nuclear-news

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

Utility JEA on the hook for billions of dollars for Vogtle nuclear station

Feds reject JEA plan to ditch Georgia nuclear plant, JEA still responsible for billions to help pay for Plant Vogtle, News4JAX, By Jim Piggott – Reporter ,February 23, 2019  JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission says it will not intervene in JEA’s dispute with the owners of Plant Vogtle and that JEA is still bound by its agreement to buy power from the nuclear plant still under construction.The expansion of Plant Vogtle, a nuclear power plant near Waynesboro, Georgia, is way behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget.

JEA is on the hook for billions of dollars to help pay for that construction because, in 2008, the utility signed a contract to fund 41 percent of the construction cost and, in turn, JEA would get a good price on electricity for 20 years. The problem is that construction cost has doubled and there’s still no power coming online anytime soon. JEA is trying to get out of the deal. It has filed lawsuits and taken other measures, but so far that has not worked. JEA is still bound by the contract.

JEA was hoping to get help from the feds, but now, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission says it’s not going to intervene. That means JEA is still responsible for 41 percent of the construction cost, which is now nearly $3 billion, and that could go up even more.  ……

More court actions are expected, with both sides planning lawsuits. For now, plan on seeing JEA pay billions. If history holds true, that means customers could see an increase in rates to pay for it.  https://www.news4jax.com/news/feds-vote-to-reject-jeas-request-to-withdraw-from-power-purchase-deal

February 25, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant under federal investigation for worker exposure to radiation and chemical hazards

WIPP under federal investigation for worker exposures

Adrian C Hedden, Carlsbad Current-Argus   Feb. 21, 2019 Workers at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant were allegedly exposed to several hazardous chemicals and excessive heat last year, prompting a federal investigation by the U.S. Department of Energy into WIPP’s operations.

The DOE’s Office of Enterprise Assessments filed a notice on Jan. 29 of its intent to investigate to Nuclear Waste Partnership (NWP), the DOE-hired contractor responsible for WIPP’s daily operations.

Between July and October 2018, employees in the underground nuclear waste repository were potentially “overexposed” to carbon tetrachloride, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide, read the notice, including a “series” of heat-stress incidents.

The DOE intends to investigate the circumstances leading up to the alleged “hygiene-related events,” and could fine NWP, based on what is uncovered. ……

A pattern of bad management?

Don Hancock, director of the Nuclear Waste Program at the Southwest Research and Information Center – an Albuquerque-based environmental watchdog group – said the alleged incident was just the most recent example of evidence that NWP is improperly managing WIPP.

“This is a constant problem where workers are exposed to dangers, radioactive or otherwise, that shouldn’t have happened,” Hancock said. “These are not just paperwork problems.”

Hancock also pointed to an accident radiological release in 2014, which led to a three-year closure of the WIPP facility, as part of what he called a pattern of mismanagement and undue hazards. He said NWP’s recent contract renewal shouldn’t have happened because of numerous safety issues throughout its operations at WIPP……. https://www.currentargus.com/story/news/local/2019/02/21/wipp-federal-investigation-department-energy-hazardous-chemicals/2905747002/?fbclid=IwAR21RsaxA4oeB8aZSoXOcCiBzEHDPqQFOyHhE6aF50S3F6bJzgsGxIGusfo

February 25, 2019 Posted by | employment, health, USA | Leave a comment

Donald Trump’s enthusiasm to sell nuclear technology to the reckless Saudi regime

February 23, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, politics international, Saudi Arabia, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Future is not looking good for thorium nuclear reactors

the millions in subsidies thorium will require to become commercially viable would be better spent on solar, wind and other alternative energy sources.

Can Thorium Offer a Safer Nuclear Future?  Thomas net by David Sims. Staff Writer Feb 21, 2019  

Is thorium the great hope for a clean, viable and safe nuclear-fuel alternative to uranium, or is it an impractical and overly expensive option that could never be adopted by the nuclear industry?

Nuclear energy has numerous advantages, but there are drawbacks as well: nuclear waste poses a significant environmental threat, meltdowns are a possibility and nuclear materials can be used to create weapons of mass destruction.

However, advocates of using thorium as a nuclear fuel instead of uranium point out that it solves many of these problems……. (unsuitable for nuclear weapons, wastes last less long, can’t melt down )

If it’s so great, why aren’t we using it?  When nuclear power was being developed in the 1950s, it was part of a broader Cold War strategy. Governments were paying for the research and it was in their interest to develop uranium as the primary nuclear fuel because it could also be used in weapons development.

However, critics of the thorium alternative point out that it’s more expensive than uranium because it can’t sustain a reaction by itself and must be bombarded with neutrons. Uranium can be left alone in a reaction, while thorium must be constantly prodded to keep reacting. Although this allows for safer reactions (if the power goes out it simply deactivates), it’s a more expensive process.

Thorium is a popular academic alternative: in the lab it works well, but it hasn’t been successfully — or profitably — used on a commercial scale yet.

Current Usage of ThoriumIndia is the market leader in trying to harness thorium for the energy grid. It has the largest proven thorium reserves and the world’s only operating thorium reactor, Kakrapar-1, a converted conventional pressurized water reactor. China is working to develop the technology as well, while the United States, France and Britain are studying its viability.

Flibe Energy, which is based in Huntsville, Alabama, recently noted the company is looking to establish a liquid fluoride thorium reactor in the U.S. within the next decade, with Wyoming as a possible location.

Proponents of renewable energy concede that thorium is preferable to uranium, but argue that the millions in subsidies thorium will require to become commercially viable would be better spent on solar, wind and other alternative energy sources.

While nuclear advocates are more hospitable to thorium, they are hesitant to put all their eggs in one basket at this point. The element hasn’t shown itself to be feasible as a profitable commercial energy source, whereas uranium has. Despite a history of reactor meltdowns and near-meltdowns, there’s a renewed emphasis on nuclear power in the world today, and nuclear industry advocates don’t see now as the time to try an unproven alternative.

The bottom line is that when it comes to thorium versus uranium, thorium is more abundant, as well as cleaner and safer, but given current capabilities, it produces more expensive energy than uranium and still leads to environmental waste issues.

Thorium could be part of the answer to the world’s energy needs, but it currently lacks a track record of cost-effective energy generation. In the meantime, nations like China and India are taking the lead in developing thorium-based nuclear systems. https://news.thomasnet.com/featured/can-thorium-offer-a-safer-nuclear-future/

February 23, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, technology, thorium | 2 Comments

Ending The U.S. Doctrine of Perpetual War

Mutually Agreed Peace: Ending The U.S. Doctrine of Perpetual War By Ethan Indigo Smith, Contributing Writer for Wake Up World, 22 Feb 19, “Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.” ~ Pericles.

Everything is ultimately political these days, but everything is firstly biological. Yet, ignoring our biology and our humanity, the military-industrial complex, with all its toxic modalities, still claims to operate in our best interests.

The fact is, modern politics has become the imposition of institutional formality where individuals and truth once were. Increasingly favoring institutional privilege over individual rights, politicians on all sides of the game act to reinforce and advance the standing of corporations at the expense of our physical world. They embark on resource wars for profit, destroy our environment for energy, construe zealotry as patriotism, and steer a culture of social competition – not cooperation – all the while hiding behind veils of secrecy and meaningless rhetoric. …..

The Nuclear Energy and Armament Experiments

One of the largest tentacles of the military-industrial complex is the nuclear experimentation facet of their operations. These operations include both energy and armament — programs which are inextricably linked, as I will demonstrate – with negative impacts on all life on earth and, and when disaster strikes, capable of negating life altogether.

Maintaining a deafening silence over the ongoing Fukushima disaster, for example, the world’s political heads show zero regard for our biological wellbeing (much less our social wellbeing) in both the formulation and the execution of policy. Instead of shutting down the deadly reactors at Fukushima, the world’s powers simply shut down any information about the situation.

For example, the Japanese government passed a law through Parliament, called the “States Secret Act” following the 2011 Fukushima meltdown. Under this act, both officials and private citizens who leak “special state secrets” (ie. details of the disaster) face prison terms of up to 10 years, while journalists who publish classified information (ie. all relevant information) face up to five years.[1] Meanwhile, in 2011 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s response to increases in detected radiation levels within the United States was to reduce the use of radiation monitoring while at the same time, raising the official allowable levels of radiation in food, water and soil. [2] Of course, this was not reported by mainstream media.

Nor was the 2014 partial shutdown of the Florida Power & Light’s Turkey Point facility in the Miami area, following a steam leak that resulted from the failure of the archaic facility’s cooling system.[3] While mainstream news completely blocked coverage of this potential meltdown situation, the facility remained in operation not because it managed to rectify the cooling problem, but because the corporation lobbied for special permission to violate allowable water temperature safety thresholds from the previous limit of 100’F limit up to 103’F. [4]

The simple reason for the secrecy and suppression of information is that the nuclear experimentation industry is just that — an experiment. Although it is touted as a ‘clean’ technology, the nuclear industry has no mechanism for disposing of the radioactive waste it generates, and no viable plan for such a mechanism in the future. All it has is a plan to contain the mounting radioactive waste it generates each day and store it for the million years it takes for radioactive waste to break down naturally.

o, whether nor not we accept or reject the philosophies of government, it is an inarguable fact that our biology, and that of our grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren — is at the complete mercy of those individuals who, hiding behind political formality, have their fingers “on the button”. And, for as long as their priorities are clearly shaped by the objectives of the corporate-military-industrial complex, there is very little mercy involved. Instead our collective future and the future of our planet is heavily influenced by corporate profitability and contrived political hemispheres which, with the support of corporate media, teeter between deliberately limited polarities, never really making progress or improvement or exploring possibilities — such as peaceful solutions, or sustainable energy investment — beyond those which may profit those already in power…….

The rise of the military industrial complex changed the whole dynamic of war and peace, and in the process, steered our society from exploring sustainable energy solutions toward the constant danger of nuclear meltdown. Nuclear power generation is inherently risky of itself; both the waste it stores and the pollution it releases pose a largely unseen but no less dangerous threat to our Earth Mother, and to our biology. But it also creates obvious military strike targets for enemy nations which, if detonated, can destroy entire nations in one sweep. Building nuclear power experiments is akin to building a self-destruct button into your nation’s infrastructure; one false move, be it intentional (military) or accidental (like Fukushima), and it destroys the landscape and all who dwell on and around it for an eternity, with no known remedy……..

“I foolishly once believed the myth that nuclear energy is clean and safe. That myth has completely broken down. Restarting nuclear reactors while we still have no place to dispose of nuclear waste is a criminal act toward future generations.” — Morihiro Hosokawa, 79th Prime Minister of Japan

The U.S. Doctrine of Perpetual War

One of the best ways to gain and maintain power is to keep the people in constant fear — in fear of wars, of outsiders, and more recently, of “terrorism”. Maintaining a culture of war-minded fear ensures the public consent to the constant funding of the military-industrial-complex, under the guise of security and protection.

If we look at the history of the Presidents of the United States since the end of the Second World War, we see that each administration invented a presidential Doctrine directly pertaining to war – either inviting involvement in or directly inciting conflict………

the most famously barbarous doctrine was the Bush Doctrine, in which President George W. Bush Jr. essentially declared that the United States was adopting a shoot-first-ask-questions-later policy pertaining to perceived terrorist activities, both in other countries and at home. [19] Advocating the illogical notion of “preventive war”, the Bush Doctrine is based on the faulty reasoning that attacking a potential threat before it attacks the United States is the only way to ensure peace and security, rather than — as history has proven — the most effective way to ensure more wars and security threats…..

The fact is, the United States has been at war for 225 years out of the last 242 years. That’s 93% of the time! Since the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776, the U.S. has actually been at peace (albeit planning for further wars) for a total of only 21 years. [20] Not one U.S. president actually qualifies as a solely peacetime president, and the only time the United States lasted five years without going to war was between 1935 and 1940 — during the period of the Great Depression.

Since U.S. involvement in World War II began in 1940, most of the world’s military operations have been initiated by the U.S., [6] and U.S. military spending today exceeds the rest of the world’s military spending combined. [21]  In addition, the U.S. also supplies in excess of $3 billion each year (over $10 million per day!) in military aid to Israel, funding the continued war in Palestine.[22] ………

Today, the U.S. economy is now so dependent on war, there is no incentive for the U.S. government to strive for peace — it simply isn’t profitable. The U.S. defense industry employs a staggering 3.5 million Americans, while the private companies supporting the military generate in excess of $300 billion in revenue per year. [24]

With the U.S. economy and military operations so intrinsically linked, the American people have over time come to accept its war culture as normal, believing the increasingly ludicrous propaganda that tells us the U.S. is subject to threats from far weaker military nations and that the U.S. is nobly “fighting for peace” — an oxymoron of the highest order. ……….

clearly, the lessons of history and failed Presidential policy have not been learned by those in power in recent years, who claim to have our interests at heart. Barack Obama, for example, despite his (false) doctrine of negotiation and collaboration (“change”) as a contrast to the confrontation and unilateralism of the Bush Jr. era, invested a trillion dollars of U.S. taxpayers’ money into the military industry to develop and build more nuclear weaponry [25] This, despite the fact that the U.S. is already the most heavily armed nuclear nation in the world — something current President Trump, who also campaigned on a platform of “change”, has done nothing to wind back.  ……

The institutions of the United States and Russia may have different perpetrators behind them, they may play different melodies and use different instruments, but in fact they sound very much the same. The collectivism of the oligarchy in the U.S.A. is flavored with corporate tones, whereas in Russia it is dominated by state tones. Different name, same game. In the U.S.A. the divine right of corporations rules and in Russia it’s the godhead of the state the leads the symphony. Either way though, it’s a war song of militant, nationalistic not individual concerns.

In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations.”  ~ Iroquois Maxim

The Indigo Doctrine: Mutually Agreed Peace

We, The People of the World, can supersede institutional war-mongering concerns that belittle individual life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We have no other choice. If we do not act to mandate Mutually Agreed Peace, we are allowing politicians to shrug their shoulders and say, “it’s politics”, as Earth Mother is ravaged and its inhabitants are systematically annihilated by nuclear, war-driven madness.

………History has shown us that preparing for war doesn’t just lead to more war; it makes war an economic necessity. The only way to ensure peace in our world is to adopt a doctrine of Mutually Agreed Peace in theory and practice; to give peace a budget, give peace a mandate, and give peace all our energy, both politically and personally — and to remove from government, through the power of our will and our numbers, any individual who fails to act on it……. https://wakeup-world.com/2015/08/29/mutually-agreed-peace-ending-the-doctrine-of-perpetual-war/ 

February 23, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Global weapons trade, war profiteers, booming, in the era of Donald Trump

February 21, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

A hard Brexit is going to be really hard for UK’s nuclear industry

U.K. Nuclear and Military Exporters Told to Prepare for Hard Brexit https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-20/u-k-nuclear-military-exporters-told-to-ready-for-hard-brexit, By Jonathan Tirone,  February 21, 2019,

U.K. makers of nuclear material, weapons and sensitive technologies are being urged by the government to get new export licenses to prepare for a no-deal exit from the European Union.

Companies need to register and to obtain permission under the U.K.’s new “Open General Export License” to continue exporting so-called dual use goods to the EU from March 29, according to a statement from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

Licenses for dual use items “will not be valid” if the U.K. crashes out of the bloc without a deal. Existing licences issued in the U.K. for the export of so-called Trigger Listitems — which have already been subject to assessment — will remain valid .

BAE Systems Plc and Urenco Ltd. are among U.K. companies that would be most directly impacted by a no-deal Brexit. Thousands of items ranging from computer software and digital converters to fuel cells and robotic arms face trade restrictions without new paperwork.

The U.K. also warned this week that new restrictions could be imposed on shipments of spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste under a no-deal scenario. Just as banks have made London a global financial hub, its ties to the EU’s nuclear industry has helped turn the U.K. into a central cog servicing the world’s flow of atomic materials.

February 21, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, politics international, UK | Leave a comment

Tough times ahead for America’s nuclear industry

U.S. Nuclear Has A Tough Road Ahead https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/US-Nuclear-Has-A-Tough-Road-Ahead.html By Tim Daiss – Feb 19, 2019, The United States nuclear industry is in a tough spot. It’s unpopular with the public due to high-profile disasters like 1979’s Three Mile Island meltdown, and its bottom line has been hit hard by the rise of ultra-cheap domestic shale oil and gas as well as a nearly plateaued post-recession demand for electricity. Some states, including New York, New Jersey, and Illinois have approved financial packages to revive their failing nuclear industries, and now Pennsylvania could be the next if they can push past a plague of doubt.Pennsylvania is a hard sell for nuclear support as the home of the United States’ most famous nuclear disaster at the Three Mile Island site in Dauphin County 40 years ago. The nuclear industry has continued to function, however, in Pennsylvania in the intervening decades–in fact, it’s the second biggest nuclear power state in the country–it hasn’t been until the recent surge of cheap domestic fossil fuels thanks to the boom of production in the Permian Basin that the sector has hit a rough patch that they are unable to surmount on their own.

Even the notorious Three Mile Island plant itself remains in operation today. It has survived four decades of being synonymous with everything that’s wrong with nuclear in the United States, until now. The Chicago-based owner of the plant, Exelon Corp., has announced that the plant will finally be closing its door on September 30th of this year unless the state of Pennsylvania can pull it out of its financial hole. The Three Mile plant would soon be followed by Beaver Valley nuclear power plant in western Pennsylvania and two nuclear plants in Ohio, which Ohio-based owner FirstEnergy Corp. said they will close within the next three years if Pennsylvania can’t pass a financial package to save them.

In light of this newfound hardship, over the past few years industry leaders in Pennsylvania have been working diligently to rouse support for a financial package like those approved in other nearby states to keep the floundering industry afloat. While nuclear support packages have been approved in New York, New Jersey, and Illinois, the path has not been laid clear for Pennsylvania to follow–those already-approved initiatives have been mired in legal appeals debate between federal energy regulatory authorities, and general outcry against a rise in electricity prices for consumers.

The already-socially-sticky-situation is only made more politically complex by the ongoing litigation surrounding nuclear bailout packages, making the decision to push any such financial package in Pennsylvania a particularly precarious one. “Anything that Pennsylvania does is going to be subject to a degree of policy and legal uncertainty,” said University of Pennsylvania’s Christina Simeone, director of policy and external affairs at the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy.

Further complicating the issue, the contentious and divisive topic of nuclear energy’s future has recently entered the national spotlight with a new fervor thanks to the Democratic party’s newly unveiled Green New Deal. Although the official bill itself makes no mention at all of nuclear (a striking omission in and of itself), a fact sheet released alongside the bill, made public by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, states outright and in no uncertain terms that the Democrats’ Green New Deal “will not include investing in new nuclear power plants.”

The debates on the national stage as well as on a state level, such as what’s happening in Pennsylvania, are indicative of a larger issue: in a world with rising temperatures and populations and declining reserves of traditional fossil fuels, is the United States willing to follow in the footsteps of other world powers and make politically unpopular moves in order to confront our new energy reality? So far, in Pennsylvania at least, the answer seems to be a resounding “we don’t know.” By Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com

February 21, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Britain’s energy policy in a right mess, as new nuclear power stations are shelved

February 21, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Bailout tax: Profitable corporations need to come clean on nuclear energy

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 | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

How they work out nuclear liability – insurance and claims

February 16, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, legal | Leave a comment

Record USA national debt – topping $22 trillion, and nuclear industry STILL wants tax-payer handouts !

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 | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Byron nuclear plant could close in three years, two decades earlier than its planned retirement 

 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 | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Japan’s Kyushu Electric to scrap aging nuclear reactor at Genkai

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 | business and costs, Japan, safety | Leave a comment

Economist doubts the need for New Jersey to subsidise nuclear power stations

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 | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »