nuclear-news

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

France’s EDF nuclear company is in a complicated mess – time for government action?

11 June 17, Alternatives Economiques, [Machine Translation] Who decides on the energy policy of France,especially for electricity?  The president of EDF, the minister of ecological and solidarity transition, in charge of energy, or the tenant of Bercy?  Perpetual  question that sends a lot of ink and weakens EDF, torn between conflicting interests.

It is time for the government to address the problems ofthe 83% -owned state, which is currently heavily indebted and whose financial situation is worrying.

On 6 April, EDF presented a strategic plan for its future investments as part of its Board of Directors’ plan of multiannual energy programming (PPE) 1 published at the end of October. On April 21, Ségolène Royal wrote to Jean-Bernard Levy, CEO of the EDF group, asking him to review his copy because “the actions foreseen by EDF do not make it possible to respect the objectives of diversification of electricity production set in the PPE “.

Among the points raised by the former minister, the absence of measures or means to prepare the closure of nuclear power plants, such as Fessenheim or coal.

Stopping a power station is not very complicated. Nuclear power stations are shut down regularly in France for maintenance or incidents. On the other hand, preparing the retraining of employees, developing new activities at the level of employment areas, organizing training courses for new trades … all this takes time.

EDF’s strategic plan, silent on these aspects, reveals the company’s will: to drag things out as much as possible. Moreover, it is rumored that EDF would have established a plan to reduce the share of nuclear energy to 50% in the energy mix by 2050 and not 2025 as foreseen in the energy transition law. EDF, but is not in any case in a hurry to revise its
strategic plan transmitted to the State. Why can not the state, which guarantees the implementation of the objectives of the Energy Transition Act, be heard?

For that, it would have to speak with one voice. And that is far from the case. For the shareholder state also has its interests in the matter. According to the Court of Auditors, it received a total of 11.3 billion euros of dividends between 2011 and 2016, an amount that the sages of the rue Cambon consider as exorbitant compared to the usual practices.

This financial interest has up to now pushed the State to support the nuclear sector and to defend the prolongation of the lifetime of power stations already depreciated, according to a short-term vision, which hampers investment in renewable energy energy savings.

But now, things are complicated for EDF, with a drop in its turnover and its production of electricity of nuclear origin. Moreover, very heavy investments are emerging: 55 billion euros in 10 years for the large fairing (upgrading of nuclear reactors), 15 to 20 billion euros for the two British EPRs of Hinkley Point, etc. https://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/anne-bringault/energie-edf-va-t-reviser-plan-strategique/00079236

June 12, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, France, politics | Leave a comment

Hitachi getting out of its financial risks in construction of new Nuclear Power Plant at Wylfa

Hitachi scrambles to divest UK nuclear risks after Toshiba fiasco.
Nikkei Asian Review 9th June 2017 Hitachi will curtail its financial risk in the construction of two nuclear power plants in the U.K. by divesting itself of the local subsidiary that will build and operate them, the Japanese conglomerate announced Thursday.

The news came at an event held here to draw partners to invest in Horizon Nuclear Power, which Hitachi acquired in 2012 as a wholly owned subsidiary. If Hitachi fails to do so before construction starts in 2019, forcing it to bear practically all the financial risk of the project, it will suspend its plans for the 2 trillion yen ($18.1 billion) project.

Hitachi is proceeding cautiously with its own nuclear energy business studying Toshiba’s troubles in the U.S. with Westinghouse Electric. Hitachi now is appealing to energy companies and others to invest in Horizon so it can turn the company into an unconsolidated subsidiary and is prepared to reduce its stake to as low as zero. Operation of the power plants would be entrusted to Horizon.   http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Hitachi-scrambles-to-divest-UK-nuclear-risks-after-Toshiba-fiasco

June 12, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, Japan, UK | Leave a comment

South Carolina electricity customers must pay up for nuclear reactors, whether or not they are actually built

With $8.6 billion spent, fate of South Carolina nuclear reactors still unknown, Post and Courier, By Andrew Brown abrown@postandcourier.com Jun 11, 2017  COLUMBIA — If two of the Palmetto State’s largest utilities pull the plug on their nuclear power plant expansion, around half of all South Carolinians could be on the hook for $8.6 billion to pay for a project that might never produce a single kilowatt of electricity.

It’s possible that bankruptcy proceeds, corporate payments and sales of the nuclear reactor components would help defray some of the costs to ratepayers if work stops on the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station in Fairfield County.

It’s just as possible the partnering utilities — publicly operated Santee Cooper and investor-owned South Carolina Electric & Gas​ — could decide as early as this month to continue work on the two new reactors, which have been plagued with cost overruns, construction delays and the bankruptcy of the project’s lead contractor.

In the end, the power companies can lean on their customers to recover the costs of the nuclear reactors no matter what they decide. For SCE&G, a 2007 law passed by South Carolina lawmakers allows the Cayce-based utility to collect a 10 percent profit for investors, even if the V.C. Summer project is scrapped.

“We are stuck to a great degree. The public is in a very bad position here,” said Lynn Teague, vice president of the League of Women Voters of South Carolina, who has followed the project. “It’s a rotten situation for the ratepayers.”

SCE&G and Santee Cooper already have sunk $8.6 billion into the project — more than half of the expected $14 billion needed to finish the reactors. The new power sources would serve around 1.6 million homes and businesses across South Carolina’s 46 counties.

The utilities have already collected nearly $2 billion from electric customers since the project received approval in 2008, but all of that money has gone to covering finance costs and not to the concrete, steel and manpower used to build the reactors.

The average residential electric bill for a SCE&G customer has risen by $324 a year to pay for the ambitious energy project that was pitched as part of a new carbon-free age of nuclear power in the United States.

The power companies said they could announce by June 26 whether they would stop work all together or continue construction on one or both of the reactors.

The biggest threat to the project is Westinghouse, the primary contractor at the project north of Columbia in Jenkinsville. Westinghouse filed for bankruptcy protection at the end of March.

Officials with SCE&G and Santee Cooper say they are closely monitoring Westinghouse’s bankruptcy proceedings, where both are creditors to the failing company. ……

SCE&G is all but guaranteed to get the project covered by its electric customers because of legislation passed by the General Assembly at the request of the utility industry in 2007.

That law, known as the Base Rate Review Act, allowed SCE&G to start collecting money for construction costs while work was being completed instead of after the fact. SCE&G said that would save $1 billion for what started out as a $9.8 billion project that was scheduled to open in 2016.

But the law also helped shift almost all of the risk for the endeavor off SCE&G’s parent and its shareholders and onto the electricity customers.

The only way that SCE&G will eat any of costs of the project now is if state regulators find the utility failed to, as law says, “anticipate or avoid the allegedly imprudent costs” based on the information available at the time. …….. http://www.postandcourier.com/business/with-billion-spent-fate-of-south-carolina-nuclear-reactors-still/article_b5ea0a00-4d1a-11e7-9e76-fb2e0630d446.html

June 12, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Georgia’s half-built nuclear power station – Toshiba to the rescue?

Toshiba rescues half-built Georgia nuclear plant, CNN Money , 11 June 17, Toshiba’s bankrupt nuclear unit left an uncertain future for two half-finished nuclear reactors in Georgia — but the company promised Saturday it will pour up to $3.68 billion into the project to finish it.The Tokyo-based company will pay out the billions to Georgia Power, a subsidiary of Southern Company, in installments between this coming October and January 2021.

 Southern Company said the deal will hand over management of the project from Toshiba’s(TOSYY) nuclear unit, Westinghouse, to Southern Company. Westinghouse filed for bankruptcy in March…….

Toshiba’s Westinghouse will still be involved with the project by way of lending engineering, licensing support, and the intellectual property rights needed for the project to Southern Company, the company said in a statement.

Toshiba’s nuclear construction efforts are at the heart of its current financial woes. Westinghouse was crippled by massive losses because the costs of its nuclear projects in the U.S. winded up “far surpassing estimates.”

Though Toshiba is known for making a vast array of product — from IT equipment to TVs and laptops — the nuclear program has dented profits so badly that the company said in April it has “substantial doubt” about its ability to stay in business.

Toshiba’s Westinghouse is also midway building two nuclear reactors in South Carolina, and the fate of that project still hangs in the balance. Toshiba said Saturday it’s “still in negotiations” with the project’s owners……http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/10/news/companies/toshiba-nuclear-plant-georgia-southern-co/index.html

June 12, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

American corporations hope to use Indian insurance companies, for nuclear build in India

GE, Westinghouse keen to take nuclear insurance from Rs 1,500-crore pool BY SHILPY SINHA, ET BUREAU JUN 12, 2017 MUMBAI:After years of stonewalling, India is poised to open up its nuclear liability cover to equipment suppliers, with GE and Westinghouse showing interest in taking insurance from the pool.

“We are seeing interest from global nuclear suppliers to buy the policy to cover their liabilities,” said Alice Vaidyan, chairman and managing director, General Insurance Corporation of India. 

The move to cover suppliers has long been hanging fire. he Rs 1,500-crore nuclear insurance pool — put in place by the department of atomic energy in June 2015 and set up by GIC and other insurance companies- provides insurance coverage to operators and suppliers for any nuclear liability towards the third party under the Civil Liability of Nuclear Damage Act, ……

GIC has put in the bulk of the capacity, followed by New India Assurance, which administers the policy. New India Assurance Company issued a policy to National Power Corporation of India and covers all its plants for liability to the public in the event of accidents specified in the policy.
With the law not permitting inspection of Indian nuclear reactors by foreign reinsurers, the responsibility of building the company lies with domestic reinsurers. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/power/ge-westinghouse-keen-to-take-nuclear-insurance-from-rs-1500-crore-pool/articleshow/59100006.cms

June 12, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, India, USA | Leave a comment

New nuclear power station for Virginia? Clean Technica examines the financial realities

No, Virginia, There Is No Nuclear Santa Claus https://cleantechnica.com/2017/06/09/no-virginia-no-nuclear-santa-claus/June 9th, 2017 by Michael Barnard  Virginia is about to receive approval for the most expensive nuclear reactor ever built in the USA. It’s been a 10-year hunt with reactor technologies changing at least twice to add a third unit to the North Anna nuclear generation plant. But they are closing in on regulatory approval.

How much would its electricity cost if it actually goes forward?

Nuclear math is hard. That’s not the math behind nuclear physics, by the way. That’s actually straightforward compared to the financial black arts accounting that occurs with nuclear plants. A tremendous amount of the costs are typically swept under the rug as overruns occur and governments and utilities try to save face. Ontario, as one example, is on its 30th year and 4th administration of pushing its nuclear debt down the road to future politicians and taxpayers.

But let’s pretend the numbers will be relatively transparent and do some simple math.

Let’s make a few assumptions:

    • Capital costs are $19 billion USD as per the economic analysis cited.
    • The $600 million USD already spent as per the reference is included in the cost of electricity.
    • Capacity is 1.6 GW as per the reference, which is higher than the 1.52 GW originally specified in 2007 when this process started.
    • Capacity factor on most years of operation would be 90%, but 60% for the first year of operation and after refurbishment. Obviously, it would be 0% during construction and during the two years of refurbishment.
    • Operational costs are 5% to 10% of capital costs per year. That would be $0.95 billion to $1.9 billion per year.
    • At 20 years of operation, the reactor would be refurbished, taking two years and costing $5 billion, approximately 25% of original capital outlay.
    • It would take 8 years of actual construction and be on time and on budget.
    • Lifespan of the reactor before decommissioning would be 40 years.

Let’s see what the numbers tell us for 5% operating costs for the cost of electricity per MWh: Continue reading →

June 10, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Workers at £18bn Hinkley C nuclear project hope for higher bonuses, in new pay deal

Construction News 8th June 2017, Workers building the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant in Somerset can look forward to higher bonuses after the Unite union and the plant’s employers agreed a fresh pay deal for staff on the £18bn project.

STRIKES by workers building the new Hinkley Point nuclear power plant were“taken off the agenda” yesterday after an interim agreement over bonus pay. Unite had warned of strikes over bonuses, but the issue will now be considered by a panel made up of a union official and an EDF Energy executive.

As part of the agreement, interim bonuses will be paid until the end of August. Unite officer Jerry Swain said: “I am pleased that, following consultation with our stewards and members, we have been able to agree a clear path forward and that the prospect of industrial action, which is always a last resort, can be taken off the agenda in order to allow the panel to deliberate.   https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/10020594.article

June 10, 2017 Posted by | employment, UK | Leave a comment

New Nuclear in UK: Moorside & Wylfa 

No2NuClear No 96 June 2017 The future of Moorside has been thrown into doubt by the financial troubles of Japanese giant Toshiba which owns the company developing the scheme – Nugen. Nugen is undertaking a strategic review of its options following what it calls “vendor challenges”, (1) although the company says it is “110 per cent certain” it will be built. (2)
According to The Times Toshiba is seeking a buyer for NuGen, but bidders are scarce and the sale is fraught with complexity. The source of Toshiba’s malaise is the decision — a decade ago — to transform itself into a global force in nuclear energy. The acquisition of Westinghouse from state-owned British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) was done amid the feverish climate of the precredit crisis boom.
 Westinghouse has two contracts to install AP1000 reactors at existing nuclear power stations in Georgia and South Carolina, signed in 2008 — America’s first nuclear reactors in a generation. The plants are years late and an estimated $10bn (£7.7bn) over budget, with no certainty about completion. After Fukushima, Toshiba was forced to enhance safety procedures at the two plants, at vast expense. The Japanese giant has, in effect, been left on the hook for unlimited costs. It has booked $6.3bn of write-downs on the Westinghouse subsidiary — and has warned that there is now doubt over Toshiba’s status as a going concern.
Korean nuclear giant Kepco is the most likely suitor for NuGen, but wants to use its own reactors rather than Westinghouse’s AP1000 design. A sale of the American company would be highly contentious, given its strategic importance. If a buyer cannot be found, or bankruptcy does not sever the liabilities on the American projects, all the uncapped costs could stay with the Japanese company. “Toshiba could end up as just a holding company for Westinghouse,” said one industry source. That would be the nightmare scenario for its investors — and a hammer blow to Britain’s nuclear strategy. (3)
The Chinese state-owned State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation (SNPTC) is also reported to be considering investing in NuGen. Eight senior officials from SNPTC are said to have met executives from NuGen and Britain’s atomic power trade body, the Nuclear Industry Association in May. Sources said SNPTC could seek to power NuGen with its own reactor — a derivative of Westinghouse’s AP1000 model, which is planned for the site. (4)
 The National Grid has also hit the pause button on Moorside’s 102-mile power line connection. Plans for the “biggest new power line since electricity network was built” have been shelved. (5)
The GMB union has demanded that the government “stop faffing” and step in to save Moorside. GMB slammed the government for “continued dithering” following the latest in a series of setbacks. “How many kicks in the teeth for the desperately needed new nuclear plant at Moorside will it take to bring politicians of all colours to their senses?” asked GMB national secretary Justin Bowden. “Britain must have the reliable zero carbon nuclear power that Moorside will bring as part of the balanced energy mix, alongside renewables and gas.” (6)
 NuGen held a Stage 2 public consultation which finished at the end of July 2016, but now 10 months later, there has been no feedback report despite the fact that it was promised for No2NuclearPower nuClear news No.96, June 2017 24
 ‘Autumn 2016’. Nor has NuGen indicated that it will hold the further consultation called for by CORE, local authorities and others to make up for the lack of detailed information provided in the Stage 2 consultation documents. (7)
Meanwhile, Horizon Nuclear Power has published new plans for its nuclear power station at Wylfa Newydd, which it states should cut the labour force needed to build the 2.7GW plant. The company, which is owned by Hitachi, has proposed a more compact design in its latest blueprint for the site on the Isle of Anglesey, off the north Wales coast. (8)It has launched a third formal consultation on the latest proposals. (9) The power station’s footprint will be reduced by sharing more buildings between the twin reactors, including the facilities for transmitting the electricity generated at the site to the Grid. Off-site support buildings, including a garage and back-up control facilities, will be housed in a single location. Horizon is also investigating making greater use of off-site construction. http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo96.pdf

June 7, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear jobs in decline – renewable energy jobs rising fast – 13 times more jobs than in nuclear power.

No2Nuclear  No 96 June 2017 According to the Office for National Statistics the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) direct jobs in the nuclear industry had declined to 12,400 by 2015, but about 9,400 of these workers do not produce electricity at all. They are engaged mostly in legacy nuclear waste management.

In 2015 ONS reported that the number of FTE direct jobs in the renewable forms of electricity generation had increased to 48,900 – about 16 times the number of jobs in nuclear electricity generation. (2) In 2015, 338 TWh of electricity was produced in the UK (DECC data). This comprised 70 TWh from nuclear, 85TWh from renewables and the rest from fossil fuels. (3) That amounts to about 43 jobs per TWh for nuclear and about 575 jobs per TWh for renewables. So not only are renewables cheaper than nuclear, but they also create around 13 times more jobs than nuclear power.

Offshore wind is becoming a double win for policymakers, according to Ray Thompson, Head of Business Development at Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy. He says offshore wind is coming to represent a major challenge to competing technologies. The new Siemens blade manufacturing facility and project execution harbour in Hull which opened in December 2016 has already created 800 new jobs and the numbers on site will rise to over 1,000 when full production is reached. (4)

Renewable energy jobs could “offset” fossil-fuel job losses by 2030 according to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). Renewable Energy and Jobs – Annual Review 2017 presents the status of renewable energy employment, both by technology and in selected countries, over the past year. In this fourth edition, IRENA finds that renewable energy employed 9.8 million people around the world in 2016 – a 1.1% increase over 2015. Jobs in renewables, excluding large hydropower, increased by 2.8% to reach 8.3 million in 2016. China, No2NuclearPower nuClear news No.96, June 2017 8 Brazil, the United States, India, Japan and Germany accounted for most of the renewable energy jobs. The shift to Asia continued, with 62% of the global total located in the continent. (5) Nuclear Power and Jobs

A policy which promotes nuclear power significantly diminishes the prospects of creating new jobs in renewable energy industries – in establishing an offshore wind manufacturing base for instance.

Nuclear power is a capital intensive industry, which means it requires a much higher injection of money to produce its final product – it is not a very efficient way of creating jobs. If there were an alternative way of providing or saving the same amount of electricity, but at the same time creating more jobs, clearly that would be a strategy worth pursuing.

One way of comparing the number of jobs created by different energy sources is to calculate the number of jobs for each Terawatt hour (TWh–1 billion kilowatt hours) generated annually. This, of course, will depend on the performance of the generating station. So a new 1.6GW reactor employing 500 people which operates an average of 80% of the time will be providing 45 jobs per TWh. Goldemberg has estimated the number of jobs created per TWh of power generated and found that nuclear produces around 75 jobs per terawatt hour (TWh), whereas wind power produces 918 – 2,400 per TWh. Solar photovoltaics provides 29,580 – 107,000 jobs/TWh. (1) http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo96.pdf

June 7, 2017 Posted by | employment, renewable, UK | Leave a comment

Distress and disarray in the U.S. nuclear industry

Distress in the US nuclear industry, https://www.financierworldwide.com/distress-in-the-us-nuclear-industry#.WTSVQZKGPGh  BY Fraser Tennant June 2017  

Financier Worldwide Magazine A US nuclear industry in distress is a development likely to cause concern among even the hardiest – yet ‘distress’ does not quite do justice to the extent of the issues currently troubling the industry stateside.

The origin of this elevated distress is the plight of Westinghouse Electric Company (WEC), the Toshiba Corporation-owned US nuclear company which has been haemorrhaging billions of dollars due to severe difficulties with a number of key projects and, as a result, has now filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Indicative in many ways of the struggles facing the global nuclear industry, WEC’s indigenous operations – in the main, four nuclear plants under construction in Georgia and South Carolina – have been hit by massive cost overruns and delays of nearly four years, leaving the Japanese conglomerate with a forecasted annual loss of 1.01 trillion yen ($9.1bn).

Satoshi Tsunakawa, Toshiba’s chief executive, has stated there is no risk of additional losses from overseas nuclear projects (which includes the £10bn Moorside nuclear project in the UK, Europe’s largest planned nuclear power plant). “The filing by WEC is an important step toward recovery,” said Mr Tsunakawa. “It is also in-line with our goal of limiting risk from overseas nuclear operations.”

On the other hand, Dr Paul Dorfman, from University College London’s Energy Institute, concludes that Toshiba’s nuclear gamble with Westinghouse has been the cause of the nuclear company’s financial problems. “Both corporations are in dire straits and face a relatively dismal future without significant public and governmental financial input,” he says. “In this sense, the situation mirrors that of new nuclear worldwide – because of the sheer expense of nuclear construction, without huge public and government subsidy, new nuclear is being left behind by the renewable evolution.”

Irreversible dark age

Considered to be something of a coup at the time, the $5.4bn purchase of Pittsburgh-based WEC by Toshiba in 2006 was swiftly followed by deals to build four reactors in 2008 – the first US nuclear plants to be approved by regulators since the controversial Three Mile Island incident in 1979. Today, WEC’s major power plant problems, not to mention its bankruptcy filing, threaten to plunge the US nuclear industry into an irreversible dark age.

“The Westinghouse bankruptcy is a huge blow to the US nuclear industry,” says Steve Clemmer, director of energy research for the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) Climate and Energy Program. “After three decades of not building new nuclear plants in the US, only a handful of companies are left in the world with the expertise to build new reactors. Westinghouse is building all four reactors currently under construction in the US and the bankruptcy will make it much harder for power companies in Georgia and South Carolina to finish these projects and collect money Westinghouse owes them. It will also have reverberations across the nuclear supply chain, because Westinghouse is holding $508m in claims from its top 30 creditors.”

More renewable, less new nuclear

As one might expect, the huge losses being incurred by WEC/Toshiba is serving to prompt the exploration of renewable energy opportunities rather than the pursuit of new nuclear projects. “Westinghouse’s recent experience clearly shows that building new nuclear plants in the US is considerably more expensive than new natural gas, wind and solar projects,” says Mr Clemmer. “Increased energy efficiency in homes and businesses is also reducing electricity demand and the need for new power plants. Utilities in South Carolina have already raised consumer electricity rates by nearly 20 percent since 2009 to pay for the construction of the new reactors, even though they have not generated any electricity yet.”

Concurrently, and bolstering the case for a renewed focus on renewable energy opportunities, the cost of wind and solar projects installed in the US has fallen by more than two-thirds since 2009. Furthermore, over the same period, US wind and solar capacity has almost tripled, adding 86,000 megawatts of new capacity – a quantity equivalent to the electricity produced by more than 23 new nuclear reactors.

“The key problem with new nuclear is cost-effectiveness,” states Dr Dorfman. “Solar costs have fallen by 50 percent in the last five years, and now significant new offshore wind projects will be built in Germany without any subsidy. With these very significant drops in renewable costs, nuclear is simply not cost-effective.”

Making nuclear competitive

Across the globe, the outlook for the nuclear industry looks bleak in the near-term, with the construction of new reactors hindered by significant cost and time overruns, and a number of existing nuclear plants economically vulnerable due to historically low natural gas prices. “Over the long-term, if new nuclear plants are to play a role in achieving deep reductions in global warming emissions by 2050 under the Paris Agreement, policies that put a price on carbon and invest in research and development will likely be needed to make nuclear competitive,” concludes Mr Clemmer.

In the US, while bankruptcy proceedings continue, Toshiba and WEC have been working with the owners of the Georgia and South Carolina projects to develop arrangements for the continuation of construction during an interim period – an arrangement which, although keeping work at the sites going and preventing further distress, is likely to do little toward finding a comprehensive solution that can reinvigorate the prospects of new nuclear in the US in the long-term.

June 5, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Escalating costs for South Carolina’s nuclear reactor project

Once-secret records reveal pattern of costly mistakes at troubled nuclear project,  BY SAMMY FRETWELL  sfretwell@thestate.com  4 June 17 Since 2009, companies working to build twin nuclear reactors in Fairfield County have made nearly three dozen changes to the project that drove up costs by about $325 million, according to recently released records and a state agency tracking the work’s progress.

The amount is a fraction of the escalating costs of the $14 billion V.C. Summer expansion project, but documents released May 24 by state utility regulators provide insight into why some of the costs have risen at a time of increasing concern by ratepayers.

The $325 million worth of changes represents the costs of additional work that was not expected when Westinghouse Electric and South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. launched the project about eight years ago. Some of the changes were to improve training for those who would operate the new reactors, while others were for better equipment and construction upgrades, the documents show.

 Dukes Scott, director of the state Office of Regulatory Staff, said documents known as “change orders’’ – construction jargon for project changes – had previously been kept confidential. The state Public Service Commission last month ordered their release………….

SCE&G customers already have paid at least $1.4 billion for the reactor project. About 18 percent of a customer’s current bill goes toward the plant’s construction. Customers have been hit with nine rate hikes to finance the work, and critics predict efforts to raise rates further if the project continues…….http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article154261279.html

June 5, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

The high cost of Units 5, 6 at Kudankulam Nuclear power – most of it owed to Russia

Units 5, 6 at Kudankulam Nuclear power plant to cost Rs 50,000 crore: The New Indian Express,  NPCIL 2 June 17 ST. PETERSBURG: The construction of the fifth and sixth units of India’s largest nuclear power plant in Tamil Nadu will cost about Rs 50,000 crore with half of the amount being funded by Russia as loan.

The project will take seven years to start generating electricity, Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) Chairman and Managing Director S K Sharma told PTI here.

India and Russia yesterday signed an agreement for the two new reactors for the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant (KNPP) on the sidelines of the annual summit between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“The entire project will cost about Rs 50,000 crore. The first unit will be commissioned in 66 months and the second six months thereafter,” Sharma said.

Atomstroyexport, a unit of Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom, will build the reactors.

“The project will be funded in 70:30 debt-equity ratio (70 per cent debt, 30 per cent equity),” he said.

The Russian government will lend India USD 4.2 billion to help cover the construction cost……http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2017/jun/02/units-5-6-at-kudankulam-nuclear-power-plant-to-cost-rs-50000-crore-npcil-1612150.html

June 5, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, India, politics international | Leave a comment

Trump’s pullout from Paris climate accord is NOT a good sign for the nuclear industry

Trump Paris About-Face Likely To Hurt, Not Help Nuclear, Coal Sectors, Wamstead on Energy, 

June 1, 2017 President Trump, with his fossil fuel fantasists in tow, made it official Thursday, announcing that he would pull the United States from the Paris climate change accord in order to “make America great again.” ….The issue at hand is the decision’s likely negative impact on the U.S.’ already-battered nuclear and coal industries.
For years the nuclear industry has been making the case that it was vital to the country’s climate change mitigation efforts because of its emissions-free generation profile. While accounting for just 20 percent of the nation’s annual electric generation, the industry noted ad infinitum, it was responsible for 60 percent of the carbon dioxide-free emissions . In a carbon-constrained world, that would be a valuable attribute. But the Trump administration has now made it clear that it places no value on CO2-free generation sources.
That, in turn, could be a major problem for the industry, as the effort to secure nuclear subsidies—successful so far in Illinois and New York (although now tied up in court), still pending in Ohio, Connecticut and now Pennsylvania—has relied in large part on the sector’s glowing greenhouse gas attributes. In an interesting twist, just before the administration’s head-in-the-sand announcement, Chicago-based Exelon said it would close the 837-megawatt Three Mile Island nuclear reactor in late 2019 because the facility couldn’t compete in the PJM electricity market, which sprawls across 13 states and the District of Columbia. The company largely blamed the market’s structure, including its failure to reward the plant for its emissions-free generation, for its decision to shutter the plant…..
the argument falls apart when the federal government, from the very top on down, essentially says such generation has no special value, and that is exactly what the administration has just done. If nuclear can’t clear the market economically—and TMI has not for the past three years—and policymakers don’t value its one unique attribute—emissions-free power—how then can you make a persuasive argument to keep the facility open……
What Pennsylvania’s Republican-controlled legislature and Democratic governor will do remains to be seen, and there are good arguments to be made on both sides. But unless the state’s Republicans have the fortitude to stand up to President Trump and his toadies, nuclear’s environmental attributes no longer have any value.
The same is true for the surprisingly bipartisan efforts on Capitol Hill to expand tax credits and approve other measures designed to spur the development of carbon capture and storage technologies.  One such measure, the Carbon Capture Improvement Act introduced this spring in both the Senate and House, would allow companies to use private activity bonds issued by states or localities to finance carbon capture projects. These bonds, commonly used for infrastructure such as water and sewer projects, are tax exempt and have a longer repayment period, lowering a project’s development cost……
Today, we have an administration that doesn’t even believe in climate change, let alone carbon capture, so what value is there in offering federal support for such projects……..
The administration’s action undercuts those arguing to keep open the nation’s existing fleet of economically challenged but emissions-free nuclear plants; challenges the need for future nuclear construction (Why, for example, should the four over-budget, long-delayed reactors under construction in Georgia and South Carolina receive any preferential federal aid if climate change concerns are off the table?); and puts yet another nail in coal’s coffin by obliterating any justification to fund CO2 capture technologies. http://www.wamstedonenergy.com/2017/trump-paris-about-face-likely-to-hurt-not-help-nuclear-coal-sectors

June 5, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Cameco’s uranium business is NOT a promising investment

it is highly unlikely that its financial performance will improve drastically, making it an unappealing investment.

Don’t Try to Catch This Falling Knife   https://www.fool.ca/2017/06/01/dont-try-to-catch-this-falling-knife/  Matt Smith | June 1, 2017 The world?s second-largest uranium producer Cameco Corp. (TSX:CCO)(NYSE:CCJ) continues to suffer, posting a first-quarter 2017 net loss which dragged its stock lower; it’s almost 13% down for the year to date. This has attracted the usual bargain hunters who believe that Cameco is now an appealing, undervalued investment but this couldn?t be further from the truth.  

Now what?

Cameco?s woes can be directly attributed to the prolonged slump in uranium which has lasted for longer than a decade; prices fell to a 13-year low late last year. The embattled uranium miner posted a first-quarter adjusted net loss of $29 million. According to some analysts, wind power is now cheaper than nuclear power, while solar and geothermal electricity generation can have lower costs. These forms of power generation don’t produce highly toxic waste or the potential to create catastrophic environmental damage in the event of failure.

For these reasons, it is difficult to see a huge upswing in demand for uranium over coming years, especially with renewables technology advancing at a rapid rate. This means that Cameco may find itself in the position where it is producing a product that is suffering from a terminal decline in demand. Worse yet, uranium prices remain under pressure because of high global inventories and a growing supply which is expected to expand by over 40% to reach 80,383 tonnes by 2020.

 Now what?

Cameco’s woes can be directly attributed to the prolonged slump in uranium which has lasted for longer than a decade; prices fell to a 13-year low late last year. The embattled uranium miner posted a first-quarter adjusted net loss of $29 million, which was 3.5 times greater than the net loss reported for the same quarter in 2016 and that predicted by analysts.

A key reason for the massive net loss was the decision by Tokyo Electric Power Company, the operator of Japan’s disabled Fukushima nuclear plant, to terminate its contract with Cameco for the supply of 9.3 million pounds of uranium through to 2028. The contract was worth $1.3 billion in revenue.

Nonetheless, Cameco has pitched its hopes on a surge in demand for uranium as the 57 reactors currently under construction across the globe come online. While there won’t be an immediate ramp-up in demand, according to industry consultants, it will lead to cumulative uncovered requirements for uranium to total around 800 million pounds of the fissile material over the next nine years.

This may be a positive for company that has been battling significant headwinds for some time, but it does not necessarily guarantee a return to profitability.

You see, nuclear power has been falling into disfavour for some time, and this only gained momentum in the wake of the Fukushima disaster in 2011. While nuclear plants do not emit pollutants, there are the serious issues associated with the leakage of radiation and the disposal of fissile waste.

Radiation can have a catastrophic impact on the environment, animals, and humans. High-level nuclear waste such as a spent fuel assembly, according to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, produces 20 times the fatal dose of radiation for humans for 10 years after being removed from a reactor.

This makes the correct handling and storage of this waste essential, costly, and highly onerous.

The Fukushima disaster highlighted just how vulnerable nuclear plants can be to environmental catastrophes, although, fortunately, there was no leakage of fissile material or polluted water in that case.

However, these aren’t the only reasons for the growing unpopularity of nuclear power.

The cost of safer forms of renewable energy continues to fall.

According to some analysts, wind power is now cheaper than nuclear power, while solar and geothermal electricity generation can have lower costs. These forms of power generation don’t produce highly toxic waste or the potential to create catastrophic environmental damage in the event of failure.

For these reasons, it is difficult to see a huge upswing in demand for uranium over coming years, especially with renewables technology advancing at a rapid rate. This means that Cameco may find itself in the position where it is producing a product that is suffering from a terminal decline in demand. Worse yet, uranium prices remain under pressure because of high global inventories and a growing supply which is expected to expand by over 40% to reach 80,383 tonnes by 2020.

So what?

The loss of the Tokyo Electric Power Company contract is a major blow for Cameco, costing it around $1.3 billion in revenue in what is already a difficult operating environment. When considered with the growing unpopularity of nuclear power, the inexorable advance of renewable energy, and growing uranium supplies, it is difficult to see any significant bounce in the price of uranium occurring.

This makes difficult to see Cameco ever returning the halcyon days when uranium traded at US$67 per pound, meaning that it is highly unlikely that its financial performance will improve drastically, making it an unappealing investment.

June 5, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, Canada, Reference | Leave a comment

Some big business leaders abandoning Donald Trump

Paris climate deal: Donald Trump to lose Elon Musk, Disney boss from advisory council, ABC News, 2 June 17 Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk and Disney chief executive Bob Iger say they will leave President Donald Trump’s advisory councils after he confirmed the United States would withdraw from the Paris climate accord…..

While the move was welcomed by conservative groups and Republicans, several business leaders — including Mr Musk and Mr Iger, and the heads of companies including Google, Facebook Shell and Amazon — have spoken out against the decision.

“Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world,” Mr Musk said in a Twitter post. Mr Musk, who founded SpaceX and Tesla among other companies, had been a member of Mr Trump’s infrastructure council, manufacturing jobs council and his strategic and policy forum……

A couple of hours after Mr Musk’s announcement, Mr Iger also said he will be stepping down from the advisory council “as a matter of principle”.  Other business leaders, such as Google chief executive Sundar Pichai, Microsoft president Brad Smith and General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt have tweeted that they were “disappointed” with the decision.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg said stopping climate change is “something we can only do as a global community”.

Withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement is bad for the environment, bad for the economy, and it puts our children’s future at risk,” he wrote on Facebook.

Other global companies, including Intel, HP, Dell, Amazon and oil giant Shell have released statements expressing support for the Paris agreement.

“We believe that robust clean energy and climate policies can support American competitiveness, innovation, and job growth,” Amazon wrote on Twitter.

Meanwhile, the governors of three US states — New York, California and Washington — announced they would form a “United States Climate Alliance” to convene states “committed to upholding the Paris climate agreement”.

“If the President is going to be AWOL in this profoundly important human endeavour, then California and other states will step up,” a joint statement read…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-02/paris-climate-deal-donald-trump-to-lose-elon-musk-as-adviser/8582560

June 2, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, climate change, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »