26/07/2016 Just one night into the Democratic National Convention, things are looking a whole lot brighter for the environment under a potential Hillary Clinton presidency than anything we heard in Cleveland last week.
Those sentiments were echoed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) just moments earlier. In her keynote address, Warren called out the fossil fuel industry while praising Clinton’s inclusion of climate action as a key part of her campaign……..
The inclusion of climate topics at the DNC is a far cry from the almost nonexistent mention of climate change and fossil fuel money at last week’s RNC. Republican nominee Donald Trump, who has called climate change a “hoax” and said he isn’t a “great believer” in man-made global warming, didn’t mention the environment onceduring his acceptance speech.
The only person to speak about the issue on the RNC stage was Harold Hamm, a fracking mogul who said, “climate change isn’t our biggest problem,” and instead called for more oil and gas production, Grist reported.
Scientists have long called for extreme action to halt the worst effect of climate change. Representatives from 195 nations reached a landmark deal in Paris last year pledging to lower greenhouse gas emissions…….http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/climate-change-dnc_us_5796e480e4b0d3568f84585a
Why is New York Times shilling for the clearly failing technology of nuclear power, while dismissing renewables?
New York Times Shills For Moribund Nuclear Power, Disses Renewables Revolution, Climate Progress BY JOE ROMM JUL 25, 2016 Why does The New York Times keep pushing nuclear power, whose prices keep rising even as demand has collapsed in every market economy? And why do they keep dissing renewables, whose prices have dropped precipitously while demand has grown beyond expectation here and around the world?
This month alone, the Times managed to publish two pieces whining that the poor, neglected nuclear power industry is having trouble competing with renewables because solar and wind have become … so darn cheap.
Utterly lost on the Times is the irony that nuclear power was originally touted as a key part of a future where electricity was “too cheap to meter.” Now it’s just another inflexible but powerful dinosaur industry being crushed in the marketplace by a superior product — kind of like mainframe computers or the horse and buggy or … print newspapers.
The fact is that on a purely economic basis, nuclear power has to a great extent priced itself out of the market for new power, even for new carbon-free power. Heck, even the French can’t build an affordable, on-schedule next generation nuclear plant in their own nuclear-friendly country!!
But rather than report accurately on the renewable energy miracle, as, say, the International Energy Agency (IEA) and Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) have, the Times manages to publish articles in its business section headlined, “How Renewable Energy Is Blowing Climate Change Efforts Off Course.” Seriously.
I will be debunking this wildly misleading piece — which is by Eduardo Porter, an economics correspondent (!) — point by point in my next post, but for now, let me just post some actual numbers (and quantified projections). In its latest report on the subject, “The Low Carbon Economy: Our Thesis In 60 CHARTS,” Goldman Sachs has several charts on “Emissions: How low carbon technologies begin to bend the curve.” Here’s just one: [on original]
Goldman Sachs concludes, “On our wind and solar numbers, emissions in IEA scenarios could peak as early as c.2020, rather than 2030.” So, yeah, “Renewable Energy Is Blowing Climate Change Efforts Off Course” — off course from failure to possible success.
The Times piece is the kind of nonsense you would expect to see on an ultra-conservative website with the headline “There Are Serious Problems With Wind And Solar.” Still, it’s probably just a coincidence that the ultra-conservative Daily Caller website repackaged the Times piece with that headline, and this lead: “Wind and solar power have been expensive boondoggles that won’t develop fast enough to affect global warming, according to a New York Times (NYT) article published Wednesday.”
It’s probably just a coincidence that the Times has a history of inflating nukes and deflating renewables….
It’s probably just a coincidence that one of the leading energy reporters for the Times, 30+ year veteran Matt Wald, after leaving the paper joined the Nuclear Energy Institute to become senior director of policy analysis and strategic planning last year.
It’s probably just a coincidence that the Times has been running this sponsored post from a pro-nuke group: http://paidpost.nytimes.com/nuclear-matters/nuclear-energy-in-the-us.html#. Don’t worry, that’s all made clear in small type to readers who can breathe easy that “The news and editorial staffs of The New York Times had no role in this post’s preparation.”
