Pandemic adds to delays and costs of Hinkley Point C nuclear project
|
Hinkley Point C nuclear power station cost rises by £500m, French group EDF warns pandemic delays will push back estimated start-up date to 2026 Ft.com, 27 Jan 21,
France’s EDF has again revised up the expected cost of Hinkley Point C, the nuclear power station under construction in south-west England, warning that delays arising from the pandemic will add about £500m and push back the station’s estimated start-up date to 2026.
The group, which is financing the construction of the plant along with its junior partner CGN of China, said it expected the project in Somerset to cost up to £23bn compared with a 2019 estimate of a maximum of £22.5bn. EDF quotes costs in 2015 prices in order to maintain consistency for the markets but the real bill is likely to be higher after accounting for inflation. …….https://www.ft.com/content/fbc43de5-d3ae-49fd-9f5f-9e84f1db508d
|
|
EDF collapses on the stock market amid difficult negotiations in Brussels.
Le Monde 25th Jan 2021, EDF collapses on the stock market amid difficult negotiations in Brussels.
The French group is engaged in a vast reorganization project, contested by the company’s unions. EDF is the largest nuclear operator in Europe and one of the main electricity producers in the world, but a few lines were enough to make its value skid on the stock market on Monday January 25.
In an article published on the BFM Business website on Monday morning, the channel said that negotiations between Paris and Brussels on one of the key points of the French nuclear reform are failing. In a few minutes, the group’s action collapsed and lost up to 18% in the afternoon to close at -15%.
A day of tumbling stopped at the last minute by an intervention from Bercy, who did everything to deny the failure of the negotiations. To understand this dark day for the company, we must return to the very subject of negotiations. For months, France has been pleading with the
European Commission for a reform of the complex system which requires EDF to resell part of its production to its competitors. Set up in 2011, this mechanism called “regulated access to historic nuclear electricity” (Arenh) forces the energy company to resell a quarter of its nuclear
production at a fixed price – this tariff is set at 42 euros per megawatt hour.
Tokyo High Court holds TEPCO responsible for Fukushima nuclear crisis
No wonder that the global nuclear industry is hellbent on nationalising itself – so that the taxpayer is responsible. Nobody will want to invest in private nuclear companies after this.
High court denies government responsibility for Fukushima nuclear crisis, Japan Times, 22 Jan 21, The Tokyo High Court on Thursday ordered the operator of the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant to pay damages to evacuated residents, but it overturned an earlier ruling by Maebashi District Court that had also acknowledged the central government’s responsibility over the 2011 nuclear crisis.
Among around 30 such lawsuits across the country, the decision of the Tokyo High Court was the first high court ruling absolving the state of responsibility, contradicting an earlier decision of the Sendai High Court in September that ordered both the state and Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc. to pay damages.
The government’s failure to instruct Tepco to take measures against tsunamis “is not found to be significantly unreasonable,” Presiding Judge Akira Adachi said in handing down the ruling.
The lawsuit focused on the reliability of an official long-term quake assessment made in 2002, which has been used in previous rulings to determine the liability of the state and Tepco for their failure to prevent the nuclear disaster.
Adachi noted the assessment had caused a debate since its release, and that the government was unable to predict a huge tsunami.
Implementing measures such as constructing seawalls would not have prevented the tide from entering the nuclear plant, he added.
Thursday’s ruling instead ordered Tepco to pay a total ¥119.72 million to 90 plaintiffs, more than triple the amount awarded in the lower court ruling. ………..https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/01/21/national/crime-legal/government-denies-fukushima-responsibility/
Local governments in Japan growing more reliant on nuclear taxes
|
Local governments growing more reliant on nuclear taxes, THE ASAHI SHIMBUN, by Hideki Muroya and Takuho Shiraki.January 20, 2021 Local governments are increasingly depending on tax revenues from the nuclear plants they host, a relationship that has deepened over the 10 years since the Fukushima nuclear disaster, an analysis by The Asahi Shimbun shows.That follows the introduction of new tax regimes that ensure a steady flow of nuclear-related tax yields–even when reactors are idle or in the process of being decommissioned. They were brought about largely through increasing existing taxes on nuclear fuels and levying new taxes on spent nuclear fuels kept at the plants.
In fiscal 2011, right after the triple meltdown at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, jurisdictions home to nuclear plants and related facilities yielded some 20.1 billion yen ($193.7 million) in taxes. The bulk of that came from taxes on nuclear fuel; many local governments only began collecting spent fuel taxes years after the accident. But then the figure more than doubled to an estimated 46.7 billion yen in fiscal 2020, ending in March, despite the nuclear plants being offline. The Asahi Shimbun studied nuclear-related tax revenues received by host municipalities and the 13 prefectures where those municipalities are located. Local governments can impose taxes on nuclear fuel and spent nuclear fuel at plants and related facilities through approving ordinances to do so. Of all the jurisdictions examined, Aomori Prefecture, where nuclear fuel cycle facilities are concentrated, and Fukui Prefecture, which hosts 15 reactors, the most in Japan, account for more than 60 percent earned through those taxes. The amount for fiscal 2020 is larger than the 40.3 billion yen brought in during fiscal 2010, when the plants were operating. Nuclear fuel taxes were originally based on the value of reactor fuel. As a result, six prefectures housing nuclear plants reported no tax revenues from nuclear fuel taxes in fiscal 2011. Desperate to secure income sources even during plant closures, Fukui Prefecture introduced in autumn 2011 a new fuel-tax system based on reactor output capacity–meaning the reactors can be taxed even when shut down. Other jurisdictions home to nuclear plants followed suit. ….. http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14121969 |
|
|
Another bit of boring nuclear propaganda – from Morocco this time
A straight handout from the nuclear lobby? Of course! Not a word about the costs. Not a word
Christina Macpherson’s websites & blogs
about safety, environmental issues. Not a word about the problem of radioactive trash produced. And, of course – no mention that medical radioisotopes can now be made safely and efficiently in non nuclear cyclotrons
Morocco, Hungary Sign Agreement On Nuclear Energy Cooperation. The agreement boosts bilateral cooperation in scientific and academic research. By Sanae Alouazen, Jan 20, 2021 Rabat- Morocco’s National Center for Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (CNESTEN) and the Hungarian Center for Energy Research signed a cooperation agreement on Tuesday. The agreement aims to strengthen cooperation between the two research centers in the field of nuclear energy……. https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2021/01/332545/morocco-hungary-sign-agreement-on-nuclear-energy-cooperation/
“They’ll be able to dream up some bogus price” – UK nuclear proponents want financing system
|
UK needs new finance model for nuclear – experts, Montel News , KELLY PAUL, London 18 Jan 2021
The UK must adopt a regulated asset base model (RAB) to kickstart investment in nuclear development, or risk the country missing its target to be net zero by 2050, proponents of the financing mechanism say.
A RAB model for financing could attract pension funds, insurance firms, sovereign wealth funds and infrastructure asset managers to shore up French utility EDF’s funds and carry a new nuclear project through to completion, industry experts told Montel. The UK’s plans to build new nuclear infrastructure in the country have stalled against a backdrop of political reticence to commit, spiralling costs associated with Hinkley Point C, which EDF is building, and the steady retreat of potential investors. …… Under RAB, an economic regulator would grant a licence to a company to charge a regulated price to users in exchange for the provision of infrastructure, in this case a nuclear reactor. …….
The UK government recently confirmed it has entered into negotiations with EDF on the Sizewell C reactor in Suffolk and has pledged to reach an investment decision on at least one nuclear power station by the end of the current parliament. High cost EDF itself signalled that the cost for the Hinkley C reactor would be between GBP 21.5 billion and GBP 22.5 billion, a rise of between GBP 1.9 billion and GBP 2.9 billion as compared with previous estimates. In France, meanwhile, the operator’s Flamanville reactor is running 11 years behind schedule and EDF’s estimated cost of completion has spiralled to EUR 12.4bn, up from its original estimate of EUR 3.3bn.
Blank cheque Detractors of the RAB model have dismissed the mechanism as a “blank cheque” for UK consumers to sign, while others called into question the price competitiveness of new nuclear given the falling cost of renewables. Critics maintain that by guaranteeing a significant source of capital ahead of the expensive construction phase, as RAB does, consumers are essentially being asked to pay for a reactor when they have no way of assessing how costly it will be, or if any of the delays that have marred Hinkley could occur again. At the government’s recent consultation on the RAB model, specific figures relating to financing were not discussed. “They’ll be able to dream up some bogus price,” said Stephen Thomas, emeritus professor of energy policy at the University of Greenwich. https://www.montelnews.com/en/story/uk-needs-new-finance-model-for-nuclear-experts/1187367 |
|
The hidden costs of France’s old, past-their-use-by-date nuclear reactors
Ian Fairlie’s Blog 16th Jan 2021, In early 2019, four French EDF scientists wrote a 22 page report on load following in French nuclear reactors. The English version was first published on April 1 2020 but this has only recently been brought to my attention (ie mid Jan 2021).
This report is instructive and worrying, and requires careful reading. In essence, it discusses how French nuclear engineers have managed to retrofit and configure France’s reactors so that they can follow the diurnal loads increasingly required by France’s electricity needs.
It should be borne in mind that EDF’s 58 nuclear reactors are very old and past their sell-by dates. Most are between 30 and 40 years old with an average age of 33 years in 2018.
Some background is necessary to explain why this report was written. French reactors have been
operating since the 1980s. Since their gross output has usually exceeded French domestic requirements, especially at night, much is exported to France’s neighbours i.e. UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Spain.
Large amounts were until recently also sent to large pumped storage schemes in Switzerland at night. These transfers have been at a considerable financial loss to EDF and the French Treasury as the prices for such supplies are understood to be low. In addition, during the day, France imports significant amounts of electricity- mainly from the renewables in Germany.
https://www.ianfairlie.org/news/french-report-nuclear-power-plant-flexibility-at-edf/
Profound questions raised by the employment tribunal case; bullying at Sellafield nuclear site?
Byline Times 15th Jan 2021, An employment tribunal case that has been running for more than two yearshas started to raise profound questions over management at Europe’s
largest nuclear reprocessing plant, the ability of the employment tribunal
system to defend the rights of whistleblowers, ethical conduct by major law firms, and a conflict of interest at the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
The case of McDermott versus Sellafield, the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority and former Sellafield HR director Heather Roberts
has been brought under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 – also
known as the Whistleblowers’ Act. Alison McDermott, an HR professional
and diversity specialist, claims that the sudden termination of her
freelance contract in October 2018 by Sellafield was linked to her
protected disclosures containing evidence of systemic bullying, and racist
and sexist incidents at the Sellafield site in Cumbria.
Wall St is growing wary of Southern Co.’s promises to carry out Vogtle nuclear project economically
Wall Street braces for further delays, cost overruns at Vogtle nuke project, S and P Global, Darren Sweeney, 15 Jan 21,
| Wall Street is growing wary of Southern Co.’s promise to meet the regulatory approved in-service dates for the new Alvin W. Vogtle nuclear reactors in Georgia.
Southern subsidiary Georgia Power Co. has announced plans to “adjust key milestones” on the construction of Unit 3 at the nuclear plant expansion in response to an increase in COVID-19 cases. “Since October, the site has seen a significant increase in COVID-19 cases, consistent with the broader regional and national rise in cases,” Georgia Power said in a Jan. 11 news release. “This increase, combined with other productivity challenges, continues to impact construction production and the pace of testing activity completion.”……. Mizuho Securities USA LLC said it anticipates a seven-month delay from the Georgia Public Service Commission’s approved in-service dates for the units and a “$2.0 billion total project cost overrun.” “While the company continues to target a regulatory in-service date of November 2021 for Unit 3, they are running short of time in the calendar,” Mizuho analyst Paul Fremont wrote in a Jan. 13 research report. “For prior nuclear projects, it has taken roughly one year between the start of hot functional testing … to commercial operation of the plant. Based on these standards, Georgia Power’s previous schedule of beginning [hot functional testing] in January 2021 and commercial operation in November 2021 already looked aggressive.” Prior to Georgia Power’s update, Scotia Capital (USA) Inc. analyst Andrew Weisel noted that the Vogtle project “brings one-of-a-kind execution risks” for Southern. ….. “The company does not mention construction cost revisions in its press release, but we believe that the inability to meet production goals will likely result in an increase in the cost estimate to complete the project,” Fremont wrote. The analyst said he anticipates Southern will announce additional construction costs and update the schedule during a February earnings call. The independent Vogtle Monitoring Group said in a June 2020 filing with the Georgia PSC that Georgia Power and Southern Nuclear were “highly unlikely” to meet the regulatory approved in-service dates for Vogtle units 3 and 4………….. https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/blog/q3-us-solar-and-wind-power-by-the-numbers |
As Britain’s plan for Wyfla nuclear project founders, it’s time to start a green revolution
PAWB 11th Jan 2021, On the last day of troubled 2020, the Westminster Government has deferred a decision on a Development Consent Order for a nuclear power station at Wylfa until the end of April 2021.
This is the fourth time this has happened, and the second time in a row for Duncan Hawthorne, chief executive Horizon, to ask for a deferral.
On January 10 the Times revealed that Hitachi is winding Horizon up completely by March 31, 2021. This is the logical conclusion of the process that started exactly two years ago when Hitachi suspended Horizon’s operations at Wylfa. Then in September 2020, they announced that they were ditching their plans to build two huge reactors at Wylfa completely.
The attempt to build Wylfa B has been shambolic from the start. It’s high time to abandon the foolish dream that has paralyzed Anglesey’s development since 2006. As we approach the 10th
anniversary of the Fukushima disaster, the latest to be mentioned as ‘saviours’ of the radioactive poisoning project that would threaten the health of everyone on the island and beyond are three US companies.
Here they are: Bechtel Corporation, Westinghouse and Southern Company. Here are
some of the trio’s transgressions: Bechtel – recently fined nearly $58million for financial fraud with another company over a 10-year periodat Hanford Nuclear Reservation, the most radioactively contaminated site in the United States. This followed a fine of $125million for low quality work on the same site in 2016. Much more could be said about Bechtel. Westinghouse and Southern Company – Westinghouse went bankrupt while trying to build Vogtle Power Station in the state of Georgia.
The two AP1000 reactors of the type destined for Wylfa are five years behind Schedule, have doubled in cost to $25billion, and there is no guarantee that thepower station will ever be completed. Another of their projects was the V C Summer nuclear plant in South Carolina. It was abandoned unfinished in 2017, and is still being paid for by taxpayers.
However, with this latest information, it looks very unlikely that these three American companies are prepared to pay through their noses for two white elephant sites at Wylfa and Oldbury.
This is the end of Horizon’s journey. And the end once and for all of the nuclear industry’s plans to destroy an especially beautiful part of northern Ynys Môn. It is high time that politicians on Ynys Môn andGwynedd Councils, the Senedd in Cardiff, and at Westminster to recognise
this fact and to turn their attention towards cleaner, cheaper and more sustainable ways of producing electricity. The renewable technologies are available. This is the time to start a real green revolution.
Nuclear power – a dubious and very costly addition in UK’s energy plan
|
Renew Extra 9th Jan 2021, Dave Elliott: The White Paper on modelling UK electricity supply has some very odd things to say: it seems to see nuclear (and carbon capture) as low cost: ‘low-cost solutions at low carbon intensities can only be achieved with a combination of new nuclear and gas CCUS’.
However, it says that the use of hydrogen makes it more flexible, and it admits that ‘it is
technically possible for higher levels of hydrogen-fired generation to also replace nuclear and gas CCUS’, although it adds that ‘this is dependent on the quantity and cost of hydrogen available for generating electricity’. The White paper promised that a review of all existing energy National Policy Statements (NPSs), and presumably their cost and demand assumptions, would be carried out over the next year.
This is important since the old very dated NPSs (which were all designated by the government in 2011) have been used to justify decisions on energy. For example, the old NPSs were sometimes used to justify nuclear expansion on the basis of then expected growth in demand for electricity, whereas it’s actually fallen a lot.
It may help that the White Paper also noted that BEIS is to further upgrade its energy modelling work, going beyond its Mackay Carbon Calculator, its update of the late Prof. David Mackay’s 2011 modelling system.
There certainly are cost issues to face up to up. As far as it has panned out so far, nuclear would add even more costs (including curtailment costs) and doesn’t seem very suited to balancing variable renewables. CCS/CCSU may be similarly expensive and operationally
constrained. But although renewables have got dramatically cheaper and green hydrogen conversion for balancing may do too, there will still be system integration costs. As I noted in a recent post, they have been put, in an Imperial College London review, at €14 per MWh at up to 35%renewable penetration, right up to £30/MWh at up to 85% penetration, well below typical green generation cost. Some of there costs will fall, as the technology improves, and will be offset by efficiency savings, as energy supply and demand balancing gets better, but they are not zero.
https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2021/01/hydrogen-flexibility-in-energy-white.html |
|
Hitachi pulls plug on Horizon nuclear subsidiary
Hitachi pulls plug on Horizon nuclear offshoot John Collingridge, Sunday January 10 2021, The Sunday Times A project to build a huge nuclear power station in north Wales is to be wound down by the end of March, threatening hopes of its resurrection via a sale.
Japan’s Hitachi has told staff it will shut its Horizon subsidiary, which was to build a £20bn nuclear power plant at Wylfa on Anglesey, by March 31. That could scupper a sale of the site, despite interest from bidders including a US consortium of Bechtel, Southern Company and Westinghouse.
The Wylfa site is seen as one of the…… (subscribers only) https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hitachi-pulls-plug-on-horizon-nuclear-offshoot-q0tp0kcpx
Creating jobs and community opportunities -Pickering City Council wants immediate dismantling of nuclear station
Clean Air Alliance (accessed) 8th Jan 2021, Ontario’s new Minister of Finance, Peter Bethlenfalvy, can create 16,000 person-years of employment in Pickering by directing Ontario Power Generation (OPG) to immediately dismantle the Pickering Nuclear Station after its operating licence expires in December 2024.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, immediate dismantling is “the
preferred decommissioning strategy” for nuclear plants. In fact, dismantling is the one area of employment growth in the nuclear industry.
Immediate dismantling will permit most of the 600-acre site to be returned to the local community by 2034 for parkland, recreational facilities, dining, entertainment, housing and other employment uses. That is among the reasons why Pickering City Council unanimously supports having the plant dismantled as “expeditiously as possible” after it is shut down.
Unfortunately, OPG wants to delay dismantling until 2054 to put off its
dismantling costs for 30 years despite the fact that it already has more
than $7.5 billion in its decommissioning and dismantling fund.
Decommissioning of Oyster Creek nuclear station – a nasty precedent for closing down of other USA reactors.
|
The decommissioning at Oyster Creek was funded by ratepayers and amounted to almost $1 billion when it was sold, presumably for significantly less than its billion-dollar-fund balance. Authoritative sources had previously estimated the cost to decommission Oyster Creek at over $1.4 billion. The original decommissioning schedule was to occur over a 60-year period, but the new owners are betting they can decommission the plant faster, and for significantly less than their investment, pocketing the difference. The quicker they can do this, the more they earn. Of course, if they find they bit off more than they can chew and look like they are on a pathway to failure, they can pack up their wrenches and backhoes and abandon the project, leaving New Jersey ratepayers to fund whatever actions remain to safely complete decommissioning. Seems like a win-win for both buyer and seller. For the new owner, if the challenges exceed their abilities, they can simply cut and run before depleting their newly acquired billion-dollar decommissioning fund. For the seller, they have unloaded an unpleasant responsibility in a way that’s sadly reminiscent of the actions of a deadbeat dad. Current questions on nuclear subsidiesThe current question before the BPU on subsidies presents a rare opportunity for regulators to exert some leverage considering tangential, but critical, questions on nuclear energy. Are safety practices sufficient to deter today’s technology-savvy terrorists? How reliable are their storage processes for spent fuel and what are the long-term plans for its disposal or relocation? What are the plans for the eventual decommissioning of remaining New Jersey nuclear reactors that combined are almost five times the size of Oyster Creek? Are we comfortable following the path blazed by Oyster Creek with the potential of a pre-emptive sale if the new owners make their way out of Dodge before the sheriff shows up …. |
|
Holtec wants to build new nuclear reactor at site of USA’s oldest, most dangerous nuclear station
New Jersey nuclear plant proposed at site of old reactor PBS, Jan 5, 2021
LACEY, N.J. (AP) — The company that’s in the process of mothballing one of the nation’s oldest nuclear power plants says it is interested in building a new next-generation nuclear reactor at the same site in New Jersey.
Holtec International last month received $147.5 million — $116 million of which will come from the U.S. Department of Energy — to complete research and development work on a modern nuclear reactor that could be built at the site of the former Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in the Forked River section of Lacey Township, New Jersey.
Holtec owns that facility and oversaw its shutdown in 2018……
company spokesperson Joe Delmar said Holtec is “actively engaged with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission” about the project, but has not yet formally applied to build the reactor…..
Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club and a longtime opponent of the Oyster Creek plant, called the proposal “a threat to health and safety.”
“Things are going from bad to worse,” he said. “What was supposed to be the cleanup and ending of the Oyster Creek nuclear plant is now being looked at for another nuclear power plant. The whole point of closing and decommissioning this site was to get rid of the oldest and probably most dangerous nuclear plant. Putting all of that nuclear material in one area that is vulnerable to climate impacts like sea-level rise is a disaster waiting to happen.”……. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/new-nuclear-plant-could-rise-at-site-of-former-one-in-nj
1 This Month
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- November 2026 (12)
- October 2026 (302)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
