Old, unproven, unreliable nuclear technology planned for Britain’s Wylfa nuclear power station
Unearthed 5th June 2018 Hitachi is seeking billions of pounds from the British government to help build a new nuclear power plant at Anglesey in Wales – but experts say the technology being used is far from proven.
Last week Hitachi-rival Toshiba confirmed that they are pulling out of a major nuclear power project in the USA which planned to use a similar reactor type to the one planned for Wylfa. Toshiba said in a press release that the South Texas
Project had “ceased to be financially viable” due to prevailing economic conditions.
The announcement leaves the UK as one of the last countries looking to build this technology, called the Advanced Boiling
Water Reactor (ABWR). Steve Thomas, Professor of Energy Policy at the University of Greenwich, said that while there are some small differences between the European reactor led by Hitachi and the abandoned US reactor
from Toshiba, the “perception that this is proven technology is not supported by the facts”.
Although there are four similar reactors that have been built in Japan, plans for construction elsewhere have seen a
series of failures. And because of the long lead-in times for developing and building nuclear reactors, power plants built today may have been designed decades ago, Thomas said
“The technology that has been built already is actually 30 year old technology, which has been updated twice
over. So the plants that are operating do not really represent what we would build, and also the performance of the plants in terms of their reliability has actually been very poor.”
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/06/05/wylfa-hitachi-nuclear-reactor-type-awbr/
It makes no economic sense – Trump’s new strategy to promote coal and nuclear
Here’s why Trump’s new strategy to keep ailing coal and nuclear plants open makes no sense The Conversation. Director, Center for Energy and Sustainable Development; Professor of Law, West Virginia University,
President Donald Trump recently ordered Energy Secretary Rick Perry to take “immediate steps” to stop the closure of coal and nuclear power plants.
And according to a draft memo that surfaced the same day, the federal government may establish a “Strategic Electric Generation Reserve” to purchase electricity from coal and nuclear plants for two years.
Both proposals, which have garnered little support, are premised on these power plants being essential to national security. If implemented, the government would be activating emergency powers rarely tapped before for any purpose.
Based on my four decades of experience as a utility regulatory attorney and law professor, I can see why this proposal has caused much controversy, partly because of how energy markets work.
No credible evidence
To be sure, these industries are in trouble.
The share of U.S. power derived from coal has fallen from about one-half in 2000 to less than one-third in 2017. ……
The share of power generated by nuclear reactors, despite holding steady at about one-fifth of the national grid since 2000, is about to slide. More than 1 in 10 of the nation’s nuclear reactors are likely to be decommissioned by 2025. If completed, the only two large-scale ones under construction will cost far more than originally planned.
But are experts worried about any electricity shortages or outages between now and 2025? Well, no. Other alternatives, mainly natural gas, wind and solar energy are poised to keep filling the gaps created in recent years by other coal plant closures.
When the Energy Department assessed whether the ongoing wave of coal and nuclear plant retirements are threatening grid reliability, it found no cause for alarm.
Disregarding the findings of its own study, the agency proceeded to ask the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, an independent federal agency known as FERC that regulates energy rates and policies, for permission to subsidize coal and nuclear plants. The agency unanimously rejected that proposal.
More recently, PJM Interconnection – the nation’s biggest grid operator – declared that its power supply is not in jeopardy and that there is no reason to take this anticipated policy move.
The North American Reliability Corporation, the federal entity responsible for power reliability, has reached similar conclusions.
Unprecedented intrusion
In short, there is no emergency that justifies this unprecedented intrusion into the electricity markets that would warrant forcing taxpayers and utilities to pay a premium to keep coal and nuclear plants online.
The only “emergencies” are the financial woes of the plant owners caused by the rapid decline coal consumption and the nuclear industry’s weak outlook.
But the Trump administration appears to be arguing that a provision known as Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act and the Defense Production Act grant the secretary of energy the power to nationalize parts of the power sector during wartime or amid other emergencies.
I believe that the sole rationale for this new policy is as a way for Trump to keep his campaign promise to revive the ailing coal industry.
Most likely, nuclear reactors are included in the proposal because that industry is increasingly unable to compete. Also, some companies, on the brink of bankruptcy, have stepped up their lobbying.
In many cases, the power generated by coal and nuclear power plantssells at prices that are too low to cover operating costs. The federal government does not typically intervene in wholesale electricity markets, other than to enforce rules intended to ensure that the competition is fair.
Because it would override the results of competition, I have no doubt that the Trump administration’s proposals would mark a radical intervention by the government into the electricity markets.
Winners and losers
Shareholders of the energy companies that own money-losing coal and nuclear plants stand to gain if this policy gets implemented because they are unable to compete in the wholesale power markets without this kind of assist.
Other power companies, utilities, taxpayers and electric ratepayers – meaning homeowners, businesses and anyone else who pays to keep the lights on – would lose out. We’d all have to pay a premium to pay for this unprecedented form of government intervention…….https://theconversation.com/heres-why-trumps-new-strategy-to-keep-ailing-coal-and-nuclear-plants-open-makes-no-sense-97816
Russia, France, China compete to develop nuclear power station in Bulgaria
Bulgaria Moves To Revive Russian Nuclear Project Suspended In 2012 https://www.rferl.org/a/bulgaria-moves-revive-russian-nuclear-project-belene-suspended-2012/29279066.html
The Bulgarian parliament has approved a plan to revive the Belene nuclear power plant five years after the Russian project was suspended due to financing problems and concerns about relying too heavily on Russian energy.
The parliament on June 7 approved by 172 to 14 Prime Minister Boyko Borisov’s proposal to develop a plan to resume construction of the plant on the Danube River by the end of October.
Bulgaria had already spent around $1.8 billion on the plant when the government in 2012 put a moratorium on further workunder pressure from the United States and European Union to limit its energy dependence on Russia.
Bulgaria also suspended the joint project with Russian company Atomstroyexport because it failed to find any foreign investors prepared to shoulder its spiralling costs, estimated at about $11.8 billion in total.
The suspension angered Russia, which had hoped to use Belene as an EU showcase for its new generation of pressurized water reactors.
Sofia had to pay more than 620 million euros to Russia’s Rosatom for scrapping the project, but it also received nuclear parts for two 1,000 megawatt reactors, which were conserved and maintained.
Last week, Energy Minister Temenujka Petkova said that a campaign to pick a strategic investor for the project would be launched by the end of 2018.
Russia’s Rosatom has said it will make another bid to complete the project. Also in the running are Chinese state nuclear company CNNC and France’s Framatome, which is majority controlled by EDF.
Petkova said the government does not want to commit more public funds, extend state guarantees for any loan, or sign any long-term electricity supply deals to make the project viable.
Vadim Titov, director of Rosatom Central Europe, told a Bulgarian energy conference on June 7 that the Russian company is ready to start talks with the Bulgarian authorities on reviving the project.
The Belene plant’s two 1,000 megawatt reactors were intended to replace four old Soviet-built units that were shut down more than a decade ago amid security concerns at the only existing nuclear plant in Bulgaria, at Kozloduy.
There are still two Soviet-built operational reactors at Kozloduy, dating back to 1987 and 1991, which provide about 30 percent of the country’s electricity.
Dozens of Bulgarians protested outside parliament against the government’s plans for Belene on June 7, saying the project’s benefits were not enough to justify its costs and contending that it has been a source of corrupt practices for decades.
FirstEnergy bankrupt, but still spent hundreds of $thousands on lobbying for nuclear power
The Lobbying Bills Attached to FirstEnergy’s Coal and Nuclear Emergency Action
The bankrupt business has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbying so far this year. GTM, JUNE 05, 2018
Ever multiplying financial costs for building new nuclear reactors are hitting UK, and other countries, too
Nikkei Asian Review 6th June 2018 Britain’s move to finance much of a Hitachi nuclear power plant underscores
how such projects have grown too costly for the private sector to bear
alone, raising further questions about a key component of Japan’s ambitious
plans to export infrastructure worldwide.
The threat of electricity shortages spurred by factors including aging power plants drove London’s
pledge to loan a full 2 trillion yen ($18.2 billion) for the Japanese
industrial group’s plan to build two nuclear reactors in Wales, a project
slated to cost over 3 trillion yen.
The Wylfa saga illustrates how the expense of building nuclear power plants has become a deterrent to their
construction. Estimates for the Wales reactors have roughly doubled from
the initial outlook, owing to snowballing costs for safety and other
provisions. apart from Hitachi’s U.K. project, most of Japan’s overseas
nuclear efforts face an uncertain future at best.
Plans for new reactors are stalling around the world as countries get caught between the need for
energy security and the risks associated with nuclear energy. A Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries plan to build four reactors in Turkey’s Black Sea coastal
city of Sinop has doubled in cost to around 5 trillion yen, owing mainly to
additional precautions against earthquakes. Now the project “will not turn
a profit unless the Turkish government more than doubles the price at which
it buys electricity,” said a source affiliated with Mitsubishi Heavy.
Trading house Itochu has pulled out of the business alliance behind the
project. Toshiba’s former nuclear unit Westinghouse Electric, which was
building four reactors in the U.S., filed for bankruptcHitachi still faces
other hurdles on the Wylfa project. Lining up investors is proving
difficult on the Japanese side.
The U.K. government likely will drive a
hard bargain on power purchase prices, having drawn criticism for agreeing
to pay far above market rates for electricity from Hinkley Point C, a
nuclear power plant being built by France’s EDF and state-owned China
General Nuclear Power Group. Clarifying liability for accidents will be
another issue.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Business-Trends/Hitachi-s-UK-nuclear-project-shows-heavy-risks-for-private-sector
EDF looks to a profitable industry in decommissioning nuclear reactors
Nuclear Energy Insider 6th June 2018 , As France’s EDF expands into new decommissioning markets, learnings at the
group’s first pressurized water reactor dismantling is informing new cutting, tooling and waste strategies.
A new partnership agreement between EDF’s decommissioning subsidiary Cyclife and Sweden’s Fortum highlights
EDF’s aim to become a leader in the European nuclear decommissioning space.
Cyclife and Fortum announced May 30 they will jointly develop services in
nuclear decommissioning and waste management, focusing on the Nordic
region. European nuclear decommissioning activity is on the rise as ageing
fleets and energy policy shifts combine with stubbornly-low wholesale power
prices. By 2020, some 150 European reactors will have reached a 40-year
lifespan.
https://analysis.nuclearenergyinsider.com/edf-ramps-nuclear-decommissioning-efficiency-eyes-europe
Trump’s nationalisation of the nuclear energy marketplace could cost U.S. consumers up to $17 billion a year
NIRS 6th June 2018 The controversial Trump Administration plan to nationalize the nuclear
energy marketplace could cost U.S. consumers up to $17 billion a year in
artificially high electricity bills, with the prospect of extensive
coal-fired power plant subsidies potentially doubling that figure.
Further, the bailouts of nuclear and coal could trip up America‘s renewables
industry, leaving the U.S. even further behind in the global race for clean
energy technology development and deployment, according to three experts
participating in a news conference today.
Today, the Nuclear Information & Resource Service (NIRS) updated and expanded the nuclear bailout costs
estimated in its November 2016 report that concluded that federal handouts
for nuclear alone could add up to $280 billion to electricity bills by
2030. A bailout of coal-fired power plants would leave ratepayers and
taxpayers holding the bag for even more. NIRS estimates that the current
Trump bailout scheme could cost consumers $8-$17 billion for just the
nuclear element and as much again for coal subsidies.
https://www.nirs.org/press/experts-nuclear-bailout-could-cost-up-to-17-billion-a-year-and-destroy-renewables-industry-in-u-s/
Costly lobbying for nuclear and coal industries, by bankrupt First Energy Solutions
The Lobbying Bills Attached to FirstEnergy’s Coal and Nuclear Emergency Action https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/firstenergy-coal-and-nuclear-request-lobbying#gs.WUmycd4
The bankrupt business has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbying so far this year., JUNE 05, 2018
UK Tax-payer to cop huge payments for Wylfa nuclear power project, and costs may still balloon further
Times 3rd June 2018 ,Ministers will this week reverse decades of opposition to investing taxpayer money in nuclear energy by agreeing to bankroll a £15bn-plus power station in Wales. The government will commit to taking a direct stake in the Wylfa plant on Anglesey, planned by the Japanese industrial giant Hitachi, after more than two years of negotiations.
It is understood the government will also provide the vast bulk of the £9bn debt. State equity will slash the cost of borrowing, but leave the taxpayer exposed if costs balloon or the project overruns. It has, though, helped ministers to
negotiate a strike price — a guaranteed payment for the plant’s electricity — of about £77.50 per megawatt hour. The government was determined to achieve a cheaper price than the £92.50 agreed with EDF, which is building the £20bn Hinkley Point power station in Somerset.
It is understood that this week’s heads of terms agreement with Hitachi will refer to “lessons learnt” from Hinkley. That deal was criticised by the National Audit Office for driving up the cost by piling too much risk on EDF. The deal this week has had to overcome opposition from the Treasury and will be a coup for the business secretary Greg Clark, who sees nuclear power as a key pillar of the government’s industrial strategy. Hitachi is believed to be considering increasing the number of reactors at Wylfa from two to four, with a strike price of less than £70, and to be planning a plant in Gloucestershire. Wylfa’s three shareholders — the UK and Japanese governments and Hitachi — will pump in about £6bn of equity on top of the £9bn debt provided largely by UK taxpayers.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/taxpayer-bankrolls-15bn-nuclear-plant-at-wylfa-in-wales-0p7dnxfhq
Buddhist priest Tomonobu Narita at forefront of movement to withdraw money from banks that support coal, nuclear
Japan’s divestment campaign pits Buddhist priest against banks In the wake of Fukushima, Tomonobu Narita is at the forefront of a movement to withdraw money from banks that back environmentally harmful energy projects.
by Daniel Hurst May.29.2018 NBC News, YOKOHAMA, Japan — Buddhist priest Tomonobu Narita admits he hadn’t thought much about energy policy until the Fukushima nuclear meltdown forced tens of thousands of people to flee their homes in 2011.
Now he’s at the forefront of a budding movement in Japan to withdraw money from banks that provide finance for environmentally harmful energy projects.
The campaign to “divest” from fossil fuels such as coal has gained traction in the United States, Europe and Australia in recent years, but environmental activists are now targeting Japan. They see the country as crucial to the success of international efforts to address climate change.
On top of fossil fuels — which release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when burned, contributing to global warming — campaigners here are working to oppose nuclear power.
While advocates of nuclear power say it can provide carbon emissions-free energy, critics say the overall dangers are too high.
Most of the country’s nuclear plants remain offline amid safety checks and legal challenges.
Driven by concern about nuclear power, Narita recently shifted some of his temple’s funds to a financial firm that is rated as one of Japan’s 45 “earth-friendly” banks. This means the bank is not known to provide finance for the fossil fuel and nuclear sectors.
Narita told NBC News he planned to explain the decision to his counterparts in other temples, believing that “we need to be more mindful of what we’re blessed with.”
“That small action when combined [with the actions of others] leads to a bigger effect, so I hope for divestment to have that kind of spread in Japan,” he said during an interview at Totsuka Zenryo Temple. ………
Japan’s Mizuho provided an estimated $11.5 billion in loans to the world’s top coal-plant developers from January 2014 to September 2017, according to analysis published by BankTrack, a pro-renewable energy network. That led to Mizuho being assessed as the most prolific lender in that category, followed by another Japanese financial group, MUFG, in second place, while Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation came in at fifth.
These banks have signaled that they are weighing their future lending criteria………
Takejiro Sueyoshi, a former senior banking executive who is now a special adviser to the United Nations Environment Program Finance Initiative, believes it will require strong government leadership for banks to take a more assertive step toward renewables. …….
Some senior government figures, at least, seem to be paying attention. The foreign minister, Taro Kono, recently blasted his country’s lackluster embrace of renewable sources like wind and solar as “lamentable.” ……. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/japan-s-divestment-campaign-pits-buddhist-priest-against-banks-n876301
Corporate Socialism: bailing out Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant for the third time?
Three Mile Island Documentary: Nuclear Power’s Promise and Peril | Retro Report | The New York Times
We’ve already bailed out Three Mile Island twice. The third time isn’t a charm http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2018/06/weve_already_bailed_out_three.html By Eric Epstein
It wasn’t that long ago that Pennsylvania policymakers proclaimed that the market is best suited to determine which energy technologies should move Pennsylvania forward.
Remember when nuclear power generators embraced the marketplace and were betrothed to electric deregulation after they received a $9 billion engagement ring?
Now two nuclear corporations, Exelon and FirstEnergy, are suing ratepayers for a divorce.
Hold on to your wallets.
Turns out that a handful of politicians and their donors know what’s best for Pennsylvania ratepayers. Alimony is going to be in the billions.
Welcome to this century’s version of corporate socialism. In September 1974, Three Mile Island Unit 1 became operational.
But it was behind schedule and over budget. Four years later, in December 1978, Three Mile Island Unit 2 came online: three times over budget and five years behind schedule.
No private equity was invested in the construction of TMI. Only cost overruns and delays. TMI was built and paid for by ratepayers. Sticker shock: $1.1 billion.
Then came the bailouts. Bailout No. 1: After 90 days of operation, TMI-2 melted down. Ratepayers once again came to the rescue. Under Gov. Dick Thornburgh’s plan, TMI-2 received $987 million to defuel the melted core from 1981 to 1993.
How did TMI show gratitude? Not only does TMI-2 pay no taxes, but the school district and the county had to return about $1 million in 2005 after the company appealed the tax assessment.
Great partner to the community!
In 1996, the Pennsylvania Legislature passed the Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act. The law restructured the electricity utility industry, separating the generation of electricity from its distribution and transmission.
Pennsylvanians were free to choose the source of their electricity from any qualifying provider, but ownership and operation of the utility wires remained with regulated monopolies.
Once those customers were free to choose a more affordable source of electricity, the utilities’ expensive nuclear power could not compete in the new retail generation market.
There was one huge problem — utilities were saddled with nuclear power plants that were burdened with enormous debt because of cost overruns. That debt was secured by the wallets of the utilities’ previously captive customers.
Bailout No. 2: TMI-1 was part of the $9 billion deregulation bailout that took consumers a decade to pay off from 1999 to 2009. Keep in mind, these payments were meant to help nuclear power generators transition to competitive markets.
Now they are back for more!
It turns out that TMI is the most uneconomical reactor in the state.
It lost $300 million to $800 million over the last five years despite the deregulation bailout.
If consumers already paid to build the nuclear plants, and then paid off the debt on the nuclear plants, why does TMI need yet another bailout?
What happened to all the money collected from consumers under the Competitive Transition Charge over 10 years?
Bailout No. 3?
If the bailout in New Jersey cost $300 million a year, how much is the bailout going to cost Pennsylvania, which has three times the amount of nuclear capacity? This includes three nuclear facilities with six reactors that continue to clear auction and remain profitable.
Rather than asking for another bailout, TMI should commit to finally cleaning up TMI-2 — a de facto high-level radioactive waste site in the middle of the Susquehanna River — and deploy its 525 employees to decontaminate and decommission TMI-1.
Nuclear power projects drag ratepayers into a quagmire of higher cost electricity
Construction Delays Boost Cost Of Nuclear Power Plants By Up To 20%, Give Renewables Another Economic Advantage https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/01/construction-delays-boost-cost-of-nuclear-power-plants-by-up-to-20-give-renewables-another-economic-advantage June 1st, 2018 by Steve Hanley
Researchers from Imperial College London, the Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, and the University of Minho have looked at the difference between the projected cost of nuclear power plants from 2010 to the present and compared them to the actual cost of those projects once completed. They find that, on average, delays in the construction process added about 18% to the budgeted cost of those projects.
At a time when entrenched energy interests are doing everything in their power to convince regulators new nuclear facilities make economic sense, it’s important to know that what the planners say a project will cost is only an hypothesis. What it actually costs will be significantly higher, based on historical data. Which means those comparing the cost of renewables to the cost of nuclear should use the higher number that experience shows to be accurate rather than some pie in the sky projections that are more likely to be dreams than real numbers? The new research has been published recently by the journal Energy Policy.
Lead author Dr. Joana Portugal Pereira of the Center for Environmental Policy at Imperial College London, said: “Nuclear projects are actually becoming more complex to carry out, inducing delays and higher costs. Safety and regulatory considerations play heavily into this, particularly in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear accident in Japan.”
When assessing the cost of new nuclear projects, decision makers often use “overnight construction costs,” according to Science Daily. The assumption is that projects will be built on time, usually within five years. However, the “lead-time” — the time between the initiation of the project and its completion — can cause significant extra costs.
The study included nuclear projects in China, India, and the UAE in addition to traditional locations like Europe, the USA, and Japan. Dr. Pereira adds, “If we want to decarbonize our energy system, nuclear may not be the best choice for a primary strategy. Nuclear power is better late than never, but to really address climate change, it would be best if they were not late at all, as technologies like wind and solar rarely are.”
The research should be a warning to those who finance and insure such projects — the projected costs are often little more than vaporware designed to get a project moving forward. The researchers say nuclear projects are more like ‘mega-projects’ — such as large dams — which require more rigorous financial assessments due to their high uncertainty and risk.
Once a new nuclear project gets moving, it takes on a life of its own, dragging ratepayers deeper and deeper into a quagmire of higher cost electricity that may last for 40 years or more. Regulators also need to be aware of this research, as it suggests many of the basic assumptions about the cost of new nuclear facilities are artificial and bear little relation to reality.
The trials and tribulations of France’s Flamanville EPR nuclear reactor
Montel 31st May 2018 French utility EDF will reveal “in the next few days” whether
sub-standard welding identified at France’s first European pressurised
reactor (EPR) in Flamanville will lead to further start-up delays, a
spokeswoman said on Thursday. However, she refused to comment on Montel’s
interview with a senior official of the ASN watchdog’s technical arm –
the IRSN – who said the commissioning of the unit faced further delays
“of at leastseveral months”.
https://www.montel.no/en/story/edf-to-reveal-possible-epr-start-up-delay-in-days/905717
Jeremy Leggett 31st May 2018 French nuclear regulator fears “epidemic” safety-culture collapse at
Flamanville: disaster looms for EDF. Almost 150 more weld failures (beyond
those discovered earlier, as reviewed in the article) mean the nuclear
plant scheduled online in 2012 at a cost of €3.5bn is now delayed to
2020, probably, at a cost of €10.5bn, and counting.
Thierry Charles, deputy director general, Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear
Safety (IRSN), the technical arm of the Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN):
“The expected high level of quality was not specified (Editor’s note:
by EDF), the conformity of supplies to the specification could not be
attested”, plus “the qualification of the welding procedures […] ]
does not respect all the rules of art. Charles cites concerns over “other
categories of mechanical equipment” than the pipes of the secondary
circuit. He flags “human and organizational failures” and “lack of
rigor of suppliers”.
He ascribes all this to the “inadequacies of the
monitoring system put in place by EDF” to check the conformity of the
work of its subcontractors and he fears “dysfunction potentially damaging
to safety”. He has invited the ASN to summon EDF to thoroughly review its
organization “to improve the quality of realization of welds and make its
monitoring system more effective”. In a final, potentially lethal, blow
to EDF he argues that “additional controls will be requested on other
circuits of the reactor to verify that there is no epidemic.”
https://jeremyleggett.net/2018/05/31/french-nuclear-regulator-fears-safety-culture-collapse-at-flamanville-disaster-looms-for-edf/
Liberation 31st May 2018 [Machine Translation] The Flamanville EPR is likely to see its start
postponed to 2020. The weld quality problem detected on the EPR reactor
could differ by almost a year from its commissioning. The nuclear policeman
should demand that the work be redone.
A blow for EDF. A month and a half
after the discovery of new quality defects on 150 welds of the main
secondary circuit of the EPR reactor of the Flamanville power station, in
the Channel , EDF is preparing to post a further delay of several months in
the commissioning of what was to be the new flagship of the atom made in
France.
The EPR was due to start no later than early 2019. But according to
a source very familiar with the file questioned by Libération, the start
of the EPR Flamanville could outright “suffer a year late and be postponed
to the end of 2019 or early 2020” ! Severely taxed by the gendarme of the
atom, EDF would indeed be forced to resume one by one “Almost all 150
welds” whose quality is not up to what was expected by the nuclear
policeman for this type of equipment under nuclear pressure.
http://www.liberation.fr/france/2018/05/31/l-epr-de-flamanville-risque-de-voir-son-demarrage-reporte-a-2020_1655448
Minnesota process protect ratepayers from being ripped off by the nuclear industry
Now That Xcel Won’t Get Its Nuclear Bill, What’s Next? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists JESSICA COLLINGSWORTH, POLICY ANALYST, CLEAN ENERGY | JUNE 1, 2018 Earlier this month the Xcel Nuclear Plant Costs Bill (SF3504/HF3708) passed the Senate but failed to pass through the Minnesota House. The bill created a system of approving nuclear plant repair costs for Xcel Energy that would have circumvented the normal process of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MN PUC) and left ratepayers to shoulder potentially excessive costs of keeping Xcel’s nuclear plants running.
Trying to keep Xcel’s nuclear fleet in the blackXcel’s nuclear fleet is struggling to stay profitable in the face of cheaper alternatives (like renewable energy and natural gas) and looming upkeep costs. Xcel estimates it will need at least $1.4 billion dollars in repairs over the next 17 years for its Monticello and Prairie Island nuclear plants. To provide certainty that Xcel would be able to recover those costs from ratepayers, they introduced legislation that would have allowed the company to get upfront approval from the PUC for its future nuclear expenses instead of approval after those investments have been made (how it works currently). The legislation would have provided certainty for Xcel that they would be able to recover these maintenance costs from ratepayers.
This is a bad deal for ratepayers because the legislation dilutes the PUC’s authority, and attempts to bypass the PUC’s current process for reviewing costs to determine if they’re prudent. That’s why UCS opposed the bill: it was an attempt to avoid the existing regulatory review process and shift financial risk from Xcel’s shareholders to ratepayers. This is not the first legislative attempt to dilute the power of the MN PUC.
Maintaining the current process for approving costs is important
Xcel is due to file their next Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), also known as their 15-year business plan, in February 2019. The IRP process allows for a comparison of electricity options to make sure consumers are getting the most bang for their ratepayer bucks. The IRP process is where Xcel will detail how they plan to generate and supply power to their customers over the next 15 years, including any expected expenses to keep its nuclear plants up and running.
A successful IRP includes evaluation of existing resources, a robust economic analysis of different supply-side and demand-side options under a range of scenarios and assumptions, including future environmental costs and fuel prices, opportunities for stakeholder engagement, adequate reporting requirements, and a robust set of criteria of which to base approval or denial of utility plans to spend ratepayer dollars.
It’s important to keep the current process because it protects ratepayers from excessive charges. By separating out the nuclear plant upkeep costs, we’re not comparing them to other options that would maintain a reliable and affordable energy supply for less cost to ratepayers. The legislation would have pre-approved these costs, meaning any cost overruns due to mismanagement by Xcel would have been automatically passed on to ratepayers. To protect Minnesota consumers, it’s important to keep the robust IRP process and maintain the PUC’s authority to scrutinize Xcel’s expenditures……..https://blog.ucsusa.org/jessica-collingsworth/xcel-nuclear-bill-whats-next
UK wind power – much cheaper than planned Wylfa nuclear power plant
‘Cheap’ power at Wylfa nuclear plant blown away by wind, The Times, Emily Gosden, Energy Editor, 2 June 18 The electricity generated by the Wylfa nuclear plant could be about a fifth
cheaper than Hinkley Point’s but is likely to be much more expensive than
power from the latest offshore wind farms. It is understood that a figure
of close to £75 per megawatt-hour is under discussion as the “strike
price” that Hitachi, the Japanese conglomerate developing the Anglesey
plant, would be guaranteed by the government for the electricity it
produces. The difference between the guaranteed price and the wholesale
price — currently £50 per MWh — would be paid for by consumers through
levies on their energy bills.
Ministers are preparing to announce next week
the outline of a deal to fund the proposed Wylfa plant, which could cost in
excess of £15 billion. The twin-reactor plant could generate 2.9 gigawatts
of electricity, enough to power five million homes. It is due to start
generating in the mid 2020s. The government plans to invest directly in
Wylfa, as well as to offer extensive guarantee loans for the project. These
measures are designed to cut the cost of the project and so lower the price
that consumers will have to cover.
Critics of nuclear power are likely to
draw unfavourable comparisons with offshore wind. Two projects in UK waters
were awarded guarantees prices of £57.50 per MWh last year. Some onshore
wind and solar projects are being built without any subsidy.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cheap-power-at-nuclear-plant-blown-away-by-wind-3bzc2h5qm
1 This Month
26 April – Chernobyl: Inside the Meltdown airs on National Geographic on Sunday 26th April from 4pm
29 April – Nuclear Expert Webinar #1 – Radiation Impacts on Families with Mary Olson and Cindy Folkers
- 12:15 PM MT – 1:45 PM MT
- Location: Virtual – REGISTER TODAY
4 May -West Suburban Peace Coalition to discuss Iran war at May Educational Forum
Monday, May 4, 7:00 – 8:00 PM Central Standard Time
Title: : How Trump’s Narrative Tries to Shape the Reality of the War on Iran.
Contact Walt Zlotow, zlotow@hotmail.com 630 442 3045 for further information
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
Pine Ridge Uranium is the real threat, not Tehran- Tell Burgum: Stop the Extraction.
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (25)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 