USA trying to market nuclear power to Mexico
U.S., Mexico talk nuclear energy, Washington Examiner By 7/22/16 “….President Obama discussed the nuclear energy collaboration with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto after a meeting Friday….. we are pursuing an agreement this year on sharing civilian nuclear technology,” the president said. “This fall our new U.S.-Mexico Energy Business Council will meet for the very first time to strengthen the ties between our energy industries.”
Russian, USA, Japanese nuclear salesmen move their Indian nuclear plans to Andhra Pradesh
A.P. set to be country’s nuclear power hub http://www.thehindu.com/
news/national/andhra-pradesh/ap-set-to-be-countrys-nuclear-power-hub/article8876943.ece SUHASINI HAIDAR
Govt. is pinning its mega plans for generating the ‘clean’ energy on coastal Andhra Pradesh.
Weeks after the government announced that U.S. company Westinghouse’s Nuclear Power Project (NPP), planned in Gujarat’s Mithi Virdi, is being moved to Andhra Pradesh, sources confirmed to The Hindu that Russian-owned Rosatom will build its next phase of six reactors in Andhra Pradesh as well.
With other States like Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Maharashtra facing local protests over NPPs, the government is now pinning its mega plans for generating the ‘clean’ energy on coastal Andhra Pradesh. In fact, if all the projects under consideration from Russia, the U.S. and NPCIL were to actually go through, NPPs in Andhra could account for more than 30,000 MW of the Modi government’s goal of 63,000 MW installed capacity by 2031. The site for the next set of six Russian reactors was discussed during A.P. Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu’s recent visit to Russia, where he met Russian PM Dmitry Medvedev.
Sources told The Hindu the project site identified, believed to be Kavali in Nellore district, could be announced during President Vladimir Putin’s visit to India in October. “It’s huge,” said Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, who had led the delegation to Russia. “In Andhra Pradesh, six nuclear centres are going to be created, totalling thousands of megawatts in capacity. Of course, Andhra Pradesh will have both American and Russian participation in nuclear energy generation, but the Russians will be the first to “Make in India” in the nuclear sphere in Andhra,” Ms. Sitharaman told The Hindu.
The “American participation” referred to is the plan for Toshiba-Westinghouse to set up 6 AP1000 reactors of 1,100 megawatts each, a proposal that had run into trouble in Gujarat due to “stiff protests from farmers” during the land acquisition process for 777 hectares, a senior official in the Gujarat government said.
“In addition, Tata, Adani and Essar, which are the largest power producers in the State, were never comfortable with another giant plant being set up in the State,” the official said. During Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Washington in June 2016, NPCIL and Westinghouse had announced the move to Andhra Pradesh, with a commitment to complete the commercial agreement for 6 reactors by June 2017.
Meanwhile, another Russian project that has been hanging fire for years, to build 6 ‘VVER’ (Water-Water Energy) Reactors of 1000 MWe in West Bengal’s Haripur may also be moved to Andhra Pradesh due to local protests. “We are looking for a site in some coastal area of Andhra Pradesh where a similar reactor, which was meant for Haripur, will come up,” Dr. Sekhar Basu, now Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, had told reporters last September, although West Bengal officials told The Hindua final decision has not been taken.
State officials hope Tamil Nadu, Gujarat and West Bengal’s loss will soon be Andhra Pradesh’s gain, and the State already has the Kovvada nuclear park project for 6 1000MW reactors in Srikakulam under way. However, the coast isn’t completely clear. Kovvada has seen some protests of the kind seen at Kudankulam, Mithi Virdi and Haripur. While many local residents are unwilling to part with land, others have concerns over environmental hazards, especially given that some of the sites identified for nuclear projects are in a seismically sensitive zone, and have seen tremors in the past.
