EDF using Pontins Brean Sands has ‘big determinantal impact’ on local economy, tourism firm fears
It is unclear when the site will return to
being a holiday park. The continued use of Pontins Brean Sands to house
hundreds of Hinkley Point C workers is reportedly having a “big
determinantal impact” on the local economy, according to one tourism firm.
Up to 900 staff from Hinkley Point C have been living at Pontins Brean
Sands and are expected to be there across 2024 and perhaps beyond. The
holiday resort has seen a massive refurbishment of the chalets worth around
£2 million, which saw new kitchens, bathrooms, furniture, TVs, and new
Wi-Fi access installed. Yet Discover Brean has hit out at the continued use
of the site to Hinkley Point C workers and noted its impact on the local
economy and nearby traders.
Somerset Live 3rd Jan 2023
https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/edf-using-pontins-brean-sands-9009354
Backing the wrong horse: Government doubles Sizewell C funding on nuclear bad news day
Given the Hinkley debacle, the NFLAs regret that Mr Bowie did not put his shovel to good use by burying the Sizewell project, but instead, like many reckless gamblers, Ministers and senior civil servants at the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero have chosen to blow more taxpayers’ money on a losing prospect, doubling their bet on Sizewell C to £2.5 billion.
The UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities were incredulous to learn that government ministers chose to back Sizewell C with a further £1.3 billion of public money on the same day (23 January) French nuclear operator EDF announced that Sizewell’s older twin sister, Hinkley Point C, would begin operating even later and at an even greater cost.
The public relations team handling Hinkley Point C announcements at EDF Energy must have a thankless task as theirs is seemingly a role that involves continually dispensing bad news. Yesterday’s https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/dedicated-sections/journalists/all-press-releases/hinkley-point-c-update-1 took the biscuit (though whether the PR team could console themselves with any given the state of the corporate finances is debatable; humble pie maybe?)
In the latest in a long litany of gloomy announcements portending further cost and delivery overruns, the company has now advised that the expected cost of delivering Hinkley Point C has increased by anything from £5-9 billion (your guess is as good as theirs) or ultimately between £31 and £35 billion. But this is based on 2015 estimates, so with inflation the bill might run to £46 billion at today’s prices. And the anticipated year in which Reactor 1 might start generating has slipped from the summer of 2027 to sometime never in 2029, with Reactor 2 coming online about one year later (or maybe not).
Interestingly our friends in Stop Sizewell report that Nuclear Minister Andrew Bowie told them recently on his whistlestop visit to Suffolk, bearing a ceremonial shovel, that Hinkley would come online in the late 2020s or early 2030s, and even the Telegraph and Guardian have reported that the plant will not be operational until the next decade.
Rather unconvincingly EDF claims that ‘The project continues to capitalise on the experience gained from construction of the 4 other EPRs around the world’ which is hardly encouraging as Taishan-1 in China experienced a serious accident which led to its shutdown for many months; Flamanville-3 in France, started in 2007 and expected to commence generation in 2012, is only now about to start loading fuel after an unhappy history of faults and compromised quality control; and Olkiluoto-3 in Finland, begun in 2005 with a start date of 2010, was only finished last year after a prolonged construction period which included a bitter contractual dispute about the apportionment of the massively spiralling costs, followed by a corporate bankruptcy.
Given the Hinkley debacle, the NFLAs regret that Mr Bowie did not put his shovel to good use by burying the Sizewell project, but instead, like many reckless gamblers, Ministers and senior civil servants at the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero have chosen to blow more taxpayers’ money on a losing prospect, doubling their bet on Sizewell C to £2.5 billion.
Clearly, DESNZ is unaware that lumbering nuclear white elephants are not the best runners to back in a race, and that renewables, provided with equal financial encouragement, will romp home by a mile every time. Given its latest foolhardy behaviour, the NFLAs now venture to suggest that DESNZ be once more swiftly renamed – this time to the Department of No Energy and Zero Sense.
American weapons company Lockheed Martin scores again with sale of more F-35s to South Korea
3rd January 2024 – 16:30 GMT | by Norbert Neumann in London
South Korea has formalised its plans to expand its fleet of Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II fifth-generation fighter aircraft
South Korea has signed a letter of acceptance (LOA) to acquire an additional 20 Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II fifth-generation fighter aircraft. The Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) said on 1 January that the LOA was signed in December………. (Subscribers only) more https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/air-warfare/south-korea-to-enhance-air-force-with-more-f-35a-fighters/
Meet the Companies Profiting From Israel’s War on Gaza
“The scale of destruction and war crimes in Gaza would not be possible without massive weapon transfers from the U.S.,” . “As global resistance to war and apartheid grows, it is important that the public know exactly who is making this violence possible”
“As global resistance to war and apartheid grows, it is important that the public know exactly who is making this violence possible.”
SCHEERPOST, By Jessica Corbett / Common Dreams December 21, 2023
As of Wednesday, a U.S.-based Quaker group’s online database listed over two dozen companies profiting from the bloodshed in the Gaza Strip, where Israeli forces have spent the last 10 weeks waging what experts call a “genocidal” war that sent defense stocks soaring.
Backed by $3.8 billion in annual military aid from the United States, Israel declared war on October 7 in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack that killed over 1,100 people. Since then, Israeli forces have killed over 20,000 Palestinians in Gaza—sparking massive protests demanding a cease-fire around the world, including many led by Jewish people.
“War and attacks on civilians will never bring safety or peace to Israelis or Palestinians.”
The growing death toll, displacement, destruction of civilian infrastructure, and difficulties in delivering humanitarian aid to the besieged enclave have also increased scrutiny of a $14.3 billion package for the war that the Biden administration requested from Congress as well as criticism of the U.S. weapon-makers and billionaire donors who are arming and enabling the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
“The scale of destruction and war crimes in Gaza would not be possible without massive weapon transfers from the U.S.,” said Noam Perry of the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), the group behind the tool, in a statement Wednesday. “As global resistance to war and apartheid grows, it is important that the public know exactly who is making this violence possible.”
As the AFSC webpage details:
Shortly after October 7, the U.S. government started transferring to Israel massive amounts of weapons. Among these weapons, Israel received more than 15,000 bombs and 50,000 artillery shells within just the first month-and-a-half. These transfers have been deliberately shrouded in secrecy to avoid public scrutiny and prevent Congress from exercising any meaningful oversight.
Some of these weapons were purchased using U.S. taxpayers’ money through the Foreign Military Sales program; some were direct commercial sales purchased through Israel’s own budget; and some were replenished U.S. military stockpiles in Israel, which the Israeli military may also use. A list of known U.S. arms transfers is maintained by the Forum on the Arms Trade.
The webpage notes that the list is based on reporting, social media, and other open sources, and “focuses on weapons used by Israel because all Palestinian militant groups are already sanctioned and receive no support from Western governments or corporations.”
For example, Boeing, the world’s fifth-largest weapon manufacturer, makes F-15 fighter jets and Apache AH-64 attack helicopters used by the Israeli forces, as well as “multiple types of unguided small diameter bombs (SDBs) and Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) kits” that have been used “extensively” during the war, including in a bombing of Gaza’s Jabalia refugee camp…………………………………………………………………………..
Other companies on the list include weapons giants such as General Dynamics, General Electric, L3Harris Technologies, Leonardo, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and RTX—formerly Raytheon—as well as vehicle companies AM General, Ford, Oshkosh, Toyota, and drone manufacturers AeroVironment, Skydio, and XTEND…………………………………………………..
The other foreign firms on the list are ThyssenKrupp, the German company that built four warships for Israel, and Nordic Ammunition Company, which makes the M141 Bunker Defeat Munition, a shoulder-fired “bunker-buster” rocket……………………………………..
more https://scheerpost.com/2023/12/21/meet-the-companies-profiting-from-israels-war-on-gaza/—
Spiralling nuclear costs make UK’s Ministry Of Defence’s equipment plan unsustainable.
While there are shortfalls in every ‘Top Level Budget’ (TLB) in the plan, huge increases in the forecast cost of the MOD’s nuclear weapon upgrades is the most significant driver of these deficits.
While there are shortfalls in every ‘Top Level Budget’ (TLB) in the plan, huge increases in the forecast cost of the MOD’s nuclear weapon upgrades is the most significant driver of these deficits.
Nuclear Information Service 20.12.2023, DAVID CULLEN
The Ministry of Defence’s plan for equipment acquisition over the next decade has once again been branded unaffordable, with overspending on its nuclear programme now clearly responsible for the overall insolvency of the plan. After two years where the plan was predicting a modest surplus, due to the greatest increase in UK military spending since the Korean war, the apparently inexorable rising costs of the government’s nuclear weapon upgrades have created the largest deficit since the government started publishing these plans in 2012.
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) plans its equipment spending around a 10-year budget set by the Treasury. This is longer than most departments, due to the substantial costs and lead-in times involved. The plan covers spending on all equipment used by the armed forces, from submarines to small arms ammunition. The plan is updated annually to cover the next 10 financial years, and is intended to show Parliament that the MOD is able to properly finance its ambitions in military equipment spending.Once the plan is published the National Audit Office (NAO) carries out an analysis of the affordability, which is published separately. The MOD decided not to publish its 2023 Equipment Plan, telling the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee that it needed more time to “work through the consequences” of the 2023 Integrated Review Refresh (IRR) and its accompanying Defence Command Paper. However, all of the financial analysis for the plan has been undertaken and the NAO has published a report based on that analysis.
The MOD’s assessment
The MOD’s own figures show that there is a £16.9bn shortfall in the plan, compared to the £2.6bn surplus in the previous year’s plan. While there are shortfalls in every ‘Top Level Budget’ (TLB) in the plan, huge increases in the forecast cost of the MOD’s nuclear weapon upgrades is the most significant driver of these deficits.
The Defence Nuclear Organisation (DNO), the TLB which oversees the majority of the MOD’s spending on its programme, has seen its spending on the equipment plan increase 62% since last year to £99.5bn. The DNO appear to have been given approval to spend whatever is deemed necessary to avoid delays in the production of the Dreadnought submarine class, as the NAO says it has prioritised delivery to schedule “over immediate cost constraints”. This approach is apparently supported by the Treasury, and although it is hard to dispute their claim that fewer delays will in general lead to lower overall costs, it is a questionable approach to financial management………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………….. Over the full life of the Dreadnought programme, CAAS estimates that costs will be £4bn higher, a substantial increase from their estimate last year of costs being £1.2bn above current forecasts.
……………………… The NAO also highlights the propensity of project delays leading to increased costs, both in the projects themselves and in related programmes, such as maintaining equipment that had previously been scheduled for retirement. This has frequently been the case within the MOD’s nuclear programme, and again raises questions about the substantial ‘adjustments for realism’ in the DNO’s current calculations.
A lack of plans
The gulf in the MOD’s equipment plan finances in general, and nuclear project finances in particular, is emerging despite substantial increases in funding from the Treasury. In the 2023 Spring Budget £3bn of additional funding was announced alongside the IRR, and current budgets allow for annual increases of £2bn, both specifically for nuclear projects. £2bn of the Dreadnought programmes nominal £10bn contingency fund had already been spent by March 2023, and the current forecast cost for the project appears to anticipate another £1bn being spent. The Treasury have apparently ‘set out the arrangements’ for further contingency spending, although it is still to be agreed on a case-by-case basis. In practice, the contingency does not exist as a separate fund, and this ‘contingency’ is just a mechanism for the Treasury to approve overspend.
While the stated commitment of the MOD and Treasury to funding the Dreadnought programme above any other considerations is clearly intended to dispel any doubts about the viability of that project, it is hard to see any resolution to the current state of the equipment plan that does not involve spending on conventional equipment projects being cut. The NAO warns about this prospect and highlights the reliance of nuclear-armed submarine patrols on conventional forces that are not currently protected by the ring-fencing of the MOD’s nuclear spending.
………………………….. The MOD’s refusal to take difficult decisions now merely increases the number of tough choices that will await an incoming government after the next election. The most likely outcome of those choices is that once again conventional military spending will be cut to fund the government’s nuclear ambitions. https://www.nuclearinfo.org/comment/2023/12/spiralling-nuclear-costs-make-the-mods-equipment-plan-unsustainable/
CSIRO says wind and solar much cheaper than nuclear, even with added integration costs
The big mover – and one that is significant in the context of the Australian debate on the energy transition, and the federal Coalition’s insistence that nuclear is the answer to most questions – is the cost of nuclear and small modular reactors.
Giles Parkinson 21 December 2023 ReNewEconomy
The CSIRO has published the latest edition of its important GenCost report, and responded to critics by dialling in near term integration costs for wind, solar and storage. But the result is just the same – renewables are clearly Australia’s cheapest energy option, and the story for nuclear just got a whole ot worse.
The annual GenCost report, prepared in collaboration with the Australian Energy Market Operator since 2018, is an important guide to where Australia’s energy transition is at and where it should be heading, but over the past has become the target of attack from conservative naysayers and the pro-nuclear lobby.
CSIRO has defended its methodology, but to satisfy the critics has added in pre-2030 integration costs – including the new transmission lines being built to connect new generation – and finds that the story is much the same.
“While this change leads to higher cost estimates, variable renewables (wind and solar) were still found to have the lowest cost range of any new-build technology,” the CSIRO says, noting that this includes all integration costs up to and including 90 per cent renewables.
In the past year, cost of solar and offshore wind has fallen, the cost of battery storage has remained steady, but the cost of other technologies such as onshore wind and pumped hydro has increased.
The big mover – and one that is significant in the context of the Australian debate on the energy transition, and the federal Coalition’s insistence that nuclear is the answer to most questions – is the cost of nuclear and small modular reactors.
The CSIRO has been attacked by the pro-nuclear lobby, including conservative media and right wing think tanks, for what the lobby claims are inflated cost estimates, but the CSIRO says recent events have backed its numbers. In fact, they make clear that nuclear SMR costs are worse than thought.
CSIRO economist Paul Graham points to the collapse of a major deal this year involving the most advanced SMR projects in the US, the NucScale projects in Utah, which were withdrawn because of soaring costs.
Graham says it is significant because, as NuScale was listed and had to abide by strict regulatory disclosure rules, it had to be “honest” about the anticipated costs of SMRs.
And these were nearly double what was previously thought. In fact they ended up at the equivalent of $A31,000/MW, according to NuScale filings, and much higher than the $A19,000/MW estimated by the CSIRO in its previous report, and for which it was accused of inflating.
“The UAMPS (Utah utility) estimate implies nuclear SMR has been hit by a 70 per cent cost increase which is much larger than the average 20% observed in other technologies,” the CSIRO writes.
“The cancellation of this project is significant because it was the only SMR project in the US that had received design certification from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission which is an essential step before construction can commence.” Graham says that all other claims on nuclear SMR costs are just marketing and sales talk.
The reality, however, is that talk of nuclear SMRs as a solution for Australia’s energy transition and near term emissions targets are a distraction, given that the SMR technology is simply not available, and unlikely to be so for two decades.
The CSIRO report says some interesting things about the costs of wind and solar, technologies which are available and which do work. It says the costs of these technologies will continue to fall in coming years after the various price shocks that have affected the technologies over the last couple of years.
By including the costs of transmission and storage that is underway now and committed out to 2030 adds 40 to 60 per cent to the 2023 cost of deploying high shares of wind and solar, although that also ignores the technologies cost falls that will occur over time……………………………………………………………………………………….more https://reneweconomy.com.au/csiro-says-wind-and-solar-much-cheaper-than-nuclear-even-with-added-integration-costs/
Cost update blasts nuclear out of energy mix
Canberra Times, By Marion Rae, December 21 2023
A surge in the cost of small nuclear reactors has forced the national science agency to change its calculations for Australia.
The latest modelling of all energy sources, released by CSIRO on Thursday, includes data from a recently scrapped project in the United States that was showcasing nuclear small modular reactors (SMRs) as a way to fight climate change.
The draft GenCost 2023-24 report, out for consultation over summer, shows that while inflation pressures are easing there has been a recalculation on SMRs that puts them out of reach.
Real data on a high-profile six-reactor power plant in the United States has confirmed that the contentious technology costs more than any energy consumer wants to pay.
Project costs for the Utah project were estimated at $18,200 per kilowatt, but the company has since disclosed a whopping capital cost of $31,100/kW, prompting its cancellation in November.
In contrast, under existing policies the cost of new offshore wind in Australia in 2023 would be $5545/kW (fixed) and $6856/kW (floating), while rooftop solar panels are calculated at a modest $1505/kW………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
A small but vocal group of industry backers have been calling for nuclear SMRs for some years, citing the emerging low-emission technology as being suitable for Australia’s vast and geologically stable landmass.
The coalition recently pledged to reopen the nuclear debate in Australia, where laws ban any research or use of nuclear energy despite the country having the world’s largest uranium reserves.
Regulators estimate it would be around 15 years to first production from a decision to build nuclear SMR in Australia, given the scale of legislative change required.
But even if a decision to pursue a nuclear SMR project in Australia were taken today, with political backing for new laws, it is “very unlikely” a project would be up and running as quickly as 2038, CSIRO said.
Further, CSIRO warned nuclear electricity costs put forward by proponents may be for technology that is not appropriate for Australia, or calculated from Russian and Chinese government-backed projects that don’t operate commercially. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8467236/cost-update-blasts-nuclear-out-of-energy-mix/
Regulators approve deal for ratepayers to pay for Georgia Power’s new nuclear reactors
Almost 15 years of wrangling over who should pay for two new nuclear
reactors in Georgia and who should be accountable for cost overruns came
down to one vote Tuesday, with the Georgia Public Service Commission
unanimously approving an additional 6% rate increase to pay for $7.56
billion in remaining costs at Georgia Power Co.’s Plant Vogtle.
The rate increase is projected to add $8.95 a month to a typical residential
customer’s current monthly bill of $157. It would take effect in the
first month after Vogtle’s Unit 4 begins commercial operation, projected
to be sometime in March. A $5.42 rate increase already took effect when
Unit 3 began operating over the summer.
Bryan Jacob of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy called the vote “disappointing.” He said residential and small business customers paid a disproportionate share of a financing charge that Georgia Power collected during construction, but Tuesday’s vote parceled out additional costs without giving customers credit for heavier shares of earlier contributions.
Independent 19th Dec 2023
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ap-atlanta-georgia-westinghouse-augusta-b2466797.html
European nuclear Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) may be unworkable – analysts
CAROLINE PAILLIEZ, Paris, France, SOPHIE TETREL, Paris, 18 Dec 2023
(Montel) Plans by France’s EDF to sell rights to its nuclear capacity to industrials across Europe via long-term power purchase agreements (PPA) while attractive may be unworkable, French analysts warned.
“If nuclear power is offered tomorrow in France at EUR 70/MWh, the whole of Europe will be interested,” said Peter Claes, head of Belgium’s Febeliec industry lobby, in light of a year of record high energy prices.
Yet the analysts, and even EDF itself, have warned that, in practice, the contracts were complex and potentially costly.
The PPAs were open to any big European power consumers wanting to…………………………..(Subscribers only) more https://www.montelnews.com/news/1533543/european-nuclear-ppas-may-be-unworkable–analysts
China’s CGN Halts Funding for UK’s Hinkley Nuclear Plant
- EDF may have to fund completion of £32.7 billion plant alone
- Britain took over CGN’s stake in a similar project last year
By Francois De Beaupuy, December 14, 2023
China General Nuclear Power Corp. has halted funding for the UK’s Hinkley Point C nuclear station in a fresh sign of tension between London and Beijing.
CGN skipped several installments in recent months, according to people familiar with the matter. That means Electricite de France SA, which was building the £32.7 billion ($41 billion) plant with CGN, may have to pay for its completion alone, they said, asking not to be named,
because the information isn’t public.
The withdrawal of funding comes
after the UK took over CGN’s stake in a similar nuclear project in
Sizewell last year following concerns over national security. Back then,
the government didn’t rule out that it might intervene in other cases of
Chinese involvement in UK energy supply, arguing that it would need to
consider risks to security and energy independence.
CGN’s plan to build a
Chinese-designed atomic plant in Southeast England is also up in the air.
It’s unclear whether the funding halt is temporary or definite, some of
the people said, adding that the project will continue in any case. A
spokesperson for EDF declined to comment when reached by Bloomberg, and CGN
didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Bloomberg 14th Dec 2023
France scores diplomatic wins on banks and nuclear in new EU rules
Paris successfully pushed for weaker due diligence reporting by lenders and state-backed funding for nuclear power plants
Alice Hancock in Brussels, 15 Dec 2, Ft.com
France has secured a partial carve-out for banks from new EU rules to make companies responsible for environmental impacts in their supply chains. Paris also won, in separate negotiations, assurance that state-backed funding for its nuclear power plants will be possible under a reform of the EU electricity market, the culmination of a concerted effort to champion the low-carbon fuel in the face of opposition from Luxembourg, Austria and Germany.
Agnès Pannier-Runacher, French energy minister, hailed the decision as “excellent news”. “It gives us the means to ensure long-term financing for the transformation of our electricity system,” she said……………………………
France, backed by countries including Italy and the Czech Republic, has succeeded in making sure that banks, asset managers and investment groups will only have to report on upstream activities such as purchasing office equipment. They will not have to undertake due diligence on the activities of clients to whom they are offering loans — something that the European parliament had pushed for in the talks.
In a note circulated among negotiators earlier this month, the European Central Bank also warned that “excluding the financial sector would be counterproductive to the intention of the [law], as it would allow the EU financial sector to continue to fund activities detrimental to the EU [environmental and social governance] agenda”.
Arianne Griffith, corporate accountability lead at the NGO Global Witness, said that it was “shocking” that EU countries had “sunk plans to ensure that banks stop investing in environmental and human rights abuses”. Eelco Van der Enden, chief executive of the Global Reporting Initiative, said that it was “disheartening” to see that the French effort had watered down the application of the rules to the financial sector but that a review clause in the agreement could offer the opportunity to include them at a later stage………………………………………..
Both the energy market reform and the due diligence rules must be formally approved by the European parliament and member states in votes due to take place early next year. Once the due diligence directive is approved, EU governments will have two years to introduce the rules in national legislation. https://www.ft.com/content/a4f7c547-1a58-482f-889e-f6400c44bbf7
EDF told not to expect UK to step in to fund Hinkley Point C flagship nuclear project
Cost overruns a ‘commercial issue’ for Hinkley Point C’s French
developer after CGN halts payments, says British official.
The UK government has signalled it will not step in to help France’s EDF fund
Hinkley Point C after its Chinese partner CGN halted payments to cover
mounting cost overruns on Britain’s flagship nuclear power project. The
reluctance of the British government to intervene comes as the price tag
for the power plant under construction in south-west England is likely to
exceed the revised £32.7bn estimate EDF put on it earlier this year,
according to people close to discussions.
CGN, EDF’s partner in Hinkley Point C, had agreed to finance 33.5 per cent of the original £18bn cost of the plant in 2016, with the French group responsible for the remainder. But
after paying its contracted share, CGN has not made payments linked to the
overruns in recent weeks, three people familiar with the matter said.
The French group warned earlier this year that the Chinese group could refuse
to pick up the extra costs. One UK government official said there were no
plans to step in to fill the gap left by CGN, suggesting EDF could pull in
other investors. “It is a commercial contract which we obviously don’t
play a part in financing,” the official said, adding: “It would first
be a matter for the shareholders.”
One industry source said pulling other
investors into the project at this stage would be “complicated”. The
French economy ministry said it was in contact with London over the issue.
“We’re working with the British government to ensure the rollout of the
UK nuclear programme, including on the financing front,” an official in
Paris said.
FT 14th Dec 2023
https://www.ft.com/content/2bccd67f-a3c6-48d1-baa5-8ef9d54cdf67
Wins, losses and participation trophies for US nuclear power in 2023
From the long-awaited commissioning of Vogtle 3 to the NuScale pilot’s collapse, here are the biggest wins and losses for nuclear from this year.
By Eric Wesoff, 12 December 2023, https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/wins-losses-and-participation-trophies-for-us-nuclear-power-in-2023
With this bumpy year for nuclear coming to a close and the world’s energy stakeholders having just gathered for the most nuclear-focused COP meeting ever, it’s a good time to assess the state of atomic power in the U.S.
Government pledges and consumer support for nuclear power in the U.S. have surged in recent years. Armed with this newfound policy support and financing, the relatively stagnant U.S. nuclear industry now has to start executing on its ambitious plans if the fuel is to play a meaningful role in decarbonizing the energy system.
So how did the U.S. nuclear sector fare in 2023? Here’s a list of its major wins and its losses.
A win on the world stage: Dubai hosts the first “nuclear COP”
More than 20 countries including the U.S., France, Japan and the U.K. pledged to triple global generation from nuclear energy by 2050 during this year’s COP28 global climate meeting in Dubai. Hitting that goal would require the world to install an average of 40 gigawatts of nuclear every year through 2050; presently, that annual installation figure is closer to 4 gigawatts.
Nuclear has received scant attention at previous COP meetings due to its financial challenges and the thorny issue of managing spent fuel, so the pledge is a marked departure from the policy status quo. All of this was enough to make this the year of the “nuclear COP.”
And although it’s a global pledge, President Biden’s climate envoy John Kerry helped spearhead the declaration, indicating the increasing embrace of nuclear power at the highest echelons of U.S. climate policy. Kerry said that the science has proven “you can’t get to net-zero 2050 without some nuclear.”
Participation trophy for Georgia Power: Vogtle 3 connects to the grid
It’s a bit of a stretch calling Vogtle 3’s long-awaited connection to the grid a “win” after a $16 billion cost overrun and a six-year overshoot of the target launch date, but the Department of Energy was looking forward to a new commercial reactor coming online this year, and the department ultimately did get its wish.
As of July 31, Georgia Power’s 1,100-megawatt Plant Vogtle Unit 3 nuclear reactor is supplying power to the grid — making it the first reactor to enter service since Tennessee’s Watts Bar Unit 2 began operating in 2016. Vogtle 4, a second 1,100-megawatt reactor, is nearing the finish line as well, with operations expected to start in early 2024, according to Georgia Power.
Thanks to then-Secretary Rick Perry, in 2019 the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office provided up to $12 billion in loan guarantees to help complete the Vogtle expansion amid a spate of spending freezes and lawsuits. The project generated more than 9,000 jobs during peak construction and will provide an additional 800 permanent jobs at the facility once fully operational.
Dan Yurman, publisher of Neutron Bytes, a blog on nuclear power, offered Canary Media this explanation for Vogtle’s major cost and schedule overruns: “The utility and the vendor kicked off a massive infrastructure project with major unaddressed risks in terms of supply chain, labor force skills, regulatory compliance and a 30-year gap in know-how to build large nuclear power plants. It is no surprise that the first-of-a-kind AP1000s came in at twice the cost and double the estimated time to complete them.”
The nuclear industry can call this a win — if it can learn from Vogtle and begin to remedy the missteps called out by Yurman.
A financial win: Nuclear funding and government support
The U.S. government is putting its money where its mouth is when it comes to supporting nuclear power: The (barely) Bipartisan Infrastructure Law added $3.2 billion for development of modular and advanced nuclear reactors, and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office has devoted $11 billion in loan-making authority for advanced reactors and supply chains. What’s more, the epochal Inflation Reduction Act devotes $700 million to the HALEU Availability Program to support the development of a non-Russian supply of high-assay low-enriched uranium.
Additionally, the IRA offers a preposterously generous $15 per megawatt-hour production tax credit meant to keep today’s existing nuclear fleet competitive with gas and renewables, as well as a similarly generous investment tax credit to incentivize new plant construction.
Losing the global nuclear crown: China is sprinting ahead of the U.S. on nuclear
America has the world’s biggest nuclear power fleet at 93 reactors, but it’s on its way to losing that distinction.
China has built 37 new reactors over the last decade for a total of 55, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. America has added a grand total of two reactors during that same period. China also aims to double its nuclear energy capacity by 2035, and it is well on its way; it has 22 nuclear plants currently under construction with more than 70 in the planning stages.
Outside of Vogtle 4, it’s unclear when — or if — another nuclear reactor will be connected to the U.S. grid.
And despite small modular reactors being held up as a cure-all to the U.S. nuclear industry’s significant challenges, the only country in the world that has actually built an SMR is China. It demonstrated a pair of smallish high-temperature, gas-cooled reactor units using a “pebble-bed” design and a more concentrated fuel format last year.
Notably, China is not a participant in the COP28 nuclear pledge — an ironic development as it’s the only country with any real chance of meeting the goal of tripling its capacity by 2050.
Huge win, disappointing loss for SMRs: NuScale’s ups and downs
The nuclear gods are fickle creatures. Small modular reactor pioneer NuScale Power made history in January 2023 when it scaled the highest regulatory peak in the U.S.: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission certified the design of its 50-megawatt module, the first small modular reactor and only the seventh reactor design ever approved for use in the U.S.
This was a long-fought victory for NuScale and advocates of SMRs: Utilities and developers can now reference NuScale’s SMR design when applying for a license to construct and operate a reactor. NuScale and the DOE spent more than 10 years and hundreds of millions of dollars to reach this regulatory milestone.
Armed with this historic design certification, NuScale landed a promising inaugural customer in the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems and began working on a deployment near the Department of Energy’s national laboratory in Idaho. Project plans had called for one 77-megawatt unit to begin operation in 2029.
The Idaho project was once widely predicted to be not only the first small module reactor completed in the U.S., but the next nuclear reactor to be built in the country, period. However, it was not to be so.
The project was ultimately scrapped in November because it couldn’t secure enough subscriptions from utilities in the Western U.S. to make the project work financially.
The innovative SMR aspirant still has a pipeline of tentative agreements to deploy reactors across North America, Europe and the Middle East.
Win for domestic HALEU fuel: Bringing uranium enrichment capabilities back to the U.S.
Call this one a win because, for the first time in 70 years, America is home to a U.S.-owned enrichment facility producing the concentrated fuel needed by the many advanced reactors now in development.
Centrus, a company with roots in the Manhattan Project, began demonstration-scale enrichment operations at its facility in Piketon, Ohio in October. It marks the potential rebirth of a once-strong American enrichment industry. America was once the only source of uranium enrichment outside of the Soviet bloc, but over the last 30 years, it has surrendered that role to Russia and other countries.
The HALEU produced in Centrus’ centrifuges will be used to test new fuels and reactor designs, as well as to fuel the cores of the two demonstration reactors funded through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and supported by DOE’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program.
The U.S. currently depends on Tenex, part of Russian state-owned nuclear supplier Rosatom, to supply the low-enriched uranium fuel that’s used in our civilian fleet. And Russia (which is not blockaded on nuclear fuel exports) supplies all of America’s high-assay low-enriched uranium, the more concentrated material required by the new generation of advanced reactors.
It is a precarious situation for U.S. national and energy security.
The DOE is looking to jump-start the domestic market by directing IRA funding toward enrichment and fuel-processing facilities like Centrus’ plant in Ohio, as well as by acting as the initial customer, creating an inventory and providing a reliable customer and price.
It’s a win for the U.S., but it comes after years of stepping on rakes.
A win for preserving the existing nuclear fleet: Diablo Canyon lives on
Pacific Gas & Electric, one of the three large investor-owned utilities in California, decided to decommission both of the reactors at California’s Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in 2017.
But public outcry, political pressure and worries about grid failures seem to have helped get the plant’s operations extended an additional five years with the help of a state loan and up to $1.1 billion through the federal Civil Nuclear Credit Program designed to support economically ailing plants. It’s a win for California nuclear advocates and the emissions of the state’s grid.
PG&E has now filed an application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a 20-year operating extension for the two 1,150-megawatt reactors at Diablo Canyon, which will trigger a review process expected to take a minimum of two years.
The U.S. nuclear fleet is the largest in the world, but it’s also one of the oldest: The average age of an American nuclear reactor is 42 years, compared to a world average of 31 years.
The majority of nuclear plant operators in the country have expressed interest in extending their operating licenses to allow operation up to 80 years, according to a poll of member utilities of Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade organization.
But even with such extensions, these older plants would all need to be replaced by around 2060, and nuclear power’s long lead times mean that decisions will have to be made about replacing their generation capacity in the late 2030s.
Neither a win nor a loss: Action in advanced reactors and microreactors
Encouraged by government funding, shifting societal sentiment and a cornucopia of new reactor designs, 2023 witnessed a raft of startups and established vendors making deals in the U.S. and abroad to build next-generation nuclear reactors.
Microreactors like Oklo’s 15-megawatt fast breeder reactor, Aalo Atomics’ 20-megawatt thermal design based on the Marvel reactor at Idaho National Labs, and Westinghouse’s 5MWe eVinci design are intended to provide electrical power and heat in remote or behind-the-meter industrial applications. Ultra Safe Nuclear has plans to construct a microreactor facility in Gadsden, Alabama. The Department of Defense’s Strategic Capabilities Office’s Project Pele program is looking to build and demonstrate a 1–5 MWe mobile, high-temperature, gas-cooled microreactor capable of powering U.S. military bases.
But none of these designs are approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
For its part, the DOE is betting big on TerraPower and X-energy, with the agency’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program providing initial funding of $80 million to each, along with future cost-sharing funds. These two demonstration projects are poised to use HALEU from Centrus’ newly commissioned 16-centrifuge cascade.
TerraPower, founded by Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, is developing a 345-megawatt sodium-cooled fast reactor coupled with a molten salt energy storage system. The company has raised $750 million to build its operating demonstration reactor in Wyoming.
X-energy is developing its high-temperature gas-cooled advanced small modular reactor and plans the initial deployment at a Dow Chemical facility in Texas.
These reactor designs also are not approved by the NRC.
Despite the proliferation of tentative agreements, memorandums of understanding and handshake deals, all of these planned reactors — with the possible exception of NuScale’s — fall into the famous “paper reactor” category — meaning they are simple, light, small, cheap and quick to build. Importantly, they are also never actually going to be built.
Grand plan to triple nuclear energy with small nuclear reactors, but where’s the funding?
1 US nuclear start-ups battle funding challenge in race to curb emissions.
Reactors pioneered by Oklo, X-energy and NuScale suffer financing setbacks
as well as regulatory headwinds.
US plans to build up its nuclear industry
face big funding and regulatory challenges which could delay a new
generation of smaller, more efficient reactors touted by advocates as
critical to fighting climate change.
Industry experts told the Financial
Times a declaration signed last week by Washington and 21 other nations at
the COP 28 climate summit to triple the amount of installed nuclear energy
by 2050 was a step forward, given the sector’s ability to provide
(?)emissions-free power.
But a sharp fall in market support for start-ups
developing so-called small modular reactors and other advanced nuclear
facilities threaten US ambitions, they said. Last month NuScale Power Corp
cancelled plans to build the first SMR in the US, despite receiving $1.4bn in government cost-sharing pledges.
Not enough power utilities expressed an
interest in purchasing electricity from the facility in Idaho when NuScale
increased power prices by more than 50 per cent over two years to $89 per
megawatt hour. The setback followed the collapse of a $1.8bn deal agreed
between X-energy and special purpose acquisition company Ares Acquisition,
which was intended to enable the developer of nuclear technologies to go
public.
Now the industry is focused on whether Oklo, a start-up chaired by
OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman, can successfully go public via a
blank-cheque company announced in July with AltC Acquisition Corp. The
merger was proposed at a valuation of $850mn and would provide Oklo with
$500mn to develop and commercialise its reactor design.
FT 12th Dec 2023
https://www.ft.com/content/c0700a01-c1e8-4e5e-8300-ac264bd25293
The Uncertain Costs of New Nuclear Reactors: What Study Estimates Reveal about the Potential for Nuclear in a Decarbonizing World
Reports by Matt Bowen, Emeka Ochu & James Glynn • December 07, 2023 https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/the-uncertain-costs-of-new-nuclear-reactors-what-study-estimates-reveal-about-the-potential-for-nuclear-in-a-decarbonizing-world/
Executive Summary
Models that run decarbonization scenarios to meet mid-century goals for mitigating climate change almost always include a significant role for nuclear energy. The source’s projected level of deployment, however, remains uncertain, largely due to a wide range of estimated costs for new builds. Other factors that make it hard to gauge nuclear’s portion of the future energy mix include whether policies advancing low-carbon technologies will be enacted, the degree of public support for transmission siting and available low-carbon energy sources, whether new reactor technologies and fuels will change the investment equation, and how quickly “competitor” sources such as carbon capture and sequestration, renewables, and storage reduce costs.
This report, part of ongoing research into nuclear energy at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA, examines the economics of new nuclear facilities for electricity generation—whether building them out makes sense financially as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as power demand grows across the globe. Insights into costs can be gleaned by reviewing the history of construction delays and cost overruns in the United States, international experiences that have fared better and worse, and studies that model a transitioning energy system. Studies reviewed in this report estimate new US reactor costs generally ranging from $3,000/kilowatt (kW) to $6,200/kW based on a variety of reactor designs and cost reduction curves assumed for subsequent years. Internationally, new reactor costs vary significantly by country, depending in part upon factors such as the cost of labor and whether projects involve multiple reactor builds (with attendant efficiencies in manufacturing and construction).
Additional findings from this report include the following:
- The limited number of new reactor builds in the United States in recent decades and the large number of new designs under development (some of which have never been built anywhere in the world) leave few data points from which to draw definitive conclusions on future nuclear costs.
- In countries such as China and India, construction expertise and supply chain efficiencies from ongoing nuclear power project buildouts and energy technology learning as well as lower labor costs, among other factors, have created more competitive economics for nuclear than are currently found in the United States.
- Additional findings from this report include the following:
- The limited number of new reactor builds in the United States in recent decades and the large number of new designs under development (some of which have never been built anywhere in the world) leave few data points from which to draw definitive conclusions on future nuclear costs.
- In countries such as China and India, construction expertise and supply chain efficiencies from ongoing nuclear power project buildouts and energy technology learning as well as lower labor costs, among other factors, have created more competitive economics for nuclear than are currently found in the United States.
- Modeling of nuclear energy costs in the US suggests that if the price tag ends up being much higher than the upper limits used in the studies cited, such as above $6,200/kW, new nuclear will play a marginal role, if any, in the US energy transition.
- Within the cost range quoted above, nuclear’s ability to play a substantial role in the United States (e.g., 50 gigawatts of deployment) could depend on factors including whether stronger decarbonization policies are enacted; whether other viable firm, low-carbon options emerge as competitive alternatives; whether difficulties with siting new transmission lines continue; and/or whether renewable energy expansion faces constraints.
- The new 30 percent tax credit in the Inflation Reduction Act available to both renewable and nuclear energy will substantially lower the cost of new nuclear reactors for US utilities.
- Internationally, scenarios by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change project that lower reactor costs in some emerging countries, in combination with strict climate mitigation policies, could result in very large new nuclear capacity expansion there.
- In modeling cases with high variable low-carbon power sources, the need for firm sources and storage options may be underestimated in the absence of greater temporal and technical granularity. This practice may omit costs associated with flexibility, market reserve, and storage that could be ameliorated by dispatchable nuclear capacity.
1 This Month
Website of the Week
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (139)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
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 