Russia marketing nuclear reactors to Bolivia
Bolivia agrees $300 million nuclear complex with Russia’s Rosatom, Reuters, 6 Mar 16, LA PAZ Bolivia and Russia’s state-owned atomic energy corporation Rosatom said on Sunday they had signed a provisional agreement for the construction of $300 million nuclear complex in the Andean nation.
Under the terms of the accord, which needs to be approved by Bolivia’s Congress, Rosatom will help Bolivia develop infrastructure
for its embryonic nuclear program.
The center will include a research reactor, a cyclotron for radiopharmaceuticals and a multi-purpose gamma irradiation plant. Opposition politicians have criticized the project over fears of environmental risks……..http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bolivia-rosatom-idUSKCN0W80R3
High costs and construction delays cast gloom over nuclear industry
Building projects’ high costs and construction delays raise questions about the industry’s sustainability. US News, By Jasper Scherer March 3, 2016 “……..Underway since getting NRC approval in 2012, the Vogtle plant project is three years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget. The project was initially expected to cost $14 billion but could reach upward of $21 billion, Georgia Public Service Commission filings indicate.
in 2016, the industry faces stiffer competition from alternative energy sources. In 1977, for instance, solar panels cost $76.67 per watt, according to a Bloomberg New Energy Finance report. That figure had decreased to 73 cents by 2012 – less than 1 percent of the original per-watt cost. And aside from Three Mile Island, the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine and the tsunami-induced accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant in 2011 have damaged the industry’s image…….
Though the U.S. now operates 99 reactors, more than any other country by a wide margin (France is second with 58), it once had as many as 112. The number of operational reactors in the country has either declined or remained constant in every year since 1993, data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration show.
Dave Lochbaum, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Nuclear Safety Project, points to an underlying challenge for power companies beyond the initial cost of building a nuclear plant: attempted repairs that fail and cost billions to fix. When workers inadvertently cracked the wall of the Crystal River nuclear plant in Florida in 2009 while trying to replace the plant’s steam generators, the plant shut down because it would have cost upward of $1 billion to repair the damages……..
Power companies hoping to upgrade their plants instead of building new ones face financial challenges. For instance, a four-month project at the Monticello Nuclear Plant in Minnesota to upgrade capacity and replace old equipment cost nearly twice its initial estimate. The upgrades cost a fraction of the price of building a new plant, but still blew past initial cost calculations……..
The NRC, which approves the design of reactors before granting them licenses to operate, is expected to receive applications for “design certifications” for small reactors during the next several years, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. But Small Modular Reactors may not operate in the U.S. until 2025, the Department of Energy says. And they are not guaranteed to work.
“The biggest hurdle that SMRs face is that the reactors that are being built today in the United States – the five reactors that are in various stages of construction – are basically the next evolutionary step to the reactors we’re already operating,” Lochbaum says. “And the SMRs are pretty much different from that. They’re more revolutionary in their design, and that’s going to cause a problem for plant owners. It’s difficult to invest a lot of money in a technology that may have some unforeseen problems.”
The nuclear industry’s clock continues to tick because plants have finite lifespans. Reactors are typically designed to last around 40 years. Simple math illustrates a sobering reality for power companies: We will need to see a slew of costly reactor upgrades for the country’s aging plants to remain operable. http://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/the-manhattan-project/articles/2016-03-03/another-chance-for-nuclear-power
Death throes of the nuclear industry as renewables move towards 80 percent penetration in the U.S.
NUCLEAR POWER – A DINOSAUR IN A DEATH SPIRAL?, Dan Levitan, 29 Feb 16 ………….Mark Jacobson, director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford University, has published state-specific plans showing how 100-percent renewables penetration would be achievable. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory, part of the U.S. Department of Energy, published its “Renewable Electricity Futures Study” in 2012 and explained a clear path to 80 percent penetration in the U.S. Others have shown similar routes forward.
When it comes to any energy source, it is cost that sits at the root of the discussion. Nuclear proponents argue that there are impediments to having a grid entirely run on renewables. Buongiorno, for example, says that the intermittency of solar and wind can realistically only be addressed by adding large amounts of electricity storage (in the form of large batteries or other newer tech such as compressed air) to the grid, and that would change the ongoing “renewable prices are plummeting” narrative.
“When I hear people say ‘Oh, the costs are coming down,’ the costs for generation may be coming down, but if installing that capacity forces me to have energy storage, you have to add those costs,” he says. Think of it like buying a car: The baseline price sounds okay, but it’s all the options and add-ons that’ll get you. Buongiorno says he expects the costs of nuclear construction will come down, and that when storage costs for renewables are factored in, nuclear — with its reliable, 24/7 output — starts to look much more attractive as an alternative.
Billions and Billions
When it comes to any energy source, it is cost that sits at the root of the discussion. Adding more nuclear to the grid could reduce some of the burden on renewables and storage, but the economics of nuclear itself could prove an insurmountable roadblock.
In general, the more experience accumulated with a given technology, the less it costs to build. This has been dramatically illustrated with the falling costs of wind and solar power. Nuclear, however has bucked the trend, instead demonstrating a sort of “negative learning curve” over time.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the actual costs of 75 of the first nuclear reactors built in the U.S. ran over initial estimates by more than 200 percent. More recently, costs have continued to balloon. Again according to UCS, the price tag for a new nuclear power plant jumped from between US$2 billion and US$4 billion in 2002 all the way US$9 billion in 2008. Put another way, the price shot from below US$2,000 per kilowatt in the early 2000s up to as high as US$8,000 per kilowatt by 2008.
Steve Clemmer, the director of energy research and analysis at UCS, doesn’t see this trend changing. “I’m not seeing much evidence that we’ll see the types of cost reductions [proponents are] talking about. I’m very skeptical about it — great if it happens, but I’m not seeing it,” he says.
Some projects in the U.S. seem to face delays and overruns at every turn. In September 2015, a South Carolina effort to build two new reactors at an existing plant was delayed for three years. In Georgia, a January 2015 filing by plant owner Southern Co. said that its additional two reactors would jump by US$700 million in cost and take an extra 18 months to build. These problems have a number of root causes, from licensing delays to simple construction errors, and no simple solution to the issue is likely to be found.
In Europe the situation is similar, with a couple of particularly egregious examples casting a pall over the industry. Construction began for a new reactor at the Finnish Olkiluoto 3 plant in 2005 but won’t finish until 2018, nine years late and more than US$5 billion over budget. A reactor in France, where nuclear is the primary source of power, is six years behind schedule and more than twice as expensive as projected.
“The history of 60 years or more of reactor building offers no evidence that costs will come down,” Ramana says. “As nuclear technology has matured costs have increased, and all the present indications are that this trend will continue.”……….
Cousins to the fear of a massive meltdown are both the worry over nuclear weapons proliferation and concerns over waste disposal. Spent nuclear fuel is currently stored on the site of nuclear plants in pools of water or sealed in dry cask storage, anddecades-old arguments over geologic repositories are unlikely to be resolved any time soon. With regard to weapons, nuclear plants produce plutonium during the course of their reactions, which can be made into bombs if enough is accumulated; terrorism and theft are thus constant worries. Both of these issues work to extend the shadow of risk stretching out behind nuclear power, and both lack immediate solutions………….
[Small nuclear reactors ] Allison Macfarlane, director of George Washington University’s Center for International Science and Technology Policy and the former chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, notes that of the various companies working on these only one (NuScale Power) is currently expected to actually submit application materials to regulators in 2016 — a step that is still years removed from actual functioning reactors.
The horrendous truth about just how big a mess nuclear corporation EDF is in
EDF’s leaked Board Agenda: Zombie nuclear projects and ‘beyond the grave’ reactors http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/Blogs/2987305/edfs_leaked_board_agenda_zombie_nuclear_projects_and_beyond_the_grave_reactors.html Jonathon Porritt 29th February 2016 
French nuclear parastatal EDF is facing problem after problem – zombie nuclear projects in the UK, Finland, China and France, a fleet of ‘beyond the grave’ reactors, a dropping share price and its drooping credit rating. But is it really as bad as all that? Jonathon Porritt has exclusive access to the leaked Agenda of its latest board meeting. And the answer is – no. It’s even worse.
You seriously wouldn’t want to be a Director of EDF at the moment. The agenda for an average Board Meeting must be seriously gloomy on each and every occasion.
And thanks to an EDF mole (and to judge by the number of leaks to the French press and the UK’sFT there’s a lot of them) I can now state this as fact, not mere opinion.
An annotated copy of the Agenda items for their last meeting on 16th February mysterious showed up in my email today, helpfully summarised byAlexandre Perra, EDF’s Executive Committee Secretary.
Item 1: Existing EPR construction projects
1.1 Olkiluoto (Finland)
Continuing, horrendous cost overruns, leading to ongoing legal stand-off with Finnish partners. Already delayed by seven years, but (hopefully!) could be finished by 2018.
1.2 Flamanville (France)
Continuing, horrendous cost overruns. Already delayed by nine years, but (hopefully!) could be finished by 2018.
1.3 Taishan (China)
Serious problems with both reactors under construction, but, this being China, everything’s shrouded in secrecy. WARNING: This could be much worse than we currently understand.
1.4 Pressure vessels
Still waiting for final safety assessment from French regulators. WARNING: There could be really serious problems here, despite our best efforts to ‘work with’ the regulator.
1.5 Deadlines/UK Treasury
These deadlines are now CRITICAL – as in EXISTENTIAL.
UK Treasury’s loan guarantees are linked to Flamanville operating successfully. And if it is not working properly by 2020, loan guarantee will be completely withdrawn.
Item 2: New reactors at Hinkley Point, Somerset
2.1 Final investment decision
Postponed again – for the eighth time. Still unable to raise the €23.3bn (£18bn), despite our Chinese backers agreeing last year to provide one-third of the total sum, and despite the UK Government offering all but limitless subsidies.
CAUTIONARY NOTE: The true cost is of course much closer to €31 (£24.5bn) taking into account both the cost of construction and the costs of finance. This has been recognised by the EU Commission.
Have just released new announcement: construction will now not start until 2019. We should know by then whether the EPR will ever produce any electricity, with Olkiluoto and Flamanville both due to come on stream in 2018.
2.2 Media strategy
Must keep up a good front: have blamed the latest delay on the Chinese New Year. Crucial that CEO maintains the line: “We estimate the investment decision is very close.”
‘Stop Hinkley Point’ protesters occupied our offices in Bridgewater yesterday. Need to handle with care. Negative coverage increasing all the time, and people have started to talk about our ‘zombie reactors‘ at Hinkley Point.
Regrettably, our cohort of ‘green ambassadors’ (led by renowned UK environmentalist George Monbiot) has fallen silent. Very few advocates now for EPR. Even the FT has now joined the ranks of the critics stating “Politically painful it may be, but the case for halting Hinkley Point C is becoming hard to refute.”
Item 3: Extending the life of our UK reactors
3.1 Some good-ish news: we’ve negotiated extensions for four of our eight reactors in the UK: Heysham 1 and Hartlepool, through to 2024, and Heysham 2 and Torness through to 2030. There will be a significant financial outlay here, which has not yet been properly accounted for, but still relatively ‘small beer’ (as the English say) when looking at our overall finances.
3.2 The longer we keep these reactors ticking over, more or less safely, the better it will be. As soon as they come offstream, all the liabilities associated with decommissioning kick in. Reminder to the Board: managing our rising liabilities is now our most critical priority!
Item 4: Extending the life of our French reactors
Current operating fleet: 58 reactors. The Board has already signed off on a major life extension programme, with an estimate of €55bn of costs. Recent external assessments have put total costs at €100bn. Crucial to hold the line in the media at €55bn. In reality, we have no idea what the total outlay will be.
Item 5: Energy Transition Law (France)
5.1 This now represents A MAJOR RISK, with a direct mandate from our principal shareholder (the French Government) that the country must reduce its dependence on nuclear generation from 75% to 50% of total electricity demand by 2025.
5.2 The Cour des Comptes (state Audit Office) has just issued a new report challenging our long-held expectation that demand for electricity in France will continue to grow significantly through to 2025. If they are right, the energy transition law will mean:
- Worst-case scenario: 20 reactors (35% of the fleet) will need to close.
- Best-case scenario: 17 reactors (29% of the fleet) will need to close.
5.3 Lobbying relevant Ministers and Prime Minister to amend the Energy Transition Law now a TOP PRIORITY.
tem 6: Financial position
- Current share price: down 50% on January 2015 position.
- Current market cap: €22.5 (symbolically and very uncomfortably, less than the total projected costs of the Hinkley Point project).
- Our €37bn net debt load also dwarfs our €18.5bn market capitalisation.
- Current credit rating still at risk. Standard & Poors and Moody’s both looking wobbly.
- Growing concern about perceived splits on the Board, especially as regards increasingly forceful hostility from our Trade Union representatives to Hinkley Point.
Merde alors! And now the FT reports that they have two EDF sources telling them that the final investment decision will be delayed until 2017! Nous sommes trahis! It will be soon! Very very soon! Call security!
The Champagne has lost its fizz
See what I mean? Not exactly a cheery occasion, even with the best of French lunches, and it must be a bit like that Board meeting after Board meeting.
So now shift the focus to London, to the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Imagine for a moment the Permanent Secretary, metaphorically shitting himself as the single biggest element in the UK’s future electricity supply slides, slowly but ever more inexorably, down the pan. Wouldn’t he just love to get access to the (real) Minutes of EDF’s Board meetings!
The implications of all this for the UK couldn’t possibly be more severe. Initially, Hinkley Point was meant to be on stream by 2025, generating a whacking great 7% of total electricity supply. Earlier delays meant that this had already slipped to 2030. Now that the start date has slipped again, to 2019, at the earliest, that 2030 date looks insanely optimistic.
And that’s just the start. EDF’s meltdown at Hinkley Point is already having a significant knock-on impact on other would-be nuclear prospects in the UK – with Horizon, NuGen and even China General Nuclear Corporation beginning to get cold feet.
If Hinkley Point does go down the pan, a project that has been given every conceivable financial inducement by both the UK and the French Government, who the hell is going to invest in different but equally dodgy reactor designs?
If the Permanent Secretary isn’t shitting himself about such a state of affairs, one has to ask where he’s getting his metaphorical Imodium from.
Jonathon Porritt is Co-Founder of Forum for the Future, and a writer, broadcaster and commentator on sustainable development. He is also Trustee of the Ashden Awards for Sustainable Energy, and is involved in the work of many NGOs and charities as Patron, Chair or Special Adviser.
This blog was originally published on Jonathon’s website.
China marketing nuclear reactors to Pakistan and beyond
China plans to build 30 overseas nuclear plants by 2030 China is building two 1000 mg nuclear power plants in Pakistan’s port city of Karachiat a cost of $6.5 billion. Business Standard, Press Trust of India | Beijing March 1, 2016 China aims to build 30 nuclear power units in countries involved with its Silk Road Initiative by 2030 as it looks to cash in its new 1000 mw nuclear reactor technology being built in Pakistan.
The China National Nuclear Corp (CNNC) has reached bilateral agreements on nuclear energy cooperation with countries including Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Britain, France and Jordan, its President Sun Qin said today.
China is building two 1000 mgnuclearpower plants inPakistan’s port city of Karachiat a cost of $6.5 billion……..http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/china-plans-to-build-30-overseas-nuclear-plants-by-2030-116030101086_1.html
Efficacy of compensation program for nuclear workers under scrutiny
Feb 22, 2016. … Since Congress passed the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act in 2000, the government has spent $12 billion in financial restitution for more than 100,000 workers whose onset of cancer, beryllium disease, neurological disorders and other ailments is a result of careers in the more than 300 nuclear facilities across the country. …
But the program has come under scrutiny lately. An investigation by the McClatchy DC news service found that fewer than half of the people who have applied for benefits have received them, and workers’ complaints are often suspended in the complex process of paperwork or court hearings, with some claims languishing in the system for up to 10 years.
France’s nuclear giant AREVA in deep financial mess – again!
Nuclear group Areva in the red again http://www.euronews.com/2016/02/26/nuclear-group-areva-in-the-red-again/ Nuclear power group Areva has reported a full-year net loss of 2.038 billion euros, its fifth consecutive annual loss.
The French state-controlled firm blamed extra costs at a reactor project in Finland for half of that.
The rest was due to restructuring expenses and other costs related to market conditions including reduced demand for uranium, nuclear fuel and services.
The group said it has enough funds for this year thanks to bank loans and will sell five billion euros worth of new shares by the first quarter of 2017 to stay afloat.
Areva is 87 percent state-owned and the French government has promised to subscribe to the new share issue.
CPS Energy writes off $millions from Texas nuclear expansion project
CPS Energy writes off $391.4 million from South Texas Project nuclear expansion San Antonio Express News, 24 Feb 16 CPS Energy revealed Wednesday it has written off $391.4 million in costs associated with its partnership of the unbuilt — and highly criticized — Units 3 and 4 of the South Texas Project nuclear plant……..
Longtime opponents of the nuclear expansion said CPS Energy made the correct move to write off its costs so far.
“CPS’ decision shows that proposed nuclear reactors are worthless. There’s no market for their rate raising, high-cost, high-risk power,” Tom “Smitty” Smith of Public Citizen’s Texas office in Austin said in an email. “The proposed reactor price tag rose from $5.9 billion to $18.2 billion, even before a license was ever issued. Delays, construction problems and lawsuits are the norm for nuclear reactors. They cost so much that even with all the federal subsidies, no bank will loan money to build them. CPS did the smart thing and wrote off this worthless investment.”
Controversy erupted in 2009 over the expansion project, which already had received intense opposition over concerns about storage of waste fuel and estimated cost of $13 billion.
It was revealed that a new cost estimate from partner Toshiba Inc. — $4 million higher than the previous one — had been withheld by utility executives from the CPS board and City Council while additional financing was under consideration……….
“The NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) can license these reactors, but they won’t get built,” added Karen Hadden of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition. “Renewable energy is cheaper these days and much safer. Nuclear power creates radioactive waste that remains deadly for hundreds of thousands of years.”…….. http://www.expressnews.com/business/local/article/CPS-Energy-writes-off-391-4-million-from-South-6852804.php
Rising toll of missing Fukushima workers – presumed dead – coverup by mass media
4,000 Missing TEPCO Nuclear Plant Workers – Presumed To Be Dead, Fukushima Radiation Caused Death Toll Is Rising Fast http://agreenroad.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/200-or-more-missing-tepco-nuclear-plant.htmlPRO NUCLEAR PROMOTERS AND THEIR MASS MEDIA SHILLS KEEP ON REPEATING THE PR PROPAGANDA THAT NO ONE DIED DUE TO FUKUSHIMA AND NOTHING BAD HAPPENED
No One Died! How The Nuclear Industry Gets Away With Genocide Due To Nuclear Bombs And Nuclear Plant Accidents, Explained By Dr. Helen Caldicott MD
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2015/04/no-one-died-how-nuclear-industry-gets.html
Safecast Radiation Readings From Inside Fukushima Daichi Plant Finally Revealed In Dec. 2013 – 192 USv/Hr, 5,900,000 CPM, Converting CPM radiation readings into uSv/Hr And Back Again
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/12/radiation-readings-from-inside.html
Countless Unreported Worker Deaths in the Fukushima nuclear clean-up workforce
Fukushima – Deep Trouble CounterPunch, FEBRUARY 22, 2016 by ROBERT HUNZIKER “………..The Tragedy of Countless Unreported Worker Deaths
Indeed, the question of whether Fukushima can ever be adequately, safely decontaminated is wide-open, which logically segues to question who does the dirty work, how workers are hired, and what’s their health status? According to mainstream news sources in Japan, workers are doing just fine, estimates range up to 45,000 workers all-in, no major problems.
As far as the world is concerned, the following headline sums up radiation-related issues for workers, First Fukushima Worker Diagnosed With Radiation-linked Cancer, The Telegraph, Oct. 20, 2015. All things considered, that’s not so bad. But, who’s counting?
Trustworthy sources outside of mainstream news claim otherwise, none more so than Mako Oshidori, a Japanese freelance journalist and a director of Free Press Corporation/Japan, and a former student of School of Life Sciences at Tottori University Faculty of Medicine, in a lecture entitled “The Hidden Truth about Fukushima” delivered at the international conference “Effects of Nuclear Disasters on Natural Environment and Human Health” held in Germany in 2014 co-organized by International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War.
Free Press Corporation/Japan was formed after the 2011 Great Sendai Earthquake as a counterbalance to Japan’s mainstream government influenced media, described by Mako as journalists who do not report truth, journalists afraid of the truth!
“There is one thing that really surprised me here in Europe. It’s the fact that people here think Japan is a very democratic and free country.” (Mako Oshidori)
According to Mako, TEPCO and the government deliberately cover-up deaths of Fukushima workers, and not only do they cover-up deaths, but once she investigated stories of unreported deaths, government agents started following her: “When I would talk to someone, a surveillance agent from the central government’s public police force would come very close, trying to eavesdrop on the conversation,” Exposed: Death of Fukushima Workers Covered-Up by TEPCO and Government, NSNBC International, March 21, 2014.
Mako Oshidori: “I would like to talk about my interview of a nurse who used to work at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) after the accident… He quit his job with TEPCO in 2013, and that’s when I interviewed him… As of now, there are multiple NPP workers that have died, but only the ones who died on the job are reported publicly. Some of them have died suddenly while off work, for instance, during the weekend or in their sleep, but none of their deaths are reported.”
“Not only that, they are not included in the worker death count. For example, there are some workers who quit the job after a lot of radiation exposure, such as 50, 60 to 70 mili Sieverts, and end up dying a month later, but none of these deaths are either reported, or included in the death toll. This is the reality of the NPP workers.”
The “reality of the NPP workers… dying a month later” does not correspond very well with Abe administration insistence that nuke plants reopen, even though the country has continued to function for five years without nuclear power, hmm.
In her speech, Mako talks about problems for journalists because of government interference: “An ex-agent who is knowledgeable about the work of the Public Security Intelligence Agency (“PSIA”) said that when you are visibly followed, that was meant to intimidate you. If there was one person visible, then there would be ten more. I think that is analogous to cockroaches. So, when you do a little serious investigation about the nuclear accident, you are under various pressure and it makes it more difficult to interview people.”
Still, she interviewed Fukushima mothers, e.g., “Next, I would like to talk about mothers in Fukushima. These mothers (and fathers) live in Iwaki City, Fukushima. They are active on school lunch issues. Currently, Fukushima produce isn’t selling well due to suspected contamination. So the prefectural policy is to encourage the use of Fukushima produce in school lunches, in an attempt to appeal to its safety… the mothers claim that currently in Japan only cesium is measured and they have no idea if there is any strontium-90. They oppose the use of Fukushima produce in school lunches for fear of finding out, ten-plus years down the road, that there was actually plutonium in the food that children ate.”
Mothers who oppose the prefecture’s luncheon policy are told to leave Fukushima Prefecture, move out if they worry about contamination, pull up stakes and move on.
Mako’s full interview is found here.
All of which begs the question of who does the dirty work? According to Michel Chossudovsky, director of Centre for Research on Globalization (Canada), Japan’s organized crime syndicate Yakusa is actively involved in recruitment. Personnel who qualify for radioactive cleanup work include underemployed, impoverished, indigent, unemployed, homeless, hard up, down-and-out, and poverty-stricken individuals, as well as non-destitute people willing to undertake under-paid, high-risk work. The nameless are shoe-ins……… http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/22/fukushima-deep-trouble/
China ramping up its nuclear industry, with plans for exporting reactors
China Inc.’s Nuclear-Power PushIn a shift, Chinese state-owned companies seek to roll out advanced reactors for export, WSJ, By BRIAN SPEGELE Feb. 23, 2016 SHENZHEN, China—China wants to shift from customer to competitor in the global nuclear industry as it seeks to roll out its first advanced reactor for export, a move that adds new competition for already struggling global firms.
Two state-owned firms teamed up to design the advanced indigenous Hualong One reactor with plans to sell overseas. On Tuesday, one of them, China General Nuclear Power Group, hosted dozens of business executives from Kenya, Russia, Indonesia and elsewhere, as well as diplomats and journalists, at its Daya Bay nuclear-power station to promote the Hualong One for export.
Asked how much of the global market share for new nuclear reactors CGN wants Hualong One to win, Zheng Dongshan, CGN’s deputy general manager in charge of international business, said: “The more the better.”
The move marks a turnaround for China and the nuclear-power industry. For three decades, China served as a big market for nuclear giants including U.S.-based, Japanese-owned Westinghouse Electric Co. and France’s Areva SA. …….
turning promotion into sales takes time, and there is no guarantee the Hualong One will find success abroad. Discussions over building the reactor overseas in many cases remain preliminary, and the first of Hualong One model reactor won’t enter service in China for several more years……
Regulatory approvals are among the challenges China Inc. faces as it seeks to sell homegrown reactors abroad. CGN executives said obtaining needed regulatory permits in the U.K. and other countries for the Hualong One would still take several years, a process that would need to conclude before construction gets under way……..
At the heart of its sales pitch for potential customers overseas, CGN touts itself as a “one-stop shop” for nuclear needs—from nuclear design to construction, financing and other services.
“If you choose the HPR1000, it’s like you’re joining a big family,”Yang Maochun, a deputy general manager of CGN’s international business department, told the visiting foreign executives on Tuesday…….
Political concerns over Chinese nuclear investment in the West could also pose hurdles, though these may be overcome through jointly investing with local partners.
While acknowledging CGN’s deepening competition with Western nuclear companies, Mr. Zheng said the company remains eager to cooperate with them too. He cited joint investment with France’s Électricité de France SA in the U.K.’s Hinkley Point C project as a model for cooperation, and said CGN would be willing to help market non-Chinese reactors in the future as well. http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-inc-s-nuclear-power-push-1456251331
The Tragedy of Countless Unreported Nuclear Worker Deaths
Fukushima – Deep Trouble, CounterPunch, FEBRUARY 22, 2016 by ROBERT HUNZIKER “………Indeed, the question of whether Fukushima can ever be adequately, safely decontaminated is wide-open, which logically segues to question who does the dirty work, how workers are hired, and what’s their health status? According to mainstream news sources in Japan, workers are doing just fine, estimates range up to 45,000 workers all-in, no major problems.
As far as the world is concerned, the following headline sums up radiation-related issues for workers, First Fukushima Worker Diagnosed With Radiation-linked Cancer, The Telegraph, Oct. 20, 2015. All things considered, that’s not so bad. But, who’s counting?
Trustworthy sources outside of mainstream news claim otherwise, none more so than Mako Oshidori, a Japanese freelance journalist and a director of Free Press Corporation/Japan, and a former student of School of Life Sciences at Tottori University Faculty of Medicine, in a lecture entitled “The Hidden Truth about Fukushima” delivered at the international conference “Effects of Nuclear Disasters on Natural Environment and Human Health” held in Germany in 2014 co-organized by International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War.
Free Press Corporation/Japan was formed after the 2011 Great Sendai Earthquake as a counterbalance to Japan’s mainstream government influenced media, described by Mako as journalists who do not report truth, journalists afraid of the truth!
“There is one thing that really surprised me here in Europe. It’s the fact that people here think Japan is a very democratic and free country.” (Mako Oshidori)
According to Mako, TEPCO and the government deliberately cover-up deaths of Fukushima workers, and not only do they cover-up deaths, but once she investigated stories of unreported deaths, government agents started following her: “When I would talk to someone, a surveillance agent from the central government’s public police force would come very close, trying to eavesdrop on the conversation,” Exposed: Death of Fukushima Workers Covered-Up by TEPCO and Government, NSNBC International, March 21, 2014.
Mako Oshidori: “I would like to talk about my interview of a nurse who used to work at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) after the accident… He quit his job with TEPCO in 2013, and that’s when I interviewed him… As of now, there are multiple NPP workers that have died, but only the ones who died on the job are reported publicly. Some of them have died suddenly while off work, for instance, during the weekend or in their sleep, but none of their deaths are reported.”
“Not only that, they are not included in the worker death count. For example, there are some workers who quit the job after a lot of radiation exposure, such as 50, 60 to 70 mili Sieverts, and end up dying a month later, but none of these deaths are either reported, or included in the death toll. This is the reality of the NPP workers.”
The “reality of the NPP workers… dying a month later” does not correspond very well with Abe administration insistence that nuke plants reopen, even though the country has continued to function for five years without nuclear power, hmm.
In her speech, Mako talks about problems for journalists because of government interference: “An ex-agent who is knowledgeable about the work of the Public Security Intelligence Agency (“PSIA”) said that when you are visibly followed, that was meant to intimidate you. If there was one person visible, then there would be ten more. I think that is analogous to cockroaches. So, when you do a little serious investigation about the nuclear accident, you are under various pressure and it makes it more difficult to interview people.”
Still, she interviewed Fukushima mothers, e.g., “Next, I would like to talk about mothers in Fukushima. These mothers (and fathers) live in Iwaki City, Fukushima. They are active on school lunch issues. Currently, Fukushima produce isn’t selling well due to suspected contamination. So the prefectural policy is to encourage the use of Fukushima produce in school lunches, in an attempt to appeal to its safety… the mothers claim that currently in Japan only cesium is measured and they have no idea if there is any strontium-90. They oppose the use of Fukushima produce in school lunches for fear of finding out, ten-plus years down the road, that there was actually plutonium in the food that children ate.”
Mothers who oppose the prefecture’s luncheon policy are told to leave Fukushima Prefecture, move out if they worry about contamination, pull up stakes and move on.
Mako’s full interview is found here.
All of which begs the question of who does the dirty work? According to Michel Chossudovsky, director of Centre for Research on Globalization (Canada), Japan’s organized crime syndicate Yakusa is actively involved in recruitment. Personnel who qualify for radioactive cleanup work include underemployed, impoverished, indigent, unemployed, homeless, hard up, down-and-out, and poverty-stricken individuals, as well as non-destitute people willing to undertake under-paid, high-risk work. The nameless are shoe-ins…….. http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/22/fukushima-deep-trouble/
The collapse of UK’s planned nuclear power programme ?
Horizon boss’s statement exposes fantasy nature of UK nuclear power programme http://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.com.au/2016/02/horizons-boss-statement-exposes-fantasy.html The boss of one of the three supposed consortia claimed to be building Britain’s nuclear power stations has all but admitted that his project is a fantasy one. As can be read in the Telegraph story below, the boss of the ‘Horizon’ project has said that new nuclear power in the UK depends on private investors. Well, that is not going to happen. Who would want to put shares in a venture that might (as in the case of its project in Taiwan) take 15 years not to be completed, or which may not work very well? Nobody. The only possible exceptions to this are (foreign) governments with political, rather than than money-making, objectives. Even they are disappearing! (France and China).
Of course, some people, breezily argue, the government could pay for the power stations. As if we need to spend billions and billions money on nuclear power stations that never seem to be finished instead of hospitals……
In reality the nuclear power programme collapsed in 2012 when it emerged that the Treasury insisted that nuclear power should not receive a state blank cheque. E.ON, RWE, SSE and Centrica all withdrew from nuclear power construction plans. But now for four years our energy and carbon reduction programmes have been distorted in order to preserve the British engineering establishment’s soft spot for nuclear power. The current government defends its lack of investment in real green energy by referring to its fantasy plans for new nuclear power stations.
EDF has announced once again (Feb 16th), that its decision on building Hinkley C will be taken ‘soon’ (soon has meant the same for the last 3 years) and in practice it is waiting, in effect, for the French Government to agree that French electricity consumers/taxpayers should subsidise nuclear power for the British! All to save the pride of the EDF leadership! It sounds bizarre, and I doubt whether even EDF’s hold on the French Government can engineer such an outcome.
EDF could still turn their ship around of course, by helping achieve France’s targets to expand renewable energy. But are they capable of dragging themselves away from their nuclear-dream-turned-sour, or will they waste what few reserves they have left in planning new reactor designs?
See the Telegraph article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/12156773/UK-new-nuclear-plan-will-fail-without-private-investors-says-Horizon-chief.html
Entergy won’t save loss-making FitzPatrick nuclear plant
Entergy rebuffs latest NY plan to save FitzPatrick nuclear plant, syracuse.com By Tim Knauss | tknauss@syracuse.com SCRIBA, N.Y. – The state Public Service Commission said today it is working on plans to provide financial assistance to the FitzPatrick nuclear plant in a desperate attempt to keep the plant from shutting down.
PSC officials said they will undertake a rushed review of the plan and expect to have financial subsidies available for FitzPatrick by June, long before the plant’s scheduled closure next January.
The commission did not specify how much assistance it would provide. ………
PSC Chair Audrey Zibelman beseeched Entergy Corp., which owns FitzPatrick, to work with state officials on a financial rescue for the nuclear plant.
“The plan would enable expedited financial support to FitzPatrick and other qualified nuclear power plants in Upstate New York,” said PSC Chair Audrey Zibelman. “Until then, we invite Entergy to work with us to make the plans necessary to refuel FitzPatrick and to support the statewide objectives of New York’s new Clean Energy Standard.”
Entergy officials responded that it is too late to save FitzPatrick, which the company plans to close because it loses money. The company added that if Cuomo wants to reduce carbon emissions, he should back off his insistence that Entergy shut down the Indian Point nuclear facility, which Cuomo says is unsafe because of its proximity to New York City.
Cuomo recently announced his plan to offer financial “clean energy” payments for nuclear power, but the help would only go to Upstate nukes – FitzPatrick and Nine Mile Point in Oswego County, and Ginna in Wayne County. Indian Point’s two reactors would not qualify…….
The commission today agreed to conduct a speeded-up review aimed at making financial supports available to Upstate nuclear plants as early as June. Entergy officials dismissed today’s action as too uncertain and too late to save FitzPatrick…. http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2016/02/entergy_to_cuomo_its_too_late_to_save_fitzpatrick_but_not_indian_point.html
Thousands of nuclear workers made sick by radiation, but not getting any help
Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., is among a group of federal lawmakers who have called for an investigation into the program following McClatchy’s probe, which revealed 7,762 workers died after being denied compensation by the government.
The McClatchy DC investigation found that nuclear worker safety remains an issue: Since 2001, more than 186,000 workers have been exposed to radiation.
Efficacy of compensation program for nuclear workers under scrutiny By Rebecca Moss
The New Mexican, 20 Feb 16, “………Due to the commingling of his exposure during the war and his work on various sites at Sandia, Thompson is one of at least 10,273 New Mexicans who have applied for a federal program that compensates individuals with a $150,000 lump sum payment for serious illness or death that can be attributed to work at the state’s nuclear defense facilities since 1943.
As of March 2015, New Mexico had received the second-highest compensation of any state under the fund, with $1.64 billion paid out to workers for compensation and medical bills.
But the program has come under scrutiny lately. An investigation by the McClatchy DC news service found that fewer than half of the people who have applied for benefits have received them, and workers’ complaints are often suspended in the complex process of paperwork or court hearings, with some claims languishing in the system for up to 10 years. A new documentary coming out in March, titled Safe Side of the Fence, questions why side-by-side workers with similar ailments would receive different judgments from the Department of Labor on the validity of their claims.
At least 5,400 workers in New Mexico have been denied financial assistance, according to the Department of Labor, which issues the compensation.
The department recently added new language to the regulations, which is intended to clarify who is eligible for relief. A 60-day public comment period for the proposal ended Thursday. But critics say the new language could make it even more difficult for ailing workers to receive compensation. Continue reading
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 