nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Mako Oshidori on the plight of TEPCO’s nuclear plant workers

Oshidori, MakoMako Oshidori in Düsseldorf “The Hidden Truth about Fukushima”, Fukushima Voice version 2E 28 May 2014  “…..Next, I would like to talk about the nuclear power plant workers. This man [photo in original] used to work for TEPCO as a nurse at a medical clinic inside FDNPP. I interviewed him when he quit his job at TEPCO in 2013. [photo]
When NPP workers die, the only deaths publicly announced by TEPCO are deaths that occurred while at work. For instance, if workers die during a weekend, in sleep, or during time off after 3 months of work, their deaths won’t be announced. Such deaths are reported to someone like him at the medical team at TEPCO, but they are merely attributed to chronic illnesses they must have had. There is no way to tell if the deaths were due to radiation exposure, but he said he was certain the workers were working under extremely severe conditions. I really wanted to write about his interview in various magazines, but unfortunately I can only write about this on the Internet which doesn’t have any sponsors.

There was an NPP worker who died in January 2012. I did a fairly thorough investigation after I was able to obtain police report on him. We got an address for the guarantor for the deceased worker, so we went to that address. There was an apartment building at this address without a unit numbered 204 which was supposed to be where the guarantor lived. In Japan, number four could mean bad luck (Note: In Japanese, number 4 phonetically sounds just likea Japanese word for “death”). After room 203, there was room 205, skipping room 204. I asked the other occupants of the apartment building, but there was no resident there by the name of this guarantor, so it didn’t seem like I wrote down the number wrong. Even though the building could be located on a map, you have to go there to verify the room is actually there. This might have been an guarantor with an imaginary address. This is the dark side of the construction and nuclear industries, not just post-nuclear accident, that those without families, especially elderlies, are given harsh work.

Workers who were exposed to 100 mSv in 2011 are entitled to annual cancer screening and thorough medical care. However, most workers get exposure doses below 100 mSv, such as 90, 95, or 83 mSv, and they don’t qualify for thorough medical care. Workers who had been working at NPP since before the accident know what could happen to them a after reaching a certain exposure dose in one year, or what it means to get exposed to 35 mSv in 2 hours during a particular work. They talk about how they probably won’t live too long. They are determined not to have any children, and they often talk about how uncertain they are about their lives in 5 years.

In current Japan, even children are not being protected, but there are some who are determined to protect children’t health. However, there is hardly any group or individuals advocating for protecting the workers in the most dangerous environment at FDNPS. I believe that is our responsibility. My article about the deceased worker from the January 2012 investigation was actually published in a weekly magazine Shukan Bunshun. However, a singer Ayumi Hamazaki suddenly got divorced right then, and I was asked to cut 75% of the article. I think a big reason why information such as this is not publicized is because readers are not craving for such information. We are in essence not fulfilling our duty to be informed……….http://fukushimavoice-eng2.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/mako-oshidori-in-dusseldorf-hidden.html

March 28, 2015 Posted by | employment, Fukushima 2015, Japan | Leave a comment

India to get $1 Billion ExIm Bank Credit, nearly all of it for renewable energy development

piggy-ban-renewablesRenewables to Get Most of $1 Billion ExIm Bank Credit  (Bloomberg) 27 Mar 15 – Renewable energy developers will receive “the vast majority” of a $1 billion credit line the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. extended to India, the institution’s president said.

Regulatory policies in India, including terms for selling power, are conducive to financing solar- and wind-power projects, and make it easier for the bank to ensure it will be repaid, said Fred Hochberg, who is also chairman of the Washington-based lender.

The comments are an indication that the ExIm bank’s funding for renewables is poised to rise ….. The credit line sealed during President Barack Obama’s visit with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in January is part of the U.S. effort to back an unprecedented expansion of clean energy in developing nations and check rising pollution blamed for global warming.

India’s Ambitions

Modi wants to install by 2022 five times as many photovoltaics as the U.S. has now, an ambition that may cost $160 billion, according to the Council on Energy, Environment & Water, a research group in New Delhi. Obama wants India to join in a global deal limiting greenhouse gases, and India’s ministers are seeking financial support from the West to cut the cost of emissions.

The U.S. developer SunEdison Inc. announced in January plans to build as much as 5 gigawatts of wind and solar power in India, and First Solar Inc., the largest U.S. solar manufacturer, is also developing power plants in the country. Regulations in India permit power purchase agreements that extend as long as 20 years. That makes it easier for banks to finance solar and wind projects…….http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-26/renewables-to-get-most-of-1-billion-exim-bank-credit

March 28, 2015 Posted by | business and costs, India, renewable | Leave a comment

Tepco’s nuclear clean-up wasted $1.6 billion of tax-payers’ money

Japanese audit finds $1.6 billion wasted in Fukushima nuclear plant cleanup Fox News, 24 mar 15 TOKYO – Japanese government auditors say the operator of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant has wasted more than a third of the 190 billion yen ($1.6 billion) in taxpayer money allocated for cleaning up the plant after it was destroyed by a March 2011 earthquake and tsunami.

A Board of Audit report describes various expensive machines and untested measures that ended in failure. It also says the cleanup work has been dominated by one group of Japanese utility, construction and electronics giants despite repeated calls for more transparency and greater access for international bidders……

areva-medusa1Some of the failures cited in the report:

FRENCH IMPORT: Among the costliest failures was a 32 billion yen ($270 million) machine made by French nuclear giant Areva SA to remove radioactive cesium from water leaking from the three wrecked reactors. The trouble-plagued machine lasted just three months and treated only 77,000 tons of water, a tiny fraction of the volume leaking every day. It has since been replaced with Japanese and American machines.

 SALT REMOVAL: Sea water was used early in the crisis to cool the reactors after the normal cooling systems failed. Machines costing 18.4 billion yen ($150 million) from several companies including Hitachi GE Nuclear Energy, Toshiba Corp. and Areva were supposed to remove the salt from the contaminated water at the plant. One of the machines functioned only five days, and the longest lasted just six weeks.

Fukushima-water-tanks-2013SHODDY TANKS: TEPCO hurriedly built dozens of storage tanks for the contaminated water at a cost of 16 billion yen ($134 million). The shoddy tanks, using rubber seals and assembled by unskilled workers, began leaking and some water seeped into the ground and then into the ocean. The tanks are now being replaced with more durable welded ones.

GIANT UNDERGROUND POOLS: A total of 2.1 billion yen ($18 million) was spent on seven huge underground pools built by Maeda Corp. to store the contaminated water. They leaked within weeks, and the water had to be transferred to steel tanks.

ice-wall-FukushimaUNFROZEN TRENCH: A 100 million yen ($840,000) project to contain highly contaminated water in a maintenance tunnel by freezing it failed because the water never completely froze. TEPCO subsidiary Tokyo Power Technology even threw in chunks of ice, but eventually had to pour in cement to seal the trench. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/03/24/japanese-audit-finds-millions-dollars-wasted-in-fukushima-nuclear-plant-cleanup/

March 25, 2015 Posted by | business and costs, Fukushima 2015, Japan | Leave a comment

Russia’s economic woes delaying the build of nuclear reactors in Turkey

nuclear-costs1Russian Nuclear Plants in Turkey ‘Not Ready Before 2022’, Moscow Times  Reuters Mar. 23 2015 Turkey’s first nuclear power plant is unlikely to be ready before 2022, energy officials said on Monday of the $20-billion project that has been beset by regulatory hurdles and complicated by Russia’s financial woes…..Rosatom initially pledged to have the first of the four reactors in the southern Turkish town of Akkuyu ready by 2019.

A senior Turkish energy official said the project would not be online before at least 2022, given that ground-breaking has yet to happen. “The first reactor can be online at least seven years after the ground-breaking so the 2019-2020 date is impossible,” the official said…..

  • Russian-BearEconomic Worries

    Analysts say Russia’s economic troubles because of collapsing oil prices and Western sanctions over Ukraine may also have weighed on Rosatom’s finances.

