nuclear-news

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

The Small Modular Nuclear Reactor dream could be over for Rolls Royce

Nucnet 23rd July 2018 , Rolls-Royce is preparing to shut down its project to develop small modularnuclear reactors if the government does not make a long-term commitment to the technology, including financial support, in the coming months, the Financial Times reported. According to the UK-based newspaper, the UK aero-engine maker has scaled back investment significantly, from several millions to simply paying for “a handful of salaries”. Warren East, Rolls-Royce chief executive, told the Financial Times:

However, David Orr, executive vice-president of Rolls-Royce’s SMR programme, said that without comfort from the government on two fronts the project “will not fly. We are coming to crunch time.”

Rolls-Royce is one of several consortia to have bid in a government-sponsored competition launched in 2015 to find the most viable technology for a new generation of SMRs. https://www.nucnet.org/all-the-news/2018/07/23/rolls-royce-planning-to-shut-down-smr-project-without-government-support

July 25, 2018 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Who Wants to Buy a Pair of Half-Built Nuclear Reactors? Nobody

 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-23/who-wants-to-buy-a-pair-of-half-built-nuclear-reactors-nobody, By Brian Eckhouse, 

Nobody seems keen to buy the partially built V.C. Summer nuclear plant in South Carolina, so now the state’s biggest power provider is trying to sell off the equipment.

“No other utilities have shown interest in purchasing part or all of the Summer construction project,” Jim Brogdon, interim chief executive officer of Santee Cooper, said in an emailed statement Monday. The board declared the equipment as “surplus property” and authorized the state-owned utility to pursue a sale.

Santee Cooper and its partner Scana Corp. pulled the plugon the project about a year ago after costs ballooned to more than $20 billion and put the two half-done reactors on the block.

July 25, 2018 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGN) acquires 75% stake in Swedish wind power project

Reuters 18th July 2018 , China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGN) has acquired a 75 percent
stake in a Swedish wind power project from Australia’s Macquarie Group
and GE Energy Financial Services, state news agency Xinhua reported on
Wednesday. The North Pole wind power project, located in Pitea, Sweden, is
expected to be operational by the end of 2019 with a capacity of 650,000
kilowatts, making it the single largest onshore wind power park in Europe,
Xinhua said.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-cgn-sweden/chinas-cgn-acquires-75-percent-of-swedish-wind-farm-xinhua-idUSKBN1K81IC?rpc=401&

July 20, 2018 Posted by | business and costs, China, renewable, Sweden | Leave a comment

South Carolina Fights U.S. Plan to Abandon Nuclear Project Costing $1.2 Million a Day.

Wall Street Journal 18th July 2018, South Carolina Fights U.S. Plan to Abandon Nuclear Project Costing $1.2
Million a Day. Department of Energy is spending over a million dollars a
day on facility designed to dispose of surplus weapons-grade plutonium.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/south-carolina-fights-u-s-plan-to-abandon-nuclear-project-employing-1-800-1531906201

July 20, 2018 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Big decline in investment in new nuclear reactors

Investment in new nuclear declines to five-year low, WNN  17 July 2018  Global energy investment fell for the third consecutive year in 2017, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). Investment in nuclear power declined by nearly 45% last year to USD17 billion. Although spending on new reactors reached the lowest level in five years, investment on upgrades of existing units increased………

Of the four new reactors commissioned last year, three were in China. More than 5 GWe of nuclear generating capacity was retired, leading to a net reduction of about 2 GWe in total nuclear capacity worldwide. Capacity was still about 10 GW higher than in 2007. While around 60 GWe of nuclear power remains under construction worldwide, new construction starts totalled just over 3 GWe.

Modernisations and upgrades of existing reactors represented about half of total nuclear investment last year. “Large investments have recently been made in OECD countries to extend lifetime operation and power uprates of the existing nuclear fleet,” the IEA said. “In general, spending on existing plants yields more output per dollar invested.”

……… Access to both direct and indirect government finance remains vital for investments in nuclear power, the report says. “Most investment in new nuclear capacity has occurred in markets where the government retains full ownership or a majority stake in most of the utilities.” Investment in nuclear power also remains highly dependent on government involvement in various areas, including market structure, price regulation and financing………http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Investment-in-new-nuclear-declines-to-five-year-low-1707185.html

July 18, 2018 Posted by | 2 WORLD, business and costs | Leave a comment

British residents will be locked into very high electricity costs, as govt takes a £16 billion stake in Wylfa nuclear station

London Economic 4th July 2018 After weeks of discussions over the risks of investing in large-scale
energy projects, the British government proposed to become an equal
investment partner in the new Wylfa Newydd nuclear plant. Under a
tripartite financing structure, London is going to take a £16 billion
stake in the plant, signalling that it has learned its lessons from past
failures. Both in Wales and further east in Europe, a public stake plays a
critical role in facilitating large-scale, low carbon energy projects.

Any discussion of the planned Wylfa Newydd project is obliged to give a cursory
nod to Hinkley Point C, the first and only nuclear power station to be
built in the UK since 1995. When complete, Hinkley Point will produce the
most expensive electricity compared to all power stations bar none.
Globally.

The irony is that this is largely due not to the installation
costs (admittedly somewhat higher than competition) but to its financing
model. The House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts frets that with
“estimated costs to the consumer having risen five-fold” since the
project’s go-ahead, the deal struck on Hinkley Point locks Brits into
footing the bill for the government’s lack of nous when negotiating the
‘strike price’ for electricity produced at the facility.
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/opinion/splitting-the-financial-atom-how-public-backing-produces-cheaper-nuclear-power/04/07/

July 7, 2018 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

How can the UK govt fund the Hinkley c nuclear power project?

DieterHelm 12th June 2018 Dieter Helm: If the government decides to invest in further nuclear power
station projects, it should obviously try to do so at minimum cost. The
Secretary of State, Greg Clark, has suggested that one option might be to
develop a Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model. Is this concept fit for the
nuclear purposes? How does it compare with the other two options currently
under consideration – direct investment and financial guarantees, and the
Hinkley-style CfD approach. (No assumption is made here as to whether
nuclear projects should be proceeded with: it is about the best means, not
the end).

The RAB approach is in a first best world probably inferior to
the direct procurement route, but the latter is ruled out by the Treasury
imposed constraints. The RAB model is a second best, but much better than
the Hinkley style contract.

None of these approaches leads to the conclusion that nuclear is either necessary or desirable to meet the twin
objectives of security of supply and decarbonisation, though it would
contribute to both. No smart contracting and regulating framework can magic
away the deep challenges that nuclear faces, notably: the possibility that
in the next 60 years much cheaper new low carbon technologies may become
available, possibly including new nuclear ones too; the very large upfront
and sunk costs; the risk and the safety regulation; and the challenges of
getting rid of the waste. It is for society to decide whether it wants new
nuclear or not. The market cannot decide. If that decision is to proceed,
the RAB model is both plausible and preferable to the Hinkley model.

http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/energy/energy/the-nuclear-rab-model/

July 7, 2018 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Developing countries should not fall victim to civil nuclear energy and indebtedness to China

Why the Civil Nuclear Trap Is Part and Parcel of the Belt and Road Strategy
Civil nuclear energy presents grave pitfalls in terms of cost, innovation and security that BRI countries cannot and should not afford. The Diplomat   By Sam Reynolds July 05, 2018 

Since President Xi Jinping announced China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2013, there has been no shortage of speculation on the motivations behind it. While Beijing has extolled the $1 trillion initiative’s benefits — including trade creation, economic development, and renewable energy — it has also repeatedly tried to soft-pedal the BRI’s military strategic implications.

Nuclear power plant (NPP) projects, for example, are not listed on several Chinese government BRI websites. Yet, over the next decade China plans to build 30 reactors in BRI countries, many of which are either not party to global nuclear nonproliferation regimes or lack the regulatory basis for controlling nuclear fuel uses. These projects are certainly part of China’s grander energy strategy and paint a clearer, drearier picture of how the initiative might unravel.

Developing countries should not be enticed by NPPs, with or without Chinese funding. China is backing them to achieve its own economic and geostrategic goals rather than a public good. Civil nuclear energy presents grave pitfalls in terms of cost, innovation and security that BRI countries cannot and should not afford.

The vision statement for the BRI, issued by the Chinese government, states clearly that it will advance nuclear power cooperation, and the Belt and Road Energy Cooperation website lists a handful of bilateral nuclear agreements. Many independent sources like the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute include reactors under the official BRI umbrella. The Chinese National Nuclear Corporation stated that it has already sold eight to seven countries, and is in talks with more than 40 others. Many of them are BRI participants, including Sudan, Kenya, Egypt, Thailand, Malaysia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the United Kingdom.

However, official BRI websites like the Belt and Road Portal, the Belt and Road Forum and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) database leave out NPP projects.

There are a number of reasons why Chinese websites might not list them. Nuclear technologies are dual-use, meaning that weapons-grade uranium enrichment requires essentially the same technology as enrichment for civil energy purposes (albeit with many more centrifuges). By leaving nuclear projects officially out of the BRI, China downplays the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation along BRI corridors, binding countries to Beijing via technological cooperation and long-term debt.

Another reason is that China wants to whitewash its violations of nuclear nonproliferation regimes. China is a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, prohibiting it from exporting nuclear material to countries like Pakistan, which has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, acceded to full International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, or decelerated its nuclear weapons program. Yet, Chinese officials have stated their involvement in six nuclear reactor projects there.

A third reason is that China is building NPPs in scant regulatory environments, regardless of the glaring security risks. Sudan, which plays a huge role in the BRI, recently signed a framework agreement with China to construct its first nuclear reactor. However, a 2017 study by the Institute for Science and International Security ranked 200 countries based on their ability to limit nuclear trafficking. Sudan ranked 194th. Moreover, it has not signed the IAEA Additional Protocol, which significantly improves the organization’s ability to verify that nuclear fuel is used only for civil energy purposes. Four countries on Sudan’s porous borders have not signed it either.

These highly irresponsible “geostrategic nuclear exports” are China’s attempt to compete with Russia. Both countries have signed nuclear deals with Iran, Egypt, Sudan and Turkey, and both have looked to dominate nuclear export markets by pushing reactors in places where they do not belong. For Beijing, these projects buy lasting influence in regions supplying raw materials and draw historically pro-Western countries further into the Chinese camp………

Disregarding Both Risk and Better Options

The “nuclear renaissance” that world leaders championed at the start of the century quickly deteriorated into a nuclear quagmire, with projects being delayed or abandoned throughout the developed world. Now, China is leading a nuclear resurgence without political, humanitarian or safety liabilities that is likely to yield similar results, if not worse.

None of this is to say that the BRI is entirely negative, but there are still unresolved security issues which NPPs will only exacerbate. The BRI includes a large number of renewable energy projects, which will certainly encourage countries to achieve their commitments to mitigating climate change. China and BRI participants should rely more heavily on these cheaper, cleaner and safer technologies.

There is enormous potential for wind power in Pakistan and solar in Sudan. Pakistan has an estimated wind energy potential of 346 GW, most of which would come from the southeastern province of Sindh, one of the most stable regions in the country where wind speeds reach up to 12 m/s. Sudan is considered one of the sunniest countries in the world, with an average sunlight duration of nine hours and solar energy densities of more than quadruple other regions. Still, solar power remains largely untapped there.

Recently, I wrote that China is leading the charge towards a renewable energy future, particularly with regards to solar panel manufacturing. It is also advancing battery storage devices, reducing the need for nuclear as baseload power. Developing countries should not fall victim to the entrapments of civil nuclear energy. They have the opportunity to leapfrog, but only if they learn from past mistakes. https://thediplomat.com/2018/07/why-the-civil-nuclear-trap-is-part-and-parcel-of-the-belt-and-road-strategy/

Sam Reynolds is pursuing his master’s degree in international relations from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. His primary areas of interest include the geopolitics of climate change, migration, and science diplomacy. He is currently an intern in the Asia-Pacific program of the EastWest Institute.

July 6, 2018 Posted by | China, marketing | Leave a comment

USA’s B61-12 gravity bomb of limited usefulness, but enormous cost.

Air Force conducts flight testing on new nuclear bomb — but do they need it? SOFREP News, BY ALEX HOLLINGS 07.04.2018  Late last week, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the U.S. Air Force announced two successful “end to end” non-nuclear system qualification flight tests aboard B-2 Spirits for the newest nuclear bomb to enter into the American arsenal, the B61-12 gravity bomb.

These tests are intended to determine how effectively the bombs can be loaded onto aircraft and deployed using existing methodologies and procedures. Incorporating this new bomb design into existing processes is important for multiple reasons: specialized training for specific weapons systems would dramatically increase the overall cost of the platform’s introduction, and because the B61-12 gravity bomb is slated to slowly replace America’s existing stockpile of B61 nuclear bomb variants, it’s important that the new bombs blend seamlessly into the force. It will take time to transition the old platforms into new ones, and in the meantime, the whole family of B61 bombs needs to be able to play well with one another.

……… Despite rising concerns about the growing expense related to the B61-12 program, these new platforms are expected to enter service within the next two years, phasing out existing B61-3, -4, -7, and -10 bombs by 2025. The last legacy bombs to remain in the arsenal will be the B83-1 and B61-11 gravity bomb, both of which possess superior penetration capabilities intended to access and destroy bunkers and other underground facilities.

…….. Unlike nuclear missiles, the B61 family of bombs are simply dropped over their targets the old-fashioned way, using a tail section for stability and offering no further propulsion or navigation.

With America looking to maintain its reliance on the B-52 Stratofortress as integral to the airborne portion of the nuclear triad, it’s hard to imagine a conflict that could see these bombs being dropped from the aging platform at all. The Air Force acknowledges that the B-52 is too slow and lacks the stealth to fly into contested airspace (where such a bomb would almost certainly be used), and the B-2 is currently slated for retirement once the new B-21 Raider enters service. ……..https://sofrep.com/105418/air-force-conducts-flight-testing-on-new-nuclear-bomb-but-do-they-need-it/

July 6, 2018 Posted by | business and costs, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

In the race to sell off nuclear power to Saudi Arabia, South Korea looks like the winner

South Korea’s KEPCO shortlisted to bid for Saudi nuclear project https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-southkorea-nuclear-saudi/south-koreas-kepco-shortlisted-to-bid-for-saudi-nuclear-project-idUKKBN1JR1G4, Reuters Staff, 1 July 18   SEOUL  – State-run utility Korea Electric Power Corp (015760.KS) (KEPCO) had been shortlisted to bid for a nuclear project in Saudi Arabia along with the United States, France, China and Russia, South Korea’s energy ministry said on Sunday.

“We were informed by our Saudi counterpart, King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy, that KEPCO was shortlisted for a nuclear project in Saudi Arabia,” the ministry said in a statement.

The statement said the winner of the tender was expected to be chosen in 2019. Saudi Arabia, the world’s top oil producer, plans to build two nuclear plants to diversify its energy supply and has been in talks with companies from South Korea, the United States, Russia and China for the tender.

In May, Saudi Arabian Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih met South Korean Energy Minister Paik Un-gyu in Seoul. Falih told reporters on the sidelines of an industry event that he was “optimistic” about South Korea being on the tender shortlist.

South Korea, the world’s fifth-biggest nuclear power user, is seeking to export its nuclear reactors abroad.

In 2009, a South Korean consortium led by KEPCO won an $18.6 billion (14.08 billion pounds) deal to construct four nuclear plants in the United Arab Emirates, the country’s ever nuclear export success.

KEPCO was also selected as a preferred bidder in December last year for Toshiba’s NuGen nuclear project in Britain and the Korean company planned to talk with Toshiba to buy a stake in the project.

Reporting By Jane Chung and Cynthia Kim. Editing by Jane Merriman

July 2, 2018 Posted by | marketing, Saudi Arabia, South Korea | Leave a comment

UK Public Accounting for Costs of the Defence Nuclear Enterprise – seriously underscrutinised

Parliament 19th June 2018 Neglected Large-Scale Value for Money Issues in Public Accounting for Costs
of the Defence Nuclear Enterprise :Written evidence a review of issues that
are of direct relevance to the core topic of the National Audit Office
(NAO) report of 2018 concerning ‘the Defence Nuclear Enterprise’
(henceforth ‘NAO Report’). The material summarized here supplements and
updates evidence published by the PAC Inquiry of October 2017. The authors
believe on grounds of many years of research at the Science Policy Research
Unit at the University of Sussex that the matters documented here raise
large-scale, long-run value for money issues of pressing national
importance, which remain seriously neglected in work to date either by the
NAO, the PAC or any other official bodies – and which are therefore
gravely under-scrutinized by Parliament or wider UK policy debates

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/public-accounts-committee/managing-the-uks-nuclear-deterrent/written/85883.pdf

July 2, 2018 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Germany’s biggest utility E.ON to merge with its biggest competitor RWE

Energy Post 26th June 2018 , It came as a great surprise to me some weeks back that Germany’s biggest
utility E.ON reached an “agreement in principle” with its biggest
competitor RWE to acquire its grid and retail business Innogy via a
wide-ranging “exchange of assets,” including RWE taking over the
renewables and other power generation businesses of E.ON.

The result, if the various competition authorities and regulators allow the deal to take
place, will be the biggest European grid company and energy retailer in the
form of E.ON, with RWE becoming the second biggest power generator in
Europe and third biggest owner of renewable assets. In addition, as part of
the deal, RWE will keep a minority stake in E.ON which ties the companies
together.
http://energypost.eu/trying-to-make-sense-of-the-rwe-eon-utility-deal/

July 2, 2018 Posted by | business and costs, ENERGY, Germany | Leave a comment

Vermont Yankee nuclear power station water cost: $6M and counting

Vermont Yankee water cost: $6M and counting, VT Digger, By Mike FaherJul 1 2018,  

More than half of that amount – about $3.5 million – has gone to a disposal company that’s hauling the tainted water out of state. The total also includes nearly $2 million that Entergy has invested to slow the rate of groundwater leaching into the Vernon nuclear plant’s turbine building.……https://vtdigger.org/2018/07/01/vermont-yankee-water-cost-6m-counting/

July 2, 2018 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear energy on the decline, especially in developed countries

Modern Diplomacy 29th June 2018 ,For more than 40 years, nuclear energy has been an important contributor in
several countries to energy security and a key source of zero-emissions
generation.

But the future of nuclear energy is facing growing challenges,
increased competition with renewables and gas and, in some cases, public
opposition. With the aim of identifying the key issues and exploring the
future of nuclear power, the International Energy Agency (IEA) held a
high-level meeting in Paris yesterday titled “Nuclear Energy: Today and
Tomorrow.”

The sessions highlighted how, under current policy frameworks,
and with limited investment in new plants, the contribution of nuclear to
the power mix in mature markets is set to decline significantly. Most new
construction is in Asia, with China and India accounting for over half of
the new reactors under construction. In IEA’s World Energy Outlook New
Policies Scenario, nuclear power production grows with two countries, China
and India, responsible for over 90 percent of net growth to 2040.

By contrast, outside of Japan, nuclear power generation in developed economies
is set to decline 20 percent by 2040. The meeting also heard about new
initiatives to advance innovative nuclear power technologies, including
those that can address better the need for greater power systems
flexibility, spurred by the rise of generation from variable renewables.
https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2018/06/29/iea-holds-high-level-meeting-on-the-future-of-nuclear-power/

July 2, 2018 Posted by | 2 WORLD, business and costs | Leave a comment

Halden nuclear reactor shut down not just for safety reasons, more because it lost so much money

Halden Reactor to be decommissioned, WNN, 28 June 2018

The board of directors of Norway’s Institute for Energy Technology (IFE) has decided to close the Halden Reactor permanently and to start its decommissioning. The board will not apply to extend its operating licence, which expires in 2020, and the reactor, which is currently shut down due to a safety valve failure, will not be restarted……The Halden project is a joint undertaking of national organisations in 19 countries sponsoring a jointly financed programme under the auspices of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA). The programme is financed by the participating countries and is renewed every three years. As the host country, Norway covers about 30% of the programme cost.

“In conjunction with the licence renewal process for the Halden Reactor, IFE has over the last year carried out a strategic review of reactor operations, including a financial and operational risk assessment. Based on this review, IFE’s Board concluded that operation of the reactor beyond the current licence period is not viable, as this would imply business risks in excess of what IFE is capable of handling on its own,” IFE said.

Over the past seven years, IFE has lost more than EUR18 million on its nuclear operation and has this year relied on extraordinary funding from the Norwegian government. As a self-owning foundation, IFE said it is not able to manage the financial risk of operating the reactor. ……

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Halden-Reactor-to-be-decommissioned-28061802.html

June 29, 2018 Posted by | business and costs, EUROPE | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »