Nuclear power unsafe, too costly – Ex-Japan PM Naoto Kan
Ex-Japan PM: nuclear power remains unsafe and too costly Naoto Kan, who presided over country during Fukushima disaster in 2011, cautions over plans to build new UK plants, Guardian, Terry Macalister 12 Mar 16 Nuclear power is unsafe and too expensive to justify building new plants anywhere in the world, according to the Japanese prime minister at the time of the Fukushima nuclear accident. Speaking on the fifth anniversary of the disaster, Naoto Kan said he was against the idea of Japanese manufacturers such as Hitachi and Toshiba building plants in the UK.
“Nuclear power is not safe. In the worst case scenario up to 50 million people would have had to be evacuated. Nuclear power is not a suitable technology and renewable power is much better,” Kan told the Guardian.
The former prime minister insisted he did not want to tell other countries such as Britain what to do but he said he did not support the reactors being switched back on in Japan.
His warning came as Britain’s nuclear plans are hanging in the balance because of delays over the go-ahead for EDF Energy’s Hinkley Point C project in Somerset and concerns about the project’s financial viability.
While the French company EDF is at the centre of the Hinkley scheme, Hitachi and Toshiba are behind similar intiatives being developed for new reactors atWylfa on Anglesey, Oldbury in South Gloucestershire, and Sellafield in Cumbria.
Kan said it “did not make sense” to construct new atomic plants because of the cost, especially in those countries where there were no long-term storage facilities for high level radioactive waste. This includes Britain and Japan.
“What I experienced as prime minister made me feel that it does not make sense to rely on nuclear. New generation plant designs are supposed to increase safety but all these do is increase the cost.”………..The £18bn Hinkley Point C nuclear project was thrown into doubt this week after after EDF’s finance director, Thomas Piquemal, resigned after opposing the deal. He believes the costly agreement threatens the company’s future. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/11/japan-naoto-kan-nuclear-power-unsafe-fukushima
Uranium price – even further down the drain!
Nuclear power market still suffers from Japan’s Fukushima disaster -5-year disaster anniversary shows little nuclear power progress in Japan Market Watch, By MYRAP. SAEFONG MARKETS/COMMODITIES REPORTER 11 MAR 16 “……“Unfortunately, the uranium [and] nuclear market is still suffering significantly as a result of the Fukushima aftereffects,” said Jonathan Hinze, executive vice president of international operations at the Ux Consulting Company, the world’s leading nuclear-fuel consultancy.
In the wake of the nuclear accident, nuclear power became somewhat of an outcast……
Uranium supply ‘overhang’ Back in September, Jim Ostroff, senior editor of Platts Nuclear Publications, estimated that Japanese utilities had around 120 million pounds of uranium stockpiled, which was likely enough to have supplied all of Japan’s pre-Fukushima needs for six years.
Today, there remains an “overhang of excess supply to demand,” he said.
With such few active reactors, the Japanese are not buying uranium to make nuclear fuel and the companies that make the fuel from uranium, known as converters, are selling excess amounts because prices are so low, said Ostroff.
“With little, if any, demand to purchase [uranium] right now on the spot market, utilities are leery to buy any material because they are looking for a bottom” in prices, he said.
As of March 7, weekly spot uranium prices stood at $31.10 a pound, down from the March 7, 2011 weekly price of $66.50, according to data from UxC Consulting. UxC uranium futures UXM6, -1.60% are traded on Globex, with the June contract at $29 Friday, but volume is small.
The “bottom is falling out on prices again,” said Ostroff, noting that daily spot prices had stabilized at around $34.75 a pound earlier this year before its recent retreat.
In response to the low prices, it’s “fair to say that most of the world’s producers have abandoned any expansion plans and have curtailed their existing operations,” said Ostroff.
Year to date, shares of uranium producer Cameco Corp. CCJ, +2.69% has lost around 2.5%, while the Global X Uranium exchange-traded fund URA, +1.96% is down about 3.5%. But the losses pale in comparison to last year’s declines of nearly 25% for Cameco shares and more than 38% for the ETF……..http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nuclear-power-market-still-suffers-from-japans-fukushima-disaster-2016-03-11
Nuclear expansion in Asia – sounds great – BUT
it’s unclear whether such plans will ever see the light of day. “It will be very difficult to find people willing to invest billions of dollars in this area, especially given the likelihood of another accident taking place in another part of the world,”
Nuclear energy booming in Asia, DW 12 Mar 16 Five years after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, India and China have embraced nuclear power. Other countries in the region also want to build more plants – even in high-risk areas prone to earthquakes and tsunamis…..
China: on track to becoming number 1 Following the Fukushima disaster, China’s government initially suspended the construction of additional nuclear power plants. Instead, comprehensive security policies were adopted. But in the autumn of 2012, Beijing lifted the moratorium on future development – and since then, has pursued a more ambitious nuclear program……….
Nuclear power is considered a relatively “clean” alternative to coal. In daily congressional meetings, the Communist Party has been discussing plans for a massive expansion of nuclear energy. By 2030, a total of 110 nuclear power plants will be in operation.
China would overtake the US as the country with the most nuclear power plants connected to the grid. Greenpeace nuclear expert Heinz Smital views the speed at which the reactors are being developed as problematic: “The Chinese safety authorities do not have the capacity to examine the buildings properly,” said Smital. “They will likely wave things through, rubber-stamp everything and not mess with the state-run construction consortiums. There is a big security risk.”……..
India. Delhi is planning a far-reaching expansion of nuclear power. Prime Minister Narendra Modi wants to build dozens of new reactors in the next 15 years.
The technical know-how is sourced internationally. Over the past decade, India has reached civil nuclear agreements with the United States, Canada, France and Russia. 21 nuclear power plants are already in operation. Two of the plants are in Kudankulam and Kalpakkam, located on the southeast coast of the country – areas prone to tsunamis. In December 2006, a tsunami hit Kalpakkam causing extensive damage, but not to the nuclear power plant, according to its operator.
Pakistan: Reactors in flood-prone areas
India’s neighbor, Pakistan, is also struggling with blackouts and outdated infrastructure. The country currently operates three small reactors, with the nuclear plant west of Karachi – located in a flood-prone area – being one of the oldest in the world. The remaining two reactors are situated in an earthquake-prone area some 300 kilometers (186.4 miles) south of the capital Islamabad. The government is planning to build two other reactors in the same area. According to Pakistan’s Atomic Energy Commission, Islamabad wants to build a total of seven new reactors by 2030 – with assistance from China.
South Korean expansion Although South Korea is about the size of the former German Democratic Republic (GDR), the country boasts 25 active nuclear plants. Three additional ones are under construction, while two others are set to be completed by 2029. The government plans to increase the share of nuclear power in the country’s overall energy mix from currently 30 to 40 percent.
Still, South Koreans are becoming increasingly skeptical about nuclear energy – and not just because of the 2011 Fukushima disaster. In 2012 and 2013, a scandal related to the use of fake safety certificates rocked the country’s nuclear industry lobby. State-owned (KHNP) had thousands of small components featuring falsified certificates fitted into the country’s nuclear plants. As it turns out, large amounts of bribe money changed hands between KHNP employees, construction firms and politicians.
This led not only to Korean media speaking of a “nuclear mafia,” but also to a massive drop in the approval ratings for nuclear energy – from 70 percent before the Fukushima disaster to 35 percent. In spite of this, Seoul is sticking to its plans to expand the use of nuclear power in the East Asian country.
Southeast Asia pigeonholes nuclear plans
In Southeast Asia, the production of nuclear energy is a hotly debated issue. For instance, while Vietnam wants Russian assistance to build eight nuclear plants, Hanoi has yet to make a final decision. Thailand is planning to build five reactors, whereas Malaysia and the Philippines each want a nuclear reactor to go online.
However, it’s unclear whether such plans will ever see the light of day. “It will be very difficult to find people willing to invest billions of dollars in this area, especially given the likelihood of another accident taking place in another part of the world,” said Greenpeace nuclear expert Smital.
“The costs related to the production of nuclear energy are only likely to increase, whereas renewable energy is becoming increasingly affordable. This is why the free market can only barely manage to finance nuclear plants at the moment,” Smital added. http://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-energy-booming-in-asia/a-19110848
Even South Australia’s pro nuclear Royal Commission admits the diseconomic s of the nuclear industry
The Nuclear Industry Prices Itself Out Of Market For New Power Plants, Climate Progress, BY JOE ROMM MAR 8, 2016 “….. in newly-released findings, South Australia’s nuclear royal commission found that the price of electricity from new nukes greatly exceeded not only business-as-usual projections for electricity prices but also prices in a “strong climate action” case. The Commission concluded “it would not be commercially viable to generate electricity from a nuclear power plant in South Australia in the foreseeable future.”
The Commission explicitly looked at plausible electricity prices for a new reactor in 2030 based on both current designs and possible fourth-generation ones, such as small modular reactors (SMRs). The Commission estimated the cost for the most viable nukes at US$7 billion for a typical large 1125-megawatt reactor and $2.8 billion for two 180-megawatt SMRs. The smaller SMRs would be providing electricity for a whopping US$0.17 a kilowatt-hour!
A study done for the Commission found that both large nukes and SMRs “consistently deliver strongly negative NPVs” (net present values) for both 2030 and 2050 — even for the strong climate action scenario. The Commission Chair noted that given how Australia’s National Electricity Market works, renewables are “the first energy that goes into the market” because they have the lowest costs.
The Commission’s findings are consistent with a 2014 Energy Policy study, “The cost of nuclear electricity: France after Fukushima.” Using cost data released by the French government after the Fukushima disaster, the study found the cost of French nuclear plants steadily escalated over the past four decades. Further, it projects “the future cost of nuclear power in France to be at least 76€/MWh (US$0.084/KWh) and possibly 117€/MWh (US$0.129/KWh),” which “compares unfavorably against alternative fuels,”……. such as wind.http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/03/08/3757281/nuclear-industry-prices/
Nukes are cursed with cost escalation everywhere
“An international comparative assessment of construction cost overruns for electricity infrastructure,” examined the cost history of 180 large nuclear reactors worldwide, and found, “these overruns afflicted more than 97 percent of nuclear projects and led to a mean cost escalation of 117 percent per project.
Nuclear plants have large cost overruns, and it appears to be an intrinsic feature of them. The authors of “Revisiting the Nuclear Power Construction Costs Escalation Curse,” had a very important conclusion in their analysis of escalating costs for French nuclear reactors:
Our last result says that those reactors with better safety performance were more expensive. Then achieving higher safety levels also helped to explain the cost escalation in the French nuclear fleet.
I’m pretty sure the vast majority of Americans, like the vast majority of French, would prefer we built reactors with the best safety performance. That doesn’t come cheap
The Nuclear Industry Prices Itself Out Of Market For New Power Plants, Climate Progress, BY JOE ROMM MAR 8, 2016 In the modern era, nuclear power plants have almost always become more and more expensive over time. They have a “negative learning curve” — along with massive delays and cost overruns in market economies. This is confirmed both by recent studies and by the ongoing cost escalations of nuclear plants around the world, as I’ll detail in this post.
The cost escalation curse of nuclear power
India’s Prime Minister Modi in the grip of the global nuclear salesmen
PM’s recent visits to France, Russia and Japan India Infoline News Service | Mumbai | March 10, 2016
The Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visits to France, Russia and Japan were aimed to bring in socio-economic and scientific development particularly in the field of atomic energy
Resignation of EDF’s finance director heralds crisis in UK Hinkley nuclear project
Hinkley Point C nuclear project in crisis as EDF finance director resigns
Proposed £18bn Somerset plant has been pushed by George Osborne but some on French company’s board fear risky spending, Guardian, Terry Macalister, 7 Mar 16, The £18bn Hinkley Point C nuclear project was in crisis on Sunday night after reports that the finance director of EDF, the company behind the scheme, had resigned.EDF tells contractors to restart work on Hinkley Point, report says
Thomas Piquemal has stood down from his post after expressing trenchant opposition to those on the EDF board who want to give the green light to the project within weeks, sources said.
The resignation of such an important figure on the EDF board will make it much harder for the remaining executives to proceed with Hinkley in the short term……..
Piquemal is said to have been arguing that pursuing what would be the world’s most expensive power project at this moment could jeopardise the French group, which already has rising debts.
Union members on the EDF board are also implacably opposed to Hinkley Point, saying it is too expensive and a risk to the energy company’s future…….http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/07/hinkley-point-c-nuclear-project-in-crisis-as-edf-finance-director-resigns?CMP=twt_a-environment_b-gdneco
Burdened by the failure of AREVA, Electricite De France struggles for survival
French Mastery of Nuclear Power at Stake in U.K. Reactor Project, Bloomberg Francois De Beaupuy March 4, 2016
-
EDF faces dilemma of whether to proceed with $26 billion plant
-
Unions argue for a delay because company’s future is `at risk’
Electricite de France SA, the world’s largest operator of nuclear power plants, is stuck in a multibillion-dollar quandary that will shape its future.
Going ahead with new EPR atomic plants in the U.K. would strain the limits of its balance sheet as slumping electricity prices across Europe reduce cash flow. Dropping the Hinkley Point venture in southwest England would further damage the image of a new French-designed reactor, already tarnished by delays and cost overruns at projects elsewhere…….
The EPR reactor design from French nuclear group Areva SA was once a symbol of the nation’s engineering prowess. EDF’s former Chief Executive Officer Pierre Gadonneix predicted it would sell “like hotcakes” around the world. Project setbacks and the safety fears following the Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2011 stymied those plans, while a flood of competing energy supplies from solar and wind has left one of the nation’s most important industries in distress. - The two 1,600-megawatt plants at Hinkley Point would cost about 18 billion pounds ($26 billion), with China General Nuclear Power Corp. paying for a third. Standard & Poor’s is threatening to downgrade EDF’s credit rating if the U.K. project, which has been planned for more than eight years, goes ahead……
- EDF shares, 85 percent of which are owned by the French state, have lost as much as 89 percent of their value since peaking in 2007 and hit a record low on Feb. 25. French year-ahead wholesale electricity prices dropped 60 percent over the same period…….
-
Areva Burden
Areva has complicated matters for EDF, accumulating 5.5 billion euros of losses on the construction of an EPR in Finland that’s already seven years late. Areva was due to take 10 percent of Hinkley Point, with EDF taking 45 percent to 50 percent and two Chinese partners holding the remaining 40 percent. As Areva’s finances worsened, it withdrew, forcing EDF to raise its stake to 66.5 percent. To make matters worse, EDF was called to rescue Areva by the French government by taking a majority stake in its troubled reactor unit.
EDF has its own problems with the EPR it’s building in Flamanville. Costs have more than tripled to 10.5 billion euros and construction is now six years behind schedule. The French nuclear watchdog has expressed concerns about the strength of the reactor vessel, forcing EDF and Areva to conduct tests to prove its safety.
“EDF is vulnerable to events over which it has no control: falling power prices following deregulation, and the balance sheet knock-on impact from Areva’s financial troubles,” said Adam Dickens, an analyst at HSBC Holdings Plc, in a March 1 report.
The company is borrowing money to pay its dividend and plans to sell assets to finance new developments. It cut annual operational expenditures by 300 million euros, or 1.4 percent, last year and plans to reduce them by a further 700 million euros by 2018. On Feb. 16, it reduced its estimate for how much it will spend to extend the life of its French reactors by 5 billion euros to 50 billion euros.
“Risks are way too high, ” Francis Raillot, a representative of the CFE-CGC union at EDF, said on Feb. 29. “We want the final investment decision to be delayed. The future of the company is at stake.” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-03/french-mastery-of-nuclear-power-at-stake-in-u-k-reactor-project
Japan’s tax-payers up for $100bn bill for Fukushima disaster
Japan taxpayers foot $100bn bill for Fukushima disaster, Ft.com Robin Harding in Tokyo 7 Mar 16 The Fukushima nuclear disaster has cost Japanese taxpayers almost $100bn despite government claims Tokyo Electric is footing the bill, according to calculations by the Financial Times.
Almost five years after a huge tsunami caused the meltdown of three Tepco reactors by knocking out their supply of power for cooling, the figure shows how the public have shouldered most of the disaster’s cost.
It highlights the difficulty of holding a private company to account for the immense expense of nuclear accidents — a concern for countries such as the UK that are building new nuclear power stations.
The Financial Times used Ritsumeikan University professor Kenichi Oshima’s estimate that the disaster has cost Y13.3tn ($118bn) to date relative to the loss of equity value for Tepco shareholders.
“The underlying cost is mainly being paid by the public, either through electricity bills or as tax,” said Mr Oshima.
Japan’s government gives no single figure for the cost of the disaster, but Mr Oshima estimates the biggest cost to date is compensation to businesses and evacuees of Y6.2tn, followed by decontamination of the Fukushima area at Y3.5tn, and decommissioning of the reactor site at Y2.2tn.
Cash for compensation and decommissioning comes from Tepco but it gets grants from the government to keep it solvent. In theory, this cash will come back via a levy on Tepco and other nuclear operators — but this is ultimately be paid by electricity users, making it a tax by another name…….http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/97c88560-e05b-11e5-8d9b-e88a2a889797.html#axzz42AZmNd2J
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.
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
