nuclear-news

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

Talent Shortage Threatens Europe’s Nuclear Renaissance

As many countries in Europe look to boost their nuclear power capacities
and build more reactors, companies face a workforce challenge as many of
the skilled force are retiring while younger generations choose energy jobs
in solar and wind. European countries and companies planning major
expansion in nuclear fleets are struggling to fill in thousands of skilled
engineering jobs that would support the construction of nuclear reactors,
which take years to complete. Companies in France are hiring back retirees
and are collaborating with colleges and universities to promote jobs in the
nuclear power sector.

 Oil Price 3rd July 2024

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Talent-Shortage-Threatens-Europes-Nuclear-Renaissance.html

July 4, 2024 Posted by | employment, EUROPE | Leave a comment

Small Modular Nuclear Reactors cost concerns challenge industry optimism

Reuters, Paul Day, Jun 27, 2024

Concerns over the potential cost of small modular reactors (SMRs) and the electricity they produce continue to cast a shadow over growing optimism for new nuclear.

Proponents say that the recent faltering history of large nuclear projects missing schedules and running over budget are just teething problems for a new industry in the midst of a difficult economic climate.

However, critics claim it as proof that nuclear is not economically viable at all, and it will take too long faced with pressing climate issues.

There is little doubt that new nuclear will, at least initially, be more expensive to develop, build, and run than many are hoping. 

New Generation IV reactors, such as SMRs, are likely to produce hidden costs inherent in the development of first-of-a-kind technology, while high commodity and building material prices, stubbornly high inflation, and interest rates at levels not seen for decades are adding to mounting expenses for the new developers.

NuScale’s cancelled deal to supply its SMRs to a consortium of electricity cooperatives due to rising power price estimates prompted The Breakthrough Institute’s Director for Nuclear Energy Innovation Adam Stein to write that advanced nuclear energy was in trouble.

Speaking during an event at the American Nuclear Society (ANS) 2024 Annual Conference in June, Stein said nothing had changed to fix the fundamental challenges nuclear faces since he wrote that in November, but there was a greater sense of urgency.   

“Commodity prices have come down slightly, though interest rates are largely still the same and those are risks, or uncertainties, that are outside of the developer’s control,” Stein said during an event at the American Nuclear Society (ANS) 2024 Annual Conference.

“Until those can be considered a project risk, instead of unknown uncertainties, they are not going to be controlled at all and can drastically swing the price of any single project.”

Enthusiastic hype

These criticisms clash with growing enthusiasm (critics say ‘hype’) surrounding the new technology.

Twenty two countries and 120 companies at the COP28 conference in November vowed to triple global nuclear capacity by 2050, and developers are making sweeping promises about the capabilities and affordability of their latest creations, many of which will not be commercially available in North America or Europe until the early 2030s.   

SMRs, defined as reactors that generate 300 MW or less, cost too much, and deployment is too far out for them to be a useful tool to transition from fossil fuels in the coming 10-15 years, according to a recent study by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA).

“SMRs are not going to be helpful in the transition. They’re not going to be here quick enough. They’re not going to be economic enough. And we really don’t have time to wait,” says co-author of the study Dennis Wamsted.

Existing SMRs in China (Shidao Bay), Russia (floating SMR such as the Akademik Lomonosov), and in Argentina (the still under-construction CAREM) have all cost significantly more than originally planned, the IEEFA says in the study ‘Small Modular Reactors: Still too expensive, too slow, and too risky.’

Construction work on the cutting-edge CAREM project has been stalled since May due to cost-cutting measures by Argentina’s President Javier Milei, the head of National Atomic Energy Commission (CNEA) told Reuters.  

The billions of dollars the U.S. and Canadian governments are pouring into nuclear power through subsidies, tax credits, and federally funded research, would be better spent on extra renewables, Wamsted says.

Some 260,000 MW of renewable energy generation, mostly solar, is expected to be added to the U.S. grid just through to 2028, the study says citing the American Clean Power Association, way before any new nuclear is expected to be plugged in.

“Federal funds to nuclear is, in our opinion, a waste of time and money,” says Wamsted.

High uncertainty…………………………………………….

https://www.reutersevents.com/nuclear/smr-cost-concerns-challenge-industry-optimism

June 30, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | 1 Comment

CEO, staff suddenly depart New Brunswick reactor developer ARC Clean Technology

“reactor developers would not normally terminate staff after hitting a regulatory milestone.

“If they were going to move forward, basically, they would be hiring people,”

MATTHEW MCCLEARN 26 June 24,  https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-ceo-staff-depart-new-brunswick-reactor-developer-arc-clean-technology/

ARC Clean Technology Canada, a developer of small modular reactors in New Brunswick, has revealed the sudden departure of its Canadian chief executive, raising questions about its future.

Alongside Tuesday’s announcement of CEO William Labbe’s exit, other ARC employees also received layoff notices, according to a report from the Telegraph Journal, a Saint John, N.B., newspaper. The company did not respond to questions from The Globe about those reported departures, or how many staffers remain with the company.

In a statement, ARC spokesperson Sandra Donnelly said the company had nearly completed a phase of a pre-licensing process with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and was “realigning personnel and resources to strengthen our strategic partnerships and rationalize operations to best prepare for the next phase of our deployment.”

Ms. Donnelly said ARC Canada will be led by Bob Braun, chief operating officer of its Washington-based parent ARC Clean Technology Inc., and two vice presidents, Lance Clarke and Jill Doucet.

The company’s staff changes follow the resignation of New Brunswick energy minister Mike Holland, announced June 20. Mr. Holland had been an advocate for the province’s SMR program, but had previously announced he would not stand for re-election.

ARC set up offices in Saint John several years ago, as part of an initiative to build SMRs at the province’s only nuclear power plant, Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station. The plant’s owner, NB Power, has promoted plans for demonstration units of two different reactors built there by 2030. The second reactor would be designed by another startup, Moltex Energy, which would include a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant.

ARC is one of several vendors jockeying to sell SMRs to Canadian utilities. All existing commercial power reactors in Canada – including the existing one at Point Lepreau – are of the homegrown Candu design. (The newest, at Ontario’s Darlington Nuclear Generating Station, was completed in the early 1990s.)

The company is in the early stages of designing a reactor known as the ARC-100, a next-generation reactor that would use sodium as coolant – a striking departure from Candus and nearly all other commercial power reactors used today, which are water-cooled. The ARC-100 is also marketed as having the ability to consume reprocessed spent fuel, something that has not been done historically in Canada.

As ARC rationalizes its work force, some of its better-established competitors are staffing up. U.S.-based GE-Hitachi and Ontario Power Generation are preparing a site at Darlington for potential construction of a BWRX-300 small modular reactor. Westinghouse, which is marketing several reactors including its AP-1000 large reactor and eVinci microreactor, announced a new 13,000-square-foot office in Kitchener, Ont., this month along with plans to hire 100 engineers to staff it by next year.

Last year, Mr. Labbe said developing the ARC-100 would cost around $500-million. But so far, the company has raised only a small fraction of that. In 2022, it announced it had raised $30-million from the provincial government and the private sector. In October, the federal government awarded it another $7-million. Its partner, NB Power, has not contributed any funding.

ARC submitted an application to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in 2023 for a license to prepare a site at Point Lepreau for its demonstration unit. At an industry conference in April, Mr. Labbe said ARC was also preparing to apply for a license to construct the reactor, which it planned to issue within the next year.

“We’ve been at this for about seven years,” he told the audience. “And we really have another six, seven years until we get that commercial deployment.”

Mr. Labbe became ARC Canada’s CEO in May, 2021. His predecessor, Norm Sawyer, is now president of ION Nuclear Consulting Ltd., an adviser to investors, energy companies and First Nations. Mr. Sawyer said that, while he had no inside information on the company, reactor developers would not normally terminate staff after hitting a regulatory milestone.

“If they were going to move forward, basically, they would be hiring people,” he said.

“If you’re on hold and you’re thinking that you’re going to move forward in a short time period, you maintain your staffing levels.”

Susan O’Donnell, a researcher at St. Thomas University who studies energy technologies, said that, while ARC has managed to attract some private funding, it has remained almost wholly dependent on government money. She added that the federal government is unlikely to provide the billions of dollars required to build new reactors at Point Lepreau.

“I just don’t see how this is going to work, where the money’s going to come from,” she said. “And I think this is why we’re seeing this with ARC today.

“They can’t afford to have that number of staff.”

As recently as November, NB Power chief executive officer Lori Clark had said SMRs were “a key part” of the utility’s plans to phase out coal by 2030. On Tuesday, NB Power said it will continue to provide technical expertise to ARC and Moltex, and that it regards SMRs as a “potential option” to achieve net zero emissions electricity production by 2035.

“We continue to work toward the goal of having an SMR on the grid by the early 2030s,” spokesperson Dominique Couture wrote in an e-mail.

With a report from Emma Graney

June 27, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, Canada | Leave a comment

The insane amount it could cost to turn Australia nuclear – as new detail in Peter Dutton’s bold plan is revealed

The large-scale and small modular generators would be Commonwealth-owned, similar to arrangements governing the Snowy Hydro 2.0 scheme, requiring a multibillion-dollar funding commitment from taxpayers.

  • Peter Dutton nuclear plan slammed
  • Proposal could cost $600billion 

By JACK QUAIL FOR NCA NEWSWIRE and AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATED PRESS 23 June 2024, more https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13559019/The-insane-cost-turn-Australia-nuclear-Peter-Dutton-slammed-completely-irrational-plan.html
Labor frontbencher Tanya Plibersek has added her voice to the tirade of criticism against the Opposition’s nuclear energy push, labelling the proposal as ‘completely irrational’ and ‘designed to be a distraction’.

Speaking on Sunday, the environment and water minister criticised the Coalition for its refusal to detail the estimated cost to add nuclear generation to the national electricity market in the biggest overhaul of energy policy in decades.

‘He’s saying to Australians: ‘I don’t trust you. I don’t trust you with the costing we’ve done,’ if he’s got costings,’ Ms Plibersek told Sky News.

According to analysis released by the Smart Energy Council using data from the latest GenCost report, Labor’s non-nuclear energy plan is estimated to cost $117bn through to 2050, while the Coalition’s pledge would cost upwards of $600bn. 

Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien has flagged an evolution in the Coalition’s nuclear power policy, revealing that each of the seven sites could host multiple reactors. 

But in a major concession, Mr O’Brien said on Sunday the Coalition would not go to the election announcing the estimated generation capacity of its nuclear power plan, leaving this decision to an independent body until after the election.

‘One of the lessons we learned from overseas, in order to get prices down, you need multi-unit sites,’ Mr O’Brien told the ABC’s Insiders program.

‘Let’s say the small modular reactors … When you talk about a nuclear plant, these are modularised compartments. You can add another 300, add another 300.

‘You’re talking about multi-unit plants.’

An independent nuclear energy coordinating authority would make recommendations on the number and type of reactors per site, Mr O’Brien said, which would then determine the final generation capacity.

‘The independent body would look at each plant, and come up with a recommendation as to what sort of technology should be used,’ he said.

‘From there, it would be exactly what capacity based on that technology.

‘Only from there can you come down to a specific number of gigawatts’.

Last week Coalition unveiled plans to build seven nuclear power plants by 2050 with the first reactor slated to be operational in just over a decade in a move designed to deliver cheaper, zero-emissions and reliable power supply.

The large-scale and small modular generators would be Commonwealth-owned, similar to arrangements governing the Snowy Hydro 2.0 scheme, requiring a multibillion-dollar funding commitment from taxpayers.

The Coalition has proposed to locate the reactors in Queensland, NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia on the sites of former coal fired power stations, adding no more than 10GW to the power grid, meaning renewables will remain the vast majority of the energy mix.

Smart Energy Council chief executive John Grimes said Mr Dutton’s nuclear proposal would deliver ‘at best’ 3.7 per cent of the energy required at the same cost as the government’s current strategy.

‘In reality, current cost overruns happening right now in the UK could mean a $600 billion bill to Australian taxpayers, whilst delivering a small proportion of the energy that is actually required,’ he said.

Nuclear had no place in a country with cheap, reliable energy powered by the sun and wind and backed up by renewable energy storage, Mr Grimes said.

‘The most optimistic assessment of Peter Dutton’s nuclear proposal indicates it is a pale shadow of the reliable renewables plan outlined and costed by the Australian Energy Market Operator,’ he said.

The council has called on the opposition to release its analysis of the costings and generation capacity from the seven proposed nuclear reactor sites. 

‘They need to explain how their forecasts contradict the experts at the CSIRO and AEMO,’ Mr Grimes said.

‘It is extraordinary that the details are being hidden from the Australian public.’ 

Separate analysis released by CSIRO put the cost of building a large-scale nuclear reactor at $8.6bn, bringing the total cost to approximately $60bn, however nuclear projects are often subject to hefty delays and soaring cost overruns.

Asked why Australia had eschewed nuclear power when many other advanced economies had adopted the technology, Ms Plibersek pointed to Australia’s comparative advantage in renewable power generation.

‘We’ve got the room, we’ve got the resources, we’ve got the critical minerals we need, battery manufacturing, we’re investing in green hydrogen,’ Ms Plibersek said.

‘We can be a renewable energy superpower and instead Peter Dutton wants to slam the brakes on, instead of leading the world with renewable energy investment.

‘He wants to fast track nuclear, and put us on the slow lane when it comes to renewables. It’s just mad.’

June 25, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, business and costs | Leave a comment

Australian Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan could cost as much as $600bn and supply just 3.7% of Australia’s energy by 2050, experts say

Coalition proposal would cost a minimum of $116bn – the same as Labor’s plan for almost 100% renewables by 2050, the Smart Energy Council says

Jordyn Beazley, Sun 23 Jun 2024  https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/23/peter-duttons-nuclear-plan-could-cost-as-much-as-600bn-and-supply-just-37-of-australias-energy-by-2050-experts-say

The Coalition’s pledge to build seven nuclear reactors as part of its controversial energy plan could cost taxpayers as much as $600bn while supplying just 3.7% of Australia’s energy mix by 2050, according to the Smart Energy Council.

The analysis found the plan would cost a minimum of $116bn – the same cost as delivering the Albanese government’s plan for 82% renewables by 2030, and an almost 100% renewable energy mix by 2050.

The Coalition has drawn widespread criticism for not releasing the costings of the nuclear power proposal it unveiled on Wednesday as part of its plan for Australia’s energy future if elected. On Friday, the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, said the costings would come “very soon”, but did not confirm whether it would be days, weeks or months.

The Smart Energy Council came to the $116bn figure using data from the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator’s latest GenCost report. It factored in the Coalition’s proposed timeframe and the capital costs of replacing the 11 gigawatts of coal capacity produced on the seven sites with nuclear reactors.

But factoring in the experience of cost and timeframe blowouts in the UK, the refurbishment of coal-fired power stations, and Dutton’s plan to compensate the states, the Smart Energy Council found the cost could reach as much as $600bn.

The council found the large nuclear reactors – of which there will be five alongside two smaller reactors – would probably cost $60bn each and were unlikely to be built by 2040. Dutton has said that they plan for the reactors to be built and operational by the second half of the 2030s.

“At best, Peter Dutton’s nuclear proposal would deliver 3.7% of the energy required at the same cost as the government’s comprehensive strategy,” John Grimes, the chief executive of the Smart Energy Council, said.

“In reality, current cost overruns happening right now in the UK could mean a $600bn bill to Australian taxpayers, whilst delivering a small proportion of the energy that is actually required.

“The most optimistic assessment of Peter Dutton’s nuclear proposal indicates it is a pale shadow of the reliable renewables plan outlined and costed by the Australian Energy Market Operator (Aemo).”

The Smart Energy Council called on the opposition to immediately release its costings and the generation capacity of the proposed seven nuclear reactors.

“They need to explain how their forecasts contradict the experts at the CSIRO and Aemo. It is extraordinary that the details are being hidden from the Australian public,” said Grimes.

The CSIRO and Aemo have assessed the cost of different electricity sources and found nuclear generation would be the most expensive technology available for consumers.

It found that solar and wind backed by storage energy, new transmission lines and other “firming” – in other words, what the country is building now – were the cheapest option.

The Coalition’s promise has met widespread scepticism from Australia’s energy sector and industry groups, which have warned about the risks of cost blowouts and destroying private sector investment.

During an address to party officials in Sydney on Saturday, Dutton said his nuclear energy plan would cost a fraction of Labor’s renewable energy rollout, and would assist in achieving the party’s goal for “cheaper, cleaner and consistent power.

June 24, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, business and costs | Leave a comment

UK’s nuclear plant will cost nearly three times what was estimated

Australian Financial Review Tom McIlroy, Political correspondent, Jun 20, 2024 

Recent overseas experience suggests an Australian nuclear energy program
would be vulnerable to delays and cost blowouts – the construction of
Britain’s latest plant is years behind schedule and modular technology is
still not commercially viable.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton will not say
how much his plan to build seven nuclear power stations by 2050 will cost,
but promised on Thursday to release the numbers before the election.

Britain’s Hinkley C generator in Somerset is on track to cost about three
times its original budget. It was initially due to be operational in 2017
and to cost about $35 billion, but it is now not expected to open before
2031 and will cost about $90 billion. The blowout has been blamed on
inflation, the COVID-19 pandemic and Brexit. The first new reactors in
decades, built from scratch in the United States, also suffered lengthy
delays and budget upheavals.

Australian Financial Review 20th June 2024

  https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/uk-s-nuclear-plant-will-cost-nearly-three-times-what-was-estimated-20240620-p5jna1

June 22, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear power’s financial problems exposed in new report

Greenpeace European Unit, 19/06/2024,  https://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/issues/climate-energy/47124/nuclear-powers-financial-problems-exposed-in-new-report/

Brussels, 19 June 2024 – Nuclear power is a risky gamble with taxpayers’ cash, according to a comprehensive review of financing models published as the European Investment Bank prepares to discuss new support for nuclear energy at a meeting on 21 June.

The report, Fission for Funds: The Financing of Nuclear Power Plants, gives an overview of financing models and reveals how the profitability of nuclear power plants heavily relies on government involvement in de-risking investments. The report was commissioned by Greenpeace Germany and carried out by Jens Weibezahn from the Copenhagen School of Energy Infrastructure, and Björn Steigerwald from the Technische Universität Berlin.

Greenpeace EU political campaigner Lorelei Limousin said: “Nuclear power is a black hole for taxpayers and consumers. High upfront costs, long construction times, and government bailouts make nuclear projects a burden on public coffers and a threat to credible climate action. Wind and solar energy are already much cheaper, and their cost is declining. Not a single euro of EU public money should go to nuclear power – it’s time to put people’s needs ahead of nuclear greed, and invest in a safer, cheaper future.”

The report shows that nuclear power plant projects are unreliable due to budget overruns, construction delays, and reliability problems in the operational phase, and therefore often lose investor interest. Hidden costs are also often not included in initial calculations, such as liability insurance, decommissioning and waste management. These become a burden for taxpayers in the future. The report highlights that the cost of solar and wind energy are already much lower than new nuclear projects.

Jens Weibezahn, Assistant professor Ph.D., Copenhagen Business School, co-author of the report, said: “In our review of current nuclear power plant projects, we found that almost all financing models rely – either directly or indirectly – on government support to make them viable. This places an unreasonable burden on either taxpayers or electricity ratepayers, as they, ultimately, bear a large part of the associated financial risks.”

Although most global economies are focusing on renewables  to reach net-zero targets, some EU countries, such as France, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic, are betting on nuclear power, despite major issues in securing funding for new projects and maintaining their existing ageing fleets. This report highlights that government support for these costly, long-term, and high-risk nuclear projects is becoming harder to justify, particularly at a time of high inflation and rising cost of living.

In the past two decades, the European Investment Bank (EIB) has invested €845 million in nuclear power activities. For the first time, the EIB intends to support research and development in so-called small modular reactors (SMRs), according to a draft strategic roadmap, which will be adopted on 21 June. Many uncertainties persist regarding the overall economic viability of SMRs, not to mention safety risks and the radioactive waste problem. Greenpeace calls on EU finance ministers, who govern the EIB, to oppose any funding for nuclear energy, including small modular reactors.

 Please find more information about the various financing models used in European countries in this briefing and read more in the full report. 

June 20, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, EUROPE | Leave a comment

Top lawmakers sign off on massive US arms sale to Israel

The approval of the F-15 sale comes the month after US President Joe Biden promised to hold off on arms to Israel if it chose to expand the assault on Rafah

The Cradle News Desk, JUN 18, 2024

Two Democratic lawmakers in the US Congress have signed off on a massive arms sale to Israel, which will include $18 billion worth of F-15 fighter jets, the Washington Post reported on 17 June. 

Representative Gregory Meeks and Senator Ben Cardin agreed to the deal after months of holding up the sale due to concerns over Israel’s conduct in its genocidal war on the Gaza Strip. 

“Any issues or concerns that Chair Cardin had were addressed through our ongoing consultations with the administration, and that’s why he felt it appropriate to allow this case to move forward,” Eric Harris, Communications Director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told the Washington Post……………………

The end of the informal consultation process will allow the US State Department to move ahead with officially notifying Congress of the arms sale, marking the last step before the deal is fully approved. 

The State Department has declined to comment on the arms sale to Israel, which was one of the largest in years……………………………………

The Biden administration has already approved over 100 US arms sales to Israel since the start of the war in Gaza in October. https://thecradle.co/articles/top-lawmakers-sign-off-on-massive-us-arms-sale-to-israel

June 20, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, Israel, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Global spending on nuclear weapons up 13% in record rise

States are on course to spend $100bn a year, driven by a sharp increase in US defence budgets

Dan Sabbagh Defence and security editor, Mon 17 Jun 2024 [good tables on original]  https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/17/global-spending-on-nuclear-weapons-up-13-in-record-rise

Global spending on nuclear weapons is estimated to have increased by 13% to a record $91.4bn during 2023, according to calculations from the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Ican) pressure group.

The new total, which is up $10.7bn from the previous year, is driven largely by sharply increased defence budgets in the US, at a time of wider geopolitical uncertainty caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the Israel-Hamas war.

All nine of the world’s nuclear armed nations are spending more, Ican added, with China judged to be the second largest spender with a budget of $11.9bn – though Beijing’s total is well below the $51.5bn attributed to the US.

Russia is the third largest spender, at $8.3bn, followed by the UK ($8.1bn) and France ($6.1bn), although estimates for authoritarian states or the three countries with undeclared nuclear programmes (India, Pakistan and Israel) are all complicated by a lack of transparency.

Susy Snyder, one of the author’s of the research, warned that nuclear states are “on course to be spending $100bn a year on nuclear weapons” and argued that the money could be used on environmental and social programmes instead.

“These billions could have been used for combating climate change and saving animals and plants that sustain life on Earth from extinction, not to mention improving health and education services around the world,” Snyder said.

Over the past five years, since Ican began its research, nuclear weapons spending has soared by 34%, or $23.2bn. Spending by the US increased by 45% during that time and by 43% in the UK, and on current trends will surpass $100bn in 2024.

Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, has referred repeatedly to his country’s nuclear arsenal to warn the west of a direct military intervention in Ukraine since launching the full-scale invasion in February 2022. Russia also began a series of exercises simulating the use of tactical nuclear weapons near the Ukrainian border in May.

Other data, complied by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri), shows that the number of active nuclear warheads is also slightly higher, at 9,585, driven largely by China increasing its arsenal to 500 from 410.

The largest nuclear states remain, as they have done since the 1950s, the US and Russia, who possess about 90% of all warheads. Russia has 4,380 nuclear warheads deployed or in storage, compared with the US on 3,708, the researchers added.

The Sipri researchers said “Russia is estimated to have deployed about 36 more warheads with operational forces than in January 2023,” though they added there was no firm evidence that Moscow had deployed any of its nuclear missiles in Belarus, despite public statements from Putin and Belarus’s president Alexander Lukashenko.

Britain’s nuclear weapon arsenal is estimated to be unchanged at 225 (as is France’s on 290), but three years ago the UK said it would raise a cap on the number of warheads it was willing to stockpile to 260 Trident warheads to counter perceived threats from Russia and China.

Wilfred Wan, the director of Sipri’s weapons of mass destruction programme, said: “We have not seen nuclear weapons playing such a prominent role in international relations since the cold war.”

He contrasted the numbers of warheads deployed with a joint statement signed by the US, UK, France, China and Russia in 2022. Building on earlier statements, the five countries declared that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought”.

June 18, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, weapons and war | Leave a comment

G7 Leaders Agree To Provide Ukraine With $50 Billion Using Frozen Russian Assets

The step will mark a significant escalation in the economic war against Russia

by Dave DeCamp June 13, 2024

Group of Seven leaders agreed at a summit in Italy on Thursday to give Ukraine $50 billion using frozen Russian Central Bank assets, a step that marks a significant escalation in the economic war against Russia.

The plan is to provide the $50 billion to Ukraine by the end of the year in the form of a loan, which will be paid back using profits from the approximately $280 billion in frozen Russian assets held by the US and its allies.

The idea is seen as a compromise between the US and Europe, as President Biden wanted to steal all of the frozen Russian funds to give to Ukraine. But the vast majority of the money is held in Europe, and EU leaders were hesitant to do that.

Instead, the EU devised a separate plan to provide Ukraine with about $3 billion per year using the interest made by the Russian assets. Ukraine said that amount wasn’t enough, and the US proposed the $50 billion loan.

“This has been something that the United States has put a lot of energy and effort into,” National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan told reporters. “We see proceeds from these assets as a valuable source of resources for Ukraine at a moment when Russia continues to brutalize the country, not just through military action on the front but through the attempted destruction of its energy grid and its economic vitality.”

Russia has made clear it would view either plan as the theft of its sovereign funds and is preparing to retaliate. Stealing the money makes reconciliation between Russia and the West even less likely since lifting sanctions would mean having to give assets back to Moscow that have already been spent. The move will also reduce faith in the Western banking system and speed up global de-dollarization.

June 16, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, Russia, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Building Nuclear Power Is a Bridge Too Far for World’s Private Investors

  • Taxpayers seen needing to backstop construction costs and risk
  • Window on new nuclear power to mitigate climate change closing

Bloomberg, 14 June 24

The next generation of nuclear reactors will need to be financed by taxpayers because private investors aren’t willing to bear the risks associated with building new plants.

That was the warning from bankers at a meeting of industry and government officials in Prague this week. The Nuclear Energy Agency event underscored the hard decisions Western economies soon need to make to keep one of their biggest clean energy sources going. While the public have warmed to nuclear in recent years, spiraling project costs have made private equity cautious.

Officials have estimated that the world needs to spend $5 trillion to triple nuclear-power generation over the next 25 years. The problem is that years of delays and billion-dollar budget overruns at European and the US projects are spooking investors, and scores of reactors already running on borrowed time will need to be replaced. No private investors want to take on construction risks, said Simon Taylor, a financier at the Cambridge Nuclear Energy Centre.

“We’re at a critical juncture of in the history of nuclear energy,” said William Magwood, director general of the Nuclear Energy Agency. “We have to move quickly. Financing is critical.”

Earlier this year, Electricite de France SA said its nuclear project at Hinkley Point in the UK would cost as much as £10 billion ($13 billion) extra to build and take several years longer than planned. In the US, Southern Co.’s Vogtle nuclear facility came in more than $16 billion over budget and seven years behind schedule.

While some private capital has gone toward designing small modular reactors — factory-built units theoretically cheaper to build than traditional plants — those projects have also been plagued by delays pushing full commercialization years later than expected. That leaves nuclear advocates struggling for investor support with the technology at hand.

Can Small Nuclear Reactors Really Help The Climate?

Rothschild & Co.’s Steven Vaughan, an adviser for UK’s proposed Sizewell C nuclear plant, echoed the view that investors are wary of taking on exposure to construction risk.

Equity investment interest in Sizewell, currently owned by the UK government and minority stakeholder EDF, has been muted, with Centrica Plc suggesting it could become a stakeholder.

Compounding nuclear power project risks are the long life span of the assets and the uncertain development of electricity markets. Historically, nations alleviated that risk by building reactors themselves. That’s still the case in China and Russia — the two countries building the most plants………….

“There is a vast need for state involvement,” said Marcin Kaminski, risk manager building Poland’s first reactors at Polskie Elektrownie Jadrowe.  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-14/building-nuclear-power-is-a-bridge-too-far-for-world-s-private-investors

June 16, 2024 Posted by | business and costs | Leave a comment

Are the prospects for Small Modular Reactors being exaggerated? Five key characteristics examined

June 11, 2024 by Ed Lyman, Ed Lyman is Director, Nuclear Power Safety, at the Union of Concerned Scientists

Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are being presented as the next generation of nuclear technology. While traditional plants face cost overruns and safety issues, SMRs are seen by their champions as cheaper, safer, and faster to deploy. But Ed Lyman at UCS cites evidence that cast these claims into doubt.

In five sections of this article, he lists the reasons why. SMRs are not more economical than large reactors. SMRs are not generally safer or more secure than traditional large light-water reactors. SMRs will not reduce the problem of disposal of radioactive waste. SMRs cannot be counted on to provide reliable and resilient off-the-grid power (for facilities like data centres, bitcoin mining, hydrogen or petrochemical production). SMRs do not use fuel more efficiently than large reactors.

And where problems might be ironed out over time, the learning cycle of such technology is measured in decades during which costs will remain very high. SMRs may have a role to play in our energy future, says Lyman, but only if they are sufficiently safe and secure, along with a realistic understanding of their costs and risks.

Even casual followers of energy and climate issues have probably heard about the alleged wonders of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). This is due in no small part to the “nuclear bros”: an active and seemingly tireless group of nuclear power advocates who dominate social media discussions on energy by promoting SMRs and other “advanced” nuclear technologies as the only real solution for the climate crisis. But as I showed in my 2013 and 2021 reports, the hype surrounding SMRs is way overblown, and my conclusions remain valid today.

Unfortunately, much of this SMR happy talk is rooted in misinformation, which always brings me back to the same question: if the nuclear bros have such a great SMR story to tell, why do they have to exaggerate so much?

What are SMRs?

SMRs are nuclear reactors that are “small” (defined as 300 megawatts of electrical power or less), can be largely assembled in a centralised facility, and would be installed in a modular fashion at power generation sites. Some proposed SMRs are so tiny (20 megawatts or less) that they are called “micro” reactors. SMRs are distinct from today’s conventional nuclear plants, which are typically around 1,000 megawatts and were largely custom-built. Some SMR designs, such as NuScale, are modified versions of operating water-cooled reactors, while others are radically different designs that use coolants other than water, such as liquid sodium, helium gas, or even molten salts.

To date, however, theoretical interest in SMRs has not translated into many actual reactor orders. The only SMR currently under construction is in China. And in the United States, only one company — TerraPower, founded by Microsoft’s Bill Gates — has applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a permit to build a power reactor (but at 345 megawatts, it technically isn’t even an SMR).

The nuclear industry has pinned its hopes on SMRs primarily because some recent large reactor projects, including Vogtle units 3 and 4 in the state of Georgia, have taken far longer to build and cost far more than originally projected. The failure of these projects to come in on time and under budget undermines arguments that modern nuclear power plants can overcome the problems that have plagued the nuclear industry in the past.

Developers in the industry and the US Department of Energy say that SMRs can be less costly and quicker to build than large reactors and that their modular nature makes it easier to balance power supply and demand. They also argue that reactors in a variety of sizes would be useful for a range of applications beyond grid-scale electrical power, including providing process heat to industrial plants and power to data centres, cryptocurrency mining operations, petrochemical production, and even electrical vehicle charging station

Here are five facts about SMRs that the nuclear industry and the “nuclear bros” who push its message don’t want you, the public, to know.

1. SMRs are not more economical than large reactors. 2. SMRs are not generally safer or more secure than large light-water reactors. 3. SMRs will not reduce the problem of what to do with radioactive waste. 4. SMRs cannot be counted on to provide reliable and resilient off-the-grid power for facilities, such as data centers, bitcoin mining, hydrogen or petrochemical production. 5. SMRs do not use fuel more efficiently than large reactors

Continue reading →

June 12, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, ENERGY, Reference, safety, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, wastes | Leave a comment

Should USS Investment Builder invest in nuclear power?

Government talks about sharing the benefits if the project comes in ahead of time and cost, but this is fantasy land. Nuclear projects are invariably late and overbudget. From a reputational point of view, USS’s investment in Thames Water has been damaging, but association with Sizewell C could turn out far worse.

Steve Thomas, Coordinating Editor, Energy Policy, Emeritus Professor of Energy Policy
Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU), Business School , University of Greenwich 5 June 24  https://divestuss.org/news/

The British government is scouring the world for investors willing to invest in its Sizewell C project. USS has been named as one of six investors shortlisted for the project, perhaps with a stake of about £600m. Would investing in Sizewell C using the Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model be a wise investment for USS funds? From a wider perspective, would it contribute usefully to the government’s target of ‘net zero’ greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and would it offer cheap power?

Sizewell’s predecessor, the Hinkley Point C project to build two EPR reactors has been a disaster both for UK consumers and for its main owner, Electricité de France (EDF). In 2008 when the project was announced, EDF claimed Christmas turkeys would be cooked using power from the plant in 2017 and the government claimed the reactors would cost £5.6bn. By the time the final investment decision was taken in 2016, completion had slipped to 2025 and the cost had gone up to £18bn (2015 money). The price consumers would have to pay for the power was high, £92.5/MWh (2012 money) or about £130/MWh in 2024 money. The one saving grace for consumers was that the price was fixed in real terms and when construction costs escalated, they fell on EDF. In January 2024, the cost and time estimate for Hinkley had increased to £31-35bn (2015 money) or up to £46bn in 2024 money with completion in 2029-31.

Luckily, Britain was not relying on Hinkley to keep the lights on. As a result, in its most recent annual report, EDF announced it was writing off €12.9bn, a large proportion of its investment to date. Press reports talk about the Sizewell project, claimed to be a duplicate of Hinkley, costing about £20bn, implying it could be built for less than half the cost of Hinkley and this is clearly implausible. Even if it could be built for 20% less than Hinkley, that would still imply a cost of nearly £40bn.

European predecessor projects using the same technology as Hinkley and Sizewell, Olkiluoto in Finland and Flamanville in France, have also been disasters taking 18 years to build and coming in at 3-4 times overbudget.

Soon after the Hinkley investment decision was taken, EDF realised its error and abandoned plans to build Sizewell using the same financial model as Hinkley.

Continue reading →

June 8, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

TODAY. Jobs jobs jobs in the nuclear industry – but is it true?

Go to Google news for nuclear information, and you’ll be swamped with glowing stories from the World Nuclear Association, the IAEA, and the big corporate media outlets – all about the wonderful future for the nuclear industry- –

all those jobs! including in the lovely nuclear weapons industry.

Jobs in renewable energy. This year’s report finds that renewable energy employment worldwide has continued to expand – to an estimated 13.7 million direct and indirect jobs in 2022. We can expect the creation of many millions of additional jobs in the coming years and decades.  https://mc-cd8320d4-36a1-40ac-83cc-3389-cdn-endpoint.azureedge.net/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2023/Sep/IRENA_Renewable_energy_and_jobs_2023.pdf?rev=4f65518fb5f64c9fb78f6f60fe821bf2

Jobs in nuclear power. I have not been able to find any kind of authoritative report on global jobs in nuclear power. I did find one source (on Quora) stating that each nuclear reactor in construction provides 1400-1800 jobs, and in operation 400 -700 jobs. The nuclear industry claims many more, but for construction, we must remember – this is all in the rather distant future.

The figure below is a prediction from many years ago. If we are to believe the nuclear lobby, this prediction should change rapidly.

What we do know is that at present, renewable energy jobs are increasing exponentially, and nuclear power building is almost at a standstill.

The figure on the left is also from many years ago. But I doubt that much has changed.

Of course – this is all about the actual reactors. There are many jobs in uranium mining, milling, transport etc, and of course, in nuclear weapons-making

The quality of jobs.

In energy efficiency there are many interesting and clean jobs. Also, workers know that they are contributing to a healthier planet – something to be proud of.

In renewable energy the jobs are relatively clean and healthy, and there’s again, the knowledge of being in an alternative to the polluting industries – coal and nuclear.

In nuclear energy and nuclear fuel, the workers are involved in the risky area of ionising radiation. There’s a huge amount of documentation on this. It is NOT a healthy job, though I suppose that it’s better to be a highly paid nuclear executive or lobbyist, safe in a nice office.

I doubt that nuclear workers can get much satisfaction about “helping the planet”, as the “peaceful” nuclear industry is so dirty, dangerous, and intimately connected with nuclear weapons.

No doubt some nuclear workers get paid a lot more than renewable energy workers do. But, there’s real value in knowing that your contribution to society is a clean and positive one.

May 30, 2024 Posted by | Christina's notes, employment, renewable | Leave a comment

Small Modular Reactors: Still too expensive, too slow and too risky.

Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

1 Report SMRs (Small Modular Reactors) Nuclear Transition United States

Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. May 29, 2024, David Schlissel and Dennis Wamsted more https://ieefa.org/resources/small-modular-reactors-still-too-expensive-too-slow-and-too-risky?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1jnn-FMHaMbUkjLSR0kbe-ku3uRRLcwq5jFcZfx62d4vHIZilLTK73YOg_aem_Abj940YmQyHY2fHN3alfZYFxXGCjmhy7qqSR1SLZ7HipqrGxyOaplVTSCuk7GjV3z8ZxriI0DSoGaIg4KFv_B5L1

Key Findings

Small modular reactors still look to be too expensive, too slow to build, and too risky to play a significant role in transitioning from fossil fuels in the coming 10-15 years.

Investment in SMRs will take resources away from carbon-free and lower-cost renewable technologies that are available today and can push the transition from fossil fuels forward significantly in the coming 10 years.

Experience with operating and proposed SMRs shows that the reactors will continue to cost far more and take much longer to build than promised by proponents.

Regulators, utilities, investors and government officials should embrace the reality that renewables, not SMRs, are the near-term solution to the energy transition.

The rhetoric from small modular reactor (SMR) advocates is loud and persistent: This time will be different because the cost overruns and schedule delays that have plagued large reactor construction projects will not be repeated with the new designs. But the few SMRs that have been built (or have been started) paint a different picture—one that looks startingly similar to the past. Significant construction delays are still the norm and costs have continued to climb.

IEEFA has taken a close look at the data available from the four SMRs currently in operation or under construction, as well as new information about projected costs from some of the leading SMR developers in the U.S. The results of the analysis show little has changed from our previous work. SMRs still are too expensive, too slow to build, and too risky to play a significant role in transitioning from fossil fuels in the coming 10 to 15 years.

We believe these findings should serve as a cautionary flag for all energy industry participants. In particular, we recommend that:

  • Regulators who will be asked to approve utility or developer-backed SMR proposals should craft restrictions to prevent delays and cost increases from being pushed onto ratepayers.
  • Utilities that are considering SMRs should be required to compare the technology’s uncertain costs and completion dates with the known costs and construction timetables of renewable alternatives. Utilities that still opt for the SMR option should be required to put shareholder funds at risk if costs and construction times exceed utility estimates.

  • Investors and bankers weighing any SMR proposal should carefully conduct their due diligence. Things will go wrong, imperiling the chances for full recovery of any invested funds.
    State and federal governments should require that estimated SMR construction costs and schedules be publicly available so that utility ratepayers, taxpayers and investors are better able to assess the magnitude of the SMR-related financial risks that they may be forced to bear.
    Finally, it is vital that this debate consider the opportunity costs associated with the SMR push. The dollars invested in SMRs will not be available for use in building out a wind, solar and battery storage resource base. These carbon-free and lower-cost technologies are available today and can push the transition from fossil fuels forward significantly in the coming 10 years—years when SMRs will still be looking for licensing approval and construction funding.

May 30, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »