US Department of Energy announces a $1.2 billion fund to save America’s aged nuclear power stations
Energy Department Announces Funds for Nuclear Power Plants
MARCH 12, 2023
Both existing operational and closed facilities are receiving assistance.
The Department of Energy has announced a $1.2 billion fund dedicated to extending the life of America’s aging nuclear power plants or potentially reopening plants that have closed, expanding the reactors eligible for aid.
Secretary Jennifer Granholm said, “Preserving the domestic fleet is critical to reaching America’s clean energy future.” She said that expanding the scope of funding “will allow even more nuclear facilities the opportunity to continue operating as economic drivers in local communities that benefit from cheap [??], clean[??] and reliable power.” …………………… https://www.presidentialprayerteam.org/2023/03/12/energy-department-announces-funds-for-nuclear-power-plants/—
Why Russia has such a strong grip on Europe’s nuclear power
Why Russia Has Such a Strong Grip on Europe’s Nuclear Power. New energy
sources to replace oil and natural gas have been easier to find than
kicking the dependency on Rosatom, the state-owned nuclear superstore.
The pinched cylinders of Russian-built nuclear power plants that dot Europe’s
landscape are visible reminders of the crucial role that Russia still plays
in the continent’s energy supply.
Europe moved with startling speed to wean
itself off Russian oil and natural gas in the wake of war in Ukraine. But
breaking the longstanding dependency on Russia’s vast nuclear industry is a
much more complicated undertaking.
New York Times 10th March 2023
British government poised to label nuclear as “green”, but investors are not impressed
The British government is poised to redefine nuclear power as “green”
as it seeks to drum up more private investment in the sector to improve
domestic energy resilience. Ministers are set to consult on proposals to
change the so-called “taxonomy” — or financial classification system
— of energy in order to redefine nuclear projects as sustainable
investments. It is expected to lead to a reversal of the decision by the
Treasury as recently as 2021 to exclude nuclear power from the so-called
green investment framework.
The move echoes a decision last year by the
European Commission to label both nuclear and some forms of gas as
“green” investments, which prompted legal challenges from Greenpeace
and a coalition of WWF and Client Earth.
The consultation comes as thegovernment is set to provide about £80mn
in seed funding for the launch ofGreat British Nuclear, a new body which will
oversee plans to build a new
generation of nuclear power stations in the UK, according to two people
familiar with the negotiations. Ministers are anxious to accelerate the
programme which has been dogged by delays and cost overruns on the only new
nuclear plant under construction at Hinkley Point in Somerset. The
government, together with French state-backed utility EDF, are trying to
raise £20bn in private finance for the next power station at Sizewell in
Suffolk.
But investors have shown little interest in backing greenfield
nuclear projects, because of the construction risks in the highly
regulated, safety- critical sector. All new nuclear projects across Europe
have been hit by delays and big cost overruns.
Nick Stansbury, head of
climate solutions at Legal and General Investment Management, warned that
the changes to the taxonomy were unlikely to drive investment. Ministers
will also update their strategy for reaching net zero by 2050 after a judge
ruled last July that the original document provided insufficient detail and
gave the government a deadline to rewrite it by the end of this month. The
energy department refused to comment.
FT 9th March 2023
https://www.ft.com/content/2bef8242-d04b-47b9-84f8-b301692ea2f4
Britain’s “Regulated Asset Base” funding method for nuclear power is deemed not likely to work
National Infrastructure Commission model spells trouble for nuclear RAB
funding. Dr Jim Cuthbert questions whether the government’s funding method
for its nuclear power programme provides value for money, given it now
expects the plants to take nearly twice as long to build.
A major part of
the government’s energy strategy is a programme of eight new nuclear power
stations, to be funded by the Regulatory Asset Base (RAB) funding method.
One of the main features of RAB is that it involves consumers paying from
the start of construction for benefits they will only begin to receive when
construction is completed, and the plant is producing electricity.
One of
the key questions that should be answered in assessing whether a RAB-funded
project should go ahead is whether the eventual benefit consumers could
receive, in this case through cheaper electricity charges in the long run,
is enough to compensate them for the opportunity cost of the payments made
while receiving no benefit.
Given the long construction periods now
anticipated for new nuclear plants, it is unlikely that RAB financing will
be able to attain a sufficient cost advantage to do so. In 2019, the
National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) produced a paper on the
application of the RAB approach to nuclear energy, illustrating a
methodology including an approach to answering the above key question.
The NIC paper set out the results of illustrative calculations of the impact of
a range of factors on the likely value for money of RAB projects.
Unfortunately, it is something of a mixed bag. On the negative side, the
results in the paper are not presented in a way that allows the impact of
different factors to be separately identified: and, critically, the NIC
makes a central assumption about the likely length of the construction
period for new nuclear projects only about half of what the government now
assumes. On the plus side, having clarified with the NIC what methodology
it was using in the opportunity cost component of their model, their basic
approach seems sensible.
Although not clear from the original NIC paper,
the length of the construction period has a critical effect on the likely
value for money of a RAB-funded nuclear project. If the NIC’s basic model
is applied to a project with the government’s current assumption of a
13-to-17-year-long construction period, instead of the NIC’s central
assumption of eight years, then RAB nuclear is unlikely to achieve a
sufficient cost advantage over alternative approaches to compensate
consumers for the opportunity cost of their initial payments.
Public Finance 9th March 2023
China marketing nuclear power to Uganda
Uganda announces plans to start nuclear power generation
Energy minister says preparation ongoing to pave way for 1st nuclear power project
Hamza Kyeyune |09.03.2023,
KAMPALA, Uganda
Uganda announced Thursday it will begin construction of the country’s first nuclear facility, the Buyende Nuclear Power Plant, in partnership with China National Nuclear Corporation that would assist the East African country in developing capabilities for peaceful use of atomic energy.
Currently in Africa, only South Africa has an active nuclear power plant, while Russia’s state-owned energy corporation Rosatom commenced construction of Egypt’s first nuclear facility last year………..
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/africa/uganda-announces-plans-to-start-nuclear-power-generation/2841543
Former top U.S. admiral cashes in on nuclear sub deal with Australia
Steele-John, the Australian senator, called Richardson and other American consultants “inherently biased” and said they were primarily representing U.S., not Australian, interests
Washington Post, By Craig Whitlock and Nate Jones, March 7, 2023
In its quest to build nuclear-powered submarines, the government of Australia recently hired a little-known, one-person consulting firm from Virginia: Briny Deep.
Briny Deep, based in Alexandria, Va., received a $210,000 part-time contract in late November to advise Australian defense officials during their negotiations to acquire top-secret nuclear submarine technology from the United States and Britain, according to Australian contracting documents. U.S. public records show the company is owned by John M. Richardson, a retired four-star U.S. admiral and career submariner who headed the U.S. Navy from 2015 to 2019.
Richardson, who declined to comment, is the latest former U.S. Navy leader to cash in on the nuclear talks by working as a high-dollar consultant for the Australian government, a pattern that was revealed in a Washington Post investigation last year. His case brings to a dozen the number of retired officers and former civilian leaders from the U.S. Navy whom Australia has employed as advisers since the nuclear talks began in September 2021, documents show.
The former U.S. Navy officials are profiting from a web of sources with sometimes divergent interests. One retired U.S. admiral charges $4,000 per day to consult for the Australian government while simultaneously advising other foreign defense clients and collecting his U.S. military pension, according to records obtained by The Post under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The overlapping arrangements cast doubt on whether the U.S. consultants can provide impartial advice and raise questions about whose interests they are representing, said Jordon Steele-John, a member of the Australian Senate whose Green Party opposes the nuclear talks and has been critical of the government’s dependence on American advisers. “If you’re on the payroll of a foreign government, your advice is by definition not independent,” he said.
Under federal law, retired U.S. military personnel must obtain approval from the Pentagon and the State Department before they can accept money or jobs from foreign powers that could compromise their sworn allegiance to the United States. The law applies to retirees — generally those who served at least 20 years in uniform — because they receive a U.S. pension and can be recalled to active duty……………………………………………………………..
Vice Adm. Jonathan Mead, (above) the chief of Australia’s nuclear-powered submarine task force, told an Australian parliamentary committee last month that Richardson had been hired to provide guidance “on stewardship — that is, how to safely and securely manage nuclear technology” and on the training of naval personnel. “When we have specific tasks, questions or complex problems which come our way that we don’t have the subject matter expertise for, we reach in for his assistance,” Mead said during a Feb. 15 hearing.
……………………………….. Since his retirement from active duty, Richardson also has served on the board of directors for major companies in the defense and nuclear sectors, including Boeing, Constellation Energy and BWX Technologies. In 2021, he received more than $900,000 in compensation for his services on corporate boards, records show, plus a six-figure U.S. military pension.
……… “We’ve been very careful to make sure his advice is very specific to the questions that remain within the guidelines,” Mead said.
Steele-John, the Australian senator, called Richardson and other American consultants “inherently biased” and said they were primarily representing U.S., not Australian, interests. “Our government has been paying them handsomely for their advice,” he said. But he added that the arrangement “calls into question” any collaboration between Australia and the United States on military matters.
……………………………. One of the most prominent former officers is retired Vice Adm. William Hilarides, a career submariner who commanded the U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command until 2016. Since then, he has received consulting contracts from the Australian government worth $1.3 million, according to Australian defense officials.
He charges $4,000 per day for his consulting services, according to documents that the U.S. Navy recently released in response to The Post’s FOIA lawsuits. He has also worked for Fincantieri Marine Group, a Wisconsin shipyard company that is majority owned by the government of Italy. He did not respond to an email seeking comment.
Hilarides serves on Australia’s Naval Shipbuilding Expert Advisory Panel along with another American, retired Rear Adm. Thomas Eccles, a former chief engineer for ships and submarines for the U.S. Navy. Eccles had received consulting contracts worth about $820,000 since 2016, according to Australian defense officials………………………………………… more https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/03/07/former-top-us-admiral-cashes-nuclear-sub-deal-with-australia/
Britain’s Public Accounts Committee reveals that UK’s nuclear reactors have been a poor investment
It’s almost a year since Boris Johnson’s announcement that a new
nuclear power station will be built at Wylfa, Ynys Môn. ‘Wylfa
Newydd’ is part of the proposed new nuclear scheme, Great British Nuclear
(GBN). But GBN, if it goes ahead, will be the third generation of nuclear
reactors in the UK.
Let’s look back at the past two generations of
nuclear power stations in the UK, and see how they’ve performed, and ask
if Wylfa Newydd is really the boon for Cymru that the Tories claim it is.
As Johnson made his Wylfa announcement in April 2022, the Public Accounts
Committee (PAC) was busy finalising a report on the economic performance of
Britain’s previous, second generation of reactors. The PAC report,
entitled ‘The Future of Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors [AGRs],’ was
released just a month after Johnson’s announcement.
It revealed: hownthese retirement-age AGR reactors have been a poor investment, not serving
Britain well economically; how the estimated cost of decommissioning them
had nearly doubled since 2004, and would likely climb further; and how
these astronomical, escalating costs of decommissioning the AGR sites (now
at £23.5 billion) is being put onto UK tax-payers.
Nation Cymru 7th March 2023 https://nation.cymru/opinion/great-english-nuclear-should-wales-be-involved/
The West hasn’t gone after Russia’s nuclear energy. Here’s why
CNN, Story by Clare Sebastian 7 Mar 23
Much of Russia’s energy exports have been hit by Western sanctions since the country launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, with a notable exception — nuclear power.
Russia’s state-owned nuclear energy monopoly Rosatom, which exports and enriches uranium as well as builds nuclear power stations around the world, has been in control of Europe’s largest nuclear plant in Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia region since Russian forces seized it a year ago.
Kyiv has accused Russian forces of turning the complex into a military base and using it as cover to launch attacks, knowing that Ukraine can’t return fire without risking hitting one of the plant’s reactors……
Petro Kotin, interim president of Ukraine’s atomic energy company, Energoatom, is worried about the militarization of the plant, but also a significant reduction in the number of qualified staff on site. The Russian press service for the plant told CNN that new employees are being recruited, “which ensures [its] safe operation.”…………….
Despite what Kotin described as the rising risk of a mistake or breach of safety protocols at the Zaporizhzhia plant, and repeated calls by Kyiv for sanctions on Rosatom, the Russian company remains largely unscathed, although the United Kingdom sanctioned its top management and several subsidiaries last month, and Finland terminated a power plant deal last May.
Experts say Rosatom remains protected by the vital role it plays in global nuclear power, and the fact it can’t easily be replaced.
The problem is a “Russian doll’s worth of interlocking dependencies,” says Paul Dorfman, chair of Nuclear Consulting Group and a long-time advisor to the UK government and the nuclear industry.
To start with, Rosatom is a key exporter of nuclear fuel. In 2021, the United States relied on the Russian nuclear monopoly for 14% of the uranium that powered its nuclear reactors. European utilities bought almost a fifth of their nuclear fuel from Rosatom. According to Dorfman, the European Union has made little progress since weaning itself off Russia’s nuclear industry.
Rosatom also provides enrichment services, accounting for 28% of what the United States required in 2021.
It has built numerous nuclear plants around the world and in some cases financed their construction. At the end of 2021, almost one in five of the world’s nuclear power plants were in Russia or Russian-built, and Rosatom is building 15 more outside of Russia, according to Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.
Kacper Szulecki, a research professor at the Norwegian Institute of International affairs, says the cost of building a nuclear power plant is so high that it can only be financed by governments, and in some cases even they can’t afford it. In those cases, Rosatom has often stepped in, offering credit lines guaranteed by the Russian government and in some cases long-term contracts to provide fuel for or even run the plant.
Szulecki, who co-authored a recent paper on Russia’s nuclear industry, says the most extreme of these kinds of deals is the build-own-operate model. It was first used by Rosatom with Turkey’s Akkuyu power plant, which the corporation is building, fully financing and has committed to operating for its entire lifetime.
The Akkuyu nuclear power plant as its construction continues in November 2022 – Serkan Avci/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
Such dependency can trump other considerations. For example, Hungary has been the European Union’s most vocal opponent of sanctions on Rosatom. It is also one of only several EU countries that rely on nuclear energy for more than 40% of their electricity and it has a long-term financing deal with Rosatom to build a nuclear power plant.
Experts say finding new suppliers to replace Rosatom in the global nuclear industry would take years.
That may be why, far from deterring future customers, Rosatom’s occupation of the Zaporizhzhia plant has coincided with growth in the company’s foreign revenue. Its Director General Aleksey Likhachev told Russian newspaper Izvestiya in December that overseas revenue was on track to rise by about 15% in 2022 compared with 2021.
For his part, Kotin at Energoatom believes Rosatom is maintaining the equipment at the plant so poorly that the Russian occupation may cause irreversible damage.
If it continues for another year, “then I’m sure we won’t be able to restart this plant,” he said…………. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/the-west-hasn-t-gone-after-russia-s-nuclear-energy-here-s-why/ar-AA18hEL7?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=5ec87a4e668849fcb11470dd5d1a6c35&ei=14
Rolls-Royce Small Modular Reactor project running out of cash
3 March 2023 https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsrolls-royce-smr-faces-financial-problems-10648145
UK-based Rolls-Royce SMR says its £500m ($600m) small modular reactor (SMR) programme will run out of cash by the end of 2024, Reuters has reported. Alastair Evans, Government & Corporate Affairs Director at Rolls-Royce SMR noted: “We aren’t asking the government to make an order (for the nuclear units) today but we need to start negotiations on a deployment plan by the middle of this year. We are facing a cliff edge, by December 2024 the money will have run out.” This would put at risk UK government plans to use SMRs to boost energy security and achieve climate targets.
The 470 MWe Rolls-Royce SMR design is based on a small pressurised water reactor. The design was accepted for Generic Design Assessment review in March 2022 and Rolls-Royce SMR expects to receive UK regulatory approval by mid-2024. A Rolls-Royce-led UK SMR consortium aims to build 16 SMRs. The consortium – which includes Assystem, Atkins, BAM Nuttall, Jacobs, Laing O’Rourke, National Nuclear Laboratory, the Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre and TWI – expects to complete its first unit in the early 2030s and build up to 10 by 2035.
Rolls-Royce’s SMR development business received a commitment of £210m from the UK government in 2021 but talks on how the projects would be funded are yet to start. Rolls-Royce’s new CEO Tufan Erginbilgic said recently that there was a sense of urgency in its engagement with government. “We built a capable team (and) without any project, sustaining that team will be a big challenge,” he told reporters after the group published full-year results. He noted that it was vital to move quickly, given that rival companies were developing similar technology.
“It is important that we engage therefore with the UK government urgently, and for a project that we can deploy as soon as possible,” he said. Rolls Royce and shareholders in the SMR business – advisory firm BNF Resources Ltd, US Energy company Constellation and Qatar Investment Authority have invested a total of around £280m.
This and the government money have been used to build the business, which employs some 600 staff across Derby, Warrington and Manchester. The funds have enabled it to start the regulatory process to approve the reactor design and identify sites for plants and factories. In November 2022, Rolls-Royce identified four sites with the potential to deploy multiple SMR units: Trawsfynydd (requiring agreement with Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) – and the Welsh Government); Sellafield (NDA land availability to be confirmed); Wylfa-South (requiring agreement with Horizon Nuclear Power); and Oldbury-North (also requiring agreement with Horizon Nuclear Power).
Rolls-Royce hopes to build the reactors in UK factories. In July 2022, the company announced six potential locations for the factory, shortlisted from more than 100 submissions from local enterprise partnerships and development agencies. They were: Sunderland in Tyne and Wear, Richmond in North Yorkshire, Deeside in Wales, Ferrybridge in Yorkshire, Stallingborough in Lincolnshire and Carlisle in Cumbria. David White, newly appointed Chief Operating Officer of Rolls-Royce SMR, said another two locations – Shotton in Deeside (Wales) and Teesworks in Redcar (North East) – had been added to the list.
France Sees ‘No Problem’ Funding Macron’s New Nuclear Reactors
By Ania Nussbaum https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-01/france-sees-no-problem-funding-macron-s-new-nuclear-reactors#xj4y7vzkg
French President Emmanuel Macron’s government sees “no problem” funding the six new nuclear reactors he has proposed building, a project that by one estimate could cost at least €51 billion ($54 billion).
We trust the nuclear industry, there’s no difficulty ahead to fund nuclear reactors announced by the president,” government spokesman Olivier Veran said after a cabinet meeting on Wednesday. “The funding framework will be introduced, believe me, there’s no problem.”
Macron last year made a U-turn on a previous pledge to cut back France’s reliance on nuclear energy by promising to build at least six new nuclear reactors slated to enter into service from 2035, and up to 14 reactors in total. France gets about 70% of its electricity from nuclear power.
Luc Remont, the chief executive of electricity utility Electricite de France SA, which operates the country’s nuclear reactors, told lawmakers during a hearing on Tuesday that the construction of the six reactors would cost at least €51 billion, cautioning that that was just a “rough estimate.”
EDF is being nationalized by the government, and Remont said the company can’t bear the cost of the new reactors by itself, suggesting the state would have to step in.
Earlier this week, Macron called for the European Investment Bank to invest in low-carbon energy, including nuclear power. On Wednesday, his minister for energy transition, Agnes Pannier-Runacher, who is trying to build an alliance of pro-nuclear countries to weigh in on European Union negotiations, said the funding of future nuclear reactors would be presented by the end of the year. She ruled out higher taxes.
The Dream of NuScale Small Nuclear Reactors Hangs in the Balance
Wired, 27 Feb 23
A cluster of reactors that are just 9 feet in diameter is supposed to start a nuclear energy resurgence. Mounting costs may doom the project.
JORDAN GARCIA, A deputy utilities manager in Los Alamos, New Mexico, is facing an energy crunch that is typical in the American West. For decades, the county-run utility relied on a cheap and steady mix of coal and hydroelectric power. But the region’s dams are aging and drought-parched, and its coal plants are slated to retire.
The county is aiming to fully decarbonize its grid by 2040, and the city has been tapping more solar lately, but batteries are arriving slowly, and Garcia worries about heat waves that strain the grid after the sun goes down. Wind power? He’d take more of it. But there aren’t enough wires stretching from the state’s windy eastern plains to the mesa-top community. “For us it’s pretty dire,” he says.
For the past few years, Garcia has been counting on a unique nuclear experiment to come to the rescue. In 2017, Los Alamos signed up to join a group of other local utilities as an anchor customer of the first small modular reactors, or SMRs, in the US, created by a company called NuScale. The design, which calls for reactors only 9 feet in diameter, had never been built before, but the initial cluster planned in Idaho Falls, Idaho, was promised to be much cheaper than a full-scale reactor and to offer affordable carbon-free energy 24/7.
To Garcia, this felt like a homecoming. Los Alamos, a town with the motto “Where discoveries are made,” is the birthplace of the atom bomb, and experimental reactors ran not far from downtown for much of the 20th century. But it had never actually used nuclear power to keep the lights on.
This month, Los Alamos and other local utilities across the West were facing a weighty decision: whether to pull the plug on their nuclear dream. NuScale had informed members of the group, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, or UAMPS, that the estimated costs of building the six 77-MW reactors had risen by more than 50 percent to $9.3 billion. For Garcia, that translated into a jump in the cost of energy from $58 to $89 per megawatt-hour.
…………… Without extra subsidies from the new Inflation Reduction Act—on top of $1.4 billion already committed to the project by the US Department of Energy—the price to energy users in places like Los Alamos would have doubled.
…………. The project’s power output is only 20 percent subscribed, and UAMPS says it will need to reach 80 percent for planning and construction to proceed next year.
Many a “nuclear renaissance” has fizzled.
…………….. Only two [large nuclear] reactors are being built in the US: a pair of 1100-MW units at the Vogtle plant in Georgia, now seven years delayed and $20 billion over their $14 billion budget.
NuScale hopes its smaller reactors can avoid that fate……… Last month, the company was the first of dozens of companies working on SMRs to have a design approved by US regulators. That makes NuScale first in the race to leap from a “paper napkin” reactor, as critics sometimes deride SMRs, to a real one, though the Idaho project involves a revised design that will need its own approval.
The project has hit roadblocks before. It began with 36 utilities signed on, but that number has fluctuated and dropped to 27 last year. In 2020, several municipal utilities dropped out in response to a construction delay and cost increases. Some later rejoined the project after the US Department of Energy upped its commitment to offset some of the costs.
Critics say those price revisions are a sign SMRs are heading down the same path as projects like Vogtle. For nearly a century, the nuclear power industry’s mantra was that building bigger plants would drive down costs. While existing plants aged and new construction withered, SMR companies began promoting a different philosophy, says David Schlissel, an analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Fiscal Analysis, claiming that constructing many small reactors would teach builders how to make them more cheaply.
But the evidence for progress is flimsy, says Schlissel, who notes that his 50-year career has spanned many a “nuclear renaissance” that fizzled. When that philosophy was applied in France, where dozens of reactors were built in the 1980s, costs still increased. Claims that “modularity” will help make construction construction more efficient are also suspect, he adds. The new Vogtle reactors involved nearly 1,500 “modular” components that were largely constructed offsite.
Schlissel also believes that NuScale’s current estimates are rosy because they rely on the approval of its newer design that uses less steel, one of the materials driving the cost increases. But regulators may not back that approach, he says. Towns should get out while they can, he advises, before costs climb higher still, and seek out alternatives like geothermal and battery storage. “Let the buyer beware,” he says.
……………….. officials in Morgan, Utah, a small town in the Wasatch Mountains north of Salt Lake City, decided to make a quick exit from the project…….
This year, the city realized it had new alternatives to the rising costs of nuclear power. While the Inflation Reduction Act is expected to help offset the costs of the Idaho plant, it also includes funds to help rural communities start their own energy projects. Bailey wants the city to become more self-reliant, installing its own solar panels and batteries that reserve power overnight.
In this round, Morgan was the only defector, though another Utah city, Parowan, reduced its commitment from 3 MW to 2 MW—just enough to cover the loss of its coal power. But the new agreement with utilities, negotiated during a two-day meeting with UAMPS members this winter, sets the project under a ticking clock. It includes requirements that the price hold steady at $89 per megawatt-hour, and—most worrying to utilities that want the project to succeed—that the project be at least 80 percent subscribed by next year. If it doesn’t hit that threshold, towns will get a refund on most of their expenses so far.
At this point, the utilities have sunk relatively little of their own money into the project, but that will change in 2024 as the project begins to seek site-specific building approvals followed by actual construction. To get the project fully subscribed, the group is talking with utilities elsewhere in the Northwest, where NuScale is competing with other SMR startups, including the Bill Gates–backed TerraPower, which recently signed a feasibility agreement with PacifiCorp, a private utility. Webb of UAMPS says he is optimistic about where the negotiations are headed.
…………………….. For now, the Los Alamos county council voted to formalize a long-planned increase of their share of the NuScale plant’s power, from 1.8 MW to 8.6 MW. Garcia hopes it will help encourage other utilities to take a chance on sparking a nuclear renaissance. https://www.wired.com/story/the-dream-of-mini-nuclear-plants-hangs-in-the-balance/—
South Korea, France keen to sell nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia (no connection with nuclear weapons OF COURSE!)
Saudi Arabia moves forward with bids for nuclear plant
The kingdom has received bids to build its first nuclear power plant and South Korea is reportedly expressing interest.
AL-MONITOR, February 27, 2023
Saudi Arabia is progressing with its plans to build its first nuclear power plant and has received a number of bids.
The Saudi Ministry of Finance’s 2023 budget statement published Feb. 15 notes that bids to build the plant were received last December, reported the Dubai-based business intelligence outlet Middle East Economic Digest on Monday.
Background: Saudi Arabia has had an interest in nuclear power for decades. The kingdom was a major investor in Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program that began in the 1970s, for example. In 2009, the late Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz told the Obama administration that the country would obtain nuclear weapons of its own if Iran were to do so. In 2018, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said the same thing to the US news outlet CBS.
More recently, Saudi Arabia has been considering developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. In 2018, the Saudi government announced its intention to add nuclear power to its energy mix.
Saudi Arabia’s nuclear ambitions have been gaining momentum. Korea JoongAng Daily reported in November that South Korea was interested in building Saudi Arabia’s first nuclear power plant.
Last December, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) held a nuclear law workshop with Saudi officials in Riyadh. The IAEA’s purpose was to “support the implementation of its nuclear energy program in a safe, secure and transparent manner,” according to a press release.
In early February, Saudi Arabia signed a memorandum of understanding with France on energy cooperation. The memo noted nuclear energy as well as hydrogen and electricity interconnection, the official Saudi Press Agency reported……………… https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2023/02/saudi-arabia-moves-forward-bids-nuclear-plant#ixzz7uaRVErTd
Nuclear weapons consortium enthusiastically revving up their business.
Nuclear weapons consortium faces new global threats, JIM CARRIER S The Gazette, Feb 26, 2023
WASHINGTON • Thirty years after the Cold War, the United States is again running in a nuclear arms race.
Officially, no one calls it a race. It is contest between four or five adversaries who could destroy the world, or much of it. But it is shaping up to be a costly, unpredictable, generational competition that will shadow international nuclear geopolitics for decades.
Team USA, which is leading the pack at the moment, gathered in a hotel ballroom in Alexandria, Va., Feb. 14 to hear how it can win. The forum was the 15th Nuclear Deterrence Summit, a gathering of people employed by the “nuclear security enterprise,” the complex of laboratories, factories, corporations and federal branches that make and use nuclear weapons.
The atmosphere was by turns alarming and auspicious as contractors, who operate most of the nuclear enterprise and employ 95% of its 70,000 employees, heard of the growing threats to U.S. security, while contemplating lucrative federal contracts to counter those threats.
“Delivery of mission is becoming paramount while the fiscal environment is evolving from being cost-constrained to being cost-conscious,” reported a new study of the enterprise.
The result of that shift is clear: The first millions of trillions of dollars are flowing toward labs and factories that are designing, and starting to build, new thermonuclear bombs and new fleets of missiles, airplanes and submarines to deliver them.
For the 531 people in attendance the summit at times resembled a pep rally.
In a keynote address, Jill Hruby, administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), described the U.S. buildup as a “renaissance.”
Nuclear weapons remain the “cornerstone of national defense,” she said. The current stockpile of 3,750 aging warheads — down from more than 31,000 at the height of the Cold War in the mid-1960s — is being “modernized.” They include five existing warheads for gravity bombs, Minuteman and cruise missiles, and the Trident missile for new Columbia-class submarines, now being built. One warhead, the W93, is a new design for the Sentinel, a new intercontinental ballistic missile that will replace the Minuteman III missiles in silos in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota.
To make that warhead, the U.S. will again make plutonium “pits,” the core of hydrogen thermonuclear bombs, at a remodeled plant in Los Alamos, N.M., and a new $10 billion plant in Savannah River, Ga.
The pit factories, which replace the infamous and now cleared from the landscape Rocky Flats factory outside Denver, are still being designed, and are the subject of lawsuits by activist groups who say the government sidestepped required full environmental impact statements. If they become operational, