Busa warns Eskom on nuclear plans IOL, 25 November 2016, Siseko Njobeni Johannesburg – Business Unity South Africa (Busa) yesterday warned power utility Eskom not to proceed with preparations to procure nuclear while consultations on the draft integrated resource plan (IRP) had not been completed.
Busa said it was concerned that the difficulties that renewable projects faced in gaining access to the grid appeared to be used as an artificial constraint on renewable energy sources.
“Furthermore, Busa is concerned that Eskom and the government do not seem to be aligned on the question of the nuclear element of the IRP,” the business group said.
“Busa believes that the role of Eskom, particularly in respect of its position as the sole purchaser of electricity, needs to be clearly defined.”
“Additionally, Eskom’s role as the developer of new generation capacity should not proceed independently of the IRP which is only expected to be finalised in the third quarter of next year,” Busa said.
Procurement
The business body said any procurement of large-scale generation should commence only after finalisation of the IRP as the national plan.
The warning comes after the Department of Energy published the draft integrated energy plan and the draft IRP for the country on Tuesday. The documents are out for public comment.
The assumptions and scenarios in the IRP will be the subject of public consultation at Nedlac – the government, labour and business negotiating chamber – and provincial road shows in February next year…….
Meanwhile, the Nuclear Industry Association of South Africa said yesterday that it was alarmed at the prospect of a delay of the nuclear programme to 2037. http://www.iol.co.za/business/companies/busa-warns-eskom-on-nuclear-plans-2093258
November 26, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, South Africa |
Leave a comment
Empty Pockets Leave Indian Nuclear Plants Incomplete https://sputniknews.com/asia/201611231047759881-india-incomplete-nuclear-plants/ ASIA & PACIFIC 23.11.2016 India’s target to rapidly step up nuclear power capacity may be stumbling because many suppliers have not been paid. The Government is now trying to borrow from state-owned companies to complete the projects.
New Delhi : India’s ambitious nuclear power plans are facing the sword of financial uncertainty. The Indian Government has acknowledged that major equipment for two nuclear power projects was delivered on time because the suppliers had not been paid. The projects are being set up by the government-owned Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL).
“The delay in supplies of major equipment for Kakrapar Atomic Power 3 & 4 (2×700 MW) and Rajasthan Atomic Power 7&8 (2×700 MW) projects by the industries was mainly on account of financial crunch and shortage of skilled manpower,” says Dr. Jitendra Singh, Minister of State for Atomic Energy.
The approved cost of units 7 and 8 of Rajasthan Atomic Power Station is $ 1852 million but the Government has approved about $ 150 million lessOvernmnet has while Indian government has approved USD 1723 million for units 3 and 4 of Kakrapar. NPCIL was scheduled to complete these projects in 2015 but the date has been put off to 2019.
India had changed the Atomic Energy Law this year to allow NPCIL enter into joint ventures with other government entities. “After the changes in the law, India would be able to set up a new nuclear power reactor in every four year,” says Rajiv Nayan, senior research associate, Institute of Defense and Security Analysis.
Sources say that companies like NTPC, Indian Oil Corporation and NALCO have agreed to invest $ 1,500 million each in joint ventures with NPCIL. “India will not get far even after adding this money with the amount available with NPCIL for investment. Costs and financing, therefore, complicate India’s ability to scale up nuclear power through its own means without relying on foreign imports,” writes Anirudh Mohan, Junior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation in a research paper. Currently, India is setting up 6,700-megawatt nuclear power projects across the country with an estimated cost of more than $ 18 billion. Being the sole company authorized to set up nuclear power plants, NPCIL is faced problems in generating funds for these projects.
November 24, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, India, politics |
Leave a comment
European nuclear disaster would cost €160bn, Peter O’Dwyer November 22 2016, http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/european-nuclear-disaster-would-cost-160bn-trb3bcrp9
A nuclear disaster in northwest Europe could cost Ireland as much as €161 billion. A report compiled by the Economic and Social Research Institute found that agricultural production would grind to a halt, with the tourism industry and exports also incurring substantial damage.
The estimated cost of a disaster like that in Chernobyl in 1986 or Fukushima in Japan five years ago could be almost twice the €85 billion bailout Ireland received in 2010.
The UK has 15 active reactors and there are a further 58 in France and eight in Germany, according to the World Nuclear Association. EDF, the French nuclear company, is building an £18 billion (€21.2 billion) plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset, about 150 miles from Rosslare, Co Wexford, on the east coast.
Even under the most benign scenario considered by the ESRI, where no contamination occurs, the total loss is estimated at €4 billion. By comparison, the total value of corporation tax collected in the first nine months of the year was €4.16 billion.
The report focused on the potential impact of a nuclear disaster on tourism, agriculture and food, including both the initial shock and the long-run reputational damage.
The report’s authors said that their analysis was likely to omit several additional losses and could underestimate the true extent of the potential cost to the Irish economy. Concerns over the health risks associated with high levels of contamination could, for example, put a significant strain on the health service.
The total cost of a low-level contamination scenario, which requires the imposition of food controls to reassure the public, and which would cause restrictions on food imports from Ireland, would be about €18 billion.
The third scenario considered would require food controls be put in place for months and steps taken to protect agricultural production. Irish exports would be severely impacted, as in the previous scenario, while Irish consumers would also shun Irish food produce in a further setback for the sector.
The impact on tourism would also be significant, with long-term reputational damage resulting in an economic cost of €80 billion.
The most severe economic shock would arise where the contamination warrants the imposition of food controls for years. Under this scenario, the impact could persist for 60 years, though the most substantial economic impacts would arise in the first 30 years.
It is assumed that Irish agricultural production would cease entirely for three years, costing about €5 billion, and that EU member states would begin importing Irish produce after this period. Trade with international partners would take another 12 years to restart.
Culling and disposing of contaminated livestock could cost more than €5 billion.
Not only would exports be decimated but the need to import much of the country’s food would lead to far higher domestic costs. There could also be significant emigration.
Under this worst-case scenario, the estimated economic loss was €161 billion.
A spokesman for the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment was not available for comment.
November 23, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, EUROPE |
Leave a comment
Ameren opposes Exelon’s Illinois nuclear energy bill, Utility Dive, Peter Maloney@TopFloorPower, Nov. 22, 2016
Dive Brief:
- Ameren Illinois is opposing a bill now before the state’s general assembly that includes provisions aimed at shoring up two financially strapped Exelon nuclear plants, the Herald & Review reports.
- Ameren is concerned about the impact the bill would have in its current form on its 1.2 million customers in central and south Illinois.
- The bill, which faces a short legislative session, could come to a vote early next week.
Dive Insight:
In addition to funding support for the Exelon’s Clinton and Quad City nuclear plants, the bill, SB 2814, includes add-on payments for south Illinois coal plants, potentially including some owned by Ameren, as well as a range of other provisions including funding for utility energy efficiency measures, community solar programs and microgrids, as well as a shift in rate structure to demand charges and the elimination of retail net metering for solar power.
A previous version of the bill would have shifted ratepayers to demand charges based on the peak demand for the month. The latest version of the bill uses average demand over the course of the month.
Two earlier versions of the energy bill have also faced opposition and not been passed by the state’s General Assembly.
Craig Nelson, Ameren’s senior vice president of regulatory affairs and financial services, last week told a legislative committee that Ameren would not be able to shift to the new rate structure until it finishes installing smart meters for all its customers, which is not expected to be completed until late in 2019……http://www.utilitydive.com/news/ameren-opposes-exelons-illinois-nuclear-energy-bill/430887/
November 23, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, USA |
Leave a comment
Economic case for nuclear ‘falling apart’ anti-Wylfa Newydd protesters claim http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/economic-case-nuclear-falling-apart-12201243
Rally urges government not to build new nuclear plant on Anglesey BY ERYL CRUMP 19 NOV 2016
The economic case for nuclear energy is “falling apart”, a leading anti-nuclear campaigner claimed. Dr Carl Clowes made the claim at an anti-nuclear power rally at Llangefni. An audience of more than 50 listened to arguments against building a new nuclear plant at Wylfa on Anglesey.
Dr Clowes said: “There’s been a proposal to develop Wylfa Newydd for some years now and we believe passionately this is not the right way forward for either energy or employment on the island. “It’s going to cause as many problems as it may potentially solve and it leaves a legacy which is wholly inappropriate for future generations. “There are better more effective, more efficient ways of producing energy now and we need to address those rather than waste our time and money indeed on something that may not happen at the end of the day.
“The economic case for nuclear is falling apart. We’ve seen already this week Vatenfall, a Danish company, is aiming to produce electricity with offshore wind at something like half the price, 45 pence per kiolwatt hour that the Government has agreed for Hinkley C with EDF.
“So it’s a no brainer for an economist or a Government minister they should be seriously looking at the way ahead and it’s not nuclear.” Dylan Morgan of PAWB (People against Wylfa B) claims Hitachi’s Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) which they are proposing for Wylfa B is not a proven technology.
“Since the explosions and triple meltdowns at nuclear reactors in Fukushima in March 2011, none of the four ABWRs which were operating in Japan are now operational. “One nuclear power complex shut down in June 2006 after only running from its start up in January 2005.
“Also a plan to build an ABWR in the USA was abandoned in March 2011 because nobody wanted to invest in it,” he said.
The meeting also considered why small nuclear reactors should not be built at the site of the now decommissioned nuclear power station at Trawsfynydd near Blaenau Ffestiniog or anywhere else.
A competition to develop a miniature nuclear power station at Trawsfynydd earlier this year attracted interest from 38 companies from around the world.
Small modular reactors (SMRs) have been compared to the nuclear reactors that have been used to power submarines since the 1950s.
Last year the UK Government announced £250m in funding over the next five years for nuclear research and development, including a competition to identify the best value SMR design for the UK.
November 21, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, UK |
Leave a comment
Swiss try to give away nuclear plants, but find no takers, REneweconomy, By Craig Morris on 18 November 2016 Energy Transition The operator of Switzerland’s nuclear reactors, Alpiq, reportedly offered reactors to France’s EDF at no cost or “a symbolic franc.” The French, who have their hands full with their own struggling fleet at home, refused the offer. A potential power shortfall still looms in the background. Craig Morris explains.
On the weekend, Swiss media reported (in German and in French) that Swiss reactor operator Alpiq could find no buyer for its two nuclear plants and is therefore hoping to give them to the Swiss state. The firm’s CEO is quoted saying that France’s EDF was not interested even at no cost because it “has its own problems pertaining to nuclear power at present.”
It is possible that the announcement is a bargaining chip just in case the Swiss decide in their referendum later this month to phase out nuclear. Alpiq’s Gösgen reactor would then have to close in 2024; Leibstadt, in 2029. The company may thus be looking for ways to ask for money from the Swiss state in return for a closure. At present, the firm is apparently losing 2 billion francs annually but can only pass on half of those losses to consumers.
Oddly, neighboring France faces a power shortage that should lead to greater demand in Switzerland; the aforementioned losses have been part of a longer trend stemming back to the solar boom of Germany (see my report from 2012), which began bringing down prices on spot power markets despite Chancellor Merkel’s nuclear phaseout of 2011. Solar and wind have simply grown faster than anyone expected.
As I recently explained, France has more than a third of its reactors closed at present. At the beginning of November, it was announced (in French) that five of the 20 reactors (out of 58) currently undergoing inspections would not come back online this month as expected.
Concerns of a power shortage also extend to the UK, where system operator National Grid warned of a potential shortfall on Monday, November 07. Power prices have reached as high as 40 pence on the spot market, whereas 4 pence would be more usual (play around with this table). The British were importing power full blast on line from the Netherlands and France, thereby contributing to the drain on French supply.
As a result, French prices were also high that Monday, reaching nearly 40 cents. But that’s nothing: a power trader says it is “almost certain” that France will reach its price cap of three euros per kilowatt-hour on the exchange this winter. The head of EDF, which operates all of France’s reactors, has now said that the danger of a blackout this winter is real (in French). At that point, France might import from the UK no matter what the cost, and the British would fire up their strategic reserve……..
The problem is thus that France and the UK have failed to build enough renewables, especially biogas plants running on waste (which are dispatchable), while they wasted time hoping to build nuclear plants that never emerged. As for the Swiss, well, they have suffered from the same indecision but may set it aside finally in their referendum on November 27. http://reneweconomy.com.au/swiss-try-give-away-nuclear-plants-find-no-takers-47105/
November 19, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, Switzerland |
Leave a comment
Japan’s nuclear export ambitions hit wall as Vietnam set to rip up reactor order Reiters, By Aaron Sheldrick and Ho Binh Minh | TOKYO/HANOI, 17 Nov 16
Vietnam is poised to abandon plans for Japanese firms to build a multi-billion dollar nuclear power plant, damaging Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s drive to begin exporting reactors after the Fukushima disaster left the industry in deep-freeze at home.
The Japanese government said in a statement this week that it had been informed by Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister Trinh Dinh Dung that Hanoi was close to a decision to cancel the project. Japan’s Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, Hiroshige Seko, described the move as “very regrettable.”
Vietnam’s decision, attributed to lower demand forecasts and rising costs as well as safety concerns, also deals a broader blow to the global nuclear business. Countries from Germany to Indonesia have decided to either pull out of nuclear energy or cancel development plans in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, the world’s worst since Chernobyl in 1986.
“Vietnam is only the latest in a long list of countries, including more recently Chile and Indonesia, that have postponed indefinitely or abandoned entirely their plans for nuclear new-build,” said Mycle Schneider, a Paris-based energy analyst.
Though it has sought contracts for years, Japan has never led a nuclear project to completion overseas and Abe has lent his office’s prestige to attempts to win contracts, most recently in Turkey. The dented ambitions for exports come at a time when Japan is struggling to restart dozens of reactors shut down in the wake of Fukushima.
“This is a major blow to Japanese ambitions to, finally, export their first nuclear reactors,” said Schneider…….
DEMAND GROWTH EASING
Vietnam’s parliament is set next Tuesday to formally approve scrapping the Japanese deal, as well as the country’s first nuclear project, which was awarded to Russia’s Rosatom, according to state media. Rosatom said it would not comment until the Vietnam parliament formalized the decision.
The Japanese and Russian nuclear plants were supposed to have been located in central Ninh Thuan province…….. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-vietnam-nuclearpower-idUSKBN13D0RK
November 19, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Japan, marketing, Vietnam |
1 Comment
Exelon’s nuclear plant posturing includes massive rate hike http://rockrivertimes.com/2016/11/15/exelons-nuclear-plant-posturing-includes-massive-rate-hike/ The latest opposition to Exelon’s proposal to save its power plants in Clinton and the Quad Cities has little to do with the two nuclear plants. Instead, a number of consumer and business groups are fighting what they call the largest utility rate hike ever proposed.
Exelon’s latest request from Illinois lawmakers is a 450-page proposal the company says will that’d save its the two endangered nuclear plants by classifying nuclear power as “carbon-friendly.” They would then qualify for government funds that they would use to modernize the two stations.
Without it, Exelon says the Clinton Power Station in Clinton, Ill., will close on June 1, 2017, and the Quad Cities Generating Station in Cordova, Ill., will close on June 1, 2018. The two plants have lost $800 million in the last seven years, according to the company.
The proposal would also offer credits for coal-fired power plants as a peace offering to Texas-based Dynegy, which owns coal-fired plants in southern Illinois and opposes the bill, and allow Exelon to increase rates.
Dave Lundy with the BEST Coalition, which represents a number of business and consumer groups, said Exelon’s proposal will cost around a billion dollars a year until 2044. “This is going to be the largest rate hike in U.S. history,” Lundy said. “This legislation is going to cost $24 billion.”
The legislation would allow Exelon to move to “demand rate” pricing.
Demand rates would charge customers based on the peak price of their usage the month before. Julie Volin with AARP said that means if customers use their washing machine in the middle of the day, it could spike their power bill.
“The demand rate structure is going to limit people’s ability to actually live in their homes from 9 a.m. til 9 p.m.,” Volin said.
Volin says the Illinois Commerce Commission, which approves utility rate hikes should decide how much people pay for power, not lawmakers.
Exelon says the legislation is a way to guarantee about 1,500 jobs at the plants in Clinton and the Quad Cities and ensure their own viability into the future.
November 18, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, USA |
Leave a comment
Russia Still India’s Main Partner in Nuclear Energy Despite French, US Interest Sputnik News, 18 Nov 116 India struck its thirteenth civil nuclear deal when PM Narendra Modi visited Japan. Despite many suitors ranging from the French to the Americans, Russia is India’s preferred partner and the collaboration is breaking new ground every day. New Delhi (Sputnik) – India has signed 13 civil nuclear agreements to meet its ever increasing energy needs. But India-Russia nuclear cooperation remains the oldest and the most standout partnership because Moscow firmly believed in India’s non-proliferation credentials and helped it set up modern nuclear power plants despite Western opposition because it is not a signatory to the NPT.
Analysts consider India-Japan civil nuclear deal as a landmark even. It will help India access Japan’s nuclear market as also pave the way for US and French companies to set up nuclear reactors in India. Japanese companies such as Hitachi, Toshiba and Mitsubishi have major stakes in US and French companies as GE, Westinghouse and Areva planning to construct reactors in India. Without an India-Japan nuclear deal, it was impossible for them to set up nuclear reactors in India. But the much hyped India-Japan nuclear deal is on fragile ground. According to the terms of the deal, the moment India conducts a nuclear test, Japan will terminate the nuclear deal. This will impact not only the Japanese nuclear reactors but also the US and French reactors. ……https://sputniknews.com/business/201611171047552712-russia-india-nuclear-energy/
November 18, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
marketing, Russia |
Leave a comment
Should electric customers pay for NYS nuclear plants? WBFO88.7, By DAVE LUCAS , 15 Nov 16, The battle is heating up over a statewide electric rate increase to subsidize upstate nuclear power plants that pits Governor Andrew Cuomo against a coalition of “good-government groups.”
Members and leaders of the statewide campaign to “Stop the Cuomo Tax” and end the bailout of nuclear power in New York have made their intentions clear: they are calling on the governor to release alleged “secretive agreements with nuclear companies.”
Blair Horner with the New York Public Interest Research Group said the governor is proposing to keep three upstate nuclear power plants near Rochester and Oswego open for the next dozen years, using $7.6 billion of ratepayer money to make it happen.
The issue is part of the Public Service Commission’s broader Clean Energy Standard. The final installment on putting that deal together occurs in a vote before the Public Service Commission scheduled for Thursday.
“There is certainly an irony in the fact that the governor is hell-bent on closing the Indian Point nuclear power plant outside of the city of New York and yet providing billions and billions of dollars in subsidies for aging upstate ones,” said Horner. “The plants that he’s bailing out are ones that were ready for the scrap heap. They’d already outlasted their anticipated lifespan as power plants.”
He continued that this could be the single biggest transfer of wealth from ratepayers to companies in New York state history.
“The decision on this was conducted largely outside of public view. The public had, at best, only dim awareness that this was happening,” Horner said. “The governor’s ramming through a basically secretive decision that’s going to cost New Yorkers billions and billions of dollars and, for the 800,000 poorest New Yorkers, they’re gonna take a big, big hit.”
Horner said most of those 800,000 are in arrears and 20,000 have already had their service cut off.
“The governor’s proposed bailout of these nuke power plants will just jack up the price even harder for these struggling New Yorkers and it’s not even that it’s a great investment,” Horner said. “This is just to keep old Vietnam War-era nuke power plants running.”
Horner said there has been no public debate if this is a good idea……. http://news.wbfo.org/post/should-electric-customers-pay-nys-nuclear-plants
November 16, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, USA |
1 Comment
NEI requests DOE minimize US supplier burden for liability risk pool https://dailyenergyinsider.com/featured/2253-nei-requests-doe-minimize-us-supplier-burden-liability-risk-pool/ November 15, 2016 Daily Energy Insider Reports The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) recently requested that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) provide U.S. nuclear energy suppliers with more certainty regarding their liabilities in a nuclear incident to allow them to better develop a contingency plan. The department is collecting data in developing a liability risk pool for an international treaty on compensating those affected by a nuclear incident.
The Convention of Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC) was adopted in 1997 and entered into force last year. The CSC establishes a two-tiered approach for compensating victims in the event of a nuclear incident. The first tier is paid by the country in which the incident takes place and is set at a minimum of 300 million “special drawing rights,” a unique form of international money developed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) based on a weighted average of convertible currencies.
If the first tier is insufficient, the second tier is funded by the CSC signatories.
NEI calculated that the United States would contribute approximately $64.5 million per covered incident if the current parties to the CSC are Argentina, India, Japan, Montenegro, Morocco, Romania, United Arab Emirates and the United States.
NEI said that since the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 mandates that U.S. nuclear suppliers reimburse the federal government for any costs it incurs in contributing to the second tier of liability, the CSC would create an undue burden on U.S.-based nuclear suppliers.
The institute also requested that the DOE ensure that the final rule is not overly burdensome from an administrative, record keeping or implementation standpoint.
November 16, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Todd Allen, senior visiting fellow for a Washington think tank called Third Way, said the industry 
needs to remake itself because “nuclear energy stands at a crossroads.”
In a separate event last week, Tim Judson, Nuclear Information and Resource Service executive director, discussed findings of a report he authored called “Too Big to Bail Out,” in which he argued that subsidizing the nuclear industry will have deep consequences.
Peter Bradford, a former U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission board member and a former state utility regulator in Maine and New York, said New York’s bailout is “the clearest example of a state capitulating” to the industry.
Nuclear industry looks to reshape image The Blade ByTom Henry | BLADE STAFF WRITER,Nov. 13, 2016 the U.S. nuclear industry is trying harder than ever to market itself as an irreplaceable ally in the war against climate change.
It is eager to get going on a new generation of plants that are smaller, leaner, faster, easier to manage,
and more attractive to private investors.
At stake could be the degree to which electricity ratepayers in Ohio and other states end up subsidizing the nuclear industry.
“There’s an important and continuing role for nuclear power in achieving these goals,” Kenneth N. Luongo, president of the Washington-based Partnership for Global Security, said at the start of a recent discussion between his group and the nuclear industry’s chief lobbying group on Capitol Hill, the Nuclear Energy Institute.
The Partnership for Global Security, originally incorporated in 1997 as the Russian-American Nuclear Security Advisory Council, is a think tank that promotes the convergence of 21st-century security, technology, and economic issues that affect the global nuclear industry. It has been working with the NEI on an effort called the Global Nexus Initiative, which promotes stronger public-private collaboration on nuclear issues.
“This is not a one-country issue,” Mr. Luongo said.
The NEI wants the public to reconsider how it views nuclear power ……
The NEI’s marketing campaign, though, took another hit in late October when Omaha Public Power announced it is giving up on its Fort Calhoun nuclear plant.
It is the seventh site in three years where a utility said it can no longer justify high operation costs.
Chicago-based Exelon, which owns the most nuclear plants, announced in June it will shut its single-unit Clinton and its twin-unit Quad Cities plants in Illinois in 2017 and 2018, respectively, because of poor economics.
Although Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp. has said repeatedly that its Davis-Besse and Perry plants in Ohio are safe from early closure, Davis-Besse appeared on another list of at-risk plants in a Nov. 3 report issued by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, an anti-nuclear group in Takoma Park, Md.
Three years ago, Davis-Besse was one of several plants cited at-risk for early closure in a Vermont Law School study. FirstEnergy’s chief executive officer, Charles “Chuck” Jones, said in a conference call with analysts earlier this month that the utility giant is undertaking a 12 to 18-month “strategic review” of its competitive generation business that could lead to selling off as many as 13 power plants, including Davis-Besse and plants at its other two nuclear complexes. The latter are the Perry nuclear plant east of Cleveland, and the twin-reactor Beaver Valley nuclear complex west of Pittsburgh.
“The fact is, competitive generation is weighing down the rest of the company,” Mr. Jones said. “We do not think competitive generation is a good fit.”
Though showing a profit for its third quarter, FirstEnergy lost millions of dollars during the first nine months of 2016 and expects to end the year with a loss as well.
“We are at a crossroads,” Mr. Jones said. “We have to make some tough decisions.”
Rate request
In a highly contentious rate request argued for months before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, FirstEnergy originally sought a guaranteed cash flow of up to 15 years to ensure the viability of Davis-Besse and the utility’s massive coal-fired Sammis plant in southern Ohio.
Last month, after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission struck down a modified plan, state regulators unanimously agreed to let FirstEnergy impose $132.5 million a year in new surcharges on its 1.9 million customers over the next three years. That comes to about $3 more a month for a typical residential customer. The deal is substantially less than FirstEnergy’s attempted compromise for an eight-year deal at $558 million per year for a total of $4.5 billion.
Critics have decried each proposal as a bailout, while the utility argued the money is necessary to help stabilize it.
But Ohio’s handling of FirstEnergy requests has been watched closely by other states which are undecided about the degree to which they should support nuclear power.
California, Mr. Luongo noted, has taken the position of gradually phasing out its nuclear plants, while New York decided late this summer to spend $7.6 billion over 12 years to ensure continued operation of three upstate nuclear plants……
There isn’t any uniformity regarding this issue at the moment,” Mr. Luongo said. “The market seems to be distorted, in that it is disincentivizing nuclear power.”
The discussion focused on the mix of old and new: How an investment in advanced nuclear reactors that are smaller but more efficient than today’s existing fleet could bring back the nuclear industry …..
The hope is to achieve better economies of scale with advanced nuclear reactors, standardized designs, greater involvement from private investors, and global partners.
“They’re unlikely to be wholly government financed,” Everett Redmond, NEI fuel cycle and technology policy senior director, said. “It’s key to be able to export this technology.”
Todd Allen, senior visiting fellow for a Washington think tank called Third Way, said the industry needs to remake itself because “nuclear energy stands at a crossroads.”
“Nuclear energy must evolve to keep up with changes in the energy sector,” he said……
In a separate event last week, Tim Judson, Nuclear Information and Resource Service executive director, discussed findings of a report he authored called “Too Big to Bail Out,” in which he argued that subsidizing the nuclear industry will have deep consequences.
He said his research shows half of the current fleet of nuclear plants could be uneconomical as early as 2020.
The nation should invest in other technologies instead of “obsolete infrastructure,” Mr. Judson said.
“Renewable energy and efficiency can be done for less,” he said.
Peter Bradford, a former U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission board member and a former state utility regulator in Maine and New York, said New York’s bailout is “the clearest example of a state capitulating” to the industry.
Contact Tom Henry at: thenry@theblade.com, 419-724-6079, or via Twitter @ecowriterohio. http://www.toledoblade.com/Energy/2016/11/13/Nuclear-industry-looks-to-reshape-image-It-can-help-meet-carbon-reduction-goals-but-can-t-compete-on-cost.html
November 14, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
marketing, spinbuster, USA |
3 Comments
Japan’s Nuclear Industry Finds a Lifeline in India After Foundering Elsewhere, NYT, By JONATHAN SOBLENOV. 11, 2016 TOKYO — Despite objections from antinuclear campaigners, Japan’s government cleared the way on Friday for companies that build nuclear power plants to sell their technology to India — one of the few nations planning big expansions in atomic energy — by signing a cooperation agreement with the South Asian country.
The deal is a lifeline for the Japanese nuclear power industry, which has been foundering since meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant in northeastern Japan in 2011. Plans to build a dozen new reactors in Japan were canceled after that, a gut punch for some of the country’s biggest industrial conglomerates, including Toshiba and Hitachi.With the domestic market moribund, Japanese companies had been pursuing deals abroad, but success was elusive.
November 12, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
India, Japan, marketing |
Leave a comment
despite the news here and there about the conclusions of new nuclear cooperation agreements by ASEAN nations, it is very difficult to conceive that a nuclear power plant will actually be built in one of these countries
Nuclear Energy in Southeast Asia: A Bridge Too Far?
Hopes for a nuclear renaissance in Southeast Asia have proven overly ambitious. The Diplomat By Viet Phuong Nguyen November 09, 2016 In the late 2000s, energy forecasts began to use the term “nuclear renaissance” to refer to the fast-growing nuclear power program of China, and to the emergence of the so-called “nuclear aspirants” embarking on their first nuclear power projects. Many among these newcomers are members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). For this reason, nuclear suppliers like the United States, Russia, Japan, and South Korea have been particularly active in signing cooperation agreements with ASEAN nations or supporting these countries to explore the feasibility of nuclear energy.
However, after almost a decade of pondering the nuclear option, no ASEAN state has made the decision to go nuclear. This article will discuss the evolution of the nuclear endeavor in Southeast Asian nations in order to show that ASEAN may not be a potential market for nuclear energy as the major vendors hoped.
The Philippines Under the authoritarian regime of Ferdinand Marcos, the Philippines became the first Southeast Asian country to build a nuclear power plant after the Philippine government awarded the American company Westinghouse with a 600-MW project in Bataan in 1973. Facing a fierce anti-nuclear movement and allegations of corruption, the construction of the Bataan nuclear power plant was only completed in 1984. With the overthrow of the Marcos regime in 1986, however, the ill-fated plant has since been mothballed without a single day of operation.
Having invested more than $2 billion for the construction of the nuclear project, and probably another significant amount to maintain it in good condition, the Philippine government has explored plans to revive the Bataan project or to convert it into a thermal power station. None of these plans were seriously considered due to the high projected cost and strong public opposition, particularly from the Catholic Church. Most recently, speaking at a nuclear conference in Manila, Energy Secretary Alfonso Cusi proposed the idea of restarting the Bataan plant to cope with the energy demand of the country, only to be quickly rebuffed by the newly-elected Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, citing safety and security concerns.
Vietnam
Among the potential customers of nuclear energy in Southeast Asia, Vietnam been has been considered the most serious given its high-profile agreements with Russia and Japan on the construction of two plants in Ninh Thuan province, and its ambitious plan to build up to ten nuclear units by 2030. In the wake of the Fukushima nuclear accident in March 2011, when neighboring states like China or Thailand decided to either slow down their nuclear programs or withdraw from the race altogether, the Vietnamese government still reiterated their commitment to follow through with the announced plan and even broadened the country’s nuclear cooperation by signing a nuclear agreement with the United States (commonly known as the “123 Agreement”) in 2014.
After several years of progress, the first signs of trouble in the Ninh Thuan nuclear project came in late 2015 when it was reported that the start of the first unit’s construction would likely be delayed for six years, from the initially planned 2016 to 2022, with the operation date moved further to July 2028. Later that year, Vu Ngoc Hoang, the second-in-command of the Vietnam Communist Party’s propaganda machine, surprised the media and the public with an article alluding to a disagreement among the Party’s leadership on the feasibility of the Ninh Thuan project and proposing to stop the nuclear development program for good. Although Hoang retired not long after the article’s publication, considering the Party’s consensus-driven process of policy making and Hoang’s seniority within the Communist Party as a member of the Party’s Central Committee, it is difficult not to wonder about a dire future for nuclear energy in Vietnam.
Signs of a possible moratorium on or even termination of nuclear development in Vietnam have become apparent since early 2016 with the promulgation of the revised National Electricity Development Plan. The updated plan confirmed the 2028 delay for Ninh Thuan, alongside a significant drop of nuclear power estimates by 2030 (from 10.1 percent in the original plan down to 5.7 percent). In October 2016, “issues related to the construction of the nuclear power plants in Ninh Thuan” were announced by the Fourth Plenum of the new Central Committee, implying that the public will hear soon about the fate of the nuclear project. One month later, the Japanese news agency Kyodo confirmed the Vietnam Communist Party’s decision to postpone both the Russian and Japanese nuclear power projects due to the current financial constraints of the country. Interestingly enough, this definitive confirmation came from a foreign outlet, whereas in recent months Vietnamese domestic media has still focused on debating the necessity of nuclear energy for the country or discussing the risks of the Chinese nuclear plants that have been built and operated near the border with Vietnam.
Other Southeast Asian States
Among the Southeast Asian states, Thailand was the first country to conclude the 123 Agreement with the United States, as well as the earliest contender in the nuclear race, with proposals dating back to the 1960s. After several dormant decades due to safety concerns and the abundance of natural gas, nuclear advocacy made a comeback in Thailand in the 2000s when the Thai government contracted the consulting firm Burns and Roe to study the feasibility of a nuclear power project in the country. However, this renewed interest in nuclear energy has met with intense public opposition, especially after the Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011, to the point that the Thai government has had to indefinitely postpone its nuclear endeavor. As a result, the Thai government did not seek to extend the 123 Agreement, when the agreement expired in 2014. Extending the 123 Agreement is a prerequisite condition if Thailand wants to import nuclear technologies of U.S. origin.
Having one of the more advanced nuclear programs in the region, Indonesia has considered introducing nuclear energy to decrease the country’s dependence on coal and oil since the early 1990s. However, a combination of precarious geological conditions, public opposition, and lack of political determination has made nuclear an undesirable choice in Indonesia’s energy planning. Lately, Indonesian officials reportedly emphasized that nuclear energy would only be considered beyond 2025 if the country’s renewable energy target cannot be met by other options.
The last potential nuclear energy user in the ASEAN community is Malaysia, where the nuclear option has been seriously considered since the late 2000s. Despite having a careful and well-organized development plan, the Malaysian government has continuously moved back the starting date of the country’s first nuclear project in order to gain public support and adjust the technical and financial feasibility of the project. Lately, the CEO of the Malaysian Nuclear Power Corporation stated that 2030 is the earliest date possible for the construction of the first nuclear plant in Malaysia.
Finally, despite once possessing a controversial nuclear research program, the reformed Myanmar has halted a major part of its nuclear activities in order to show its willingness for political transparency and international cooperation. Furthermore, together with Cambodia and Laos, Myanmar does not have the financial capacity, manpower, or necessary infrastructure for such a complex and expensive project as a nuclear power plant. On the other hand, the leading nation of ASEAN in these aspects – Singapore – has made an official decision to not explore the nuclear option, which is understandable given its limited landmass and environmental concerns.
Conclusions
In reviewing the history of nuclear development (or lack thereof) in Southeast Asia, one can identify the major obstacles for nuclear advocacy, namely the anti-nuclear sentiment, persistent safety concerns, and a lack of consistent political willingness from Southeast Asian governments. Even though nuclear energy has been considered an attractive option in the fight against climate change, which has emerged as one of the most important threats to the region, it is unlikely that those obstacles can be alleviated anytime soon. Rather, similar to the situation in South Korea, where nuclear acceptance has deteriorated significantly in the past two decades, the growing middle class in ASEAN nations will probably become more concerned about environmental issues, of which nuclear energy has always been one of the most poignant.
One example of the increasing power of the environmentalist movement can be found in Vietnam, where mass protests occurred at unprecedented scale in reaction to the large-scale fish kill in the coastal region due to chemical spill from a Taiwan-owned steel factory. Participants in these protests included local people, religious leaders, activists, and lawyers; a similar grouping was observed during the anti-nuclear activities that led to the shutdown of the Bataan nuclear power plant in the Philippines during the 1980s. Therefore, despite the news here and there about the conclusions of new nuclear cooperation agreements by ASEAN nations, it is very difficult to conceive that a nuclear power plant will actually be built in one of these countries, at least in the next one or two decades.
Viet Phuong Nguyen is a predoctoral fellow in the Belfer Center’s International Security Program and Project on Managing the Atom. He is a Ph.D. candidate in nuclear engineering at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) after receiving a B.Sc. in nuclear physics from the Vietnam National University and a M.Sc. in nuclear engineering from KAIST. http://thediplomat.com/2016/11/nuclear-energy-in-southeast-asia-a-bridge-too-far/
November 11, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
ASIA, marketing |
Leave a comment
Japan companies face obstacles to consolidate nuclear business, Nikkei Asian Review November 8, 2016 TOMOHIRO ICHIHARA, Nikkei staff writer TOKYO — As most of Japan’s nuclear reactors remain offline and China looms as a challenger in the global arena, a plan by three key players in the nation’s slumping nuclear industry to integrate their fuel businesses is being overshadowed by obstacles including a power struggle and technological differences.
Even as they face a shrinking domestic market amid slow restarts of nuclear plants shut down following the 2011 Fukushima disaster, Hitachi, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Toshiba are far apart on the integration plan, let alone acting on the recent suggestion that they consolidate their entire reactor businesses.
In a news conference on Oct. 27, Hitachi President and CEO Toshiaki Higashihara said, “Eventually there will be a time when you have to think about the entire picture, not just the fuel business.”………..
In Japan, there are only three reactors currently operating — Kyushu Electric Power‘s Sendai nuclear power station’s unit Nos. 1 and 2 in Kagoshima Prefecture and Shikoku Electric Power‘s Ikata nuclear power station’s unit No. 3 in Ehime Prefecture.
Prospects for getting more operating remain unclear, especially after a court issued an injunction blocking the restart of reactors at the Takahama nuclear plant in Fukui Prefecture.
Under the circumstances, the idea of building a new reactor in Japan is seen as nearly impossible, as distant as a “dream that was dreamed in a dream,” said a Mitsubishi Heavy official.
Myriad roadblocks
While the companies managed to start talks on integrating their fuel businesses, differences in designs present an even higher hurdle for integrating reactor businesses.
Mitsubishi Heavy has focused on pressurized water reactors, which account for 70% of the world’s operating nuclear reactors. However, boiling water reactors are the mainstay of Hitachi’s and Toshiba’s nuclear technology.
Hitachi Ltd., Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Toshiba Corp., Kyushu Electric Power Co., Inc., Shikoku Electric Power Co., Inc., ITOCHU Corp. http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Japan-companies-face-obstacles-to-consolidate-nuclear-business
November 11, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, Japan |
Leave a comment
nuclear-news 