Confirming that several projects are only in “preliminary stages”, the Andhra Pradesh government’s media adviser Parkala Prabhakar told The Hindu: “The Central government has asked some more sites for other plants. We have asked the Collectors of Prakasam and Nellore to spot the sites. Once those sites are identified, the NPCIL will come for inspection to check the compatibility,” indicating that while Andhra’s nuclear power-hub dreams are in sight, they may take a while to come to fruition. (With Appaji Reddem in Vijayawada & Mahesh Langa in Ahmedabad)
Dirty uranium industry not a job creator for South Africa
Uranium is the dirty underbelly of nuclear – scientist http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/uranium-is-the-dirty-underbelly-of-nuclear-scientist-2016-07-21 21ST JULY 2016 BY: NEWS24WIRE Anti nuclear sentiment tends to focus onnuclear waste or operational risks, but more focus should be on the “dirty underbelly” of uranium mining, according to a science adviser.
“Whenever people get excited about nuclear power stations, they kind of forget where the actual uranium comes from,”Dr Stefan Cramer, science adviser for environmentalist groupSafcei, told Fin24 in an interview recently.
“Nuclear is a fallacy, both economically and environmentally,” Cramer, who was born in Germany but not now lives in Graaff-Reinet, claimed.
“Uranium mining is the dirty underbelly of this whole nuclearcycle,” he said. “It’s where it all starts.”
“One must stop nuclear industries in (their) tracks because it leaves future generations with an immeasurable task and legacy,” he said. “The best point to start is at the source, where the whole cycle of nuclear technology begins, and that is at uranium mining.
“Uranium mining is very much the dirtiest part of the entire industry.”
Anti-uranium mining boost Cramer’s focus on anti-uranium mining was given a boost this month when Australian company Tasman Pacific Minerals Limited said it is downsizing its mining application in South Africa by almost 90%.
“Overall, the area covered by Tasman’s new and existingmining right and prospecting right applications in the Western and Eastern Cape will reduce by almost 300 000 ha to approximately 465 000 ha,” it said.
Tasman is punting job creation as necessitating the success of its new application. “Currently very few opportunities for additional economic development exist,” it said in a recent report.
“Tasman believes that uranium mining has a significant role to play in improving the economic outlook of the region, not only from an employment perspective, but also in the economic activity that is generated by associated businessactivities that extend beyond mining itself.”
“We desperately need jobs in the Karoo,” he said. “The Karoo is an area of high poverty, (with) very low employment opportunities. Any opportunity is usually highly welcome and it is to be welcomed because we need jobs desperately. Buturanium mining is a very poor process to create jobs.
“If we are really serious about job creation in the Karoo, there are other opportunities, which are much more valuable.
“Agriculture is still the main employment opportunity and needs to be protected and improved. Agri-tourism is a very new and very fast rising opportunity, but the best (opportunity) of all is renewable energy.”Renewable energy jobs boost
“South African already has 28 000 jobs in the renewable energy industry as compared to 2 600 in the nuclearindustry,” said Cramer. “Even the most ambitious job projections in the nuclear field would be up to 30 000 jobs if they whole country is run onnuclear energy. If we go into renewable energies, it’s an order of magnitude.
“The Department of Energy predicts up to 350 000 jobs inrenewable energy, so uranium mining is clear(ly) not a good strategy,” he said.
Cramer said nuclear is also a fallacy from a democratic point of view, “because it creates a veil of secrecy over this whole industry”. “That is clearly shown in our court case against the South African government for its failure to disclose the contents of an agreement with Russia,” he said.
Climate change threatens economies, as workers hampered by increasing heat
Hotter Temperatures Threaten Southeast Asian Economies: Chart http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-19/too-hot-to-work, Jessica Shankleman July 19, 2016 Rising global temperatures may cost global economies more than $2 trillion by 2030, restricting working hours in some of the poorest parts of the world, according to United Nations research published Tuesday. As many as 43 countries, especially those in Southeast Asia, will experience declines in their economies because of heat stress, says Tord Kjellstrom, a director at the Health and Environment International Trust, based in Nelson, New Zealand.“With heat stress, you cannot keep up the same intensity of work, and we’ll see reduced speed of work and more rest in labor-intensive industries,” he said.
Green State, Golden State: Clean Energy Policy Creates Good Jobs
http://capitalandmain.com/latest-news/issues/labor-and-economy/green-state-golden-state-clean-energy-policy-makes-good-jobs-0719/ by Dean Kuipers July 19, 2016 California’s deserts are blooming with windmills and solar farms and, according to a new University of California, Berkeley report, these large-scale projects are creating top quality jobs. The Link Between Good Jobs and a Low Carbon Future, issued by the Don Vial Center on the Green Economy at Berkeley’s Labor Center, finds that despite the one-off nature of large, clean energy construction projects, these renewable-power enterprises are creating high-paying, long-lasting blue-collar jobs.
UK’s House of Lords’ members, UK banks – financial interests in Trident nuclear programme
According to the House of Lords register of interests, around 15% of sitting members are directors of, or shareholders in, companies that are either directly contracted to the Trident programme or invest in it.
Specifically Barclays and HSBC. A report by Don’t Bank on the Bomb details the involvement of major financial institutions in the western nuclear weapons industry.
The truth about Trident: the shocking fact that would turn us all against paying for nukes, The Canary, JULY 18TH, 2016 STEVE TOPPLE As parliament debates the renewal of Trident, the UK’s “nuclear deterrent” – the arguments surrounding the controversial weapons system rage as fiercely as ever. But there’s one aspect which has been repeatedly overlooked. UK banks not only finance our nuclear deterrent, but also our supposed “enemy” Russia’s as well, and senior politicians enjoy a direct financial profit through keeping Trident.
The name Trident refers to the nuclear missiles that are carried on four Vanguard-Class submarines. Based out of Faslane, on the Clyde in Scotland, at any one time, there is one submarine on active patrol, another in service, another preparing to patrol and a final one on exercise.
Each submarine can carry 16 Trident missiles (but since 2010 this has been reduced to eight), and each missile can hold 40 warheads.
The cost of replacing the Trident system with “Successor” (which is what the parliamentary debate on Monday is about) is disputed. The official Ministry of Defence (MoD) line is £41 bn per submarine. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) says the true cost is around £205 bn for all four, when you included the cost of their upkeep.
The mainstream arguments for and against Trident are fairly clear cut………
However, there are two arguments that both sides fail to acknowledge – maybe because if they did, it would bring the whole military industry into question. The role of multinational banks and senior UK politicians.
All aboard the Westminster gravy train
The main companies involved in Trident are US multinational Lockheed Martin (who produce the missiles), BAE Systems, Babcock & Wilcox and Rolls-Royce – who are involved in the Successor programme – and also names like Bechtel, Honeywell, Raytheon and Serco who are contracted or subcontracted in relation to the current Trident system.
According to the House of Lords register of interests, around 15% of sitting members are directors of, or shareholders in, companies that are either directly contracted to the Trident programme or invest in it.
Prominent names include Lord Hollick, a Labour Peer who is a director of Honeywell. Lord (William) Hague, chair of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). RUSI, who are supposedly impartial US and UK government defence advisors, are sponsored by Babcock, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Rolls-Royce.
But one of the most telling individuals is Labour’s Lord Hutton, defence secretary under Gordon Brown. He is an adviser to Bechtel, consultant for Lockheed Martin and chair of the Nuclear Industries Association (NIA). The revolving door (the phrase used to describe MP’s who, once finished in parliament, go into jobs related to their previous role) has never spun so quickly.
It may be no wonder then, that the majority of parliament (excluding the SNP and the Green party) are supportive of renewing Trident.
With reference to the role of multinational financial institutions, all the companies listed above, aside from being involved in Trident, share one other common denominator. They are all financed, or owned, by UK banks. Specifically Barclays and HSBC. A report by Don’t Bank on the Bomb details the involvement of major financial institutions in the western nuclear weapons industry. http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/18/truth-trident-shocking-fact-turn-us-paying-nukes/
.The 15 most costly nuclear events
A Rethink of Nuclear Risk Assessment, ETH Zurich, Department of Management, Technology and Economics 11.07.2016
“……..The 15 most costly nuclear events analysed by the team are:
1. Chernobyl, Ukraine (1986) – $259 billion
2. Fukushima, Japan (2011) – $166 billion
3. Tsuruga, Japan (1995) – $15.5 billion
4. TMI, Pennsylvania, USA (1979) – $11 billion
5. Beloyarsk, USSR (1977) – $3.5 billion
6. Sellafield, UK (1969) – $2.5 billion
7. Athens, Alabama, USA (1985) – $2.1 billion
8. Jaslovske Bohunice, Czechoslovakia (1977) – $2 billion
9. Sellafield, UK (1968) – $1.9 billion
10. Sellafield, UK (1971) – $1.3 billion
11. Plymouth, Massachusetts, USA (1986) – $1.2 billion
12. Chapelcross, UK (1967) – $1.1 billion
13. Chernobyl, Ukraine (1982) – $1.1 billion
14. Pickering, Canada (1983) – $1 billion
15. Sellafield, UK (1973) – $1 billion
An open-source database of all 216 analysed events is available athttps://innovwiki.ethz.ch/index.php/Nuclear_events_database, containing dates, locations, cost in US dollars, and official magnitude ratings. This is the largest public database of nuclear accidents ever compiled. https://www.mtec.ethz.ch/news/d-mtec-news/2016/07/a-rethink-of-nuclear-risk-assessment.html
The $US2 trillions cost of climate change, as places too hot to work in
Many places ‘too hot to work’ by 2030
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/many-places-too-hot-to-work-by-2030/news-story/67761e405a9405d45d94279104016f7c Beh Lih Yi, AAP
It showed that in Southeast Asia alone, up to 20 per cent of annual work hours may already be lost in jobs with exposure to extreme heat with the figures set to double by 2050 as the effects of climate change deepen.
Across the globe, 43 countries will see a fall in their gross domestic product (GDP) due to reduced productivity, the majority of them in Asia including Indonesia, Malaysia, China, India and Bangladesh, Tord Kjellstrom, a director at the New Zealand-based Health and Environment International Trust, said. Indonesia and Thailand could see their GDP reduced by six per cent in 2030, while in China GDP could be reduced by 0.8 per cent and in India by 3.2 per cent.
Kjellstrom authored one of six papers on the impact of climate change on health that were put together by the United Nations University’s International Institute for Global Health in Kuala Lumpur and published in the Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health.
Kjellstrom warned that the lowest-paid workers – those in heavy labour, agricultural and manufacturing – were most at risk of exposure to extreme heat.
The other papers in the series showed around 2.1 million people worldwide died between 1980 and 2012 due to nearly 21,000 natural catastrophes such as floods, mudslides, extreme heat, drought, high winds or fires.
In Asia Pacific, 1.2 billon people have been affected by 1215 disasters – mostly floods, cyclones and landslides – since 2000.
The first three months of 2016 have broken temperature records and 2015 was the planet’s warmest year since records began in the 19th century.
South Africa’s nuclear energy plans stalled: too expensive
Energy plan stalls on cost of nuclear, Business Day Live, BY CAROL PATON, 15 JULY 2016 THE Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), the government’s long-term plan for electricity generation, is again stuck in the works, despite being six years out of date, with modellers and government officials wrestling over an appropriate price estimate for nuclear energy.
Should the cost of nuclear energy come in too high compared to other technologies, then the nuclear build programme, which is championed by President Jacob Zuma, could be blown out of the water.
The IRP is a 20-year plan that estimates demand, plans for supply, and makes policy decisions on the energy mix based on a range of factors, including energy security and affordability. Regular updates to the IRP — every two years — are crucial to ensure energy security and prevent overbuilding capacity.
In the latest draft, being drawn up by technical experts based at Eskom on behalf of the Department of Energy, the overnight cost for nuclear energy is said to have been estimated at $6,000/kW.
The number comes from several industry sources, who are privy to the information, but was not confirmed by the government. Overnight costs include construction costs, but exclude interest…..
In previous drafts of the IRP, overnight costs for nuclear were estimated at $5028/kW in 2010, and $5800/kW in 2013. The 2013 IRP, which cautioned against nuclear energy due to lower than expected demand and the high risk involved, has never been adopted by the Cabinet.
At the time, it was speculated that the Department of Energy held it back, as it was not nuclear-friendly enough. Instead, the government has continued to use the 2010 IRP, despite its outdated assumptions and modelling, and a wide acknowledgement in the energy industry that its credibility is shot.
The IRP process under way right now is a new attempt to update the plan, which is six years out of date.
But since the modelling team submitted its draft to the department earlier in 2016, the process appears to have stalled. Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson said in September that the new IRP would be completed by March. But the draft is far from finished, and public consultations — which should take place under the policy framework — are still far from a reality……
South Africa’s nuclear sector in crisis
Nuclear sector in crisis as SA weighs options, Business day Live, BY MARK ALLIX, 15 JULY 2016 THE world nuclear industry status report for 2016 may give SA pause for thought about its ambitions to build nuclear power capacity.
The report says the global nuclear industry is in crisis, and renewable energy is taking over……
SA’s government is adamant that nuclear will be part of the energy mix, and of the country’s commitments to cutting carbon emissions. Existing solar and wind energy technologies cannot cater for base-load electricity demand to run modern industries, it says.
Safety and the funding of huge initial financial costs for nuclear reactors remain critical factors, despite the promise of lower carbon emissions, and ultimately, much lower electricity retail costs. Costs of up to R1-trillion have been estimated for SA’s proposed 9,600MW of nuclear power.
Knox Msebenzi, MD of the Nuclear Industry Association of SA, said on Thursday it was difficult to obtain an authoritative figure. The association, whose members included potential nuclear bidders, had not made an independent estimation of what such a project would cost.
“There are a lot of variables, which if not defined, could push the price up or down,” he said.
Project cost estimations could use typical industry accepted valuations. But despite including plenty of local content such as concrete and steel, costs were also subject to possible litigation over projects and exchange rate volatility for imported technologies.
Silas Zimu, the special energy adviser to President Jacob Zuma, said earlier in July that SA would have to build nuclear power plants on a piecemeal basis, according to what it could afford. It would also need to purchase the best technology, amid huge delays in the global nuclear industry…..http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/energy/2016/07/15/nuclear-sector-in-crisis-as-sa-weighs-options
Russia paying for setting up nuclear power plant in Vietnam
Work on Russian-assisted nuclear power plant in Vietnam to begin in 2023 https://rbth.com/news/2016/07/15/work-on-russian-assisted-nuclear-power-plant-in-vietnam-to-begin-in-2023_611821 TASS
“The schedule is still set for 2028,” Tuan said. Construction will begin in 2022 or 2023, he added.
Such a timeframe is indicated in the revised master plan of Vietnam’s energy sector development, the official said.
Russia’s Rosatom is acting as a partner in the Ninh Thuan 1 nuclear power plant in Vietnam.
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2016 launched in Tokyo
Schneider, DeWit & Katsuta: Global Launch of “The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2016”
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2016 — Global Launch in Tokyo, http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/ 13 July 2016 The year 2016, marking the 30th anniversary of the Chernobyl catastrophe and the 5th year since the Fukushima disaster started unfolding, strangely might go down in history as the period when the notion of risk of nuclear power plants turned into the perception of nuclear power plants at risk. Indeed, an increasing number of reactors is threatened by premature closure due to the unfavorable economic environment. Increasing operating and backfitting costs of aging power plants, decreasing bulk market prices and aggressive competitors.
The development started out in the U.S., when in May 2013 Kewaunee was shut down although its operator, Dominion, had upgraded the plant and in February 2011 had obtained an operating license renewal valid until 2033. Two reactors at San Onofre followed, when replacement steam generators turned out faulty. Then Vermont Yankee shut down at the end of 2014. Early shutdown decisions have also hit Pilgrim and Fitzpatrick, likely to close before the end of 2017 and 2019. Utility Exelon, largest nuclear operator in the U.S., has announced on 2 June 2016 that it was retiring its Clinton (1065 MW) and Quad Cities (2 x 940 MW) nuclear facilities in 2017 as they have been losing money for several years. Only days later, PG&E in California announced that they would close the two Diablo Canyon units by 2025, replacing the capacity by energy efficiency and renewables, making the sixth largest economy in the world (having overtaken France in 2016) nuclear-free. Still in the same month of June 2016, the Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) Board voted unanimously to shut down the Fort Calhoun reactor by the end of the year—in the words on one board member, “simply an economic decision”. Nuclear Energy Institute President Marv Fertel stated in May 2016 that “if things don’t change, we have somewhere between 10 and 20 plants at risk”.
“Nuclear plants at risk”; the expression has become a common phrase in the news world, not only in the U.S. In Germany, the Grafenrheinfeld reactor was taken off the grid in 2015, six months earlier than required by law, because refueling was not worthwhile anymore. In Sweden, after two years of work and spending of several hundred million euros, upgrading was halted on Oskarshamn-2 in 2015 and the reactor was permanently closed. Oskarshamn-1 will follow in 2017 and Ringhals-1 and -2 will close in 2020 and 2019 respectively. Ringhals operator Vattenfall stated: “Sweden’s nuclear power industry is going through what is probably the most serious financial crisis since the first commercial reactors were brought into operation in the 1970s.” Even in Asia, nuclear plants are coming under economic pressure. The two Indian units Tarapur-1 and -2 are likely to be closed in the short term because they are not competitive under current market prices. “We are pouring in money into the reactors rather than making income from them”, Sekhar Basu, secretary at the Department of Atomic Energy stated.
In addition to the usual, global overview of status and trends in reactor building and operating, as well as the traditional comparison between deployment trend in the nuclear power and renewable energy sectors, the 2016 edition of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) provides an assessment of the trends of the economic health of some of the major players in the industry. Special chapters are devoted to the aftermath of the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters.
World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2016 shows nuclear build at zero so far this year
New nuclear reactor builds fall to zero in H1 2016: report http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nuclear-industry-decline-idUSKCN0ZT0QS Construction starts for new nuclear reactors fell to zero globally in the first half of 2016 as the atomic industry struggles against falling costs for renewables and a slowdown in Chinese building, a report on the industry showed on Wednesday.
The last time there were no new reactors started over a full year was in 1995, according to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2016. The number of reactors under construction is in decline for a third year, with 58 being built by the end of June, down from 67 reactors at the end of 2013, the report said.
The latest figures highlight the struggles the nuclear sector is facing after the Fukushima atomic disaster in Japan five years ago, as higher costs and delays take their toll while other sources of energy become cheaper.
The nuclear industry faces a risk it “will not be easily protected from: the economic and financial risks from nuclear power being irreversibly out-competed by renewable power,” Tomas Kaberger, energy and environment professor at Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden, wrote in a forward in the report.
Kaberger is also a member of the board of state-owned Swedish utility Vattenfall, which owns 10 nuclear reactors, according to its website.
Construction started on six reactors in China in 2015, three times more than the rest of the world, while eight went into operation there last year, out of 10 globally, underlining how the world’s biggest energy user is a bright spot for the nuclear industry.
Three reactors have started up this year in China, with one in South Korea and another in the U.S., Watts Bar 2, which took 43 years to build, according to the report.
But even in China, renewables investment and capacity additions are outstripping nuclear, the report said. Renewables investments totaled $100 billion in China last year, more than five times the amount for new reactors, which was $18 billion.
Wind energy output totaled 185 terawatt hours (TWh) last year in China, compared with 161 TWh for nuclear. Solar power output totaled 39 TWh in 2015, up from 23 TWh the year before.
The report’s lead authors are industry analysts Mycle Schneider, based in Paris, and London-based Antony Froggatt. Both have advised European government bodies on energy and nuclear policy.
The report is available in full at: here
(Reporting by Aaron Sheldrick; Editing by Christian Schmollinger)
UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) compares falling costs of renewables with rising costs of nuclear power
Nuclear competitiveness falling with rise of renewables, says government watchdog, businessGreen, Jocelyn Timperley, 14 July 16, A new report on the future of Britain’s electricity supply from the government spending watchdog has highlighted the falling costs of renewables compared with nuclear, with figures projecting onshore wind and solar will be the cheapest ways of generating electricity by 2025.
The report examines how new sources of electricity can be used to meet the looming capacity gap the UK faces over the coming decade while supporting emissions targets and keeping energy bills affordable.
Its findings show that renewables may be a cheaper option than conventional energy sources, with Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) forecasts for the levelised cost of energy of wind and solar in 2025 having decreased since 2010. The cost forecast for nuclear during the same time period has increased while it has remained constant for gas.
“Supporting early new nuclear projects could lead to higher costs in the short term than continuing to support wind and solar,” the report concludes. “The cost competitiveness of nuclear power is weakening as wind and solar become more established.”………
The NAO also lays out how the projected costs of Hinkley Point C have skyrocketed since the strike price was initially agreed based on an estimated cost of £6.1bn in October 2013. Projections laid out in the report show the top-up subsidy payments for the nuclear plant have changed along with forecasts of the wholesale price of power, with the most recent estimate in March 2016 valuing the payments at £29.7bn.
In addition, the NAO warned of the risks for consumers of signing up to the 35-year Hinkley Point C contract, expected to begin in 2025, due to the difficulty in predicting how wholesale electricity prices will fluctuate, as well as how other energy technologies will develop. “Over a longer time frame there is greater potential for technological changes that reduce the competitiveness of nuclear compared with other power sources,” the report says.
The new report comes just days after DECC vastly raised its estimate of how much the Hinkley project would cost in subsidies over its lifetime, suggesting it will cost £37bn in total subsidies, more than double its £14.4bn estimate a year ago……..
Among a host of other environment and energy decisions, Theresa May will soon have to make the long-awaited decision on whether to go ahead with Hinkley Point. And the NAO report makes clear it will be as much a strategic and political decision as an economic one. http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/2464823/nuclear-competitiveness-falling-with-rise-of-renewables-says-government-watchdog
UK taxpayers up for an extra £30bn for Hinkley Point C nuclear project?
Report reveals top-up fees for Hinkley Point C could cost us an extra £30bn http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/report-reveals-top-up-fees-for-hinkley-point-c-could-cost-us-an-extra-30bn/story-29511798-detail/story.html A government spending watchdog has warned tax payers could cost energy consumers £30 billion in “top-up payments” for Hinkley Point C. By David_Clensy July 14, 2016The deal for the Somerset nuclear power station sees the government paying EDF a fixed price for electricity generation over 35 years from 2025. But if the wholesale price falls, the government pays EDF a top-up fee.
The National Audit Office had previously estimated that this top-up fee would amount to £6.1 billion during the 35 year period, but in its latest report the watchdog has scaled up the estimate to £29.7 billion – nearly doubling the cost of the £37 billion construction project.
The report also expressed fears that taxpayers could end up with a range of other payments under debt guarantees agreed by the government with EDF. “Supporting early new nuclear projects could lead to higher costs in the short term than continuing to support wind and solar. The cost competitiveness of nuclear power is weakening as wind and solar become more established,” the report, Nuclear Power in the UK, states.
Environmental lobbying group Greenpeace has jumped upon the opportunity to call upon the new Prime Minister to scrap the entire project.
John Sauven, director of Greenpeace UK, said: “The government’s line that Hinkley is a good deal for billpayers is falling apart. Today’s damaging report from the NAO should kill this myth once and for all. It makes the government’s slash and burn approach towards help for homegrown renewable energy companies look completely out of step with reality. Unlike nuclear the cost of renewables is falling every year.”
1 This Month
PLEASE OPPOSE HR 8255 AND S.3639 – bills would accelerate satellite deployment, with no environmental review or safeguards – https://ncstd5li.quorum.us/campaign/169331/
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (330)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
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
