Toshiba faces pressure to secure funding for UK nuclear project, Ft.com by: Andrew Ward and Jim Pickard in London, 22 Jan 17 Toshiba is facing pressure to secure investment from a South Korean energy group and the UK government to keep afloat a multibillion-pound British nuclear power project as the Japanese conglomerate struggles with mounting financial difficulties.
Korea Electric Power Corporation (Kepco) has been in talks for months to join the NuGen consortium planning a nuclear plant at Moorside in Cumbria alongside Toshiba and Engie of France. The need for new partners has been increased by huge writedowns on Toshiba’s nuclear business in the US, which has left the group scrambling to shore up its balance sheet. As well as Korean capital, Toshiba is angling for UK government investment in the Cumbrian project after Theresa May’s administration recently signalled its willingness to put public money into new nuclear plants. This would represent a reversal of longstanding UK policy not to expose taxpayers’ money to the heavy expense and high risks involved in building nuclear reactors.
A Whitehall official said it was “premature” to talk about government involvement in financing Moorside but several other people involved in the process or briefed on the matter said the option of public investment was on the table. But these people said a more immediate step to keep the scheme on track was the proposal for Toshiba to sell part of its 60 per cent stake in NuGen to Kepco, the utility majority-owned by the South Korean government. “Talks have been moving slowly but the financial difficulties facing Toshiba will hopefully focus minds on getting a deal done,” said one person close to the talks.
It emerged last month that the UK and Japanese governments were in talks about potential joint support for a new nuclear plant planned by Hitachi, another Japanese conglomerate, at Wylfa in Anglesey. One senior nuclear industry figure said these discussions also extended to potential government financing for Moorside. Shares in Toshiba have fallen by 44 per cent since the group warned last month that it would have to make writedowns of “several billion dollars” related to the $229m acquisition last year of Stone & Webster, the US nuclear construction company, by Toshiba’s US nuclear technology unit, Westinghouse……..
Public investment in new nuclear plants would be a striking illustration of Mrs May’s determination to intervene more heavily in industrial strategy, a policy she was expected to set out in a discussion paper on Monday. The UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said: “We are working closely with a number of developers on proposed new nuclear projects in the UK, as they develop their plans.”
https://www.ft.com/content/c0b01308-e0aa-11e6-8405-9e5580d6e5fb
January 23, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, Japan, politics, UK |
Leave a comment
Analysis – As nuclear loss grows, Toshiba needs chip investors, soon Reuters By Makiko Yamazaki and Kentaro Hamada 22 JAN 17 TOKYO
With mounting writedowns from its nuclear business, Japan’s Toshiba Corp (6502.T) is looking to sell part of its core semiconductors business, a world No.2 in the flash memory chips used in smartphones.
But its rush to plug a hole in its U.S. nuclear business that Japanese media now estimate at as much as $6 billion may complicate any asset sale.
Toshiba, which warned last month of multi-billion dollar charges for U.S. nuclear project cost overruns, wants to boost its capital base by the end of the financial year in March.
Failure to offset the nuclear hit could wipe out already thin shareholder equity and push the company into negative net worth – jeopardising its role in public infrastructure projects and its place on the Tokyo Stock Exchange’s ‘first section’, for larger companies.
Following a 2015 accounting scandal, the conglomerate is barred from raising fresh funding on equity markets. Selling assets, though, could help it win broader financial support from its main banks.
Toshiba could sell 20-30 percent of its chip business, according to media reports.
The business, worth more than $10 billion, is the world’s second largest after Samsung Electronics (005930.KS) in flash memory chips – and it’s Toshiba’s most profitable.
Operating profit is forecast at 130 billion yen (913.35 million pounds) for the year to end-March, accounting for the bulk of overall group profit, forecast at 180 billion yen. Those forecasts were made before its December warning of the U.S. nuclear charges.
People with knowledge of the matter said Toshiba has begun preparations to sell a minority stake in its chip business. One person said non-disclosure agreement forms have been sent to some private equity funds……..
As Toshiba has ruled out ceding control of the chips business, it may also seek state help, as other troubled Japanese technology companies have done in previous restructurings, the sources said.
Another person familiar with the matter said the state-run Development Bank of Japan is among several funds Toshiba may approach for possible investment in its chip business, though the bank could be put off by the size of investment needed.
(Reporting by Makiko Yamazaki and Kentaro Hamada; Writing by Miyoung Kim; Editing by Ian Geoghegan) http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-toshiba-accounting-semiconductors-ana-idUKKBN156009
January 23, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, Japan |
Leave a comment
UAE gets licence to transport, store nuclear fuel, Gulf News 22 Jan 17
Nuclear fuel to be shipped from South Korea to the UAE before being transported to the Barakah Nuclear Power Plant “….the Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation (FANR) announced on Sunday that it approved the licensing for transporting and storing nuclear fuel at the Barakah Nuclear Power Plant.
The two licences have been granted to the Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC) and Nawah Energy Company respectively, with the former getting the licence to transport the nuclear fuel, and the latter getting the licence to store the nuclear fuel at the Barakah site…..
Ian Grant, Deputy Director General for Operations at FANR, explained that the nuclear fuel would be shipped in transport casks from South Korea to the UAE, and then loaded onto trucks to transport the fuel to the nuclear reactor site.
“The fuel assemblies are loaded into transport casks and shipped from the Republic of Korea, [afterwards they are] trucked by road from the UAE port to the Barakah site. The transport casks are unloaded, checked and opened. [The] fuel assemblies are inspected individually and moved to the storage locations.”……http://gulfnews.com/news/uae/environment/uae-gets-licence-to-transport-store-nuclear-fuel-1.1966008
January 23, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
marketing, South Korea, United Arab Emirates |
Leave a comment
Analysis – As nuclear loss grows, Toshiba needs chip investors, soon Reuters By Makiko Yamazaki and Kentaro Hamada 22 JAN 17 TOKYO With mounting writedowns from its nuclear business, Japan’s Toshiba Corp (6502.T) is looking to sell part of its core semiconductors business, a world No.2 in the flash memory chips used in smartphones.
But its rush to plug a hole in its U.S. nuclear business that Japanese media now estimate at as much as $6 billion may complicate any asset sale.
Toshiba, which warned last month of multi-billion dollar charges for U.S. nuclear project cost overruns, wants to boost its capital base by the end of the financial year in March.
Failure to offset the nuclear hit could wipe out already thin shareholder equity and push the company into negative net worth – jeopardising its role in public infrastructure projects and its place on the Tokyo Stock Exchange’s ‘first section’, for larger companies.
Following a 2015 accounting scandal, the conglomerate is barred from raising fresh funding on equity markets. Selling assets, though, could help it win broader financial support from its main banks.
Toshiba could sell 20-30 percent of its chip business, according to media reports.
The business, worth more than $10 billion, is the world’s second largest after Samsung Electronics (005930.KS) in flash memory chips – and it’s Toshiba’s most profitable.
Operating profit is forecast at 130 billion yen (913.35 million pounds) for the year to end-March, accounting for the bulk of overall group profit, forecast at 180 billion yen. Those forecasts were made before its December warning of the U.S. nuclear charges.
People with knowledge of the matter said Toshiba has begun preparations to sell a minority stake in its chip business. One person said non-disclosure agreement forms have been sent to some private equity funds……..
As Toshiba has ruled out ceding control of the chips business, it may also seek state help, as other troubled Japanese technology companies have done in previous restructurings, the sources said.
Another person familiar with the matter said the state-run Development Bank of Japan is among several funds Toshiba may approach for possible investment in its chip business, though the bank could be put off by the size of investment needed.
(Reporting by Makiko Yamazaki and Kentaro Hamada; Writing by Miyoung Kim; Editing by Ian Geoghegan) http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-toshiba-accounting-semiconductors-ana-idUKKBN156009
January 23, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, Japan |
Leave a comment
Russia, Kuwait Discuss Possible Construction of Nuclear Power Plant MOSCOW (Sputnik) – Russia and Kuwait discussed possible construction of a nuclear power plant (NPP) as well as cooperation in the spheres of petroleum services and gas, Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak said in an interview with the Rossiya-24 broadcaster on Sunday…….https://sputniknews.com/business/201701221049880931-russia-kuwait-nuclear-power-plant/
January 23, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
marketing, Russia |
Leave a comment
A bunch of American billionaires is trying to save the astronomically expensive nuclear industry – by getting taxpayers to pay for even more astronomically costly “little new nukes”.
Meanwhile in China, France UK, South Korea – and even in America, governments are desperately propping up the super costly “big old nukes’ .
In a world where charlatan Donald Trump can become USA President – the nuclear sales
men might well think that any fraud can be perpetrated on the public.
But not for long.
The genuinely clean energy transition is under way world-wide, and
becoming ever cheaper.
The “peaceful” nuclear industry is intrinsically linked to the multi $billion nuclear weapons industry. Yet even the nuclear weapons industry is under threat, with the coming UN nuclear disarmament conference.
Even if concern for the public good does not stop the toxic nuclear industry – the unaffordable economic costs eventually will
January 21, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, Christina's themes |
Leave a comment
6.4 million Americans now work in the traditional energy and the energy efficiency sector, which added more than 300,000 net new jobs in 2016, or 14 percent of the nation’s job growth.
“This report verifies the dynamic role that our energy technologies and infrastructure play in a 21st century economy,” said DOE Senior Advisor on Industrial and Economic Policy David Foster. “Whether producing natural gas or solar power at increasingly lower prices or reducing our consumption of energy through smart grids and fuel efficient vehicles, energy innovation is proving itself as the important driver of economic growth in America, producing 14 percent of the new jobs in 2016.”
The solar industry is particularly shining bright.
“Proportionally, solar employment accounts for the largest share of workers in the Electric Power Generation sector,” the report, released on Jan. 13, states. “This is largely due to the construction related to the significant buildout of new solar generation capacity.” Overall, the U.S. solar workforce increased 25 percent in 2016.
According to the report, solar—both photovoltaic and concentrated—employed almost 374,000 workers in 2016, or 43 percent of the Electric Power Generation workforce. This is followed by fossil fuels, which accounts for 22 percent of total Electric Power Generation employment, or 187,117 workers across coal, oil and natural gas generation technologies.
Wind generation is seeing growth in employment with a 32 percent increase since 2015. The wind industry provides the third largest share of Electric Power Generation employment with 102,000 workers at wind firms across the nation.
The reason behind this growth in the solar sector is due to the high capacity additions in both distributed and utility-scale photovoltaic solar, the report said. In fact, construction and installation projects represented the largest share of solar jobs, with almost four in ten workers doing this kind of work, followed by workers in solar wholesale trade, manufacturing and professional services.
In a sign of promise for the booming industry, solar employers reported that they expect to increase employment by 7 percent this year.
Solar is becoming the cheapest form of electricity production in the world, according to statistics from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Last year was the first time that the renewable energy technology out-performed fossil fuels on a large scale.
January 20, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
employment, renewable, USA |
Leave a comment
Toshiba shares crash as nuclear writedown crisis deepens Shares in Toshiba have dived 16% on reports that the embattled Japanese conglomerate faces bigger losses at its US nuclear power business. BBC News 19 Jan 17
It is feared Toshiba may have to write down the value of the unit by a larger-than-expected 700bn yen ($6.1bn; £5bn).
There are unconfirmed reports Toshiba is seeking aid from the government-backed Development Bank of Japan (DBJ).
Toshiba said the exact writedown figure was not finalised, and declined to comment on any DBJ approach.
The laptops-to-hydro power giant was plunged into crisis late last year when it emerged it faced huge cost overruns on projects handled by a newly-bought company that builds US nuclear power plants. ……. on 27 December Toshiba admitted that it faced writedowns of “several billion dollars”. The company later indicated that the size of the writedowns would be between $1bn and $4.5bn.
Toshiba’s nuclear services business brings in about one-third of the industrial giant’s revenue.
The share price, down 26% at one stage on Thursday, is now 50% lower than when the writedown revelations emerged amid fears that the company still has no firm grip on the final costs………http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38674697
January 20, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, Japan |
Leave a comment
“Our analysis suggests that solar could now infringe on gas’ market share and in some cases challenge its peak margins, and that gas and renewables collectively will continue to gain market share at the expense of coal and nuclear,”
Levelized cost of energy survey shows wind, natural gas cementing economic edge SNL, 06 January 2017 By Lucas Bifera
A survey of levelized cost of energy, or LCOE, studies illustrates that onshore wind and combined-cycle gas have secured their place as the lowest-cost energy resources, with utility-scale solar not far behind.
Often used as a barometer for estimating the cost at which certain generation technologies can be deployed on an economic basis, LCOE has become a mainstay for policymakers, analysts and industry groups as a reference when comparing costs and benefits of various technologies on the grid.
Incumbent technologies like combined-cycle gas, onshore wind, utility-scale solar photovoltaic, nuclear and coal are uniformly included in studies…….the emergence of a cluster around onshore wind and combined-cycle gas across the different studies indicates an economic consensus, one that highlights the cost effectiveness of renewables on an unsubsidized basis and role of combined-cycle gas as the preeminent baseload resource.
“The demands of a developed economy will continue to require both traditional and alternative energy sources as the technologies driving renewable energy evolve,” observed George Bilicic, vice chairman and global head of power, energy & infrastructure group at Lazard, an investment bank that releases a widely-cited LCOE study each year.
But on an unsubsidized basis, renewables remain competitive across all studies, and in the case of the Bloomberg New Energy Finance analysis, wind resources in Texas have become the cheapest source of power across North and South America, consistent with Lazard’s finding that wind has a low end range of $32/MWh in the Midwest and $36/MWh in Texas.
“Wind capital costs will go up because they are building higher towers, but LCOE values will fall because they have better capacity factors,” said Josh Rhodes, postdoctoral fellow at the Webber Energy Group and co-author of a study from The University of Texas at Austin’s Energy Institute.
“I think we will see a major deployment of solar and wind to come online by [the end of] 2019 in order to take advantage of the full ITC and PTC,” Rhodes noted, looking outward.
Onshore wind and utility-scale solar additions appear poised to outstrip additions of natural-gas fired ……… the Energy Information Administration’s recent 2017 Annual Energy Outlook, which projects that between 2018 and 2022, as much as 54.2 GW of wind could come online, in addition to 13.4 GW of solar photovoltaic capacity.
Combined, that projected capacity is more than 40 times the amount of projected advanced natural gas-fired capacity projected in the same study, which EIA estimates at 1.6 GW.
“Our analysis suggests that solar could now infringe on gas’ market share and in some cases challenge its peak margins, and that gas and renewables collectively will continue to gain market share at the expense of coal and nuclear,” Guggenheim added. http://www.snl.com/web/client?auth=inherit&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWlRsaU0yUXhZMkV3TnpjNCIsInQiOiJGZnRMT045UWllTkRYNzZsSDE1YWFJMXE0M0lQU2F1QnN6Z25jM2hoZlFpNDhwNFFSRzIyTnI1cDdyUW14c2hKXC9keStFV2JvenljcVVFT2Ztc3gxck12WElPXC9WMGVlQWNMbjNJcklpalltM01OTUN2ckRsQktyWlFLTFRcL0VrVyJ9#news/ar
January 14, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, renewable, USA |
Leave a comment
How Did 2016 Fare For U.S. Energy Employment?
According to the DOE’s second annual report tracking these employment trends, 6.4 million Americans now work in the “traditional energy and energy efficiency industries,” which added over 300,000 net new jobs in 2016 – representing 14% of the nation’s job growth. The report describes “traditional energy” jobs as those in “electric power generation and fuels” and “transmission, distribution and storage,” both of which include include “fossil, nuclear, and renewable energy sources and their value chains,” the report explains. In addition, “energy efficiency” jobs are described as those covering the “production of energy-saving products and the provision of services that reduce end-use energy consumption.” The report notes that energy efficiency jobs increased by 133,000 jobs for a total of 2.2 million.
The agency says its “2017 U.S. Energy and Employment Report (USEER)” uses information from surveys to over 30,000 employees in energy sectors and tracks “dramatic growth” in several key sectors of the U.S. economy in 2016. The report also uses secondary data from the U.S. Department of Labor.
For wind power specifically, the industry employs a total of 101,738 workers, which represents a 32% increase since 2015, the report says. The largest share of wind employment lies in construction, which accounts for 37% of the workforce. Manufacturing and wholesale trade follow at 29% and 14%, respectively.
“Wind means opportunity and job security for over 100,000 Americans,” comments Tom Kiernan, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association. “The Department of Energy’s new jobs data underscore the incredible impact of wind power in creating American jobs. Wind workers directly contribute to our nation’s energy independence and economic success story. We’re especially proud of helping America’s veterans find well paying jobs after their service – employing them at a rate that is 50 percent higher than the national average.”
For solar, the report says U.S. Department of Labor data does not adequately capture the true employment numbers: The data “dramatically underestimates” how many workers are employed in the solar sector, which, the DOE report says, includes 373,807 Americans who “spend some portion of their time working to install, distribute or provide professional services to solar technologies.” Like wind, construction/installation represents the biggest employment share, followed by “wholesale trade, manufacturing and professional services.”
“This report verifies the dynamic role that our energy technologies and infrastructure play in a 21st-century economy,” says David Foster, the DOE’s senior advisor on industrial and economic policy. “Whether producing natural gas or solar power at increasingly lower prices or reducing our consumption of energy through smart grids and fuel-efficient vehicles, energy innovation is proving itself as the important driver of economic growth in America, producing 14 percent of the new jobs in 2016.”
USEER examines four sectors of the economy – electric power generation and fuels; transmission, wholesale distribution and storage; energy efficiency; and motor vehicles – which cumulatively account for almost all of the U.S.’ energy production and distribution system and roughly 70% of U.S. energy consumption, according to the DOE.
By looking at such a wide portion of the energy economy, the agency says, USEER can provide the public and policymakers with a clearer picture of how changes in energy technology, systems and usage are affecting the economy and creating or displacing jobs……… The full report can be found here. http://nawindpower.com/how-did-2016-fare-for-u-s-energy-employment
January 14, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
employment, renewable, USA |
Leave a comment
U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Continue To Close, Oil Price, By Nick Cunningham – Jan 12, 2017, “…….The situation is emblematic of an unfolding drama across the country as the nation’s nuclear power plants near retirement. The bulk of the 100 or so nuclear power plants in the U.S. were constructed in the 1960s and 1970s, all of which were granted a standard 40-year license to operate. Many of those have expired or are nearing expiration, and the bulk of them have been granted 20-year license extensions. With dozens of reactors now a decade or so away from hitting their 60-year birthdays, the U.S. is faced with a dilemma of whether to shut them down or extend their lifespans by yet another 20 years.
While the New York government supported reactors elsewhere in the state, they resisted Indian Point because of its proximity to the city. Entergy ultimately conceded, as the company is in the midst of ridding itself of nuclear reactors in the north and is instead focusing on regulated markets in the south.
In fact, Entergy disputed Gov. Cuomo’s influence, citing cheap natural gas as a significant factor in its decision to shut down the plant. But Gov. Cuomo and the state’s attorney general resisted granting Entergy a 20-year license extension on Indian Point. Entergy spent $200 million over the past decade in legal fees trying to obtain a new license, to no avail……..
Gov. Cuomo is now aggressively pushing offshore wind, and is targeting 2.4 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2030. The first down payment on that target is a 90-megawatt project off the coast of Long Island, which he is supporting. However, those projects will take years to come online even under the most optimistic circumstances, raising fears of a gap in power supply…..
Environmental groups are more confident. “Hats off to the Cuomo Administration and New York leaders for planning to shut down another nuclear plant and replacing it with clean energy,” Anna Aurilio, director of Environment America’s Global Warming Solutions Program, said in a statement. “There’s more than enough renewable energy projects in the pipeline to replace Indian Point.” Offshore wind could be complemented by onshore wind, solar, and energy efficiency. If New York fails to fill the gap left by Indian Point with renewables, the state can still import hydropower from Quebec.
Indeed, New York is unfazed. The state recently implemented a tighter renewable portfolio standard that requires utilities to source 50 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2030, one of the most aggressive in the nation. Gov. Cuomo also announced this week that New York will cut greenhouse gas emissions by an additional 30 percent below 2020 levels by 2030, tightening the requirements under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a regional cap-and-trade program between Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern states. Gov. Cuomo is going all-in on renewables in an effort that has raised questions regarding his presidential aspirations in 2020.
Indian Point is just one power plant, but it is indicative of the eroding position of nuclear power. Only a handful of new nuclear reactors are under construction, and despite the hype of a “nuclear renaissance,” even the newest models are facing lengthy delays and cost overruns, a longstanding problem for the industry. Meanwhile, existing nuclear reactors are getting picked off, one by one.
Whether it will be solar, wind or natural gas, the one thing that is clear is that nuclear power will increasingly give way to alternatives.http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/US-Nuclear-Power-Plants-Continue-To-Close.html
January 14, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, USA |
Leave a comment
Nuclear power producers want government-mandated long-term contracts or other mechanisms that require customers to buy power from their troubled units at prices far higher than they would pay otherwise.
In California and in Nebraska, utilities plan to replace nuclear plants that are closing early for economic reasons almost entirely with electricity from carbon-free sources. Such transitions are achievable in most systems as long as the shutdowns are planned in advance to be carbon-free.
We should not rely further on the unfulfilled prophesies that nuclear lobbyists have deployed so expensively for so long.
Should troubled nuclear reactors be subsidized? http://bangordailynews.com/2017/01/13/the-point/compete-or-suckle-should-troubled-nuclear-reactors-be-subsidized/ By Peter Bradford, The Conversation
Since the 1950s, U.S. nuclear power has commanded immense taxpayer and consumer subsidy based on promises of economic and environmental benefits. Many of these promises are unfulfilled, but new ones take their place and more subsidies follow.
Today, the nuclear industry claims that keeping all operating reactors running for many years, no matter how uneconomic they become, is essential in order to reach U.S. climate change targets.
Economics have always challenged U.S. reactors. After more than 100 construction cancellations and cost overruns costing up to $5 billion apiece, Forbes magazine in 1985 called nuclear power “the greatest managerial disaster in business history … only the blind, or the biased, can now think that most of the money [$265 billion by 1990] has been well spent.” U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Chair Lewis Strauss’ 1954 promise that electric power would be “ too cheap to meter” is today used to mock nuclear economics, not commend them.
As late as 1972, the Atomic Energy Commission forecast that the U.S. would have 1,000 power reactors by the year 2000. Today, we have 100 operating power reactors, down from a peak of 112 in 1990. Since 2012, power plant owners have retired five units and announced plans to close nine more. Four new reactors are likely to come on line. Without strenuous government intervention, almost all of the rest will close by midcentury. Because these recent closures have been abrupt and unplanned, the replacement power has come in substantial part from natural gas, causing a dismaying uptick in greenhouse gas emissions.
The nuclear industry, led by the forlornly named lobbying group Nuclear Matters, still obtains large subsidies for new reactor designs that cannot possibly compete at today’s prices. But its main function now is to save operating reactors from closure brought on by their own rising costs, by the absence of a U.S. policy on greenhouse gas emissions and by competition from less expensive natural gas, carbon-free renewables and more efficient energy use.
Only billions more dollars in subsidies and the retarding of rapid deployment of cheaper technologies can save these reactors. Only fresh claims of unique social benefit can justify such steps.
When I served on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 1977 through 1982, it issued more licenses than in any comparable period since. Arguments that the U.S. couldn’t avoid dependence on Middle Eastern oil and keep the lights on without a vast increase in nuclear power were standard fare then and throughout my 20 years chairing the New York and Maine utility regulatory commissions. In fact, we attained these goals without the additional reactors, a lesson to remember in the face of claims that all of today’s nuclear plants are needed to ward off climate change.
Nuclear power in competitive electricity markets
During nuclear power’s growth years in the 1960s and 1970s, almost all electric utility rate regulation was based on recovering the money necessary to build and run power plants and the accompanying infrastructure. But in the 1990s, many states broke up the electric utility monopoly model.
Now a majority of U.S. power generation is sold in competitive markets. Companies profit by producing the cheapest electricity or providing services that avoid the need for electricity.
To justify their current subsidy demands, nuclear advocates assert three propositions. First, they contend that power markets undervalue nuclear plants because they do not compensate reactors for avoiding carbon emissions or for other attributes such as diversifying the fuel supply or running more than 90 percent of the time.
Second, they assert that other low-carbon sources cannot fill the gap because the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine. So power grids will use fossil-fired generators for more hours if nuclear plants close.
Finally, nuclear power supporters argue that these intermittent sources receive substantial subsidies while nuclear energy does not, thereby enabling renewables to underbid nuclear even if their costs are higher.
Nuclear power producers want government-mandated long-term contracts or other mechanisms that require customers to buy power from their troubled units at prices far higher than they would pay otherwise.
Providing such open-ended support will negate several major energy trends that currently benefit customers and the environment. First, power markets have been working reliably and effectively. A large variety of cheaper, more efficient technologies for producing and saving energy, as well as managing the grid more cheaply and cleanly, have been developed. Energy storage, which can enhance the round-the-clock capability of some renewables is progressing faster than had been expected, and it is now being bid into several power markets — notably the market serving Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland.
Long-term subsidies for uneconomic nuclear plants also will crowd out penetration of these markets by energy efficiency and renewables. This is the path New York has taken by committing at least $7.6 billion in above-market payments to three of its six plants to assure that they operate through 2029.
Nuclear power versus other carbon-free fuels While power markets do indeed undervalue low-carbon fuels, all of the other premises underlying the nuclear industry approach are flawed. In California and in Nebraska, utilities plan to replace nuclear plants that are closing early for economic reasons almost entirely with electricity from carbon-free sources. Such transitions are achievable in most systems as long as the shutdowns are planned in advance to be carbon-free.
In California, these replacement resources, which include renewables, storage, transmission enhancements and energy efficiency measures, will for the most part be procured through competitive processes. Indeed, any state where a utility threatens to close a plant can run an auction to ascertain whether there are sufficient low-carbon resources available to replace the unit within a particular time frame. Only then will regulators know whether, how much and for how long they should support nuclear units.
If New York had taken this approach, each of the struggling nuclear units could have bid to provide power in such an auction. They might well have succeeded for the immediate future, but some or all would probably not have won after that.
Closing the noncompetitive plants would be a clear benefit to the New York economy. This is why a large coalition of big customers, alternative energy providers and environmental groups opposed the long-term subsidy plan.
The industry’s final argument — that renewables are subsidized and nuclear is not — ignores overwhelming history. All carbon-free energy sources together have not received remotely as much government support as has flowed to nuclear power.
Nuclear energy’s essential components — reactors and enriched uranium fuel — were developed at taxpayer expense. Private utilities were paid to build nuclear reactors in the 1950s and early 1960s, and received subsidized fuel. According to a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, total subsidies paid and offered to nuclear plants between 1960 and 2024 generally exceed the value of the power that they produced.
The U.S. government also has pledged to dispose of nuclear power’s most hazardous wastes — a promise that has never been made to any other industry. By 2020, taxpayers will have paid some $21 billion to store those wastes at power plant sites.
Furthermore, under the 1957 Price-Anderson Act, each plant owner’s accident liability is limited to some $300 million per year, even though the Fukushima disaster showed that nuclear accident costs can exceed $100 billion. If private companies that own U.S. nuclear power plants had been responsible for accident liability, they would not have built reactors. The same is almost certainly true of responsibility for spent fuel disposal.
Finally, as part of the transition to competition in the 1990s, state governments were persuaded to make customers pay off some $70 billion in excessive nuclear costs. Today, the same nuclear power providers are asking to be rescued from the same market forces for a second time.
Christopher Crane, the president and CEO of Exelon, which owns the nation’s largest nuclear fleet, preaches temperance from a bar stool when he disparages renewable energy subsidies by asserting, “I’ve talked for years about the unintended consequences of policies that incentivize technologies versus outcomes.“
But he’s right about unintended and unfortunate consequences. We should not rely further on the unfulfilled prophesies that nuclear lobbyists have deployed so expensively for so long. It’s time to take Crane at his word by using our power markets, adjusted to price greenhouse gas emissions, to prioritize our low carbon outcome over his technology.
Peter Bradford is a the former chair of the Maine’s Public Utilities Commission and former U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commissioner. He also is on the board of the Union of Concerned Scientists. This piece was originally published on TheConversation.com.
January 14, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, Reference, USA |
Leave a comment
Russia extends $11.38 bln loan to Bangladesh to build nuclear power plant http://tass.com/economy/925025 January 13 Bangladesh will repay the actually spent loan in equal six-month installments over a twenty year period MOSCOW, January 13. /TASS/. Russia’s government has extended a $11.38 billion loan to Bangladesh to build the Rooppur nuclear power plant. The relevant document was published on the government’s website containing legal information.
According to the draft inter-governmental agreement, the loan will be used from 2017 to 2024. Bangladesh will repay the actually spent loan in equal six-month installments over a twenty year period. The first installment will be paid out on March 15, 2017.
Two units of the Rooppur nuclear power plant, with a capacity of 1,200 MW each, which are being built with Russia’s assistance, are planned to be put into operation in 2022 and 2023.
In mid-December 2015, Russia’s Rosatom State Atomic Energy Corporation signed an EPC contract for a nuclear power plant in Bangladesh.
The construction work is being done in accordance with the inter-governmental agreement on cooperation in building a nuclear power plant in Bangladesh, dated 2011. The nuclear power plant will be located on the eastern bank of the Ganges River, 160 kilometers from the country’s capital of Dhaka.
January 14, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
ASIA, marketing, Russia |
Leave a comment
EU clears French rescue of troubled nuclear firm Areva http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/eu-clears-french-rescue-of-troubled-nuclear-firm-areva-117011001343_1.html AFP | Brussels January 10, 2017 EU anti-trust regulators today cleared the French government’s massive restructuring of troubled state-owned nuclear reactor builder Areva.
Problem-prone Areva, which is 87-per cent owned by the French state, has faced severe difficulties since 2011, when the Fukushima disaster in Japan called nuclear power generation into question across the world.
In April, Paris notified the
EU Commission of an big restructuring plan to save the national champion that included a massive payout from public coffers.
“The European Commission has concluded that French plans to grant a capital injection of 4.5 billion euros (USD 4.75 billion) to Areva are in line with EU state aid rules,” a statement said.
The Commission added that other regulatory decisions were still needed, including a greenlight by the EU on the buyout of Areva’s reactor business by EDF, the French state-owned electricity supplier. Areva’s woes were compounded by construction problems affecting its first EPR reactor in Finland — now expected to open nine years late in 2018 — putting company finances deep into the red.
In addition, Areva’s former CEO Anne Lauvergeon has been charged in a case linked to the company’s disastrous 2007 purchase of a Canadian uranium mining firm.
EDF, also majority-owned by the French state, agreed in June 2015 to purchase up to 75 per cent of Areva’s reactor unit at a valuation of around 2.7 billion euros, with the deal expected to be finalised in 2017.
France sees nuclear energy as a key national industry and the government has been closely involved in talks to restructure the sector.
The French state has already poured in billions to keep Areva afloat and thousands of French workers in their jobs.
January 14, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, EUROPE, politics |
Leave a comment
Delays of years in construction times and the doubling of costs, are the new normal, while the prices of low-carbon alternatives, wind and solar, which can be deployed in weeks rather than decades, have continued to fall. It is now clear that solar farms and wind turbines produce cheaper power than new nuclear will ever be able to. In some cases even old nuclear stations are so costly to run that new wind and solar are cheaper.
Nuclear Revival Looks Bleak as Solar and Wind Costs Continue to Drop http://www.ecowatch.com/nuclear-revival-bleak-2188785870.html Climate News Network By Paul Brown, 12 Jan 17
The prospects for expansion of the nuclear industry worldwide look worse in 2017 than at any time since the first atom stations were built in the 1950s.
Toshiba, the giant Japanese company that owns the American reactor designer Westinghouse, is the latest company to face financial difficulties due to unforeseen cost overruns and delays that run into billions of dollars.
Westinghouse Electric’s troubles began after it bought construction contractor CB&I Stone & Webster and then had to write down the value of the acquisition by billions of dollars because of problems with building four new reactors for U.S. utilities.
Nuclear Problems
Électricité de France (EDF), the French company with ambitious plans to build four nuclear reactors in Britain, is in ever-deepening financial difficulties because it has failed to build new stations on time or on budget at Olkiluoto, Finland and Flamanville, in France. It is also embroiled in an ongoing scandal over faulty reactor parts.
Even Rosatom, the state-owned Russian company, keen to expand sales outside its own borders, is pegging back on its building plans at home. Alexander Lokshin, the first deputy director general, said on the company’s website that, because forecasts of energy use growth in Russia have proved to be inaccurate, the company had settled for life extensions of existing plants rather than a large program of building new ones.
While China and India continue to press ahead with nuclear projects, both countries are putting ever-greater effort into renewables, which provide much quicker returns. China has cut back on nuclear plans, but is continuing to build both its own home-grown designs and two reactors of EDF’s new design, which are still under construction although they should already be in operation.
South Korea seems to be the one bright spot for the industry. It now has 25 working reactors and is building more—including exporting four to be built at Barakah in the United Arab Emirates.
So while there are still plenty of reactors planned or under construction, they appear to be running late and over budget or are in countries where state ownership and subsidy props up the industry and disguises its flaws.
The industry is in most trouble in countries where nuclear has to compete on price with renewables and gas. Raising enough capital to build a nuclear station at market rates is no longer possible without state subsidy. In the European Union and the U.S., where a “free market” in electricity is supposed to prevail, government moves to boost the nuclear industry are increasingly controversial.
However, there are unlikely to be any bankruptcies. The governments of Japan, France and Britain will bail out these flagship companies because they employ far too many voters to let them fail. In addition, closing existing nuclear stations rapidly is technically difficult and would cause serious blackouts in France and possibly some neighboring countries.
But hopes of a nuclear renaissance now appear to be a pipe dream. This is partly because western companies have apparently failed to design new nuclear power stations that can be built on time and on budget.
Delays of years in construction times and the doubling of costs, are the new normal, while the prices of low-carbon alternatives, wind and solar, which can be deployed in weeks rather than decades, have continued to fall. It is now clear that solar farms and wind turbines produce cheaper power than new nuclear will ever be able to. In some cases even old nuclear stations are so costly to run that new wind and solar are cheaper.
Future of the Industry
The outcome of all this financial turmoil for the future of the industry is difficult to predict. It is probable that stations long under construction in the U.S., Finland, France and China, and due to be finished in the next two years, will be completed if no new technical problems arise. Starting them up will probably be a political rather than an economic decision.
But whether these companies embark on planned new constructions is the real issue. EDF continues with plans to build four European Pressurised Reactors in England, two at Hinkley Point in western England, which are supposed to be completed by 2025, and two more at Sizewell, east of London, where plans are still at the consultation stage. How the deeply indebted company will raise the finance for these projects is not clear.
Toshiba’s financial plight puts another British project, the plan to build three Westinghouse AP1000 reactors in north-west England, in jeopardy. With the company’s debts close to its value in equity, the company credit rating has been lowered. It is hard to see who will put up the enormous capital required to finance the building of three new reactors with designs that already have a dubious record on building times and cost overruns.
These seven giant reactor projects are the first of 10 planned for Britain. So far there has not been the slightest hint from either the companies or the UK government that the plans might need revision. Time will tell whether anyone will come up with the $50 billion in capital needed to build them.
January 13, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
2 WORLD, business and costs, renewable |
Leave a comment
nuclear-news 