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
If Democrats take over Congress in November, there’ll be cuts to USA’s nuclear weapons spending
Cuts to nuclear spending and special ops oversight: Expectations for new congressional leadership https://www.defensenews.com/smr/defense-news-conference/2018/09/05/cuts-to-nuclear-spending-and-oversight-of-socom-what-to-expect-from-a-democratic-hasc/
USA’s Duke Energy rules out any new nuclear plants in its long range plans
No more nukes: Duke Energy writes new nuclear out of its long-range plan, By John Downey – Senior Staff Writer, Charlotte Business Journal
Instead, Charlotte-based Duke (NYSE:DUK) will focus on getting license extensions for its existing, almost 11,000-megawatt nuclear fleet. The company will start with the first of the Oconee Nuclear Station’s three, 880-megawatt units, the current license for which expires in 2033. Oconee is near Seneca, South Carolina.
Glen Snider, Duke’s director of resource planning for the Carolinas, says the change is born of a number of developments in the industry. They include last year’s decision by S.C. Electric & Gas to abandon the proposed, $20 billion-plus V.C. Summer nuclear expansion and the expectation that strict limits on carbon emissions are likely to be further off than had once been expected.
Some version
Every year since 2005, Duke had included plans for some version of a new nuclear plant. That year, the Integrated Resource Plan filed by Duke proposed having the plant up and running by 2016.
Even last year, after Duke had announced it dropped plans for the proposed, 2,234-megawatt W.S. Lee Nuclear Station in Gaffney, South Carolina, the long-range plan still had a place for a possible, 1,100-megawatt plan that might start construction in 2032.
This year’s IRP, which projects through 2033, was filed Wednesday and there is no new nuclear construction proposed.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission initially licensed nuclear plants for 40 years. It has already established that qualified plants can get a 20-year extension to total 60 years.
All of Duke’s plants are currently licensed to run for 60 years. The NRC is now considering whether it will allow plants an additional 20-year extension……….https://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/news/2018/09/05/no-more-nukes-duke-energy-writes-new-nuclear-out.html
The economic pain of nuclear power station closures
Nuclear Plant Closures Bring Economic Pain to Cities and Towns, Pew, STATELINE ARTICLE, September 5, 2018, By: Martha T. Moore “…….. Aging nuclear power plants are closing, doomed by the high cost of refurbishing them and the low price of natural gas. That is causing fiscal pain for municipalities that rely on revenue from the plants, and creating political pressure for state subsidies to forestall further shutdowns……….
Six reactors have shut down in the past five years, and eight more reactors are scheduled to close by 2025 at plants in California, Iowa, Massachusetts and Michigan. Nuclear power operators have said they will close a further five reactors at four plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania if those states don’t offer subsidies.
The closure of Indian Point, announced in January 2017, capped decades of controversy over its safety, and was a victory for environmental groups and Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who had long opposed the plant.
But the closure presents the local Hendrick-Hudson school district, where 2,500 children practice evacuation drills annually and nurses have iodide pills on hand in case of a radiation leak, with a budget crisis. About one-third of the district’s annual $79 million budget comes from Indian Point’s payment in lieu of taxes. By 2024, three years after the power plant huts, the yearly payments will have dwindled from $25 million to $1.35 million. ……..
Many nuclear power plants have curried public favor by being good corporate citizens. In Londonderry, for example, Three Mile Island runs a golf tournament for the local fire department that raises enough money to cover the $50,000 annual mortgage payment on the firehouse.
Redevelopment of Three Mile Island isn’t an option, Letavic said, because of the nuclear waste that will remain on the site, which is in the middle of the Susquehanna River……
In Lacey Township on the New Jersey shore, the nation’s oldest operating nuclear plant, Oyster Creek, will shut down in September after 49 years. The town gets $11 million in annual taxes from Oyster Creek and has identified itself so closely with the nuclear plant that its municipal seal bears the symbol of an atom as well as a sailboat and a pheasant. …….
Asking for State Help
Four states have moved to shore up nuclear power plants financially despite opposition from some environmental groups, consumer advocates and the coal and natural gas power industries.
In 2016, New York passed a $7.6 billion package to help three upstate nuclear power plants — though not Indian Point. And Illinois passed legislation directing $2.4 billion to two plants in the state through “zero emissions credits”
……..In New Jersey, where 40 percent of the state’s electricity comes from nuclear plants, the state will subsidize two plants at a rate of $300 million a year under a bill enacted in May. (Oyster Creek was not included in the subsidy plan.) Connecticut enacted legislation last October that could allow its sole nuclear plant, the Millstone reactor in Waterford, to sell electricity at higher prices if Dominion Energy, its owner, can show the reactor is financially strapped. ………
As part of the nuclear subsidy packages, some states have increased requirements for obtaining power from renewable sources: New York and New Jersey will require half of their power to come from renewables by 2030, and Connecticut will require 40 percent by that date. Illinois will require a quarter of its power to come from renewables by 2025.https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2018/09/05/nuclear-plant-closures-bring-economic-pain-to-cities-and-towns
Companies Orano – formerly AREVA, and Holtec aim for private-public partnerships on USA’s nuclear wastes
Plans Move Forward for Privately Funded Storage of Nuclear Waste, Power 09/05/2018 | Darrell Proctor The Trump administration has revived the discussion of using Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a repository for the nation’s nuclear waste. Nevada officials remain opposed to the idea of putting spent nuclear fuel in long-term storage at a site about 100 miles from Las Vegas.But while a bill to resurrect Yucca Mountain as a storage site moves through Congress, other groups have stepped forward with plans to site, build, and operate nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities in areas including Texas and New Mexico. Those plans have reignited the debate about what the U.S. should do with its nuclear waste, along with the discussion of whether the federal government or the individual states should take the lead in developing long-term storage plans.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) says at least 12 U.S. reactors are committed to closing over the next five years, joining the more than 20 reactors shuttered over the past 10 years across the country. That’s lot of spent nuclear fuel, in multiple locations, in need of safe storage, whether at an interim site or at a facility designed for long-term storage……….
Interim Storage Sites in Development
Two members of Wednesday’s panel represented companies developing interim storage sites. Interim Storage Partners (ISP), a joint venture of Orano USA [Orano – formerly AREVA] and Waste Control Specialists (WCS), is pursuing a license for a consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) for used nuclear fuel at an existing WCS disposal site in Andrews County, Texas. Holtec International, which has been acquiring nuclear plants that have closed or are scheduled to close in order to carry out their decommissioning, is developing a CISF in southeastern New Mexico, in a remote area between Carlsbad and Hobbs……..
Joy Russell, vice president of corporate business development and chief communications officer for Holtec, 
said her company formed a business unit—Comprehensive Decommissioning International—in a 2018 joint venture with SNC-Lavalin after SNC-Lavalin in 2017 acquired Atkins, a nuclear waste solutions company. Russell said the New Mexico site encompasses about 1,000 acres, with “about 500 acres being used to build the facility.” Russell said the site, known as HI-STORE CIS, would use the company’s HI-STORM UMAX technology, which stores loaded canisters of nuclear waste in a subterranean configuration.
Russell said her group has a public-private partnership with the Eddy Lee Energy Alliance, representing Eddy and Lee counties in New Mexico, for the project, which she said has support from both local and state officials.
“We’re doing educational outreach in New Mexico,” said Russell. “We do township meetings, where we testify before the mayor and town council. We meet one-on-one with candidates. We had to start with the basics. What people think of when they hear nuclear fuel, they think of the fuel you put in your car, and how that could leak into the ground. We have to educate people on what [nuclear] fuel is. We focus on safety, security, and technology.”
Russell agreed that public concerns centers on the transport of nuclear waste. “The number-one thing I hear, all the time, about consolidated interim storage is transportation.” Holtec also has its license application before the NRC for review; Russell said it expect the agency will complete its review in July 2020, putting the New Mexico site on a timeline to receive its first shipment of spent fuel in 2023.
Revisiting Yucca Mountain
Congress first chose Yucca Mountain as a storage site for nuclear waste in 1987. Years of research into the site followed; estimates are that $15 billion was spent on the project. Sproat noted his efforts on licensing for Yucca Mountain before his retirement from the DOE, with a license application submitted to the NRC in 2008. The Obama administration ended funding for the project and halted the licensing process in 2009.
Meanwhile, the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF), which collected money from the states to finance waste storage projects, was ordered by a federal court in late 2013 to stop collecting that money until the federal government made provisions for collecting that waste………….. https://www.powermag.com/plans-move-forward-for-privately-funded-storage-of-nuclear-waste/?pagenum=1
Nuclear reprocessing has little future in Japan, as utilities end funding
Japanese utilities ended funding for nuclear fuel reprocessing in 2016, putting MOX program in doubt https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/09/03/national/japanese-utilities-ended-funding-nuclear-fuel-reprocessing-2016-putting-mox-plans-doubt/#.W48CsSQzbGg
4 Sept 18, Kyodo,, Utilities that operate nuclear power plants stopped funding the reprocessing of nuclear fuel in fiscal 2016, their financial reports showed Sunday, a step that may affect resource-scarce Japan’s nuclear fuel recycling policy.
The 10 utilities, including Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc. and Japan Atomic Power Co., apparently halted allocating reserve funds for reprocessing costs due to the huge expenses linked to building the reprocessing facilities, sources said.
The government, along with the power companies, has been pushing for the reuse of mixed-oxide, or MOX, fuel, which is created from plutonium and uranium extracted from spent fuel.
While Japan has not changed its policy on spent fuel reprocessing, the outlook for it has remained uncertain since the 2011 Fukushima disaster. At the same time, the government’s latest energy plan in July also stated for the first time that disposal of spent MOX fuel as waste can be considered.
If MOX fuel cannot be reprocessed, nuclear fuel can only be reused once. For the reprocessing of spent MOX fuel, the utilities had allocated about ¥230 billion in reserves as of March 2016.
Currently, only two reactors at Kansai Electric Power Co.’s Takahama power plant, one reactor at Shikoku Electric Power Co.’s Ikata plant and one reactor at Kyushu Electric Power Co.’s Genkai power plant use MOX fuel in so-called pluthermal power generation.
As Japan has decided to cut its stockpile of plutonium, the government and utilities aim to increase plants for pluthermal generation. But if spent MOX fuel is not reprocessed, it would be considered nuclear waste, raising concerns over how to deal with it.
Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd. — in which power companies have invested — has been pursuing the construction of a spent nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in northeastern Japan as well as a MOX fuel fabrication plant, with the costs coming to about ¥16 trillion.
But a series of problems has resulted in their delay. When operational, the Rokkasho plant in Aomori Prefecture, key to Japan’s nuclear fuel cycle policy, can reprocess up to 800 tons of spent nuclear fuel per year, extracting about 8 tons of plutonium.
With this setback, if new MOX reprocessing plants are to be built, it would be hard to secure further funding.
Nuclear reactors shutting down faster than ones are being built
Nuclear plant decommissioning outpacing new-build – report https://www.reuters.com/article/energy-nuclearpower/nuclear-plant-decommissioning-outpacing-new-build-report-idUSL8N1VM4EC
PARIS, Sept 4 (Reuters) – The decommissioning of nuclear reactors is far outpacing the construction of new plants, as the pace of Chinese reactor building has slowed and several developing countries have scrapped nuclear projects, an industry report showed.
In mid-2018, a total of 115 reactors were being decommissioned, about 70 percent of the world’s 173 reactors that have been permanently shut down, according to the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR).
Only 19 reactor units have been fully decommissioned – of which 13 are in the United States, five in Germany, and one in Japan – and just 10 have been returned to greenfield sites.
Many utilities prefer to let reactor cores cool off for decades on-site.
“Unscrewing a nuclear installation by workers who know how it was put together makes more sense than cutting it apart decades later by people who know nothing about it,” said Mycle Schneider, lead author of the report.
Decommissioning has become a major activity for many reactor builders and operators here, turning the costly process into a business opportunity.
By comparison, 15 countries are currently building nuclear power plants, two more than in mid-2017, as newcomer countries Bangladesh and Turkey started building their first units. Belarus and United Arab Emirates (UAE) have nuclear new-build projects that are well under way.
Nuclear new-build plans have been cancelled, including in Jordan, Malaysia and the United States, or postponed such as in Argentina, Indonesia and Kazakhstan, the WNISR report said.
Last week, South Africa scrapped a plan here to add nearly 10 gigawatt (GW) of nuclear power by 2030.
At the end of June, 50 reactors were being built worldwide — of which 16 are in China – with total capacity of 48.5 GW. Following the 2011 Fukushima disaster, the number of reactors under construction topped at 68 in 2013 but has trended downward since then.
A total of 413 reactors were in operation in 31 countries in mid-2018, ten more than a year ago and compared with a peak of 438 in 2002. The increase was due to the restart of several reactors that had suffered long-term outages.
The amount of electricity generated with nuclear energy worldwide rose one percent to 2,500 terawatt hours in 2017 and the share of nuclear power in power generation was 10.3 percent, virtually stable over the past five years. (Reporting by Geert De Clercq; Editing by Mark Potter)
| ReplyForward |
Even before Wylfa nuclear station approved, Horizon Nuclear Power wants to demolish buildings, clear area
North Wales Chronicle 31st Aug 2018 , Horizon Nuclear Power is seeking planning permission to carry out the 15
month long process that includes clearing field boundaries, demolishing
buildings and “relocating species”, covering an area the equivalent of
almost 500 football pitches. The plans, to be discussed by Anglesey
Council’s planning committee next week, also include building car parks
and offices at the site on the outskirts of Cemaes.
Recommended for approval by officers, Horizon has endeavoured to begin the work even before
the fate is known of the necessary Development Consent Order (DCO)
application for the nuclear plant itself. A process that could take at
least 18 months for the Planning Inspectorate to decide upon, the DCO will
also include a substantial public consultation period.
http://www.northwaleschronicle.co.uk/news/16611204.740-acre-site-for-wylfa-newydd-recommended-for-approval/
Agreement for USA commercial nuclear power to provide tritium for nuclear weapons
NNSA, TVA agree to ‘down-blend’ uranium to produce tritium for weapons, Oak Ridge Today AUGUST 29, 2018, BY The National Nuclear Security Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority announced last week that they intend to enter into an agreement to “down-blend” highly enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium in order to help produce tritium, a key “boosting” component in nuclear weapons.The highly enriched uranium used for the “down-blending” is processed, packaged, and shipped from the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, according to the NNSA. Y-12 is the main storage facility for certain categories of highly enriched uranium, which can be used in nuclear weapons and in naval reactors.
Low-enriched uranium, or LEU fuel, is used in a commercial power reactor run by TVA at the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 1 near Spring City in Rhea County, southwest of Oak Ridge. Tritium is produced there by irradiating lithium-aluminate pellets with neutrons in rods known as tritium-producing burnable absorber rods, or TPBARs.
The irradiated rods are then shipped to the Savannah River Site, an NNSA production facility near Aiken, South Carolina. The Savannah River Site extracts the tritium from the irradiated rods, purifies it, and adds it to the existing inventory, according to the NNSA’s Fiscal Year 2018 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan.
Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that has two neutrons and one proton. It has been described as an essential component in every nuclear weapon in the U.S. stockpile. It occurs naturally in small quantities but must be manufactured to obtain useful quantities. It enables weapons to produce a larger yield while reducing the overall size and weight of the warhead in a process known as “boosting,” the U.S. Department of Energy said in an environmental impact statement about 20 years ago.
But unlike other nuclear materials used in nuclear weapons, tritium decays at a rate of 5.5 percent per year—its half-life is about 12 years—and it must be replenished periodically…….
The new agreement follows a determination by U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry on August 21 that allows the NNSA to continue transfers of enriched uranium from DOE’s inventories in support of national security, the NNSA said in a press release.
The rest of this story, which you will find only on Oak Ridge Today, is available if you are a member: a subscriber, advertiser, or recent contributor to Oak Ridge Today. https://oakridgetoday.com/tag/tritium-production/
1 This Month
of the week- – THE ONENESS of HUMANITY
We the Nuclear Free North
1st July – Webinar Waste of Space: The Environmental Harm of Military and Civil Space Activity st July, 7 pm
Report Launch Online: We are seeing an increasing exploitation of space for military and commercial purposes. This must change.
Protect Sazan Island from the Trump family! https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/protect_sazan_island_from_the_trump_family_loc/?bqFCVab&v=174511&cl=22707147157&_checksum=5e9dde668860e8231c33699735e16a1fbf22ab2cb01da50c999fe8732b9775ef&utm_source=email&utm_medium=blast_email&utm_campaign=174511
Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State
PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees”
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- June 2026 (251)
- May 2026 (306)
- 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)
-
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 