nuclear-news

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

France presses UK to help fill multibillion-pound hole in nuclear projects

Call comes day after EDF flagged more delays of construction of power plant at Hinkley Point

Sarah White in Paris and Jim Pickard and Rachel Millard in London, 25 Jan 24,  https://www.ft.com/content/3320c06e-7ce3-4a6b-ab22-4b8201a4cfca

The French government is pressing the UK to help plug a multibillion-pound hole in the budget of nuclear power projects being built in Britain by France’s electricity operator EDF. The call for a contribution from the UK is likely to cause tensions between Paris and London, a day after state-owned EDF admitted its construction of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset would suffer further costly delays, taking the bill to as much as £46bn. The UK has said it will not put cash into the project, which counts EDF as a majority shareholder, and is already backed by a government guarantee on its revenues once it is up and running.

But Paris is pushing for a “global solution” that would also encompass funding issues at another planned UK plant, Sizewell C, said a French economy ministry official and another person close to the talks. “It’s a Franco-British matter,” the French economy ministry official said. “The British government cannot at the same time say EDF has to figure it out alone on Hinkley Point and at the same time ask EDF to put money into Sizewell. We’re determined to find a global solution to see these projects through.”

Sizewell in Suffolk has a different financial set-up to Hinkley. The UK this week said it would inject another £800mn of state funds, bringing its total contribution to £2.5bn at the £20bn plant, where it is the top shareholder. Its partner EDF has no obligation to put more money in. French officials said discussions on various options had begun several months ago with British counterparts, although they acknowledged London had flagged budgetary constraints that would have to be taken into account. In the UK, a government official played down the talks, adding that on Hinkley Point: “Costs will be the responsibility of EDF.”

An EDF executive told the BBC on Wednesday that the French company picks up “the tab for the cost overruns”. EDF on Tuesday warned Hinkley Point would not now be completed until 2029 at the earliest, four years later than its original start date, while the two reactors could cost up to £46bn to build at today’s prices, compared with a £18bn budget in 2016.

Other factors might play into the discussions, however. Under Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Britain took the political initiative to eject Chinese group CGN as an investor in Sizewell — leaving that project in need of fresh private capital, but also prompting CGN to pull back from Hinkley, where it is a 33.5 per cent shareholder. The Chinese group has fulfilled its contracted payments on Hinkley but has no obligation to fund over-costs and stopped doing so a few months ago.

“The French don’t have many levers here but the CGN issue is a very real one,” a third person close to the talks said. Finding private investors to make up the Hinkley shortfall may be tough, several people close to the group said, although formulas such as state guarantees could be discussed. EDF is only just coming out of a period of financial turmoil, and has big investments to make at home, too, in the coming decades. It was fully renationalised last year

“Our goal here . . . is for what’s happening at Hinkley Point, with the delays and the issue with the Chinese partner’s decision, not to impact EDF’s financial trajectory excessively,” the French economy ministry official said.  However, one UK nuclear industry figure said that EDF’s plight at Hinkley was the consequence of signing up to a deal with the UK government a decade ago, which at the time was criticised for being too generous to the French group. Under a so-called contract for difference signed with the state, construction costs are not covered but future electricity production is backed up by subsidies in case power prices fall below a certain threshold.

January 25, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, France, politics international, UK | Leave a comment

UK nuclear plant hit by new multiyear delay and could cost up to £46bn.

Britain’s flagship Hinkley Point C nuclear plant has been delayed until
2029 at the earliest, with the cost spiralling to as much as £46bn, in the
latest blow to a project at the heart of the country’s long-term energy
plans.

The surging bill and slipping schedule, announced on Tuesday by the
French state-owned operator and constructor EDF, will put pressure on the
UK government to provide extra financial support for the project.

EDF, which has also experienced long delays on recent parallel projects in
Finland and France that use the same reactor technology, blamed the latest
problems at Hinkley in Somerset on the complexity of installing
electromechanical systems and intricate piping. Hinkley was previously
delayed due to construction disruption during Covid pandemic.

Under EDF’s latest scenario, one of the two planned reactors at Hinkley Point C could
be ready in 2029, a two-year hold-up compared with the company’s previous
estimate of 2027. But it could be further delayed to 2031 in adverse
conditions, EDF said. It did not give an estimate for the second reactor.
EDF said the cost would now be between £31bn-£35bn based on 2015 prices,
depending on when Hinkley Point C was completed.

In today’s prices, the cost would balloon to as much as £46bn. The initial budget was £18bn, with a scheduled completion date of 2025. Alison Downes of Stop Sizewell C, a
campaign group opposed to the planned Suffolk nuclear plant, said EDF was
an “unmitigated disaster”. She added the UK government should cancel
Sizewell C, saying state funding for the project could be better spent on
“renewables, energy efficiency or, in this election year, schools and
hospitals”.

FT 23rd Jan 2024

https://www.ft.com/content/1157591c-d514-4520-aa17-158349203abd

January 25, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

EDF’s UK Hinkley Nuclear Costs Balloon as Plant Delayed Again

Francois de Beaupuy, Bloomberg News, Jan 23, 2024

(Bloomberg) — Electricite de France SA’s nuclear project at Hinkley Point in the UK will cost as much as £10 billion ($13 billion) extra to build and take several years longer than planned, the latest in a series of setbacks for the budget and timetable of the country’s largest energy project.

EDF now expects the two reactors it’s building in southwest England to cost between £31 billion and £35 billion in 2015 terms, the French energy company said in a statement on Tuesday. That’s up from an estimate of £25 billion to £26 billion in 2022, and is the fifth budget increase in eight years. At today’s prices, the project would cost as much as £46 billion, according to the Bank of England’s inflation calculator.  …………………

The UK is struggling to get its huge nuclear program off the ground. The government is aiming for as much as 24 gigawatts of capacity by 2050 and will have to accelerate rapidly to achieve that. Hinkley Point will be the first new atomic station to start generating in Britain since 1995. Construction of complex nuclear plants is notoriously slow, and the cost overruns and delays at Hinkley may damp investor enthusiasm for the sector…………………………………..

The setback comes just one day after the UK government pledged to invest an additional £1.3 billion in EDF’s second UK project at Sizewell C. Ministers are hoping the commitment will attract enough private capital to make a final investment decision this year and make progress toward its ambitious 2050 target.

EDF was already struggling with the budget for Hinkley after China General Nuclear Power Corp, its partner in the project, stopped funding, potentially leaving the French company to foot the bill until it is completed. The government-owned French company will also have to spend tens of billions of euros on new atomic plants at home in the coming decades.

Hinkley Point C is not a French government project and so any additional costs or schedule overruns are the responsibility of EDF and its partners and will in no way fall on taxpayers, said a spokesperson for the UK Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. 

…….. EDF’s current fleet of five nuclear plants is scheduled to shrink to just three by the end of 2026. Last year, output slumped to the lowest in more than four decades. 

While rising costs of metals, cement and labor are affecting industries including large offshore wind projects, the revised plan may revive a controversy over how expensive the technology is and whether further delays are inevitable. Still, the UK government said this month that the country will build another large-scale nuclear power plant, beyond current projects led by EDF.

t’s not the first time Hinkley has ballooned beyond its budget. EDF increased its estimates in 2017, 2019, 2021, and 2022 from an initial estimate of £18 billion when the contract was signed with the UK in 2016. 

At the start of the project, the French utility expected the first unit to start by the end of 2025. However, Brexit, the Covid pandemic and the war in Ukraine have disrupted supply chains and boosted the cost of labor and essential materials like steel and cement.    

“Going first to restart the nuclear construction industry in Britain after a 20-year pause has been hard,” said Stuart Crooks, Managing Director for Hinkley Point C.  https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/edf-s-uk-hinkley-nuclear-costs-balloon-as-plant-delayed-again-1.2025542

January 25, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, France, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear goes backwards, again, as wind and solar enjoy another year of record growth.

Jim Green 21 January 2024,  https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-goes-backwards-again-as-wind-and-solar-enjoy-another-year-of-record-growth/

The nuclear renaissance of the late-2000s was a bust due to the Fukushima disaster and catastrophic cost overruns with reactor projects. The latest renaissance is heading the same way, i.e. nowhere. Nuclear power went backwards last year. 

There were five reactor start-ups and five permanent closures in 2023 with a net loss of 1.7 gigawatts (GW) of capacity. There were just six reactor construction starts in 2023, five of them in China.

Due to the ageing of the reactor fleet, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) anticipates the closure of 10 reactors (10 GW) per year from 2018 to 2050.

Thus the industry needs an annual average of 10 reactor construction starts, and 10 reactor startups (grid connections), just to maintain its current output. Over the past decade (2014-23), construction starts have averaged 6.1 and reactor startups have averaged 6.7.

The number of operable power reactors is 407 to 413 depending on the definition of operability, well down from the 2002 peak of 438.

Nuclear power’s share of global electricity generation has fallen to 9.2 percent, its lowest share in four decades and little more than half of its peak of 17.5 percent in 1996.

Over the two decades 2004-2023, there were 102 power reactor startups and 104 closures worldwide: 49 startups in China with no closures; and a net decline of 51 reactors in the rest of the world.

In China, there were five reactor construction starts in 2023 and just one reactor startup. Put another way, there was just one reactor construction start outside China in 2023. So much for the hype about a new nuclear renaissance.

Small modular reactors and ‘advanced’ nuclear power

Small modular reactors (SMRs) are the subject of endless hype but there were no SMR construction starts or startups last year. The biggest SMR news in 2023 was NuScale Power’s decision to abandon its flagship project in Idaho despite securing astronomical subsidies amounting to around US$4 billion (A$6.1 billion) from the US government.

The pro-nuclear Breakthrough Institute noted in a November 2023 article that efforts to commercialise a new generation of ‘advanced’ nuclear reactors “are simply not on track” and it warned nuclear advocates not to “whistle past this graveyard”:

It wrote:

“The NuScale announcement follows several other setbacks for advanced reactors. Last month, X-Energy, another promising SMR company, announced that it was canceling plans to go public. This week, it was forced to lay off about 100 staff.

“In early 2022, Oklo’s first license application was summarily rejected by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission before the agency had even commenced a technical review of Oklo’s Aurora reactor.

The nuclear renaissance of the late-2000s was a bust due to the Fukushima disaster and catastrophic cost overruns with reactor projects. The latest renaissance is heading the same way, i.e. nowhere. Nuclear power went backwards last year. 

There were five reactor start-ups and five permanent closures in 2023 with a net loss of 1.7 gigawatts (GW) of capacity. There were just six reactor construction starts in 2023, five of them in China.

Due to the ageing of the reactor fleet, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) anticipates the closure of 10 reactors (10 GW) per year from 2018 to 2050.

Thus the industry needs an annual average of 10 reactor construction starts, and 10 reactor startups (grid connections), just to maintain its current output. Over the past decade (2014-23), construction starts have averaged 6.1 and reactor startups have averaged 6.7.

The number of operable power reactors is 407 to 413 depending on the definition of operability, well down from the 2002 peak of 438.

Nuclear power’s share of global electricity generation has fallen to 9.2 percent, its lowest share in four decades and little more than half of its peak of 17.5 percent in 1996.

Over the two decades 2004-2023, there were 102 power reactor startups and 104 closures worldwide: 49 startups in China with no closures; and a net decline of 51 reactors in the rest of the world.

In China, there were five reactor construction starts in 2023 and just one reactor startup. Put another way, there was just one reactor construction start outside China in 2023. So much for the hype about a new nuclear renaissance.

Nuclear decline vs. record renewables growth

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has just released its ‘Renewables 2023’ report and it makes for a striking contrast with the nuclear industry’s malaise.

Nuclear power suffered a net loss of 1.7 GW capacity in 2023, whereas renewable capacity additions amounted to a record 507 GW, almost 50 percent higher than 2022. This is the 22nd year in a row that renewable capacity additions set a new record, the IEA states. Solar PV alone accounted for three-quarters of renewable capacity additions worldwide in 2023.

Nuclear power accounts for a declining share of share of global electricity generation (currently 9.2 percent) whereas renewables have grown to 30.2 percent. The IEA expects renewables to reach 42 percent by 2028 thanks to a projected 3,700 GW of new capacity over the next five years in the IEA’s ‘main case’.

The IEA states that the world is on course to add more renewable capacity in the next five years than has been installed since the first commercial renewable energy power plant was built more than 100 years ago.

Solar and wind combined have already surpassed nuclear power generation and the IEA notes that over the next five years, several other milestones will likely be achieved: 

— In 2025, renewables surpass coal-fired electricity generation to become the largest source of electricity generation

— In 2025, wind surpasses nuclear electricity generation

— In 2026, solar PV surpasses nuclear electricity generation

— In 2028, renewable energy sources account for over 42 percent of global electricity generation, with the share of wind and solar PV doubling to 25 percent

Tripling renewables

The IEA states in its ‘Renewables 2023’ report that:

“Prior to the COP28 climate change conference in Dubai, the International Energy Agency (IEA) urged governments to support five pillars for action by 2030, among them the goal of tripling global renewable power capacity. Several of the IEA priorities were reflected in the Global Stocktake text agreed by the 198 governments at COP28, including the goals of tripling renewables and doubling the annual rate of energy efficiency improvements every year to 2030. Tripling global renewable capacity in the power sector from 2022 levels by 2030 would take it above 11 000 GW, in line with IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 (NZE) Scenario.

“Under existing policies and market conditions, global renewable capacity is forecast to reach 7300 GW by 2028. This growth trajectory would see global capacity increase to 2.5 times its current level by 2030, falling short of the tripling goal.”

In the IEA’s ‘accelerated case’, 4,500 GW of new renewable capacity will be added over the next five years (compared to 3,700 GW in the ‘main case’), nearing the tripling goal.

Tripling nuclear?

The goal of tripling renewables by 2030 is a stretch but it is not impossible. Conversely, the ‘pledge’ signed by just 22 nations at COP28 to triple nuclear power by 2050 appears absurd.

The Labor federal government signed Australia up to the renewables pledge but not the nuclear pledge. The Coalition wants to do the opposite, and also opposes the Labor government’s target of 82 per cent renewable power supply by 2030.

One of the lies being peddled by the Coalition is that nuclear power capacity could increase by 80 percent over the next 30 years. That is based on a ‘high case’ scenario from the IAEA. However the IAEA’s ‘low case’ scenario — ignored by the Coalition — is for another 30 years of stagnation.

So should we go with the IAEA’s high or low scenarios, or split the difference perhaps?

According to a report by the IAEA itself, the Agency’s ‘high’ forecasts have consistently proven to be ridiculous and even its ‘low’ forecasts are too high — by 13 percent on average.

Nuclear power won’t increase by 80 percent by 2050 and it certainly won’t triple; indeed it will struggle to maintain current output given the ageing of the reactor fleet and recent experience with construction projects.

Comparing nuclear and renewables in China

China’s nuclear program added only 1.2 GW capacity in 2023 while wind and solar combined added 278 GW. Michael Barnard noted in CleanTechnica that allowing for capacity factors, the nuclear additions amount to about 7 terrawatt-hours (TWh) of new low carbon generation per year, while wind and solar between them will contribute about 427 TWh annually, over 60 times more than nuclear.

Barnard commented:

“One of the things that western nuclear proponents claim is that governments have over-regulated nuclear compared to wind and solar, and China’s regulatory regime for nuclear is clearly not the USA’s or the UK’s. They claim that fears of radiation have created massive and unfair headwinds, and China has a very different balancing act on public health and public health perceptions than the west. They claim that environmentalists have stopped nuclear development in the west, and while there are vastly more protests in China than most westerners realize, governmental strategic programs are much less susceptible to public hostility.

“And finally, western nuclear proponents complain that NIMBYs block nuclear expansion, and public sentiment and NIMBYism is much less powerful in China with its Confucian, much more top down governance system.

“China’s central government has a 30 year track record of building massive infrastructure programs, so it’s not like it is missing any skills there. China has a nuclear weapons program, so the alignment of commercial nuclear generation with military strategic aims is in hand too. China has a strong willingness to finance strategic infrastructure with long-running state debt, so there are no headwinds there either.

“Yet China can’t scale its nuclear program at all. It peaked in 2018 with 7 reactors with a capacity of 8.2 GW. For the five years since then then it’s been averaging 2.3 GW of new nuclear capacity, and last year only added 1.2 GW …”

Dr. Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group.

January 22, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, business and costs, Reference, renewable | Leave a comment

Big costs sink flagship nuclear project and they’ll sink future small modular reactor projects too. 

 By Susan O’Donnell and M.V. Ramana, 024,  https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/01/21/big-costs-sink-flagship-nuclear-project/

The major news in the world of nuclear energy last November was the collapse of the Carbon Free Power Project in the United States. The project was to build six NuScale small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). Given NuScale’s status as the flagship SMR design not just in the U.S. but even globally, the project’s cancellation should ring alarm bells in Canada. Yet SMRs are touted as a climate action strategy although it is becoming clearer by the day that they will delay a possible transition to net-zero energy and render it more expensive.

The NuScale project failed because there were not enough customers for its expensive electricity. Construction cost estimates for the project had been steadily rising—from USD 4.2 billion for 600 megawatts in 2018 to a staggering USD 9.3 billion (CAD 12.8 billion) for 462 megawatts. Using a combination of government subsidies, potentially up to USD 4.2 billion, and  an opaque calculation method, NuScale claimed that it would produce electricity at USD 89 per megawatt-hour. When standard U.S. government subsidies are included, electricity from wind and solar energy projects, including battery storage, could be as cheap as USD 12 to USD 31 per megawatt-hour.

A precursor to the failed NuScale project was mPower, which also received massive funding from the U.S. Department of Energy. Described by The New York Times as the leader in the SMR race, mPower could not find investors or customers. By 2017, the project was essentially dead. Likewise, a small reactor in South Korea proved to be “not practical or economic”.

Ignoring this dire economic reality, provincial governments planning for SMRs – Ontario, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Alberta – published a “strategic plan” seemingly designed to convince the federal government to open its funding floodgates. Offering no evidence about the costs of these technologies, the report asserts: “The power companies assessed that SMRs have the potential to be an economically competitive source of energy.”

For its part, the federal government has coughed up grants totalling more than $175 million to five different SMR projects in Ontario, New Brunswick, and Saskatchewan. The Canada Infrastructure Bank loaned $970 million to Ontario Power Generation to develop its Darlington New Nuclear project. And the Canada Energy Regulator’s 2023 Canada’s Energy Future report envisioned a big expansion of nuclear energy based on wishful thinking and unrealistic assumptions about SMRs.

Canada’s support is puzzling when considering other official statements about nuclear energy. In 2021, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said that nuclear power must compete with renewable energy in the market. The previous year, then Environment Minister and current Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson also emphasized competition with other sources of energy, concluding “the winner will be the one that can provide electrical energy at the lowest cost.” Given the evidence about high costs, nuclear power cannot compete with renewable energy, let alone provide electricity at the lowest cost.

Investing huge amounts of taxpayer money in technologies that are uncompetitive is bad enough, but an equally serious problem is wasting time. The primary justification for this government largesse is dealing with climate change. But the urgency of that crisis requires action now, not in two decades.

All the SMR designs planned in Canada’s provinces are still on the drawing board. The design furthest along in the regulatory process – the BWRX-300 slated for Ontario’s Darlington site – does not yet have a licence to begin construction. New Brunswick’s choices – a sodium cooled fast reactor and a molten salt reactor – are demonstrably problematic and will take longer to build.

Recently built nuclear plants have taken, on average, 9.8 years from start of construction to producing electricity. The requisite planning, regulatory evaluations of new designs, raising the necessary finances, and finding customers who want to pay higher electricity bills might add another decade.

SMR vendors have to raise not only the billions needed to build the reactor but also the funding to complete their designs. NuScale spent around USD 1.8 billion (CAD 2.5 billion), and the reactor was still left with many unresolved safety problems. ARC-100 and Moltex proponents in New Brunswick have each asked for at least $500 million to further develop their designs. Moltex has been unable to obtain the required funding to match the $50.5 million federal grant it received in 2021.

Adverse economics killed the flagship NuScale SMR project. There is no reason to believe the costs of SMR designs proposed in Canada will be any lower. Are government officials attentive enough to hear the clanging alarm bells?

Susan O’Donnell is adjunct research professor and primary investigator of the CEDAR project at St. Thomas University in Fredericton. M.V. Ramana is the Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security and professor at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia.

January 22, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | 1 Comment

Zelensky Courts JPMorgan, Bank of America & Bridgewater CEOs At Davos, Urges More Money From West

Zero Hedge, BY TYLER DURDEN, WEDNESDAY, JAN 17, 2024

As expected, anything related to Ukraine presented at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos has been focused on more weaponry and seeking more vows of integration among Western allies. 

“Ukrainians need predictable financing throughout 2024 and beyond,” European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen told World Economic Forum participants. “They need a sufficient and sustained supply of weapons to defend Ukraine and regain its rightful territory.”

As for President Zelensky, in addressing world leaders at the forum he emphasized that the West needs to help Ukraine achieve air superiority if his forces are to have a chance to emerge victorious against Russia……………………………………

At the summit, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken promised that Washington will keep up its support for Ukraine, however while keeping things vague – following Biden’s proposed foreign defense budget request being reject by GOP members in Congress; and NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg suggested Ukraine is moving closer to entry into the alliance.

Stoltenberg acknowledged a “serious battlefield situation” but also said there is “cause for optimism” after nearly two years of fighting, and NATO’s constant support.

Below is a portion of the NATO press readout based on his panel speech: 

…………  Ukrainians are now firmly oriented to the West, aspiring for membership in NATO and the European Union. The Secretary General also stressed that “support for Ukraine is not charity; it’s an investment in our own security”.………

But realistically, the prospect of Ukraine gaining full NATO membership would be a process of years, and would likely trigger WW3 with Russia–so to some degree this is all empty posturing.

But here’s what’s happening at Davos which is arguably more important to Kiev at the moment:

Ukraine is seeking new ways to finance its rebuilding plans as vital aid from the West slows down. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy reportedly has plans to meet JP Morgan’s CEO at the World Economic Forum.

Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy is reportedly planning to meet JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon at the World Economic Forum in Davos to seek new ways of financing its rebuilding plans. 

JP Morgan, the biggest US bank with almost half a trillion dollars of market capitalization, has already been advising Ukraine on financing reconstruction.

It’s as yet unclear if any firm promises were made or agreements struck at the Davos meeting which also included Bank of America’s Brian Moynihan, as well as Bridgewater’s Ray Dalio. 

According to further details of who was in attendance via Fox Business: “Other meeting attendees included David Rubinstein of the private equity firm Carlyle Group; billionaire entrepreneur Michael Dell, the founder of Dell Technologies; Ray Dalio of Bridgewater Associates, the world’s largest hedge fund; Steve Schwarzman, the CEO of Blackstone, the world’s largest private equity fund; and Philipp Hildebrand, representing BlackRock, the world’s largest money manager.”

Additionally, “Dimon was accompanied by Mary Erdoes, who runs JPMorgan’s asset-management unit. The White House was represented by Penny Pritzker, of the super-wealthy Pritzker family and a major Democratic Party donor.” Pritzker has been appointed Biden administration’s special representative for Ukraine’s economic recovery.  https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/zelensky-courts-jpmorgan-bank-america-bridgewater-ceos-davos-urges-more-west

January 20, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

The Times asks “Are big nuclear reactors really the right thing for the UK?

 Nuclear minister Andrew Bowie had a case to hail it a “major
milestone”, with Julia Pyke, Sizewell’s joint managing director,
calling it a “significant moment” for the project and for UK “energy
security”.

Even so, there is still a long way to go. The project will
cost £30 billion-plus, with the PM yet to make a final investment
decision. Sizewell uses the same European pressurised reactor technology as
Hinkley: the Somerset nuke being built by France’s EDF and China’s CGN.


Who exactly will fund Sizewell? Alison Downes, of the Stop Sizewell C
campaign, is no neutral party. But she’s right to say the government is
“still months away” from securing finance, while keeping “secret”
the project’s “enormous cost”.

Bowie told the Financial Times he was
“very confident” of obtaining private finance, but the government is
now rowing back from the FT report that it’s “on track” to raise £20
billion. Even if it has changed the funding rubric to a “regulated asset
base” model that frontloads cost overruns on to consumer bills, investors
think that figure wildly optimistic. On a one third/two thirds split,
ministers need at least £10 billion of equity and £20 billion of debt.

But EDF wants no more than 19.9 per cent of Sizewell equity, while the UK
has booted off the Chinese. Ministers have reportedly lined up Abu Dhabi
funds for a chunk of the equity. But market talk is that the government is
still at least £5 billion short, while it also faces having to underwrite
all the debt — at least until it can syndicate some out once construction
hurdles are met.

Is this the best use of taxpayer’s money? And what’s
the risk private investors are given too generous terms? Yes, the wind
doesn’t blow or sun shine every day. So Britain will need baseload power
to offset intermittent renewables.

But, even if Sizewell C gets the
official go-ahead soon, it won’t be generating power until the late
2030s. A third station will be even further behind. Labour’s union
backers are typically pro-nuclear. But should Sir Keir Starmer come to
power, he must still tackle key questions. Are pricey mega nukes, largely
funded by the taxpayer and consumers, the right strategic bet for 2040? Or
do battery power, say, or modular nuclear reactors make more sense? The
government is yet to make a conclusive financial case for Sizewell C —
let alone any more.

 Times 16th Jan 2024

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sizing-up-sizewell-is-a-nuclear-option-fwpd2p53d

January 19, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear power twice as expensive as the Swedish government thought?

Nuclear power may be almost twice as expensive as the government thought.
Nuclear power must stand on its own two feet, the government has said. But
Vattenfall’s latest assessment shows that new nuclear power can be almost
twice as expensive – which may require multibillion-dollar government
support.

Sweden’s forecasts from the Energy Agency are based on the fact
that electricity from new nuclear power is expected to cost 55-60 öre per
kilowatt hour. To be compared with 35 öre for wind power on land. SVT can
now reveal that Vattenfall has received price information from several
suppliers of both large and smaller so-called SMR reactors. The overall
conclusion is costs of 90-112 öre per kilowatt hour. Almost twice as much
as previous assessment, then. Vattenfall believes that this level mainly
applies to a first large-scale reactor, where you cannot lower the price
with economies of scale.

 SVT Nyheter 16th Jan 2024

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/karnkraften-kan-bli-nara-dubbelt-sa-dyr-som-regeringen-trott

January 18, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, politics, Sweden | Leave a comment

US Offers Up To $500MM for Advanced Nuclear Fuel Production

by Jov Onsat, Rigzone Staff, Monday, January 15, 2024

The United States Department of Energy (DOE) is offering contracts worth up to $500 million in total for the production of a uranium fuel for smaller nuclear reactors, as it announced a breakthrough in an enrichment project

The request for proposals is for the enrichment of high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU). Currently this fuel is produced only in Russia and the US but only the former makes it at a commercial scale, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The United Kingdom government earlier this month announced funding to enable domestic HALEU production.

“Currently, HALEU is not commercially available from U.S.-based suppliers, and boosting domestic supply could spur the development and deployment of advanced reactors in the United States”, the DOE noted in a press release announcing the funding offer……………………………………………………

Each contractor is assured of a minimum order value of $2 million. They must conduct enrichment and storage activities in the continental US and comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, the DOE said. Proposals are until March 8.

The $500 million offer includes a DOE request announced November for services to deconvert the uranium enriched through this funding into metal, oxide and other forms to be used as fuel for advanced reactor  https://www.rigzone.com/news/us_offers_up_to_500mm_for_advanced_nuclear_fuel_production-15-jan-2024-175378-article/

January 17, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | 1 Comment

B1 Federal Employees to Stage Walk Out Over Biden’s Support for Gaza Slaughter

Federal employees from nearly two dozen US government agencies will walk off their jobs on Tuesday in protest of President Biden’s full-throated support for Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza, Al-Monitor reported on Friday.

by Dave DeCamp January 14, 2024  https://news.antiwar.com/2024/01/14/federal-employees-to-stage-walk-out-over-bidens-support-for-gaza-slaughter/

Federal employees from nearly two dozen US government agencies will walk off their jobs on Tuesday in protest of President Biden’s full-throated support for Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza, Al-Monitor reported on Friday.

The Biden administration has faced significant internal dissent over the Israeli slaughter in Gaza, which has killed nearly 24,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children. Officials from across government agencies have signed letters protesting the US support for Israel, but a walkout will be the most dramatic step yet, besides the two resignations from administration officials.

Dozens of US officials are organizing the walkout as a group calling itself Feds United for Peace. They expect hundreds of other federal employees to join them on Tuesday.

Al-Monitor obtained a list of some of the agencies where employees are expected to participate in the protest, which includes the Executive Office of the President, the National Security Agency, the Departments of State, Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs, and more.

In light of the Al-Monitor Report, House Republicans are calling for any employees who participate in the protest to be fired. “Any government worker who walks off the job to protest US support for our ally Israel is ignoring their responsibility and abusing the trust of taxpayers,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), according to Axios. “They deserve to be fired.”

President Biden is also facing dissent from within his re-election campaign as his backing of Israel’s mass killing of Palestinians is hurting his chances of winning another term. Seventeen Biden campaign staffers said in a letter protesting his support for Israel that they’ve seen “volunteers quit in droves, and people who have voted blue for decades feel uncertain about doing so for the first time ever, because of this conflict.”

January 16, 2024 Posted by | employment, USA | Leave a comment

$25 billion for refurbishment of Darlingon and Bruce reactors

Two Canadian nuclear refurbishment projects are in the top five of the largest public sector infrastructure projects currently under development in Canada, according to a newly published annual ranking. The annual Top100 Projects report, published by ReNew Canada magazine, features the 100 largest public sector infrastructure projects currently under development in the country ranked based on their confirmed project cost. Bruce Power’s refurbishment project is in third place with a project cost of CAD13 billion (USD9.7 billion), with Ontario Power Generation’s Darlington nuclear refurbishment in fourth place, at a cost of CAD12.8 billion.

Source: World Nuclear News, 15 January 2024

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

Hotel near Bridgwater could be repurposed to house Hinkley Point C workers

By Jamie Grover 
 Bridgwater Mercury 12th Jan 2024

PLANS have been submitted to Somerset Council to request permission for a hotel near Bridgwater and Highbridge to be repurposed in order to house Hinkley Point C workers.

It is proposed that Laburnum Lodges in West Hunstpill would be converted to accommodate workers at the EDF power plant for a minimum of five years, before then resuming usual operations as holiday accommodation.

The news comes after it was recently revealed EDF were once again in talks with Somerset Council to increase the workforce on site, despite an ongoing housing crisis in Bridgwater.

……………………………………………. Cllr Leigh Redman, Bridgwater Town Council spokesperson for Nuclear Issues, said that the original development consent order (DCO) signed by the secretary of state for Hinkley Point C, indicated that at peak, the number of workers on site would be 5,600.

This number was since raised to 8,600 due to the conversion of Pontins in Brean to become an accommodation site for workers at the power plant, which is now full.

There are now over 11,000 workers at Hinkley Point C, and EDF has confirmed its plans to bring in more staff in the near future.

To keep up to date with the application, or for more information, search reference number 52/23/00010 on the Somerset Council website.

Comments are welcomed until Tuesday, February 13, and approval could be given as early as Wednesday, February 14.  https://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/news/24045404.hotel-near-bridgwater-house-hinkley-point-c-workers/

January 15, 2024 Posted by | employment, UK | Leave a comment

Sizewell C: UK and France-owned EDF look to raise £20bn for Suffolk nuclear site

The UK government and EDF energy has announced its bid to raise £20bn for an extension to EDF’s nuclear facility in Suffolk.

The British government and the French-owned energy company EDF plan to build the UK’s second-largest power station, Sizewell C, on the Suffolk site.

They hope to raise the money by the end of 2024, the energy minister responsible for the sector told the Financial Times.

Ministers approved the construction of the building in 2022 after a decade of consultations. It is expected to take a further decade to build, although delays and high costs at sister plant Hinkley Point C suggest that it may take even longer.

 “It’s a phenomenal sum of money but we are genuinely very pleased and very positive about the reaction we have had through the capital-raising process so far,” Andrew Bowie told the Financial Times. “We are very much on track.”

The UK government has already committed £1.2bn to the project, while a UAE sovereign wealth fund is among several potential investors.

On Thursday, the UK government launched its £300m civil nuclear road map in the “biggest expansion of nuclear power for 70 years”, which restates its aim to build up the UK’s supply of nuclear energy to 24GW by 2024…………………… more https://www.cityam.com/sizewell-c-uk-and-france-owned-edf-look-to-raise-20bn-for-suffolk-nuclear-site/

January 13, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Cancelled NuScale contract weighs heavy on new nuclear

Paul Day, 11 Jan 24, https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/cancelled-nuscale-contract-weighs-heavy-new-nuclear-2024-01-10/

  • Summary
  • The failure of a high profile small modular reactor (SMR) contract in the United States has prompted concerns that Gen IV nuclear may be further off than expected.

NuScale, the first new nuclear company to receive a design certificate from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for its 77 MW Power Module SMR, said in November it was terminating its Carbon Free Power Project (CFPP) with the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS).

UAMPS serves 50 community-owned power utilities in the Western United States and the CFPP, for which the Department of Energy approved $1.35 billion over 10 years subject to appropriations, was abandoned after the project failed to attract enough subscriptions.

NuScale shares tumbled 37% to less than $2 on the day of the news, November 8, and have remained largely between $2.5 and $3.5 since then. The shares hit highs of nearly $15 in August 2022 just three months after going public.

The CFPP had aimed to build NuScale SMR units at a site near Idaho Falls to be operable by 2029 though concerns arose that some at UAMPS members may be unwilling to pay for power from the project after NuScale raised the target price to $89/MWh in January, up from a previous estimate of $58/MWh.

The cancellation came shortly after another advanced reactor developer, X-Energy and special purpose acquisition company Ares Acquisition Corporation, called off a $1.8-billion deal to go public citing “challenging market conditions (and) peer company trading performance.”

The work with UAMPS had helped advance NuScale’s technology to the stage of commercial deployment, President and CEO John Hopkins said.

However, the failure of the much-anticipated proof case for advanced nuclear alongside the X-Energy market retreat left many questioning whether next generation nuclear could live up to its promises.

“Almost all these kinds of MoUs and contracts, as we saw with the NuScale contract, are just not worth the paper they’re written on. There are so many off ramps and outs for both sides and no one’s willing to expose themselves to the downside risk of projects that go way over budget cost and take too long,” says Ted Nordhaus, Founder and Executive Director of The Breakthrough Institute.

Nordhaus co-wrote a piece for The Breakthrough Institute, ‘Advanced Nuclear Energy is in Trouble’, a scathing criticism of policy efforts to commercialize advanced nuclear which, it says, to date have been entirely insufficient.

The nuclear industry was keen to ‘whistle past the graveyard’ of recent developments and efforts to commercialize the new generation of reactors ‘are simply not on track’, the Breakthrough piece said.

Mounting challenges

There are five areas that pose mounting challenges for the industry, according to Breakthrough; high interest rates and commodity prices, constrained supply chains, a regulatory regime that penalizes innovation, project costs versus system costs, and fuel production.

High interest rate and commodity costs in the last couple of years have hit the industry especially hard due to long project lead times. Nuclear supply chains are struggling to rebuild as tight regulation forces many materials to be tracked from certified mine to certified manufacturer.

The regulatory regime, meanwhile, continues to cut and paste large nuclear reactor regulations on to the small reactor designs, whether it makes sense to do so or not, Nordhaus wrote.

Delivery costs for small nuclear are relatively low due to the relatively small volumes of steel and mortar needed, but system costs must factor in safety regulation which is stricter than other types of energy projects. Proponents argue this makes it harder to compete with fossil fuels and renewables, which pay little to no cost for polluting or intermittency, the Institute says.

Advanced nuclear fuel production, meanwhile, had been outsourced to Russia for decades and is only now being hastily reassembled in the United States for the new reactors, with developers such as Terrapower forced to push delay their commercialization timelines due to a lack of fuel.

“Taken together, these developments suggest that current efforts are unlikely to be sufficient to deliver on the promise of advanced nuclear energy,” The Breakthrough Institute said.

Investor case

e

Over recent years, nuclear power has been recognized as an environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investible asset, taking its place alongside renewables in the European taxonomy and successfully raising cash through green bonds in Canada.

Such classifications allow nuclear companies to attract funds from investors looking to build increasingly popular clean energy portfolios.

Nuclear will also benefit from government schemes such as the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which is expected to subsidize new nuclear through Production Tax Credits (PTC) and Investment Tax Credits (ITC) on first-of-a-kind (FOAK) and nth-of-a-kind (NOAK) builds.

With billions of dollars earmarked for clean technologies and mounting concerns over missing emission targets, certain aspects of the nuclear industry have attracted new investors; Uranium spot prices have nearly doubled in the last year as bets are made on rising demand.

However, with all this tailwind, new nuclear has not been attracting the cash it needs. That’s partly due to developers’ lack of focus on development activities, according to Fiona Reilly, CEO of energy consultancy FiRe Energy.

“They’re so focused on the technology that they’re often not focusing on the commercial aspect. How to be more efficient, how to be more effective. What’s your risk register look like; corporate risks as well as technical risks? What’s your legal structure? Where is the money coming from?” says Reilly.

“They seem to think that if they have this great technology, then the market will finance the projects. How the project will reach financial close and make a return for investors does not always appear to be a key feature.”

The NuScale failure with UAMPS and X-Energy’s cancelled offering are just further bad signs for the market, and came just as the international nuclear community said they need to triple capacity by 2050 at the COP28 summit in Dubai.

“We’ve got to start building a mix of large and small reactors for different applications and, once we can start proving projects can be built in a commercial and efficient way, then you can start talking about targets,” says Reilly.

“You can’t set targets like these when we’re not even building the first reactors in many countries.”

January 12, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

Housing unaffordability – implications for Somerset with huge increase in nuclear workers for Hinkley Point C

EDF Energy is once again in talks with Somerset Council to negotiate an
increase in workers on the site. Cllr Leigh Redman, Bridgwater Town Council
spokesperson for Nuclear Issues, said that the original development consent
order (DCO) signed by the secretary of state, indicated that at peak the
number of workers on site would be 5,600.

This number was since raised to
8,600 due to the conversion of Pontins in Brean to become an accommodation
site for Hinkley Point C workers, which is now full. Back in November 2023,
EDF Energy approached the council to bring the workforce to over 10,000 as
the project entered its ‘peak construction phase’.

There are now over
11,000 workers at Hinkley Point C, and EDF plans to bring in more staff in
the near future. Cllr Redman said that although he appreciates the good
things EDF Energy has brought to Bridgwater, he feels people are losing out
on housing due to the company’s ‘disregard for limits set and agreed’. The
Bridgwater Town Councillor also explained that he frequently receives
messages from people struggling to find affordable properties to rent
locally, including one family of three squashed into a third floor flat
with nowhere to go.

 Bridgwater Mercury 9th Jan 2024

https://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/news/24036533.edf-talks-somerset-council-workforce-increase/

 Somerset 9th Jan 2024

https://www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk/news/24036578.edf-talks-somerset-council-workforce-increase/

January 12, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »