Why the military wants $716 billion from Congress,The Hill , BY REBECCA KHEEL – 02/04/18The Trump administration is poised to ask Congress for $716 billion for defense for fiscal 2019, a major hike that budget analysts say aligns with administration’s stated goals of bulking up the military and preparing it to potentially fight near-peer rivals after years of focusing on terrorism.
“A total of $716 billion means that they are putting themselves on the trajectory for a big buildup in military power,” said Todd Harrison, a defense budget expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The caveat, though, is to really carry out the plans that they talked about in the past, you wouldn’t just need 7 percent growth in [fiscal] ’19; you would need similar levels of growth in the years following.”
President Trump came into office pledging to rebuild what he described as a “depleted” military. …..
“I’m not subtle,” Mattis told House and Senate Republicans on Thursday at their annual retreat at The Greenbrier resort in West Virginia.
“I need to make the military more lethal. Some people think I’m supposed to be an equal-opportunity employer,” Mattis added, according to several sources in the closed-door meeting.
Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon on Friday that he is “very happy” with the $716 billion request for next year.
Le Parisien 3rd Feb 2018, [Machine Translation]EPR Flamanville: four questions on an industrial
disaster. Seven years late and a quote that has tripled in ten years: the
site of the EPR Flamanville Friday received the visit of Sébastien
Lecornu, Secretary of State Nicolas Hulot.
Started in April 2007, the EPR was to cost € 3.3 billion and enter service in 2012. Except that the site
has accumulated the setbacks, the highlight of which was in April 2015,
after the discovery by the ASN of a anomaly in the steel of the lid and
bottom of the reactor vessel. In June 2017, EDF obtained authorization from
the ASN to operate the tank, but confidence in EPR technology has been
eroded. The bill exploded: around € 11 billion. http://www.leparisien.fr/economie/epr-de-flamanville-quatre-questions-sur-une-catastrophe-industrielle-03-02-2018-7538637.php
Marzhan Nurzhan has a mission. The 25-year-old from Kazakhstan is rallying global youth to tackle one of the biggest threats to her generation. But time may be running out.
On Jan. 25, partly in response to North Korea’s recent weapons tests, international scientists moved the hands of the “Doomsday Clock” — a symbolic gauge that measures the risk of nuclear war — to 11:58. It’s the closest to midnight we’ve been since 1953.
Midnight represents Armageddon.
Nurzhan has been an international advocate for nuclear disarmament ever since she learned of the impact nuclear weapons had on her country. Two million Kazakhstanis still suffer cancer and birth defects, the fallout from decades of Soviet weapons tests.
While many international organizations are active on nuclear disarmament, advocates such as Nurzhan face a major challenge getting ordinary people engaged, especially youth.
During the Cold War, public demonstrations against nuclear arms were common. Today, not so much. Increased threats haven’t increased public interest, says Nurzhan.
Rob van Riet, peace and disarmament co-ordinator for the World Future Council, says: “[Nuclear disarmament] feels too large for a lot of people and they feel powerless.”
Issues such as climate change are daunting, but tangible. Ordinary citizens can contact politicians, demanding policies that reduce emissions.
More importantly, people have at least some control over their household energy use. But making superpowers give up their huge arsenals, let alone influencing a rogue state such as North Korea, seems unattainable.
Still, Nurzhan and Van Riet insist ordinary people can help reduce the global risk of nuclear conflict.
A powerful tool is divestment. The U.S., Russia and China want to upgrade their aging nuclear arsenals, and develop new types of smaller weapons that could be used on the battlefield. The companies that build parts for those bombs are supported by investors such as pension funds, and even our personal RRSP funds.
We can pressure investors to drop these companies from their portfolios, pushing them to get out of the bomb business.
Canada is uniquely positioned to be a leader in nuclear disarmament. As climate change makes Arctic waters more accessible to submarines, Russia and the US increasingly see the north as a key part of their nuclear strategy, according to van Riet.
As a respected Arctic nation, Canada could lead the campaign to make the region a nuclear-free zone.
Likewise, with public pressure, Canada could play a diplomatic leadership role and insist that all nuclear states follow the example of China and India and declare a “no first use” policy.
This would reduce the risk of conventional conflicts escalating into nuclear war.
But if Canada is to be that leader, we have to make it a priority for our government. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been conducting town halls across the country — a great opportunity to raise the issue, notes Douglas Roach, a former Canadian senator and Ambassador for Nuclear Disarmament.
“If he’s not hearing from people, he’s going to think people don’t care.”
The Cold War might be a distant memory, but its terrifying ghost still haunts us.
It’s time for us to engage again on nuclear disarmament.
The clock is ticking.
Craig and Marc Kielburger are the co-founders of the WE movement, which includes WE Charity ME to WE Social Enterprise and WE Day. For more dispatches from WE, check out WE Stories.
With the deed of company arrangement (DOCA) effected, deed administrators have retired and the day-to-day management and control of Paladin has reverted to the company’s directors. The two new board appointments are iCobalt MD David Riekieand former interim CEO and MD of Atlas IronDaniel Harris.
The DOCA was put forward to the administrators of Paladinby a group of the company’s unsecured bondholders, known as the Ad Hoc Committee. The DOCA’s key terms included the debt-for-equity swap, the raising of $115-million pursuant to the issue of a high-yield secured note and the reinstatement of Paladin to trade on the ASX.
In terms of the DOCA, 98% of Paladin’s shares have been transferred to creditors and other investors and only 2% are retained by shareholders. If a shareholder held 10 000 Paladin shares before the restructuring, they will now hold 200 shares.
Creditors all agreed to a restructuring proposal in December, although major creditor Electricité de France (EDF) previously said that it may seek to have the DOCA terminated.
Paladin appointed administrators in July last year after the company was unable to agree a delay to the repayment of $277-million it owed EDF.
On Wednesday, Paladin published its quarterly activities reports for the June, September and December quarters, as well as its June 2017 annual report.
The most recent quarter’s results show that the Langer Heinrich mine, in Namibia, produced 873 107 lb of uranium oxide (U3O8), up 4% on the prior quarter. Sales were at 1.24-million U3O8 at an average selling price of $22.39/lb.
More Premature Nuclear Unit Retirements Loom, Power Magazine, 02/01/2018 | Sonal PatelTwo more U.S. nuclear power plants are facing early retirement, joining a string of generators whose fate was determined by market conditions, political pressure, or financial stresses assailing the sector. Several others may be poised to join them.
The 647-MW Duane Arnold nuclear plant in Palo, Iowa, will likely close in 2025 after a current contract with the facility’s primary customer expires, said NextEra Energy Resources’ chief financial officer, John Ketchum, in a fourth-quarter earnings call on January 26.
“Without a contract extension, we will likely close the facility at the end of 2025 despite being licensed to operate until 2034,” Ketchum said. “As a result, during the fourth quarter, Duane Arnold’s book value and asset retirement obligation were reviewed, and an after-tax impairment of $258 million was recorded that reflects our belief it is unlikely the project will operate after 2025.” Ketchum added, however, that NextEra will continue to pursue a contract extension.
On the same day, the Toledo Blade reported that FirstEnergy Corp.’s Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Oak Harbor, Ohio, is headed for premature closure, citing James Pearson, the company’s chief financial officer. Pearson told the newspaper that no date has been set for the closure of Davis-Besse. He also reportedly said that the outlook for the company’s Perry plant in Ohio and twin-reactor Beaver Valley nuclear plant in Pennsylvania is “bleak.” FirstEnergy is intent on exiting its competitive business, but though the company may want to sell the plants, they are “probably impossible to sell in today’s market,” he reportedly said.
A Critical Condition The plants join a series of generators recently stricken by financial pressure primarily by competition from cheap natural gas, expanding renewable capacity, and lethargic power demand growth.
Early retirement has also been proposed for Clinton and Quad Cities in Illinois and for Nine Mile Point, Fitzpatrick, and Ginna in New York—but their fate appears dependent on the outcome of legal challenges to “bailout” programs to keep those plants operating for economic reasons. The states’ measures are being legally challenged by several independent power producers—including Dynegy, Eastern Generation, NRG Energy, and Calpine Corp.—and, prominently, competitive power producer trade group the Electric Power Supply Association. The consortium has long argued that the state rules interfere with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) jurisdiction over wholesale electric rates and unlawfully interfere with interstate commerce………..
Earlier in January, California regulators approved Pacific Gas & Electric’s application to retire the Diablo Canyon plant by 2025, following a protracted battle over the generating station that pitted local economic interests against environmentalists and other opponents of nuclear power. In New York, political pressure combined with economic misgivings, also prompted plans to shut down Indian Point by 2021.
A Swath of Other Reactors May Be Troubled According to a September 2017 report from the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), several more nuclear plants are likely to retire early, stymied by an “ongoing industry wide, systemic economic and financial challenge to operating nuclear plants particularly in the deregulated markets.”
A revenue gap analysis conducted by the national laboratory for 79 of 99 operational reactors that are in a region where public wholesale electricity market prices are available suggests that 63 units would have lost money in 2016. Of those 63, 36 are merchant generators, 19 are regulated, and eight are public power generators.
INL suggests that among plants at high risk of early retirement are Davis-Besse, Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, and Xcel Energy’s Prairie Island in Minnesota.
In line with what the company previous disclosed in bankruptcy court earlier this month, it seems that the largest chunk of the money will go to a group of hedge funds led by Boston-based Baupost Group.
According to a document filed on Monday, the Cranberry-based firm disclosed that nearly 2,400 claims totaling $111 billion have been filed against the company.
But it believes less than $9 billion will be allowed by the court. Of that, vendors, suppliers, employees and contractors who filed $6 billion in claims will likely get between $775 million and $1.16 billion, the company estimated.
The plan, which has the approval of Westinghouse, Toshiba, the unsecured creditors committee, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., must now be voted on by the unsecured creditors by March 15.
Santee Cooper is dropping two retirement plans that the state-owned utility has offered for years to its executives, part of an effort to cut costs following a multibillion-dollar nuclear fiasco and appease state lawmakers, livid the perks existed in the first place.
“Clearly, it’s a way to make sure we demonstrate we’re hearing what the folks in the Legislature are saying,” interim Santee Cooper Chief Executive Jim Brogdon told The State newspaper Thursday.
Later this month, the utility’s board is expected to vote to get rid of the two extra retirement plans, which offered some Santee Cooper executives benefits in addition to the normal retirement plan that is open to all state employees, Brogdon said.
Thirty-three Santee Cooper managers currently are enrolled in an extra pension-style plan. Nine employees are enrolled in an additional 401(k)-type plan.
Those plans pay benefits in addition to the normal state retirement plan’s payments.
Longtime Santee Cooper Chief Executive Lonnie Carter decided which employees were allowed to enroll in the two extra plans, which the utility said it offered to retain top executives.
Carter’s retirement came a month after Santee Cooper abandoned its decadelong joint effort with Cayce-based SCE&G to build two nuclear reactors in Fairfield County.
The failed project saddled Santee Cooper with $4 billion in debt, cost S.C. power customers at least $2 billion in higher bills and brought fresh scrutiny to the way the state-owned power company rewards its executives.
“The fact that they had three separate retirement plans for their executives, and the fact that the CEO chose the members of those plans, to me, was ridiculous,” said Senate Minority Leader Nikki Setzler, the Lexington Democrat who co-chaired the Senate committee that investigated the nuclear fiasco. “That is an abuse of the system.”
During a Senate hearing Thursday, Setzler told Brogdon he was pleased with the proposal to ditch the special retirement plans.
Santee Cooper’s board vote later this month would close the extra retirement plans to future executives but leave them in place for current employees and 32 retirees who already are enrolled.
Nuclear plant to close ahead of schedule, Washington Examiner, by John Siciliano | One of the oldest nuclear power plants in the country will be shutting down more than a year ahead of schedule.
Exelon, the largest nuclear utility in the country, said Friday that it would shut down the Oyster Creek power station in New Jersey in October, more than a year ahead of schedule.
The power plant decided to close early, even though it is licensed by the federal government to provide electricity through 2029. The early closure stems from costly regulations in New Jersey requiring it to install new cooling towers.
Exelon entered into an agreement with the state’s environmental regulators in 2010 to phase out the plant’s operations, after it decided that it could not justify the cost of meeting the new water cooling rules. It instead agreed to a planned phaseout in which it would close the plant in December 2019.
But on Friday, things changed, and now the company wants to close the plant more than a year earlier than under the agreement with the state. It explained that the shutdown decision was made to help employees in finding new employment, while dealing with higher maintenance cost and lower prices for electricity……….
Environmentalists and other staunch opponents of nuclear power plants welcomed the decision, pointing out that the Oyster Creek plant is the same design as the one that experienced multiple reactor core meltdowns and explosions during the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan.
The Oyster Creek plant is the “first and the oldest Fukushima-design nuclear reactor in the world,” a General Electric model called the Mark I, said the anti-nuclear energy group Beyond Nuclear in reacting to Exelon’s new closure timeline.
“It’s clear that Oyster Creek and the entire, aging U.S. nuclear reactor fleet is hemorrhaging financially,” said Paul Gunter, the head of the group’s reactor oversight program. “The fact that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the nuclear industry continue to prioritize financial margins over public safety margins is a growing concern, especially at the remaining 29 Fukushima style reactors still operating in the U.S.” http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nuclear-plant-to-close-ahead-of-schedule/article/2647965
China goes nuclear with latest state-brokered power deal, Josephine Mason, David Stanway BEIJING (Reuters) 2 Feb 18, –China National Nuclear Corp (CNNC), China’s No. 2 nuclear power producer, will take over the country’s top nuclear power plant builder to create a company worth almost $100 billion, the latest state-orchestrated marriage in the nation’s vast power sector.
Approval for the tie-up between CNNC and China Nuclear Engineering & Construction (CNEC) was announced by the State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) on Wednesday in a one-line statement posted on its website…….
Beijing wants to overhaul its nuclear sector in order to create globally competitive firms and reduce overcapacity across its broader power market. The nuclear industry is struggling with project delays and a slowdown in approvals for new domestic projects.
By creating a unified home-brand series of reactors, and combining firms, China will be better positioned to bid for and finance overseas projects, experts say.
The study is, in fact, an updated version of a report done last year at the request of Febeliec, the Belgian federation of large electricity consumers. Greenpeace asked the research centre, which links the Catholic University of Leuven and the University of Hasselt, to modify two initial parameters: the price of gas, which is lower than expected, and the availability of nuclear reactors.
The nuclear plants are scheduled to close in 2025. In that case, the annual cost of Belgium’s electricity system will be 5.415 billion euros in 2030, three times more than the current cost. If the two most recent reactors are kept working until 2035, the cost would drop to 5.130 billion euros.
On the other hand, by 2040, the two scenarios would amount to roughly the same cost, about 7.19 billion euros, with just a difference of about two million euros between them.
According to Jan Vande Putte, an energy expert at Greenpeace, prolonging nuclear generation merely postpones the required investments in replacement capacity.
Xinhuanet 1st Feb 2018,China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGN), a major Chinese nuclear
power operator, said Wednesday that nuclear projects in Britain were
proceeding well. He Yu, chairman of the board of CGN, said since the deals
were inked in 2016 with French energy company EDF and the British
government, CGN has invested 1.7 billion British pounds in order to advance
the projects. CGN signed agreements in 2016 for Hinkley Point C (HPC), a
nuclear project in Somerset, and a suite of agreements relating to the
Sizewell C (SZC) in eastern England and Bradwell B projects (BRB) in Essex.
“A total of 15 Chinese suppliers and contractors have passed a preliminary
qualification assessment for the HPC project,” He said. “HPC, which is
Britain’s first new nuclear power station in a generation, is the largest
construction in Europe.” http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-02/01/c_136940068.htm
Reuters 31st Jan 2018, Notable Chinese investments in Britain include the Hinkley C nuclear power
station which is being built by China General Nuclear Power Corp and the
British arm of France’s EDF (EDF.PA), while British firms, such as Rolls
Royce (RR.L), have won large deals from Chinese firms to supply items like
plane engines. Both May and senior Chinese officials have restated their
commitment to the “golden era” in ties but a row over May’s decision
to delay approval for the Chinese-funded Hinkley nuclear plant in late 2016
chilled relations. However, Britain was the first Western country to sign
up to the China-backed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and it sent
Finance Minister Philip Hammond to a Beijing summit last year about
President Xi Jinping’s flagship ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ – a
trillion-dollar infrastructure-led push to build a modern Silk Road. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-britain/chinas-li-says-ties-with-britain-to-stay-unchanged-through-brexit-idUSKBN1FK023
NDA 1st Feb 2018,Specialist scuba divers are plumbing new depths to haul radioactive waste
out of the nuclear fuel storage pond at Sizewell A. The team of American
underwater experts tackled their first UK ‘nuclear dive’ at Dungeness A
in 2016 where, wearing full protective suits and shielded from radiation by
the water, they were able to cut up empty fuel storage skips and retrieve
other pieces of submerged equipment.
The ponds were used to store thousands
of used nuclear fuel rods, held in metal skips, after they were discharged
from the reactors. After the last of the fuel was transported to Sellafield
for reprocessing, the skips and a range of redundant items, including
sludge, were left behind in the water.
Pond clean-out conventionally takes
place using remotely operated equipment to lift the whole radioactive skips
clear of the water, exposing them to the air, where they are carefully cut
up before decontamination, storage and eventual disposal. This process is
slow with potential radiation dose risks for workers. By doing the work
under water, the divers can cut up the skips more safely, access awkward
areas more easily, making the whole process safer, faster and more
productive. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/diving-into-innovation-at-sizewell
Energy Post, by Jim Green Nuclear power is in crisis ‒ as even the most strident nuclear enthusiasts acknowledge ‒ and it is likely that a new era is fast emerging, writes Jim Green, editor of the Nuclear Monitor newsletter. After a growth spurt from the 1960s to the ’90s, then 20 years of stagnation, the Era of Nuclear Decommissioning is upon us. Article courtesy Nuclear Monitor.
Last year was supposed to be a good year for nuclear power ‒ the peak of a mini-renaissance resulting from a large number of reactor construction starts in the three years before the Fukushima disaster. The World Nuclear Association (WNA) anticipated 19 reactor grid connections (start-ups) in 2017 but in fact there were only four start-ups (Chasnupp-4 in Pakistan; Fuqing-4, Yangjiang-4 and Tianwan-3 in China).
The four start-ups were outnumbered by five permanent shut-downs (Kori-1 in South Korea; Oskashamn-1 in Sweden; Gundremmingen-B in Germany; Ohi 1 and 2 in Japan).
The WNA’s estimate for reactor start-ups in 2017 was hopelessly wrong but, for what it’s worth, here are the Association’s projections for start-ups in the coming years:
2018‒19: 30
2020‒21: 12
2022‒23: 9
2024‒25: 2
Thus ‒ notwithstanding the low number of start-ups in 2017 ‒ the mini-renaissance that gathered steam in the three years before the Fukushima disaster probably has two or three years to run. Beyond that, it’s near-impossible to see start-ups outpacing closures.
New nuclear capacity of 3.3 gigawatts (GW) in 2017 was outweighed by lost capacity of 4.6 GW. Over the past 20 years, there has been modest growth (12.6%, 44 GW) in global nuclear power capacity if reactors currently in long-term outage are included. However, including those reactors ‒ in particular idle reactors in Japan, many of which will never restart ‒ in the count of ‘operable’ or ‘operational’ or ‘operating’ reactors is, as former WNA executive Steve Kidd states, “misleading” and “clearly ridiculous”.
There would need to be an average of 10 reactor start-ups (10 GW) per year just to maintain current capacity. The industry will have to run hard just to stand still
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) excludes reactors in long-term outage ‒ defined as reactors that produced zero power in the previous calendar year and in the first half of the current calendar year ‒ from its count of operating reactors. Thirty-six reactors are currently in long-term outage, 31 of them in Japan.
Excluding reactors in long-term outage, the number of reactors has declined by 29 over the past 20 years, while capacity has grown by a negligible 1.4% (5 GW). Over the past decade, the reactor count is down by 34 and capacity is down by 9.5% (19 GW).
The industry faces severe problems, not least the ageing of the global reactor fleet. The average age of the reactor fleet continues to rise, and by mid-2017 stood at 29.3 years; over half have operated for 31 years or more.
The International Energy Agency expects a “wave of retirements of ageing nuclear reactors” and an “unprecedented rate of decommissioning” ‒ almost 200 reactor shut-downs between 2014 and 2040. The International Atomic Energy Agency anticipates 320 GW of retirements by 2050 ‒ in other words, there would need to be an average of 10 reactor start-ups (10 GW) per year just to maintain current capacity. The industry will have to run hard just to stand still.
………Renewables (24.5% of global generation) generate more than twice as much electricity as nuclear power (<10.5%) and the gap is growing rapidly. The International Energy Agency predicts renewable energy capacity growth of 43% (920 GW) from 2017 to 2022. Overall, the share of renewables in power generation will reach 30% in 2022 according to the IEA. By then, nuclear’s share will be around 10% and renewables will be out-generating nuclear by a factor of three.
Lobbyists engaged each other in heated arguments over possible solutions to nuclear power’s crisis ‒ in a nutshell, some favour industry consolidation while others think innovation is essential, all of them think that taxpayer subsidies need to be massively increased, and none of them are interested in the tedious work of building public support by strengthening nuclear safety and regulatory standards, strengthening the safeguards system, etc.
One indication of the industry’s desperation has been the recent willingness of industry bodies (such as the US Nuclear Energy Institute) and supporters (such as former US energy secretary Ernest Moniz) to openly acknowledge the connections between nuclear power and weapons, and using those connections as an argument for increased taxpayer subsidies for nuclear power and the broader ‘civil’ nuclear fuel cycle. The power/weapons connections are also evident with Saudi Arabia’s plan to introduce nuclear power and the regime’s pursuit of a weapons capability……….
“Finland’s Pyhäjoki nuclear plant takes our pension money” While four million elderly Russians live below the poverty line, the country’s pension fund pays for Rosatom-backed nuclear plant in northern-Finland. «Deeply unfair,» says Oleg Bodrov from the closed town of Sosnovy Bor near St. Petersburg. Barents Observer By Thomas Nilsen, January 29, 2018
Reactor design, construction, uranium supplies and important financier. Russia has a core role in what will be Finland’s northernmost nuclear power plant. Located in Pyhäjoki south of Oulu, construction work has already started. Though, the plant still lack building permit.
«What happens in Finland is even more controversial than how the nuclear industry behave home in Russia,» says Oleg Bodrov, a prominent expert on Russia’s nuclear complex. Bodrov chairs the Public Council of the South Coast of the Gulf of Finland, an environmental network with the majority of members from the St. Petersburg area.
«According to Russian law, no-one can start construction work without having the final permit for building a nuclear power plant,» Bodrov explains and shakes his head over what happens in Finland.
Huge trucks are already moving excavated soil and rock at the site where the nuclear power company Fennovoima prepares the ground near the Gulf of Bothnia. Buildings are raised. As previously reported, the permit is delayed by Finland’s Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK), and is likely not to be ready before the end of 2018.
The nuclear power plant project is controversial in Finland.
«Our pensioners’ money»
Parts of the funding to the plant, where RAOS Voima, a subsidiary to Russia’s state-owned company Rosatom, holds 34% of the shares comes from the National Wealth Fund.
«They are playing with the money of our pensioners,» says Oleg Bodrov.
He argues that this part of the fund is at high risk. «There is no way building a nuclear power plant in Finland will give pay-back to Russia. All future predictions show that alternative energy will produce electricity cheaper than nuclear reactors.»
Oleg Bodrov has first hand knowledge. Coming from the closed town of Sosnovy Bor, he has for decades monitored developments at Leningrad nuclear power plant. Within some weeks, a new reactor of the VVER-1200 design will be commissioned. This reactor is similar to the one to be built in northern Finland.
Little transparency in Russia
«Russian nuclear industry is a closed society. Hundreds of thousands of people are employed, often living in closed cities where there are little transparency into funding and technology,» Bodrov explains. «Now, Russia is exporting it’s newest and biggest reactor project abroad. Only to keep alive its own society of nuclear workers.»
«There are about four million pensioners living below the poverty line in Russia today. They need the money, not subsidized nuclear industry in other countries.»
……….. Second-hand uranium from Kola PeninsulaThe uranium fuel for the reactor is also to be delivered by Rosatom.
This is uranium extracted from nuclear fuel earlier removed from a reactor. Today, Russia has one such reprocessing plant, located in Mayak, South Urals. Here, all spent fuel from military submarines and civilian nuclear powered icebreakers on the Kola Peninsula is reprocessed. So are fuel from VVER-440 reactors.
Oleg Bodrov warns the Finnish government about this deal and says Finland must study closer how the reprocessing industry in Russia works.
«Reprocessing submarine and icebreaker fuel from the Kola Peninsula creates huge amount of nuclear waste. Part of this is liquid and from the Mayak plant, leakages could go to the river system connected with Ob and with the water-flow end up in the Arctic. The mouth of Ob river is to the Kara Sea.
«Finland’s nuclear power plant construction in Pyhäjoki is not only social and economical a bad idea. It is also environmental risky, in Finland, in Russia and for the Arctic,» Oleg Bodrov says.
Reuters 30th Jan 2018, French utility EDF has proposed to start shutting down some reactors from
2029 onwards as part of France’s long-term energy plan which aims to
reduce the share of atomic power in its electricity mix, said the head of
EDF’s nuclear power arm.
The government has started discussions with
non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and energy specialists and companies
over France’s future energy mix, and the first draft of the
“multi-annual energy plan” (PPE) is expected by the end of June.
Philippe Sasseigne – who heads up the nuclear power part of EDF – told
journalists that as part of that discussion, the company was proposing to
shut down more reactors from 2029. EDF, which operates France’s 58
nuclear reactors, will halt its Fessenhiem nuclear plant once it starts
production at the Flamanville 3 nuclear reactor under construction. https://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFP6N1IH00N
