France considering building 6 new EDF nuclear reactors at a cost of at least 46 billion euros ($51 billion)
France’s EDF expects six new nuclear reactors to cost 46 billion euros: Le Monde, PARIS (Reuters) 11 Nov 19 – French power utility EDF estimates it would cost at least 46 billion euros ($51 billion) to build six of its latest generation EPR nuclear reactors if the government decides to build them, French newspaper Le Monde reported on Saturday.The estimate was in a confidential document presented to the board of state-controlled EDF at the end of July, it said.
However, the Flamanville EPR reactor under construction in northern France has been plagued by cost overruns and a series of technical problems resulting in years of delays.
EDF, in which the state has an 84% stake, said in October the project which began in 2006 would cost 1.5 billion euros more than previously expected, raising the total cost to 12.4 billion euros.
Reporting by Leigh Thomas; Editing by Edmund Blair full story https://www.reuters.com/article/us-edf-nuclear-epr/frances-edf-expects-six-new-nuclear-reactors-to-cost-46-billion-euros-le-monde-idUSKBN1XJ074
EDF – a nuclear business financial meltdown
On the shores of the English channel in Normandy, engineers are struggling to fix eight faulty welds at a plant that’s supposed to showcase France’s savoir faire in nuclear power.As they consider sending in robots to access hard-to-get-to areas between two containment walls, for Electricite de France it’s just the latest setback in a project that’s running a decade late and almost four times over budget.
“We hear every year that there’s a new problem,” Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said on Monday. It is not acceptable that one of the most prestigious and strategic sectors for our country is facing so many difficulties.”
The Flamanville plant is now slated to be completed in 2022 at a price tag of 12.4 billion euros ($13.8 billion), with the latest glitch costing a whopping 1.5 billion euros. Bemoaning the loss of France’s edge in the sector because of a 15-year gap between the start of construction at the plant and that of the previous reactor, Le Maire has given EDF a month to come up with an action plan to restore the industry’s know-how before the country can determine whether it will build any new atomic plants.
For the world’s largest producer of nuclear power producer, Flamanville is just one of many challenges. Across the channel, delays at two U.K. reactors have upped the cost to as much as 22.5 billion pounds ($28.9 billion), 2.9 billion pounds more than previously estimated. EDF also faces mounting costs of maintaining 58 domestic nuclear plants that provide more than 70% of France’s power.
Add to the mix the fact that the former electricity monopoly is losing market share among French corporate and residential clients as rivals buy a part of the electricity it generates at below-market prices, and it’s easy to see why investors are bearish about the company. EDF’s stock has lost 34% this year, making it the second worst-performing utility in the Stoxx 600 Utilities Index of European companies.
A year ago, EDF was Europe’s biggest utility by market value. Now, its market capitalization stands at 28 billion euros, less than half that of Italy’s Enel SpA, which has swelled to 69 billion euros on the success of its renewable business. RWE AG, the German utility planning to shut down its nuclear plants and progressively phase out coal-fired plants, is up 43% this year and Orsted A/S, the Danish champion in offshore wind, whose revenue is about a sixth of EDF’s, has surpassed the French giant.
“Investors are staying away because of current uncertainties following the strongly negative news flow on the reputation of the nuclear industry,” said Auguste Deryckx, an analyst at AlphaValue. “The CEO’s stubbornness in pursuing nuclear, which is limiting potential growth in renewables that are better valued by the market, remains a black spot.”
EDF is struggling to cover the 15 billion euros it needs annually to maintain its aging nuclear reactors, build new atomic and renewable projects, upgrade its electricity network and roll out smart meters, even after cutting 1.1 billion euros in cost cuts in the past four years. Profits have been hit not only by falling power prices, but by safety issues that have forced reactors to be shut for several months in France and the U.K. Other clouds on the horizon—the decommissioning of two of its oldest reactors next year and a dozen more by 2035, and the treatment of nuclear waste.
The one-time monopoly—now about 83% owned by the state—needs some drastic measures, says Chief Executive Officer Jean-Bernard Levy, who’s pushing the state for an increase in the regulated prices at which rivals buy the company’s nuclear power……..https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/the-worlds-largest-nuclear-power-producer-is-melting-down/ar-AAJEHRZ?li=AAgfYrC&fbclid=IwAR2c-xzdRQS6grHOpiPYl5e7lEPRCPkPIQCGEWCP3vT5mxgDkH4sfc9alJo
Nuclear costs escalate as wind prices keeps falling,
WindEconomics: Nuclear escalates as wind prices keeps falling, WindPower monthly, 31 October 2019 by David Milborrow
Nuclear power is too expensive. That is the implicit conclusion of the UK government, which has issued a consultation document on possible ways of reducing the electricity price.
This would be possible if the government — which can borrow money cheaply –shouldered some of the risks and/or provided some finance.
The consultation focuses on “regulated asset base” models. The document describes these models as “typically used for funding UK monopoly infrastructure” and involving “an economic regulator who grants a licence to a company to charge a regulated price to users of the infrastructure”.
One of the advantages for developers is that charges can be levied before the project is completed.
The range of possible prices quoted in the consultation document, shown in the top below, bears out the maxim that “prices are what you want them to be”.
They range from a minimum of -£6/MWh, when the state shoulders all the risks and the rate of return for the government is 2%, to £137/MWh, when the investors demand a 12% rate of return and bear all the risks. In the first case, the cost to the taxpayer would be £18 billion.
The present contract for the under-construction Hinkley Point C power station, which has been widely criticised, is based on a 9% rate of return and an electricity price of £92.5/MWh (2012 prices). That is about £106/MWh (€119/MWh on 1 October) in 2019 prices.
It was announced on 25 September that the estimated cost of the project had risen by nearly 10% — to £21.5-22.5 billion.
The price of electricity to the consumer will not increase, but the profitability for developer EDF will be reduced. This gives a new benchmark price for nuclear of £6,750/kW, as the facility’s output will be 3.26GW.
The effects of moving away from state funding can be illustrated by looking back to the first public inquiry for Hinkley Point….. https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1663433/windeconomics-nuclear-escalates-wind-prices-keeps-falling
African countries being conned into nuclear debt, by Russia
African countries rush to sign nuclear deals with Russia, Daily Maverick By Peter Fabricius• 29 October 2019
But concerns are being raised about whether they can all afford nuclear energy.
The Russian nuclear power corporation Rosatom has already signed nuclear cooperation agreements with about 18 African counties, as Russia accelerates its drive for nuclear business on the continent.
The growing commitment of African countries to high capital cost nuclear energy has raised some concern about whether they are committing themselves to unaffordable debt.
Rosatom director-general Alexey Likhachev revealed a large number of nuclear agreements with African countries after signing an intergovernmental agreement on cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy with the Ethiopian Minister of Innovation and Technology, Getahun Mekuria Kuma, during the Russia-Africa Summit in Sochi on the Black Sea last week.
Mekuria later told the Russian official news agency Tass that Ethiopia had plants to build a nuclear power plant.
Rosatom later also signed an agreement with Rwanda at the summit on cooperation for the construction of a centre of nuclear science and technology in Rwanda. Rosatom had a strong presence at the economic forum which paralleled the political summit. The Rosatom stand attracted scores of interested African government officials on the sidelines of the forum. …..
Likhachev told journalists after the discussion that Rosatom had now signed memoranda of understanding or intergovernmental agreements with about one-third of countries on the continent – about 18. He could not say how many of these were about scientific cooperation and how many were about producing nuclear energy “because very often those two tracks go hand in hand”.
But he did say in the discussion that about half of the African countries with which Rosatom had signed nuclear agreements were actively discussing joint projects with the corporation, which had been stipulated in contracts. The most advanced joint project is with Egypt, which has contracted Rosatom to build a 4,800MW nuclear power plant……
“We are ready to propose to Ethiopia cutting-edge solutions of nuclear technology. And our Ethiopian partners are invited to visit nuclear facilities in our country.
“Apart from larger capacity nuclear power plants, we also stand ready to offer smaller capacity, modular reactors.”
……..However, the apparent rush to nuclear energy by African countries has raised some concerns that they may be committing themselves to high capital costs of nuclear power production which they will be unable to afford.
Analysts have noted that even South Africa, one of the top two economies on the continent, backed away from an apparent commitment by former president Jacob Zuma to order 9,600MW of nuclear power plant production from Rosatom – at an estimated cost of about R1-trillion.
President Cyril Ramaphosa said after meeting Putin on the sidelines of the summit that the Russian president had once again asked him if South Africa was still interested in building a nuclear power plant and he had told him once again that it still could not afford to.
An African minister at the summit told Daily Maverick that although power plants could be an important source of economic growth, African countries were sinking further into debt and had to be careful to ensure they could afford the infrastructure they built.
Likhachev defended nuclear energy as an economical source of electricity over the long term. ……….
Olivier Nduhungirehe, Rwandan minister in charge of the East African community would not be drawn on the cost and affordability implications, saying the details of the agreement would be announced in due course. https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2019-10-29-african-countries-rush-to-sign-nuclear-deals-with-russia/
USA negotiating nuclear sales with Saudi Arabia
US confirms nuclear energy talks with Saudi Arabia, https://www.power-technology.com/comment/us-confirms-nuclear-energy-talks-with-saudi-arabia/
By MEED
30 Oct 19, Riyadh will have to sign an accord with Washington on the peaceful use of nuclear technology for US firms to participate in the projectA senior US official has confirmed that Washington is in talks with Riyadh about supporting Saudi Arabia’s planned nuclear programme. Speaking in Abu Dhabi on 26 October, US Energy Secretary Rick Perry Perry confirmed that talks were ongoing. Perry told the forum that Saudi Arabia’s leadership in Riyadh wanted to sign a ‘123 Agreement’ with the United States. A 123 Agreement is a section of the US’ Atomic Energy Act of 1954 that sets out rules governing US nuclear cooperation with other nations. Under the terms of a 123 Agreement, Riyadh must sign an accord with Washington committing to the peaceful use of nuclear technology before US companies can compete for its nuclear energy projects in Saudi Arabia.MEED understands the US has an existing 123 agreement with 48 countries to date. Riyadh is reported to have been unwilling to commit to a deal that would rule out the possibility of enriching uranium or reprocessing spent fuel. Saudi Arabia’s nuclear energy programme In November 2018, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah City for Atomic & Renewable Energy (KA-Care), the body overseeing the kingdom’s nuclear energy plans, appointed Australia’s WorleyParsons to the project management office consultancy role for the programme.
WorleyParsons will provide consultancy services including project governance, resource management, project services, training and compliance across the full scope of the large nuclear power plant (LNPP), small modular reactors and nuclear fuel cycle. WorleyParsons previously completed the LNPP site selection study for KA-Care. Riyadh is planning to develop nuclear power through a three-pronged strategy. The majority of the nuclear power capacity will be developed through conventional large-scale nuclear facilities, the first of which will be a two-reactor 2.8GW plant.
KA-Care announced in August last year that it had awarded a contract to France’s Assystem to carry out site characterisation studies, including geological surveys and environmental impact studies for the first planned project. The studies will allow Saudi Arabia to choose the most suitable site on which to build, as well as provide important technical details for the design of the project. MEED had reported in early 2018 that the kingdom was assessing two potential locations for the NPP. The two shortlisted are at Umm Huwayd and Khor Duweihin. Both can be found on the coast near the UAE and Qatari borders. The two sites were shortlisted following investigations conducted in 2011 and 2012, in accordance with sitting guidance issued by international regulatory agencies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Companies are positioning themselves for the contract to build the first nuclear power plant. In July last year, Russian state nuclear company Rosatom said it has been shortlisted to participate in the tender for Saudi Arabia’s first nuclear power plant. According to a report in the Saudi Gazette, Rosatom will be invited to participate in the upcoming tender by KA-Care. Earlier in July, South Korea’s energy ministry revealed that state utility provider Korea Electric Power Corporation (Kepco) had made the shortlist for the first Saudi nuclear power tender. In addition to developing nuclear power capacity through large scale nuclear reactors, the kingdom is also planning to develop atomic energy through a series of smaller system-integrated modular advanced reactor technology (Smart) nuclear power plants in the kingdom in partnership with South Korea. MEED reported in October last year that progress had been made with the Smart programme, and engineering work for two Smart units will be completed in November.
South Korea and Saudi Arabia have already invested more than SR487m ($129.8m) in plans for Smart nuclear reactors across the kingdom. Riyadh signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with South Korea in November 2016 to develop the technology. The Smart reactors are expected to have a capacity of about 100MW each. The third pillar of Saudi Arabia’s nuclear energy programme will involve mining uranium resources to fuel the plants, sources close to the kingdom’s nuclear programme have told MEED. Developing the kingdom’s mining sector is a key pillar of the Saudi Vision 2030 that was launched in April 2016.
|
|
Countries vie to market nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia in talks with 5 vendors to build its first nuclear power reactors, https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/103019-saudi-arabia-in-talks-with-5-vendors-to-build-its-first-nuclear-power-reactors, Claudia Carpenter , Riyadh — Saudi Arabia is in talks with five vendors, including US-based Westinghouse, to build its first nuclear power plant with two reactors, according to an energy ministry presentation.The other companies in the discussions are France’s EDF, Russia’s Rosatom, South Korea’s KEPCO and China National Nuclear Corp, according to the presentation, shown Wednesday at the Future Investment Initiative conference taking place in Riyadh Saudi Arabia wants to develop a civil nuclear industry and renewable energy to free up oil burned to produce power for export.
Saudi Energy Minister Abdulaziz bin Salman has previously said the kingdom would like to enrich its own uranium resources to produce nuclear energy. However, outgoing US Secretary of Energy Rick Perry cast doubt last week on the kingdom’s ability to process that uranium because of its quality and quantity. Saudi Arabia will be the second Persian Gulf state to build nuclear plants after neighboring UAE, which is building four nuclear reactors that will collectively produce 1,400 MW of electricity. Kepco won the $20 billion contract to construct the UAE reactors, whose start-up has been delayed. |
|
Russia’s Rosatom nuclear firm targets its marketing at African countries
- Russian developer has signed over a dozen agreements in Africa
- Various financing options being considered for the plant build
Rosatom Corp., is eyeing Africa as one of its “priority regions” to build more nuclear reactors and expand its business……(Subscribers only) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-30/russia-s-rosatom-focuses-on-africa-for-its-nuclear-expansion
France’s government demands that EDF fix Flamanville nuclear reactor within one month
EDF given a month to draw up a fix for Flamanville’s nuclear woes French energy group under pressure to address faults highlighted in a new report. https://www.ft.com/content/877eedae-f987-11e9-a354-36acbbb0d9b6 David Keohane in Paris, 28 Oct 19.
The reprehensible pro nuclear campaign for bailing out nuclear power in Ohio
Melting Ice, Crumbling Nukes, Cecile Pineta Newsletter Sunday, October 27, 2019 For anyone following or attempting to follow nuclear energy news in the United States, what’s been going on in the State of Ohio is a solid indicator of just where we stand, technologically, and from a style of government standpoint.
Without going into stupefying background detail, I’ll try to sum up the Ohio situation with help from the summary published Oct. 26 by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman who have been birddogging this issue for decades now. And I quote:
- In July, the gerrymandered Ohio Legislature passed HB6, a massive
[1 billion-dollar] bailout to keep the two dying nukes operating on Lake Erie, [Davis-Besse, and Perry].
- Akron-based First Energy is bankrupt…[demanding] a promised $1 billion bailout.
- Signature gatherers were offered as much as $2,500 to turn over their signed petitions. [Contrast this with receiving only $.25 cents a signature.]
While disrupting legitimate [signature] gatherers, pro-nuke thugs aggressively collected multiple duplicate signatures for a fake non-binding petition.
Deep Pockets
- First Energy then claimed it had gathered more than 800,000 “pro-nuke’ signatures.
- First Energy accompanied [thug] assaults with a massive radio/TV/mailer campaign [with the ridiculous claim that] “Chinese Communists” were buying Ohio’s grid.
- OACB’s court filing showed that state regulations imposed on certification have vastly reduced the number of referenda Ohioans can vote on.
- Wednesday last, Oct. 26, a federal judge rejected OACB’s request for more time to gather signatures, and sent the case to the Ohio GOP-dominated Supreme Court.
- OACB is rumored to have about 225,000 signatures on hand, 40,000 short of the threshold. Far more will be needed to overcome a [Republican] Secretary of State certain to disallow as many as [possible].
- [And here’s the kicker:] Polls show Ohioans [who will be the rate-payers] vehemently opposed to the bailout. [That’s why] most observers believe if it [got] on the ballot, the referendum would pass by a large margin.
- [But] should Federal appeals fail, and the Ohio Supreme Court refuse the request for more time, the referendum process will have suffered a potential death blow nationwide. It will mean Fascist thugs will be free to assault legitimate signature gatherers at will.
This last point is the main take-away. First Energy mounted this campaign in major Ohio cities: Youngstown, Akron, Toledo, and Columbus among them. It underwrote its million-dollar-plus cost-of-doing business in flyers, TV/radio/mailer announcements. It paid thousands of goon-disrupters to do their thuggish business on the streets.
At play is a $1 billion bailout. A million-dollar cost-of-doing business is a mere investment, a drop in the corporate bucket. At issue is that its cost will be passed directly to ratepayers.
Core tests conducted at Davis Besse show that its containment vessel is critically embrittled. Should there be an accident (like Three-Mile Island for example} Lake Erie is at serious risk of nuclear contamination. First Energy’s ratepayers draw their water from Lake Erie, the fourth largest of the Great Lakes and source of fresh water for Canadians and Americans living in the area.
Already in 2011, following the nuclear catastrophe at Fukushima, I covered the issue of Davis Besse’s critical embrittlement in Devil’s Tango: How I Learned the Fukushima Step by Step.
That was 8 years ago….. https://devilstangobook.blogspot.com/2019/10/melting-ice-crumbling-nukes.html?showComment=1572237519303#c7332297197888828316
Over 300 financial institutions put $748 billion in to nuclear weapons companies
Of the 325 investors, eight are Japanese lenders with a total investment of $25.5 billion, says the Netherlands-based PAX. The eight include Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc., Mizuho Financial Group Inc. and Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc.
The 18 recipients, which PAX calls “the top 18 nuclear weapon producing companies,” include Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp. a U.S. defense giant involved in the manufacturing of the long-range nuclear Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile.
The total investment was up 42 percent from the tally in the previous report, which covered 20 companies in a period between January 2014 and October 2017, according to Susi Snyder, a PAX member who is the main author of the new report.
She attributed the increase to a 192 percent jump by Boeing and a 300 percent surge by French defense company Thales SA.
Snyder, however, said the number of investors “continues to drop” amid rising criticism against investment in inhumane weapons such as nuclear bombs.
She cited a provision in the nuclear weapons ban treaty banning “to assist” developing nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devises. The treaty was adopted in 2017 at the U.N. General Assembly.
Snyder praised Resona Holdings Inc. for not providing loans to borrowers that are involved in the development of nuclear weapons.
Such a policy is “a really positive step” toward reducing — and eventually eliminating — nuclear weapons, she said.
Of the eight Japanese lenders listed in the report, Fuyo General Lease Co. said it has not invested in nuclear weapon producing companies, although a company that had business dealings with a Fuyo subsidiary in the United States was acquired by a nuclear weapons-related company.
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Holdings Inc. said it invests in the given companies through some index funds handled by a group company.
Six other lenders — Mitsubishi UFJ, Mizuho, Sumitomo Mitsui, Orix Corp., Nomura Holdings Inc. and the Development Bank of Japan — said they do not comment on individual dealings.
PAX focused on all financial institutions involved in underwritings of share and bond issuances for one or more of the 18 companies since January 2017 and own at least 0.5 percent of the outstanding shares or bonds of at least one of the companies based on the latest data available through June last year.
For the climate’s sake, the $multibillion nuclear industry bailouts must stop
|
Nuclear Industry’s $23 Billion Bailout Request Shows Why It Should Have ‘No Role to Play’ in Solving Climate Crisis: Study “For the sake of taxpayers, electricity consumers and the climate, Congress must stop this endless nuclear boondoggle.” by Eoin Higgins, staff writer A proposed bailout of the U.S. nuclear power industry that could cost taxpayers $23 billion over the next 10 years is a perfect example of why the climate crisis needs solutions that focus on renewable resources, green advocacy group Friends of the Earth said Thursday.”The dying nuclear industry wants a massive bailout at the expense of taxpayers and the climate,” the group’s senior policy analyst Lukas Ross said in a statement. Friends of the Earth commissioned a study (pdf) on the Nuclear Powers America Act of 2019, a nuclear industry-backed bill making its way through Congress that would continue subsidies for the industry for decades. Vermont Law School fellow Mark Cooper, who authored the study, wrote that the consequences of continuing tax credits for the industry would have the effect of making other potential technologies unviable for reducing emissions. “Subsidizing nuclear keeps reactors on-line and crowds out the alternatives,” said Cooper. “It slows the transition to an electrical grid based on low-carbon distributed resources.” While renewables are a major part of the push from climate activists and advocates to solve the climate crisis, using nuclear power to reduce emissions has been floated as a potential piece of the Green New Deal. The technology was notably left out of the legislation by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a decision that Popular Mechanics writer Avery Thompson hailed in February as a “great idea.” “Reactors are gigantic beasts, and sustaining a nuclear reaction while drawing power from it requires an absurd level of engineering,” wrote Thompson. “Reactors are expensive, bulky, and complicated, to say nothing of the waste products they produce or the fear of a catastrophe like Chernobyl or Fukushima.” The proposed nuclear industry bailout, warns Cooper in the new report, is an attempt to reverse economic trends that have never been favorable to nuclear power standing by itself. The industry, Cooper said, hasn’t earned the right to be considered as a realistic solution to the climate crisis or U.S. energy needs. “Nuclear has failed for over 50 years to control its costs, even with help from massive subsidies, and alternatives are available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at a much lower cost,” wrote Cooper. Time is of the essence, said Friends of the Earth’s Ross. “With just a decade left to prevent the worst of the climate crisis, we shouldn’t dump more money into ancient nuclear reactors at the expense of cleaner and much cheaper renewables,” he said. |
|
Uninsurable – and for good reason – nuclear power
|
Nuclear energy is too costly and risky; better alternatives exist https://www.jhnewsandguide.com/opinion/columnists/common_ground/nuclear-energy-is-too-costly-and-risky-better-alternatives-exist/article_71a11439-581d-572f-87c7-88dad34ddf74.html Common Ground / By Paul W. Hansen , 23 Oct 19 In last week’s Guest Shot the director of the Idaho National Lab (INL) Mark Peters wrote to open a dialogue with News&Guide readers about nuclear energy. I want to take him up on his offer. First, what we agree on. Nuclear energy produces about 20% of the nation’s electricity, which is about 8% of our total energy use. Overall, we need to produce and use energy that minimizes greenhouse gases. Looking at the troubled history, poor economics, attendant risk and unsolved problem of nuclear waste disposal, I think there are much better alternatives for producing carbon free energy. Today, there are 97 nuclear reactors in 29 states that produce electricity. Thirty-four reactors have been shut down. More orders for nuclear plants have been canceled than plants have been built. Only one plant has come online in the last 25 years. Early claims that nuclear power would be “too cheap to meter” proved false. Despite extensive public subsidies, nuclear plants across America have faced significant cost overruns. For example, the Washington Public Power Supply System defaulted on $2.25 billion in municipal bonds when cost overruns on two units caused the cancellation of two other units. The Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant on Long Island was completed in 1985, but never operated when an evacuation plan could not be implemented. The plant was decommissioned. The $6 billion cost of the unused plant was passed on to Long Island residents. Attempts to build new nuclear plants have been even more challenging. During the 1980s, the cost of Plant Vogtle’s first two nuclear units near Augusta, Georgia, jumped from an estimated $660 million to $8.87 billion. Regardless, 20 years later Georgia Power wanted to build the “next generation” of nuclear power plants. In August 2008, it was estimated that Plant Vogtle reactors 3 and 4 would cost $14.3 billion and begin operations in 2017. Today, updated estimates put the cost at $28 billion with an operation date of November 2022. The project is projected to be $14 billion over budget and more than 5 years behind schedule. The builder of the reactors, Westinghouse, has declared bankruptcy. In 2017, a similar two-unit plant in South Carolina, the V.C. Summer plant, was abandoned — costing about $5 billion. Concerns over the transportation and storage of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel have prevented any nuclear waste repositories from being developed in the U.S. Spent fuel rods are stored onsite at nuclear plants. When uranium fuel is used up, usually after about 18 months, the spent rods are generally moved to deep pools of circulating water to cool down for about 10 years. The radioactive material is then transferred to metal casks. The waste remains dangerously radioactive for about 10,000 years. There is no plan for permanent disposal of this waste. This brings me to my biggest concern — the fact that those in our society whose business it is to determine risk will not insure nuclear power. If you own a home, look at your homeowner’s insurance policy. You are not covered in the event of a nuclear accident. No one is. The nuclear industry exists only due to the liability limitations granted by Congress in the Price Anderson Act. Price Anderson requires the nuclear industry to fund an account of $12.6 billion. Any liability above that is supposed to be covered by taxpayers. Then there are the issues of long-term decommissioning costs, nuclear accidents or terrorists. In Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear accidents have left large areas uninhabitable. What if the 9/11 terrorists had managed to crash those planes into the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant north of New York City? While the reactor containment vessel might have survived the impact, the spent fuel rod pools may not have, leaving much of the New York metropolitan area uninhabitable. Nuclear energy has not worked out as planned. Far more carbon-free power can be generated at far less cost and risk by renewable energy and energy efficiency programs. |
|
US Energy Secretary Perry turns New Nuclear Salesman to Europe
|
Messianic Perry preaches nuclear to sceptical Europeans, By Frédéric Simon | EURACTIV.com 21 Oct 19, Small nuclear reactors can help “vulnerable nations take control of their destinies,” the US energy secretary said in Brussels today (21 October), claiming that small off-grid nuclear plants can bring electricity to poor nations and “disperse the darkness” around the globe.
Countries with nuclear power “can’t be controlled by other countries wielding energy as a geopolitical weapon”, US Secretary of State Rick Perry said in Brussels as he addressed a forum of policymakers and industry representatives from both sides of the Atlantic. Nuclear power helps “vulnerable nations take control of their destinies,” Perry claimed, arguing that “energy security also bolsters national security”. Perry attended the first EU-US high-level forum on small modular reactors. His remarks on energy independence were chiefly aimed at Eastern European countries, which have repeatedly complained about Russian interference in national politics, using gas as a lever. Nuclear is a divise topic in Europe. While countries like France opted for it decades ago, others like Germany and Austria are strongly opposed. “Nuclear energy is neither safe and sustainable nor cost-effective,” said German State Secretary for Energy, Andreas Feicht, during a recent meeting of EU energy ministers, firmly rejecting suggestions that EU money might be used to extend the lifetime of existing nuclear plants. But Perry’s message was broader, and was also addressed at developing nations whom he said could benefit from small off-grid nuclear plants………. |
|
Nuclear shill Rick Perry switching from DOE Secretary to Small Nuclear Reactor Salesman
Perry to Resign as DOE Secretary, With Nuclear Weapon Programs on
Autopilot, OCTOBER 18, 2019, BY DAN LEONE,Rick Perry on Thursday announced his resignation as the Donald Trump administration’s first secretary of energy after more than two-and-a-half years on the job. In a published letter to President Donald Trump, Perry said he would resign “later this year”…(subscribers only) https://www.exchangemonitor.com/perry-resign-doe-secretary-nuclear-weapon-programs-autopilot/
Energy Wire 17th Oct 2019, Energy Secretary Rick Perry will head back to Europe next week as part of an effort to boost the U.S. advanced nuclear industry’s ability to export its technologies across the globe.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/10/17/stories/1061299145
Trump grants extension for nuclear fuel recommendations
The Nuclear Fuel Working Group had been expected to deliver recommendations to President Donald Trump last week. But the Commerce Department says Trump granted a 30-day extension.
Uranium mining interests say the global market for uranium ore is vulnerable to political turmoil.
They want Trump to boost U.S. demand to help domestic suppliers. But the president rejected a requested quota during the summer and gave the task force 90 days to come up with other ideas….. https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/us/article/Trump-grants-extension-for-nuclear-fuel-14541894.php
-
Archives
- April 2026 (346)
- 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)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
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












