China’s Nuclear Diplomacy in the Middle East
China will have to balance its nuclear ‘going out’ with nonproliferation concerns. The Diplomat , By Samuel Hickey, October 09, 2018 On September 21, China’s Ministry of Justice published its draft Atomic Energy Law, which urges its vast nuclear industry to go forth into the world and secure a portion of the nuclear export market. Unlike the “Gold Standard” interpretation of the “1+2+3” agreement in the U.S. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, China will not officially limit a partner country’s access to the full nuclear fuel cycle in exchange for nuclear cooperation.
This is an important distinction and is the same policy that Russia subscribes to in its nuclear export agreements. While both countries may not be willing to export enrichment technology, they will not explicitly state this or preclude any future partnership on the nuclear fuel cycle. Nuclear exports are an extension of their foreign policy as they seek to secure long-term geopolitical influence and they are signaling that negotiations are always on the table with the Global South.
China’s proliferation policy until Deng Xiaoping’s 1978 “reform and opening up” policy was characterized by countering the imperialist powers, and it stood firm with the Third World, arguably advocating proliferation.China now boasts a solid reputation against proliferation and support for the nuclear order, but it has shown a flexibility to negotiate with all actors; this causes concerns for the nonproliferation regime. The nuclear order currently relies on multinational efforts to constrain with whom a supplier state can partner, but this top down perspective challenges China’s nuclear energy promises to the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, including Iran.
China has a unique opportunity to capture a significant portion of the nuclear export market because of their finance schemes and domestic experience. However, MENA states will view China as underperforming in its diplomatic promises if collaboration does not turn into geopolitical gains or enhanced security assurances. China’s efforts to influence the international order will find an audience in the MENA region as states hedge their bets against a distracted and noncommittal United States, but China will not be coaxed into overextension to prove their geopolitical worth — to the distress of MENA states.
The Onus is on the Supplier
China and Russia dominate the civil nuclear import conversation among the MENA states because, for many, the United States’ nuclear export doctrine equates to removing it from the running. The United Arab Emiratesare the only MENA country to sign the gold standard U.S. nuclear agreement, which precludes them from the full nuclear fuel cycle and ensures there cannot be any military dimensions to nuclear cooperation. Even though they have no intentions of completing the nuclear fuel cycle soon, many MENA states refuse to sign this interpretation of the U.S. agreement simply to preserve their sovereign rights guaranteed to them under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).…………
Conclusions
Momentum on regulating China’s nuclear industry increased with China’s Nuclear Safety Law entering into force on January 1, 2018 and the State Council’s issuance of guidelines for the standardization of the nuclear system in August. China’s domestic nuclear expansion has stalled since 2016 so it must expand to new markets and increase its bureaucratic efficiency to support its massive nuclear industry.
China will not upset the nuclear order and prefers to retain the onus of preventing proliferation on the supplier state because that gives it leverage. It is distinctly not in China’s interest for any new nuclear states to crop up and maintaining a little ambiguity in its nuclear export policy allows it to pay lip service to the Global South and keep the West engaged in improving the nuclear order……….https://thediplomat.com/2018/10/chinas-nuclear-diplomacy-in-the-middle-east/
|
|
|
October 11, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
China, marketing, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
THE IPCC REPORT ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT BY 2050:
Coal’s share of electricity supply should be cut to 2 percent or less.
Renewables should supply 70 percent to 85 percent of power generation.
October 9, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
2 WORLD, business and costs, climate change |
Leave a comment
Nuclear Weapons Maker to Receive Extra $420,600 to Help Repair Oakland Bridge https://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2018/10/08/nuclear-weapons-maker-to-receive-extra-420600-to-help-repair-oakland-bridge
In addition to managing US nuclear labs, AECOM does billions in business building overseas military bases and maintaining Air Force drones.
By Darwin BondGraham The Oakland City Council is considering increasing an existing contract by $420,600 for a total of $1.25 million to repair the 23rd Avenue Bridge, but the modified contract is with AECOM, an engineering company that has been involved in designing and manufacturing nuclear weapons components, and in the past, helped manage a desert test site where nuclear weapons experiments were conducted.
Oakland has an anti-nuclear ordinance that usually bars companies involved in designing and building nukes from doing business with the city. But city staffers are recommending that the council waive the prohibition for AECOM due to the fact that the company, and its URS subsidiary, have been involved with the 23rd Avenue Bridge project since 2003 and finding another firm to do the technical work would be difficult.
The original $229,400 contract form 2003 for design and engineering services was signed when URS was independent from AECOM and before URS was a prime contractor with the U.S. Department of Energy, which oversees the nation’s nuclear weapons programs. But in 2005, URS became part of a consortium of companies that took over management of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, where most of the U.S. military’s nuclear weapons are designed and some weapons parts are manufactured. The next year, URS took over management of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the nation’s second nuclear weapons design and testing lab.
AECOM bought URS in 2014 and as a result became a partner in the nuclear labs’ management company. Three months ago, the federal government selected a new team to manage the Los Alamos lab, dropping AECOM as one of the firms involved there. But AECOM is still part of the Livermore Lab group.
Prior to this, AECOM helped manage the Nevada National Security Site where nuclear weapons are tested in “subcritical” experiments that don’t result in fission or fusion explosions.
AECOM has billions of dollars worth of other contracts with the U.S. military, doing everything from building overseas bases to maintaining drone weapons systems. As a result of its nuclear weapons contracts, AECOM was one of several companies that Norway’s sovereign fund put on an investment blacklist last January.
In 2012, Oakland’s City Council increased the contract with URS to work on the 23rd Avenue Bridge to $829,400. But according to the city, “several unforeseen conditions and needed re-design work” require that the contract be increased again to $1.25 million. The funds are mainly state and federal transportation grant dollars.
October 9, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, USA |
Leave a comment
We understand bringing jobs to the state has been the governor’s chief priority and achievement, and it is one economic benefit of the project. But utility customers should only have to pay for their electric power, not a jobs program without end or limits on how much is spent.
Nuclear power play keeps Vogtle project alive https://www.gainesvilletimes.com/opinion/editorial-nuclear-power-play-keeps-vogtle-project-alive/ Plan moves ahead with changes, but customers’ patience is wearing thin The Times Editorial Board letters@gainesvilletimes.com Oct. 6, 2018, For years, Georgia Power customers, nuclear power opponents and some politicians have been arguing that construction of the two new reactors at the Plant Vogtle nuclear power plant near Waynesboro is the state’s all-time white elephant.
The project, the nation’s only nuclear plant construction still ongoing, is already a year overdue, nowhere near finished and $1 billion overbudget. final cost is expected to reach near $27 billion, more than twice the original $13 billion price tag. Last year’s bankruptcy filing of the project’s lead contractor, Westinghouse, set the deadline back even further.
Yet late last year, the Georgia Public Service Commission fended off pressure from ratepayers and anti-nuclear advocates and voted to back Georgia Power’s request to continue the work.
But now, after years of seemingly exhaustive support for an enterprise with no limits, some are finally fed up enough to say no.
The most recent and crucial rebellion came recently from one of the project’s partner utilities. Oglethorpe Power threatened to pull out of the reactor construction if some effort wasn’t made to ease its financial commitment. Oglethorpe is one of three smaller electric membership corporations that serve as junior partners in the project along with Georgia Power and its parent, the Southern Company.
But though Georgia Power is a for-profit with shareholders to help shoulder the costs, smaller EMCs don’t have that flexibility and must make their customers bear the funding burden.
Oglethorpe balked at reaffirming its partnership and argued its case to lawmakers for relief. They seemed to find sympathetic ears, with 20 legislators, including Hall County Sen. Butch Miller and other influential leaders, urging the partners to consider a cap on the project’s costs before more losses are passed on to consumers.
The new deal doesn’t exactly do that, but it does to ensure that further cost overruns will be shared more equitably among Georgia Power and the owners of the project — Georgia Power, Oglethorpe Power, the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia and Dalton Utilities. Specifically Georgia Power must take on a greater portion of future deficits.
Yet even with a somewhat more reasonable deal for the owners, it could still leave ratepayers on the hook for the extra costs as the project wobbles toward the finish line.
“We’re very concerned about today’s announcement because it’s clear the Plant Vogtle nuclear project is in serious trouble if this much arm twisting is necessary to keep all four partners at the table,” Stephen Smith, executive director of Southern Alliance for Clean Energy said in an emailed statement.
Liz Coyle, executive director of consumer advocate Georgia Watch, said it “appears the owners have decided to plow ahead with a project that holds continued uncertainty and certainly clear risk of major cost increases and very little, if any true protections for Georgia’s electric customers.”
It’s worth noting that in addition to those who see the reactor construction as an endless money pit, others object over the viability and safety of nuclear power as a long-term solution to ease off carbon-based fuels.
Defenders of the Vogtle reactors argue that the jobs it creates in that part of the state justify its support. Among them is Gov. Nathan Deal, who urged Oglethorpe to stay with construction plans “before walking away from 7,000 Georgia jobs.”
We understand bringing jobs to the state has been the governor’s chief priority and achievement, and it is one economic benefit of the project. But utility customers should only have to pay for their electric power, not a jobs program without end or limits on how much is spent.
Oglethorpe’s resistance to continuing without some guarantees was timely and needed, but it’s only the first step. The only way to ensure customers won’t have to keep paying more is if legislators insist on the cost caps they suggested. Perhaps that would accomplish what the Public Service Commission has thus far been unwilling or unable to do to rein in cost overruns.
Remember, that five-member board voted unanimously last year to allow the utilities to keep charging customers for its boondoggle. It fits the profile of a state agency that over the years has seldom met a rate hike it wouldn’t rubber-stamp for utilities, many of which provide campaign donations to its members.
Yet Georgians do get a say in how this plays out. There’s a statewide election in less than a month and two PSC seats are on the ballot. Perhaps if commissioners got a message from voters making it clear they’re tired of footing the bill, the board wouldn’t be as eager to keep signing off on this and other costly ventures.
Customers of Georgia Power and its partner EMCs already have paid more than their fair share to get the reactors on line. Even if the plant is finished and begins turning out electrical power, it will take years to recoup what has been invested. It’s time to unplug ratepayers from the burden and let the big corporation’s shareholders take that responsibility.
Even the strongest advocates for nuclear power as a replacement for carbon-based energy have to understand there isn’t an endless supply of construction money in the pockets of Georgia utility consumers.
October 8, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Finnish Olkiluoto-3 nuclear unit tests slipping behind schedule: TVO https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/100418-finnish-olkiluoto-3-nuclear-unit-tests-slipping-behind-schedule-tvo, Elaine Hiruo –Jonathan Dart
HIGHLIGHTS
New final phase schedule due in December
Too early to say if first power tests delayed
Output schedule ‘available ahead of commercial op’
London — Areva-Siemens is to provide a new schedule in December for the final phases of the 1.6-GW Finnish Olkiluoto-3 nuclear reactor after slippage in its commissioning tests, owner operator TVO confirmed Thursday.
This could potentially push back first delivery of power in tests currently scheduled from May 2019, “but we won’t know this until December,” TVO spokesman Pasi Tuohimaa told S&P Global Platts.
Previously TVO has said test production over a roughly five-month period could account for 10%-15% of Finland’s annual electricity needs ahead of full commercial operation, or 2-4 TWh.
Such is the potential volume at risk that TVO is to put up a schedule of Olkiluoto-3’s production tests six months before commercial operation, Tuohimaa said. He stressed that at this stage it was impossible to assess accurately how much electricity would be produced during testing.
“The completion of the commissioning tests has not been progressing according to the updated schedule for commissioning by the plant supplier Areva-Siemens Consortium,” TVO said in a statement late Wednesday.
The operator could not say whether “rebaselining” of the final phase schedule would affect the current September target for the start of commercial operation at the plant, which is already almost 10 years behind the original schedule and three times over the original Eur3.2 billion budget.
Neither could TVO say whether test production of electricity at varying power levels from May 2019 would be affected by the re-scheduling.
In June 2017, TVO said Olkiluoto-3 would begin commercial operation in September 2019, rather than in May of that year as expected. Hot testing had taken longer than expected, it said.
Q2 2019 Nordic baseload power on the NASDAQ futures exchange traded Thursday 0900 GMT at Eur36.40/MWh, down 30 euro cent from two trades earlier in the European morning.
elaine.hiruo@spglobal.com– jonathan.dart@spglobal.com
October 5, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, Finland |
Leave a comment
UTILITIES SUBMIT PROPOSALS FOR NUCLEAR SUBSIDIES, NJ Spotlight TOM JOHNSON | OCTOBER 3, 2018
While some residential customers may end up paying $30 more annually, large energy users may see their bills rise by $1 million a year.
It will be months before the state decides whether customers need to subsidize nuclear power, but New Jersey’s four electric utilities are already proposing how they will recover those costs.
In filings with the Board of Public Utilities, each of the utilities submitted tariffs disclosing how they will recoup the cost of buying Zero Emission Certificates (ZECs), the potential $300 million annual subsidy aimed at propping up the state’s supply of nuclear power.
The proposals are the latest in a series of filings that could boost bills to customers by billions of dollars if approved by the regulatory agency, most stemming from two bills signed into law this spring that will transform energy policy in New Jersey.
PSEG threatened to shut down units in South Jersey
The most contentious bill involved proposed subsidies to avert the closing of the three remaining nuclear power plants in New Jersey. Without financial incentives, Public Service Enterprise Group threatened to shut down the units it operates in South Jersey……
Is it a done deal?
“It gives the appearance of being a fait accompli,’’ said Doug O’Malley, director of Environment New Jersey, part of a coalition that opposed the nuclear bill. “The ZEC tariffs give the appearance that it is a done deal.’’
The board must still approve the tariffs, as well as any application by a nuclear-plant owner for the subsidy.
The proposed surcharge is established by the bill signed by Gov. Phil Murphy, but the tariffs submitted to the BPU vary on how much customers will pay depending on what customer class they’re in……..
Stefanie Brand: ‘It all adds up’
“The numbers appear small, but in fact they are quite large,’’ said Steve Goldenberg, an attorney representing large energy users. When you multiply the change by a whole lot of kilowatt hours, you derive a very large number.’’
The annual costs for some large energy users will exceed $1 million, Goldenberg said. “The lowest I’ve heard is $300,000.’’
Others worry the potential subsidies, when added to other costs that are pending before the BPU, or recently approved, will be a huge hit to ratepayers.
“It all adds up,’’ said Stefanie Brand, director of the Division of Rate Counsel. PSE&G has more than $10 billion in proposed rate increases pending before the BPU, if a recent $1.9 billion gas modernization program is included, Brand said.
Those cases include $2.5 billion to improve the resilience of its electric and gas distribution system; a $4 billion clean-energy initiative filed last Friday, and the proposed nuclear subsidy.
“The fact is there is no way to spend $10 billion and not have it be very expensive to ratepayers,’’ Brand said…….https://www.njspotlight.com/stories/18/10/02/utilities-submit-proposals-for-nuclear-subsidies/
October 5, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Nuclear plant delay, YLE 4 Oct 18 Daily Turun Sanomat reports that the start of regular power production at Finland’s biggest nuclear reactor, Olkiluoto 3, may be pushed back yet again.
TVO – the owner of the power plant – said the French-German consortium Areva-Siemens has not been able to complete commissioning tests at the Eurajoki site as planned, the paper says. According to TVO, it is still unclear whether the supplier’s test delays will affect the launch of the plant, which has been scheduled for September 2019.
The project in western Finland has been hit by repeated delays, spiraling costs and legal disputes. The construction of the 1,600 MW reactor began in 2005, and initially it was scheduled to start producing electricity in 2009.
On Tuesday, Finland’s Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority expressed concerns about the safety culture at energy company Fennovoima, which seeks to build a nuclear power plant in northern Finland. https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/thursdays_papers_bus_driver_walk-out_nuclear_power_plant_delay_and_finns_in_drug_bust/10438247
October 5, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, Finland |
Leave a comment
Is the global nuclear industry Russia’s latest power play? , Telegraph UK 4 Oct 18 “…….Amid the financial fallout of the West’s attempts at a new nuclear dawn, Russia is quietly building an army of nuclear reactors across the world in an increasingly important power play for a country that has traditionally been powered by fossil fuels.
Kirill Komarov, the first deputy chief executive of Russia’s Rosatom, is also the head of the World Nuclear Association. It is a fitting role for man helping to lead Russia’s global nuclear expansion.
“We are the ultimate leader in the majority of nuclear sectors,” he says, and it is hard to disagree. “In the last 11 years we have commissioned 13 new nuclear plants, which is probably the biggest number in the world even compared to the increase from our Chinese friends.”………
“We are a unique company in that we have activities in all areas of the nuclear business; starting with mining of natural uranium, enrichment fuel fabrication, developing our own nuclear equipment, the construction of nuclear power plants, the decommissioning, waste management… everything,” says Komarov…..
says Tim Yeo, a former Tory MP and the leader of New Nuclear Watch, an industry-backed lobby group.
“They back this up with helpful vendor financing packages, which the Russian government is ready to support where necessary,”………https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/10/04/global-nuclear-industry-russias-latest-power-play/
October 5, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics international, Russia |
Leave a comment
REFILE-EDF says Meuse river flow could restrict output at Chooz nuclear plant https://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL8N1WK4QZ PARIS, Oct 4 (Reuters) – Electricity production at French utility EDF’s Chooz nuclear power plant could be restricted from Oct. 11 due to the forecast flow of the Meuse river, French electricity grid operator RTE, said on Thursday.
Chooz nuclear power plant in the northeast of the country has an installed capacity of 3,000 megawatts. The plant uses water from the river to cool its two reactors.
“Production restrictions are likely to affect EDF’s nuclear generating fleet on Chooz production units starting Thursday October 11,” RTE said. It did not give further details.
Low river levels has forced EDF, which operates France’s 58 nuclear reactors, to curb production at some reactors in recent weeks.
October 5, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, France |
Leave a comment
French nuclear output drops to 41 GW on three unplanned outages, S and P Global Platts,- Andreas Franke –Jonathan Fox – 4 Oct 28
HIGHLIGHTS
1.3 GW Belleville-2 in unplanned shutdown overnight
0.9 GW Gravelines-6 also taken offline overnight
0.9 GW Tricastin-2 restart attempt delayed again
London— French nuclear output fell below 41 GW Wednesday morning, with operator EDF listing three unplanned short-term outages with a combined 3 GW capacity, according to grid operator RTE…
some risks remain, with Platts Analytics noting the ongoing shift in the restart of reactors as a key factor.
The improved nuclear outlook in France is offset by a 2.5 GW shortfall in Belgium this winter and the permanent closure of the 1.3 GW Gundremmingen B reactor in Germany, with combined nuclear output across the CWE region for December seen barely above December 2017 levels, Platts Analytics said in its October report.
–Andreas Franke, andreas.franke@spglobal.com
–Edited by Jonathan Fox, jonathan.fox@spglobal.com https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/100318-french-nuclear-output-drops-to-41-gw-on-three-unplanned-outages
October 5, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, France |
Leave a comment
Hinkley Point builder feels heat for French reactor failings. EDF has been
rebuked by French safety regulators for failings in the construction of a
prototype reactor in Normandy. Flamanville has been beset by problems and
delays that critics say cast doubt on EDF’s ability to deliver power from
the British plant by 2025, as promised.
The Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire, the French nuclear regulator, said yesterday that EDF may need
to carry out more repairs than had been estimated initially on faulty
weldings at the French reactor and ordered it to carry out a wider review
of the quality of materials in the project. The watchdog said that it
believed the company had “failed to properly oversee certain activities” at
Flamanville and had failed in its handling of the welding problems when
they were discovered, taking a year and a half to inform the regulator.
Times 4th Oct 2018 , Flamanville originally was due to start up in 2012, but it has been delayed
repeatedly. This summer, EDF said that the start date had slipped again to
early 2020 as it needed to repair “quality deficiencies” in the welding in
part of the plant that carries steam to the turbines.
The costs of the project are estimated at €10.9 billion, more than three times its
original budget. The company has blamed the welding issues on a contractor
that had signed off on the work despite the failings. It said in July that
it needed to redo 53 weldings at Flamanville, but was confident that a
further ten were fit for service.
However, the watchdog said it was not certain that this was the case and that EDF should “start preparing for
possible repair work on the weldings”. It said that the company had
informed it only early last year, despite identifying the issue in July
2015.
This year the British nuclear regulator raised concerns about poor
quality control checks on EDF’s supply chain for Hinkley Point C and said
that improvements had to be made. Kate Blagojevic, head of energy and
climate at Greenpeace, said: “The French nuclear regulator has given a
pretty damning verdict on EDF’s attempt to build the new nuclear power
station at Flamanville . . . Nothing in the latest statement from the
French nuclear regulator could possibly inspire confidence that Hinkley
will be built on time or budget.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b8a10964-c745-11e8-a4a5-a34bea2c1d04
October 5, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, UK |
Leave a comment
Energy firms demand billions from UK taxpayer for mini reactors Ministers under pressure to fund new generation of small-scale nuclear power stations,Guardian, Adam Vaughan Energy correspondent @adamvaughan_uk, 1 Oct 2018 Backers of mini nuclear power stations have asked for billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to build their first UK projects, according to an official document.
Advocates for small modular reactors (SMRs) argue they are more affordable and less risky than conventional large-scale nuclear plants, and therefore able to compete with the falling costs of windfarms and solar power.
But the nuclear industry’s claims that the mini plants would be a cheap 
option for producing low-carbon power appear to be undermined by the significant sums it has been asking of ministers.
Some firms have been calling for as much as £3.6bn to fund construction costs, according to a government-commissioned report, released under freedom of information rules. Companies also wanted up to £480m of public money to help steer their reactor designs through the regulatory approval process, which is a cost usually paid by nuclear companies.
Ten companies hoping to build the plants requested direct government funding, according to the briefing paper by the Expert Finance Working Group on Small Reactors. While the report named the companies involved in the mini nuclear projects, it did not specify who was asking for
David Lowry, a nuclear policy consultant who obtained the document, said: “SMRs are either old, discredited designs repackaged when companies see governments prepared to throw taxpayers’ subsidies to support them, or are exotic new technologies, with decades of research needed before they reach commercial maturity.”
The working group that drafted the report, and was appointed by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), urged the government in August to put in place a framework to help bring the smaller plants to market.
The government has already offered £44m of funding for research and development of one group of SMRs, which typically have a capacity of less than a tenth of the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant being built in Somerset, or enough power for 600,000 homes.
Mini nuclear power stations are unlikely to supply clean energy to Britain’s homes and businesses any time soon. Of more than 30 British, US and Chinese companies that have expressed an interest in building one in the UK, the majority told the working group that their power stations would be ready to deployed in the 2030s.
The companies include UK firms such as Rolls-Royce, Sheffield Forgemasters and Atkins, along with China’s CNNC, US companies NuScale and Westinghouse, and France’s EDF Energy.
The working group found the firms’ cost estimates “varied significantly”, to the degree that some of the companies clearly had a “lack of understanding” of how British nuclear regulation works.
It also noted that some of the companies proposed using “non-standard fuels” rather than the conventional uranium used by today’s nuclear plants, which “may add cost to business models” because of new facilities to produce and later manage the spent fuel.
The firms told the group that the four main barriers they faced were finding and confirming sites, the cost of regulatory approval for their designs, a lack of state funding and unclear policy.
The government is expected to make announcements soon regarding the siting regime and regulatory approvals for SMRs, sources told the Guardian…….. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/30/energy-firms-demand-billions-from-uk-taxpayer-for-mini-reactors
October 1, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK |
Leave a comment
TOUCHING FROM A DISTANCE, The workers of Fukushima Daiichi BY ANDREW DECK METROPOLIS JAPAN, SEPTEMBER 28, 2018“………an elaborate operation that also aspires to full decommissioning of Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 by 2050. Now seven years into this proposed timeline, some critics have questioned its feasibility. According to Daisuke Hirose, a TEPCO spokesperson who debriefed Metropolis on the state of decommissioning, there are three major priorities in fulfilling the plan as scheduled.
The most complex is the location and extraction of nuclear fuel debris. Hundreds of tons of melted fuel remain buried deep within Units 1, 2 and 3, the exact locations of which remain unknown. Rubble and fatal radioactivity levels have rendered these parts of the reactor buildings inaccessible to humans, leaving remote-controlled robots the most viable method of investigation. Only minimal fuel debris in Unit 2 has currently been identified and the means of extraction have not been finalized, but Hirose says TEPCO will meet a 2021 benchmark for initial fuel extraction. Alongside the handling of nuclear debris, the plant must confront a rapid accumulation of contaminated water on site, perhaps the most urgent task facing the operation. ……….
Our coach passed the border of the “difficult to return zone,” a government-designated boundary that separates areas of Fukushima deemed habitable from those deemed uninhabitable. Suddenly we were facing the Fukushima “ghost towns” of popular imagination. While Fukushima Daiichi is ground zero, the heart of this disaster is in the abandoned towns of the prefecture: homes and businesses and schools left behind in an instant, hard evidence of the 160,000 residents that were displaced by the disaster. Abandoned vehicles, shattered windows, hollowed-out storefronts, a dilapidated pachinko parlor and seven years of weeds rising from cracks in the cement — they all passed by the coach windows on our approach to Fukushima Daiichi.
We were not the only vehicles on this highway, trucks rumbled past us and cars lined the road. Calling these “ghost towns” is a misnomer: these towns may be uninhabited, but they are not unoccupied. Many of these vehicles belonged to a decontamination project that spans the original 20km exclusion zone and beyond. It is not operated by TEPCO, but rather a web of government agencies and municipalities. Their job, first and foremost, entails the mass removal of dirt, stripping entire towns of topsoil and manually washing down rooftops and other surfaces that were doused in radioactive particles in an effort to clean away radiation. Fields of black refuse sacks, millions of which are filled with contaminated soil, now litter the prefecture without plans for their permanent storage or removal. Regardless of this work’s efficacy, it is an undertaking that requires a massive labor force; Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare reports that more than 46,000 were employed in Fukushima decontamination work in 2016.
The harsh reality is that the disaster has disrupted the industries that once thrived in Fukushima Prefecture — fishing, agriculture and service jobs. Currently, only half of the region’s 1,000 fishermen are going out to sea and they face highly reduced demand. The decontamination industry is one of the few thriving seven years later, but this line of work is not without its risks. In early September, the UN human rights division released a statement warning of possible worker exploitation in the recovery effort, both within the prefectural decontamination projects and on the 1F site. “Workers hired to decontaminate Fukushima reportedly include migrant workers, asylum seekers and people who are homeless,” wrote three UN Special Rapporteurs. “They are often exposed to a myriad of human rights abuses, forced to make the abhorrent choice between their health and income, and their plight is invisible to most consumers and policymakers with the power to change it.” Japan’s Foreign Ministry responded by calling the statement “extremely regrettable.”
There are many people who shoulder the burden of the nuclear disaster: parents sending their children to school with Geiger counters on their backpacks, farmers who have lost their livestock and livelihood, elderly left to care for deserted towns as the young set roots far from Futaba-gun, multi-generation Fukushima lineages that have been forced to abandon their familial homes for prefabricated temporary housing units. Yamamoto carries one small burden of this sweeping tragedy, as do the other workers of Fukushima Daiichi, as do those who labor in irradiated fields without other means of income. They are trying to extinguish a danger that can’t be seen, but its presence is felt in every aspect of their work. At times the job they’ve been assigned feels beyond comprehension, but Fukushima is not a supernatural disaster and Yamamoto is no ghostbuster. This disaster is deeply human, founded in both nature and negligence. “If you think in terms of decades, the long road ahead and the abstractness of it all will crush you,” says Yamamoto. “But just as with any other work, if you split up big projects into smaller pieces, the feeling of accomplishment from each small victory will keep you motivated.” Inside the exclusion zone, we witness the people of Fukushima trying to take their land a few steps closer to normal. https://metropolisjapan.com/workers-of-fukushima-daiichi-power-plant/
|
|
|
September 29, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
employment, Japan |
Leave a comment
Moorside on the rocks? NucClear News October 18
Plans for a new nuclear power station in Cumbria are on the verge of collapsing after the Toshiba-owned company – NuGen – laid off 60% of its workforce and embarked on a final effort to sell the project. Toshiba was due to sell the NuGen consortium to South Korean state-owned firm Kecpo in early 2018, as the Japanese firm exits international nuclear projects and looks to recoup some of the £400m it has spent on the Moorside plant.
But Kepco has been delaying a final decision, due in part to the UK government signalling a new approach to financing nuclear power stations. That has forced NuGen to cut 60 of its 100-strong workforce after a six-week consultation with staff. (1)
Unions said the project’s problems showed the need for the government to take a stake in Moorside. Justin Bowden, the GMB national secretary, said: “The looming collapse of this vital energy project has been depressingly predictable for months.” The GMB wants the NDA to be scrapped as it currently exists and a Nuclear Development Agency created to make sure Moorside and the accompanying creation of thousands of new jobs and apprenticeships, goes ahead. (2) The skeleton NuGen team is now focused on clinching a deal with Kepco by the end of the year before Toshiba writes the unit off entirely at the end of March 2019. Success will hinge on whether Kepco buys into a new financing approach for nuclear power plants that the government is exploring, known as the regulated asset base (RAB) model. Officials think it could deliver the government’s nuclear ambitions more cheaply for consumers than alternatives.
The RAB approach involves a regulator – in the case of nuclear power stations most likely to be Ofgem – setting a fixed sum for the costs of the scheme, and a fixed return for the project’s backers. Those returns would be funded by energy bill payers. But the model is likely to be ditched if Jeremy Corbyn comes to power. Alan Whitehead, the shadow energy minister, said: “Using customers’ bills to make a bet that construction of such large and complex projects will not overrun in terms of cost or time is a reckless act.” (3)
The Chief Executive of NuGen said he will “fight tooth and nail” to salvage the £15 billion Moorside nuclear power station in an impassioned speech to industry leaders gathered in Cumbria. He says he is fully behind using the RAB model. (4)
The FT reported that Toshiba had entered talks with Canadian asset manager Brookfield over the potential sale of NuGen. Brookfield bought Westinghouse from Toshiba for $4.6bn in January after the US nuclear business filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2017. (5) But the claims were later rubbished by Toshiba. It added that it was still considering the sale of NuGen to Kepco. (6)
Later NuGen admitted that there are no firm plans to save Moorside. (7)
Workington Labour MP, Sue Hayman, co-chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Nuclear Energy, wrote to the Secretary of State for Business, Greg Clark MP, at the end of July, when NuGen announced it was consulting on job losses, calling on him to guarantee Government support for the project and 20,000 future Cumbrian jobs. Mr Clark said in June that he “will consider direct Government investment” in the proposed Wylfa nuclear power station in Wales, but he has refused to make any similar commitment to Cumbria. In a response to Sue’s letter, energy minister Richard Harrington MP said: “The Secretary of State and I understand the potential importance of the Moorside project to the local area. However (…) the proposed sale of NuGen is principally a commercial matter for Toshiba and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on those ongoing negotiations.” Sue Hayman said: “This Tory government could not care less about the Cumbrian economy, the Moorside project, or the 20,000 future jobs it will bring.” (8)
but he has refused to make any similar commitment to Cumbria. In a response to Sue’s letter, energy minister Richard Harrington MP said: “The Secretary of State and I understand the potential importance of the Moorside project to the local area. However (…) the proposed sale of NuGen is principally a commercial matter for Toshiba and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on those ongoing negotiations.” Sue Hayman said: “This Tory government could not care less about the Cumbrian economy, the Moorside project, or the 20,000 future jobs it will bring.” (8) http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/NuClearNewsNo111.pdf
September 29, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, UK |
Leave a comment
After wrangling over Georgia nuclear plant, cost concerns remain, By Matt Kempner and Anastaciah Ondieki – The Atlanta Journal-Constitution , September 28, 2018
Not many people can name the plant that their electricity comes from. But in Jefferson, at a gathering sponsored by Jackson EMC, plenty of customers were familiar with the trials and tribulations of expanding Plant Vogtle.
Among the people who gather annually for chicken dinners, gospel music and raffle drawings put on by the electric cooperative, there are worries about the mounting headaches 130 miles away.
Plant Vogtle — the only nuclear power plant under construction in the United States — keeps ending up in the news because of its ever escalating pricetag. And those soaring costs are likely to end up in the monthly bills of customers of Jackson EMC and most other Georgia utilities, which are on the hook to pay for the project.
“I don’t understand why they can’t figure out what it’s going to cost,” said Mike Mize, a retired phone company worker who lives in Commerce and gets power from Jackson EMC. “I want them to hurry up and finish the thing and quit spending money on it.”
But high-stakes events this week suggest that costs will only go higher.
Co-owners of the plant voted Wednesday to continue its expansion, but did little to address the fundamentals of the Vogtle’s troubles.
The owners ditched a proposal for a firm cost cap on the now $27-billion-plus project and avoided addressing calls by state lawmakers to refrain from passing new cost increases along to customers. Meanwhile, electric membership cooperatives and city utilities around the state lost some of their say over whether the project continues in the future.
Georgia Power blasted the idea of a firm cost cap, but agreed to take on a greater share of costs in the event of certain big overruns. The size of the risk shift was limited — if there are $2.1 billion in cost increases, the company would face an extra $180 million penalty, “peanuts in this context,” said one critic.
Georgia Power, the state’s largest utility, was given carte blanche to drop out of the project at its sole discretion.
Morgan Stanley analysts predict a “very good chance” that Vogtle costs could jump more than another $2.1 billion.
“We think there is a significant level of uncertainty around the budget and see a very high likelihood of continued cost overruns,” the analysts wrote.
Add that to the existing pile. Nine years into construction, the Vogtle expansion is billions of dollars over budget, years behind schedule and at least four years away from completion.
Cost projections and assurances from Georgia Power have been consistently wrong.
Then a bankruptcy filing last year by the project’s main contractor, Westinghouse Electric, eliminated a contract that had buffered Vogtle owners from many extra costs. But the costs still continue to rise.
When Georgia Power recently announced $2.3 billion in new increases, it automatically triggered a vote by the co-owners on whether to stick with the project.
Georgia Power, the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia and Dalton Utilities all gave approval. But Oglethorpe Power, which represents electric membership corporations throughout the state, insisted on a cost cap. It also asked that shareholders of Georgia Power’s parent, Southern Company, eventually cover additional cost increases. (Another Southern subsidiary is overseeing the construction.)
Bitter disagreements among the project’s co-owners bubbled out into the public. It kicked off brinkmanship negotiations over whether and how the project would continue.
The core issue is one that has haunted Vogtle for years: Who should shoulder its ever-ballooning costs?
“We never signed up for a project where we would just be a blank checkbook for Southern Company or anybody else in this project,” said Gary Miller, the chief executive of GreyStone Power Corporation, which serves portions of Fulton, Cobb, Douglas and other counties. “We never said, ‘Build it no matter what the cost.’ ”………
There’s been intense political pressure to continue the work. If the project were to be canceled, its costs likely would end up in customer bills without any energy generation to show for it. Some Jackson EMC members consider that wasteful; others want to stop the bleed. …….https://www.myajc.com/business/after-wrangling-over-georgia-nuclear-plant-cost-concerns-remain/9iGHX9Ugo7QPkli9LoqGbM/
September 29, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, UK |
Leave a comment
nuclear-news 