U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) may exempt some nuclear stations from work-hour controls
NRC to Consider COVID-19 Exemptions for Nuclear Plant Work-Hour Controls https://www.powermag.com/nrc-to-consider-covid-19-exemptions-for-nuclear-plant-work-hour-controls– Sonal Patel , POWER senior associate editor (@sonalcpatel, @POWERmagazine). 30 Mar 20,
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on March 28 told industry that it is prepared to grant requests from individual nuclear generators for exemptions from work-hour controls specified in its rules to help provide more flexibility to the sector as it grapples with workforce issues related to the COVID-19 public health emergency.
The objective of the exemptions from Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 26.205(d)(1)-(7)) is to ensure that the “control of work hours and management of worker fatigue do not unduly limit licensee flexibility in using personnel resources to most effectively manage the impacts of the COVID-19 [public health emergency (PHE)] on maintaining the safe operation of these facilities,” NRC Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Ho Nieh wrote in letters sent to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), Entergy Nuclear, and Florida Power and Light over the weekend.
Nieh wrote that the exemptions will apply narrowly—only to nuclear plants whose staffing levels are affected by the pandemic. Licensees must also show they can no longer meet the work-hour controls outlined in the rules, and they can institute site-specific administrative controls for pandemic fatigue-management for personnel as outlined in the rules.
Alternative fatigue-management controls, for example, should ensure employees do not work more than 16 work-hours in any 24-hour period and not more than 86 work-hours in any 7-day period, excluding shift turnover; a minimum 10-hour break is provided between successive work periods; 12 hour shifts are limited to not more than 14 consecutive days; and a minimum of six days off are provided in any 30-day period.
Nuclear licensees that cannot meet the rule’s requirements should notify the NRC in writing, including by email, no less than 24 hours before they would be out of compliance with the rules, Nieh said. The NRC plans to consider requests on a case-by-case basis and, if approved, provide exemptions for a period of 60 days. “If the COVID-19 PHE condition does not improve before expiration of the exemption, then the NRC may consider an additional exemption period,” he added.
(This story is being updated; check back later for more details.)
—
USA nuclear industry uses coronavirus to gouge $billions of tax-payer money
|
Out of control?, While industry looks for handouts, NRC gives nod to reduced safety oversight, https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/72759838/posts/2643325963By Linda Pentz Gunter 29 Mar 20, It was no surprise really, when the first to line up with outstretched palms as Congress debated and formulated its now passed $2 trillion coronavirus-prompted emergency relief bill, were nuclear corporations.The sinking nuclear power industry spotted an economic lifeline and couldn’t wait to make a grab for it. The Nuclear Energy Institute, the lobbying arm of the nuclear power industry, rushed off a letter to congressional leaders asking for a 30% tax credit and waivers for existing regulatory fees. One of NEI’s apparently needy recipients is the financial fiasco known as Vogtle 3 and 4, the new nuclear power plant construction project in Georgia, which is already more than five years behind schedule and is projected to cost $28 billion, double the original predicted price. The two new Georgia reactors aren’t needed, and their continued slow progress is by no means a matter of national security right now — or at all. But the NEI would like to see a nice fat grant go to Georgia Power to continue construction there, even though the company has already received two federal loan guarantees totaling $12 billion. In addition, the company is also gouging ratepayers in advance to cover the costs for the two reactors through the state’s Construction Work in Progress law, with no guarantee that they will ever reach completion. Before long, the nuclear weapons manufacturers got in on the act as well. Wrote the group, Code Pink: “Boeing has the audacity to demand a $60 billion taxpayer bailout for their shareholders and CEO.” Boeing is responsible for the Minuteman Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, to be replaced this year with the misleadingly named Ground Based Strategic Deterrent. Boeing has also already received a $26.7 million contract from the U.S. Navy for Trident II D5 ballistic missile maintenance, rebuilding and technical services. Astonishingly, it was ultra conservative senator, Ted Cruz, who was one of those who pushed back against the corporate bailouts for the likes of Boeing and GE, manufacturer of the ill-fated Fukushima nuclear power plants and similar boiling water reactors in the US that are meltdowns waiting to happen. Cruz tweeted that “some are pushing for a special carve-out just for Boeing & GE. That would be WRONG. Millions are losing jobs; we don’t need bailouts or corporate welfare — those companies should participate in the same liquidity programs as everyone else.” But Boeing apparently got its wish. A $17 billion federal loan package contained in the stimulus bill passed by both the House and Senate and signed by President Trump on March 27, “was crafted largely for the company’s benefit,” according to reporting in the Washington Post. Boeing may also be able to dip its fingers into the “$58 billion the Senate package is providing in loans for cargo and passenger airlines, as well as the $425 billion in loans it is allocating to help firms, states and cities hurt by the current downturn,” wrote the Washington Post, even though, as Code Pink pointed out, alluding to the two 737 MAX disasters, Boeing is responsible for “defective civilian planes that plummet from the sky in mid-flight.” Boeing shares soared more than 24% on the day the Senate bill passed. The US is already spending $35.1 billion a year on its nuclear weapons arsenal. As the timely graph below [on original] from ICAN points out, this money could be redirected to a wealth of essential needs that would help quell the novel coronavirus in the US. … It’s not yet clear what portion of the stimulus money might go to the nuclear power industry, but the renewable energy sector took a hit. According to the San Diego Union Tribune, “the renewable energy industry had asked for — but did not get — extensions of deadlines related to construction or completion of solar and wind projects, without which they could lose access to time-sensitive tax credits. Industry associations were hopeful they’d be included in any later relief package.” There is also a $400 billion slush fund in the present legislation which can be used for loans and loan guarantees for large companies. Watch for the nuclear power industry to line up for a share of that in addition to its earlier pitch for a $23 billion bailout, which Lukas Ross, senior policy analyst with Friends of the Earth, called “a new low bar,,” and an attempt to use the coronavirus crisis “to try and brazenly grab more cash.” Meanwhile, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in its usual fashion, has used the opportunity presented by the corona crisis to relax its already somnific safety oversight even more, and will allow nuclear power plant operators to defer safety maintenance, inspections and fitness for duty requirements during the outbreak. “Regulations to ensure safety should be strengthened at a time like this — not weakened,” Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste specialist at Beyond Nuclear, told Power Magazine. “It means operating nuclear plants without basic safety inspections.” One measure would be to allow workers to put in longer shifts than safety regulations allow, a measure that would place unnecessary additional “stress and strain on workers that need to be fully attentive and alert in sensitive jobs,” Kamps told the Carolina Public Press. He recommended powering down reactors instead, particularly given the current reduction in demand. But if the coronavirus pandemic causes higher than usual absenteeism among vital nuclear plant personnel, the NRC has a plan for that. Under normal circumstances, operating with too few control room staff is a safety violation. But under the coronavirus conditions, this would be exempted, or forgiven by the NRC, creating an added safety risk. During a recent NRC and industry telephone meeting on the topic, Beyond Nuclear’s director of reactor oversight, Paul Gunter, asked whether the NRC had supplied its reactor site personnel with sufficient protective equipment, masks, and respirators, as per the Centers for Disease Control guidelines. “They blew it off, Gunter said. “They claimed it was a matter for OSHA.” Industry representatives on the call remained silent on the matter. Gunter added that Kamps’s suggestion to power down reactors in regions where the demand was reduced and excess generating capacity was already high, could allow for resting the remaining workforce and keeping them healthy and ready to replace workers at still operating plants where personnel have been hit hardest by reactor operator shortages and extended security shifts. “We should be planning on how to keep stable and safety-compliant electricity going,” Gunter said. “One way would be to create a protected pool of sequestered nuclear utility workers. But that is not happening. The industry is dictating to the regulator what the agenda will be.” So, business as usual. |
|
EDF, French company building Hinkley Point power station, shifts workers’ costs to UK govt
Coronavirus: EDF to furlough Hinkley Point workers after reducing site numbers, Edward Thicknesse CITY A.M. 29 Mar 20, Hundreds of workers at EDF’s Hinkley Point C nuclear plant are being furloughed after the firm decided to cut the number of workers on site by more than half.
In an attempt to cut costs, the Telegraph reported that many of the site’s workers are being moved onto the government’s employee retention scheme, which guarantees them 80 per cent of their wages.
In an attempt to cut costs, the Telegraph reported that many of the site’s workers are being moved onto the government’s employee retention scheme, which guarantees them 80 per cent of their wages.
Although some of the 2,000 or so workers moved off the nuclear site in Somerset will continue to work in back office roles, the requirement to pay the majority will now shift to the government.
Those initially set to be moved onto the Treasury scheme are contractors working on the site, not EDF employees.
The French firm said: “Hinkley Point C has reduced the number of workers on its site to enable safe working. The project has not asked for any additional Government support and the majority of workers will remain in employment”.
It is understood that contractors are furloughing 500 or so employees, with the intention to bring them back onto payroll as soon as possible.
EDF has not issued a statement on whether it expects the coronavirus pandemic to impact the project’s timeline. …..
EDF’s decision to reduce its workforce came after the government came under pressure to suspend all non-essential construction work over safety concerns.
Politicians of all stripes, from London mayor Sadiq Khan to Tory ex-minister Iain Duncan Smith hit out against the government’s decision not to pause all such work for the duration of the crisis. https://www.cityam.com/coronavirus-edf-to-furlough-hinkley-point-workers-after-reducing-site-numbers/
Vogtle nuclear power plant construction – “Essential workers”, as the company wants to build in a hurry
Coronavirus could disrupt normal refueling practices for
nuclear facilities as staffing concerns grow, Utility Dive, By Iulia Gheorghiu , March 26, 2020
“………Nuclear construction
Various states have included construction work in the categories of essential work when issuing directives to keep people at home.
With pandemic plans in place, Southern Company construction is continuing on the Vogtle units in Georgia. Vogtle construction has not encountered major changes from the novel coronavirus, CEO Tom Fanning told Bloomberg.
Southern announced a non-manual worker for the construction of Vogtle units 3 and 4 was being tested for coronavirus two weeks ago.
“I completely understand that [Southern] wants to finish as soon as possible,” Buongiorno said, given the delays and cost overruns of the construction. (Professor Jacopo Buongiorno, director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems.)…https://www.utilitydive.com/news/coronavirus-could-disrupt-normal-refueling-practices-for-nuclear-facilities/574920/
Nuclear stations having difficulties with staffing; one station has workers positive for Covid19

Coronavirus could disrupt normal refueling practices for nuclear facilities as staffing concerns grow, Utility Dive, By Iulia Gheorghiu March 26, 2020, The nuclear sector has sprung into action to screen employees for signs of the novel coronavirus and prepare for potential disruptions to their typical refueling practices in light of pandemic-related travel restrictions……..
Government under pressure to suspend non-essential construction work (such as building nuclear plants)
“The judgment we have made is that in work, in many instances, the 2m rule can be applied,” he said.
However critics say public health should be prioritised over the economy during the coronavirus outbreak.
Former Tory cabinet minister Iain Duncan Smith joined those calling for a temporary suspension of work. He told the BBC: “I think the balance is where we should delete some of those construction workers from going to work and focus only on the emergency requirements.”
The confusion over who is able to work came after Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s announced a nationwide lockdown in a televised address on Monday night.
The PM said people should only leave their homes to shop for basic goods, fulfil medical needs, to exercise and to travel to work when “absolutely necessary”. However the types of work considered necessary has not yet been made clear….. https://www.cityam.com/government-under-pressure-to-suspend-non-essential-construction-work/
USA nuclear industry exploits coronavirus, seeking tax-payer funds
Nuclear Industry Effort to Exploit Coronavirus Crisis for Backdoor Bailout Decried as ‘Disaster Capitalism at its Worst’ https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/23/nuclear-industry-effort-exploit-coronavirus-crisis-backdoor-bailout-decried-disaster
“The nuclear industry begged for a bailout last fall and is now using coronavirus to try and brazenly grab more cash,” warned Friends of the Earth. by Andrea Germanos, staff writer, Jon Queally, staff writer According to E&E News, which focuses on the energy industry, the request came in a letter sent to congressional leaders and White House officials on Friday by Nuclear Energy Institute president and CEO Maria Korsnick. In addition to other forms of aid—including sick leave for employees and “prioritized access” to testing and masks—the letter requested taxpayer-funded grants in the form of broad tax credits and waivers for existing regulatory fees. “Our member companies are anticipating—or are already experiencing—severe financial strain as product orders are delayed or canceled, as industrial electricity demand falls, and as workforce availability becomes increasingly constrained,” Krosnick wrote to in a letter sent to lawmakers, Treasury Sectary Steven Mnuchin, and Larry Kudlow, director of the National Economic Council. In reaction, Friends of the Earth senior policy analyst Lukas Ross called the request a bald effort to exploit the current outbreak and economic downturn to obtain the same kind of financial bailout it has repeatedly sought from the U.S. government in recent years. “Demanding a $23 billion gift from taxpayers during an unprecedented public health crisis sets a new low bar,” said Lukas Ross, senior policy analyst with Friends of the Earth. “The nuclear industry begged for a bailout last fall and is now using coronavirus to try and brazenly grab more cash.” The industry proposal, added Ross, “would hurt ratepayers and the climate at a time when immediate need for people must be the first priority. The nuclear lobby should be ashamed. This is disaster capitalism at its worst.” |
|
America’s economic plan for Covid19 directs money to big corporations
Democrats are balking at the Senate GOP’s version of the bill because it is far too top-heavy with financial assistance to corporations and lacks sufficient assistance for working families.
The Virus of Capitalism Has Infected the COVID-19 Fight, William Rivers Pitt, Truthout, 23 Mar 20, …….. Under vastly different circumstances, perhaps it would have been possible to argue for a different path of action than dramatic physical-distancing measures, following from the idea that to develop a herd immunity to COVID-19, a certain number of people have to contract it and recover (assuming we are even capable of developing an immunity, which is not yet confirmed). To even countenance this idea, however, we would need a robust and fully functional health care system to aid in the recovery process.
Why? Money.
And then there is the currently stalled $1.8 trillion COVID-19 relief bill, which hit the reef in Congress over the weekend. Democrats are balking at the Senate GOP’s version of the bill because it is far too top-heavy with financial assistance to corporations and lacks sufficient assistance for working families.
Natch. These fellows never, ever, ever miss an opportunity to loot the till.
And therein lies the rub. The priority of the people (for the most part) is to stay safe, to get well if they fall ill, and to do what must be done to eventually return to some semblance of a normal life. The priority of the capitalists is to get the money machine going again, to take full advantage of the crisis in the name of profit, and to defend their well-staked financial turf from any reforms that may be proposed in the aftermath.
U.S.-style capitalism is also a virus, and it has infected every aspect of this situation. Worker safety, insurance coverage and costs, medical preparedness, and vital supplies — even the bill intended to rescue the country from some final financial calamity: All have been perverted and disrupted by the profit motive that never, ever, ever sleeps. https://truthout.org/articles/the-virus-of-capitalism-has-infected-the-covid-19-fight/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=e1200502-b139-4a26-8fdd-b7207fc3df68
Canada pushing Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, but the outlook for uranium/nuclear industry is bleak
Nuclear power, and Canada’s uranium industry, are struggling to find their place in a green energy future, CIM Magazine, 23 Mar , 2020 NuScale Power submitted its small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) design to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for a pre-licensing vendor design review. This came just over a month after the leaders of three Canadian provinces – Ontario premier Doug Ford, New Brunswick premier Blaine Higgs and Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe – signed a memorandum of understanding to develop SMRs in their respective provinces.
UK’s nuclear regulated asset base (RAB) financing passes all financial risks to electricity customers
Times 15th March 2020 David Lowry: I read with incredulity the claims of Horizon nuclear chief Duncan Hawthorne that his company, which is really a Japanese shell company with no products, could build nuclear plants offering power at half the currently projected cost from the Hinkley Point C plant being built.Fukushima Daiichi reactors in Japan on March 11, 2011 — costs $250bn
(£200bn) and rising — suggests Horizon has not learnt the full lessons
of that. The regulated asset base (RAB) financing mechanism Horizon
advocates transfers all financial investment risk to electricity customers
before a single unit is delivered to a home, allowing the foreign nuclear
company to build plants without having to pay attention to keeping costs
under control. This is an extraordinarily one-sided proposal. Surely even
this nuclear-friendly government cannot fall for it.
Proponents of Small Nuclear Reactors need a reality check – about the STAGGERING COST
a reality check is in order. A handful of small reactors is under construction but they have been subject to huge cost overruns and delays. William Von Hoene, senior vice-president of Exelon ‒ the largest operator of nuclear power plants in the US ‒ says that no more large reactors will be built in the US and that the cost of small reactors is “prohibitive”.
Rolls-Royce sharply reduced its small-reactor investment to “a handful of salaries” in 2018 and is threatening to abandon its R&D altogether unless the British government agrees to an outrageous set of demands and subsidies.
|
Supporters of nuclear need a reality check: it’s staggeringly expensive, https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/supporters-of-nuclear-need-a-reality-check-it-s-staggeringly-expensive-20200308-p547wv.html, By Jim Green March 10, 2020 The NSW Parliament’s State Development Committee released its report into nuclear power last week. Conservative committee members recommended repeal of state laws banning uranium mining and nuclear power, while Labor members want to retain the legal bans.
What the conservatives and other supporters of nuclear power ignore is that it has priced itself out of the energy debate. Its costs are staggering and the worldwide pattern for the industry is one of stagnation and decline. In the US, the cost of the only two reactors under construction has skyrocketed to between $20.4 billion and $22.6 billion for one reactor. In 2006, Westinghouse said it could build a reactor for 10 times less than that amount. Another project in the US, a twin-reactor project in South Carolina, was abandoned in 2017 after the expenditure of at least $13.4 billion. Over in New Mexico, the world’s only deep underground nuclear waste repository was closed for three years following a chemical explosion in an underground nuclear waste barrel in 2014. In Britain, the estimated cost of the only two reactors under construction is $25.9 billion each. In the mid-2000s, the estimated cost was almost seven times lower. The British National Audit Office estimates that taxpayer subsidies for the project will amount to $58 billion. The cost of the only reactors under construction in France and Finland has nearly quadrupled and now stands at $17.7 billion to $20 billion per reactor. Both projects are 10 years behind schedule. Tomorrow, Japan will commemorate the ninth anniversary of the meltdowns, fires and explosions at the Fukushima nuclear plant. The Japanese government’s estimate of clean-up and compensation costs is over $300 billion, and rising. Insiders and lobbyists freely acknowledge that the nuclear power industry is in crisis and that worldwide decline is certain. But its Australian supporters are unfazed. Their only sideways nod to reality is to argue that even if large, conventional reactors are too expensive, the emerging “small modular reactors” would be a good fit for Australia. Continue reading |
A sceptical look at NuScam’s small nuclear reactor plans
The Smaller Is Better Movement in Nuclear Power, Are miniature reactors
really safer? Mother Jones LOIS PARSHLEY, 8 Mar 20,
Huge computer screens line a dark, windowless control room in Corvallis, Oregon, where engineers at the company NuScale Power hope to define the next wave of nuclear energy. Glowing icons fill the screens, representing the power output of 12 miniature nuclear reactors. Together, these small modular reactors would generate about the same amount of power as one of the conventional nuclear plants that currently dot the United States—producing enough electricity to power 540,000 homes. On the glowing screens, a palm tree indicates which of the dozen units is on “island mode,” allowing a single reactor to run disconnected from the grid in case of an emergency.
Government advisers warn Britain against costly new nuclear reactors

Times 7th March 2020, Net Zero Report. Plans for nuclear plants in Britain face fresh uncertainty after government advisers warned against backing costly new reactors. The nuclear industry wants the government to commit to a funding system to back the construction of reactors, including EDF’s proposed Sizewell plant in Suffolk.
However, the National Infrastructure Commission, set up in 2015 to provide impartial advice to the government, reiterated concerns in a report about backing more nuclear plants. It noted that there had been cost reductions in renewable power technologies such as wind and solar over the past ten years, but “costs of building and running nuclear power stations have not
fallen consistently, even in countries that have built fleets of similar reactors”. Given the potential for other non-intermittent technologies to complement renewables, it said that this “weakened the case for committing to a new fleet of nuclear power stations”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/advisers-raise-doubts-over-new-nuclear-plants-8hd85cr6d
Deceit and Dark Money -Ohio’s nuclear subsidy saga
Dark money dominated Ohio’s nuclear subsidy saga ENERGY NEWS NETWORK, Kathiann M. Kowalski, March 5, 2020
FirstEnergy Solutions paid nearly $2 million to at least one group, but
most other data remains hidden.
After-the-fact filings show that FirstEnergy’s generation subsidiary paid nearly $2 million to Generation Now, one of the special interest groups that orchestrated ads, political donations and other efforts behind Ohio’s nuclear and coal bailout.
But legal loopholes make it harder to find out the total spent and who else was behind xenophobic advertising, dueling voter petitions, alleged intimidation and other claims of foul play. And none of those actions fully disclosed who was behind them.
The scant public filings that are available show additional connections to FirstEnergy Solutions (now Energy Harbor), as well as the law firm of an outspoken legislator who has long fought the state’s clean energy standard, and others with high-level political influence.
House Bill 6 gutted Ohio’s renewable energy and energy efficiency standards while putting ratepayers on the hook for nearly $1 billion in subsidies for nuclear power plants, plus an additional amount for aging coal plants. Multiple groups spent heavily to promote HB 6 and prevent a referendum on the law following its passage.
In some cases, nonprofit and for-profit organizations funded each other or shared the same spokesperson. Groups active in the HB 6 campaign also had links to some of the same lobbyists and consultants who acted for companies that stood to benefit from HB 6, or unions with workers at their plants. But only limited amounts of funding could be traced.
ON ORIGINAL – INTRIGUING INTERACTIVE DIAGRAM HERE _ shows interrelationships of individuals and groups Continue reading
Westinghouse nuclear reactors – a very poor deal for India
Pushing the wrong energy buttons, https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/pushing-the-wrong-energy-buttons/article30965454.ece?fbclid=IwAR1ymOL6TLlSxlUKkVVSL6_ukPPeiSzDlI_JM-He3CMG2qBD4HaBU0vezog, M.V. Ramana, Suvrat Raju, MARCH 03, 2020
The idea of India importing nuclear reactors is a zombie one with serious concerns about their cost and safety
Red flags in the U.S. deal
Because of serious concerns about cost and safety, the two organisations should have been told to abandon, not finalise, the proposal.
Indeed, it has been clear for years that electricity from American reactors would be more expensive than competing sources of energy. Moreover, nuclear reactors can undergo serious accidents, as shown by the 2011 Fukushima disaster. Westinghouse has insisted on a prior assurance that India would not hold it responsible for the consequences of a nuclear disaster, which is effectively an admission that it is unable to guarantee the safety of its reactors.
The main beneficiaries from India’s import of reactors would be Westinghouse and India’s atomic energy establishment that is struggling to retain its relevance given the rapid growth of renewables. But Mr. Trump has reasons to press for the sale too. His re-election campaign for the U.S. presidential election in November, centrally involves the revival of U.S. manufacturing and he has been lobbied by several nuclear reactor vendors, including
Westinghouse, reportedly to “highlight the role U.S. nuclear developers can play in providing power to other countries”. Finally, he also has a conflict-of-interest, thanks to his son-in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner, who accompanied him during the India visit.
In 2018, the Kushner family’s real-estate business was bailed out by a Canadian company that invested at least $1.1-billion in a highly unprofitable building in New York. Earlier that year, Brookfield Business Partners, a subsidiary of that Canadian company, acquired Westinghouse Electric Company. It violates all norms of propriety for Mr. Kushner to be anywhere near a multi-billion dollar sale that would profit Brookfield enormously.
What renewables can offer
Analysts estimate that each of the two AP1000 units being constructed in the U.S. state of Georgia may cost about $13.8 billion. At these rates, the six reactors being offered to India by Westinghouse would cost almost ₹6 lakh crore. If India purchases these reactors, the economic burden will fall upon consumers and taxpayers. In 2013, we estimated that even after reducing these prices by 30%, to account for lower construction costs in India, the first year tariff for electricity would be about ₹25 per unit. On the other hand, recent solar energy bids in India are around ₹3 per unit. Lazard, the Wall Street firm, estimates that wind and solar energy costs have declined by around 70% to 90% in just the last 10 years and may decline further in the future.
How safe?
Nuclear power can also impose long-term costs. Large areas continue to be contaminated with radioactive materials from the 1986 Chernobyl accident and thousands of square kilometres remain closed off for human inhabitation. Nearly a decade after the 2011 disaster, the Fukushima prefecture retains radioactive hotspots and the cost of clean-up has been variously estimated to range from $200-billion to over $600-billion.
The Fukushima accident was partly caused by weaknesses in the General Electric company’s Mark I nuclear reactor design. But that company paid nothing towards clean-up costs, or as compensation to the victims, due to an indemnity clause in Japanese law. Westinghouse wants a similar arrangement with India. Although the Indian liability law is heavily skewed towards manufacturers, it still does not completely indemnify them. So nuclear vendors have tried to chip away at the law. Instead of resisting foreign suppliers, the Indian government has tacitly supported this process.
Starting with the Tarapur 1 and 2 reactors, in Maharashtra, India’s experiences with imported reactors have been poor. The Kudankulam 1 and 2 reactors, in Tamil Nadu, the only ones to have been imported and commissioned in the last decade, have been repeatedly shut down. In 2018-19, these reactors produced just 32% and 38%, respectively, of the electricity they were designed to produce. These difficulties are illustrative of the dismal history of India’s nuclear establishment. In spite of its tall claims, the fraction of electricity generated by nuclear power in India has remained stagnant at about 3% for decades.
The idea of importing nuclear reactors is a “zombie idea” that, from a rational viewpoint, should have been dead long ago. In fact an earlier plan to install AP1000s in Mithi Virdi, Gujarat was cancelled because of strong local opposition. In 2018, Gujarat Chief Minister Vijay Rupani declared that the reactors “will never come up” in Gujarat. The Prime Minister should take a cue from his own State and make a similar announcement for the rest of the country.
-
Archives
- June 2026 (227)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
-
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










