Nuclear power uneconomic, investments driven by needs of nuclear weapons industry
Nuclear power is being left behind, industry experts say https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/09/10/nuclear-power-is-being-left-behind-nuclear-industry-experts-say/
This statement, though it sounds like a press release from a renewable energy trade body, or a campaign from an environmental group, is one of the main conclusions of the 2018 edition of the Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR), which is published each year by French independent consultant specializing in nuclear energy, Mycle Schneider.
It is said to be based on a third-party-perspective, aimed to open discussion on the sustainable development of nuclear energy and a rational approach to thinking of the nuclear industry at large.
According to the authors, nuclear power will have few chances to compete in the future, if it does not prove to be able to develop commercially available, smaller, factory-assembled, modular reactors, at lower cost, with reliable, passive safety features and, above all, if it is not able to attract private investors; “the prospects of which seem remote,” according to the report.
The share of nuclear in global power production has dropped significantly, from 17.5% in 1996 to 10.3% in 2017. “It is instructive to note that the construction of new nuclear power plants is mostly driven and backed by states, and not by the private sector,” the report further notes. On top of this, most state proponents of nuclear power programs are nuclear weapon states.
Support for nuclear power projects, the document says, is being given by countries that are prepared to offer public support, and often this is facilitated by rent-seeking and corruption. Especially due to their large size (between 1 GW and 1.6 GW), nuclear power facilities are said to be an unviable solution for many African developing countries, the power systems of which are usually small and not equipped to integrate big capacities.
Furthermore, the report highlights that solar and wind saw its share in the global power mix increase by 35% and 17% in 2017, while the growth of nuclear power was of only 1% last year. Only four reactors became operational in 2017, of which three were in China and one in Pakistan, while construction started on another five plants worldwide.
Moreover, the number of facilities under construction has decreased from 68 reactors at the end of 2013, to 50 in 15 countries by mid-2018, of which 16 are in China and 33 are behind schedule, mostly by several years. In China, however, nuclear power generation grew by 18% in 2017, and its share in the country’s power mix climbed from 3.6% in 2016, to 3.9% last year.
Yet, as of mid-2018, 115 units were undergoing decommissioning, although so far, only 19 units have been fully decommissioned: 13 in the U.S., five in Germany, and one in Japan.
But what is really hurting nuclear power, the experts say, is economics. “Auctions resulted in record low prices for onshore wind (<US$20/MWh) offshore wind (<US$45/MWh) and solar (<US$25/MWh), which compares with the “strike price” for the Hinkley Point C Project in the U.K. (US$120/MWh),” the authors of the report wrote.
Total investments in nuclear power for 2017, relating to 4 GW of capacity, totaled just $16 billion, while global investments in wind and solar equaled $100 billion and $160 billion, respectively.
The report also stresses how nuclear power may also be impacted by global warming, as the cooling of the reactors requires large amounts of water, and governments, especially in Europe, are introducing operational restrictions to avoid the excessive heating of rivers. “While in most cases, regulations required to lower the output of the reactors by 10 percent or so, some reactors were shut down, including at least four reactors in France, to deal with the problem,” the report notes.
Although this heating issue is considered secondary, the experts warn that the “malaise” about the uncertain future of the industry remains “deep and disconcerting.”
It is also interesting to note that, writing about France’s nuclear plans, the authors of the document highlight the ambiguity of its state-owned utility, EDF, which “seems to live in a different world,” as its envisages “certain closures” of nuclear reactors only starting 2029, while the French government has clearly said it will reduce the share of nuclear power from around 71% currently, to 50% in 2025. The same EDF, on the other hand, has announced a 30 GW solar planthat is aimed at partly offsetting the loss of this capacity.
As for the Hinkley Point nuclear plant in the U.K., which is also being developed by EDF (although its construction has not started yet) and is expected to sell power at $115–120/MWh under a Contract for Difference (CfD) deal, the report stresses that UK National Audit Office (NAO) has already defined it as “risky and expensive project with uncertain strategic and economic benefit.”
In order to raise funds for the project, EDF announced its intention to sell non-core assets worth $11.4 billion, with the project being finally approved in September 2016. “The constant decline in energy and electricity consumption in the U.K. do not favor the economic case for nuclear new-build,” the report suggests.
Now even the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports a dim view of nuclear energy’s future
New IAEA Energy Projections See Possible Shrinking Role for Nuclear Power, IAEA, 11 Sept 18 Nuclear power’s electricity generating capacity risks shrinking in the coming decades as ageing reactors are retired and the industry struggles with reduced competitiveness, according to a new IAEA report……
Overall, the new projections suggest that nuclear power may struggle to maintain its current place in the world’s energy mix. In the low case to 2030, the projections show nuclear electricity generating capacity falling by more than 10% from a net installed capacity of 392 gigawatts (electrical) (GW(e)) at the end of 2017. In the high case, generating capacity increases 30% to 511 GW(e), a drop of 45 GW(e) from last year’s projection. Longer term, generating capacity declines to 2040 in the low case before rebounding to 2030 levels by mid-century, when nuclear is seen providing 2.8% of global generating capacity compared with 5.7% today……..
The wide range in the projections is also due to the considerable number of reactors scheduled to be retired around 2030 and beyond, particularly in North America and Europe, and whether they will be replaced by new nuclear capacity. ……
Over the short term, the low price of natural gas, the impact of renewable energy sources on electricity prices, and national nuclear policies in several countries following the accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in 2011 are expected to continue weighing on nuclear power’s growth prospects, according to the report. In addition, the nuclear power industry faces increased construction times and costs due to heightened safety requirements, challenges in deploying advanced technologies and other factors……….
Commitments agreed to at the 21st session of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) could also produce a positive impact on nuclear energy development in the future, according to the publication.
Regional Trends……….https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/new-iaea-energy-projections-see-possible-shrinking-role-for-nuclear-power
UK’s Moorside nuclear power project now teeters on the edge of collapse
Plans for new Cumbria nuclear power station on verge of collapse,Toshiba’s plan to sell plant in disarray over government’s ‘risky’ financing plan, Guardian, Adam Vaughan, 11 Sept 18 Plans for a new nuclear power station in Cumbria are on the verge of collapsing after the Toshiba-owned company behind it 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 Korea 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.
However, Kepco has been delaying a final decision, due in part to the UK government signalling a new approach to financing nuclear power stations.
That forced NuGen to cut 60 of 100 jobs on Tuesday, following a six-week consultation with staff.
Unions said the 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 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………..
A team of about 30 government officials is being assembled to work on new nuclear financing, the Guardian understands. The government’s feasibility study on using RAB for new nuclear is expected in January. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/11/toshiba-plans-for-new-cumbria-nuclear-power-station-on-verge-of-collapse
 |
ReplyForward
|
French government to scrutinise nuclear costs: current European pressurized reactor (EPR) project not economic
Reuters 10th Sept 2018 , France’s state-controlled EDF power utility needs to show a new
generation nuclear reactors work well, which is not for now the case, new
environment minister Francois de Rugy said in remarks published on Monday.
De Rugy signaled that any decision on whether to build more plants using
the European pressurized reactor (EPR) design would be based on economic
factors. The French government is expected to outline in late October a
plan to cut the share of nuclear energy in its electricity production to 50
percent from the current 75 percent, the highest level in the world. It has
already said it could take a decade more to get there than an initial
target of 2025.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-edf/edf-must-prove-nuclear-reactors-viable-french-minister-says-idUSKCN1LQ1HB
Despite glut of uranium fuel AREVA – now called Orano, to start a huge new uranium conversion plant
Reuters 11th Sept 2018 , French nuclear group Orano on Monday inaugurated a 1.15 billion euro (1.02
billion pounds)uranium conversion plant despite huge global overcapacity
for nuclear reactor fuel. State-owned Orano’s new plant in Tricastin,
southern France, will account for a quarter of the world’s 60,000-tonne
annual uranium hexafluoride (UF6) production capacity when it fully ramps
up in 2021 and is set to have the industry’s lowest costs, the company
said. UF6, produced by combining “yellowcake” uranium ore concentrate
with fluorine, is a precursor of enriched uranium, which fuels the
world’s nuclear plants. Following the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan,
uranium prices are near decade lows as several countries reduced their
reliance on nuclear energy.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-nuclearpower-enrichment/french-orano-opens-uranium-conversion-plant-despite-glut-idUKKCN1LQ2O9
Hinkley Point C and Sea-Level Rise
NuClear News, Sept 18 The Stop Hinkley Campaign wrote to the Office for Nuclear Regulation at the end of July to express increasing concern about the number of reports from climate researchers who believe sea levels could rise by as much as 6 metres as a result of substantial melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets caused by climate change.
Some researchers say sea levels could rise by six metres or more even if the 2 degree target of the Paris accord is met. Sustained warming of one to two degrees in the past has been accompanied by substantial reductions of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and sea level rises of at least six metres – several metres higher than what current climate models predict could occur by 2100. (1)
In the light of these recent higher estimates of sea level rise the group wanted to know whether ONR has revisited and perhaps revised its view on the future safety of the Hinkley Point C site. Stop Hinkley was particularly interested to know whether ONR is confident that the site will be suitable for the interim storage of spent fuel until at least the year 2140.
ONR responded by saying that “the primary protection against coastal flooding for HPC is the height of the site platform (14m above sea level). The site characterisation has demonstrated that the platform is not vulnerable to a design basis coastal flood, including reasonably foreseeable climate change. The HPC site licensee (NNB GenCo) will monitor this hazard via Periodic Safety Reviews (including the interim spent fuel store) and if the assumptions in the safety case regarding climate change are shown to no longer be valid; they will be reconsidered. If necessaryy, further preplanned flood protection measures will be put in place through a managed approach.”
The 14m above sea-level makes it sound like quite a large margin. But the Hinkley Point C Stress Test report shows an extreme flooding level of 9.52m (with no waves). Taking into consideration “wave effects” of 2m this gives a margin of 2.48m. (2)
Latest study suggests that rapid melting in Antarctica could begin within the next century, before HPC is decommissioned and before spent fuel is removed. (3) The Antarctic ice sheet contains enough ice to raise sea level by approximately 57 metres (187 feet), about half the length of a soccer pitch. (4) While it is unlikely that enough ice would melt to raise sea-levels by 57 metres, Antarctica is so massive that just a small fraction of this ice melting would be enough to cause huge problems for people and infrastructure on the coast.
ONR says it “maintains a constant review of scientific thinking on climate change, and is guided by relevant good practice. This includes UK and international guidance, UK Climate Projections 09 (UKCP09) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). To support efficient and effective regulation, ONR has established an independent expert panel on meteorological hazards to provide advice. ONR’s expert panel is a collection of competent consultants with expertise in this technical area. This panel has provided advice on the HPC external flooding safety case and will continue to provide advice on the potential impacts of climate change.”
“ONR is content that a suitable managed adaptive approach can be adopted, in the event that sea level rise is more than predicted.”
Perhaps the next question to ONR is how long will it take to move 60 years’ worth of spent fuel if the thinking on flood risk and the likelihood of a tsunami were suddenly to become out-dated? http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/NuClearNewsNo110.pdf
UK’s Moorside nuclear power project on the brink of being abandonment?
Times 8th Sept 2018 , Plans for a new nuclear power station in Cumbria are set to move closer tocollapse next week, with the company developing the Moorside project
expected to confirm that it is laying off the majority of its staff.
throughout August on job cuts among its 100 employees after failing to
secure a buyer. It is understood that it is preparing to sign off on cuts
resulting in the loss of at least 50 jobs.
before the end this year then the venture is likely to be abandoned
altogether. Nugen’s Moorside scheme, neighbouring the Sellafield atomic
waste site on the Cumbrian coast, has been in doubt since early last year,
when financial problems engulfed Toshiba. A sale to Kepco, the South Korean
utility, has stalled amid political change in South Korea and a British
government rethink of the financial support on offer for nuclear plants,
after widespread criticism of the high costs of Hinkley Point.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/staff-layoffs-leave-cumbria-nuclear-plans-on-the-brink-5mfgkcz3j
India’s hopes to become a nuclear export hub
India Can Export Nuclear Power Plants, Economic Times, September 7, 2018
But Westinghouse has had billions of dollars of cost overruns in its nuclear reactors in the US, and stands to gain from joining hands with Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) to better manage its project implementation.
The fact is that NPCIL has been able to streamline project implementation with standardised designs and equipment, and is implementing at least 10 new pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs) nationally.
In sharp contrast, the US, which is building nuclear plants after a long hiatus, seems to have rather rusty expertise when it comes to construction of nuclear power plants.
There is much potential for export of India’s indigenous PHWRs, and the Joint Statement rightly calls for India’s “immediate accession” to the Nuclear Suppliers Group. …….https://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes.com/et-editorials/india-can-export-nuclear-power-plants/
Wylfa nuclear project, Bechtel, and the inconvenient truths about the costs
Bechtel & Wylfa NuClear News Sept 18, http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/NuClearNewsNo110.pdf Reports in the Japanese press that Bechtel is to withdraw from its key role in building Wylfa Newydd due to concerns over the project’s profitability, and the drastic rise in construction costs, (1) were swiftly denied. (2)
Nevertheless all mention of the joint venture Hitachi set up earlier in the year with Bechtel and JGC Corporation called Menter Newydd, (New Venture in Welsh) –to help deliver the Wylfa Newydd project – seems to have disappeared. The detailed allocation of work between Horizon and Menter Newydd remained to be worked out, but the new joint venture was expected to lead a significant proportion of on-site construction activities. At that time it seemed that Horizon would be the owners of the nuclear plant and Menter Newydd would be the builders.
The Wales Online website from 22nd May 2016 which announced the establishment of Menter Newydd said “Menter Newydd is a joint venture of Hitachi Nuclear Energy Europe, US giant Bechtel Management Company and Japanese firm JGC Corporation (UK) and will be responsible for the construction of Wylfa Newydd, overseen by Horizon Nuclear Power.” (3)
Bechtel now describes itself as a “project management contractor (PMC) to help deliver a new, two-reactor nuclear plant in Wales for Horizon Nuclear Power”: (4) Clearly a downgrading of its role.
And what of the JCG Corporation? Virtually no mention of Wylfa on their website. But a notice of changes of Directors dated 8th February 2018 has Tsuyoshi Iwasaki who was Associate Executive Director Project Director for Wylfa Newydd retiring and becoming simply an “advisor” to nothing specific. (5)
According to Asahi Shimbun on 17th August Bechtel has decided to withdraw from its key role in construction and only offer a consulting service. The article goes on to say that Horizon Nuclear Power, now a subsidiary of Hitachi, will be in charge of the construction while receiving advice from Bechtel and Japanese electric power companies. One Hitachi executive played down the significance of Bechtel’s withdrawal from its role in construction. “It only means that roles of companies will change. The impact to the project is not big,” the executive said
But the newspaper says “…if Horizon replaces Bechtel, it faces the risk that the construction costs will become higher than anticipated. Hitachi is aiming to lower its stake in Horizon from the current 100 percent to less than 50 percent as a condition for the start of construction of the nuclear plant, and so it is asking other companies to invest in Horizon. But if other companies are concerned over Horizon’s risk, they will hesitate to invest in it. As a result, Hitachi will face bigger difficulties in raising funds for construction and proceeding with the project.”
The Daily Post, on the other hand says: “Reports that a US construction giant has withdrawn from building Wylfa Newydd are “categorically untrue” But Asahi Shimbun didn’t say they had withdrawn completely – only that they had downgraded their role from lead constructor to more of a consultancy role.
Horizon made a big deal out of its announcement that it had appointed Bechtel as Project Management Contractor (PMC) claiming that it would mean cheaper nuclear electricity. It also said it had signed further contracts with Hitachi Nuclear Energy Europe and JGC New Energy UK Limited (JGC) to continue to provide support during the project’s development stage. Bechtel, who will have nearly 200 employees embedded within Horizon, will oversee the project management of the power station, together with Horizon.
Duncan Hawthorne, CEO of Horizon Nuclear Power, said: “These world-leading companies bring a wealth of nuclear, engineering and construction expertise to complement our growing organisation and will help us replicate the cost and schedule successes of the previous four ABWR reactors. The UK still needs reliable nuclear power to help transform our energy mix, and we are gearing up to deliver that. “Our first power station will be cheaper than what has gone before and after that, with smart financing, supply chain learnings and no need for first time overheads, future project costs will fall further still.” (7)
People Against Wylfa B (PAWB) commented that Bechtel has obviously come to the conclusion that it would not make financial sense for them to take part in such a huge and extortionately expensive project. There is an apparent difference of opinion between Hitachi and Bechtel about the cost of construction with Bechtel’s estimates being higher. If a company as large as Bechtel is getting cold feet, it will be difficult for Hitachi to engage another company to take their place. One idea mentioned was that Horizon could replace Bechtel to manage the construction. The risk linked to that would be huge since Horizon is only a local subsidiary company to Hitachi without any experience of building anything let alone two monster nuclear reactors. Hitachi also has no experience of building nuclear reactors. Their track record is offering their boiling water reactors for other companies to build. If, as reported Bechtel will stay as a consultant to the project that is very different to being an active building partner.
The Westminster Government and the Welsh Labour Government should wake up to what is very obvious to other countries worldwide that nuclear power is a technology that belongs to the middle of the twentieth century. It is dirty, dangerous and a threat to environmental and human health. There is an international trend now that sees the price of renewable energy technologies coming down. Using these various technologies and a comprehensive energy conservation programme in our homes, public buildings and workplaces is the sensible and progressive way ahead. This would create work immediately – unlike Wylfa B – without the enormous risks, both financial and healthwise. (8)
NuGen searches for a buyer for Moorside nuclear project
http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/NuClearNewsNo110.pdf NuClear News Sept 18 Kepco, the Korean state-owned nuclear company, which was looking at rescuing the troubled Nugen project at Moorside has strong reservations about the proposed funding model – the Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model. The company is no longer the leading bidder, and according to the Korean press prefers the Contract for Difference (CfD) deal given to EDF for Hinkley C. (1)
Sources in Korea blame the shift in Government policy on support for new nuclear for delaying the deal between Kepco and Toshiba. The Korea Herald, a daily English language newspaper based in Seoul, quoted a Korean government official who claims that the deal for NuGen is being renegotiated because the UK government’s decision to “change profit models for the project”. (2)
Toshiba has opened the door to alternative buyers for NuGen, raising doubts over the future of Moorside. Talks with Kepco, however, are still continuing, despite Kepco being stripped of its preferred bidder status. (3)
Cumbrian MPs have been demanding Government help to make sure nuclear new build happens. Trudy Harrison, Tory MP for Copeland said: “The Government must take a proactive stance. Nuclear new build is not commercially viable without Government support. It is now time for Government to get a grip on our energy policy. In Cumbria we have the skills and experience.” Mrs Harrison is setting up a Moorside strategic partnership, with representatives from Sellafield, Cumbria LEP and councils.
Sue Hayman, Labour MP for Workington, has written to the Government to ask them to act immediately over NuGen. She is co-chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Nuclear Energy. “NuGen is now in the last chance saloon. The Government must act now or it will be too late, and West Cumbria will not get the 20,000 jobs, economic investment and infrastructure improvements that depend on Moorside.”
Barrow’s MP, John Woodcock, now sitting as an Independent says: “We cannot wait much longer for the government to step in and rescue the stalled £15billion Moorside project”. (4)
NuGen announced it was restructuring as part of a review because of the “prolonged time” it had taken to seal the deal with the Korean utility. Around 100 staff and contractor jobs, including that of chief executive Tom Samson, are at risk under the restructuring plans. (5)
Toshiba has set a deadline to secure a deal by the end of September, according to the Financial Times. The Company is believed to have spent hundreds of millions of pounds on developing the site so far. It was forced to pay close to $139m to buy a 40% stake held by France’s Engie last year. The Korean government is understood to remain keen to progress with the investment because it would give it a foothold in one of the few western nations backing the construction of new reactors. But it has said the investment must pass a “national audit” test before it can proceed. Kepco wants to deploy two of its APR-1400 reactors at Moorside to generate a combined electricity of about 3GW – close to 7% of Britain’s electricity needs. Kepco said it was “too early” to say whether it would be able to meet the criteria for the audit. (6)
Meanwhile, NuGen has provided information to support the Moorside site in Cumbria being carried forward into the UK government’s new national policy statement as a site for a new nuclear power plant. NuGen CEO Tom Samson said, “NuGen remains committed to delivering a nuclear power station at Moorside in Cumbria.” (7)
UK’s Bradwell B nuclear project entering an uncertain phase
NucClear News Sept 18, Bradwell B nuclear project is entering a new phase according to China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGN) and EDF. The developers have begun analysing the findings from early investigative work carried out on the site on the Dengie peninsula. China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGN) and EDF are at the pre-planning stage of their plans to build a UKHPR1000 nuclear reactor plant, with the design for this currently undergoing a Generic Design Assessment (GDA) by the Office for Nuclear Regulation and the Environment Agency.
The East Anglian Daily Times reports that up to 30 people were on site during more than 40,000 hours of investigative work, with specialist firms such as Structural Soils Ltd working alongside local firms such as Scott Parsons Landscaping Services at Burnham-on-Crouch taking part. The landscaping firm’s project team has used drilling rigs to complete 20 boreholes. These will be used to analyse the make-up of the land using geophysical testing which should be completed later this year.
Since the start of the year, more than 3000 metres of exploratory holes in the ground have been completed and soil samples taken from each. These will now be taken to various laboratories for testing and examination as part of EDF’s engineering analysis. Now the firm is sending out a newsletter update to local residents explaining the progress of the project. (1)
The Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG) responded to the newsletter saying it was a partial and misleading piece of smooth ‘nuke speak’ that gives all the upsides and none of the downsides of a new nuclear power station at Bradwell. Nowhere in the newsletter is there the slightest hint that Bradwell B might not go ahead. In fact, early stage or not, so sure is CGN/EDF of success that an indicative project timeline is provided, showing that construction ‘begins’ in 5 – 7 years from now.
The newsletter tells us that comments can be made on the Generic Design Assessment (GDA) process. But one might well ask if there is any point in commenting on this given the obvious confidence of CGN/EDF that the Hualong 1000 reactor, not yet in use anywhere in the world, will pass the regulators’ tests. Yet all the digging of boreholes and marine surveys cannot disguise the fact that the site is in Flood Zone 3 and, therefore, totally unsuitable for potentially dangerous new nuclear reactors. Words such as ‘flooding’, storm surges’, ‘other coastal processes’, ‘all predicted to get worse with climate change’.
There is no mention in the newsletter of the immense upheaval, currently taking place around Hinkley Point C in Somerset, that will take place on the estuary if Bradwell B goes ahead, making it a major industrial site and changing it forever; of the jetty on the Blackwater that will likely be needed to bring in large pieces of equipment to the construction site; of the routine radioactive emissions that will take place; of the on-site, long-term highly radioactive waste stores. (2)
BANNG has sent comments to the GDA process. Although the process is meant to be generic, not site-specific, BANNG is calling for the continuing viability of coastal sites under the threat of climate change to be taken into consideration. BANNG considers that the continuing integrity of sites is an issue that must be identified and taken into account in the GDA. Sites that are liable to inundation within the next 200 years should be ruled out. Forecasts of coastal change reveal that the parts of the Dengie peninsula on which Bradwell B is proposed will be permanently below sea level within the next century. Assuming Bradwell B starts generating in 2030 with an operational lifetime of 60 years followed by, perhaps, fifty years storage on site before a GDF is available it will be at least the middle of the next century before the site is fully decommissioned and cleaned up. Estimates of time-scale are, of course, uncertain but these are broadly in line with current government forecasts. And this is a highly optimistic picture. Decommissioning is likely to be a protracted exercise, a GDF may not be available for new build spent fuel and site deterioration may set in well before the site is cleared. It is highly probable there will be nuclear activity on floodable sites for up to two centuries. Indeed, this may be a conservative estimate.
The GDA is predicated on the eventual development of a disposal facility. Although the government has stated that ‘it is satisfied that effective arrangements will exist to manage and dispose of the waste that will be produced from new nuclear power stations’ this amounts to no more than a claim. http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/NuClearNewsNo110.pdf
‘Key insights’ from the 2018 World Nuclear Industry Status Report
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2018 As always there is much of interest in the latest edition of the WorldNM865.4747 The 2018 edition of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report has just been released. Here are the ‘key insights’ from the report:
China Still Dominates Developments
• Nuclear power generation in the world increased by 1% in 2017 due to an 18% increase in China.
• Global nuclear power generation excluding China declined for the third year in a row.
• Four reactors started up in 2017 of which three were in China and one in Pakistan (built by a Chinese company).
• Five units started up in the first half of 2018, of which three were in China ‒ including the world’s first EPR and AP1000 ‒ and two in Russia.
• Five construction starts in the world in 2017.
• No start of construction of any commercial reactors in China since December 2016.
• The number of units under construction globally declined for the fifth year in a row, from 68 reactors at the end of 2013 to 50 by mid-2018, of which 16 are in China.
Operational Status and Construction Delays
• The nuclear share of global electricity generation remained roughly stable over the past five years with a long-term declining trend, from 17.5% in 1996 to 10.3% in 2017.
• Seven years after the Fukushima events, Japan had restarted five units by the end of 2017 ‒ generating still only 3.6% of the power in the country in 2017 ‒ and nine by mid-2018.
• As of mid-2018, 32 reactors ‒ including 26 in Japan ‒ are in Long-Term Outage (LTO).
• At least 33 of the 50 units under construction are behind schedule, mostly by several years. China is no exception, at least half of 16 units under construction are delayed. Of the 33 delayed construction projects, 15 have reported increased delays over the past year.
Only a quarter of the 16 units scheduled for startup in 2017 were actually connected to the grid.
• New-build plans have been cancelled including in Jordan, Malaysia and the U.S. or postponed such as in Argentina, Indonesia, Kazakhstan.
Decommissioning Status Report
• As of mid-2018, 115 units are undergoing decommissioning ‒ 70% of the 173 permanently shut-down reactors in the world.
• Only 19 units have been fully decommissioned: 13 in the U.S., five in Germany, and one in Japan. Of these, only 10 have been returned to greenfield sites.
Interdependencies Between Civil and Military
Infrastructures
• Nuclear weapon states remain the main proponents of nuclear power programs. A first look into the question whether military interests serve as one of the drivers for plant-life extension and new-build.
Renewables Accelerate Take-Over
• Globally, wind power output grew by 17% in 2017, solar by 35%, nuclear by 1%. Non-hydro renewables generate over 3,000 TWh more power than a decade ago, while nuclear produces less.
• Auctions resulted in record low prices for onshore wind (<US$20/MWh) offshore wind (<US$45/MWh) and solar (<US$25/MWh). This compares with the “strike price” for the Hinkley Point C Project in the U.K. (US$120/MWh).
• Nine of the 31 nuclear countries ‒ Brazil, China, Germany, India, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Spain and United Kingdom (U.K.) ‒ generated more electricity in 2017 from non-hydro renewables than from nuclear power.
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt et al., Sept 2018,
‘The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2018’, www.
worldnuclearreport.org/Nuclear-Power-Strategic-Asset- Liability-or-Increasingly-Irrelevant.html
Call to USA’s military to save the nuclear power industry
Senators from both parties look to the military to save nuclear power https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/senators-from-both-parties-look-to-the-military-to-save-nuclear-powerm by John Siciliano, September 06, 2018 A bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate on Thursday would leverage the buying power of the U.S. military to help along the struggling nuclear energy industry, if the Pentagon is OK with paying above market rates.
“Our bipartisan bill will help rejuvenate the U.S. nuclear industry by providing the tools, resources, and partnerships necessary to drive innovation in advanced reactors,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a sponsor of the legislation.
The bipartisan legislation, called the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act, would establish at least one power purchase agreement with the Defense Department, or another federal agency, by Dec. 31, 2023, to buy electricity from a commercial nuclear reactor.
Joining Murkowski on the bill are Democratic Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, and Chris Coons of Delaware. Republicans James Risch and Mike Crapo of Idaho and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia also cosponsored the bill.
Since the Defense Department is the largest consumer of energy in the federal government, its role would seem paramount in implementing the legislation once passed.
But the cost for the nuclear-powered electricity would be higher than the market rate, as the bill is focused on driving ahead advanced and “first-of-a-kind” technology, according to the bill.
“An agreement to purchase power … may be at a rate that is higher than the average market rate,” reads the bill.
The bill would also extend the maximum length of federal power purchase agreement from 10 to 40 years, according to a summary of the bill issued by the Nuclear Energy Institute.
The industry group explains that the length of the agreement is important for new reactors, which need the extra revenue from longer agreements to pay for the initial capital costs. The current 10-year agreements used in energy contract with federal facilities are not sufficient.
The industry group says the longer federal agreement could also help the existing fleet of reactors, which are currently not being “adequately compensated for their carbon-free electricity, by establishing longer term, guaranteed revenue streams.”
“This legislation sends an unmistakable signal that the U.S. intends to re-commit itself as a global leader in clean, advanced nuclear technology,” said Maria Korsnick, the nuclear group’s president. “Next generation nuclear technology is being aggressively pursued globally, and in order for the American nuclear industry to compete with state-owned or state-sponsored developers in rival nations — especially China and Russia — we must have significant collaboration between the federal government, our national labs, and private industry in order to accelerate innovation.”
South Africa not planning for nuclear power, as renewable energy costs go down
Instead, he says the country’s energy demands have decreased.
Briefing Parliament’s energy committee on Tuesday, Radebe also pointed out that the cost of renewable energy technology has also come down.
According to the draft IRP, nuclear energy will only account for about 4% of the country’s energy mix by 2030.
This means no nuclear build programme is being envisaged.
Radebe says there are some misunderstandings about the decision taken on nuclear energy.
“It is not in the plan together with a number of other technologies for the period ending 2030 due to lower demand and lower cost of other technologies.”
MPs say they are relieved a new nuclear project has been scrapped for now, because it is not only unaffordable but would open the door to corruption.
(Edited by Thapelo Lekabe)
Solar power industry gives opportunity for retraining coal workers for good alternative employment
An alternative to propping up coal power plants: Retrain workers for solar, The Conversation,Joshua M. Pearce, Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, and Electrical and Computer Engineering, Michigan Technological University, August 23, 2018The Trump administration announced new pollution rules for coal-fired power plants designed to keep existing coal power plants operating more and save American coal mining jobs.
Profitability for U.S. coal power plants has plummeted, and one major coal company after another has filed for bankruptcy, including the world’s largest private-sector coal company, Peabody Energy.
The main reason coal is in decline is less expensive natural gas and renewable energy like solar. Coal employment has dropped so low there are fewer than 53,000 coal miners in total in the U.S. (for comparison, the failing retailer J.C. Penny has about twice as many workers).
The EPA estimates the new rules will cause about 1,400 more premature deaths a year from coal-related air pollution by 2030. The Trump administration could avoid the premature American deaths from coal pollution – which amount to about 52,000 per year in total – and still help the coal miners themselves by retraining them for a more profitable industry, such as the solar industry.
A study I co-authored analyzed the question of retraining current coal workers for employment in the solar industry. We found that this transition is feasible in most cases and would even result in better pay for nearly all of the current coal workers.
How to make the jump?
What is left of the coal mining industry represents a unique demographic compared to the rest of America. It is white (96.4 percent); male (96.2 percent); aging, with an average age of 43.8 years old; and relatively uneducated, with 76.7 percent having earned only a high school degree or equivalent. Many are highly skilled, however, with the largest sector of jobs being equipment operators at 27 percent. Many of these skills can be transferred directly into the solar industry.
In the study, we evaluated the skill sets of current coal workers and tabulated salaries. For each type of coal position, we determined the closest equivalent solar position and tried to match current coal salaries. We then quantified the time and investment required to retrain each worker.
Our results show there is a wide variety of employment opportunities in solar – the industry overall already employs more than five times more people than in coal mining, at over 250,000 by one industry group estimate. We also found the annual pay is generally better at all levels of education, even with the lowest-skilled jobs. For example, janitors in the coal industry could increase their salaries by 7 percent by becoming low-skilled mechanical assemblers in the solar industry.
Overall, we found that after retraining, technical workers (the vast majority) would make more money in the solar industry than they do in coal. Also note this study was about careers and was done before an uptick in the practice of hiring temporary coal workers. The only downside on salaries we found are that managers and particularly executives would make less in solar than coal. This represents only about 3.2 percent of coal workers that are professional administrators.
Retraining needs
How would coal workers make this transition? There are over 40 types of solar jobs which the DOE has mapped out. They range from entry-level jobs, such as installers, to more advanced positions in engineering and technical design. Most coal workers could not simply walk into a solar job; they would need some retraining. But certain positions require less training…………https://theconversation.com/an-alternative-to-propping-up-coal-power-plants-retrain-workers-for-solar-101961
1 This Month
26 April – Chernobyl: Inside the Meltdown airs on National Geographic on Sunday 26th April from 4pm
29 April – Nuclear Expert Webinar #1 – Radiation Impacts on Families with Mary Olson and Cindy Folkers
- 12:15 PM MT – 1:45 PM MT
- Location: Virtual – REGISTER TODAY
4 May -West Suburban Peace Coalition to discuss Iran war at May Educational Forum
Monday, May 4, 7:00 – 8:00 PM Central Standard Time
Title: : How Trump’s Narrative Tries to Shape the Reality of the War on Iran.
Contact Walt Zlotow, zlotow@hotmail.com 630 442 3045 for further information
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
Pine Ridge Uranium is the real threat, not Tehran- Tell Burgum: Stop the Extraction.
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (25)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 