all UN sanctions, the country’s foreign minister has said.

Seyed Abbas Araghchi said in an interview that Iran already had the capability and knowledge to create nuclear weapons, but said they did not form part of its security strategy. He also said Tehran was prepared to keep supplying arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Western officials will be concerned by Araghchi’s warning over the reimposition of sanctions, which were lifted when Iran signed the 2015 deal intended to limit its nuclear activities.

Araghchi was appointed foreign minister by Iran’s reformist president, Masoud Pezeshkian, who was elected this year on a promise to improve Iran’s economy by pursuing improved relations with the west.

He was speaking in Lisbon before a meeting between Iranian and European negotiators in Geneva on Friday, which he described as a brainstorming session to see if there was a way out of their impasse. He admitted he was pessimistic about the meeting, saying he was not sure Iran was speaking to the right party.

He said he believed European nations – chiefly the UK, Germany and France – were set on confrontation after a board meeting last week of the UN nuclear inspectorate, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in which a European-tabled censure motion was passed saying Iran had failed to cooperate with inspectors and was building a uranium stockpile that had no peaceful civilian purpose.

Araghchi claimed the IAEA director general, Rafael Grossi, had promised to forestall the censure motion after Iran offered to cap its uranium enrichment at 60% purity, as well as permit four nuclear inspectors to visit its nuclear sites. “He failed because the Europeans had decided on the course of confrontation,” he said.

The foreign minister said Iran had subsequently “decided to introduce thousands of new, highly advanced machines into the system. And now they have started to feed them with gas. So this is the result of their pressure.”

Araghchi said Iran remained within the confines of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, however, and still sought cooperation. “We have no intention to go further than 60% for the time being, and this is our determination right now,” he said. “I would like to re-emphasise that we have chosen the line of cooperation in order to come to a dignified resolution of this problem.”

But he suggested that Iranian engagement with the west on its nuclear programme was not guaranteed. “There is a debate right now in Iran that it was perhaps a wrong policy. Why? Because it proved we did whatever they wanted and when it was their turn to lift sanctions, in practice, they didn’t happen. So maybe something is wrong in our policy.

“So I can tell you, quite frankly, that there is this debate going on in Iran, and mostly among the elites – even among the ordinary people – whether we should change this policy or not, whether we should change our nuclear doctrine, as some say, or not, because it has proved insufficient in practice.”

He said if European countries did reimpose sanctions on Iran at the UN security council “then they [will] have convinced everybody in Iran that, yes, your doctrine has been wrong”.

He added: “And this is the result after 10 to 12 years of negotiation, and after 10 years of implementation and homework and all these things, now, Iran is back under chapter seven [of the UN charter], what for?

“If that happens, I think everybody will be convinced that we have gone in the wrong direction, so we have to change direction. So I think if the snapback happens we would have a crisis.”

But he said for the moment the fatwa against the possession of nuclear weapons could only be rescinded by the supreme leader. “Nuclear weapons have no place in our security calculations,” he said.

He also said that Iran had not supplied ballistic missiles to Russia, but that it is legitimate for Tehran to have close military cooperation with Moscow even though Iran supported the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

Aware that Iran’s supply of drones and other equipment to Russia for use in Ukraine has poisoned relations with Europe, Araghchi said: “They are not in any moral or political position to complain about our cooperation with Russia […] when at the same time they are selling themselves weapons, sophisticated weaponry to Israel to kill Palestinians.”

He added that Iran was prepared to continue supplying weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon if requested by the group, adding Israel had agreed to a ceasefire only because it could not “finish the job”.

Giving his verdict on the outcome of the Lebanon confrontation, which many say has left Iran weakened, he said: “Why is Israel now ready for a ceasefire in Lebanon? Because they couldn’t finish the job, and they are not able to finish the job. Yes, Hezbollah has suffered, but it is mostly on its leadership and high level commanders, but the organisation is intact.”

He also ridiculed claims by the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, that Israel had agreed to the Lebanon ceasefire partly because Israel wanted to focus its energies on preventing Iran from securing a nuclear weapon.

“A full-scale war with Iran and a ceasefire in Lebanon? It doesn’t sound logical or understandable,” he said.

He said it would be a disaster if Israel launched a full-scale war against Iran. “That doesn’t mean that we want war. Contrary to Israelis, we don’t want war, but we are fully prepared for that, and we are not scared of war. And if they want to try us, they can do that.”

He said it was up to Hezbollah to decide if it wanted to withdraw its weaponry north of the Litani River, as set out in the ceasefire agreement with Israel, and said the group was not an Iranian proxy. “Hezbollah and others are not our proxies,” he said. “We only support them as our friends, so we have never dictated on them or any other resistance group in the region. They decide by themselves, and they implement their decisions by themselves.”

He said he believed it was the right decision by Hezbollah to end its link between the wars in Lebanon and Gaza in accepting the ceasefire, but questioned whether it would be followed by a further ceasefire in Gaza. “Israel cannot go for a ceasefire with Hamas, because a ceasefire with Hamas would be a total defeat for Israelis,” he said. “They went there to destroy Hamas, and now they have to make a deal with Hamas, and that means that they have failed to reach their goals. So a ceasefire in Gaza has become a very complicated question.”

He said that Israel’s intention was “the colonial erasure” of Palestinians, and it was up to the new US administration to decide if they would support this.

Asked if Iran’s foreign policy was causing domestic misery, he accepted that Pezeshkian won the presidential election because he wanted to leave sanctions and engage with the rest of the world but questioned if he had been welcomed by the west. “The morning after his inauguration ceremony, Ismail Haniyeh [the Hamas political bureau leader] was assassinated in Tehran,” he said. “I have spent my first 100 days as foreign minister trying to prevent a full-scale war.”

December 1, 2024 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

White House Pressing Ukraine To Draft 18-Year-Olds for War

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan recently hinted that the US was pressuring Ukraine to expand conscription, saying Ukraine’s biggest problem in the war was the lack of manpower.

The pressure from the US comes as polling shows the majority of Ukrainians want peace talks to end the war,

by Dave DeCamp November 27, 2024 , https://news.antiwar.com/2024/11/27/white-house-pressing-ukraine-to-draft-18-year-olds-for-war/

The White House is pressuring Ukraine to increase the size of its military by lowering the minimum age of conscription from 25 to 18, The Associated Press reported on Wednesday.

A senior Biden administration official said the outgoing administration wants Ukraine to start drafting 18-year-olds to expand the current pool of fighting-age males. The pressure from the US comes as polling shows the majority of Ukrainians want peace talks with Russia to end the war.

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan recently hinted that the US was pressuring Ukraine to expand conscription, saying Ukraine’s biggest problem in the war was the lack of manpower.

“Our view has been that there’s not one weapon system that makes a difference in this battle. It’s about manpower, and Ukraine needs to do more, in our view, to firm up its lines in terms of the number of forces it has on the front lines,” Sullivan said on PBS News Hour last week.

Last month, Serhiy Leshchenko, an aide to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, said Ukraine was under pressure from US politicians to lower the conscription age. “American politicians from both parties are putting pressure on President Zelensky to explain why there is no mobilization of those aged 18 to 25 in Ukraine,” he said.

Zelensky signed a mobilization bill into law back in April that lowered the conscription age from 27 to 25. A few weeks before the mobilization bill became law, Zelensky received a visit from US Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who complained that not enough young Ukrainian med were being sent to the frontline.

“I would hope that those eligible to serve in the Ukrainian military would join. I can’t believe it’s at 27,” Graham said. “You’re in a fight for your life, so you should be serving — not at 25 or 27. We need more people in the line.”

The Biden administration’s push for Ukraine to draft younger men comes as it is doing everything it can to escalate the proxy war before President-elect Donald Trump is inaugurated on January 20. President Biden is seeking another $24 billion to spend on the conflict even though it’s clear there’s no path to a Ukrainian military victory.

December 1, 2024 Posted by | Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Tepco eyes second test removal of Fukushima nuclear fuel debris

 Japan Times 29th Nov 2024, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/11/29/japan/tepco-debris-removal-plan/

Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings is considering conducting a second test to remove nuclear fuel debris from one of the three meltdown-hit reactors at its Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, company officials said Thursday.

As in the previous test, Tepco plans to use a fishing rod-shaped device to remove the debris from the plant’s No. 2 reactor.

Tepco collected 0.7 gram of debris in the first test, which started in September and ended on Nov. 7. The debris is currently under analysis at the Japan Atomic Energy Agency.

Nuclear Regulation Authority Chairperson Shinsuke Yamanaka has asked the company to collect more debris to gather more data.

Some 880 tons of nuclear debris, a mixture of melted fuel and reactor parts, is estimated to remain in the No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 reactors at the plant, which was crippled by the March 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami.

December 1, 2024 Posted by | Fukushima continuing, wastes | Leave a comment

Biden administration advancing $680m arms sale to Israel, source says

November 27, 2024,  https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241127-biden-administration-advancing-680m-arms-sale-to-israel-source-says/

The Biden administration is pushing ahead with a $680 million arms sales package to Israel, a US official familiar with the plan said on Wednesday, even as a US-brokered ceasefire in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah has come into effect, Reuters reports.

The package, which was first reported by the Financial Times, includes thousands of joint direct attack munition kits (JDAM) and hundreds of small-diameter bombs, according to the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The news comes less than a day after the ceasefire agreement ended the deadliest confrontation in years between Israel and the Hezbollah group, but Israel is still fighting its other arch foe, the Palestinian group, Hamas, in the Gaza Strip.

However, the package has been in the works for several months. It was first previewed to the congressional committees in September then submitted for review in October, the official said.

The package follows a $20 billion sale in August of fighter jets and other military equipment to Israel.

Reuters reported in June that Washington, Israel’s biggest ally and weapons supplier, has sent Israel more than 10,000 highly destructive 2,000-pound bombs and thousands of Hellfire missiles since the start of the Gaza war in October 2023.

The conversations about the latest arms package had been going on even as a group of progressive US senators, including Bernie Sanders introduced resolutions to block the sale of some US weapons to Israel over concerns about the human rights catastrophe faced by Palestinians in Gaza.

The legislation was shot down in the Senate.


Biden, whose term ends in January, has strongly backed Israel since Hamas-led gunmen attacked in October 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking more than 250 hostages, according to Israeli tallies.

However, since then, it has been revealed by Haaretz that helicopters and tanks of the Israeli army had, in fact, killed many of the 1,139 soldiers and civilians claimed by Israel to have been killed by the Palestinian Resistance.

Most of Gaza’s population of 2.3 million people has been displaced and the enclave is at risk of famine, more than a year into Israel’s war against Hamas in the Palestinian enclave. Gaza health officials say more than 43,922 Palestinians have been killed in Israel’s offensive.

December 1, 2024 Posted by | Israel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Is Europe Ready for a Nuclear Renaissance?

27 November 2024, By Claire Mauduit-Le Clercq and Emmanuel Dubois-Pelerin, S&P Global

Highlights

From the current limited nuclear power construction activity, with about 3 GW in progress, Europe seems ready to accelerate again, but only in countries already operating nuclear reactors. This comes amid increased geopolitical tensions, energy security concerns, aging existing nuclear fleet and increased need for firm and low-carbon power to deliver on electrification and decarbonization ambitions.

We estimate that the total cost for new build could be up to €15 million/MW, well above most other clean energy sources. This estimation notably considers overnight costs, cost of capital, and time — all of which can result in significant variations and add to unpredictability.

We believe the economics of the projects and the credit quality of the involved utilities will therefore rely on the efficiency and credibility of the frameworks that will govern these assets. Economic viability depends on dedicated remuneration schemes, risk-sharing mechanisms and government support. The need for robust frameworks is exacerbated by the substantial upfront investment funding needs of each project and a negative track record of significant time and cost overruns we observed on recent projects.

In any case, any nuclear new build will take years to become operational and connect to the grid, creating ongoing tensions on projected economics and future power market dynamics. Managing these will be key to attract investors while protecting consumers.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………… The European Parliament also approved the classification of nuclear as “green” under the EU Taxonomy for sustainable activities, making nuclear power an eligible option to bridge Europe’s decarbonization trajectory. This is key, as this contributes to alleviating pressure on funding (see the discussion Nuclear as a bridge to 2050 in the European Union in this report for more details).

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….  The level and unpredictability of costs of new nuclear builds are a major obstacle to the renaissance.

…………….. In this report, we do not focus on lifetime extensions, which are indisputably cheaper than a new build, whose levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), even with mild assumptions, is probably at least three to four times French energy regulator CRE’s estimate of €30-€40 per MWh for EDF’s 12-year, approximately €68 billion “Grand Carénage” investment program. Reciprocally, one could embed in a new EPR LCOE the optional value of a future extension beyond the assumed lifetime — but most projects already target 60 years from the start (versus typically 40 years in the past), so that optional value beyond 60 years is very uncertain and at any rate stands so many years away (around 2090 for new construction starting now) that its net present value is relatively modest. We see lifetime extensions as supporting the related utilities’ credit quality only for existing reactors.

……………………………………….The construction costs of all recent new nuclear reactors, in Europe and the US, remain massive: we see the starting point of overnight costs (that is, ignoring the cost of capital during construction as if the project was completed “overnight”) at about or above an order of magnitude of €10 million/MW for Europe-built EPRs (it is unclear whether SMRs would be cheaper per MW; the real credit mitigant would be the three to four times lesser single-asset exposure if a utility is building just one).

…………The costliest of all by far is the very latest build, the UK’s HPC. As per the latest (January 2024) public communication on current costing, we see about €202415 million/MW.

For clarity, we include in “overnight costs,” beyond those capitalized by the developer, certain items which, given the magnitudes involved, can be very relevant:

Supplier losses, like Toshiba’s $3.68 billion loss on Vogtle or Areva’s several-billion-euros loss on OLK-3. They are typically hard to assess (and typically excluded from the LCOE). The appropriate baseline for assessment is an arguable point: the downside from the reasonable return the supplier expected versus from a break-even point. Nevertheless, net losses should be factored into the analysis.

Pre-COD operating costs, which some developers expense, rather than capitalize, and nonetheless represent monies sunk before cash flows in. For example, for FLA-3 construction, operating expenditures (opex) of €1.14 billion (€0.7 million/MW) were expensed over 2022–2023 alone.

Certain post-COD costs (e.g., the FLA-3’s vessel-head repair under first big planned outage) were an ASN (France’s Nuclear Safety Authority) precondition for commissioning in the first place. Both repair costs and the opportunity cost of not producing power during repair are not yet known.

……………………………………………………………………………………...The lack of cost competitiveness for nuclear technology construction in Europe is obvious versus other technologies and other regions

LCOEs are the highest for nuclear, highlighting its lack of cost competitiveness in construction in Europe.

……………………………………………….All current funding mechanisms envisaged for NNBs include strong taxpayer or consumer support

In our view, no funding on NNBs during the construction phase can be structured absent taxpayer or consumer support. This support can take the following forms:

  • A subsidized state loan during construction and a CfD support during operations, as envisaged by the Czech Republic for Dukovany 5.
  • State ownership, even when the state was previously absent from nuclear (e.g., SZC, where the UK government is and would remain the largest shareholder), combined with Regulated Asset Base (RAB) support starting from Day 1 of the construction phase. The objective is to reduce WACC and to share cost overrun risks.
  • State-owned bank funding and intergovernmental loans, such as for Paks II in Hungary.

………………………………………………………………………………………….. Conclusion

Massive new build projects have gained momentum in some European countries, but financing them remains fraught with challenges. To sustain the development of these key decarbonization projects, countries are looking at innovative funding mechanisms to mitigate the heavy cost burden on operators. Construction risks will remain key concerns for the ratings trajectory of the involved utilities, and we will monitor the implementation of credit-supportive funding solutions that often require strong state involvement.  https://www.spglobal.com/en/research-insights/special-reports/is-europe-ready-for-a-nuclear-renaissance

December 1, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Small nuclear reactors are at risk from military attacks, so should be built underground

 Small modular reactors (SMRs) should be built underground, including in
city centres, to protect them from military attacks, seismic activity and
other natural hazards, according to a new academic study.

 Nucnet 27th Nov 2024
https://www.nucnet.org/news/underground-plants-could-be-built-in-city-centres-11-3-2024

December 1, 2024 Posted by | safety, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

  Plans to turn land in Somerset into a saltmarsh should be scrapped.

Plans to flood 1500 acres of farmland along the Severn Estuary to create
saltmarsh won’t be effective in saving fish affected by a nuclear power
station – that’s according to ecosystems expert Dr Mark Everard of the
University of the West of England. EDF is building the station at Hinkley
Point in Somerset and had agreed to install and maintain an acoustic fish
deterrent to prevent fish being sucked into the site’s cooling systems. But
they now say it’s dangerous to build and the technology is untested, and
want to flood farmland instead to create saltmarsh habitats. Dr Everard
says most fish – including migrating salmon – won’t benefit from this, and
the deterrent system is already used effectively worldwide.

 BBC Farming Today 25th Nov 2024, https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0025cyx

December 1, 2024 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment