nuclear-news

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

The frenzy to promote small nuclear reactors – shown in Google news headline articles today when you search ”nuclear”

Google nuclear headlines today pointed to 96 articles on nuclear issues

By far the topic most covered most was the ”need” for new generation nuclear reactors for energy. –    24 articles in all,  mostly enthusing about small nuclear reactors.   Several of these involved  the marketing of USA reactors to other countries.

The next most popular pro nuclear topic was nuclear  fusion . (7 articles.) Other prominent pro nuclear themes were claims on safety, and action on climate. There were 50 pro nuclear articles in all.

There were 21 anti-nuclear articles. A few denied the claims on nuclear safety, and action on climate. Others dealt with the Fukushima nuclear waste water to be released into the Pacific ocean, with questions on nuclear economics.

There were 13 articles that didn’t ‘take sides’ –  basically  factual articles about nuclear wastes, safety, and international politics.

On the subject of nuclear weapons all of the articles opposed them, although one could be interpreted as suggesting that there’s a need to counteract China’s developments.

October 19, 2020 Posted by | 2 WORLD, marketing | Leave a comment

South Africa the first sucker to get American experimental nuclear reactor + $billions in bribes?

October 19, 2020 Posted by | marketing, South Africa, technology, USA | Leave a comment

International Monetary Fund recommends a carbon price, for the economy as well as for the climate

Observer 18th Oct 2020, In its latest world economic outlook, the IMF revealed that acting on
climate change will actually help us deal with the recession. Acting on
climate change boosts growth in the short term and massively prevents
economic destruction later.
The outlook noted that at the current rate,
global temperatures will increase “well above the safe levels agreed to
in the Paris agreement, raising the risk of catastrophic damage for the
planet.” the IMF report is not all doom and gloom – it actually
proposes a way out – a carbon price.
We need a price on carbon, and we
need massive investment. Together they can prevent catastrophic climate
change while also getting us out of a recession. Win-win. And no political
party has any excuse not to act.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/commentisfree/2020/oct/18/acting-climate-change-can-get-us-out-of-recession-there-are-no-excuses-left

October 19, 2020 Posted by | 2 WORLD, business and costs, climate change | Leave a comment

USA marketing NuScam small nuclear reactors to Africa

 

US to support new nuclear power project in South Africa  https://businesstech.co.za/news/energy/441510/us-to-support-new-nuclear-power-project-in-south-africa/, Bloomberg17 October 2020  The United States International Development Finance Corp. pledged to support NuScale Power LLC, a US nuclear energy technology firm, to develop 2,500 megawatts of power in South Africa.

South Africa’s government drafted an economic recovery plan in conjunction with business and labour groups several months ago in a bargaining forum known as the National Economic Development and Labour Council, in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.A version of the strategy that was discussed by the cabinet this week, and seen by Bloomberg, includes suggestions to secure reliable energy supply through the construction of new nuclear plants.

The draft envisages R23 billion  ($1.4 billion) being allocated to galvanize private investment in infrastructure and R4.5 billion being spent on public transport over the next 12 months, but provides scant detail on where the money will come from.

The DFC, which ended its prohibition on supporting nuclear power in July, signed a letter of intent to support NuScale’s bid for South Africa’s independent power producer program, the development bank said in an emailed statement on Friday.

“If successful, NuScale would be the first US nuclear energy IPP on the continent and would help support energy resilience and security in one of Africa’s leading economies,” the DFC said.

October 19, 2020 Posted by | AFRICA, marketing, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

800-meter-long seawall being constructed, as Japan plans to reopen damaged Onagawa nuclear complex

October 15, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, Japan, politics | Leave a comment

USA to market nuclear reactor to Bulgaria

October 15, 2020 Posted by | Bulgaria, marketing, USA | Leave a comment

Struggling Japanese towns look to nuclear waste storing and the money associated

October 13, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, Japan, politics, wastes | Leave a comment

Big doubts about the economics of small nuclear reactors for the UK

FT 11th Oct 2020, The big challenge facing small nuclear reactors. When Britain unveiled its
first commercial nuclear reactor back in 1956, Calder Hall in Cumbria had
the ability to generate 50 megawatts of electricity. Fast-forward four
decades to the last reactor the UK completed, at Sizewell in Suffolk. Still
functioning, it has a capacity of 1,200MW. Spot the theme? Yup, ever bigger
reactors.

Size has steadily increased because of simple nuclear economics.
Sizewell B may be able to generate 24 times as much power as a 50MW
reactor. But it doesn’t need 24 times the material inputs and staffing to
generate that extra power. Which all makes it seem faintly
counter-intuitive that Britain is considering downsizing and spending money
on a fleet of so-called small modular reactors.

The government is considering plans to put up to £2bn into developing the technology. A
number of companies, including Britain’s Rolls-Royce and GE Hitachi, are
pitching to sell their products. The aim is to fund prototypes with a view
to kick-starting a new SMR industry.

This would build perhaps dozens of
mini-reactors to [supposedly] help the UK meet its net zero emissions target while also
keeping the lights on, as well as exporting this technically advanced kit.

Large nuclear hasn’t exactly a spotless record when it comes to cost
containment. So why make it harder by forgoing those scale advantages?

Research by a team led by Tony Roulstone at Cambridge university looked at
the relative costs of building a “first of a series” SMR against a
comparable large reactor. It concluded that if you used the same project
techniques as for conventional plants, the SMR would cost (once the
interest costs incurred in construction were taken into account) roughly 70
per cent more per kilowatt (kW) to build than the larger one.

Squeezing that cost back down requires a wholly different approach to construction.
Instead of building everything in the open on a massive building site, as
with large reactors, it means making as much as possible in factories
before shipment to site. The same Cambridge team estimated that with ever
more prefabrication and standardisation of parts, you could ultimately
squeeze the cost down roughly to parity with the larger reactor.

A glance at the history of overruns and delays that plagued the Advanced Gas-cooled
Reactor project in the 1960s should suffice as a reminder. For SMRs to
avoid a similar miserable fate, the government must pick a single
commercial technology which can bring in sufficient private sector
investment and attract export orders. This cannot be some “made in
Britain” industrial exercise. If that’s what’s in prospect, then,
honestly, big is probably best.

https://www.ft.com/content/99307126-bb21-48e3-87aa-301749dec870

October 12, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

Will the UK government sacrifice the beautiful Suffolk coast in its misguided, uneconomic, Sizewell nuclear power push?

East Anglian Daily Times 8th Oct 2020, As councils lose patience with EDF, will Suffolk businesses follow suit?
Today East Suffolk lies at a crossroads – the future of the east of the county now seems certain to rest in the hands of London-based civil servants and ministers – and to be honest I don’t know which way they will jump when push comes to shove. The deadline has now passed for councils, businesses, and residents to have their say on whether a two new nuclear reactors should be built on the Suffolk coast at Eastbridge, north of the existing stations at Sizewell.
Logic says they should be turned down. They would be uneconomic (EDF has had the devil’s own job in putting together a business case and there is still the question over whether Chinese money would be needed – even though we don’t want them in our mobile phone network), the plans proposed would destroy a lot ofcountryside, and there is now no need for such a damaging blot on the
landscape. But I do worry that there are some in government who do not understand the value of this area to the country as a whole who will be prepared to look on Sizewell C as a shiny investment to try to kick-start the UK economy after the pandemic and in a world no longer governed by EU rules, will pour in government subsidies to make up for the loss of Chinese money.

https://www.eadt.co.uk/ea-life/last-chance-to-stop-sizewell-c-1-6871419?s=09

BBC 8th Oct 2020, Campaigners against a new nuclear power station say they are “resolute”
after their bid to protect woodland was thrown out by the High Court. EDF
Energy, which wants to build two new reactors next to Sizewell B in
Suffolk, was given approval in 2019 to fell Coronation Wood on the site.
Together Against Sizewell C (Tasc) sought a judicial review, claiming that
decision was unlawful.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-54465228

October 10, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, environment, politics, UK | Leave a comment

USA trying to beat China, in marketing nuclear reactors to Romania

Romania, U.S. to sign cooperation agreements over nuclear reactors, By Reuters Staff, 9 Oct 20, BUCHAREST (Reuters) – Romania’s economy ministry will sign cooperation and financing agreements with the United States

on Friday regarding the construction of two nuclear reactors at its plant on the river Danube, U.S. ambassador Adrian Zuckerman
said on Thursday………
“The financing package is the largest financing package ever received by Romania to date,.
China’s CGN filed a non-binding bid to partner with Romania in the project in 2014, but the negotiations, which included price guarantees, had progressed only very slowly. ……..

October 10, 2020 Posted by | EUROPE, marketing, USA | Leave a comment

The very costly effort of trying to resuscitate the dying nuclear industry

Nuclear Energy — The High Cost Of A Dying Industry, Clean Technica, October 6th, 2020 by Johnna Crider 

Nuclear energy has had a seriously rough year. In an article by OilPrice.com, the author asked a question: “Why is nuclear energy so expensive?” One answer, besides the obvious 2020 curse that was activated when Egyptian authorities opened up 30 ancient wooden coffins in 2019, is that other sources have just gotten much cheaper while nuclear hasn’t……….

As we know, in 2020, the coronavirus pandemic shut down US energy demand, and this added nuclear energy to a long list of energy industries that are begging for taxpayer money — well, in the case of nuclear, even more taxpayer money. And the Trump administration came through for this dying and expensive industry. Back in June, the Department of Energy announced that it would award more than $65 million in nuclear energy research. This would cross-cut technology development, facility access, and infrastructure awards.

PowerTechnology reported that these awards would be for these departments’ nuclear energy programs:

  • The Nuclear Energy University Programme
  • Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies
  • Nuclear Science User Facilities.

That $65 million will also be poured into 93 advanced nuclear technology projects in 28 states. And the Office of Nuclear Energy, which is part of the US Department of Energy (DOE), has spent more than $800 million on research since 2009. OilPrice noted that the $65 million would probably be “too little, too late for domestic nuclear energy.” CleanTechnica‘s perspective is that nuclear has been long dead and we’re just waiting for the green leaves of the tree (existing power plans) to turn brown (close down). New nuclear is financially hopeless, many times more expensive than renewable energy options even with energy storage costs included.

Global State Of Nuclear Energy

At the end of last month, the World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR2020) was published and assessed major challenges that nuclear power is facing today. The news isn’t pretty. Mycle Schneider, who coordinated the report, explained that nuclear energy is irrelevant in today’s market. “Nuclear energy has become irrelevant in the electricity generating technology market.”

Antony Froggat, who co-authored the report and is a Senior Research Fellow at Chatham House in London, said, “At the same time, COVID-19 puts additional stress on the sector. In economic terms, renewables continue to pull away from nuclear power, over the past decade the cost estimates for utility-scale solar dropped by 89 percent, wind by 70 percent, while nuclear increased by 26 percent.”

The report shows just how hard the pandemic impacted nuclear energy and also pointed out that this was the first pandemic of this scale in the history of nuclear power. In the US, operators were granted permission to impose extremely long work hours. Some were working 16 hours a day and 86 hours a week. (That was my old shift at Goodwill last year and typically the shift of many who work minimum wage jobs — often more than one if they hold part-time positions. It’s not fun.)

Also in the US, force-on-force exercises were suspended. These are simulated terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants that use a mock adversary force to replicate design basis threat characteristics during an attack. These are supposed to help assess and improve readiness in case of an actual terrorist attack on a nuclear reactor.

In Russia and Sweden, control room staff were made to isolate in housing that was located onsite. They lived at their jobs. In Russia, one national operation reported weekly on infections among the nuclear staff. In July, there were a total of 4,500 cases.

Technology Costs

The report compared the costs of solar, onshore wind, and nuclear. The report looked at analyses for the US conducted by Lazard at the end of 2019, which advises on financial matters while managing investment portfolios. This is what they found out in a nutshell:

  • Solar PV (crystalline, utility-scale) averaged $40/MWh, compared to $65/MWh in 2015.
  • Onshore wind was $41/MWh, compared to $55/MWh in 2015.
  • Nuclear is $155/MWh, compared to $117/MWh in 2015.

The report points out that over the past 5 years, the annual Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) for nuclear has risen by over 50%. In stark contrast, renewables have become the most inexpensive of any type of power generation. “What is remarkable about these trends is that the costs of renewables continue to fall due to incremental manufacturing and installation improvements, while nuclear, despite over half a century of industrial experience, continue to see costs rising. Nuclear power is now the most expensive form of generation, except for gas peaking plants.”

The report also states that even though Trump’s White House supports nuclear power and coal, both have not thrived at all under his presidency. This is due, the report says, to renewables being cheaper and basic economics. Lazard also assessed that the costs of renewables continue to fall. You can learn more about the nuclear report here.

Whether it’s the curse of 2020 or humans are slowly evolving, we are phasing out of the old and phasing in the new. In the case of energy, it’s renewables, which will benefit not only our planet but the health and well-being of people all across the globe. For now, though, it seems that taxpayers will continue footing nuclear’s expensive high maintenance bills.   https://cleantechnica.com/2020/10/06/nuclear-energy-the-high-cost-of-a-dying-industry/

October 8, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Design not even finished! But UK govt to subsidise Small Nuclear Reactors (SMRs)

The plan is for 16 of them –  at ? £2bn each?   


FT 7th Oct 2020, Downing St considers £2bn support for mini nuclear reactors

Consortium wants to build up to 16 generators .  Downing Street is supporting plans to spend up to £2bn of taxpayers’ money on a
new generation of mini nuclear reactors. Consortium wants to build up to 16 generators to help UK meet carbon emissions targets. The first SMR is expected to cost £2.2bn and be online by 2029.

Government and industry figures confirmed that a pledge of £1.5bn-£2bn is being discussed which could even see taxpayers acquire an equity stake in the programme.

However, discussions are still ongoing and any final decision will be subject to the Treasury’s current multiyear spending review, which is due later this year. The government could also commission the first mini power station, giving confidence to suppliers and investors. The consortium, which also includes the National Nuclear Laboratory, will seek additional funding of at least £2bn, including from private investors and the capital markets.

Support for SMR technology is expected to form part of Boris Johnson’s “10-point plan for a green industrial revolution” which he will set out later in the autumn. …….. Under the plans being considered by Number 10, the small
modular reactors would be manufactured on production lines in central plants and then transported to sites for assembly. Each mini power station would operate for up to 60 years, providing 440MW of electricity per year — enough to power a city the size of Leeds.

The government’s support “should deliver sufficient cash to get the consortium through building
factories and well on the way to construction of power stations prior to finding more money from other sources,” said one person with knowledge of the situation.

The consortium is expected to finalise the SMR design by April next year, when it hopes to launch the four-year licensing process.
During that time it hopes to begin recruiting employees for the business, and identifying the sites for powers stations and the factories to build the components and modules for the SMRs. The business department hasalready pledged £18m towards the consortium’s early-stage plans.

https://www.ft.com/content/d7016b80-e0c4-4444-a059-2daf32b9a4ab

October 8, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, politics, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

Ohio nuclear reactors expect tax-payer subsidy, they’re making a profit anyway !

Nuclear plants at center of Ohio subsidy fight operating above wholesale prices, S and P Global,Darren Sweeney, Gaurang Dholakia  5 Oct 20, 

As the owner of two Ohio nuclear plants is pressed to open its books on the profitability of the units, the timing of subsidies at the center of a federal criminal investigation may be a larger issue.

An S&P Global Market Intelligence analysis shows Energy Harbor Corp.’s 908-MW Davis-Besse and 1,268-MW Perry nuclear plants, both in northern Ohio, have operating costs higher than wholesale electricity prices. A mid-2019 analysis showed the plants with operating costs running below wholesale electricity prices.

The most recent analysis shows wholesale prices in the PJM Interconnection rising through the end of 2020 and into 2021, which is when Ohio’s clean air credit for nuclear plants kicks in.

House Bill 6, which establishes a $9/MWh credit for clean air resources, provides $150 million in annual financial support for the Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear units beginning Jan. 1, 2021, through Dec. 31, 2027…………

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has reportedly told state lawmakers to bring Energy Harbor and FirstEnergy Corp. officials before legislative committees to disclose whether the nuclear plants need the subsidies.

In addition, Yost on Sept. 23 filed a civil lawsuit to halt the collection of ratepayer-backed subsidies for the state’s nuclear plants.

The lawsuit and legislative hearings come after federal prosecutors in July filed bribery charges against former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder and four associates. They have been indicted and accused of using “more than $59 million” through a “slush fund” to steer H.B. 6 through the Ohio Legislature. An affidavit filed by an FBI special agent implies that FirstEnergy and affiliated entities, though not mentioned by name, wired funds through a 501(c)(4) nonprofit group called Generation Now to support H.B. 6 and combat a statewide referendum to repeal the law.

Former FirstEnergy subsidiary FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. emerged from bankruptcy in late February as Energy Harbor. https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/nuclear-plants-at-center-of-ohio-subsidy-fight-operating-above-wholesale-prices-60569193

October 6, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Cost and safety dangers should rule out nuclear power for the Philippines

Going nuclear, (The Philippine Star ) – October 3, 2020,  As if the country didn’t have enough disasters, certain quarters still haven’t given up on harnessing nuclear power for electricity. The idea is to revive the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, built during the Marcos dictatorship. The BNPP was mothballed after the 1986 people power revolt because of a corruption scandal and safety concerns arising from the fact that it sits on an earthquake fault connected to the dormant Mount Natib volcano in Bataan.

A report this year placed the cost of reviving the BNPP, as estimated by a foreign group, at $3 billion to $4 billion. Reviving it will go against a trend in other countries to reduce nuclear power in their energy mix, because of safety concerns in the power plants as well as the risks posed by nuclear waste, which remains radioactive and cannot be destroyed or recycled……..

Like Japan, the Philippines sits along the Pacific Ring of Fire. Before the start of this year’s pandemic, Taal Volcano’s powerful phreatic explosion emptied surrounding communities, displaced thousands and blanketed towns and cities all the way to Metro Manila with toxic, suffocating ash. Earthquakes and aftershocks continue to be recorded in Taal, with seismologists warning of the possibility of a cataclysmic eruption.

If the BNPP is revived, at great cost to a cash-strapped government, what happens if Mount Natib also acts up, or if an earthquake hits Bataan? If all the proponents of nuclear energy will live together with their immediate families near the BNPP – and not just for show, buying a house nearby while the kids live in an exclusive village far from harm’s way – then by all means, go ahead with the project. https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2020/10/03/2046802/editorial-going-nuclear

October 3, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, Philippines, politics, safety | Leave a comment

Nano diamond batteries from nuclear waste? Impractical and not likely to ever happen

Arkenlight “surprised” by NDB’s grand nuclear diamond battery claims, New Atlas By Loz Blain, September 30, 2020  Totally safe, self-charging batteries that generate power for thousands of years … It’s an exciting thought, and when we wrote about California’s NDB in August, the story generated all kinds of feedback. A lot of people felt some of NDB’s claims were outrageously false, contravening the laws of physics and vastly overstating the capabilities of a device that was already well understood.

To briefly recap, the device in question is what NDB calls the nano diamond battery. This is also known as the nuclear diamond battery, a technology first developed at the University of Bristol. The concept is this: you take particular types of nuclear waste from nuclear power stations – specifically parts of the graphite moderators and reflectors that have been exposed to fuel rod radiation and that have themselves become radioactive in the form of carbon-14. ………
The claims that caused the uproar were around the technology’s utility in consumer devices. NDB representatives told us in an interview that if the company made one of these cells the same size as an iPhone battery, “it would charge your battery from zero to full, five times an hour,” for decades. They said they could replace the battery in a Tesla electric car with something slightly more powerful that’d last some 90 years without ever needing a charge, and would come in cheaper than a standard Tesla battery……..
Commenters – and indeed YouTube debunkers – called us out for publishing these claims, saying that carbon-14 simply can’t produce energy fast enough to be useful in a device that requires sustained high power draws. The diamond part of the battery would charge up the supercapacitor so slowly, they pointed out, that either you’d need a much, much larger quantity of it, or you’d need to find applications that give the supercapacitor a long time to charge itself up between high-power discharges. The idea of using one in a phone or a car, they said, was laughable.

IWe ended up having a very informative chat with Morgan Boardman, an Industrial Fellow and Strategic Advisory Consultant with the Aspire Diamond Group at the South West Nuclear Hub of the University of Bristol.

He is also – and this is much less of a tongue twister – the CEO of a new company called Arkenlight, which has been created to commercialize the Bristol team’s diamond battery technologies, among other radioisotope-driven power sources.

In short, Boardman broadly agreed with the position that these “betabatteries” produce power far too slowly to replace the cells in your iPhone or Tesla; yes, you could build a betabattery for a phone or a vehicle, but only if you’re prepared to have the battery be several times the size of the device it’s powering.

What’s more, he pointed out that the University of Bristol took out patents covering all devices that embed radioisotopes in diamond structures, and that Arkenlight now holds those patents. So if NDB is talking about using the same kind of nuclear diamond technology – which it sure sounds like it is – it could have some licensing issues ahead of it.

So it seems it’s time to pump the brakes on some of NDB’s more exciting claims  ……….. https://newatlas.com/energy/arkenlight-nuclear-diamond-batteries/

October 3, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, Reference, technology, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »