Hitachi definitely exits UK nuclear power project
Hitachi decides to exit UK nuclear power project – Mainichi newspaper https://www.reuters.com/article/hitachi-nuclear/hitachi-decides-to-exit-uk-nuclear-power-project-mainichi-newspaper-idUKT9N2FQ03Y– Reporting by Makiko Yamazaki; Editing by Chang-Ran Kim , By Reuters Staff, TOKYO (Reuters) –14 Sept 20, Japanese conglomerate Hitachi Ltd 6501.T will completely exit from a stalled British nuclear power project, the Mainichi newspaper reported on Tuesday.
The board of directors could make a formal decision as early as at their planned meeting on Wednesday, the paper said, citing sources.
A Hitachi spokeswoman said the reported decision was not something the company announced.
U.S. seeks to lower Russian uranium imports to boost U.S. nuclear industry
The Commerce Department and Rosatom initialed the draft amendment to the 1992 Russian Suspension Agreement to prevent
Nuclear power is not climate-effective, simply because of comparative costs and delays
This is a thorough analysis of the costs and time delays of nuclear power, as compared with those of energy efficiency and renewables. It does show that in the fight to stop climate change, the push for nuclear is a wasteful distraction.
My only problem with this argument is that it seems to imply that, apart from its exorbitant costs and delays, nuclear power might be effective. Not so!
Nuclear reactors make climate change worse, September 13, 2020 by beyondnuclearinternational
Being carbon-free does not establish climate-effectiveness, By Amory B. LovinsMost U.S. nuclear power plants cost more to run than they earn. Globally, the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2019 documents the nuclear enterprise’s slow-motion commercial collapse—dying of an incurable attack of market forces. Yet in America, strong views are held across the political spectrum on whether nuclear power is essential or merely helpful in protecting the Earth’s climate—and both those views are wrong. In fact, building new reactors, or operating most existing ones, makes climate change worse compared with spending the same money on more-climate-effective ways to deliver the same energy services. Those who state as fact that rejecting (more precisely, declining to bail out) nuclear energy would make carbon reduction much harder are in good company, but are mistaken. If you haven’t heard this view before, it’s not because it wasn’t published in reputable venues over several decades, but rather because the nuclear industry, which holds the microphone, is eager that you not hear it. Many otherwise sensible analysts and journalists have not properly reported this issue. Few political leaders understand it either. But by the end of this article, I hope you will. For the details and documentation behind this summary, please see pp. 228–256 of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2019. A supporting paper provides simple worked examples of how to compare the “climate-effectiveness” of different ways to decarbonize the electricity system. Nuclear power’s potential role in the global climate challenge If the nuclear one-tenth of global electricity generation displaced an average mix of fossil-fueled generation and nothing else, it would offset 4% of fossil-fuel CO2 emissions. So in an era of urgent climate concern, should nuclear power continue, shrink, or expand? In May 2020, a report by the International Energy Agency claimed that not sustaining and even expanding nuclear power would make climate solutions “drastically harder and more costly.” To check that claim, we must compare nuclear power with other potential climate solutions. Here I’ll use only two criteria—cost and speed—because if nuclear power has no business case or takes too long, we need not address its other merits or drawbacks. How should we compare different ways to provide electrical services in a carbon-constrained world? Our society built coal-fired power plants by counting cost but not carbon. Nuclear advocates defend their preference by counting carbon but not cost. But to protect the climate, we must save the most carbon at the least cost and in the least time, counting all three variables—carbon and cost and time. Costly options save less carbon per dollar than cheaper options. Slow options save less carbon per year than faster options. Thus even a low- or no-carbon option that is too costly or too slow will reduce and retard achievable climate protection. Being carbon-free does not establish climate-effectiveness. Since in reality money and time are both limited, our priorities in providing energy services must be informed by relative cost and speed. Lower cost saves more carbon per dollar. Faster deployment saves more carbon per year. We need both. Buying nuclear power displaces buying some mixture of fossil-fueled generation, renewable generation, and efficient use. Nuclear owners strive to beat coal and gas while their allies often disparage or suppress renewables. Yet most US nuclear plants are uneconomic just to run, so many are closing. To keep milking those old assets instead, their powerful owners seek and often get multi-billion-dollar bailouts from malleable state legislatures for about a tenth of the US nuclear fleet so far. Such replacement of market choices with political logrolling distorts prices, crowds out competitors, slows innovation, reduces transparency, rewards undue influence, introduces bias, picks winners, invites corruption, and even threatens to destroy the competitive regional power markets where renewables and efficiency win. Yet many political leaders think climate’s urgency demands every option, including preserving nuclear power at any cost. So what is that cost, construed in the narrowest economic terms? Costs of new nuclear power vs. competing options Costly options save less carbon per dollar than cheaper options. Slow options save less carbon per year than faster options. Thus even a low- or no-carbon option that is too costly or too slow will reduce and retard achievable climate protection. Being carbon-free does not establish climate-effectiveness. Since in reality money and time are both limited, our priorities in providing energy services must be informed by relative cost and speed. Lower cost saves more carbon per dollar. Faster deployment saves more carbon per year. We need both. Buying nuclear power displaces buying some mixture of fossil-fueled generation, renewable generation, and efficient use. Nuclear owners strive to beat coal and gas while their allies often disparage or suppress renewables. Yet most US nuclear plants are uneconomic just to run, so many are closing. To keep milking those old assets instead, their powerful owners seek and often get multi-billion-dollar bailouts from malleable state legislatures for about a tenth of the US nuclear fleet so far. Such replacement of market choices with political logrolling distorts prices, crowds out competitors, slows innovation, reduces transparency, rewards undue influence, introduces bias, picks winners, invites corruption, and even threatens to destroy the competitive regional power markets where renewables and efficiency win. Yet many political leaders think climate’s urgency demands every option, including preserving nuclear power at any cost. So what is that cost, construed in the narrowest economic terms? Costs of new nuclear power vs. competing options On 7 November 2019, the eminent 170-year-old financial house Lazard published its 13th annual snapshot of relative 2019-$ prices for different ways to generate a megawatt-hour of electricity. The analysis is authoritative though imperfect. ……. Lazard’s comparison between new electricity resources is stark:…… New nuclear plants will save many-fold less carbon per dollar than competing carbon-free resources, in proportion to their relative costs. And new reactors’ expected performance must be tempered by historical experience: of the 259 power reactors ordered in the US, by mid-2017 only 28 units or 11% had been built, were still competitive in their regional markets, and hadn’t suffered at least one outage lasting at least a year. Should existing nuclear plants keep operating? Today’s hot question, though, is not about new US reactors, which investors shun, but about the existing reactors, already averaging about a decade beyond their nominal original design life. Most now cost more to run—including major repairs that trend upward with age—than their output can earn. They also cost more just to run than providing the same services by building and operating new renewables, or by using electricity more efficiently. So let’s go step by step through an eyechart about nuclear operating costs—which exclude original construction and financing costs (all sunk and usually amortized), but include those costs that need not be paid if the plant is closed………….. closing a top-quartile-cost nuclear plant and buying efficiency instead, as utilities could volunteer or regulators require, would save considerably more carbon than continuing to run the nuclear plant. Some modern renewables too can now rival efficiency’s cost and could compete for that opportunity. Thus, while we close coal plants to save carbon directly, we should also close distressed nuclear plants and reinvest their large saved operating cost in cheaper options to save carbon indirectly. These two climate-protecting steps are not alternatives; they are complements. Replacing a closed nuclear plant with efficiency or renewables empirically takes only 1–3 years. If owners don’t give such advance notice—a common tactic to extort subsidies by making closure more disruptive—more natural gas might temporarily be burned, but then more than offset over the following years by the carbon-free substitutes. California’s biggest utility will therefore replace its well-running Diablo Canyon reactors with least-cost carbon-free resources to save money and carbon and to help the grid work better. To get these outcomes, we must track not just carbon but also money and time. Investing judiciously, not indiscriminately, saves the most carbon per dollar. What about per year? Which technologies are faster to deploy?……………. Global carbon-free electricity is now less than one-third nuclear. Counting also carbon-free production of non-electric energy—biofuels and modern renewable heat—nuclear power struggles to sustain less than one-fourth of the world’s carbon-free final energy use. Why pay more to revive it at the expense of faster and cheaper competitors? Sustaining uneconomic reactors would not only divert public funding from more climate-effective competitors but also constrain their sales and degrade the competitive markets where they thrive. Slowing and blocking the fastest and cheapest climate solutions harms climate protection. How high can US nuclear subsidies go? Meanwhile, back in the United States, the climate-effectiveness of continued nuclear operations is not discussed; the conversation focuses solely on carbon, not on cost or time. Indeed, the industry’s immense lobbying power has now hatched a brazen new way to make taxpayers or customers pay for existing nuclear plants and disadvantage their most potent supply-side competitor (modern renewable power), and reduce and retard climate protection while claiming to increase it. Rarely have so many been so deceived so thoroughly, for so long, at such cost.……..https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2020/09/13/nuclear-reactors-make-climate-change-worse/ |
|
Magnox nuclear clear-up cost soars to £9bn
|
Magnox nuclear clear-up cost soars to £9bn https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2020/09/11/magnox-nuclear-clear-up-cost-soars-to-9bn/ Aaron Morby, 13 Sept 20, The cost of decommissioning the Magnox nuclear reactor estate has continued to soar despite efforts to control the budget. Fresh estimates of the cost of getting all Magnox sites cleared and safely enclosed has increased by £2.7bn to £8.7bn since 2017. An investigation by the National Audit Office warns that while the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has made major progress sorting out its delivery procedures, costs are likely to continue to rise as it gets to grips with the scope of work. The expected cost is now double the original contract price when the initial clean-up deal was signed in 2014 with Cavendish Fluor Partnership to decommission two nuclear research sites and 10 Magnox sites. Since then the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority terminated the contract more than nine years early following a high court challenge to both the procurement by losing bidder Bechtel and changes in scope of work. The NAO this morning warned that costs are likely to be subject to further change, largely because of the inherent uncertainties involved in cleaning up the UK’s nuclear sites. It recommended that the NDA needs to increase its understanding of the condition of sites and the volume and complexity of remaining decommissioning work. It also said the NDA needed to explore with its subsidiaries how future contracts can better support the timely and effective management of underperformance. Gareth Davies, the head of the NAO, said: “Since the failure of the original Magnox contract in 2017, the NDA has made progress in a number of areas. “It renegotiated the contract, avoided further legal disputes and got on with decommissioning the power plants. “However, the NDA now knows that it will cost significantly more to take the sites to the care and maintenance stage of the decommissioning process, though there remains inherent uncertainty about the final cost. “It still needs to ensure it has a solid understanding of the condition of each Magnox site and the costs of cleaning them up.” |
|
|
A powerful message on the seismic dangers in Hinkley Point C nuclear construction. It would be cheaper to pull out now.
Radiation Free Lakeland 12th Sept 2020, Seismic Warnings – if not now when will the Government Scrap Hinkley C? This week there was yet another earthquake recorded in the Bristol area. It was small but significant, contributing to the well documented seismic activity of the area. If eyewatering costs, long delays, a mental and physical health crisis among the employees building Hinkley Point C are not enough to scrap this hubristic nuclear new build plan then the seismic warnings should be.
This insane project next to operational reactors has seen the geological stresses of the biggest pours of concrete in the UK
alongside three huge tunnels being bored below the seabed. German based multi-national company Herrenknecht built the hugely expensive tunnel boring machines which will be dumped under the Bristol Channel once done.
A total of 38,000 concrete segments are needed to support the tunnels, which would transfer 120,000 litres of water per second for the new nuclear plant when finished. The Bristol area is seismically active so to put increased geological stress deliberately in the vicinity of existing nuclear reactors is the kind of hubris that disaster movies are made of.
Scrapping Hinkley C now and paying off the developers would be far cheaper and far safer than continuing down this route to nuclear disaster.
NuScam’s ”small” nuclear reactor design approved – but cost, safety, public acceptance hurdles loom against them
First U.S. Small Nuclear Reactor Design Is Approved, Concerns about costs and safety remain, however, Scientific American 
By Dave Levitan on September 9, 2020
- The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has approved the design of a new kind of reactor, known as a small modular reactor (SMR). The design, from the Portland, Ore.–based company NuScale Power, is intended to speed construction, lower cost and improve safety over traditional nuclear reactors…………
- some experts have expressed concerns over the potential expense and remaining safety issues that the industry would have to address before any such reactors are actually built. ………
- The NRC’s design and related final safety evaluation report (FSER) do not mean that the firm can begin constructing reactors. But utility companies can now apply to the NRC to build and operate NuScale’s design. With almost no new nuclear construction completed in the U.S. over the past three decades, SMRs could help reinvigorate a flagging industry.
NuScale’s SMR, developed with the help of almost $300 million from the U.S. Department of Energy, has a generating capacity of 50 megawatts—substantially smaller than standard nuclear reactors, which can range to well more than 1,000 megawatts (MW). A utility could combine up to 12 SMRs at a single site, producing 600 MW of electricity—enough to power a midsize city. The NRC says it expects an application for a 60-MW version of NuScale’s SMR in 2022……….
In a July 2020 report, NRC nuclear engineer Shanlai Lu discussed a complicated issue known as boron dilution, which could possibly cause “fuel failure and prompt criticality condition”—meaning that even if a reactor is shut down, fission reactions could restart and begin a dangerous power increase. And in another report, the NRC’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards also noted that “several potentially risk-significant items” are not yet completed, though it did still recommend that the NRC issue the FSER. The agency’s response to the latter report stated that those items will be further assessed when site-specific licensing applications—the step needed to actually begin building and operating a reactor—are submitted. ……..
Lyman says that in general, the NRC’s design certification process should reduce uncertainty for utilities aiming to build nuclear plants because they can reference a completed safety review. But he thinks the NuScale approval undermines that advantage. Whether the gaps in safety will result in further delays to NuScale’s time line remains to be seen. The NRC will undertake another review when the company’s 60-MW design is submitted. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-u-s-small-nuclear-reactor-design-is-approved/
Ohio’s House Bill 60 – bailing out nuclear power, will not save consumers money.
Groups pushing for repeal of the bailout of Ohio’s two nuclear plants are challenging proponents of House Bill 6 who say the law will save consumers money. Instead, consumer and environmental groups say the legislation will add about $7 to a monthly bill.
Ohio environmentalists and consumer groups dispute the math that’s been used to justify the bailout of Ohio’s two nuclear power plants. They say House Bill 6, passed last summer, actually will increase the cost of the average monthly electric bill a family pays by about $7, not decrease it, as backers of the law say.
Efforts to repeal HB 6 have gained momentum since the indictment this summer of former House Speaker Larry Householder, who has been charged with four others in a $61 million federal bribery and racketeering scandal tied to the legislation.
“Supporters of House Bill 6 and those that are now arguing for no repeal or partial repeal are presenting similar cost savings information that is inaccurate and incomplete,” said Trish Demeter, chief of staff of the Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund……..
environmentalists and consumer groups said Wednesday that those numbers don’t tell the whole story.
Take energy efficiency, for example.
Those programs carried an average monthly fee of $3.36. The programs provide homeowners and small businesses with rebates and incentives to switch out aging appliances and upgrade old equipment that wastes energy.
When you account for the lost efficiency savings, consumers are much worse off,″ said Chris Neme, principal of Energy Futures Group, which has worked on energy efficiency programs.
Demeter said the $1.50-per-month fee to shore up the two coal plants is supposed to end in 2030, but utilities are allowed to defer costs to operate the plants, which can be recovered later from consumers.
“Millions upon millions more (will be) coming out of Ohioans’ pockets and going to into the coffers of Ohio utilities,” she said.
The groups are calling on the legislature to consider the true costs of the bill and then repeal it.
Demeter also said repeal of the bill is necessary to begin to restore the public trust in the legislative process that’s been hurt by the scandal.
“Not repealing the bill as soon as humanly possible is sending a message the legislature is not interested in restoring that trust,” she said. https://www.dispatch.com/business/20200909/savings-from-hb-6-nuclear-bailout-donrsquot-add-up-advocacy-groups-say
Nuclear powers battle each other to market nuclear reactors to Czech Republic
|
The Czech Republic Is Caught in a Nuclear Tug of War, FP,
Competition among China, Russia, and the West is taking the form of a battle to build reactors in Eastern Europe. BY TIM GOSLING SEPTEMBER 8, 2020”………………… The minority government of Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis, who founded the ruling ANO 2011 party, has welcomed U.S. President Donald Trump’s embrace. But his stance looks less than certain as the country prepares to face one of its sternest geopolitical tests since the fall of communism 30 years ago: choosing a partner to expand its Soviet-built nuclear power capacity.
……….. Part of Pompeo’s mission to the Czech Republic was to convince Babis that it would pose a similar risk as Huawei should China or Russia win an upcoming tender to build a new 1.2-gigawatt reactor at the Dukovany nuclear power plant, at an estimated cost of over $7 billion. “If you choose one of these countries, it will jeopardize your freedom and sovereignty,” Pompeo reportedly stressed to the Czech leader.
However, Babis’s government is weak, and he faces building pressure at home and abroad to lean east. In turn, he has declined to exclude Chinese and Russian state-owned companies from bidding for the project and, despite welcoming Pompeo enthusiastically, demurred on signing a proffered cooperation agreement on nuclear energy………… Part of Pompeo’s mission to the Czech Republic was to convince Babis that it would pose a similar risk as Huawei should China or Russia win an upcoming tender to build a new 1.2-gigawatt reactor at the Dukovany nuclear power plant, at an estimated cost of over $7 billion. “If you choose one of these countries, it will jeopardize your freedom and sovereignty,” Pompeo reportedly stressed to the Czech leader. However, Babis’s government is weak, and he faces building pressure at home and abroad to lean east. In turn, he has declined to exclude Chinese and Russian state-owned companies from bidding for the project and, despite welcoming Pompeo enthusiastically, demurred on signing a proffered cooperation agreement on nuclear energy. The expansion of the country’s two nuclear power plants—Dukovany and Temelin—are at the center of the Czech Republic’s long-term energy strategy. However, the government has struggled for years to find a financing model agreeable to the minority shareholders at state-controlled energy group CEZ, which is tasked with building and running the nuclear energy infrastructure. The disagreement over funding saw plans to build two new units at Temelin scrapped in 2014. The two finalists in that race—which also brought a U.S. secretary of state to Prague—were the Russian state nuclear agency Rosatom and U.S.-based Westinghouse. They’ve sat in the background in Prague since, awaiting the starting gun for new projects. In the Dukovany showdown, they’re set to be joined by bidders from China, France, and South Korea……….. In the wake of Pompeo’s trip to Prague, lobbying around the nuclear plant will ramp up. “Russia has been extremely active in lobbying for the past couple of years,” Karaskova said. “The U.S., through Mike Pompeo’s comments, also showed a strong interest, probably the first time so openly and publicly.” Petr Trescak, an opposition MP, veteran of the nuclear sector, and member of the government committee for new nuclear plants said that he expects intense lobbying will soon start. Lipavsky said that the tender is already a regular topic with representatives of those countries that will bid, including the French and U.S. ambassadors. Public opinion is also key. Following Pompeo’s visit, Westinghouse launched a search for new senior PR operatives……… https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/09/08/czech-republic-nuclear-tug-of-war-china-russia-united-states/ |
|
EDF made exaggerated and unrealistic claims about local jobs to be provided by Sizewell nuclear power project
Ipswich Star 7th Sept 2020, Independent consultants have challenged the jobs and economic benefits that building a new twin reactor nuclear power station on the Suffolk coast will bring – labelling the claims as “exaggerated” and “unrealistic”.
EDF Energy has said that Sizewell C will give the county’s economy a £125million a year boost and create 25,000 job opportunities during the 10-year construction period and 900 skilled jobs when the power plant is operational. But an independent review of EDF’s Economic Statement, assessing the impacts of Sizewell C on Suffolk’s economy, by research and analysis consultancy Development Economics – commissioned by the Stop Sizewell C campaign – has criticised key aspects of the research and evidence submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.
EDF though insists its project will deliver investment, jobs, skills, education and training for decades to come. And it says its Economic Statement in its planning application is fully compliant with relevant national policy. Development Economics though claimed some aspects were “exaggerated” and “unrealistic”. It questioned EDF’s claim of up to “2,410 jobs for Suffolk residents”, saying this included people travelling from up to 90 minutes away, which covers large population centres in Norfolk and Essex.
It said these local workers will be the overwhelming source of lower skilled roles, expected to fill 90% of jobs in ‘Site Support’ –
cleaners, bus drivers and security guards – compared with only 8% ofroles in professional and management. At peak construction 76% of the workforce will come from further away still and will have to be accommodated in the area.
https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/sizewell-c-independent-economy-report-1-6824930
France’s weekly nuclear power generation drops
|
French nuclear weekly generation falls below 30 GW to 9-week-low, AuthorAndreas Franke , EditorJonathan Dart
HIGHLIGHTS 28.4 GW average some 10 GW below Sept. 2019 Low river levels at Chooz, unplanned outages, delays France turned net importer for week ending Sept. 6 London — French nuclear generation averaged 28.4 GW in the seven days to Sept. 6, the lowest weekly average in nine weeks, according to data from system operator RTE. Nuclear output rose to 29.2 GW on Sept. 7, but that was 12 GW lower than a year earlier as the 3-GW Chooz plant remained offline due to low river levels, with a number of reactor returns delayed……… |
|
EDF’s Economic Statement on impact of Sizewell nuclear project – gives unproven, misleading evidence
Stop Sizewell C 3rd Sept 2020, An independent review of EDF’s Economic Statement, assessing the impacts of Sizewell C to Suffolk’s local economy, has concluded that the project threatens “profitability and, in some cases, viability” of some local businesses, while others will be “at an immediate disadvantage when bidding for contracts”.
The report, Sizewell Economic Statement – Response, by highly-regarded independent research and analysis consultancy Development Economics, reveals multiple areas where EDF’s claimed benefits are over-optimistic, unproven or misleading, frequently omitting
evidence to support its figures or relying on “erroneous analysis”.
It concludes, critically, that EDF’s Economic Statement “fails to meet the minimum requirements of the legislation”, with no serious attempt to measure the deterrent effect on tourists and their expenditure, traffic congestion or competition for skills and labour.
The National Policy Statement EN-6 requires that applicants for major nuclear energy projects take into account ‘potential pressures on local and regional resources, demographic change and economic benefit’.
More of Britain’s ageing nuclear power stations are likely to close early
Times 6th Sept 2020, More nuclear power stations could close early as EDF wrestles with problems with patching up its ageing plants. The French power giant owns Britain’s fleet of eight nuclear power stations together with British Gas parent Centrica.…………. just one new nuclear power station is being built, Hinkley Point C, in Somerset.
B in Somerset and Dungeness B in Kent.
happen sooner. It is currently not generating while its graphite core is inspected. EDF is due to make a decision on its future in November.
publication of a much-delayed energy white paper.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/nuclear-closures-pose-power-puzzle-d6bnnnrcs
Exelon’s threat to Illinois – aiming to get more tax-payer funding
|
Dive Brief:
|
|
Exelon again bullying Illinois into subsidies for nuclear power stations
Inside Clean Energy: Illinois Faces (Another) Nuclear Power Standoff. Exelon wants a subsidy to keep two nuclear plants running, reigniting a longstanding—and acrimonious—debate. Inside Climae News, BY DAN GEARINO 4 Sept 20,
If this sounds familiar, it’s because something very similar happened in Illinois about five years ago, leading to a 2016 state law that subsidized two other Exelon nuclear plants in the state—a law now tainted by a still-unfolding bribery scandal.
Despite all the reasons to tell Exelon to take a hike, some consumer and environmental advocates say there is a strong case for keeping the plants open because they are an important source of carbon-free electricity. This ties into the larger, often acrimonious debate about the role of nuclear power in the transition away from fossil fuels.
Exelon owns all six nuclear plants in Illinois. This includes the two that would close in 2021, two (the Braidwood and LaSalle plants) that the company says are at risk of closing for financial reasons but are not yet scheduled to close and two (the Quad Cities and Clinton plants) that are subsidized by the 2016 law.
The six plants produced 54 percent of the electricity generated in the state last year. Coal is a distant second with 27 percent, followed by natural gas with 10 percent.
Renewable energy is growing, thanks in part to programs that also were part of the 2016 nuclear bailout legislation. But wind and solar are still small shares of the energy mix, with 8 percent and less than 1 percent, respectively.
Renewable energy is growing, thanks in part to programs that also were part of the 2016 nuclear bailout legislation. But wind and solar are still small shares of the energy mix, with 8 percent and less than 1 percent, respectively. ……….
Exelon has a lot of baggage these days. Federal prosecutors said in July that Commonwealth Edison, which is owned by Exelon, provided illegal payments and favors to help persuade lawmakers to pass the 2016 nuclear bailout.
ComEd agreed to pay $200 million to resolve the case, and is now cooperating in an ongoing probe that is likely to be focused on the lawmakers who allegedly accepted the favors, including Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan, a Democrat.
Adding to the complexity of this debate is that environmental advocates are divided on whether nuclear should be part of a clean energy future. The case against nuclear is that it’s unsafe, with risks of devastating accidents and concerns about where to store nuclear waste.
David Kraft, director of the Nuclear Energy Information Service in Chicago, describes this latest push by Exelon as “yet another nuclear hostage crisis.” His group has been campaigning since 1981 for the country to phase out nuclear power.
“A better future for our children would be one that’s both carbon-free and radioactive waste free!” Kraft said in a guest commentary published Monday in The Chicago Tribune.
“To create a truly low-carbon and less-polluting energy future, put those funds gambled on nuclear directly into renewables, efficiency and energy storage upfront instead, eliminating nuclear power’s unpredictable risks and perpetual bailouts,” he said. ………….https://insideclimatenews.org/news/02092020/inside-clean-energy-nuclear-illinois-ohio
Bill Gates and nuclear bigwigs-a conglomerate of propaganda for Small Nuclear Reactors
|
GE Hitachi, TerraPower Team on Nuclear-Storage Hybrid SMR, Power, Sep 3, 2020, by Sonal Patel GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) and Bill Gates’ nuclear innovation startup TerraPower are ready to demonstrate a “cost-competitive” advanced nuclear reactor system that will integrate a 345-MWe sodium fast reactor (SFR) with a molten salt energy storage system under a unique energy system architecture. The advanced nuclear technology developed under a joint development agreement is called “Natrium.” It blends the “best of” TerraPower’s Traveling Wave Reactor (TWR) and GEH’s PRISM technology, but it boosts them with “additional innovations and improvements” to ramp up the SFR’s performance and economics and render it competitive in the U.S. and other countries, the companies told POWER on Sept. 2. Because Natrium leverages “the breadth and depth of the team’s expertise and resources”—which takes into account work on multiple reactor designs and efforts across the nuclear lifecycle—the technology has sped “beyond the research and development phase” and is ready for demonstration. “The demonstration plant is designed to be delivered in the next seven years,” TerraPower told POWER on Wednesday. “That means the Natrium technology will be available in the late 2020s,” which would make it one of the world’s first commercial advanced nuclear technologies, it said. …. https://www.powermag.com/ge-hitachi-terrapower-team-on-nuclear-storage-hybrid-smr/ |
|
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
