nuclear-news

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

Lockheed, Raytheon winning companies to start USA’s $1.46 trillion missile spend-up

Lockheed, Raytheon Win Contracts for New Nuclear Cruise Missile, Bloomberg, By Anthony Capaccio, August 24, 2017 

  • Boeing left out in contest for successor to its weapon
  • Long-Range Standoff Missile seen valued at $10 billion

Lockheed Martin Corp. and Raytheon Co. were picked by the U.S. Air Force to begin development of a new nuclear cruise missile for long-range bombers, while Boeing Co. was shut out of the effort to replace its aging weapon that’s in use today.

The initial contracts of about $900 million each are for a 54-month phase to refine designs and prove out technologies for the Long-Range Standoff missile, Captain Emily Grabowski, an Air Force spokeswoman, said in a statement Wednesday.

After that, the Air Force will pick one of the contractors for full production of as many as 1,000 missiles — not all of them topped by nuclear warheads — in an acquisition phase the service values at about $10 billion……

With this week’s awards, the outlines of the Pentagon’s long-range nuclear modernization program are emerging. The Defense Department published in May the first official cost report for the 12-vessel Columbia-class nuclear-missile submarines, estimated as a $127 billion acquisition program.

The Congressional Budget Office is working on its first 30-year look at the cost to develop, acquire and sustain a new nuclear arsenal. While lawmakers and analysts have estimated it’s a $1 trillion program, the Arms Control Association last week projected the potential cost through 2047 at as much as $1.46 trillion.

— With assistance by Nafeesa Syeed  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-23/lockheed-raytheon-win-contracts-for-new-nuclear-cruise-missile

August 25, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The State, South Carolina, names the people who brought on the nuclear power fiasco

These are the people who brought us the SCE&G/Santee Cooper nuclear debacle http://www.thestate.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/cindi-ross-scoppe/article168891607.html, CINDI ROSS SCOPPE, Associate Editor, AUGUST 24, 2017 COLUMBIA, SC 

You want names? We’ve got names.

Names of the SC Public Service Commissioners, who have been acting on SCE&G’s rate requests and will decide how much more the utility can charge us for its unfinished nuclear reactors at the VC Summer nuclear facility.

Names of the commissioners who gave SCANA the initial go-ahead to start the project, back in 2008.

Names of SCANA’s management and board members.

Names of Santee Cooper’s management and board members.

 And a link to the names of legislators who approved the law that made it oh, so much easier for us to be charged already — and left holding the bag — for the failed project.

Public Service Commission

The links take you to contact and biographical information about them on the PSC website.

John E. “Butch” Howard, District 1*

Elliott F. Elam, Jr., District 2

Comer H. “Randy” Randall, Vice Chairman, District 3

Elizabeth B. “Lib” Fleming, District 4*

Swain E. Whitfield, Chairman District 5

Nikiya “Nikki” Hall, District 6

G. O’Neal Hamilton, District 7*

* Was serving on the commission in 2008, when the project was given its crucial, initial approval

PSC members in 2008, when the project was given initial approval

John E. “Butch” Howard, District 1, Charleston

David A. Wright, District 2, Columbia

Randy Mitchell, District 3, Saluda

Elizabeth B. “Lib” Fleming, District 4, Spartanburg

G. O’Neal Hamilton, chairman, District 5, Bennettsville

Mignon L. Clyburn, District 6, Charleston

C. Robert Moseley, vice chairman, at large, Irmo

SCANA Corp (parent of SCE&G)

Kevin Marsh, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Names and information about other corporate officers

Board of Directors

Gregory E. Aliff, Certified Public Accountant, Retired from Deloitte & Touche LLP, Reston, VA

James A. Bennett, South Carolina Central Area Executive, First Citizens Bank & Trust Company, Columbia, SC

John F.A.V. Cecil, President, Biltmore Farms, Asheville, NC

Sharon A. Decker, Chief Operating Officer, Tryon International Equestrian Center, Mill Spring, NC

D. Maybank Hagood, Chairman & CEO, Southern Diversified Distributors, Charleston, SC

Kevin B. Marsh, President & CEO, SCANA Corporation, Cayce, SC

Lynne M. Miller, Environmental Consultant, Great Falls, VA

James W. Roquemore, CEO and Chairman, Patten Seed Company, Orangeburg, SC

Alfredo Trujillo, President & COO, Georgia Tech Foundation, Atlanta, GA

Maceo K. Sloan, Chairman, President & CEO, Sloan Financial Group, Chairman & CEO, NCM Capital Management Group, Durham, NC

Santee Cooper

Lonnie N. Carter, President and Chief Executive Officer

Santee Cooper contact information

Names of other corporate officers

Board of Directors

W. Leighton Lord III, Chairman, Nexsen Pruet law firm, Columbia

William A. Finn, 1st Vice Chairman, chairman of AstenJohnson, a specialty textile company for the printing and papermaking industries based in Charleston

Barry Wynn, 2nd Vice Chairman, president of Colonial Trust Company, a private trust company specializing in investment management and estate services, Spartanburg

Kristofer Clark, broker with Easlan Capital and owner of Pristine Properties LLC., Easley

Merrell W. Floyd, retired staff coordinator at Horry Electric Cooperative, Conway

J. Calhoun Land IV, Land, Parker & Welch law firm, Manning

Stephen H. Mudge, co-founder, president and CEO of Serrus Capital Partners, a Greenville-based real estate investment firm

Peggy H. Pinnell, owner of the Peggy H. Pinnell Insurance Agency in Moncks Corner, a State Farm agency

Dan J. Ray, president of DR Capital Group, a Pawleys Island-based financial advisory and investment company

David F. Singleton, president of Singleton Properties, a real estate investment and sales firm, Myrtle Beach

Jack F. Wolfe Jr., past president and CEO of the Mid-Carolina Electric Cooperative in Lexington

Office of Regulatory Staff

Dukes Scott, executive director

You might also want to read these other pieces I’ve written

Here’s who voted to give SCE&G a blank check

How ‘waste not, want not’ became ‘spend more, profit more’

SCE&G nuclear fiasco: It’s complicated. Here are some explanations.

SCE&G law could cost you more than you imagine

This is what has to change after the SC nuclear meltdown

Ms. Scoppe writes editorials and columns for The State. Reach her at cscoppe@thestate.com or (803) 771-8571 or follow her on Twitter or like her on Facebook @CindiScoppe.

August 25, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Scott Pruitt has turned America’s Environment Protection Agency into a nerve-wracking mess

turning the agency into a hollow shell by whacking its budget, overturning rules based on bogus reports and keeping employees in the dark allows Pruitt and his allies to claim publicly that all they are doing is restricting the EPA to its original purpose, not demolishing it.

In fact, the damage that Pruitt is inflicting will take years to repair.

Scott Pruitt’s EPA Is Crazyland, Clean Technica , August 22nd, 2017 “…..By Meteor Blades     Coral Davenport and Eric Lipton at The New York Times report that Pruitt has injected a sense of paranoia at the agency, making career employees feel as if they are the enemy. Those staffers say floors at EPA HQ are frequently locked, and if they wish to see Pruitt, they must have an escort. They are often told to leave their cellphones behind and not to take notes in meetings with him:“Mr. Pruitt, according to the employees, who requested anonymity out of fear of losing their jobs, often makes important phone calls from other offices rather than use the phone in his office, and he is accompanied, even at E.P.A. headquarters, by armed guards, the first head of the agency to ever request round-the-clock security.

“A former Oklahoma attorney general who built his career suing the E.P.A., and whose LinkedIn profile still describes him as ‘a leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda,’ Mr. Pruitt has made it clear that he sees his mission to be dismantling the agency’s policies — and even portions of the institution itself.

 “But as he works to roll back regulations, close offices and eliminate staff at the agency charged with protecting the nation’s environment and public health, Mr. Pruitt is taking extraordinary measures to conceal his actions, according to interviews with more than 20 current and former agency employees.”…….

Among the examples of Pruitt’s moves to undermine the agency’s mission is what was done to the analysis of the Waters of the United States rule put in place during the Obama administration to expand EPA’s oversight of large bodies of water to the streams and rivers that feed them. This attempt to preserve wetlands and clean up polluted tributaries was widely attacked by farmers, real estate developers, and rightist ideologues.

Pruitt was determined to dump the rule. So he ordered a rewrite of a lengthy analysis that had shown that the rule’s economic benefits far outweighed its costs. The EPA’s staffers dutifully complied, and when their report emerged, more than half a billion dollars in benefits from the rule had been erased:

“Jeffrey Ruchs, the executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, an organization representing government employees in environmental fields, said the E.P.A. could not allow changes like this to take place, or expect its employees to follow such directives.

“‘This is a huge change, and they made it over a few days, with almost no record, no documentation,’ Mr. Ruchs said, adding, ‘It wasn’t so much cooking the books, it was throwing out the books.’ […]

“’The mere fact they are telling people not to write things down shows they are trying to keep things hidden,’ said Jeffrey Lubbers, a professor of administrative law at American University.”

The secrecy extends to the most mundane matters. Unlike previous agency administrators, he doesn’t post his schedule and makes it difficult for top staffers to even know where he is traveling on government business……

turning the agency into a hollow shell by whacking its budget, overturning rules based on bogus reports and keeping employees in the dark allows Pruitt and his allies to claim publicly that all they are doing is restricting the EPA to its original purpose, not demolishing it.

In fact, the damage that Pruitt is inflicting will take years to repair. https://cleantechnica.com/2017/08/22/scott-pruitts-epa-crazyland/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

August 23, 2017 Posted by | employment, environment, politics, USA | 2 Comments

Before bailing out Three Mile Island – some facts to consider

 The real numbers behind Three Mile Island http://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/opinion/2017/08/22/oped-real-numbers-behind-three-mile-island/585291001/, Eric Epstein, Three Mile Island Alert, Inc. Aug. 22, 2017 Exelon has been targeting the media, elected officials and the public with doomsday predictions regarding the closure of Three Mile Island Unit-1.

Their numbers are misleading, don’t add up and fail to account for the $ 1.1 billion rate-payers were charged to build Three Mile Island, the $987 million rate-payers and taxpayers were billed to defuel TMI-2 and the $5.26 billion in stranded costs Exelon collected from rate-payers to bailout their nuclear fleet as a result of deregulation.

When considering more bailout money for Three Mile Island, please remember the following numbers:

  • Zero: The amount of taxes paid by TMI-2 annually.
  • Two: Number of unguarded entrances to TMI.
  • Five: Number of counties within 10 miles of Three Mile Island. The NRC does not require emergency planning for the cites of Harrisburg, Lancaster, Lebanon or York.
  • Seven: Number of lobbying firms Exelon hired in Pennsylvania (2016) to convince legislators to support another bailout.
  • 10 percent: Exelon announced it would eliminate about 1,900 positions — 10 percent of its workforce — by 2006 as part of its restructuring. Exelon cut 1,200 additional positions in 2004 and another 700 in 2006.
  • 30 metric tons: Amount of high-level radioactive waste generated annually and stored onsite.
  • 90: Number of days TMI-2 operated before the meltdown.
  • 200+: Number of job losses at TMI-1 since Exelon bought TMI in 1999.
  • 520: The “Top 50” list published by the Patriot News on July 2, 2006, reported Exelon’s staffing numbers were 520.
  • 525: Number of jobs at Exelon reported to the NRC in their license renewal application for Three Mile Island.
  • 600 tons: Amount of of additional high-level radioactive garbage TMI-1 will produce from 2014 to 2034.
  • 804: Numbers of employees working at TMI in 1998.
  • 1999: The Better Business Bureau determined, “The process currently used to produce at least some, if not most, of the uranium-enriched fuels that are necessary to power nuclear energy plants emits substantial amounts of environmentally harmful greenhouse gases.” (May 13, 1999).
  • 2,000: Exelon Vice President and CFO, Robert Shappard, speaking in New York to the Deutsche Bank energy conference on June 22, 2004, boasted that Exelon “can cut 2,000 heads from our head count by the year 2006.”
  • $11,843: The amount of money Exelon spent to provide “gifts, hospitality, transportation and lodging for state officials” in Pennsylvania in 2016. (Source: “The Caucus,” March 21, 2017).
  • 69,468: Number of clean-energy jobs in Pennsylvania as of 2016. Lancaster and York combined for 4,684 energy efficiency and renewable-energy jobs. (Environmental Entrepreneurs).
  • $490,207: The amount Exelon spent to lobby candidates in Pennsylvania in 2016.
  • $1,111,840: The amount the Exelon PAC spent to fund candidates in Pennsylvania in 2016.
  • 2.3 million gallons: Amount of accident-generated, radioactive water TMI evaporated directly into the atmosphere.
  • $4.6 billion: Rate-payers spent $1.1 billion to build Unit-1 and Unit-2. Taxpayers and rate-payers were charged almost $1 billion to remove damaged fuel from TMI-2. The cost to decontaminate and decommission both reactors is more than $2.5 billion. These costs are not factored in another bailout.

 — Eric Epstein is chairman of TMI-Alert, Inc., a “safe-energy organization” based in Harrisburg, Pa. and founded in 1977. It monitors Peach Bottom, Susquehanna, and Three Mile Island nuclear generating stations. Online at www.tmia.com.

August 23, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Santee Cooper: Offers to Revive Summer Nuclear Expansion Not Viable

 http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2017/08/santee-cooper-offers-to-revive-summer-nuclear-expansion-not-viable.html, Aug 22, 2017   Editors of Power Engineering

Two companies have offered to buy into the currently-abandoned Summer nuclear expansion, though Santee Cooper CEO Lonnie Carter said neither are viable.

Carter said neither of the parties that made an offer has the assets to undertake the massive and expensive project. In fact, one company is “somehow trying to get into the nuclear business in this country so it can actually build power plants in the Mideast,” The Post and Courierreported. He did not identify the companies.

Santee Cooper has set a September 15 deadline for potential buyers.

The offers came after Carter sent a letter seeking buyers for its 45 percent share in the plant to dozens of power companies earlier this month. SCANA Corp. owns the remaining 55 percent.

Estimates from both companies indicated the final cost of the two new nuclear reactors would be $21 billion, or nearly double the original estimate.

Additionally, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster has initiated his own search for a buyer, and has reached out to officials at Duke Energy, Dominion Energy and Southern Power.

August 23, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

America’s nuclear lobby waking up to the industry’s monumental failure?

Nuclear’s Fork in the Road Atomic Insights, August 19, 2017 By Jim Little
Would you be willing to continue investing in an established business with flat revenues, increasing costs while competing against an agile field of competitors who enjoy a market advantage of lower costs, quicker deployment schedules and the support of government subsidies and favorable public opinion? Should you stay the course and focus on addressing those challenges or divest? This is the stark choice facing the nuclear power industry today……

Will nuclear generation continue or decline? Will the nuclear industry turn its attention away from new plant builds and extended-life operation activities and rather focus on decommissioning as evidenced by the plethora of recent conferences focused on decommissioning as the new market opportunity?…..

With revenues remaining flat, cost increases are significantly squeezing the profit margins of these operations. The financial outlook for nuclear utilities is bleak in an investment environment which rewards growth in revenues and profits. A number of utilities with nuclear units in merchant markets have recently announced decisions to decommission those units which are no longer able to sustain profitability. Utilities with units in regulated markets are likewise feeling similar financial pressures.

This situation was recently described to me by one nuclear utility executive: “From a shareholder perspective, how can I justify a recommendation to continue to invest in a facility when facing a forecast of declining returns while there may be other more profitable uses of capital?” So, should the default decision be to retire that unit and fund those efforts through its decommissioning fund; i.e. a “Nuclear 401(k)”?There are no easy choices. While the logic may seem straightforward, abandoning even a single unit could have cascading effects and far reaching implications. This same executive explained his concerns further: “How does one retain and attract talent going forward when there is a signal that nuclear may not enjoy full support going forward?” The inability to offset talent loss due to retirements in the workforce can affect performance on the remaining operations, increase costs, and further accelerate the departure away from nuclear. With a downturn in the industry there are other outcomes such as the reluctance of students to enter the nuclear field, university decisions to pursue other programs of study, research budgets reduced and grant applications no longer being sought. There are a number of other issues; the loss of existing, stable baseload generation and economic impacts such as those being experienced in host communities such as Zion, Illinois, and Vernon, Vermont. From a national policy perspective, it directly impacts the largest source of carbon-free generation in the United States, currently 63% of the nation’s total carbon-free generation.

Lastly, for the industry, the departure from nuclear is likely irreversible once made in the U.S. as the current talent and knowledge base is the result of over 50 years of investment and development. The situation may best be described by Stephen Wright, a comedian who is a master of the art of irony: “I live in a house halfway down a dead end street. It’s one way.”……..https://atomicinsights.com/nuclears-fork-road/

August 21, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

SCE&G customers ripped off in SCANA nuclear power boondoggle

The State 19th Aug 2017, SCE&G customers have already paid $1.4 billion for the SCANA nuclear power
plants boondoggle. That comes out to an average of $2,000 paid by each of
the 700,000 customers from the nine rate hikes to date.

With $27 of the average person’s power bill going to the now-abandoned project, if SCE&G
does not change this rate, that will cost the average customer an
additional $19,440 over the next 60 years — giving SCE&G a total of $13.6
billion to recover the balance of $4.9 billion it spent on the failed
project.

For the total of $21,440 that customers would pay on average for
this abandoned project, they could have purchased solar panels, thereby
reducing power consumption and obviating a need for increased generating
capacity while lowering their utility bills considerably.  http://www.thestate.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article167996422.html

August 21, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Despite the financial fiasco, nuclear executives busily planning for more bonuses

Even after nuclear catastrophe, SCANA execs eye bonuses, Post and Courier, BY STEVE BAILEY, 20Aug 17

So with consumers yelling for heads to roll, what is South Carolina Electric & Gas planning next? The largest stock buyback in the company’s history, which will help shareholders and bolster executive bonuses.   Kevin Marsh, chief executive officer of SCANA Corp., SCE&G’s parent company, has told us that he is “deeply disappointed and sorry” the utility has decided to abandon two nuclear reactors after spending $9 billion with its partner, state-owned Santee Cooper. The company says it wants to use its share of a $2.2 billion settlement with its bankrupt contractor’s parent to avoid more rate increases….
But SCANA has said almost nothing about its plan for a big stock buyback that will be important to growth in its earning per share. And earnings per share, or EPS, will be important to Marsh and about 250 other managers if they are to keep those bonuses coming……

At the end of June, SCANA had only $91 million in cash, company reports show. Thus, the utility must generate more than $1.1 billion in excess cash over five years to complete the buyback. This cash would be generated on the backs of customers, or ratepayers, and will reward shareholders without providing any rate relief.

The buyout needs no regulatory approval, unlike the $4.9 billion SCANA is seeking to recoup for the failed reactors.

Under SCANA’s plan, ratepayers will be paying for others’ mistakes for 60 years, but earnings will be unaffected, Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Addison told the analysts. ….

critics say buybacks promote short-term thinking over long-term investment in the business. Executives use buybacks to increase stock prices and boost their pay, they say.

“Combined with pressure from Wall Street, stock-based incentives make senior executives extremely motivated to do buybacks on a colossal and systemic scale,” William Lazonick, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, wrote in a ground-breaking Harvard Business Review article, “Profits Without Prosperity,” in 2014

Take SCANA. According to the company’s proxy statement, half of executives’ incentive pay is based on earnings per share. In 2016, for instance, Marsh and his top executives got 130 percent of their bonuses pegged to EPS because the company exceeded its target by 16 cents a share. They also got 100 percent of their bonuses tied to their personal goals, including “oversight” of the Fairfield reactors.

This is not a joke — it is right there in black and white…..

The cost of the V.C. Summer reactors has doubled, and construction is years behind schedule. Executives typically get fired for this kind of stuff, not bonuses.

But Marsh still has his job because he has protected his bosses — the shareholders — from the costs of the company’s mistakes and shifted them to customers.

He has gotten paid handsomely for the job he has done — and the buyback will help keep the good times rolling.http://www.postandcourier.com/opinion/commentary/even-after-nuclear-catastrophe-scana-execs-eye-bonuses/article_59d69b5a-8449-11e7-b1c0-f3ce1d623067.html

August 21, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, USA | 2 Comments

V. C. Summer former nuclear workers filing lawsuits against nuclear plant employers

Attorneys filing lawsuits against nuclear plant employers, http://wach.com/news/local/attorneys-filing-lawsuits-against-nuclear-plant-employers, by Michelle Zhu, 18 Aug 17, 

It’s been three weeks since the V. C. Summer nuclear plant shutdown and former workers are seeking legal action. A New York-based employment firm is responding and investigating. A federal law was violated and they’re using that as a their claim to get legal justice.

It’s called the WARN Act, which stands for Worker Adjustment Retraining Notification. It requires employers of more than 100 workers to provide 60 day advance notice of mass layoffs. In response, Attorney Jack Raisner and his partners filed lawsuits against both Westinghouse and SCANA at the beginning of August.

At this point, complaints have been filed and the Outten and Golden firm is waiting for an answer. Attorney Raisner says they can’t guarantee an outcome but they feel confident something will come out of the case. If the plaintiffs win, all employees will receive up to eight weeks of lost pay, plus benefits. The process could take as little as a few months or up to several years.

August 19, 2017 Posted by | employment, Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Inquiry into Millstone nuclear station’s financial situation

Inquiry opens into fiscal condition of Millstone nuclear station, The ct mirror, By: MARK PAZNIOKAS | August 17, 2017 “….. Dominion was non-committal Thursday about whether it will provide the financial data sought by two state agencies tasked by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy with assessing by Feb. 1 whether the state needs to change the rules for how electricity is bought and sold to ensure the financial viability of Millstone.

Dominion offered no testimony Thursday as the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority formally opened the assessment with a public hearing in Hartford, the first of several public sessions. Several of its competitors urged the two agencies to grant no relief unless Dominion proves its case…..

At issue is how much longer Millstone will remain profitable. Dominion disputes portions of the MIT study, as well as an assessment prepared in April for the Electric Power Supply Association that concluded the plant is profitable and will remain so for five years…….

Dominion and its opponents, both competitors and consumer advocates like AARP, spent heavily on lobbying during the legislative session to resolve the issue politically. Tom Swan of the Connecticut Citizen Action Group said Dominion hardly was eschewing politics.

“They’re looking to change the rules for them to get a special deal without the expectaton of being treated as a regulated utility, where their return is based on a cost of service,” Swan said during the hearing. “It is unfathomable to me that we would consider doing this.”https://ctmirror.org/2017/08/17/inquiry-opens-into-fiscal-condition-of-millstone-nuclear-station/

August 19, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Escalating dispute at the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in Cumbria

18 Aug 17, The dispute at the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in Cumbria has
escalated amid claims workplace meetings to discuss a 1.5% have been banned
by bosses. The union Unite, which is preparing to ballot its 2,000 members
for industrial over the offer which it says is “completely
unacceptable”, has hit out at the management move.
http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwest/news/2008261-union-hits-sellafield-workplace-meetings-%E2%80%98ban%E2%80%99

August 19, 2017 Posted by | employment, UK | Leave a comment

Thorium nuclear reactors? a very risky enterprise for Utah

crucially the technology, regulation, and business structures necessary to support a thorium reactor may not yet exist.

A coalition of South Carolina utilities developing what would have been the nation’s first new commercial nuclear reactor recently announced a decision to suspend that project partway through construction, following years of delay, billions of dollars in cost overruns. 

While a thorium reactor might avoid some of these challenges, others are likely systemic to the state of the nuclear power industry from a technological, regulatory, and business perspective, and would be hard for the counties to avoid. The counties may also have more proximate opportunities to achieve similar goals, including by facilitating or developing renewable energy infrastructure.

Will Utah counties fund thorium reactor? JDSUPRA,  PretiFlaherty 17 Aug 17, Could a coalition of rural counties in Utah and a startup company develop a thorium-fueled nuclear reactor for electric power and other purposes?

According to its website, the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition is currently comprised of seven counties in eastern Utah: Carbon, Daggett, Duchesne, Emery, San Juan, Sevier, and Uintah.  The website describes the Coalition’s main roles and mission as “to identify revenue-producing infrastructure assets that will benefit the region” and “to plan infrastructure corridors, procure funding, permit, design, secure rights-of-way and own such facilities,” with operation and maintenance possibly outsourced to third parties.

Apparently under consideration by the Coalition are energy projects, including a “thorium energy” project and a “hydrogen plant” project.  For example, the “Procurement” section of the Coalition’s website includes a Request for Qualifications for Project Analyst for Potential Thorium Energy and Hydrogen Plant Projects, as well as a Request for Qualifications Project Financial Analyst on Potential Thorium Energy Project.

Under the Project Analyst RFQ, which closed August 1, 2017,

The Coalition seeks an individual or team to act as a Project Analyst to advise it and its member counties on two proposed projects, how to evaluate emerging technologies, and the respective project teams. One project is a thorium energy facility for producing electricity, etc. as proposed by Alpha Tech Research Corporation. The second project consists of hydrogen plants to be used as fueling stations for hydrogen/electric semi-trucks as proposed by Nikola Motor Company, LLC.

Responsibilities defined in this original RFQ would include evaluation of the thorium energy and hydrogen plant projects, including an evaluation of “the feasibility and viability of projects in general, as well as the proposed projects, and determine how the Coalition and its members may use their assets to best benefit the public.”

According to its website, Alpha Tech Research Corp.’s motto is “Changing the face of nuclear power with clean, safe, molten salt reactor technology.”  But little other public information is easy to find on the company.

………crucially the technology, regulation, and business structures necessary to support a thorium reactor may not yet exist.

Fifteen days after the Project Analyst RFQ closed, the Coalition issued another request for qualifications “to seek an individual or team to act as a Project Analyst to advise it and its member counties on a proposed project related to thorium energy. In addition, the Coalition seeks guidance on how to evaluate emerging technologies, and companies or groups proposing projects to the Coalition. The thorium energy facility for producing electricity, etc. is proposed by Alpha Tech Research Corporation.” Proposals under this subsequent RFQ are due by 2:00 PM on October 2, 2017.  According to the Salt Lake Tribune, a coalition representative reported, “The coalition’s initial request for qualifications drew no adequate responses by its Aug. 1 deadline.”  (Query why not.)

It’s unclear how far the Utah counties’ efforts can go.  The coalition’s stated criteria for evaluating potential projects include requiring appropriate project benefits (such as facilitating needs in rural Utah that would otherwise go unaddressed), as well as avoidance of any “fatal flaws” (such as “obvious non-Coalition sponsor that should take the lead”, project success unlikely” and “low perceived benefit compared to cost.”)  The coalition is presumably at the stage where it is seeking expert advice to help it evaluate the thorium energy project under these criteria.

In its materials, the coalition emphasizes its expectation to rely on public-private partnerships, in part to allocate project risk to private entities with special expertise in taking those risks.  But developing the first commercial thorium reactor inherently involves a variety of risks — including developing a technology that works, securing all necessary regulatory approvals, and having business or financial arrangements in place that make the project a success.  These risks could pan out in the counties’ favor — but might not.  A coalition of South Carolina utilities developing what would have been the nation’s first new commercial nuclear reactor recently announced a decision to suspend that project partway through construction, following years of delay, billions of dollars in cost overruns.  While a thorium reactor might avoid some of these challenges, others are likely systemic to the state of the nuclear power industry from a technological, regulatory, and business perspective, and would be hard for the counties to avoid. The counties may also have more proximate opportunities to achieve similar goals, including by facilitating or developing renewable energy infrastructure……http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/will-utah-counties-fund-thorium-reactor-26541/

August 18, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, technology, thorium, USA | Leave a comment

USA power utilities have a long history of abandoning nuclear projects

US POWER COMPANIES HAVE A HISTORY OF WALKING AWAY FROM NUCLEAR PROJECTS, Platts Snapshot. William Freebairn, senior managing editor, Platts Nuclear Publications, August 17, 2017  

After spending close to $10 billion, two South Carolina power companies recently walked away from a half-finished nuclear power plant they were building, and a decision is expected by the end of August about a Georgia project. William Freebairn explains how the story of the Summer project in South Carolina demonstrates the capital-intensive nature of nuclear energy and the substantial risks of cutting-edge nuclear plant design. Will the Vogtle project in Georgia join the ranks of abandoned projects in the US?……

SANTEE COOPER AND SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND GAS ABANDONED SUMMER EXPANSION ON JULY 31….

 
OWNERS OF VOGTLE PROJECT IN GEORGIA EXPECTED TO ANNOUNCE PROJECT DECISION BY END OF AUGUST
The owners of the Vogtle project in Georgia are expected to announce their decision by the end of August.

It’s certainly not the first time a partly – or even mostly – built nuclear plant was abandoned. In the 1970s, the Tennessee Valley Authority walked away from 11 nuclear reactors for which it had started construction; in fairness, it went back and finished one recently.

Dozens of plants were canceled as costs rose and financial problems mounted, forcing one company, the Washington Public Power Supply System to default on more than $2 billion in bonds and giving the company a new nickname: “whoops”!

The factors that forced all those nuclear plant cancellations in the 1980s may sound familiar to those building today’s plants. The Three Mile Island nuclear accident in 1979 created pressure for increased safety standards in the middle of construction for those plants, and Fukushima in 2011 did the same for today’s projects.

STARTING CONSTRUCTION BEFORE ENGINEERING IS COMPLETE AND UNDERESTIMATING WORK CAN BE BLOWS TO PROJECTS

Additionally, construction got started before engineering was completed. As with many large infrastructure projects, there was a tendency to underestimate the amount of work required to complete the installation of miles of pipes, cables and concrete.

Whoops indeed. https://www.platts.com/videos/2017/august/snapshot-us-nuclear-power-summer-vogtle-081717

August 18, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Jordan soon to be plunged into nuclear debt by Russia?

Jordan in talks with Russia on financing solutions for nuclear reactor 2017-08-17 AMMAN,   (Xinhua) — Jordan on Wednesday said talks were still ongoing with Russia to secure the best financing solutions to build the country’s first nuclear power plant.

The Jordan Atomic Energy Commission said in a statement that the two countries were still committed to the project to build a nuclear power plant in Jordan with two reactors each having a capacity of 1,000 megawatts.

Russia’s Rosatom, the state atomic energy corporation, has been keen on implementing the project since its inception and is involved in the project with all its technical and financial aspects, the commission said, quoted by the Jordan Times.

The commission’s statement came following some local reports claiming that the Russian company was looking into withdrawing from the project and it has already submitted a request to Jordan in this regard…….

Jordan will secure 1.5 billion U.S. dollars and Russia will do the same for building the plant, which is estimated to cost 10 billion dollars. The rest will be financed by banks and funds.

In March 2015, Jordan signed an inter-governmental agreement with Russia to build and operate the nuclear power plant. Russia’s Rosatom will own 49 percent of the project. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-08/17/c_136531761.htm

August 18, 2017 Posted by | Jordan, marketing, Russia | Leave a comment

Florida ratepayers could be up for $millions for two nuclear reactors that may never be built.

FPL nuclear project uncertain, but charges could grow by $90 million, Susan Salisbury,  Palm Beach Post Staff Writer, Aug. 16, 2017 Florida Power & Light Co. ratepayers must wait two months before finding out if they will be required to pay many millions of dollars for costs associated with two nuclear reactors that may never be built.

The utility, Florida’s largest, says it has spent roughly $315 million towards two prospective nuclear reactor and in the next five years, those costs could grow by another $90 million, an FPL official told the Florida Public Service Commission Wednesday.

WHAT DOES FPL PLAN TO DO WITH WASTEWATER FROM THE REACTORS?

FPL is asking the PSC to allow it to continue spending millions of dollars towards obtaining an operating license from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission without submitting an updated report on whether the project still makes economic sense for customers.

READ WHAT FPL TOLD THE REGULATORS ABOUT TURKEY POINT IN 2016

Through the end of 2016, customers have paid close to $282 million in costs associated with the two reactors that could cost as much as $21.87 billion.

The second day of the hearing concluded Wednesday. The commission is scheduled to make a decision on the issue Oct. 17.

On Wednesday, FPL accounting project manager Jennifer Grant-Keene testified that of the additional $90 million in costs projected to be incurred through 2021, half of that, or $45 million, would consist of carrying costs. About half of those interest charges will go to shareholder profits.

Attorneys for the Florida Public Counsel, which represents all ratepayers, the Florida Industrial Power Users Group, the Florida Retail Federation and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy urged the commission to reject FPL’s request for an exemption from the required annual financial analysis.

The project’s future is questionable, the groups said, especially since the Westinghouse AP-1000 reactors that would be used are the same type as those in a failed South Carolina nuclear expansion, Westinghouse filed for bankruptcy in March.

If FPL decides to move forward with the project, the proposed reactors, known as Turkey Point 6 and 7, would join two existing nuclear units at the company’s plant overlooking Biscayne Bay south of Miami. FPL project manager Steve Scroggs testified Tuesday that the license will probably be granted by early 2018.

Florida law and PSC rules allow recovery of costs associated with pre-licensing and pre-construction of nuclear plants before they are put into service, but require an annual economic analysis. FPL has not submitted such a report since 2015. FPL has stated it wants to pause the project, perhaps for five years or more after receiving the license. It would make the decision later whether to build the plant and return to the commission then to ask for more money from customers……. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/business/fpl-nuclear-project-uncertain-but-charges-could-grow-million/4tdjsYeT2eTxxid40sYRCK/

August 18, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »