nuclear-news

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

The emerging potential new nuclear industry political scam

an emerging potential scam that could end up with ratepayers’ and federal taxpayers’ getting stuck with vast decommissioning and waste-management liabilities.
Does Nuclear Power Slow Or Speed Climate Change? Forbes,  Amory B. Lovins 17 Nov 19, 
“……….The previous six forms of payment were:1.     Taxpayers paid to create the nuclear industry, build its fueling infrastructure, and finance the reactor fleet via a vast array of often opaque and generally permanent federal subsidies that cost more than building the plants and more than the value of their output.

2.     Through generally regulated utility tariffs, customers paid for the plants’ construction and financing, including a just and reasonable return on capital.

3.     Customers paid over decades for the plants’ operation, including major repairs, power upratings, and safety upgrades.

4.     Many customers reimbursed owners for “stranded-asset costs” totaling upwards of $70 billion to support the owner-demanded transition to competitive wholesale markets.

5.     Over the past few years, when reactors generating 2 percent of U.S. electricity proved unable to compete in those wholesale markets (though most of their owners kept their finances secret and kept reporting profits to investors), the owners persuaded state legislators in Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Ohio to vote billions of dollars a year for new multi-year operating subsidies.

6.     Exelon, the nation’s largest nuclear operator and the leading player in the previous two steps, successfully sought Federal regulatory approval for greater capacity payments from power pools whose auctions found nuclear power uncompetitive and whose own rules were thrown off-balance by the new state subsidies. And now, as the annual logrolling season of “tax extenders” rolls around in Congress:

7.     For the third year, Exelon is advancing a “Nuclear Powers America Act” to create a new federal investment tax credit on nuclear fuel and maintenance expenses to “help level the playing fuel with other clean energy sources”—whose temporary tax credits are meanwhile being phased down or out. This follows a longstanding pattern of giving different kinds of subsidies to renewables than to nuclear, then “leveling the playing field” by trying to duplicate renewables’ specific forms of subsidies with new ones for nuclear, but never the reverse.

This saga of selling the same hay seven times—and those clever lawyers aren’t done yet—doesn’t include many additional federal and state subsidies. It also doesn’t include an emerging potential scam that could end up with ratepayers’ and federal taxpayers’ getting stuck with vast decommissioning and waste-management liabilities. This emerging pattern has an LLC buy a closed reactor. Absent oversight or rules to stop misbehavior, the LLC could then choose to strip the accumulated customer-funded multi-billion-dollar cash decommissioning fund, not finish the job, and walk away, leaving the parent company whole and electricity customers or taxpayers holding the bag. Watch this space.

Exelon’s proposed “nuclear investment tax credit” has ingenious new features:

–         By redefining normal accounting categories so fuel becomes a capital investment, it repays utilities for an “investment” that’s really just a normal operating cost—thus trying to make nuclear operating costs look small by shifting much of them to taxpayers.

The nuclear operating costs it covers have no counterpart for renewables (fuel, nuclear waste management, protection against catastrophic releases of radioactivity), or almost none (operation & maintenance costs), so a tax credit for them would specifically advantage nuclear against renewables.

–         Nuclear owners may be able to double-dip, collecting the new federal subsidy and new state subsidies for the same plants and thus turning dead dinosaurs into juicy cash cows.

–         There’s virtually no “means test”: the new federal subsidy would apply to about 95% of US operating reactors, including those that the industry claims are currently profitable.

–         The proposed legislation, obscurely written in tax-law jargon, appears to be a 30% tax credit (phasing down to 26% in 2024, 22% in 2025, and a permanent 10% in and after 2026), and to cost ~$22–26 billion over the first decade, or ~$33 billion counting the crowding-out of cheaper competitors. Every billion dollars thus bilked from taxpayers is unavailable to provide more electrical services and save more carbon by cheaper means.

–         By further distorting the delicate balance between federal, regional, and state regulation, the subsidy seems tailored to weaken or destroy the efficient regional power markets where renewables beat nuclear power. The goal is thus to pay nuclear power for values it doesn’t deliver, while blocking its most potent competitors from continuing to provide the values they do deliver.

–         Unlike renewable credits that have helped to mature important new technologies, the nuclear credit would elicit no new production, capacity, or innovation. It would simply transfer tens of billions of dollars to the owners of uncompetitive nuclear assets bought decades ago—if they apply for license extension by 2026, as nearly all have done.

This covert attack on renewables is logical because renewables are now the supply-side competitor nuclear must beat but can’t. The nuclear industry is reluctant to admit that renewables are a legitimate competitor, since this would contradict its claims that renewables can’t supply reliable power. Renewables, unlike nuclear power, are also widely popular. Nuclear advocates therefore tend to blame their woes instead on cheap natural gas. However, new and often even existing combined-cycle gas-fired power plants no longer have a business case: a September 2019 study found that at least 90% of the 88 proposed US gas-fired plants are pre-stranded assets. ………https://www.forbes.com/sites/amorylovins/2019/11/18/does-nuclear-power-slow-or-speed-climate-change/#5b47c988506b

November 18, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Hinkley Point C nuclear, a super-expensive project for a dubious short term gain

This is the West Country 17th Nov 2019, Stop Hinkley spokesman Roy Pumfrey questions whether the economic boost from Hinkley C is worth the cost   I get tired of reading how easily impressed councillors are when they visit the giant incomplete building site that is HPC.
Why does Cllr Ann Bown assume that we all think the
“biggest economic boost” is necessarily a good thing when it is also hugely
problematic and costly for anyone not directly involved? In our case,
economic growth also means a host of problems. There are more traffic jams
all around gridlocked Bridgwater. I’d like to travel from Bridgwater to
Taunton using the Taunton Road, but that simply adds 30 minutes to the
journey time.
Air and light pollution (if you live on the ‘Dark Side’ of the Quantocks, try a trip to a summit on a cloudy evening to see what I mean) have increased as a result of HPC. Rents, particularly of one-bedroom properties anywhere close to the HPC bus routes, have gone sky high due to well-paid HPC contractors and one wonders what the seven hotels built or in the pipeline will become after the HPC Gold Rush is history.
And it will be electricity consumers from Lands End to John O Groats who will have to fund this excessively expensive project to the tune of around £50bn over the next 35 years. That assumes that HPC ever works, unlike its sister reactors in Finland and France, both massively over-budget and years behind
schedule.
Instead of uncritically absorbing EDF’s spin on the project, councillors and council officers should be asking EDF why they pretended for over a year that all was going well when, in fact, they must have known that ‘challenging ground conditions’ and ‘bad weather’ meant that the cost was rising by another £2.9billion and further delay was inevitable.
A massive house retrofit programme across the south-west, for instance, would also be a big economic boost for the region, but a much more sustainable investment with the benefits accruing to ordinary consumers.
When Cllr Bown has finished closing her eyes to the problems Hinkley C poses and taking in pro-nuclear fantasies, perhaps she can open
\ them to the reality of the massive hazard an untried new nuclear power
station running adjacent to her constituency represents.
Building a new  nuclear power station with a sixty year life span on a vulnerable coastline with the latest concerns about sea level rise is a gamble. People need to think about the legacy being left for their grandchildren before talking about ‘progress’ and short term ‘economic boosts’.

https://www.thisisthewestcountry.co.uk/news/somerset_news/18041205.letter-economic-growth-hinkley-c-worth-costs/

November 18, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

The plight of Fukushima nuclear workers getting leukaemia

November 16, 2019 Posted by | employment, health, Japan, media, politics | Leave a comment

Before he’s even in the job, USA’s new Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette is busily promoting SMRs for his REAL bosses, the nuclear industryg

Could tiny nuclear reactors power Alaska villages?

By Liz Ruskin, Alaska Public Media November 14, 2019 President Trump’s nominee to be the next secretary of energy says he would continue the quest to develop mini nuclear reactors that could one day power communities in rural Alaska.

“We want to get to a place where we can develop small micro-reactors, one to five megawatts,” Dan Brouillette said Thursday at his confirmation hearing in the U.S. Senate Energy Committee. …..

Brouillette is now the deputy secretary. He told Murkowski there’s reason to be optimistic about the development of reactors that are a fraction of the size of those in use today. ….. https://www.alaskapublic.org/2019/11/14/energy-secretary-nominee-says-tiny-nuclear-reactors-could-power-alaska-villages/

November 16, 2019 Posted by | marketing, politics, USA | Leave a comment

S and P Global Ratings has made it plain: nuclear power can survive only with massive tax-payer support

Nuclear power ‘dead and alive’, S&P proclaims, EURACTIV, 13 Nov 19, Growing competition from cheap renewable electricity, safety concerns, and rising costs of new plants are slowly driving nuclear power over the edge – except in Russia and China where the industry continues to enjoy extensive state support, S&P said in a note to investors.It’s probably one of the worst kept secrets in the energy world: nuclear power wouldn’t be able to stand on its own feet without massive government support.

Now, S&P Global Ratings has made it plain and clear to investors.

“The global nuclear industry is facing challenges to do with safety concerns, tightening regulations post-Fukushima, phase-out policies in several countries, aging asset bases, increasingly volatile energy markets, and competition with renewables,” the rating agency wrote in the note, released on Monday (11 November).

“We see little economic rationale for new nuclear builds in the US or Western Europe, owing to massive cost escalations and renewables cost-competitiveness, which should lead to a material decline in nuclear generation by 2040,” S&P said.

But despite those challenges, it would be too soon to pronounce nuclear power dead, S&P adds. China and Russia, for instance, continue to build new nuclear capacities, supported by energy policies and significantly lower construction costs, the rating agency remarked.

In the US, Energy Secretary Rick Perry has touted small modular reactors (SMRs) as key to the industry’s future, saying small reactors could provide access to electricity in areas of the globe which are currently “shrouded in darkness”. ……..

In Europe, a battle has been raging below the radar on whether to include or reject nuclear power from an upcoming sustainable finance classification scheme aimed at driving private investments into the green economy.

While France supports the inclusion of nuclear in the EU’s draft green finance taxonomy, Germany and Austria argue nuclear isn’t sustainable and shouldn’t be eligible for any kind of EU support. A final decision on the EU’s sustainable finance taxonomy is expected in December. https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/nuclear-power-dead-and-alive-sp-proclaims/

November 14, 2019 Posted by | 2 WORLD, business and costs | 1 Comment

Messianic Rick Perry preaches nuclear to sceptical Europeans

Messianic Perry preaches nuclear to sceptical Europeans, By Frédéric Simon | EURACTIV.com Oct 26, 2019  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…….

Today’s remarks, made in Brussels at the first EU-US high-level forum on small modular reactors, were again 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.

Today’s remarks, made in Brussels at the first EU-US high-level forum on small modular reactors, were again 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……

November 14, 2019 Posted by | EUROPE, marketing, USA | Leave a comment

The push for nuclear power in Africa, but what happens to the wastes?

November 14, 2019 Posted by | AFRICA, marketing, wastes | Leave a comment

Georgia Power and the ballooning costs of Nuclear Plant Vogtle

Plant Vogtle Expansion in the Spotlight: billion$ more at risk

 Sara Barczak, SACE consultant and former Regional Advocacy Director. November 8, 2019 On the heels of public hearings before the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) on Georgia Power’s controversial $2.2 billion rate increase request, the “Elephant in the Room” will be in the spotlight: the over budget, more than five year delayed Plant Vogtle nuclear expansion. The PSC will hold a hearing this Tuesday for Georgia Power witnesses to testify about the project’s status in the combined 20th/21st semi-annual Vogtle Construction Monitoring (VCM) proceeding.

In the 19th VCM, approved last February, the Commission decided to combine the next two reporting periods, which SACE and others opposed, and as predicted, Georgia Power has since spent a lot on the mismanaged nuclear project. The Company is now asking for verification and approval of $1.248 billion in expenditures. And that’s just for Georgia Power’s 45.7% share of the costs incurred during the reporting period from July 2018 to June 2019 for the two new AP1000 reactors under construction at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro, along the Savannah River.

The continuing saga is like a broken record in each of these VCM proceedings, and it remains mostly the same upon reading Georgia Power’s report and the witnesses’ written testimony, which will be discussed before the Commission on Tuesday.

The project (again) isn’t meeting the productivity goals and appears to be falling further behind schedule, but Georgia Power remains confident (again) that they will somehow have Unit 3 online by November 2021 and Unit 4 by November 2022. Remember, these reactors were supposed to both be operational by April 2017!

And (again) Georgia Power provides itself an out, pointing (again) to a multitude of potential “challenges” in the months ahead that could impact the schedule and most importantly ultimate costs to the utility customers. Because of consistent delays and mismanagement, the currently-projected total cost of this project has more than doubled from the original $14.1 billion estimate to over $28 billion.

Georgia Power customers concerned about their utility bills should let the Commission know that not only are they worried about how the proposed rate hike will affect their bills, but are also very concerned about what happens when the other shoe drops – when Plant Vogtle’s final budget-busting price tag gets rolled into customer’s electricity rates.

Unable to attend the November 12 hearing? Watch online starting at 9am ET via the PSC’s livestream feed and contact the PSC with your concerns.

November 12, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

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.

The EPR model is the latest generation reactor being built by EDF, with complex engineering and enhanced safety features put in place after the Fukushima nuclear meltdown in Japan.

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.

November 12, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, France, politics | Leave a comment

EDF – a nuclear business financial meltdown

The world’s largest nuclear power producer is melting down MSN, Bloomberg, Francois De Beaupuy, 1 Nov 19, 
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

November 2, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, France | Leave a comment

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

November 2, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, renewable, UK | Leave a comment

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/

October 31, 2019 Posted by | AFRICA, marketing, politics international, Russia | Leave a comment

USA negotiating nuclear sales with Saudi Arabia

October 31, 2019 Posted by | marketing, Saudi Arabia, USA | Leave a comment

Countries vie to market nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia

October 31, 2019 Posted by | marketing, Saudi Arabia | Leave a comment

Russia’s Rosatom nuclear firm targets its marketing at African countries

Russia’s State-Owned Nuclear Giant Is Targeting Africa for its Growth

By Paul Burkhardt   October 30, 2019, 
  •  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

October 31, 2019 Posted by | AFRICA, marketing | Leave a comment