|
Shelved nuclear power plans leave UK government’s energy policy in hot water, Chemistry World BY MATTHEW GUNTHER, 20 Feb 19, The UK government’s nuclear energy policy is in disarray after the Japanese company Hitachi stopped work on a proposed plant in Wylfa last month. The move comes just months after fellow Japanese firm Toshiba shelved plans to build a nuclear power station in Cumbria.On 17 January 2019, Horizon Nuclear Power, the Hitachi-owned subsidiary responsible for the Wylfa project, put all construction at the site on hold. The £15 billon 2.9GW nuclear power plant was to have a 60-year operational life. Hitachi also scrapped plans for another reactor at Oldbury.
Hitachi has already invested around £2 billion into the Wylfa project prior to the announcement, with the UK government offering to invest £5 billion. But spiralling costs led to doubts that the project would survive through financing negotiations. F
‘Negotiations had been going on for about six months,’ explains Tom Greatrex, chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association. ‘Although the UK government has got to a point of what it would agree to, and Hitachi got some investment in place, there wasn’t enough.’
Simon Taylor, an economist with the Energy Policy Research Group in Cambridge, UK, agrees with Greatrex, but says it is unclear why the Wylfa project has ultimately stalled. ‘I can only assume that they wanted the government to take more of the risk – particularly the construction risk,’ he says.
The recent troubles at Toshiba may also have encouraged Hitachi to limit the risk it was exposed to, according to Taylor. Last year Toshiba announced it would end all new global nuclear projects, including a planned site at Moorside in Cumbria. The company had invested £400 million in Moorside before pulling out in response to its US nuclear division filing for bankruptcy.
Such failures highlight one issue with a new nuclear project, explains Taylor: ‘[It] is extremely expensive and it involves a lot of risk.’
Striking a deal
Financial risk is an inevitable part of large infrastructure projects, but the nuclear industry has a unique set of challenges to overcome. Taylor explains that even if a firm’s reactor has a proven track record, it must make design modifications to satisfy local regulators. This forms part of the UK’s Generic Design Assessment (GDA) – a rigorous review process that can last years. The GDA for Hitachi’s Wylfa reactor was completed within four.
Once the GDA is signed off and the site approved, only then can a firm begin to build its power plant. But, under current UK policy, the high costs associated with construction lie solely with the company. The final construction bill for the Wylfa plant was to be an estimated £15 billion……….https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/shelved-nuclear-power-plans-leave-uk-governments-energy-policy-in-hot-water/3010136.articleEBRUARY 2019
|
|
February 21, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, UK |
Leave a comment
Penn Live, Feb 19 By Eric Epstein, Maureen Mulligan and David Hughes, guest contributors
It is the duty of state legislators to draft laws that respond to the needs of the districts that they represent. Some electric utility companies that own low or unprofitable nuclear plants want Pennsylvania lawmakers to enact legislation that will provide subsidies to utilities that own and operate uneconomical nuclear power plants.
Proponents of a nuclear bailout tax frequently argue that these subsidies are necessary for grid reliability and to meet statewide greenhouse gas emissions goals, and that plant closures would create economic hardships in the communities where they operate. While these are all important priorities, the measures the nuclear power industry is proposing would not produce the proclaimed results.
PJM Interconnection, the regional power grid operator responsible for grid reliability for 65 million customers in 21 states including Pennsylvania and the mid-Atlantic region, has published multiple studies making it clear that closing these plants would not affect grid reliability. The lights will continue to shine if uneconomical nuclear power plants retire, thanks in part to increased solar and wind generation coming online throughout the state.
An analysis by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) provides evidence that “continuing to operate these plants does nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from current levels.” In fact, more cost-effective, economically productive and environmentally benign options are available.
As multiple studies have proved, despite the mythology, nuclear power is not a carbon-free source of energy. Greenhouse gases are emitted in all stages of the life cycle of a nuclear reactor: construction, operation, fuel production, dismantling and waste disposal. In addition, nuclear plants routinely vent some of the deadliest gases known to exist.
And, of course, there is the issue of what to do with the dangerous radioactive waste. Nuclear power is an old and expensive technology. Subsidizing aging, unprofitable reactors on the verge of retirement anyway diverts large financial resources from investments in new technologies and infrastructure and slows renewable energy growth that is driving down emissions without seeking a handout.
The analysis by NIRS highlights that potential job losses can be addressed without making electricity ratepayers pay more to bail out the owners of these uneconomical plants. In fact, the increased energy costs to manufacturers — some of the biggest energy users in the commonwealth — as a result of a nuclear bailout could lead to job losses and lack of economic growth in the state that are the same or worse than a plant closure. …….https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2019/02/bailout-tax-profitable-corporations-need-to-come-clean-on-nuclear-energy-opinion.html
February 21, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Global Nuclear Liability Insurance And Claims, Mondaq
|
15 February 2019
Article by STA Law Firm
“……….power generation from nuclear reactors pose a more substantial threat of causing major mishaps and accidents which could potentially damage property, cause personal injury, and damage the environment on a magnanimous scale. The potential underlying risk has thrown a significantly challenging question before the political heads of the world – who will be liable for the damage caused by such a nuclear incident? Several nations have addressed the concept of nuclear liability insurance and compensatory claims made by the injured parties through legally binding international conventions or/and national laws which has been analysed in great length in this paper……..
How is nuclear energy liability insurance structured?……….
While structuring insurance for nuclear reactors, the only factor which ought to be considered is the high potential perils associated with installation and operations of nuclear fission and fusion. This drastically differs from the risk associated to that of other industries of global sectors. The fundamentals of any nuclear liability insurance are:
I. Channelling of liability on the operators: The nuclear operators are liable for all damages caused by a nuclear incident notwithstanding fault liability.
II. Trans-border nationality: A nuclear energy disaster affects not only the country in which it is located but the surrounding states as well. Hence, national laws are augmented with international conventions which are needed to defend the cross-border inflictions of such disasters.
III. Limited liability: Limited civil liability concept has been incorporated by the international conventions on the basis which the national laws have been formulated, putting a maximum cap limit on the nuclear operators, beyond which the state will take up the liability.
(Detailed explanation is provided in the latter part of this article)
Due to such high-risk and strict liability, the nuclear operators opt for third-party civil liability insurance which finds its root in either of the two forms:
I. National Insurance Pool:
To cover the potential liability of the nuclear industry, many insurers agreed to pool their resources for the associated high-potential risks. A pool is where a group of insurance companies jointly participate to a fixed percentage in the insurance of a particular risk or class of business. These are created in the circumstances involving risks which, in practicality, cannot be provided by any individual insurer on a stand-alone basis. In most countries, national insurance pools have been formed based on the requirements laid down by the federal laws (based on international conventions), pooling together insurance for the domestic nuclear operators.II. Mutual Insurance Associations: The USA (the Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited) and Europe (the European Mutual Insurance for Nuclear Installations) have insurance associations which deal with the physical damage and liability in the event of a nuclear accident which is set up by the nuclear industry itself.
Principles or fundamentals governing Nuclear Liability Insurance:
In recognition of this exposure caused by nuclear accidents, the international conventions and nuclear liability insurance were formulated in the light of the seven fundamental principles:
I. Strict Liability:
The operator is directly and strictly liable for the damage caused by the nuclear incident. The aggrieved need not prove that the operator was negligent or at fault. Only the link between the damage caused and the nuclear incident needs to be demonstrated. The operator is liable for any damage resulting from a nuclear event at his installation, in principle irrespective of its cause.
II. Channelling liability to the operator (Exclusive liability):
All liability arising from the damage caused by a nuclear accident is channelled to the operator, thereby protecting the rights of the public. The operator is exclusively liable for damage resulting from a nuclear incident. He is held liable to the exclusion of any other person, regardless of who caused the damage. Hence, the damage is charged to the operator himself and not the suppliers. The channeling of liability might seem unfair as it means that the operator could be liable even if a third party were negligent or at fault. The victim of a nuclear incident can only present his claim to the operator of the installation causing damage or his insurer. Furthermore, such exclusive liability brings certainty in insurance claims as the compensation settlements would be quick, and avoids costly and time-consuming claim procedures. Had the situation been otherwise, then insurers would have to hold separate pools or covers for every party involved in the nuclear reactor chain.
III. Limitation of liability in Time:
This is an important concept because the injury caused by a nuclear incident may not manifest for several years. Ergo, a limitation period is intended to help the claimant where the consequences may not reveal for several years; thereby not divulging them of their right to seek damage, and at the same time it protects the rights of the operators and insurers by not exposing them of liability for an indefinite period. For example, in the UK, the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 states that any claim made after 10 years (from the date of occurrence of the nuclear incident) but less than 30 years, will be made directly to the government instead of the insurer or the operator.
IV. Limitation of Liability in Time:
The amount of liability charged to an operator under the principle of strict and exclusive liability is capped to a limit to shelter them from the full risk amount. This concept is introduced to bring a balance or quid pro quo status against the strict and exclusive liability. Beyond the limit, the state covers the liability amount.
V. Insurance or other _nancial security:
Operators are obligated to carry financial security to cover their potential liability amount in the event of a nuclear incident. Usually, insurance pools tend to third-party claims. However, in certain situations, operators take the liability on themselves and cover the same by providing financial security in the form of government guarantees, bank guarantees, letters of credit, mutual fund, operators’ pooling etc.
VI. Jurisdiction:
Jurisdiction over claim actions lies exclusively with the courts of the country where the nuclear incident occurred. The courts of other contracting states will not be competent to hear the claims. Judgements made by the competent court will be recognized and enforced in other contracting countries. This principle is only useful when many states have ratified either the same convention or a bridging convention. Victims may, on first impressions, see it as an advantage to be entitled to sue all possible parties in different courts for nuclear damage. However, it is pertinent in the victims’ best interest to disburse compensation equitably.
VII. Applicable Law:
The applicable law is the national law of the competent court that has jurisdiction. The federal law must also be applied without discrimination on the grounds of nationality, domicile and residence. The applicable law principle helps prevent costly and lengthy arguments about which law applies, especially with regard to the complexities of the national and international rules surrounding the conflict of laws.
International Conventions:
A nuclear accident causing trans-boundary damage has led to the development of international conventions to ensure that victims have a readily available justice system.
I. Paris Convention:
The nuclear industries liability regime was founded in 1960 by the OECD’s Paris Convention. Which requires national legislation to be passed for it to be ratified. Although this convention recognizes strict and exclusive channeling of liability, it specifies certain exceptions, which rebuff the liability of the operator. Following are the exceptions: ………… http://www.mondaq.com/x/781188/Insurance/Global+Nuclear+Liability+Insurance+and+Claims
|
|
|
|
February 16, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, legal |
Leave a comment
National debt hits new milestone, topping $22 trillion, abc 22 now, by MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics WriterWednesday, February 13th 2019 WASHINGTON (AP) — The national debt has passed a new milestone, topping $22 trillion for the first time.
The Treasury Department‘s daily statement showed Tuesday that total outstanding public debt stands at $22.01 trillion. It stood at $19.95 trillion when President Donald Trump took office on Jan. 20, 2017.
The debt figure has been accelerating since the passage of Trump’s $1.5 trillion tax cut in December 2017 and action by Congress last year to increase spending on domestic and military programs.
The national debt is the total of the annual budget deficits. The Congressional Budget Office projects that this year’s deficit will be $897 billion — a 15.1 percent increase over last year’s imbalance of $779 billion. In the coming years, the CBO forecasts that the deficit will keep rising, top $1 trillion annually beginning in 2022 and never drop below $1 trillion through 2029. Much of the increase will come from mounting costs to fund Social Security and Medicare as the vast generation of baby boomers continue to retire.
The Trump administration contends that its tax cuts will eventually pay for themselves by generating faster economic growth. That projection is disputed by many economists…….https://abc22now.com/news/nation-world/national-debt-hits-new-milestone-topping-22-trillion
February 14, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, USA |
Leave a comment
RRStar.com By Georgette Braun , 13 Feb 19, Staff writer , BYRON — Exelon’s Byron nuclear generating station could close as early as mid-2022 because of financial risk, some two decades earlier than its planned retirement.
The company said in a Feb. 8 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the Byron plant and two others — Braidwood and Dresden — are showing “increased signs of economic distress which could lead to an early retirement in a market that does not currently compensate them for their unique contribution to grid resiliency and their ability to produce large amounts of energy without carbon and air pollution.”
Crain’s Chicago Business said the earliest the Byron plant could close would be mid-2022, the same for Braidwood, and as early as 2021 for Dresden. https://www.rrstar.com/news/20190213/byron-nuclear-plant-could-close-in-three-years-two-decades-earlier-than-its-planned-retirement
February 14, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, USA |
Leave a comment
TOKYO (Reuters) – Japan’s Kyushu Electric Power Co Inc said on Wednesday it will decommission an aging reactor at its Genkai nuclear plant as the country’s power industry struggles to meet new nuclear safety standards set after the 2011 Fukushima disaster. 13 Feb 19,
This will bring the number of reactors being scrapped to 17 since the meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi plant nearly eight years ago.
The move comes as Japan’s return to nuclear power is slowly gathering pace, although the industry still faces public opposition, court challenges and unfavorable economics.
Kyushu Electric will scrap the No.2 reactor at the Genkai plant, about 930 km (580 miles) west of Tokyo. ……
Many of Japan’s reactors remain shut, with only nine operating, while they undergo relicensing to meet new standards set after the Fukushima crisis highlighted shortcomings in regulation.
Reporting by Yuka Obayashi; Editing by Gopakumar Warrier
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-nuclear-kyushu-elec-pwr/japans-kyushu-electric-to-scrap-aging-nuclear-reactor-at-genkai-idUSKCN1Q20Y3
February 14, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, Japan, safety |
Leave a comment
ANOTHER EXPERT CASTS DOUBT ON NEED FOR NJ TO SUBSIDIZE NUCLEAR PLANTS, NJ Spotlight, TOM JOHNSON | FEBRUARY 11, 2019
Economist also disputes PSEG’s contention that South Jersey plants will have to close within three years unless given subsidies. New Jersey should hold off awarding ratepayers’ subsidies to nuclear power plants until a federal agency decides whether to boost energy prices under a pending proposal from the regional grid operator, according to an independent economist.
The Independent Market Monitor for PJM urged a state agency to hold off a decision on granting subsidies to PSEG Nuclear and Exelon Generation who are seeking financial incentives — dubbed zero emission certificates — to keep three nuclear units in South Jersey from closing.
In a heavily redacted filing with the state Board of Utilities, Joseph Bowring, who oversees the competitiveness of the PJM market, also disputed the contention that the plants will have to close within three years unless given the subsidies. His rationale echoed the contention of an earlier filing by Stefanie Brand, director of the state Division of Rate Counsel.
“PSEG overstates its need for subsidies of Hope Creek and Salem I and Salem II units,’’ Bowring said. “PSEG understates forward energy revenues, understates capacity revenues, overstates costs and overstates the risk.’’
Decision expected in April
Bowring and Brand are the only two intervenors in the case that have been granted access to the companies’ financials, which will determine whether PSEG and Exelon are awarded the zero emission certificates. The subsidies are projected to cost ratepayers up to $300 million annually, if approved by the BPU.
The agency is expected to make a decision in the case in April. Nuclear power plants across the country have closed prematurely because of failing economics. Some states, including Illinois and New York, have approved similar financial incentives to avert shuttering nuclear units……….
Power suppliers also are opposed
In a separate filing by the PJM Providers Group, a coalition of power suppliers opposed to the subsidy, also urged the BPU to reject a subsidy it said “is not necessary and would serve nothing more than to pad the coffers of the plant owners and their shareholders.’’
A consultant retained by the group, Paul Sotkiewicz, a former PJM chief economist, projected the plants will make profits between $377-$477 million every year for the
February 12, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, USA |
Leave a comment
Russia, China back nuclear as a clean-power fix for Africa
Money Web , Sebastien Malo, Thomson Reuters Foundation / 10 February 2019 “…….For now, South Africa is the only country on the continent operating a nuclear power plant.
But in recent years, at least seven other sub-Saharan African states have signed agreements to deploy nuclear power with backing from Russia, according to public announcements and the World Nuclear Association (WNA), an industry body………
Like Ethiopia, emerging nuclear states Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, Rwanda, Zambia and Ghana have signed agreements with Russia’s state nuclear corporation, ROSATOM – most since 2016.
Their content ranges from language on the construction of nuclear reactors to assistance with feasibility studies and personnel training, press statements show.
ROSATOM’s solutions for managing spent fuel and radioactive waste vary from country to country, but are normally worked out at the later stages of a nuclear new-build programme “in the strictest compliance with international law”, a spokeswoman told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
Chinese state-owned nuclear firms have also taken the lead in the region, sealing deals with Kenya, Sudan and Uganda, WNA data shows.
South African student Masamaki Masanja, 23, won a ROSATOM competition for young people to make videos about Africa’s nuclear potential, and got to visit the Novovoronezh nuclear power plant in western Russia in 2017.
“It was mind-blowing,” said the second-year mechanical engineering student, via Skype.
The experience left him with a strong sense that nuclear power should be adapted quickly for Africa’s needs………
Rebel risk
Some political observers, however, are concerned about the prospect of nuclear reactors backed by Russia in some countries with rebel groups and weak government institutions.
An Africa-based Western diplomat, who asked to remain anonymous, doubted Russia’s assurances it would collect nuclear waste from projects it helped establish.
“You could end up with very unfortunate situations in parts of Africa … if you have a decaying nuclear power plant overrun by rebels, with waste that’s not going away,” he said.
Multiple requests for an interview with Russia’s ambassador in Ethiopia were declined.
So-called dirty bombs can combine conventional explosives like dynamite with radioactive material such as nuclear waste. ………
It could take 20 years for Ethiopia to build a nuclear power plant, estimated Hong-Jun Ahn, a Korean electrical engineer who advises the Ethiopian government on its nuclear plans.
Yonas Gebru, director of Addis Ababa-based advocacy group Forum for Environment, said green activists could prove another hurdle amid debate over whether nuclear power is “clean” energy.
“It would be good, and it would be wise also … to better capitalise on already started initiatives such as hydropower, wind energy (and) solar energy,” said Gebru. https://www.moneyweb.co.za/news/africa/russia-china-back-nuclear-as-a-clean-power-fix-for-africa/
February 12, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AFRICA, China, marketing, Russia |
Leave a comment
Uganda to generate nuclear energy amidst safety, environmental concerns, By DAVID MAFABI | PML Daily Senior Staff Writer February 9, 2019 KAMPALA – Uganda is in the final stages of efforts to start generating some 2000 megawatts of electricity from five nuclear plants it plans to build in five districts scattered in the country’s four geographical regions……..
Already memoranda of understanding have been signed with Russia and the China National Nuclear Corporation [CNNC), Beijing on cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy on May 10, 2018.
In both of these documents Uganda is to secure technical expertise and financing to lift the plan off the ground.
According to Ms Sarah Nafuna, the head of Nuclear Energy Unit in the ministry, the MoU with Beijing details areas of technical and engineering cooperation as well as financial support to develop reactors for the nuclear plant……….
Energy ministry’s Nafuna declined to disclose the cost of developing the nuclear plants, but a high-level source that asked not to be named because they were not authorised to speak on the matter, estimated the capital and operating costs upward of Shs145 trillion.
This working figure is higher than Uganda’s Shs29 trillion annual budget, raising questions about the country’s ability to mobilise such resources when it is already saddled with a total external debt exposure, including committed but undisbursed debt of USS$12.2 billion debt, [about Shs 45.4 trillion]……….
sceptics also argue that a sunshine-rich country such as Uganda should never think of going the risky route of nuclear energy. ………
while government officials strongly defend the nuclear project, questions abound about how a country – that has failed to handle minor fire disasters and basic household waste will effectively deal with toxic wastes, which are the by-product of nuclear power generation.
In Kampala for instance, garbage is littered all over, with roads becoming impassable when it rains. Moreover, some hospitals and clinics carelessly dispose their medical waste in landfills, yet the government insists it can handle nuclear waste.
Mr Nandala Mafabi, the secretary general of the FDC, a critic of nuclear power generation says the government should explore safer sources of energy such as solar and wind energy, and only consider nuclear as an energy source later……….
Opponents of the nuclear energy are also worried about health hazards, safety and radioactive waste management, with questions about the country’s preparedness to deal with radioactive waste and accidental leaks which advanced economies like Japan have grappled with.
Mr Frank Muramuzi, the executive director of National Association of Professional Environmentalists (NAPE), also opposed building of nuclear plants and instead pointed the government to harness electricity from other renewable energy sources such as solar.
“Nuclear plants are expensive, have long construction periods of about 10 years and expensive to de-commission the plants at the end of their lifespan, especially disposing of hazardous radioactive waste,” he said………http://www.pmldaily.com/features/2019/02/uganda-to-generate-nuclear-energy-amidst-safety-environmental-concerns.html
February 11, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AFRICA, China, marketing |
Leave a comment
Across this nuclear triad, the takeaway for investors is, there’s a lot of money on the table up for grabs………Definitely going to be a bullish sign for these defense contractors going forward.
The $500 Billion Push to Modernize the Nuclear Triad, Cold War-era technology is due for replacement, but the cost is out of this world., Motley Fool Staff, (the_motley_fool), Feb 5, 2019 .
On this segment of Industry Focus: Energy, The Motley Fool’s Nick Sciple and Fool.com contributor Lou Whiteman discuss a Congressional Budget Office report that estimates the U.S. needs to invest nearly $500 billion to modernize its nuclear weapon systems. That includes new submarines, bombers, and rockets, as well as the systems that support them.
A full transcript follows the video…..
Lou Whiteman “……..The CBO just updated a study on the triad. They determined almost $500 billion, $494 billion, needs to be spent in the next 10 years on nuclear triad modernization. That’s up considerably, 20% or more, from their 2017 estimate. Part of that is, we have a road map for some of this spending. Part of it is, now, we’re getting into the years where hopefully, those investments will be made. So, some of that increase was expected. But it’s a massive amount, half $1 trillion is going to go into new bombers, new subs, new rockets, new warheads to put on them, plus all the support. It’s a huge area. The details, some of them have to be worked out, but it’s almost guaranteed revenue for some of these companies, the lucky winners of these, because it’s a huge priority for the United States…….
Sciple: Let’s talk about some of these items. Northrop Grumman is developing a new bomber, the B-21. The number that I saw is, between now and 2028, the Pentagon is expected to spend $49 billion on that program. Can you talk about the significance of that aircraft for Northrop Grumman, as well as for our defense arsenal as a country?
Whiteman: That’s the keystone project for Northrop Grumman. They won that bomber. It’s been a slow road……. This is a huge expense. They’re doing their best to modernize it. It’s replacing an aircraft that isn’t that old…….
Whiteman: Naval is a big part of the bull story on General Dynamics ……….
Whiteman: ………The Minuteman is our go-to rocket. It needs to be replaced. That’s the only part of this triad that we don’t know who the eventual winner is. It’s going to be a big deal for either Northrop or Boeing.
………Sciple: Across this nuclear triad, the takeaway for investors is, there’s a lot of money on the table up for grabs………Definitely going to be a bullish sign for these defense contractors going forward.
Whiteman: Exactly right. You can maybe wonder about individual quarters and exact timing, but over the long haul, if you’re a long-term investor, this is pretty close to guaranteed, that these programs are going to be invested in, and this is revenue that’s going to be coming in. https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/02/05/the-500-billion-push-to-modernize-the-nuclear-tria.aspx
February 7, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
|
UK Turns Away From Nuclear As Poland Prepares To Embrace It, Clean Technica, February 4th, 2019 by Steve Hanley
…… Nuclear advocates insist atom-powered generating plants are safe in much the same way fossil fuel advocates insist pipelines and supertankers are safe. What they mean is that when things go wrong, the damage can be easily contained and the amount of human suffering is a small price to pay for the enormous profits to be made in the meantime.
…….Spent fuel remains dangerously radioactive for thousands of years and nuclear facilities require massive amounts of water to keep things cool inside the containment area. One of the primary reasons nuclear power is beloved by utility companies is because they are guaranteed a certain rate of return on their investments. In order to make more money, spend more money.
The way the electric utility game is rigged, customers are automatically saddled with the cost of paying for all new investments made by the companies, often for decades. Once the decision to build a nuclear power plant is made, the cost to pay for it goes on for 30, 40, or more years, even if new, less expensive technology becomes available in the meantime.
Nuclear Projects Abandoned In UK
Hitachi has been planning to build a new nuke on the Welsh island of Anglesey on the site of a previous power plant decommissioned in 2015. However, it has now notified the UK government that it will abandon that project unless the government commits major new financial resources to bring the $26 billion facility to completion. Hitachi has already sunk nearly $3 billion into the proposed Wylfa Newydd project.
Last November, another UK nuclear power project in Cunbria, to be built by Toshiba, was abandoned, leaving UK utility customers on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars already invested by National Grid to build the transmission lines needed to connect that facility to the grid. According to the The Times of London, ratepayers will be paying for those losses for decades via surcharges added to their energy bills. Another Japanese company — Mitsubishi — has also withdrawn recently from a proposal to build a nuclear power plant in Turkey according to Nikkei Asian Review.
What is the reason for so many abandonments of nuclear power projects? Money. Investors are looking down the road and seeing renewables getting less expensive. If it takes 30 years or more to recover the cost of a nuclear plant, what are the odds that it will still be making a profit in 2050? If you said somewhere between zero and none, go to the head of the class.
Renewables To Blame For Nuclear Woes
Forbes reports on a rather startling announcement. Greg Clark, the government minister in charge of the UK energy board, told Parliament recently, “The cost of renewable technologies such as offshore wind has fallen dramatically, to the point where they now require very little public subsidy and will soon require none. We have also seen a strengthening in the pipeline of projects coming forward, meaning that renewable energy may now not just be cheap, but also readily available.”
In all, three new nuclear plants in the UK are now likely to be abandoned. Together, they were expected to provide up to 15% of the nation’s energy needs in the future. How will the country make up for the loss of that capacity? Forbes says an analysis by the UK Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit shows renewables will do the heavy lifting needed to keep all British tea pots boiling happily for decades to come.
Jonathan Marshall, head of analysis at the ECIU says, “In recent years, government has quietly cut back its expectations for nuclear new-build and that’s looking more and more realistic as the price of renewable generation falls and the benefits of the flexible smart grid become more apparent. Filling the nuclear gap with renewables would indeed require an increase in rollout, but one that is well within UK capabilities. With enough focus on smart low-carbon energy, there’s no reason why Britain shouldn’t achieve all its energy objectives despite the cancellation of these nuclear stations.”
In particular, the ECIU analysis found a combination of an additional 11.3 GW of onshore wind, 5.7 GW of offshore wind, and 20.8 GW of new solar capacity would be sufficient to fill the nuclear gap. Hitting those targets should be easy, given the acceleration of installed renewable energy capacity taking place today.
Poland Set To Move Forward With Its First Nuke
Despite the hoopla about renewables in the rest of the world, Poland, which currently gets 80% of its electricity from burning coal, expects to move forward with plans to build its first nuclear power plant. The 1.5 GW facility, which could go online by 2033, will be the first of several nukes the country expects to build as it prepares to increase its installed power portfolio to 73 GW as compared to 40 GW today. It expects nuclear power to provide about 10% of that total……….
The Polish plan will still see about 60% of the nation’s energy come from burning coal in 2030 with most of the lignite burning facilities being shut down around 2040 or so. Which raises this question. If solar and wind installations can be designed, built, and brought online within a matter of years, why spend $20 billion on last century technology that will take a decade or more before it begins contributing to the nation’s energy supply?
A Timid Response To An Urgent Problem
The answer to that question reveals everything that is wrong with the way most nations are tiptoeing around the global warming emergency. Make lots of flowery promises. Give the people huge helpings of pie in the sky pronouncements. But go as slowly and timidly as possible into the future while funneling profits into well connected pockets all the while.
The truth is, the utility industry is used to thinking in terms of 30 to 40 year timelines. It is widely seen as the most risk averse industry in the world. “What was good enough for our grandfathers is good enough for us. Stick with what has worked in the past. Don’t take a chance on new technology that might upset the apple cart.” The problem is, the world can’t wait for the utility industry to dither and dawdle its way to tomorrow. We need bold, decisive action now to slash carbon emissions today, not in 2040. By then it will be too late.
Poland may be proud that it is about to get its first nuke. But by celebrating that move, it is admitting it has no realistic plan for protecting its citizens — or the rest of the global community — from the ravages of a warming planet. Just as the UK can obtain all the energy it needs from renewables instead of nuclear facilities, so can Poland, if it only could find the political will to do so. Tepid responses to a global emergency are the things that will doom us all to a planet incapable of supporting human life for many. Poland’s epitaph may well be, “Too little, too late.” https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/04/uk-turns-away-from-nuclear-as-poland-prepares-to-embrace-it/
|
|
February 4, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, UK |
Leave a comment
Hungary seeks to postpone loan payback to Russia for Nuclear power plant: What will the final cost be?Bellona February 1, 2019 by Charles Digges Budapest is seeking to modify the terms of a loan it must repay to Russia for building two new VVER-1200 type reactors that will eventually replace Hungary’s Paks nuclear power plant, according to a report from Reuters.
The reactors, which will constitute a plant called Paks II, will be built by Rosatom, Russia’s state nuclear power company, at a cost of 10 billion euro ($12 billion), and will replace the older Soviet-built nuclear plant that supplies half of the country’s electricity.
Rosatom’s construction contract, which includes the loan for Paks II, was the subject of a hotly-debated probe by the EU’s Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, which investigated whether the Russian bid violated European competition statutes.
At the time, EU officials and commentators viewed the deal as a Trojan Horse to help cement Moscow’s influence over the right-leaning, rabidly anti-globalist government of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.
The EU eventually dropped its investigation in 2017 and granted Hungary permission to build the reactors – partly in an effort to entice Orban, who was insistent about contracting Rosatom, back into the democratic fold. Now Budapest is citing the delay caused by the competition review as reason to renegotiate when it begins paying Rosatom back.
Hungarian financial authorities plan to ask Moscow to postpone collecting on the debt until after the new reactors begin to generate electricity – but it is as yet unclear whether Rosatom will accept new terms. The plant’s construction, meanwhile, is running late. The build was supposed to begin last year………
While the terms of the Paks II loan remain in the shadows, other financing arrangements Moscow has made for building nuclear reactors in other countries suggest that the interest alone could prove to be very expensive for Budapest.
An $11.4 billion, 30-year agreement Rosatom signed with Bangladesh to build the Roopur nuclear plant will net Moscow $8 billion in interest. A $25 billion deal Rosatom is pursuing with Egypt to build that country’s Dabaa plant could, over the 35-year term of that loan, swell to $71 billion.
Another enormous $76 billion deal between Rosatom and South Africa was eventually thwarted by environmentalists when it was revealed the project had been secretly negotiated. Had the deal held it would have siphoned off a quarter of South Africa’s gross domestic product before the reactors even began operation.
Terms like this could spell trouble for Hungary in light of Moscow’s tendency to be a kneecapping creditor when it comes to energy projects – especially when Russia sours on the politics of its debtors.
In 2014, at the height of East-West tensions over Russia’s annexation of Crimea, Kremlin officials threatened to cut nuclear fuel supplies to Ukraine’s Soviet built reactors – which would have interrupted their chain reactions and likely caused a catastrophic accident.
Rosatom eventually walked the threat back. But the lurid message in Moscow’s head-fake toward igniting a second Chernobyl was clear: Russian-built reactors are a useful new tool for political blackmail………..
Many in Europe – Hungary included – subsequently sought to diversify their energy supply in favor of nuclear. Yet, in a devious twist, Rosatom has emerged as the most stable and eager nuclear builder on the international market.
For now, Rosatom can afford to offer risky loans thanks to the enormous state subsidies it receives. These subsidies can be funneled into more loans, and the loans then boost the company’s profits on paper. But for the past several years, it has become clear that these subsidies to the company will likely decrease or dry up altogether in 2020.
As a result, Rosatom is amassing so-called memorandums of understanding from any country vaguely interested in nuclear power. The company says is currently has dozens of these MOUs amounting to more than $130 billion in incoming business.
But that claim should be viewed skeptically, as many of the countries for which Rosatom is promising to build reactors – countries like Jordan, Algeria, Nigeria, the Republic of Congo and Bolivia – won’t have the infrastructure to support nuclear power for decades.
For now, it’s not difficult to imagine Moscow extending the terms of its loan to Hungary for as long as Budapest likes. It will, after all, remain profitable on paper. But in the end, Budapest will be left holding the bag for Rosatom’s over extended balance sheet. But so long as Orban’s government continues it rightward lurch, Moscow is unlikely to call in its marker. http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2019-02-hungary-seeks-to-postpone-loan-payback-to-russia-for-nuclear-power-plant-what-will-the-final-cost-be
February 4, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, marketing, politics, politics international, Russia, secrets,lies and civil liberties |
Leave a comment
Should legislators help save Ohio nuclear plants? NO: FirstEnergy bailout would be crony capitalism at its worst Columbus Dispatch, 4 Feb 19, Crony capitalism is never acceptable and should be always met with public outrage. But more-covert pay-to-play schemes that affect Ohio’s long-term economic health are particularly egregious. Take for instance the campaign-contributions scheme from FirstEnergy Solutions over the past year. While transactions to more than a dozen of Ohio policymakers may seem normal to the average voter, recent activity in Columbus reveals a much more calculated operation that seemly puts FirstEnergy’s nuclear agenda ahead of Ohio’s future.
In April 2018, FirstEnergy Solutions filed for bankruptcy in the wake of massive financial problems arising from the company’s competitive power-generation fleet. The company announced it would shut down its Ohio nuclear plants over a three-year period because continued operation wasn’t profitable. FirstEnergy had been unsuccessfully pursuing bailouts from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio since 2014 and seeking a nuclear subsidy in the legislature since 2016 without success.
So it scrambled desperately for a lifeline, hatching a plan to offer sizable campaign donations to candidates hoping to gather up political allies to support its demand for $300 million a year to keep its plants operational.
What did FirstEnergy cough up for its legislative lifeline? For starters, the company gave $172,000 in total to Ohio House candidates, many of whom had no legislative or energy-industry experience. It also donated $565,000 to the Republican Governors Association, an amount more than five times what the company gave to Governor Mike DeWine’s Democratic counterpart.
We can clearly see the pay, but what exactly was the play? Conveniently, on the first day of the new General Assembly a standing committee on power generation was established, setting the stage to justify passage of a nuclear bailout and help out FirstEnergy. Additionally, FirstEnergy recently announced a debt-restructuring agreement with its creditors. Not coincidentally, this surprise development came on the tails of securing state-lawmaker support to bail out FirstEnergy.
This situation is pay-to-play politicking at its worst, flying in the face of the new administration’s promises to be the most innovative administration in Ohio’s history. Part of an innovation agenda should include rejecting political favoritism toward uncompetitive and less technologically advanced nuclear power plants. Ohioans need to know that FirstEnergy’s attempt to influence a bailout for its failing nuclear plants isn’t just bad ethics. It’s also awful public policy.
Incidentally, natural gas is fueling jobs and consumer cost savings across America. This is especially true in Ohio, …………https://www.dispatch.com/opinion/20190203/column-should-legislators-help-save-ohio-nuclear-plants-no-firstenergy-bailout-would-be-crony-capitalism-at-its-worst
February 4, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Kudankulam: Nuclear power utility struggles to repay Russia for supplies https://indianexpress.com/article/india/kudankulam-nuclear-power-utility-struggles-to-repay-russia-for-supplies-5563744/ The sanctioning of lower than requisite funds comes at a time when NPCIL’s budgetary support requirement has gone up in light of the utility taking up 10 new projects that had been cleared by the government in May 2017. by Anil Sasi |New Delhi February 1, 2019 Inadequate budgetary support to the strategic nuclear energy sector over the last two financial years has squeezed funds earmarked under the investment head for the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), resulting in India’s frontline nuclear utility slipping back on its repayment obligations to the Russians for equipment supplies to the Kudankulam nuclear project.
The sanctioning of lower than requisite funds comes at a time when NPCIL’s budgetary support requirement has gone up in light of the utility taking up 10 new projects that had been cleared by the government in May 2017.
The problem of non-payment of Russian credit on account of a reduction in the provision for Russian credit to NPCIL was discussed before a parliamentary panel, responding to which the Department of Expenditure in the Finance Ministry subsequently “conveyed” the concerns to the Budget Division of the Department of Economic Affairs in the same Ministry for “further necessary action”.
Under a credit arrangement between the governments of Russia and India, as soon as equipment leaves Russia for Indian projects such as the nuclear station in Kudankulam, that much money is released by the Russian government to the suppliers, which then becomes a loan on the Government of India. This loan is then supposed to be routed to NPCIL by way of a budgetary provision. Against that, the same money would be given back to the Government of India so that it becomes a loan on NPCIL.
This arrangement has come under strain due to the reduction in budgetary allocation under the ‘investment in PSUs’ head, which has affected the loans payable to NPCIL towards ‘Russian credit utilisation’ that is outstanding in the books of the Controller of Aid Accounts and Audit. The CAAA is the division within the Department of Economic Affairs entrusted with the responsibility for withdrawal of loan and grant proceeds for all official development assistance where India is the recipient.
While the extent of the slip-up in the payment obligation to the Russians could not be ascertained, the trend was seen as serious enough for the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests to flag this an issue to which the Ministry of Finance responded in the affirmative, a senior government official involved in the exercise confirmed. Queries sent to K N Vyas, Secretary of the Department of Atomic Energy and Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, did not elicit a response.
According to official estimates, while budgetary support to NPCIL had gone up from Rs 370 crore in the budget estimate for 2017-18 to Rs 1435 crore in the revised estimate for the year (entailing a total of Rs 685 crore under the investment head and Rs 750 crore as loan), the actual requirement in form of budgetary support submitted by the DAE was thrice that amount — Rs 4305 crore. The higher amount, official said, was primarily on account of a shortfall of earlier years in receipt of equity to the tune of Rs 402 crore and obligations under the Russian Credit of Rs 3,903 crore.
For 2018-19, while the allocation was hiked to Rs 1,665 crore in the budget estimate, it still left a funding gap of around Rs 2,870 crore, according to DAE estimates. The situation was exacerbated by 10 new projects based on the indigenous 700 MWe (mega watt electric) pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs) that had been sanctioned in mid-2017, due to which budgetary support requirement had also increased.
NPCIL is currently operating 22 commercial nuclear power reactors with an installed capacity of 6,780 MWe, while it has another eight reactors under various stages of construction totaling 6200 MWe capacity.
Russia and India had, in 2015, agreed to actively work on projects deploying 12 additional Light Water Reactor (LWR) nuclear reactors, for which, the localisation of manufacturing in India under the NDA government’s flagship ‘Make in India’ initiative and the commencement of serial construction of nuclear power plants was flagged as a joint initiative.
In this context, the Programme of Action for localisation between Russian state-owned utility Rosatom and the DAE was finalised during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Moscow visit in 2015. At the Kudankulam site, where the two Russian-designed VVER-1000 series reactors have being installed, nearly 100 Russian companies and organisations are involved in documentation, supply of equipment and controlling construction and equipping process. At the same site, four more Russian reactor units are slated to come up in the coming years.
February 2, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, India, politics international, Russia |
Leave a comment
nuclear-news 