Russia on an international offensive to sell its nuclear plants, Vladimir Putin’s government vies with China to become a superpower in the field TOMOYO OGAWA, Nikkei staff writerMOSCOW — Russia is stepping up its overseas sales of nuclear power plants, with state-run nuclear energy company Rosatom agreeing in July to cooperate in building a plant in the Central Asian country of Uzbekistan and reaching an accord with China to build a plant in that country.
Russia accounts for 67% of the world’s nuclear plant deals currently in development. By 2030, Rosatom aims to increase its overseas sales to two-thirds of total sales, from 50% at currently. Vladimir Putin’s government is looking to expand Russian influence through nuclear diplomacy, vying with China — which is promoting its own nuclear plants — for the status of nuclear energy superpower.
“We hope that a lot of other countries will become our partners, and as they say, ‘nuclear newcomers,'” Rosatom Chief Executive Alexey Likhachev told Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev at a meeting in early July…….
During a visit by Putin to China in June, Rosatom entered into a framework agreement to cooperate in nuclear plant construction, including four reactors in Jiangsu and Liaoning provinces.
Russia intends to make nuclear power plants a major revenue earner alongside exports of crude oil and natural gas. Rosatom’s annual business report for 2016 showed it was involved in nuclear plant projects in more than 10 countries, including China, Bangladesh and India. The company had $133.4 billion of overseas orders, up 21% from a year earlier. It targets $150 billion to $200 billion in orders in 2030…….
Russia’s strength in the field is the all-out support of the government, and its ability to take on all aspects of a nuclear energy project. The Putin government attaches much importance to nuclear plants, seeing them as a globally competitive, technology-intensive industry with an important role to play in revitalizing Russia’s domestic industry. Putin himself has successfully pitched Russian nuclear plants to foreign leaders during international summits.
Russian nuclear plants also boast price competitiveness, with the government providing loans to finance the high costs. Not only does Russia build the plant, but it supplies the fuel, operates and maintains the reactors, and disposes of the used fuel. This makes a deal with Russia attractive for countries that want to build their first nuclear plant, but which lack the operational know-how…….
Why has China’s nuclear expansion programme stalled? By Compelo Staff Writer, 9 Aug 18, Completion of the first EPR and AP1000 reactors in China marks a major milestone, but, as Steve Kidd of East Cliff Consulting explains, the nation’s ambitious nuclear expansion programme is no longer on track. Many of the negative factors which have affected nuclear programmes elsewhere in the world are now also equally applicable in China. Despite many new reactors starting up, it is clear that the programme has continued to slow.
The most obvious sign of this is the lack of approvals for new construction starts. There have been no new approvals for approaching three years, so the number of reactors under construction has been falling sharply. Other indications of trouble are:
uncertainties about the type of reactor to be utilised in the future
the position of the power market
the structure of the industry with its large state-owned enterprises (SOEs)
the degree of support from state planners and the level of public opposition to nuclear plans.
where China now stands with its planned transition to advanced reactors and a fuel reprocessing strategy.
Over-supply and the AP1000 reactor
Start-ups of two imported Gen III reactor designs (Westinghouse AP1000 and the Areva EPR) are now happening at last, but the delays no doubt concerned the regulatory authorities. The problems with the AP1000 (at Sanmen and Haiyang) are the more serious, as this reactor was destined for most of the future sites in China. Although the units at both sites are now ready to enter commercial operation, this is unlikely to bring forward a flood of new approvals. China has suffered a severe dent in its confidence in the AP1000, not helped by Westinghouse’s US bankruptcy. The authorities now no doubt wish to see clear evidence of successful operation before authorising more units. There may be further reactors at the two existing sites, but there are many others that have been “ready to go” for several years now.
Another important reason for the slowdown relates to the size of nuclear programme China needs. Problems of power over-supply in particular regions are now pressing and connected to the continued construction of coal generating stations and the rapid expansion of wind and solar power. There are important questions to be resolved about how many reactors are needed to satisfy power demand and the price that can be paid for their electricity. Nevertheless, most of the Chinese nuclear companies want to build lots of new units and feel they are being held back by the authorities. The rapid expansion of wind and solar generating capacity has reminded the planners that there are alternative means of achieving environmental goals, while the Chinese hydroelectric programme is still enormous.
The shadow of Fukushima
The Fukushima accident still casts a significant shadow over the nuclear sector in China and regulators are clearly very cautious about having a big nuclear programme. Ultimately one person at the top of the regulatory authority has to take responsibility for safety and having 100 reactors in operation is far more burdensome than 20 or 40. South Korea’s apparent turning away from nuclear and the tardiness of Japanese reactor restarts are also unhelpful in inspiring confidence in the region.
China’s nuclear programme is now much harder to assess. The picture up to 2020 is fairly certain, as units under construction come into operation). The 58GW capacity target by end-2020 will be missed by perhaps 5GW, but more serious is another goal – having 30GW under construction by then. This would imply a programme of six reactors a year up to 2025, a similar level to 2015-2020. Almost all will have to be approved before the end of 2020. On recent trends, this looks unlikely and so it may be prudent to assume a programme of only 3-4 units per year beyond 2020. This means nuclear generating capacity of only 90GW or so by 2030, well below previous expectations. Beyond then it is difficult to judge, but the chance of China having a huge nuclear programme by 2050, perhaps consisting of 200-400 reactors, is much less than a few years ago. Estimates that China may move ahead of the USA in nuclear generating capacity by the mid or late 2020s now look wide of the mark. Even if 10-20 US units do eventually shut down by 2030, it could happen after then.
The dent in confidence surrounding the imported Gen III designs has been overcome, to some extent, by China’s development of the Hualong reactor, which satisfies the regulators’ insistence that all approved designs are at the Gen III level. Four units are now under construction in China (plus two in Pakistan). The two units being built by CNNC at Fuqing are on schedule to go online in 2020-2021, but CGN’s pair at Fangchenggang are apparently unlikely before 2021-2022. Whether Hualongs will replace AP1000s at any of its sites in China remains to be seen.
Big questions surround the CAP1400, the larger version of the AP1000, which China has developed, and the extent of the programme for high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGRs) and small modular reactors (SMRs).
Approval of construction of the initial CAP1400s has been long-delayed and surely still awaits the regulator’s satisfaction with the AP1000. It appears that the HTGRs and SMRs will remain as marginal components of the main Chinese nuclear programme, but may offer useful additional export opportunities. The economics of the HTGRs are apparently questionable versus large LWRs, while there are lots of SMR designs around the world without anyone committing to build them.
Economic issues
Perhaps surprisingly, a big issue today affecting the Chinese nuclear programme is its economic viability. With nuclear power only currently representing 3-4% of China’s electricity supply, one would think that there is still plenty of room for dramatic growth. However, the slowing of the Chinese economy and the switch to less energy-intensive activities, together with over-investment in power generation capacity, means that there is now more than can be carried in the grids in some provinces. It cannot therefore be assumed that new nuclear units will run at the 80-90% capacity factors necessary to pay back the funds invested in their construction.
Tariffs that producers receive when they sell power to the grid are also under threat. The central government wishes to liberalise the Chinese power sector and make it more responsive to economic criteria and this may not help nuclear. The rising costs of building Gen III units are also a factor. Reactors may have to load-follow, which is not ideal in the technical or economic sense. Nuclear has to compete against other generation options…………
Power to the people
Many people used to believe that because China is a centrally-planned economy with a strong one-party government, public opinion did not matter much and any opposition to nuclear could be easily overcome. Nothing could be further from the truth. Public opinion matters a great deal in China and politicians fight shy of any issue that could inflame public opinion in any way. The last thing the Chinese government wants is people protesting on the streets – and this has already happened with two proposed fuel cycle plants. Both were quickly cancelled.
One particular public acceptance problem is inland sites for nuclear plants. Having imposed a moratorium on these for now (in fact to slow the nuclear programme down), the government has made a huge problem for itself by giving the impression that these sites are “second best” and maybe not as safe as the coastal sites (where all current Chinese reactors are located).
The threat in China is that nuclear may become no more than a niche, bridging technology, as a route to something better in the future.
This article originally appeared in Nuclear Engineering International.
Its two major nuclear project developers, China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) and the China General Nuclear Project Corporation (CGN), are jointly promoting an advanced third-generation reactor known as the Hualong One to overseas clients, with CGN aiming to deploy the technology at a proposed nuclear project at Bradwell in England.
The push to extend Chinese technological standards was disclosed in new cabinet guidelines published late on Thursday.
China aims to raise its total nuclear capacity to 58 gigawatts (GW) by the end of the decade, up from 37 GW at the end of June.
Capacity could reach as high as 200 GW by 2030, and China also has ambitions to dominate the global nuclear industry via its homegrown technologies.
Reporting by David Stanway; Editing by Eric Meijer
Chugoku Electric Power Company has initiated the regulatory process for starting up unit 3 at its Shimane nuclear power plant by applying to the Japanese regulator for a review to assess its compliance with revised safety standards. Construction of the 1373 MWe advanced boiling water reactor (ABWR) is nearing completion………
Chugoku becomes the second Japanese utility to apply to the NRA for pre-operation safety inspections for a new nuclear power reactor since the Fukushima Daiichi accident. The first was Japan Electric Power Development Corp (J-Power), which applied in December 2014 for inspections of unit 1 at its Ohma nuclear power plant, also an ABWR, being built in Aomori prefecture. However, with construction of Shimane 3 more advanced than Ohma 1, Shimane 3 is likely to be the first new reactor to begin operating in Japan. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Safety-review-sought-for-new-Japanese-reactor
Could Indian Point be next nuclear power plant up for sale? Lohud, Thomas C. Zambito, Rockland/Westchester Journal News Aug. 6, 2018 The sale of nuke plants in Massachusetts and Michigan could foreshadow Indian Point’s future and unions once pushed for a role in its decommissioning.
Entergy will sell nuclear power plants in Massachusetts and Michigan to a New Jersey firm that’s promised to knock years off a lengthy shutdown process, a move that hints at the company’s plans for Indian Point.
Entergy announced last week that it has agreed to sell the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, Mass., and the Palisades Power Plant in Covert, Mich., to Holtec International, for what will be the company’s first decommissioning venture.
The announcement, coupled with Entergy’s decision to sell its Vermont Yankee plant to NorthStar Groups Services, a New York-based industrial demolition firm, is the latest indication that Indian Point could be sold once it powers down.
……. Decommissioning of nuclear power plants typically extends for decades.
But in recent years, as more than a dozen nuclear power plants have announced plans to close, firms like Holtec and NorthStar have jumped into decommissioning, promising quick turnarounds.
n the case of Pilgrim, Holtec would begin decommissioning in 2020 and wrap up the work in eight years, Entergy officials say.
Palisades is slated to shut down in the spring of 2022 when the timetable for its dismantling would be announced. In both cases, spent nuclear fuel will be moved into cement casks on the site within three years of the shutdown, Entergy says.
“Transferring our Pilgrim and Palisades plants to Holtec, with its vast experience and innovative use of technology will lead to their decommissioning faster than if they were to remain under Entergy’s ownership,” said Leo Denault, Entergy’s chairman and CEO.
While these will be Holtec’s first decommissionings, the company has years of experience with dry cask storage on nuclear power plant sites, including Indian Point. The work will be carried out by Comprehensive Decommissioning International, a newly-formed Holtec subsidiary based in Camden, New Jersey.
Storing nuclear waste
Holtec currently has an application pending before the NRC to operate the nation’s first interim storage facility for nuclear waste in the New Mexico desert.
A federal program that has paid out more than $60 million to former Apollo area nuclear workers for radiation-related illnesses is looking for more former nuclear workers throughout the region who might be eligible for compensation.
The U.S. Department of Labor will hold an information meeting for former workers in the nuclear materials industry or their survivors on Aug. 22 from 9 a.m. noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. at the Quality Inn in New Kensington.
There are about 14 work sites eligible in Southwestern Pennsylvania, including some steel mills and nuclear fuel processing plants.
Among them are the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp. (NUMEC) in Apollo and Parks Township, Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant in East Pittsburgh, Westinghouse Nuclear Fuels Division in Cheswick, and Aluminum Co. of America — Alcoa — in New Kensington.
The benefits proved helpful to deceased workers’ families to shore up medical expenses and the financial losses.
But it still doesn’t make up for the loss of a loved one.
“It just seems trivial — $150,000 for someone’s life, but it did help my mom out,” said Shellie Robertson, 57, Washington Township, whose father, John Grazetti, died in 2015 at the age of 74 from acute myeloid leukemia.
Grazetti, of Washington Township, was a NUMEC worker as was his father, John Grazetti Sr., who died of colon cancer and a brother who has recently been diagnosed with rectal cancer, according to Robertson.
All three men had cancers associated with exposures to radioactive substances encountered at work, and the compensation claims to the Labor Department by the three men have been accepted.
“My dad said he would probably die of cancer,” Robertson said. “He knew.”
Grazetti, who worked at NUMEC for about 20 years, didn’t talk much about his job, according to his daughter.
All the family knew what that he was foreman and worked with chemicals. However, Robertson did recall her father having to submit urine samples for the company to test for what is now known as radiation over-exposures.
Near the end of his life, Robertson started to hear NUMEC stories when her dad and uncle would talk.
“They would have to clean up stuff, spray down the walls. I remember the soles of my father’s shoes being eaten away from the stuff he was walking in.”
Paid out so far: $15 billion
To date, the program has paid more than $129.3 million in compensation and medical benefits to 1,138 claimants living in Pennsylvania and more than $15.2 billion nationwide, according to the Labor Department.
The government established the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act (EEOICPA) in 2000 to pay sick nuclear workers a lump sum of $150,000 and coverage of related medical expenses.
The program pays people who became ill because of working for a private business subcontracted by the federal government to develop and produce components for nuclear weapons.
Generally, eligible workers must have worked a certain amount of time and developed one of 22 cancers designated by the program and or other illnesses. The benefit also is payable to families of deceased workers.
The Labor Department has visited the area before and is visiting again because there still might be workers or their families still eligible for the benefit.
In Pennsylvania, most of the nuclear workers covered by the program were employed in the 1960s and 1970s.
It’s difficult to say how many more workers could be eligible for the program, but they could number in the hundreds, according to estimates provided by an EEOICPA program official several years ago.
Mary Ann Thomas is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Mary Ann at 724-226-4691, mthomas@tribweb.com or via Twitter @MaThomas_Trib.
The chair of a New Mexico legislative committee that monitors radioactive and hazardous materials in the state says he finds it troubling Attorney General Hector Balderas has concluded the state cannot legally stop a New Jersey-based company from the building a nuclear waste storage facility.
Holtec International, a New Jersey-based company specializing in nuclear storage, has applied to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to construct a nuclear waste storage facility about 35 miles (56 kilometers) east of Carlsbad.
The facility, to be located in western Lea County, could eventually store up to 10,000 shipments of spent nuclear fuel, as much as 120,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste, from nuclear power plants around the country. It would be stored just below the surface.
The facility is intended to be a temporary storage site, storing nuclear waste only until a permanent storage facility can be built. But opponents fear that it could become permanent because plans for a long-term repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, have stalled because of opposition.
Sen. Jeff Steinborn, D-Las Cruces, said Wednesday that New Mexico should have a say about the proposal and that he was disappointed in the attorney general’s opinion, The Hobbs News-Sun reports .
“It’s troubling that a project of this magnitude with this much exposure to the state — I mean exposure in the sense of the hazardous materials involved and long-term ramifications of it being here — that our state would not have a say in being able to approve it or not,” said Steinborn, who chairs interim Radioactive and Hazardous Materials Committee.
Balderas said in a letter last month the state cannot legally stop Holtec International from temporarily storing up to 100,000 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste in New Mexico.
Balderas cited the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and two court cases clearly establishing two principles.
“(F)irst, that the NRC has the statutory authority to license and regulate consolidated interim nuclear waste storage facilities, and secondly, that the comprehensiveness of that federal regulatory scheme pre-empts virtually any state involvement,” Balderas wrote.
Moorside nuclear bidder stripped of preferred status, Construction News, 3 AUGUST, 2018BY BINYAMIN ALI
The £10bn Moorside nuclear power plant has been plunged into further doubt after Korean energy firm Kepco lost its preferred bidder status to develop the scheme.
The plant’s current developer Toshiba is now looking at alternative options for the future of the site after negotiations with Kepco failed to reach a conclusion.
Toshiba said this week that a sale to Kepco was still on the table and it was in “consultation with stakeholders including the UK government” to find a solution.
The protracted negotiations have also forced NuGen, Toshiba’s Moorside development body, to restructure its business………
NHK 2nd Aug 2018 The president of Tokyo Electric Power Company says the utility is
considering scrapping some of the reactors at its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant,
at the request of one of the 2 municipalities that host the nuclear
facility. TEPCO President Tomoaki Kobayakawa revealed for first time the
request is under consideration during a meeting with Kashiwazaki Mayor
Masahiro Sakurai. The pair met in the Niigata Prefecture city located on
the Japan Sea coast on Thursday. https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20180802_36/
Wind Power Monthly 31st July 2018 , David Milborrow:
In a complete policy reversal, the UK government has
announced it will consider direct investment in a proposed new nuclear
power station, Wylfa in North Wales.
This will enable the electricity price
to be brought down below the level agreed for the Hinkley Point C nuclear
plant, which attracted criticism from many quarters, including the
government’s own spending watchdog, the National Audit Office.
The UK government’s stake in Wylfa is likely to be around £5 billion, or around
30% of the total, although estimatesof the total cost vary between £12
billion and £20 billion. The government has not put a figure to the
expected electricity price for the Wylfa project, but speculation suggests
that it will be around £75-77/MWh, payable for 35 years.
The UK’s Guardian newspaper points out that the £75/MWh price (payable for 35
years) for nuclear power is significantly higher than the £62/MWh average
(payable for 15 years awarded for offshore wind projects due to come online
about the same time. The £13/MWh difference is higher than the cost of
backup for wind, which most studies putat around £5-£10/MWh. https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1489040/windeconomics-uk-government-steps-support-nuclear-power
Times 31st July 2018 Multibillion-pound plans to build a nuclear plant at Moorside in Cumbriaare likely to be abandoned within months unless a buyer is found.
The Nugen venture, owned by Toshiba, is considering plans to shut down with the loss of 100 jobs after a sale to Kepco stalled.
The decision would be a blow to government hopes for a series of new plants to help to keep the lights on
once existing reactors close. Moorside, which is next to the Sellafield
waste site, is one of five proposed plants vying to follow EDF’s Hinkley
Point project that is under construction in Somerset.
Nugen was founded in 2009. Toshiba bought into the venture in 2014 with plans to deploy reactors
made by Westinghouse Electric Company, its subsidiary. The Japanese
conglomerate was thrown into crisis last year when Westinghouse’s costs
overran on reactors in the United States. Westinghouse filed for
bankruptcy protection and was sold off, while Toshiba was forced to take
full control of Nugen when Engie, the French utility company, quit.
Nugen appeared to be saved when Toshiba announced that Kepco had been appointed
the preferred bidder to buy the venture. The South Korean state-controlled
company hoped to use its own reactors at the site.
Talks have since stalled, amid leadership changes in South Korea and uncertainty over the
financial support on offer from the British government. Ministers do not
want to repeat the funding model used for Hinkley Point, which was
criticised as too expensive. They said the government may invest directly
in the next project, Hitachi’s Wylfa plant on Anglesey, but would go back
to the drawing board for other projects. Toshiba confirmed that it had
cancelled the preferred-bidder status, meaning that it would consider other
buyers.
Delay in sale of consortium behind plant leads Toshiba to lay off 100 UK project staff, Guardian, Adam Vaughan, 29 July 18,
Doubts have been raised over the fate of a new nuclear power station planned for Cumbria after it emerged that most of the project’s 100 UK staff had been laid off.
The Korean state-owned firmKepco appeared to swoop to the rescue last Decemberby agreeing to buy NuGen but the sale, which was meant to complete this January, was then delayed until the spring. The transaction has still not closed, and uncertainty has been created by a change of government in Seoul and the appointment of a new Kepco chiefexecutive.
The delay has forced Toshiba, a Japanese corporation, to look again at the consortium’s running costs, leading to a decision on 27 July to cut many of the venture’s 100 jobs across Manchester and Cumbria. The job losses will be subject to consultations.
Toshiba is believed to have spent hundreds of millions of pounds developing the project so far. In a statement NuGen said: “It has been decided by the NuGen board to re-profile the organisation at this point in order to pursue alternatives.”
It remains unclear whether the South Koreans will go ahead with a deal that looked a certainty last year. Kepco officials are due to arrive in the UK on Monday, and the UK government has been in talks to save the deal. A source close to the process said: “The Kepco deal is not dead yet.”
If the acquisition were to collapse the failure of the Moorside project would leave a large hole in ministers’ wishes to encourage the construction of as many as six new nuclear power plants to meet climate goals.
Unions said the problems showed that a recent sector deal between government and industry did not got far enough to ensure nuclear installations were built.
ue Ferns, senior deputy general secretary of the union Prospect, said: “Despite the welcome nuclear sector deal it is increasingly clear that the government needs to do far more to reassure the nuclear industry and support them in developing the next generation of low-carbon energy sources in the UK.”
A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said: “We continue to engage with new-build developers, though the detail of these discussions is commercially confidential.”
A nuclear power plant project in Britain is giving Japan a glimmer of hope for spurring infrastructure exports, a key growth strategy of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
Hitachi Ltd. and the U.K. government started official talks last month on building new reactors in Wales, with a goal of firing them up in the first half of the 2020s.
The outlook for the ¥3 trillion project is unclear, with both sides facing a string of challenges in the talks going forward.
For Tokyo, the plan is one of its few remaining major overseas projects on the horizon, with other nuclear power generation plans discontinued or facing cancellation.
The government’s bet on nuclear power plants as a pillar of infrastructure exports comes as the likes of Germany, Italy, Taiwan and South Korea are pulling out of atomic power generation.
Critics argue that a surge in safety costs and accident worries caused by the 2011 Fukushima disaster, in addition to the lack of viable disposal solutions for radioactive waste, mean there is no justification for keeping faith in nuclear energy. Compounding the sector’s decline is the rapidly dropping cost of tapping such renewable energy sources as wind and solar power.
Still, some emerging economies look like they will need new nuclear power plants, and Japanese builders see few chances to construct new ones anytime soon in Japan.
“The Japanese government has been pushing hard for exports of nuclear power plants but it’s clear that it’s not going well,” said Tadahiro Katsuta, a professor at Meiji University. “The government will spare no effort in giving momentum to the exports.”
If the project in Britain proves successful, it will give the government “a good excuse” to push harder abroad, he said.
Before the official talks began, Hitachi had told Britain it might not take part in the project to build two advanced boiling water reactors on the Isle of Anglesey in Wales, because the price tag had soared higher than initially estimated.
But an offer by London to shoulder about two-thirds of the cost convinced Hitachi stay in. Tokyo welcomed its decision to begin the talks.
“The nuclear business overseas is significant … it would lead to strengthening and maintaining human resources and technology for nuclear power in Japan,” Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Hiroshige Seko told a news conference.
Under the agreement, the British government will subsidize much of the cost through direct investment and loan guarantees, according to sources close to the matter.
“We are currently examining the financial and cost issues of the project, before making a final decision in 2019 on whether to invest in the project,” Hitachi Chief Financial Officer Mitsuaki Nishiyama said Friday at a news conference to announce earnings.
For Hitachi, nuclear power is a core operation. It wants to increase revenue from the business by more than 33 percent to ¥250 billion over the four years through March 2022, mainly through boosting overseas revenue.
Rival Toshiba Corp. exited overseas nuclear operations after incurring huge losses in the United States, a decision that could cripple Tokyo’s efforts to promote Japanese nuclear plants abroad.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., is pursuing a nuclear power plant project in Turkey. But it hit a snag when it saw safety-related costs surge and trading house Itochu Corp. walked away from the project.
In another blow to the government, Vietnam in 2016 decided to abandon a plan to build its first nuclear power plant with Japanese assistance due to tight state finances.
Those failures have led to an increased focus on the new power station in Wales. But London and Hitachi still need to address such issues as how to spread the remainder of the costs among Hitachi, local companies and Japan-backed financial institutions. They also need to determine who should be held liable if there’s a major accident.
They are also at odds over how much the electricity produced at the plant should cost. Britain at one point offered a price some 20 percent lower than what Hitachi wanted, a source familiar with the matter said.
“A key focus of discussions with Hitachi has been and will continue to be achieving lower-cost electricity for consumers,” Greg Clark, British business and energy secretary, told Parliament last month.
The two sides also need to talk to residents and win over those worried about the new power station.
“We have a major multinational and two governments supposed to be democracies playing a high-stakes game of poker … without any transparency or scrutiny for the people that they are representing,” Mei Tomos, a resident of Wales, said at a news conference in Tokyo during a recent visit to Japan.
“We have seen the destruction which nuclear power can cause. It is really too much to expect us to take the same risks. Even if such an accident didn’t happen at Anglesey we will still be faced with over a hundred years of storage of nuclear waste on site which presents a massive danger to us,” another resident, Robert Davies, said at the news conference.
REPORT PROJECTS DOE COAL, NUCLEAR BAILOUT COSTS COULD TOP $34 BILLION, Popular Resistance, By Emma Foehringer Merchant, Greentechmedia.com
A previous estimate, from a pro-coal group, put the cost at $4 billion.
Analysis out this week from The Brattle Group estimates the Trump administration’s coal and nuclear support plan could cost between $9.7 billion and $17.2 billion annually.
Working off of the scant details presented in a draft memorandum released by Bloomberg in May, The Brattle Group analyzed several scenarios the administration might employ to support nuclear and coal-fired power plants.
One assumes the government would pay an average $50-per-kilowatt flat rate to all plants, costing $16.7 billion a year. In another scenario, facilities experiencing shortfalls would be compensated directly at a customized level between $43 to $58 per kilowatt, costing between $9.7 billion and $17.2 billion each year. The draft memo suggested facilities would receive payments for two years, putting high-end cost estimates north of $34 billion for the duration of the program.
If the administration moves forward with a plan that pays facilities back for capital already invested in power plants, in addition to operating shortfalls, it bumps the price to $20 billion to $35 billion per year.
Brattle’s cost estimates dwarf the $4 billion calculated by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, presented in a report earlier this month. Groups that have opposed the potential policy, including Advanced Energy Economy, the American Wind Energy Association and the Natural Gas Supply Association, funded the Brattle report.
The widely varying price tags echo diverging opinions on the bailout policy.
In a statement on the Brattle analysis, Amy Farrell, senior vice president for government and public affairs at the American Wind Energy Association, called the costs “a steep price to pay in an era of U.S. energy abundance, when independent regulators and grid operators agree that orderly power plant retirements do not constitute an emergency.”……https://popularresistance.org/report-projects-doe-coal-nuclear-bailout-costs-could-top-34-billion/
Building 26th July 2018, The National Infrastructure Commission’s landmark report this month
seemed to sound the death knell for nuclear energy new-build, calling for a
large-scale shift to renewables by 2050 – and for only one more nuclear
power station approval by 2025. But are we really likely to get 90% of
Britain’s electricity from green sources within a generation? The NIC’s
assessment does not call for the end of all nuclear new-build aspirations.
But the direction of travel is clear: its prediction is that the cost of an
energy system heavily reliant on nuclear will, on current terms, be
marginally more expensive than one powered 80%-90% by other renewables, and
– importantly – that the cost of renewables is much more likely to fall
in future and thus ultimately work out significantly cheaper.
It is only because of all the uncertainties inherent in these predictions that it
recommends continuing with nuclear at all, albeit on a “go slow” basis,
so as not to entirely lose capacity in the industry in case the programme
has to be fired up again.
The assessment says a minimum of 50% and as much
as 90% of UK electricity should come from renewables such as wind and solar
power by 2050. And hence, that no more than one further nuclear reactor
should be given the go-ahead before 2025. This, it says “will allow the
UK to maintain, but not expand, a skills base and supply chain [and] to
pursue a high renewables mix […] without closing off the nuclear
alternative”. This may sound like a nuanced shift, but for those in the
sector it is very radical.
Few outside of environmental lobby groups have
ever proposed a UK electricity generation sector reliant 80%-90% on
renewables before. Richard Lowe, director of power in Aecom’s
environmental division, welcomes the emphasis on renewables but questions
how realistic it is. “Others such as the Committee on Climate Change have
done their own projections as to what is realistic, and I wouldn’t say
this is the midpoint of the range – it’s very much at one end of the
scale.”
The facility is intended to be a temporary storage site, storing nuclear waste only until a permanent storage facility can be built. But opponents fear that it could become permanent because plans for a long-term repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, have stalled because of opposition.
nuclear-news 