    “The Akkuyu timeline was — and remains — completely unrealistic,” Aaron Stein, associate fellow at British defense and security think-tank the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), said. “The issue has, in recent months, become far more complicated because of Russia’s economic deterioration.”……http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/business/article/russian-nuclear-plants-in-turkey-not-ready-before-2022/517868.html

March 25, 2015 Posted by | business and costs, politics international, Russia, Turkey | Leave a comment

Cost of Small Nuclear Reactors is greater than cost of large ones

1. Small Reactors and the UK’s Long-Term Nuclear Strategy. nuClear News, March 2015  “……..A recent House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee investigation into small reactors looked at SMRs but also PRISM reactors – 311MW sodium-cooled fast reactors being promoted as a way of using up the plutonium stockpile at Sellafield – and reactors fuelled by thorium rather than uranium. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) SMR proponents suggest that mass production of modular reactors could reduce costs, but others agree that SMRs are likely to have higher costs per unit of output than conventional reactors. (5) Even if SMRs could eventually be more cost-effective than larger reactors due to mass production, this advantage would only come into play if large numbers of SMRs were ordered. But utilities are unlikely to order an SMR until they are seen to produce competitively priced electricity. This Catch-22 suggests the technology will require significant government financial help to get off the ground.
smr-aUSTRALIA-copy
The Washington-based Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) says mass production could create new reliability vulnerabilities – if one reactor is discovered to have a fault, all other reactors manufactured in the same facility are likely to have the same fault, so all would have to be taken off-line at the same time. Millions of cars, presumably made to high quality control standards, for instance, are routinely recalled. Additionally IEER has serious concerns in relation to both safety and proliferation. (6) By spreading SMRs around the globe we will increase the proliferation risk because safeguarding spent fuel from numerous small reactors would be a much more complex task than safeguarding fewer large reactors. (7)…….
None of the designs, including the most credible, which are based on scaled-down versions of currently deployed PWR technology, is yet ready. NNL speaks of ‘detailed technical challenges’ not yet resolved. It is therefore no surprise that no-one has yet built a single SMR let alone made a commitment to building the large numbers that would be needed to make the economic case remotely credible. And the safety licensing process that will need to follow design completion would, according to the Chief UK nuclear inspector, take up to 6 years in the UK.
The cost of SMRs is essentially unknowable at the moment, but there is evidence to suggest they will be even more expensive than existing reactors…..

March 22, 2015 Posted by | business and costs, politics, Reference, UK | Leave a comment

Doubts that American nuclear companies will sell reactors to India

IS THE INDIA NUCLEAR AGREEMENT REALLY THE ‘BREAKTHROUGH’ OBAMA PROMISED? Chauthi Duniya, March 20th, 2015 Analysts and experts familiar with the negotiations say that the legal issues remain so complex that private U.S. companies may continue to shy away from new deals in India,….

The Indian Government has already slated sites for nuclear power facilities for Westinghouse Toshiba in the western state of Gujarat and GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy in the state of Andhra Pradesh. “My feeling is that there’s not as much there,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the nonprofit Arms Control Association, a non-proliferation watchdog group. “The real test is, will GE or Westinghouse say ‘this is good enough for us’ or not and whether they will sign contracts.”…….

The key issue will be whether the conflict between international law and Indian law can be waved away by a memorandum from India’s Attorney General. The memorandum would have to say that the 2010 liability law “doesn’t mean what it says,” said a Washington lawyer familiar with the issues but who asked for anonymity to protect his professional relationships. Continue reading →

March 21, 2015 Posted by | business and costs, India, politics international | 2 Comments

Utilities in USA finding it uneconomic to extend life of nuclear reactors beyond 60 years

Senator: Utilities see little value in extending nukes beyond 60 years SNL, By Matthew Bandyk 5 Mar 15 High-level energy company executives have told Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., that they will not ask federal regulators for permission to extend the operation of many of their nuclear power reactors beyond 60 years of operation, the senator said at a March 4 hearing that scrutinized the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s $1.03 billion budget request for fiscal year 2016.

While he did not name names, Alexander said that in private conversations, company executives have indicated that in many cases it might not make economic sense to pay for all the upgrades that the NRC would require if a nuclear plant wanted a 20-year license extension to run for 80 years. While about 75 of the 99 operating reactors in the U.S. have received license extensions to stay online for up to 60 years, no plant has yet asked to be licensed beyond that period, creating fears among the industry and outspoken nuclear proponents such as Alexander that after the next decade the amount of nuclear capacity will fall off a cliff as plants start to hit their 60-year lifespans and retire…….

“Big utility operators tell me they are not even thinking about asking for extensions of time that their reactors will stay online … because it’s not economic to operate them,” he also said…..

The NRC’s fiscal-year 2016 budget request is down $27.3 million compared to the proposal in fiscal year 2015, reflecting a decrease of about 140 full-time employees due to decreased workload in the offices of New Reactors and Fuel Facilities, according to a statement from the NRC…….https://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/Article.aspx?cdid=A-31556548-11565

March 21, 2015 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

In just one year, Sellafield nuclear clean-up bill jumps an extra £5bn

Cost of nuclear clean up at Sellafield increased an extra £5bn in the past year Chronicle Live UK By   15 Mar 15 The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has been slammed by MPs for the ever-increasing costs at the site in Cumbria Constantly increasing costs for the clean up of Sellafield are Britain’s bill for the Cold War, an MP has claimed.

This week MPs launched a fresh attack against the rising cost and delays of decommissioning and cleaning up the Sellafield nuclear site.

Leading figures from the nuclear industry were questioned by the Public Accounts Committee following the revelation that the expected costs have increased by £5 billion in a year, to £53 billion.

In a recent progress report on the work, the National Audit Office (NAO) criticised the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which oversees the plant, for delays in cancelling a clean-up contract with the consortium Nuclear Management Partners (NMP) after demands from MPs a year ago to do so.

The report said the contract was terminated only last month, at a cost to the taxpayer of £430,000 in cancellation fees.

  • The site is used to store nuclear material from across the UK and was the host of a facility which secretly produced nuclear materials for the UK’s defence programme during the Cold War which was finally demolished in 2014……..

Labour MP Margaret Hodge, who chairs the committee, described the rise as “astonishing” and repeated her criticism during a hearing on Wednesday.

Delays had increased by 86 months since September 2013, while costs were going up by billions of pounds, she said…..

She said she was struck by the “unpredictable massive burden on future generations”, telling the nuclear industry officials it was a good idea to have strong targets and ambitions……..http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/cost-nuclear-clean-up-sellafield-8838478

March 16, 2015 Posted by | business and costs, decommission reactor, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Unsafety for workers decommissioning Dounreay nuclear power station.

Nuclear waste workers at Dounreay power station fear for their safety Decommissioning staff, hit by injuries and concerned about equipment, express ‘no confidence’ in management  Independent UK, MARK LEFTLY Author Biography SUNDAY 15 MARCH 2015  THE DECOMMISSIONING OF ONE OF THE UK’S MOST SIGNIFICANT NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS HAS RUN INTO SERIOUS PROBLEMS AFTER WORKERS RESPONSIBLE FOR DISPOSING OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE ACCUSED THEIR MANAGERS OF FAILING TO KEEP THEM SAFE.

Staff at Dounreay, on Scotland’s northern coast, have written to the site’s managing director, Mark Rouse, to raise concerns about decommissioning process.

The letter, seen by The Independent on Sunday, says workers have reported an “increasing number of injuries” and have “serious concerns” about the quality of new protective suits and other safety equipment. And they have “no confidence in senior management”.

The letter was sent to Mr Rouse last November, six weeks after a fire at the plant resulted in a serious radioactive leak. Staff warn that the situation at Dounreay is now similar to that of the mid-1990s, when a major safety audit had to be carried out.

Later this week Mr Rouse and a senior executive from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) will address the Dounreay Stakeholder Group, but the problems will add to growing concerns around the UK’s multi-billion pound nuclear clean-up industry. Earlier this month, the National Audit Office reported that the cost of decommissioning and cleaning up the Sellafield nuclear site in Cumbria has increased by £5bn to £53bn. The private sector consortium responsible for Sellafield was sacked in January.

In September, it emerged that the overall cost of cleaning up Britain’s toxic nuclear sites has risen by £6bn, from an estimated £63bn over the next century to £69bn. The Government and regulators have been accused of “incompetence”…..

The workers’ letter claims that the focus on delivery has been “at the expense of safe processes and practices on health, safety and welfare”…….http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nuclear-waste-workers-at-dounreay-power-station-fear-for-their-safety-10108715.html

March 16, 2015 Posted by | employment, UK | Leave a comment

Japan’s manufacturing industries have adjusted, and thrive, without nuclear power

flag-japanLife without nukes: Japan Inc thrives, CNBC 12 Mar 15   Tuesday, 10 Mar 2015 Japan’s economy is thriving despite the four-year shutdown of the country’s nuclear power stations following the massive earthquake and tsunami in March 2011, analysts say……..

“Japanese manufacturers have adapted to the 30 percent electricity price increase by cutting back on energy consumption,” said Japan Research Institute (JRI) chief researcher Takumi Fujinami. “Higher prices haven’t had much of an effect on manufacturers’ bottom lines because electricity represents only around 5 percent of raw material costs.”

Toyota, for example, which generates around a fifth of sales from the two million cars it makes in Japan every year, is forecast to post a 15 percent on-year jump in operating profit to 2.78 trillion yen ($22.9 billion) this fiscal year – its second straight year of record profits.

Still, Fujinami noted that manufacturers need to plan for higher energy costs going forward.

“The days of cheaper electricity are over and probably won’t be coming back,” he said. “It’s time for the Japanese economy to make the transition to a less industrial, more service sector-oriented economy.”…….

Ahead of December’s snap elections, Japan’s big business lobby Keidanren called on Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government to “provide the general public with a lucid explanation of the necessity of nuclear power” in order to “accelerate the process for restarting nuclear power plants,” according to a policy proposal published in October.

Abe has responded to business demands, pledging to begin putting nuclear reactors back online without setting any firm dates, but public sentiment remains a hurdle.

Fifty-six percent of respondents in a nationwide Nikkei newspaper poll conducted in August were opposed restarting the reactors, in line with other regional polls.

“The fact that there is still not a single reactor running in the country, in spite of the strong desire of the political and economic elites to bring back nuclear energy, attests to the continuous obstacles public opinion presents,” said Sophia University professor of politics Koichi Nakano.

Voters remain worried because the Fukushima plant does not appear to be “under control.”

Tokyo Electric Power Company – the operator of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant – confirmed those fears last month, admitting that highly radioactive material has been seeping into the sea for nearly a year.

“Fukushima is obviously not under control and it’s out of the question that other reactors are restarted before it is,” said Coalition Against Nukes representative and National Confederation of Trade Union executive committee member Kenichi Igarashi……..http://www.cnbc.com/id/102494249#.

March 13, 2015 Posted by | business and costs, Japan | Leave a comment

AREVA lost $5.6 billion in 2014, ( total market capitalization of $3.5 billion!)

nuclear-costs1France’s Areva Lost $5.6 Billion In 2014 – Is This The End? http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Frances-Areva-Lost-5.6-Billion-In-2014-Is-This-The-End.html By Nick Cunningham, 08 March 2015

Could France, a heavyweight in nuclear power, begin to see its position crumble?

Areva, France’s iconic nuclear power builder, reported a massive financial loss for 2014. The state-owned company revealed that it lost 4.9 billion euros ($5.6 billion) in 2014, an enormous decline from the 500 million euro loss it posted the previous year.

Weighing on the company is its much-heralded rector in Finland. The Olkiluoto 3 unit under construction in Finland was supposed to be completed in 2009, but it has since turned into a nightmare. Billed as the first Generation III+ pressurized water reactor – dubbed the Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR) by Areva – the project was intended to demonstrate nuclear technology that had advanced well beyond the designs seen in today’s operational power plants, which were built in the 1970’s. Now expected to be completed in 2018, the decade of delay coulddouble the reactor’s eventual total cost.

Also, Areva is building another reactor in Normandy that has suffered a similar fate. The Flamanville 3 is several years behind schedule – it may not come into operation until 2016 or 2017 after an original start date of 2012. That reactor, which will be operated by fellow state-owned nuclear operator EDF, has also seen its costs skyrocket because of the delays.

While Areva’s $5.6 billion loss may be shocking at first glance, it looks even worse when compared to the company’s total market capitalization of $3.5 billion. In other words, Areva lost more money in 2014 than the company is worth in its entirety. Despite what appears to be an obvious need for injection of cash to keep the company afloat, France’s energy minister Segolene Royal said that it is “too early” to discuss such a measure, although she added that “all solutions are being looked at.”

The delays from multiple projects have one thing in common – they are using Areva’s EPR design, which has proven to be far more complex than anticipated. That raises serious questions about Areva’s future as a leading nuclear power company. “The EPR is a rotten design that they should have given up on a long time ago,” Steve Thomas, a professor at the University of Greenwich in Britain, told the New York Times last year. Areva’s share price has plummeted over the last year as it became clear the company was quickly burning through cash.

Compounding Areva’s problems is the fact that the west is no longer building nuclear reactors, aside from a few projects in the U.S. Even worse, France, which is the second largest generator of nuclear power in the world (and the leader in terms of percentage of total electricity from nuclear power), is considering a transition away from nuclear power.

French President Francois Hollande has pledge to cut France’s reliance on nuclear power by one-third by 2025. That is easier said than done for a nation that gets 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear. The French National Assembly approved a bill late last year that would slash nuclear’s share down to 50 percent over the next decade, but the Senate is trying to water down the bill. While the outcome is uncertain, what is clear is the fact that France – a global champion in nuclear power – is set to shrink its nuclear energy sector.

To make matters worse, a few safety issues have cropped up in recent weeks that could amount to a significant blow for nuclear power in Europe. A leak at the Fessenheim plant on the border with Germany and Switzerland was discovered in late February, forcing the plant’s temporary closure. This is the same plant that President Hollande specifically pledged to close during his 2012 presidential campaign.

And in neighboring Belgium, cracks have formed in the walls of the pressure vessels at several plants, raising alarm about their safety. The cracks at Belgium’s Doel 3 and Tihange 2 point to a potentially larger problem. Experts fear “material fatigue,” the possibility that radiation is wearing down the materials much quicker than expected. Such a development, if true, “could be a problem for the entire global nuclear industry,” said Jan Bens, general director of the Belgian Federal Agency for Nuclear Control (FANC), according to Deutsche Welle.

Aging European nuclear power plants, potentially presenting serious safety concerns, could well be slated for closure in the coming years. With France’s nuclear champion, Areva, unable to build suitable replacements, France is quickly seeing its position as a global leader in nuclear power slip.

March 11, 2015 Posted by | business and costs, France | Leave a comment

China’s slow nuclear start: approves first nuclear project since Fukushima

China approves first nuclear project since Fukushima  http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/10/china-nuclear-approval-idUSL4N0WC3N620150310  China has given the go-ahead for the launch of a major domestic nuclear power project, marking the first such approval since a temporary freeze on new construction following Japan’s Fukushima disaster.

China General Nuclear Power Group has received state approval to build two one-gigawatt (GW) reactors in the second phase of a project called Hongyanhe in the northeastern province of Liaoning, the Xinhua news agency reported on Tuesday.

The project will use what the company calls home-grown “third-generation” reactor technology, dubbed ACPR1000, the report said, citing Yang Xiaofeng, general manager of the Hongyanhe project.

China froze new construction and implemented a year-long safety review after the Fukushima disaster in 2011.

While it lifted the construction ban at the end 2012, China has been slow to approve new nuclear projects. Beijing has promised to stick to the highest safety standards, using third generation reactors.

In an estimated $100 billion expansion programme, China aims to raise its domestic nuclear power capacity to 58 GWs by 2020 from 20.3 GW at the end of 2014. Nuclear capacity would still only meet 3 percent of China’s total electricity needs by 2020.

Buy-China-nukes-1China is also seeking to export its home-grown third-generation reactors, such as Hualong 1 and CAP1400, to an overseas market potentially worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

But industry executives and analysts say it faces a major obstacle: it needs to show it can build and safely operate these reactors at home first.

China General Nuclear is the state-owned parent of CGN Power , which raised $3.2 billion in an initial public offering in Hong Kong in December. (Reporting by Charlie Zhu in Hong Kong and David Stanway in Beijing; editing by David Clarke)

March 11, 2015 Posted by | business and costs, China, politics | Leave a comment

Technical delays, safety concerns, hamper China’s ambition to sell nuclear reactors to the world

Buy-China-nukes-1RPT-“Made in China” nuclear reactors a tough sell in global market Mar 8, 2015 By Charlie Zhu and David Stanway (Reuters) – As China signs global deals to export its nuclear power technology, it faces a huge obstacle: it still needs to show it can build and safely operate these reactors at home……..

Premier Li Keqiang told an annual parliamentary meeting this week that the China aimed to increase its share of global sales in a range of advanced industries, including implementing major projects in nuclear power. And in a sign of progress on exporting its own nuclear technology, China signed a preliminary agreement last month to sell its flagship Hualong 1 reactor to Argentina.

But despite state media describing the deal as the model’s “maiden voyage”, China has not yet built Hualong 1, raising questions about the country’s capacity to deliver reactors for the global market.

“Our fatal weakness is our management standards are not high enough. There is a big gap with international standards,” said Xu Lianyi, a senior expert at China’s State Nuclear Power Technology Corp (SNPTC), referring to the challenges China faces expanding its nuclear power sector.

SNPTC, which was set up to receive technology transferred from Westinghouse Electric Co., is trying to develop another reactor ultimately targeted at the world market. Although China has operated Western-designed reactors at home for more than 20 years, it will need to convince buyers of the reliability of its own technology, particularly given a chequered reputation on industrial standards and safety in some other areas such as mining.

China’s first Hualong 1 project, in Fujian province, may not be completed until 2020, assuming it breaks ground this year and construction goes smoothly, said Li Ning, dean of the School of Energy Research at Xiamen University…….

Beijing has promised to stick to the highest safety standards, using so-called “third generation” reactors like Hualong 1 and CAP1400, another home-grown model identified for future export. Due to be based on technology transferred from Westinghouse, the launch of CAP1400 will depend on the completion of a pilot Westinghouse third-generation reactor in Zhejiang province, which is facing a three-year delay because of technological problems……

Under a hotly-fought multibillion-dollar nuclear power deal struck with Pittsburgh-based Westinghouse, China secured a significant technology transfer agreement in 2007. China has been absorbing and localising the technology to develop the CAP1400 and says it has full intellectual property rights on the model and Hualong 1.

The Beijing office of Westinghouse, which is now controlled by Japan’s Toshiba Corp, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

While technology rights may not stoke tensions, Beijing’s pledge to aid the overseas expansion of Chinese firms risks raising the hackles of competitors if sectors like nuclear are deemed unfairly subsidised…….

an official at the China National Nuclear Corporation, which is leading efforts to export Hualong 1 to Argentina, said China still has “huge amounts of work to do” before it can become a nuclear powerhouse, including rolling out Hualong I at home. The official declined to be named because he was not authorised to speak to the media…….http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/08/china-nuclear-idUSL4N0WA0T620150308

March 9, 2015 Posted by | China, marketing | Leave a comment

South African government keeps public in the dark on costs of its nuclear energy plan

scrutiny-on-costsflag-S.AfricaHow will South Africa’s new nuclear power stations be paid for?, My Broadband, 9 Mar 15 If the government is so determined to pursue nuclear power stations, why was no mention of the financing for this included in the minister of finance’s budget speech? By  – March 8, 2015 The South African government has committed itself, by means of its Nuclear Energy Policy and Integrated Resource Plan, to an energy mix consisting of coal, gas, hydro, nuclear, solar and wind.

Yet, if the government is so determined to pursue nuclear power stations, why was no mention of the financing for this included in the minister of finance’s budget speech?

One would expect that since government wants to use nuclear power to address the shortage of electricity in South Africa, and in the light of high-level delegations which have signed inter-governmental agreements regarding nuclear power, that this expenditure would have been a focus in the energy portion of this year’s budget speech.

This was, however, not the case. Instead, the public was told that the electricity levy will be increased by a whopping 57% from 3,5 to 5,5 c/kWh, and that Eskom would receive additional equity to the tune of R23-billion in three tranches.

The public was also told that although the extra 2 c/kWh levy would be removed in time, a carbon tax can be expected soon. The fact that the R23-billion would be in the form of additional equity means that Eskom will not have repay the money.

This additional backing is meant to prop up the power utility’s balance sheet which should make it easier for the utility to borrow money on the open market.

Economists have pointed out however, that it will be impossible for Eskom to borrow money to build a fleet of nuclear power stations because of the vast amount of money needed. The capital cost of a nuclear power station is extremely high.

So who will fund these nuclear power plants? It has been suggested that the country which builds the stations will fund it, so-called vendor funding, and that South Africa would repay the debt over time as it sells the electricity generated by the plants over a lengthy period.

But surely that will make electricity very expensive because of the large debt and the interest incurred……..

In 2013; the South African government’s estimate was $6500/kW; and recent reports show that a Hungarian nuclear power station, built by the Russians, cost $7000/kW, while the French-built nuclear power station at Hinckley Point, UK, cost $7900/kW. The figures quoted are for the new-build costs alone and do not include operating costs or interest.

Despite the high cost of nuclear power stations, and the obvious fact that South Africa cannot afford such an enormous outlay, the departments of energy, public enterprises, and trade and industry all appear to be in favour of this form of generation.

How much electricity does South Africa the country actually need? Eskom’s website shows an existing total generation capacity of 42 000 MW excluding the additional power from IPPs.

The renewable energy independent power producers (REIPPs) have already added 1500 MW to the grid, and an additional 2500 MW is expected soon…….

South Africa may have more power capacity than it needs at exorbitant cost to the country’s economy. Expensive electricity will result in the country’s manufacturing sector losing its competitive advantage which will mitigate against growth and job creation.

At the same time the drive towards energy efficiency, which, according to the budget speech will be rewarded by an energy-efficiency savings incentive, set to increase by 111% to 95 c/kWh, will surely motivate people to use less electricity……..http://mybroadband.co.za/news/energy/121180-how-will-south-africas-new-nuclear-power-stations-be-paid-for.html

 

March 9, 2015 Posted by | business and costs, politics, South Africa | Leave a comment

Nuclear developments on hold, as Areva asks NRC to suspend nuclear reactor design review

areva-medusa1Areva asks NRC to suspend nuclear reactor design review http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2015/03/areva-asks-nrc-to-suspend-nuclear-reactor-design-review.html 03/06/2015 Areva Inc. has asked the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to suspend its design certification review of Areva’s European Pressurized Reactor (EPR).

 Areva’s request was made on Feb. 25, days before the France-based parent company announced losses of more than $5 billion for 2014, according to World Nuclear News. The company requested the NRC to suspend work on all submittals in active review and to not post any new charges to the EPR design certification docket after March 27.

The announcement also puts on hold plans for the Calvert Cliffs 3 nuclear unit in Maryland, which was going to use the EPR reactor design. Unistar Nuclear Energy also asked the NRC to suspend review of its combined operating license application just days after Areva’s request.

The U.S. EPR is based on the EPR reactor currently under construction in France and Finland and planned for construction at Hinkley Point C in the UK, the article said.

March 7, 2015 Posted by | business and costs, France, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »