NuScale “small nuclear” company marketing hard in UK, providing funding
NuScale to forge strong US-UK partnership with Sheffield Forgemasters, B Daily, Nick Hill, 8 July 16 NuScale Power’s aim to build a UK-U.S. partnership has made significant steps forward.
Sheffield Forgemasters International Ltd (SFIL) and NuScale are set to collaborate to develop the manufacturing techniques that will be required for the future deployment of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) in the UK.
SFIL will forge a large civil nuclear reactor vessel head by the end of 2017, as part of a programme supported by Innovate UK, to develop forging and fabrication solutions for the nuclear industry.
NuScale Power is providing funding to support the use of the geometries required by its SMR design……..
NuScale Power will be holding a Supplier Day at the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre in Sheffield on 13 July aimed at giving UK-based engineering, manufacturing and construction companies the opportunity to learn about the company’s programme of work.
NuScale is also participating in the UK Government’s competition to choose the best value SMR, aimed at seeing SMRs deployed in the UK in the 2020s. https://bdaily.co.uk/industrials/08-07-2016/nuscale-to-forge-strong-us-uk-partnership-with-sheffield-forgemasters/
Renewables beat nuclear on economics, as Wall Street now finds
New Wind & Solar Lower Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Cost Less Than Keeping Aging Nuclear Power Plants Running, Clean Technica July 5th, 2016 by Christopher Arcus Recently, we have seen a spate of older nuclear reactors shut down by their owners for economic reasons. One of the first bellwethers of this trend was the Kewaunee power plant closure. While the public at large may not be aware, nuclear power plant owners are aware of the increasing costs of aging reactors and have responded accordingly. A recent quote from the head of Dominion following the Kewaunee closing tells the story. Thomas Farrell II, chairman, president, and CEO of Dominion, stated:
“This decision was based purely on economics. Dominion was not able to move forward with our plan to grow our nuclear fleet in the Midwest to take advantage of economies of scale.”
This story has been repeated as a succession of older nuclear power plants have announced closure, among them: Diablo Canyon, Crystal River, San Onofre, Fitzpatrick, Fort Calhoun,Vermont Yankee, Clinton, Quad Cities, and Pilgrim.
Wall Street Wakes Up
Things are crook, very crook, for the uranium industry
Uranium spot prices descend beyond decade low
The descending uranium price has put global producers under pressure. by Tess Ingram Uranium spot prices are still likely to stage a rapid recovery on the back of improving demand, industry analysts and executives argue, despite a persistent supply glut driving prices to a largely unanticipated 11-year low.
Spot prices for uranium oxide, which is used mainly as fuel for nuclear reactors, crept below $US27 ($36) a pound in June for the first time since mid-2005.
The current levels are lower than when prices were sent spiralling after the Fukushima nuclear disaster. After hitting over $US130 a pound in 2007, prices had stabilised to about $US70 a pound at the beginning of 2011 before Fukushima sent them gradually declining to a low of $US28 a pound in May 2014. Prices increased in 2015 but have since slumped about 21 per cent year-to-date.
Argonaut analyst Matthew Keane said prices had persisted “a lot lower than a lot of people expected” and forecasts for the timing of an anticipated supply deficit needed to improve prices “keep getting kicked along”.
“We just haven’t got the reactors online and even though the Chinese build program is very aggressive, we haven’t caught up and really sucked away the inventory yet,” Mr Keane said. “The US and Europe are still sitting on adequate stockpiles.”…… http://www.afr.com/business/mining/uranium/uranium-spot-prices-descend-beyond-decade-low-20160705-gpyupv
South Australia’s financially risky nuclear waste import scheme
Shunning nuclear power but not its waste: Assessing the risks of Australia becoming the world’s nuclear wasteland http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629616301323 Mark Diesendorf
Abstract
The South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission has undertaken ‘an independent and comprehensive investigation into the potential for increasing South Australia’s participation in the nuclear fuel cycle’. In its Final Report, issued 6 May 2016, it acknowledges that nuclear power would not be commercially viable in South Australia in the foreseeable future. However it recommends that ‘the South Australian Government establish used nuclear fuel and intermediate level waste storage and disposal facilities in South Australia’.
This is a business proposition to store a large fraction of global nuclear wastes, providing interim above-ground storage followed by permanent underground storage in South Australia.
The present critical evaluation of the scheme finds that the Royal Commission’s economic analysis is based on many unsubstantiated assumptions. Furthermore, the scheme is financially risky for both Australian taxpayers and customers and has a questionable ethical basis.
