NJ Ratepayers Unite to Stop More Nuclear Corporation Bailouts, Energy Monopolies https://www.insidernj.com/press-release/nj-ratepayers-unite-stop-nuclear-corporation-bailouts-energy-monopolies/ November 9, 2020,
Diverse energy users and consumer advocate groups create NJ Ratepayers United
Trenton, N.J. –– As a $300 million annual nuclear subsidy continues to burden New Jersey consumers, a coalition has formed to oppose another proposed major energy policy initiative from PSEG and Exelon that would enable the companies to transform the state’s electricity capacity market and obtain windfall profits.
NJ Ratepayers United (NJRU) is a diverse coalition of New Jersey consumers, business groups, consumer advocates, grassroots organizations and energy providers that have joined forces to stop the proposed Fixed Resource Requirement (FRR). This proposed overhaul would transform how the state procures power, eliminating ratepayer protections and empowering select companies to leverage their market power to further increase electricity costs. Continue reading →
|
|
|
|
|
November 10, 2020
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, opposition to nuclear, USA |
Leave a comment
S. Africa Regulator to Consider Approving Nuclear Power Plan, Bloomberg, By Antony Sguazzin,10 November 2020,
-
- Program envisages addition of 2,500 megawatts of atomic power
- Country’s renewable-energy lobby opposes expansion of industry
The National Energy Regulator of South Africa will on Nov. 11 consider approving the procurement of 2,500 megawatts of nuclear power, marking another step toward the expansion of the industry.
The regulator will consider approving a so-called section 34 determination for the program, which enables the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy to undertake a bidding process for private producers to build nuclear-power facilities, it said in a Twitter posting outlining the agenda for the meeting.
South Africa, which destroyed its atomic weapons prior to the end of apartheid, already operates Africa’s only nuclear-power plant, the 1,800 megawatt Koeberg facility in Cape Town, as well as the Pelindaba research facility north of Johannesburg.
While the expansion of nuclear power has the support of the ministry and labor unions, it’s opposed by environmentalists and backers of the country’s expanding renewable-energy program.
NuScale Power LLC, a U.S. nuclear-energy firm, has said it will propose small, modular reactors for installation in South Africa. The U.S. International Development Finance Corp. has announced that it will support a bid by NuScale, approving the procurement of 2,500 megawatts of nuclear power, marking another step toward the expansion of the industry.
The regulator will consider approving a so-called section 34 determination for the program, which enables the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy to undertake a bidding process for private producers to build nuclear-power facilities, it said in a Twitter posting outlining the agenda for the meeting.
South Africa, which destroyed its atomic weapons prior to the end of apartheid, already operates Africa’s only nuclear-power plant, the 1,800 megawatt Koeberg facility in Cape Town, as well as the Pelindaba research facility north of Johannesburg.
While the expansion of nuclear power has the support of the ministry and labor unions, it’s opposed by environmentalists and backers of the country’s expanding renewable-energy program. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-09/south-african-regulator-to-consider-approving-nuclear-power-plan
November 10, 2020
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
marketing, South Africa |
Leave a comment
|
 Rolls-Royce and Exelon sign MoU on nuclear power stations operations, Power Technology, 9 November 2020 ,Industrial technology company Rolls-Royce has signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Exelon Generation for the operation of compact nuclear power stations in the UK and overseas locations.
Industrial technology company Rolls-Royce has signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Exelon Generation for the operation of compact nuclear power stations in the UK and overseas locations.
Under the contract, Exelon Generation agreed to assist Rolls Royce in the development and deployment of UK small modular reactors (UKSMR)……
In January, Rolls-Royce announced that it will be leading a consortium to build and install small modular reactors (SMRs) on former nuclear sites to power the UK by 2029.
Members part of the consortium are Assystem, Atkins, BAM Nuttall, Jacobs, Laing O’Rourke, National Nuclear Laboratory, Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, Rolls-Royce and TWI.
Working with its partners, as well as the UK government, the consortium will secure a commitment for a fleet of factory-built nuclear power stations, each with a 440MW capacity, developed inside a weatherproof canopy…….. https://www.power-technology.com/news/rolls-royce-exelon-mou/
|
|
November 10, 2020
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
marketing, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK |
Leave a comment
China and Russia lead world ranking for supplying new nuclear reactors, Bloomberg, 9 Nov 20, Source: UxC ResearchThe former Cold War frontier of eastern Europe is becoming a battleground in the $500 billion business of building nuclear power plants.
Four months after lifting a prohibition on financing nuclear-energy deals overseas, the U.S. is finding an opening for companies such as General Electric Co., Westinghouse Electric Co. and Bechtel Group Inc.
In the span of a few weeks, the U.S. signed a memorandum with Romania for the financing of a new reactor and other accords with Poland as well as Bulgaria, which plans to revive an older reactor project.
The plan to win business for U.S. companies in this geopolitically key market started under Donald Trump is poised to survive the transition to a new U.S. administration under President-elect Joe Biden. That may nudge eastern European partners to move forward with stalled nuclear projects.
Greater access to financing may be the chief advantage on the American side as it pushes back against Russian and Chinese interests in the region.
“The projects in countries such as Romania, Bulgaria and Poland could be accelerated if the U.S. helps them come up with funding sources at competitive costs and, eventually, without the need for state aid or guarantees,” said Razvan Nicolescu, a Bucharest-based partner at Deloitte specializing in the energy industry.
Eastern European nations, which are dependent on fossil fuels from Russia and their own coal deposits, have even more reasons than others to seek nuclear options. Being subject to stringent European Union emissions standards also creates additional incentives.
The recent change in regulation is allowing the U.S. to compete for a larger share of the market, whose value it estimates at $500 billion-$740 billion over the next 10 years.
Barriers to expansion remain formidable.
Westinghouse, which was one of the leading nuclear industry suppliers in the U.S., went bankrupt in 2017 as it faced billions in potential liabilities related to domestic projects in Georgia and South Carolina. After the South Carolina project was canceled in 2017, the two at Southern Co.’s Plant Vogtle remained the only reactors under construction in the world using Westinghouse’s flagship AP1000 technology, though that is also behind schedule and over budget.
Political rhetoric may prevail over actual investment decisions, said Martin Vladimirov, an analyst at the Sofia-based Center for the Study of Democracy.
“While the U.S. seeks to counter Russian and Chinese economic interference, those projects may not follow the market logic and will need significant state support,” Vladimirov said.
Nuclear Love Affair in Europe’s Poorer East Is Hitting the Rocks
Russia doesn’t see current U.S. nuclear deals in Europe as a threat to its flagship Rosatom Corp. because the U.S. companies don’t have the bandwidth to build new plants now, a government official close to Russia’s nuclear industry said. The U.S. projects in Europe will likely be limited to servicing agreements, the official added, asking for anonymity as they’re not authorized to speak publicly.
State-owned Rosatom itself also played down the risk from increased competition, saying there’s room for many projects in the region.
“We believe that the U.S. nuclear sector has a great potential,” Rosatom said. “The most important thing now for the U.S. vendors is to grow skills by building more in the markets where they have presence and experience.”
Romania’s need to refurbish an existing reactor makes it the most likely candidate to tap U.S. funding or start work with backing from the U.S., Canada and France. There are bigger doubts over the economics and political will behind the nuclear push announced by Poland and Bulgaria.
Some have stuck by Russia as their main technological and financing partner, such as Hungary for its 10 billion-euro ($12 billion) nuclear expansion deal, though GE will get a chance to supply turbines there.
Others have turned away from the long-standing deals with Russia and rebuffed newer attempts by China to step in as financier and supplier.
Funding will be the key determinant whether these projects can get off the ground, according to Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Elchin Mammadov.
“It’s a very risky and expensive venture that is unlikely to be funded by anyone but the state,” Mammadov said.
Even with state backing, most of the projects flagged across eastern Europe may face years of delay and many may be eventually abandoned.
Russia and China have an edge because they offer package deals. The U.S. is “entirely absent” from the global new build reactor market, the U.S. Energy Department said in an April report.
The U.S. has “lost its competitive global position as the world leader in nuclear energy,” the American department concluded.
— With assistance by Will Wade, Zoltan Simon, Maciej Martewicz, Daryna Krasnolutska, Stepan Kravchenko, and Zoe Schneeweiss https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-09/u-s-goes-nuclear-to-compete-with-russia-china-in-europe-s-east
November 10, 2020
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
marketing, Russia, USA |
Leave a comment
First major modular nuclear project having difficulty retaining backers, The complicated finances of the first major test of small modular nuclear reactors. https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/first-major-modular-nuclear-project-having-difficulty-retaining-backers/ JOHN TIMMER – 11/8/2020,
Earlier this year, the US took a major step that could potentially change the economics of nuclear power: it approved a design for a small, modular nuclear reactor from a company called NuScale. These small reactors are intended to overcome the economic problems that have ground the construction of large nuclear plants to a near halt. While each only produces a fraction of the power possible with a large plant, the modular design allows for mass production and a design that requires less external safety support.
But safety approval is just an early step in the process of building a plant. And the leading proposal for the first NuScale plant is running into the same problem as traditional designs: finances.
The proposal, called the Carbon Free Power Project, would be a cluster of a dozen NuScale reactors based at Idaho National Lab but run by Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, or UAMPS. With all 12 operating, the plant would produce 720MW of power. But UAMPS is selling it as a way to offer the flexibility needed to complement variable renewable power. Typically, a nuclear plant is either producing or not, but the modular design allows the Carbon Free Power Project to shut individual reactors off if demand is low.
But keeping a plant idle means you’re not selling any power from it, making it more difficult to pay off the initial investment made to produce it and adding to the financial risks. Further increasing risk is the fact that this is the first project of its kind—the NuScale website lists it as “
NuScale’s First Plant.” All of this appears to be making things complicated for the Carbon Free Power Project.
According to one report, the US Department of Energy had originally planned to purchase the first reactor for research use, then turn it over to UAMPS. But now, the goal is apparently for the DOE to provide an annual supplement of about $130 million a year for a decade. However, that would be dependent upon annual renewals of the funding by Congress during that decade, which is yet another risk. Separately, to reach a target price for the power that is expected to be competitive with natural gas, the project has been made larger and its completion delayed by three years.
UAMPS runs a number of generating stations (many of them coal-based) that collectively serve needs throughout the US West from Wyoming and New Mexico to California. It distributes the power from these plants to small public utilities that often service a single small city. For the Carbon Free Power Project, UAMPS has been relying on those cities to buy a share of the project in return for a proportional share of the plant’s final generating capacity. With the changes in price and funding, a number of those utilities are dropping out.
There’s still plenty of time for UAMPS to find other participants among other utilities that it counts as customers, given that the plant isn’t expected to come online until 2030. But the financial challenges suggest that small modular nuclear plants may struggle to get off the ground.
That shouldn’t be unexpected, as utilities are notoriously conservative—justifiably so, considering how much their customers rely on electricity. So any new electrical technology is likely to face some struggles as its customers learn to use it effectively and understand how to extract the most value out of it. Typically, the government steps in to provide some support during this awkward phase, as it has done for wind and solar, and plans to do for NuScale.
That said, a decade is a long way out for the completion of the first plant, given the trajectories that wind, solar, and storage prices have taken. Perhaps as critically, most utilities are already done with the learning period needed to use variable renewables effectively, when that period will only start for small modular reactors in 2030. It’s entirely possible that we’ll be ready to move forward with this nuclear technology at roughly the same time we’re becoming confident that we won’t need much of it.
November 9, 2020
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA |
Leave a comment
|
 Covid-19 divides and weakens the nuclear sector in South Africa, Daily Maverick, By Chris Yelland• 5 November 2020
The coronavirus crisis is undermining the business plan and turnaround strategy at the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa. The resulting losses are creating debilitating divisions between labour, middle and senior management, executives and boards of Necsa and its subsidiaries – as well as wage increases
Following a tumultuous operational and management period for several years, with massive financial losses, new Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) chairperson David Nicholls and acting CEO Ayanda Myoli presented a restructuring and turnaround plan to Parliament on 20 May 2020………
While many considered the turnaround plan to be hopelessly optimistic even before the Covid-19 crisis in South Africa from March 2020, the impact of the national and international lockdowns are estimated to have resulted in the Necsa group taking a massive hit, which would increase the expected loss for 2020/21 to more than R300-million. ……
While many considered the turnaround plan to be hopelessly optimistic even before the Covid-19 crisis in South Africa from March 2020, the impact of the national and international lockdowns are estimated to have resulted in the Necsa group taking a massive hit, which would increase the expected loss for 2020/21 to more than R300-million. https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-11-05-covid-19-divides-and-weakens-the-nuclear-sector-in-south-africa/
|
|
November 7, 2020
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, health, politics, South Africa |
Leave a comment
No need for nuclear power, Craven Herald and Pioneer By Lesley Tate, Senior Reporter, 6 Nov 20,
Cllr David Noland, Skipton 
North writes,
” ………The Green Party have been arguing for many years in recognition of the work by Friends of the Earth, the Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) in Wales and many others, that we do not need ‘further expansion of nuclear and gas turbines’ but to be far more clever about our energy use, easy to do now that renewables are cheaper than nuclear and new gas.
CAT has been at the forefront of development of research on renewable technology and Green building for some 50 years.
Their latest report ‘Zero Carbon Britain (Rising to the Climate Emergency)’ clearly demonstrates that the UK has the tools and technology to efficiently power this country with 100 per cent renewable technology (read the executive summary, it’s only eight pages long).
By using energy more efficiently we can power down by 60 per cent with particularly large savings in heating buildings and transport.
There is absolutely no need for nuclear power in our energy mix and we cannot afford it, let alone pay for cleaning up the sites at the end which taxpayers always end up paying for.
Nuclear now costs twice the price of renewables and the gap is growing.
How many Herald readers know that the electricity from the Hinkley Point nuclear reactor will cost UK consumers £92.50 per Kwh (the most recent offshore wind turbine fields are half of this)?
The deal was signed by (former Prime Minister) Theresa May and supported by Labour and Lib Dems.
The profits are going to the Chinese government which will run it for 40 years. The French firm (EDF) that has been building Hinkley Point and wants to build more nuclear reactors in the UK wants to cushion the financial blow of future nuclear power stations in this country by charging electricity customers a few extra pounds every month on their bill even now.
This is referred to as a new funding model, I’d call it a rip-off. Are people really happy to put billions of pounds into the coffers of the Chinese government and EDF rather than invest, as part of a Green New Deal, in insulation and draught-proofing of UK homes to keep us warmer, take over two and a half million households out of fuel poverty and permanently reduce everyone’s fuel bills. https://www.cravenherald.co.uk/opinion/opinion_letters/18824349.letter-no-need-nuclear-power/
November 7, 2020
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, UK |
1 Comment
|
DOE to submit ‘nuclear power plan’ to Duterte this December, Manila Bulletin, November 6, 2020, by Myrna M. Velasco” For BNPP’s repowering, Duterte previously instructed the energy department to also undertake a study on that proposal; and to assess the cost impact that will have on consumers’ pockets.
But on that particular sphere, Senate Committee on Energy Chairman Sherwin T. Gatchalian sounded off cynicism on claims that electricity rates in the Philippines will go down with the proposed repowering of the mothballed 620-megawatt BNPP project.
“It’s not true that prices are lower because of the layers of technology that shall be integrated into the nuclear power facility to ensure its safe operations,” he claimed.
Gatchalian noted that in Vietnam’s case, that country shelved its planned nuclear power development after determining that the resulting power price will just be comparable with other electric generating facilities — and yet there’s great degree of risk that they have to manage on the safety aspect of technology deployment.
………In the Philippines, the propounded revival of BNPP’s operations had been hurdled by concerns of ‘social acceptance’ in the many years that already passed; and there are also questions on where to source the US$1.0 billion to US$2.0 billion funding for BNPP’s rehabilitation.The other major issue is which entity shall be designated to operate the plant, since the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) already prohibits state-run National Power Corporation (NPC) from engaging into operation or investments in power generation…
|
|
November 7, 2020
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, Philippines, politics |
Leave a comment
Several U.S. utilities back out of deal to build novel nuclear power plant, Science, By Adrian Cho, Nov. 4, 2020 Plans to build an innovative new nuclear power plant—and thus revitalize the struggling U.S. nuclear industry—have taken a hit as in recent weeks: Eight of the 36 public utilities that had signed on to help build the plant have backed out of the deal. The withdrawals come just months after the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS), which intends to buy the plant containing 12 small modular reactors from NuScale Power, announced that completion of the project would be delayed by 3 years to 2030. It also estimates the cost would climb from $4.2 billion to $6.1 billion………. critics of the project say the developments underscore that the plant, which is designed by NuScale Power and would be built at the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Idaho National Laboratory, will be untenably expensive. M. V. Ramana, a physicist who works on public policy at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, says he’s not surprised that so many utilities have opted out of the project. The question, he says, is why so many are sticking with it. “They ought to be seeing the writing on the wall and getting out by the dozens,” he says. ………
if the NuScale plant doesn’t run constantly at full output, it will be less efficient and even more expensive to operate, in terms of cost per megawatt hour (MWh) of energy, Ramana argues. Peter Bradford, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and former chair of the state utility commissions in Maine and New York, says renewables coupled with short-term storage in batteries would likely be a cheaper means to even out the supply…….
in the 1980s, Washington Public Power Supply System agreed to build several nuclear reactors in Washington that ran far overbudget and were never completed, leading to the biggest default on municipal bonds in U.S. history. Public utilities are particularly vulnerable to such risks, Bradford says, as other than ratepayers they have few sources of revenue that could be used to cover cost overruns. “Not only are there no deep pockets, there are no pockets,” he says.
On 28 October, Heber Light & Power in Utah withdrew from the project, just 1 day after utilities in the Utah communities of Bountiful and Beaver pulled out. Still, even critics doubt the UAMPS deal will fall apart immediately. In August, the NuScale design passed a key milestone in the NRC review process, receiving its safety evaluation report, and observers expect final “design certification” to come next year. In the meantime, UAMPS is moving to complete an application to construct and operate the plant, Webb says. That application should be submitted in 2023, construction of the plant should start in 2025, he says.
Before construction can start, however, UAMPS still has to line up customers to buy the full 720-megawatt output of the plant, Webb says. So far, UAMPS members involved in the project have agreed to take only a relatively small fraction of that output. So UAMPS may have to convince plenty of other folks that it’s a good deal. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/11/several-us-utilities-back-out-deal-build-novel-nuclear-power-plant
|
|
November 5, 2020
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA |
Leave a comment
Exelon May Split Its Utilities From Nuclear, Generation BusinessExelon’s mulls a split for its generation business with two Illinois nuclear plants facing closure and others struggling. GTM, JEFF ST. JOHN NOVEMBER 04, 2020 Exelon Corp. confirmed Tuesday that it is exploring a plan to separate its multistate utilities businesses from its generation business, which is preparing to close two of its 21 nuclear power plants due to money-losing market conditions.CEO Chris Crane confirmed the “review of our corporate structure,” first reported to be underway by
Bloomberg last month, during the Chicago-based company’s
third-quarter earnings conference call. The move comes as Exelon is struggling with profitability at several of its nuclear plants, which face falling energy prices and challenging conditions in the capacity market run by mid-Atlantic grid operator PJM.
Exelon has secured zero-emissions credits for financially struggling nuclear plants in New York and New Jersey, two states seeking to eliminate their carbon emissions by midcentury, and has won similar credits as part of Illinois’ 2016 Future Energy Jobs Act that supply about $235 million per year in zero-emissions credits to its Clinton and Quad Cities nuclear plants.
But Exelon has not secured subsidies for four other Illinois nuclear power plants, including the Byron and Dresden facilities. In August it announced it will close those plants in 2021 and may also seek early retirement of its Braidwood and LaSalle power plants unless it can obtain state support to bolster their economics. ………
State support for zero-carbon nuclear scrambled by bribery scandal
Exelon had gathered support last year for a bill that would have created a new state capacity market structure to bolster its nuclear fleet’s revenues. This “Fixed Resource Requirement,” or FRR, structure would have pulled some plants out of
PJM’s capacity market, where they are likely to struggle to compete under
federally mandated rules that will force state-subsidized resources to adhere to minimum bids that could undermine their competitiveness against fossil-fueled power plants .
But the FRR plan contained in last year’s Clean Energy Jobs Act lost lawmaker support in the wake of Exelon utility ComEd’s connection to a federal bribery investigation alleging the utility steered jobs, contracts and payments to House Speaker Michael Madigan in exchange for favorable treatment in the state capitol. Exelon agreed to pay a $200 million fine and submit to a deferred prosecution agreement this summer.
Gov. Pritzker has so far rebuffed Exelon’s entreaties for state aid for its nuclear power plants, calling its August decision to close the Byron and Dresden plants a “threat.” Pritzker’s office has proposed a
clean energy plan laying out his preferred path for achieving the state’s decarbonization goals, after the Clean Energy Jobs Act and a rival clean energy bill, dubbed Path to 100, were unable to advance during this year’s legislative session, which was dominated by issues related to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
November 5, 2020
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, USA |
Leave a comment
Japan left with only one nuclear reactor working due to shutdown, Asahi Shimbun, By HIROKI HASHIMOTO/ Staff Writer, November 4, 2020
”……….. This is the first time since May 2017 that all nuclear reactors operated by Kansai Electric remain suspended.
Electric power companies are required to construct an anti-terrorism facility at their nuclear power plants under stringent new safety regulations imposed after the triple meltdown at the Fukushima plant.
But Kansai Electric failed to meet the deadline at the Takahama nuclear power plant in Takahama, Fukui Prefecture, forcing it to take its No. 3 and No. 4 reactors offline.
In addition, pipes need to be replaced at its Oi nuclear power plant’s No. 3 reactor.
Kansai Electric submitted repair plans to the government and expects to finish the work in January so it can restart the reactor in February at the earliest.
In January this year, the Hiroshima High Court granted a provisional disposition order to stop Shikoku Electric’s Ikata nuclear power plant’s No. 3 reactor in Ikata, Ehime Prefecture, which means it is unlikely to come back online until next March at the earliest.
Kyushu Electric’s Sendai nuclear power plant’s No. 1 and No. 2 reactors in Satsuma-Sendai, Kagoshima Prefecture, were also suspended after construction of an anti-terrorism facility fell behind schedule.
The Genkai nuclear power plant’s No. 3 reactor is undergoing regular inspections, so only the No. 4 reactor is still operating.
This situation is expected to continue until Dec. 22 when Kansai Electric plans to restart the No. 3 reactor at its Takahama nuclear power plant. http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13900336
November 5, 2020
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, Japan, safety |
Leave a comment
|
New Civil Engineer 4th Nov 2020 Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit head of analysis Jonathan Marshall has urged caution as the government looks increasingly likely to approve plans for the Sizewell C nuclear power station.
According to the BBC, talks between the government and Sizewell contractor EDF have “intensified in recent weeks”. However, Marshall emphasised that renewable energy solutions offer more flexibility than nuclear. “If you look at the amount of money involved in building nuclear power stations, it’s pretty easy to come up with something renewables-based that’s as firm and moreflexible,” he said. “There are not many people saying we should have loads of nuclear apart from the nuclear industry. There’s also the risk that by the time power stations are built the grid is running in a different way because they take so long to build.”
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/warning-against-sizewell-cs-value-for-money-as-nuclear-project-nears-green-light-04-11-2020/
|
|
November 5, 2020
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, UK |
Leave a comment
Serco shares crash as outsourcer loses role on nuclear weapons consortium, City A.M. Edward Thickness, 2 Nov 20,
Shares in Serco plummeted this morning after the outsourcing giant confirmed that the government had taken back management of its atomic weapons development facility.
Shares dropped nearly 12 per cent as markets opened as traders digested the news.
Yesterday Sky News reported that the government was due to announce that it would take over the running of the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) from next year.
AWE has been run by a consortium made up of US defence giant Lockheed Martin, Serco and Jacobs since 2000.
The contract was due to expire in 2025, so the government’s decision to renationalise the facility is a considerable blow to the FTSE 250 company.
Serco said that it was expecting to make £17m in profit from its 24.5 per cent stake in AWE this year. In its last full year results the firm reported profit of £120m.
However, it said that it would stick to its full year financial forecasts for 2020/21……..
November 3, 2020
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, UK, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
U.S. corporations profiting from major Canadian nuclear liability, https://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/views-
expressed/2020/10/us-corporations-profiting-major-canadian-nuclear-liability Ole Hendrickson, October 30, 2020
The nearly 70-year history of the federal crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) has left a $16 billion toxic legacy of shuttered reactors, polluted lakes and groundwater, contaminated soils, and hundreds of thousands of cubic metres of radioactive waste.
AECL’s 2018 annual report estimates its undiscounted waste and decommissioning liability at $15.9 billion as of March 31, 2018. Table 5.7 in Canada’s 2019 public accounts estimates AECL’s environmental liabilities at $1.05 billion and “asset retirement obligations” at $6.6 billion.
This $7.7 billion estimate of AECL’s total nuclear liability is heavily discounted. The accounting firm Deloitte does not recommend discounting for environmental liabilities and asset retirement obligations unless the amount of the liability and the amount and timing of cash payments are “reliably determinable.” As explained in a detailed report, neither is true for AECL’s liability.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper thought that the private sector might do a better job of addressing this massive liability than AECL itself. Just before losing power to the Liberals in the 2015 election, his government contracted an American-controlled consortium (creatively called the “Canadian National Energy Alliance”) to manage federal nuclear facilities and reduce the waste liability quickly and cheaply.
According to the main estimates, AECL’s expenditures grew from $326 million in 2014-15 (before the consortium assumed control) to $491 million in 2015-16, $784 million in 2016-17, $827 million in 2017-18 and $829 million in 2018-19. The 2020-21 main estimates for AECL are $1.2 billion.
AECL hands most of this money over to the consortium, whose current members are Texas-based Fluor and Jacobs, and SNC-Lavalin. AECL retains ownership of the waste. A 2017 special examination report of the Auditor General of Canada to AECL’s board of directors says that “approximately $866 million for contractual expenses was paid or payable by the Corporation in the 2016-17 fiscal year.”
Is this “Government-owned, contractor-operated” (GoCo) arrangement providing value for money?
The GoCo contract was supposed to have been reviewed after an initial six-year period. However, AECL — whose president is an American with past ties to consortium members — extended it to a full 10-year period in April 2020, 18 months before its September 2021 renewal date.
The centrepiece of the consortium’s approach — a million-cubic–metre radioactive waste mound on a hillside draining into the Ottawa River – was revealed in May 2016, shortly after the ink dried on the contract. Neither the public, nor Algonquin peoples on whose unceded territory this facility would be built, were consulted.
Technical problems and public opposition have put the “near surface disposal facility” — to be built at AECL’s Chalk River laboratories — years behind schedule. AECL waste management experts who left when the consortium took over have been highly critical, pointing out that an above-ground mound would not contain and isolate the types of radioactive waste that the consortium planned to put in it.
Chalk River, the focal point of Canadian nuclear research since the late 1940s, is where most of AECL’s radioactive waste legacy is found. But AECL also built reactors at four other sites in Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. All have been shut down for decades — radioactive hulks, yet to be fully decommissioned.
AECL and its American-led consortium have announced quick and cheap plans for Manitoba and Ontario reactors: fill them up with blast furnace slag and concrete, and abandon them in place. Critics say these proposals are seriously flawed, noting that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says that “entombment” should only be considered in the event of a serious reactor accident.
Critics say that these sub-standard schemes would pollute major Canadian waterways and could expose workers and future generations to dangerous radiation levels.
The consortium is trying to salvage its Chalk River mound proposal with a promise to reduce the amount of radiation in the wastes it would house. Less radiation would leak into the Ottawa River.
However, management practices during Chalk River’s early years were poor, accidents were frequent and records were lost in a fire. Trying to separate out lower-activity from higher-activity wastes would involve considerable expense and high worker radiation exposures. And if strict limits on the mound’s radioactivity were adhered to, much of the federal waste liability would likely remain unaddressed.
Management of Canada’s radioactive waste by for-profit corporations, combined with a lack of government oversight, creates risks of delays, excessive radiation exposures to workers and the public, and squandering of tax dollars. Critics of AECL’s GoCo contract are asking the federal government to establish a publicly acceptable strategy for addressing its nuclear liability.
In a mission to Canada in late 2019, IAEA reviewers found virtually “no evidence … of a governmental policy or strategy related to radioactive waste management.” The government agreed to their recommendation that this gap be filled, assigning the task to Natural Resources Canada.
But Natural Resources Minister Seamus O’Regan seems preoccupied with promotion of a new generation of mass-produced, “modular” nuclear reactors. Two consortium members — Fluor and SNC-Lavalin — are heavily invested in their own reactor designs. There are plans to build three new demonstration reactors at Chalk River, and talk of building as many as eight. One proposal has already reached the environmental assessment stage.
If the Liberal government caves into industry pressure to fund the building of these new reactors — instead of dealing responsibly with its existing waste liability — AECL’s $16 billion radioactive burden on Canadian taxpayers — and risks to workers and the public — will just keep growing.
Ole Hendrickson is a retired forest ecologist and a founding member of the Ottawa River Institute, a non-profit charitable organization based in the Ottawa Valley.
November 2, 2020
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, Canada, investigative journalism, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, wastes |
1 Comment
 Disarmament treaty drops bomb on super funds investing in nuclear weapons, Michael West Media , by Margaret Beavis | Nov 2, 2020 Many superannuation funds exclude investment in “controversial weapons” but astoundingly this definition  does not include nuclear weapons. However, this will change once the Nuclear Disarmament Treaty becomes international law, writes Dr Margaret Beavis. With two of the largest pension funds in the world already having divested, Australian funds are on notice.
It would probably come as a surprise, and a disappointment, to most Australians to hear that some of their superannuation is invested in nuclear weapons. Especially given the strong community backing for nuclear disarmament, with two surveys in 2018 and 2020 (IPSOS) showing that between 71 and 79% of respondents supported Australia signing and ratifying the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Yet the vast majority of superannuation funds have holdings in companies involved in the manufacture and maintenance of nuclear weapons. While many funds exclude investments in “controversial weapons”, astoundingly this definition often still allows nuclear weapons investment.
But this is about to change. With the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which was endorsed by 122 countries at the United Nations in 2017, having just reached the milestone of 50 countries ratifying it, the treaty becomes international law in less than three months. Nuclear weapons, the worst of the weapons of mass destruction, will finally be on the same illegal footing as chemical and biological weapons.
This means assistance of any sort, including financial assistance, towards nuclear weapons becomes illegal under international law.
Only 26 companies support these weapons. Boeing, for example, the second largest weapons producer in the world, has contracts worth more than US$1.7 billion: building new nuclear weapons for the US, key components for the long-range nuclear Minuteman Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles system, sustaining the UK Trident II system and making tail-kit assemblies for the new B61 bombs.
Divestment is accelerating. Globally, major investors are already ceasing their exposure to nuclear weapons activities. This includes two of the top five pension funds in the world, the Norwegian Government Pension Fund and ABP, which have divested from the 26 companies tied to nuclear weapons. Deutsche Bank and KBC are also divesting.
In Japan, 16 banks (including three mega banks) have flagged ceasing investment in nuclear weapons companies. With accelerating divestment, the risks of holding nuclear weapons stocks increases.
Superannuation funds in Australia are starting to consider the financial risks, reputational risks and ethical imperatives surrounding investments in nuclear weapons.
Some, like Australian Ethical, Future Super and Bank Australia have already acted………
As with climate change, there is little point accumulating funds on behalf of the community if they contribute to the deaths of billions and a severely damaged future.
Quit Nukes, an Australian-based campaign launched late last year, is working to get super fund portfolios out of the financing of nuclear weapons. The campaign members have met with senior executives at more than a dozen funds, the regulator APRA, several banks, index setters and a number of industry bodies.
Blackrock, MSCI and other index setters have recognised the increasing demand from the public for ethical funds and have created products to suit.
The full list of funds that have already acted is on the Quit Nukes website.
Consumers are increasingly concerned about their funds being invested in destructive and unethical industries and super funds need to respond. https://www.michaelwest.com.au/disarmament-treaty-drops-bomb-on-super-funds-investing-in-nuclear-weapons/
|
|
|
November 2, 2020
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA, business and costs, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
nuclear-news 