OK, on closer inspection, it does not appear to be a coincidence that, for a long time now, ridiculous stories dissing renewables and favoring nukes have been the norm (see, for instance, my 2009 post “NYT’s Matt Wald blows the ‘Alternative and Renewable Energy’ story, quotes only industry sources, ignores efficiency and huge cost of inaction” and my 2011 post, “The New York Times Abandons the Story of the Century and Joins the Energy and Climate Ignorati”). I will examine a number of more recent pieces below………
Let’s look at some pieces in just the last year that reveal the Times’ apparent ongoing slant……
For decades, the entire conservative political establishment and right-wing media have devoted themselves to blocking all climate action, to spreading disinformation on climate action, and, sometimes, even opposing the use of the word “climate change.” They have also generally devoted themselves to spreading misinformation on clean energy and opposing policies that promote it. For decades, the liberal Democratic “establishment” has supported nuclear power and enacted pro-nuclear policies in national energy bill after national energy bill — including tax incentives andloan guarantees for new plants. And let’s not forget the repeated renewal of the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industry Indemnity Act, which puts the taxpayer on the hook for the cost of a truly major disaster and is probably a $100 billion-dollar subsidy by itself.
In any case, even with all those subsidies, new nuclear power has priced itself out of the marketplace, something this article [from New York Times] never mentions — and so it is perfectly rational for someone who is concerned about climate change to understand that new nuclear power is at best a relatively modest piece of the solution (as the IEA and Nuclear Energy Agency concluded last year), and at worst a very expensive distraction……
And you don’t have to take my word — or the Times’ word. “Ever since the completion of the first wave of nuclear reactors in 1970, and continuing with the ongoing construction of new reactors in Europe, nuclear power seems to be doomed with the curse of cost escalation,” read one 2015 journal article, “Revisiting the Cost Escalation Curse of Nuclear Power.”
Then there’s the Financial Times reporting last October on France’s newest Normandy plant, which originally was projected to cost €3bn ($3.3 billion) and start producing power in 2012. Instead, it “will not start until 2018 at a cost of €10.5bn [$11.3 billion].” Yes, even the French can’t build an affordable, on-schedule next-generation nuclear plant in their own nuclear-friendly country. Does that make them anti-science, too?…..
The key question is why does the Times have a pattern in which it overhypes nuclear power well beyond what the facts warrant — while at the same time generally underselling and minimizing the solar and wind well beyond what the facts warrant? Perhaps, just for the sake of appearance, they should stop running paid pro-nuke ads (that are virtually indistinguishable from their own unbalanced pro-nuke pieces) until they can answer this question. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/07/25/3800630/nuclear-power-renewables-times/
Sticker Shock: The Soaring Costs Of Germany’s Nuclear Shutdown, Yale Environment 360 25 JUL 2016: REPORT German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s 2011 decision to rapidly phase out the country’s 17 nuclear power reactors has left the government and utilities with a massive problem: How to clean up and store large amounts of nuclear waste and other radioactive material. by joel stonington 26 july 16 The cavern of the salt mine is 2,159 feet beneath the surface of central Germany. Stepping out of a dust-covered Jeep on an underground road, we enter the grotto and are met by the sound of running water — a steady flow that adds up to 3,302 gallons per day.
“This is the biggest problem,” Ina Stelljes, spokesperson for the Federal Office for Radiation Protection, tells me, gesturing to a massive tank in the middle of the room where water waits to be pumped to the surface.
The leaking water wouldn’t be an issue if it weren’t for the 125,000 barrels of low- and medium-level nuclear waste stored a few hundred feet below. Most of the material originated from 14 nuclear power plants, and the German government secretly moved it to the mine from 1967 until 1978. For now, the water leaking into the mine is believed to be contained, although it remains unclear if water has seeped into areas with waste and rusted the barrels inside.
The mine — Asse II — has become a touchstone in the debate about nuclear waste in the wake of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s 2011 decision to end the use of nuclear power following Japan’s Fukushima disaster. The ongoing closures have created a new urgency to clean up these nuclear facilities and, most importantly, to find a way to safely store the additional radioactive waste from newly decommissioned nuclear reactors. Nine of the country’s 17 nuclear power reactors have been shut down and all are expected to be phased out by 2022.
In addition to Asse II, two other major lower-level nuclear waste sites exist in Germany, and a third has been approved. But the costs associated with nuclear waste sites are proving to be more expensive, controversial, and complex than originally expected.
And Germany still hasn’t figured out what to do with the high-level waste — mostly spent fuel rods — that is now in a dozen interim storage areas comprised of specialized warehouses near nuclear power plants. Any future waste repository will have to contain the radiation from spent uranium fuel for up to a million years.
Given the time frames involved, it’s not surprising that no country has built a final repository for high-level waste. In Germany, a government commission on highly radioactive nuclear waste spent the last two years working on a 700-page report, released this month, that was supposed to recommend a location. Instead, the report estimated that Germany’s final storage facility would be ready “in the next century.” Costs are expected to be astronomical.
“Nobody can say how much it will cost to store high-level waste. What we know is that it will be very costly – much higher costs can be expected than [what] the German ministry calculates,” said Claudia Kemfert, head of energy, transportation, and environment at the German Institute for Economic Research. The exact number, she said, “cannot be predicted, since experience shows that costs have always been higher than initially expected. ”
At the Asse II mine, roughly $680 million has been spent in the six years since the cleanup began, and the price tag for operations last year totaled $216 million. A 2015 report by Germany’s Environment Ministry noted, “There are currently no technical plans available for the envisaged waste recovery project which would allow a reliable estimate of the costs.”
No one expects to start moving the barrels at the mine until 2033, and estimates of finishing the process extend to 2065. Total costs for moving the waste to a future storage site will almost certainly be in the billions of dollars, with current estimates of just disposing of the recovered waste at $5.5 billion.
The waste issue is one reason nuclear power has been so controversial in Germany and why there is broad support among the public for phasing it out, with three-quarters of the German population saying they are in favor of Merkel’s decision, according to a survey this year by the Renewable Energy Hamburg Cluster.
“Nuclear in Germany is not popular,” Kemfert said. “Everybody knows it is dangerous and causes a lot of environmental difficulties. Nuclear has been replaced by renewables – we have no need for nuclear power any more.”…………..
With both nuclear waste storage and decommissioning, governments and power companies around the world have often opted for halfway solutions, storing waste in temporary depots and partially decommissioning plants. Worldwide, 447 operational nuclear reactors exist and an additional 157 are in various stages of decommissioning. Just 17 have been fully decommissioned.
In Europe, a recent report by the European Union Commission estimated that funds set aside for waste storage and decommissioning of nuclear plants in the EU’s 16 nuclear nations have fallen short by $137 billion. Dealing with nuclear waste in the United Kingdom is also a highly charged issue. At one location — a former weapons-manufacturing, fuel-reprocessing, and decommissioning site called Sellafield — the expected cleanup cost increased from $59 billion in 2005 to $155 billion in 2015. ……
despite recently completing a new plant, the United States is also struggling with decommissioning. The cost estimates of shuttering U.S. nuclear plants increased fourfold between 1988 and 2013, according toBloomberg News. Many governments are slowly starting to realize how much those costs have been underestimated.
As Antony Froggatt, a nuclear expert and researcher at Chatham House — a London-based think tank— put it, “The question is, how do you create a fair cost to cover what will happen far into the future?” http://e360.yale.edu/feature/soaring_cost_german_nuclear_shutdown/3019/
2016 set to be world’s hottest year on record, says UN, Guardian, 26 July 16
June marked 14th month of record heat for land and oceans with average global temperature reaching 1.3C above the pre-industrial era The world is on track for its hottest year on record and levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have reached new highs, further fuelling global warming, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) has said.
June marked the 14th consecutive month of record heat for land and oceans, the United Nations agency said on Thursday. It called for the speedy implementation of a pact reached last December to limit climate change by shifting from fossil fuels to green energy by 2100.
The average temperature in the first six months of 2016 was 1.3C warmer than the pre-industrial era in the late 19th century, according to Nasa.
“This underlines more starkly than ever the need to approve and implement the Paris climate change agreement, and to speed up the shift to low carbon economies and renewable energy,” said the WMO secretary general, Petteri Taalas…….https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/21/2016-worlds-hottest-year-on-record-un-wmo
Sticker Shock: The Soaring Costs Of Germany’s Nuclear Shutdown, Yale Environment 360 25 JUL 2016: REPORT “…….In Germany, negotiations with utilities over who will pay the denuclearization costs have often centered on how much the utilities can afford. The four nuclear utilities in Germany – publicly-traded RWE; E.ON; EnBW, which is majority publicly-owned; and Swedish-owned Vattenfall – are struggling economically as decentralized wind and solar power have undercut wholesale electricity prices and eaten into profits. Last year, E.ON, Germany’s largest utility, lost $7.7 billion.
The four companies have already set aside $45 billion for decommissioning nuclear power plants. But in April, Germany’s Commission to Review the Financing for the Phase-Out of Nuclear Energy recommended that the utilities pay an additional $26.4 billion into a government-controlled fund meant to cover the costs of long-term storage of nuclear waste.
The utilities were unhappy with the commission’s conclusions and released a joint statement saying $26.4 billion would “overburden energy companies’ economic capabilities.” Even so, few experts expect those sums to cover the total eventual costs.
“Some billions now are better than making them bankrupt,” said Michael Mueller, who chairs a government commission on highly radioactive nuclear waste. “So, it’s a compromise that had to be made.”
The utilities are clear about where they see the responsibility: “The temporary and final storage of nuclear waste in Germany is an operative task of the German government, which is politically responsible for this,” the utilities said in a statement. Indeed, if the commission’s recommendation becomes law, then the German government will be on the hook for any storage costs beyond the $26.4 billion paid by the utilities.
“Asse II shows us that radioactive waste storage is a complex problem that is not just about dumping it somewhere,” said Jan Haverkamp, a nuclear energy expert at Greenpeace. “There are many open questions, and those questions are going to lead to a lot more costs………” http://e360.yale.edu/feature/soaring_cost_german_nuclear_shutdown/3019/
Sticker Shock: The Soaring Costs Of Germany’s Nuclear Shutdown, Yale Environment 360 25 JUL 2016: REPORT“……….Radioactive water was first detected leaking at Asse II in 2008, and the German Bundestag passed a law five years later that mandated removal of the waste. Above ground, the complex is just a few fenced-in buildings amid forests and farms. Underground, passageways have closed or collapsed. One main elevator shaft going down into the mine can be used for transporting large machinery, such as front loaders, some of which has to be welded together in underground workshops. As for the areas with actual waste, workers have spent years drilling into just one of 13 chambers to test for gas and radioactivity.
“No one goes in,” said Stelljes. “We haven’t even developed the machines we would need for moving the waste.”
A former iron mine, Konrad, is being converted into a site to store low- and medium-level waste; it is expected to be completed in 2022. Low- and medium-level waste account for 90 percent of Germany’s total nuclear waste, but just 0.1 percent of the total radioactivity of the nation’s waste.
The most dangerous and controversial waste is heavy-metal-laden, heat-producing waste from spent fuel rods. Germany expects the total of that high-level waste to take up 28,100 cubic meters (1 million cubic feet) — a fraction of the volume of low- and medium-level waste the country must eventually store. Preliminary plans from Germany’s Federal Office for Radiation Protection call for a high-level waste repository to be built by 2050, with storage complete by 2130, and final sealing of the repository as late as 2170.
“No one has a finished concept [for storage of high-level waste], so no one can give us a finished budget,” Haverkamp said. “I won’t give an estimate anymore, but the numbers are in the billions. How many? No one knows. That’s the problem in Germany, you have to reserve a certain amount of money, but how much?” …. http://e360.yale.edu/feature/soaring_cost_german_nuclear_shutdown/3019/
French nuclear company EDF to get cash infusion http://www.dw.com/en/french-nuclear-company-edf-to-get-cash-infusion/a-19428058
The French government has said it will go ahead with a 4-billion-euro share issue for state-controlled electricity firm EDF. The move will help finance the construction of two controversial nuclear reactors in the UK. The French state – which holds 85 percent of EDF – said it will buy three billion euros’ worth of the newly issued EDF shares sometime this year. The fourth billion will be chipped in by other investors.
EDF’s board of directors is expected to give final investment approval this week for the construction of two EPR nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in southwestern England, home to two old Magnox reactors that are no longer in operation and two AGR gas-cooled reactors whose construction began in 1967 and are still in operation, but whose decommissioning date is currently set for 2023.
EDF had delayed the final investment decision on the new Hinkley Point reactors several times, as it sought other investors to share the costs amid concerns the heavily indebted company will struggle to meet its financial commitments.
Internal skeptics abound The six labor-union representatives sitting on EDF’s 18-member board have repeatedly opposed the project. They wanted to see it delayed by three years to give EDF time to complete the construction of similar reactors in France, Finland and China, which are several years behind schedule.
The company’s works council secretary, Jean-Luc Magnaval, told the news agency Reuters that his union had filed a complaint on the matter with a Paris court, which has scheduled a hearing on the case for August 2.
EDF’s chief financial officer has resigned over the threat the project represents to the company’s finances.
EDF is also planning to speed up renovation of its 58 nuclear reactors in France, a task expected to cost about 51 billion euros.
EDF, which has already spent about 3 billion euros on Hinkley Point C, needs the project “to maintain its know-how and prepare for the retirement and renewal of its aging French and British nuclear fleet,” chief executive Jean-Bernard Levy told shareholders on Tuesday. He added that the new capital would also help the bolster the company’s credit rating and its ability to refinance its 37.4 billion euro debt.
Sparing no expense The Hinkley Point project is a joint venture between EDF and China General Nuclear Power Corporation. It’s one of the world’s most costly nuclear power plant projects.
The most recently projected price tag was a whopping 18 billion pounds ($24 billion, 21.7 billion euros), before Brexit lowered the value of the pound.
However, a complex system of subsidies approved by former UK finance minister, George Osborne, could cost up to 37 billion pounds, according to a recent estimate published by the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change.
The UK’s environment secretary, Andrea Leadsom, recently reiterated that the Hinkley Point project will kick-start a “nuclear renaissance” in Britain that would see 18 gigawatts of new capacity added if sites at Sizewell, Bradwell, Moorside, Wylfa and Oldbury are developed along with Hinkley Point C.
Nuclear power accounts for around 16 percent of the UK’s energy requirements, which could drop to three per cent in 2030 unless new reactors are built in the meantime, Leadsom said.
EPR reactors are third-generation nuclear reactors which use pressurised water as their cooling fluid. At present, most operating reactors around the world are second-generation reactors; only around a dozen Generation 3 reactors are in operation so far.
A variety of Generation 4 reactor designs, which engineers hope will be more inherently safe and more cost-efficient than previous generations, are in various stages of prototype development, but none are expected to be commercially available before about 2030 or 2040.
By that time, however, renewable energy technologies and battery storage systems may have attainedsuch a low cost that construction of new nuclear power stations may prove a tough sell financially. That’s already the case for the Hinkley Point C project and for EDF’s other three existing EPR reactor projects around the world, all of which have proven to be far more expensive than optimistic early estimates, and very likely none of which would be getting built had they not been supported by heavy government subsidies.
Campaigners call on government to stop Hinkley Point http://www.energylivenews.com/2016/07/26/campaigners-call-on-government-to-stop-hinkley-point/ Jul 26, 2016 Jacqueline Echevarria A group of campaigners are calling on the government to ditch the new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C (HPC) in Somerset.
Called ‘Stop Hinkley’, the group has sent a letter to Business, Energy and Industry Strategy Secretary Greg Clark ahead of a final investment decision for the project by EDF’s Board onThursday. They say a final investment decision for Hinkley would be “little more than spin as problems mount for nuclear delusion”.
They believe the nuclear project is too expensive, will kill British manufacturing, is bad for consumers, the taxpayer, business and potentially the environment and is a total waste of money.
Renewable energy and energy efficiency projects could be implemented very quickly and much more cheaply, they added.
They stated ditching EDF’s plans for HPC would provide the country with a “wonderful” opportunity to turn Somerset into a sustainable energy hub for England.Allan Jeffery from Stop Hinkley said: “Now even the financial press says Hinkley Point C has become a laughing stock. The cost keeps rising while the cost of renewables is falling rapidly and the potential to make savings with energy efficiency is huge. We could replace Hinkley much more quickly and cheaply without the safety fears and without producing dangerous waste we don’t know what to do with.”
According to the former Department of Energy and Climate Change, the estimated cost of the Hinkley Point C project over its lifetime could reach £37 billion.
French authorities have raided EDF’s headquarters in France before the Hinkley decision.
ELN has contacted BEIS for a comment.
Japan Atomic again flubs maintenance checks at Monju reactor http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/07/22/national/japan-atomic-again-flubs-maintenance-checks-at-monju-reactor/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+japantimes+%28The+Japan+Times%3A+All+Stories%29#.V5gV29J97Gj JIJI The Japan Atomic Energy Agency again failed to conduct checks on a device at its experimental Monju fast-breeder reactor and overlooked a warning signal from a maintenance management system for about three months, it was learned Friday.
The state-affiliated agency, which recently came under fire for failing to inspect thousands of devices at Monju, is investigating the cause of the latest mishap and devising measures to prevent a recurrence.
According to sources familiar with the matter, the device in question controls the temperature of sodium coolant for the prototype reactor, which is situated in Tsuruga, Fukui Prefecture.
The JAEA was slated to complete the inspection by the end of March, after moving up the previous deadline, which was set at the end of May
Around the end of February, the maintenance management system installed at Monju started to display a warning signal. But it was not until May 27 that agency officials noticed it, the sources said.
JAEA reported the problems to the Nuclear Regulation Authority and completed the inspection of the temperature-controlling device on May 31, the sources said.
A massive sodium leak and coverup bid in December 1995 caused Monju’s operations to be suspended. It was eventually brought back online in May 2010, but halted again by a different problem in August the same year.
In November 2012, it was found that JAEA failed to carry out maintenance checks on more than 10,000 devices at Monju. After that, the NRA effectively banned the JAEA from operating the reactor.
In November last year, the NRA recommended to science and technology minister Hiroshi Hase that JAEA be replaced as Monju’s operator. The ministry is studying the matter.
New nuclear projects in Wales must be ‘cost-competitive’ with renewables, say MPs , Business Green, 26 July 16 Planned nuclear sites in North Wales should only go ahead if government can prove development is ‘value for money’, as Business Secretary Greg Clark visits Japan to fan investor interest in UK nuclear projects
Lawmakers on the Welsh Affairs Committee have published a new report insisting that before proposed nuclear developments at Wylfa Newydd and Trawsfynydd in North Wales go ahead the government must prove the financial viability and community benefit of the projects.
“The government must prove that the cost of any nuclear development is well understood and competitive with renewable sources. These costs must be made public in a format that can be easily understood,” Committee chair David Davies MP said.
“There has to be a demonstrable benefit for the local community as well,” he added. “Local businesses must form a key part of the supply-chain and be given sufficient information to allow this to happen.”………
The report concludes the government should only support the development at Wylfa Newydd if the strike price for the project’s electricity is competitive with renewables and below that of Hinkley Point C, EDF’s controversial nuclear project in Somerset which is due to receive a final investment decision this week. Hinkley’s strike price is £92.50 per MWh – more than double the current market price of power. In comparison, the strike price for onshore wind is around £80 per MWh with some experts now arguing new onshore wind farms can be built at a lower levelised cost than new gas power plants. ……..
Cost estimates for Wylfa Newydd must cover the lifetime of the project, including decommissioning and waste disposal, MPs said, after concerns were raised during their investigation that nuclear power projects are often subject to delays and cost schedule overruns. Cost estimates for Hinkley Point C have ballooned from £16bn in 2012 to almost £21bn earlier this year, while last week EDF’s Paris headquarters were raided by the French finance authorities investigating concerns about its reporting of maintenance and development costs………http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2465917/new-nuclear-projects-in-wales-must-be-cost-competitive-with-renewables-say-mps
Click here to Reply or Forward
Hitachi U.K. Nuclear Plant Should Get Less Than EDF, Panel Says http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-25/hitachi-u-k-nuclear-plant-should-get-less-than-edf-panel-saysAlex Morales AlexJFMorales
Hinkley secured guaranteed power price at twice current rate
Hitachi Ltd. should be paid less for the power from its planned nuclear plant in North Wales than Electricite de France SA has been promised for reactors in western England, a panel of U.K. lawmakers said, seeking to keep a lid on energy prices paid by consumers.
The government should also ensure the cost of the Wylfa Newydd project by Hitachi’s Horizon unit is competitive with renewable-power plants such as onshore wind farms, the cross-party Welsh Affairs Committee said Tuesday in an e-mailed report. The lawmakers called for a “clear and comprehensible explanation” of the lifetime costs of the 2.7-gigawatt project and for a “demonstrable benefit” to the local community.
The U.K. is struggling to build generating capacity fast enough to keep up with the closure of aging nuclear power stations and a phase-out of coal-fired plants. EDF is set to make a final investment decision on Thursday on whether to proceed with an 18-billion-pound ($24 billion) plan to build two reactors at Hinkley Point. The utility has repeatedly postponed a decision on the long-delayed project, despite securing a U.K. government guarantee that it’ll receive 92.50 pounds per megawatt-hour of power, more than double current rates.
- “The government should only build Wylfa Newydd if the strike price is below that agreed for the Hinkley Point C and competitive with renewable sources,” the committee said in a statement. “They must be transparent on cost and provide a clear and comprehensible explanation of the lifetime cost of the project, including decommissioning and waste disposal.”
Power from Hinkley Point and Wylfa will be paid for under a so-called contract for difference, which fixes the amount the utility receives per megawatt-hour, making its income predictable. If prevailing power prices are lower than the agreed “strike price,” utilities recoup the difference through consumer bills. If the prevailing price is greater, the utility returns the difference to consumers.
- Because prices have fallen since the EDF contract was agreed in 2013, the future subsidy cost to consumers of Hinkley has increased, according to areport earlier this month from the National Audit Office, which scrutinizes government spending. Using current projections for the wholesale power price, it estimated the lifetime cost of the top-ups has ballooned to 29.7 billion pounds from 6.1 billion pounds originally.The Welsh Affairs Committee also called on ministers to draw up contingency plans in case the Wylfa plant, consisting of two Hitachi advanced boiling-water reactors, isn’t completed as planned by 2025. EDF had originally envisaged its new reactors would generate power by Christmas 2017. Under its current schedule, Hinkley won’t come online until 2025, the same year as Hitachi aims to complete Wylfa.
Green bonds the new black in the market as environmental financing surges, ABC News, 26 July 16 By business reporter Stephen Letts The environmentally sensitive shoots developing in the global bonds market appear to be heading for a serious growth spurt with another record quarter of “green bonds” issuance.
In a research note on the sector, the credit ratings agency Moody’s found environmentally focused green bond issuance in the June quarter hit a record $US20.3 billion ($27 billion), well above the $US16.9 billion ($22.5 billion) recorded in the first quarter of the year.
Added together, the two quarters raised almost 90 per cent more capital than in the first half of 2015.
“The global green bond market is now poised to reach $US75 billion ($100 billion) in total volume for 2016 and so set a new record for the fifth consecutive year, given the strong issuance already observable in the first two weeks of Q3,” Moody’s senior vice president Henry Shilling said.
That fresh flow in the third quarter includes $300 million worth of bonds from Victoria put out to tender earlier this month, the first green issuance from an Australian state or federal government……
Clean energy projects dominate the market
The increasing demand has been supported by many big pension funds now carrying mandates that stipulate portfolios must hold required levels of environmentally friendly investments.
Around two-thirds of green bond proceeds in the quarter were directed to renewable energy and energy efficient projects, with clean transport accounting for a further 17 per cent of the money raised.
The US dominated issuance, with 23 per cent of the market, followed by the big development agencies such as the World Bank, with 17 per cent, although China is expected to bounce back to its dominant position in the market with $US3 billion worth of bonds in the pipeline for sale in coming months……. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-27/green-is-new-black-in-the-bonds-market-environmental-finance/7664414
Sophie Vorrath: Musk’s energy master plan: Is this the beginning of the end of the utility? July 27, 2016. When Elon Musk published part 2 of his Tesla Masterplan last week, it was his vision of a future where cars from a huge shared fleet of driverless electric vehicles could be summoned by the touch of a mobile phone app that dominated headlines.
But Musk’s vision for a world of energy self-sufficient households with solar and battery storage was equally ambitious – and threatens to be as disruptive to the world’s electricity industry as his autonomous shared vehicle plan could be to the automotive industry, not to mention Uber. http://onestepoffthegrid.com.au/musks-energy-master-plan-is-this-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-utility/
- United States and Mexico have committed to negotiate a bilateral agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation, according to the White House.
- The agreement is aimed at strengthening the existing legal framework and providing an enhanced basis for the transfer of nuclear technology, fuel, and components between the countries.
- In addition to enhancing potential power sector emissions reductions, the agreement aims to enhance the capacities of both nations in the supply chain and nuclear fuel services and to facilitate the sharing of best practices.
A hefty nuclear subsidy Times Union, July 25, 2016 “……… It’s one thing to keep nuclear plants running temporarily while the state transitions to green energy. It’s another to hand nuclear plant operators billions of dollars that could instead be used to move New York that much more quickly to a clean energy future.
The nuclear subsidies are being proposed in the state’s Clean Energy Standard. The CES, also known as the “50-by-30” plan — because it seeks to achieve the 50 percent clean energy goal by 2030 — would shift more of the state’s electricity supply to sources like wind, solar, hydropower and biomass, and away from fossil fuels.
Some want nuclear power in the mix, too, but it has some not-insignificant problems — the risk of an accident, and the still-unresolved question of safe disposal of radioactive waste. It’s hard to see nuclear power plants as being part of an environmentally sound energy future.
As a short-term bridge to that future, however, they could play a part, if they can stand on their own. Supporters say they can’t in the current market.
So the CES would include a program of “zero emissions credits” — a charge that utilities and energy service companies would pay to keep nuclear plants open. Those costs are expected to start at $965 million for the first two years, rising to about $1 billion a year, paid for by, well, pretty much anyone with an electricity bill……
What, however, is a reasonable windfall? Just how much do these plants realistically need to stay open? Is the state fattening nuclear plant profits with money that could be used to fund more alternative energy, and more energy savings programs, and achieve the CES goals even sooner?…….http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-opinion/article/Editorial-A-hefty-nuclear-subsidy-8416153.php
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- indigenous issues
- marketing of nuclear
- opposition to nuclear
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- weapons and war
- 2 WORLD
- MIDDLE EAST
- NORTH AMERICA
- SOUTH AMERICA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- global warming
- RARE EARTHS
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- World Nuclear