Struggling nuclear company EDF now looking for a nuclear shut-down business
France’s EDF sets sights on $200 bln nuclear decommissioning market By Bate Felix and Benjamin Mallet PARIS, July 4 (Reuters) – EDF aims to snare a sizeable share of the global nuclear decommissioning market, worth an estimated 200 billion euros ($222 billion) over the next 15 years, by virtue of experience gained in dismantling its old reactors.The French state-controlled utility is in the process of dismantling nine reactors and has 58 others in operation, supplying France with about 75 percent of its energy needs.
Worldwide, 110 reactors have been halted and will need to be safely dismantled, EDF executives said, adding that the company has a team of 800 experts in the complex process.
“Nuclear decommissioning is a very important market with opportunities for the international and local nuclear sector,” Dominique Miniere, executive director for EDF’s nuclear and thermal plants, told journalists in Paris……
Based on the completed decommissioning of reactors in the United States, EDF estimates that it will cost about 400 million euros to dismantle a 900 megawatt pressurised water reactor — a process that could take up to 15 years.
The company’s first dismantling of a nuclear reactor in France — the Chooz A reactor that ceased operating in 1991 — is expected to be completed in 2022. ($1 = 0.8974 euros) (Editing by David Goodman) http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL8N19Q3N4
Bond sale for nuclear construction as its costs soar
Santee Cooper greenlights $831M bond sale to fund nuclear construction, Utility Dive By Robert Walton | July 5, 2016
Dive Brief:
- The Santee Cooper Board of Directors has taken steps to lock in the cost of developing two new units at the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station by taking a fixed price option as part of an amended Engineering, Procurement and Construction Agreement.
- The board also approved the sale of $831 million in revenue obligation bonds, primarily to fund nuclear deveopment but with a portion going to refinance existing utility debt.
- Under the fixed price option, Santee Cooper’s cost of the facility’s costs will total $6.2 billion, 20% more than the utility estimated in 2012, the Post and Courier noted. Santee Cooper is developing the plant alongside South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. ……
The decision follows revelations that development costs at the facility are rising. SCE&G last month informed state regulators that its share of the development of two new nuclear units had increased significantly, rising about $852 million to reach $7.7 billion, with the total price tag coming in at around $14 billion. SCE&G attributed the ballooning costs to its choice of a fixed price option to construct reactors.
Santee Cooper owns 45% of the nuclear expansion project, and SCE&G owns 55%. In the fall, the the two utilities negotiated an amended EPC agreement with Westinghouse Electric Co. LLC, which Santee Cooper said including terms to incentivize schedule adherence and shift financial risk to Westinghouse for any additional delays in the current scope of work……..http://www.utilitydive.com/news/santee-cooper-greenlights-831m-bond-sale-to-fund-nuclear-construction/422007/
Delay £18bn building of Hinkley nuclear station – EDF workers’ committee
EDF workers’ committee expected to demand that nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset is delayed http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-3672592/EDF-workers-committee-expected-demand-nuclear-power-plant-Hinkley-Point-Somerset-delayed.html By CITY & FINANCE REPORTER FOR THE DAILY MAIL, 4 July 2016 EDF’S workers’ committee is expected to demand today that a nuclear power plant at Hinkley, Somerset, is delayed.
The energy firm has yet to make a decision on how to raise £18bn of funds needed for the power station, and has put off deciding until September to allow time to consult the unions.
The unions are obliged to deliver their opinion today on whether Hinkley should go ahead. But three of them issued a statement last week to say that Britain’s vote to leave the European Union added new elements of uncertainty.
It follows a legal action launched earlier this month in French courts by EDF’s Works Council, who asked for the project to be put off.
It is feared that if the unions do not support the project it could further delay Hinkley, which was due to be completed in 2017 but is currently expected to be finished by 2025.
India’s nuclear insurance policy aims to transfer liability risk from nuclear suppliers
India’s first insurance cover to NPCIL aims to transfer liability risk from nuclear suppliers, International Business Times (IBT) July 3, 2016 By Prabha K S National Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL), the government-owned nuclear power generation company, received India’s first insurance policy that may offset liability risks seen as a bottleneck by foreign nuclear plant suppliers, reported IANS.
The policy, according to the report, will be applicable to all the plants of NPCIL. It covers their liability to the public in the event of accidents specified in the policy and the power plant’s “right of recourse against the equipment suppliers.”
The reinstatement premium will be decided after a claim is filed based on the insurer’s capacity to undertake further risks, said the official……He also added that the policy is devoid of ‘policy excess’, defined as the first amount uncovered by the policy and hence liable to be paid by the company……
The announcement comes after NPCIL paid Rs. 50,000 to each of the six workers who suffered burn injuries at the Kudankulam nuclear plant in May 2014 on successful intervention by National Human Rights Commission, as reported by the Indian Express.
NPCIL is currently mired in allegations of misleading people about the safety of the Kovvada plant in Andhra Pradesh.
Earlier, General Electric chairman Jeffrey Immelt also expressed reservations on building a nuclear plant in India, citing the liability law. http://www.ibtimes.co.in/indias-first-insurance-cover-npcil-aims-transfer-liability-risk-nuclear-suppliers-685317
New India Assurance Company Ltd to insure nuclear reactors
Nuclear plants insured http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/nuclear-plants-insured/article8804348.ece, 4 July 16 India’s first insurance policy covering public liability to an atomic power plant operator has been issued to Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) but the reinstat-ement of insurance value post a claim will be decided later, industry officials said.
“We recently got the insurance policy covering all our atomic power plants. The total premium came around Rs. 100 crore for a risk cover of Rs. 1,500 crore,” S.K. Sharma, Chairman and Managing Director, NPCIL, said.
The policy complies with all the provisions of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (CLND), said a known insurance industry official.
The Central government had announced in June 2015 the setting up of the Rs. 1,500-crore India Nuclear Insurance Pool to be managed by national reinsurer GIC Re.
The insurance policy was issued by the country’s largest non-life insurer New India Assurance Company Ltd.
The policy would cover the liability towards public as a consequence of any nuclear accident in the plants covered under the policy and also the right of recourse of NPCIL against equipment suppliers. The insurance coverage will be for all the NPCIL’s plants— like a floater cover.
Queried about the reinstatement premium, the official said it would be decided post a claim based on the capacity — to underwrite the risk — available with the insurers.
Complications in who pays for costs of Germany’s nuclear phase-out
Who pays for Germany’s nuclear phase-out?,DW Hilke Fischer 1 July 16 Germany’s decision a few years ago to phase out nuclear power was an abrupt move. But it still remains unclear who foots the bill for shutting down the nation’s nuclear plants, as utilities seek damages from the state. Months after a Tsunami resulted in a nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan, Germany’s coalition government, led by Chancellor Angela Merkel, decided to phase out nuclear power in the country.
Immediately after Fukushima, eight of 17 functioning nuclear plants were shut down, and the government’s decision established a timeline of taking the remaining plants offline by 2022.
Five years later, it’s gradually becoming clear how much this hasty exit could cost. Feeling dispossessed by the move, major utilities have filed a raft of lawsuits claiming damage payments from the government amounting to around 20 billion euros ($22.3 billion).
An eagerly awaited ruling
Complying with the government’s nuclear moratorium, Germany’s biggest energy provider Eon had to shut down its power plants Isar 1 and Unterweser. The company has therefore sued both the federal government as well as the state governments of Bavaria and Lower Saxony, seeking damage payments to the tune of around 380 million euros. The state court of Hanover is expected to deliver its ruling on the case on Monday, July 4………..
the energy companies take issue not only with the moratorium. They – RWE, Eon and Vattenfall – have also lodged numerous cases at the constitutional court in Karlsruhe against the government’s entire policy mandating an accelerated exit from nuclear power……..
State responsible for disposal costs?
Lodging cases before the constitutional court is a pressure tactic, said Green Party politician Oliver Krischer in March. “It’s to obtain concessions over the financing of nuclear waste disposal,” he remarked, pointing to the nuclear commission the government had set up to advise it on how to allocate the costs of storage and disposal of nuclear waste as well as the decommissioning of the power stations.
At the end of April, the commission presented its recommendations: The companies have to bear the costs of decommissioning the nuclear power plants. Furthermore, Eon, RWE, Vattenfall and EnBW are to pay 23.3 billion euros into a fund to manage the storage and disposal of nuclear waste.
In return, the state is to take on all the residual financial risks associated with radioactive waste management. A number of scientists and economists argue that the costs would be much higher than the 23.3 billion euros, and that the taxpayers would be on the hook for those cost overruns.
Germany’s parliament is expected to vote on the recommendations after the summer break, and should it approve them, they would come into force at the end of the year. http://www.dw.com/en/who-pays-for-germanys-nuclear-phase-out/a-19372796
China trying to market nuclear reactors to Argentina
China and Argentina reaffirm reactor agreement World Nuclear News, 01 July 2016 China and Argentina have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) reaffirming their plans to construct two new nuclear power reactors in the Latin American country with financing from Chinese banks. Construction of Argentina’s fourth reactor is to start early next year……..
America’s future in renewables: nuclear can’t compete on costs nor on safety
Our future is in green energy not aging, costly nuclear plants Seattle Times, June 29, 2016 By Robert McCullough “……..The nuclear station, now called the Columbia Generating Station (CGS), was once known as Washington Public Power Supply System No. 2. This is a relic of an energy plan begun in the 1960s and built with technology from the 1970s. It is an 8-track tape player in an iPad world. The prices of electric power have plummeted over the years as renewables have sharply declined in price, natural gas is facing a glut and new technologies from LED lighting to rooftop solar have arrived.
Why is the plant so expensive? It is in a poor location — competing with far less costly renewable resources like wind and hydroelectricity. When the wind blows and the rivers surge, we have to turn off these resources, since the nuclear plant can’t adjust its output like alternative-energy resources. We have no storage solution for the nuclear waste that is being stored in its elevated spent fuel pool and in dry casks outside the plant. The plant is a singleton, rather than having twin units — there are strong economies of scale for twin plants that share repair and operating resources.
However, even more efficient, better-located nuclear plants are closing across the U.S. — recent announcements indicate plants closing in Illinois, New York, California, Massachusetts, and Nebraska. These plants are not closing because they are ailing. They are closing because the costs of aging nuclear is simply much higher than cleaner and simpler technologies.
The Nebraska closure is a case in point. Last week, the Omaha Public Power District, a public power entity comparable to Energy Northwest, announced the closure of the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station on economic grounds. This was a thoughtful, well-considered opinion that weighed the costs over the rhetoric…….
Moldova hesitant – for now, resisting China’s nuclear marketing
Will China Bring Nuclear Power to Moldova?, Eurasia Net 30 June 16 China appears willing to help Moldova become a nuclear power. But for now officials in Chi?in?u seem hesitant to go all-in on atomic energy.
Chinese representatives from the state-run National Nuclear Power Company (NNPC) were in Moldova in mid-May for talks aimed at identifying opportunities to boost “bilateral cooperation in the energy sector,” according to an official statement. Chinese and Moldovan officials agreed to complete a feasibility study on “launching new projects for producing electricity in Moldova” by the end of 2016……
For now, the Moldovan government seems more interested in renewable energy. ……
Târ?u said that he advised against a nuclear power plant because of the environmental risks, plus Moldova’s lack of water resources, facilities for storing radioactive waste, and “qualified and experienced staff in this field.”
Another risk also exists: an Associated Press report in late 2015 indicated that Moldova could be atrafficking hub for nuclear materials. Criminal groups with supposed Russian ties allegedly have used the country four times since 2010 to try and pass radioactive materials to anti-Western customers (including a Moldovan undercover agent posing as a representative of the Islamic State terror organization). None of the attempts succeeded……..
energy expert Târ?u does not believe that a nuclear power plant will be built in Moldova. Thirteen years ago, Moldova also considered the possibility of a French-built nuclear power plant, but the discussions resulted in nothing . http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/06/china-nuclear-plant-moldova/
Russia’s nuclear marketing: the ambitions and the reality
Russia’s nuclear energy expansion – a geopolitical footprint?, New Eastern Europe 
News, , 28 June 2016 “…….As the low oil and gas prices globally have squeezed Russia’s fossil fuel export revenues, an integral part of the country’s income, the nuclear industry has been looking for a worldwide expansion. Rosatom, Russia’s state-owned nuclear champion, has in the recent years set an ambitious course to deliver Russian nuclear power generating technology to both traditional partner countries as well as to new “developing“ economies…….
Nuclear ambitions
Over the past decade state-owned nuclear corporation Rosatom and its network of subsidiaries have made direct or indirect commitments to build nuclear power plants in a number of countries around the world. As stated by a Rosatom official in a recent interview, Russia has signed intergovernmental agreements for the possible construction of 36 nuclear reactors overseas and is holding “active and consistent” tendering negotiations about 21 others. It is apparent that Russia seems to be looking away from Europe and its traditional markets in search of new business opportunities for its nuclear industry.
During the Russia – ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) summit held on 19 and 20 May in Sochi, Russia’s president Vladimir Putin said his country is ready to provide a Generation III nuclear reactor technology to countries in Southeast Asia. Another Rosatom official called forAfrica to invest in nuclear energy during an annual energy forum in Johannesburg in February 2016.
The reality
The overall expansion agenda seems really impressive, but in fact only some of the projects are in an active construction phase – such as those in Belarus, China, Finland, India, and Slovakia. The projects in Egypt, Hungary, Iran and Vietnam are also likely to get the go-ahead in the near future. As for the rest, the picture has not been so rosy.
Turkey’s Akkuyu project is becoming increasingly bogged down after the relationship between Moscow and Ankara embittered last November. Ukraine has denounced an agreement with Russia on the construction of two units at the Khmelnitsky site as the two countries have become increasingly hostile due to the looming Donbas and Crimea crises. China appears to have taken over the project for the expansion of the Atucha plant in Argentina. And nuclear development on the African continent (except for South Africa and Egypt) is nowhere closer to reality in the near future.
Looking back at Europe, both Finland’s Hanhikivi and Hungary’s Paks 2 nuclear new build projects have come under scrutiny of the authorities. In the Finnish case, the main condition set by Helsinki to allow the project was for 60 per cent of the ownership of Fennovoima, the company building Hanhikivi, to be held by investors from the EU. This meant Rosatom could only be a minority owner with its 34 per cent. As with Hungary, the European Commission (EC) has launched two procedures against the government in Budapest looking into the legality of the state aid and public procurement conditions around the Paks 2 project. The EC has expressed its doubts on whether the deal with Russia fully meets EU regulations and has been concluded on market terms. The EC said it would assess if a private investor would have financed the project on similar terms or whether Hungary’s investment constitutes state aid.
Economics and geopolitics
From an economic point of view, nuclear projects are specific with their high upfront capital costs. This fact often creates major hurdles for countries or companies looking to build nuclear capacities………
Apart from the initial investment, which is undoubtedly good business for Rosatom, even more attractive is the possibility for nuclear fuel supplies the Russian-designed reactors will be using over their operational lifetime. As this is on average 30-50 years, it is a brilliant opportunity for continued revenue over a very long period of time. ……
Forced to play by the common rules, Russia has to accommodate to open competition on EU terms. Therefore, it is looking for an ambitious expansion of its nuclear exports around the world, striving to “conquer” market shares as a first mover, while major nuclear industries in Europe and Japan are plagued by shrinking business opportunities, financial problems, and negative public opinions. The real contenders to Russia’s nuclear expansion in the short and medium term will become China and the US. It only remains to be seen where the business ends and geopolitics begins. http://www.neweasterneurope.eu/articles-and-commentary/2040-russia-s-nuclear-energy-expansion-a-geopolitical-footprint
South Carolina Electric and Gas wants more ratepayers’ money for building nuclear reactors
SCE&G files for 3.1 percent rate increase to fund nuclear plant construction, The Post and Courier David Wren Email @David_Wren_ Jun 28 2016 South Carolina Electric & Gas is asking state regulators to approve the largest single rate increase yet under a state law that lets the utility charge customers for construction of two new reactors at the V.C. Summer nuclear plant in Jenkinsville years before they are completed.
The proposed increase, which needs approval from the state’s Public Service Commission, would boost residential customers’ rates by 3.1 percent, or an average of $4.44 per bill for those using 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per month. Commercial customers would see their rates increase by between 3 percent and 3.3 percent, depending on the size of the business, if the new rate structure is approved.
Until now, the biggest annual increase was 2.87 percent in 2013……..If the increase is approved, nearly 19 percent of residential customers’ monthly bills will be going solely toward construction of the new reactors, according to Dukes Scott, executive director of the state’s Office of Regulatory Staff, which represents consumers’ interests in utility matters.
To date, SCE&G has charged its customers more than $1 billion for construction of the units, Scott said. The proposed rate increase would raise another $74.2 million and would take effect at the end of November if approved……..
The proposed rate increase is part of the Base Load Review Act, passed in 2008 by the General Assembly. The law allows the utility to charge its 700,000 customers for construction as the nuclear project proceeds. Historically, utilities have financed construction through bond sales that are repaid after the project is completed.
The Base Load Review Act amounts to a “blank check” for SCE&G, according to Frank Knapp, president and CEO of the S.C. Small Business Chamber of Commerce and an opponent of the rate increases.
“The law was written by the industry, the General Assembly didn’t understand it and there has been no good evaluation of it since it was passed,” Knapp said. “Consequently, here we are.”……..
The nuclear reactors initially were supposed to go online in 2016 and 2018, but are now about two years behind schedule. Further construction delays could lead to more rate increases. SCE&G plans to receive $2.2 billion in federal Production Tax Credits, but those credits — part of the Energy and Policy Act of 2005 — expire if the units aren’t up and running by Dec. 31, 2020……http://www.postandcourier.com/20160628/160629448/sceg-files-for-31-percent-rate-increase-to-fund-nuclear-plant-construction
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (82)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 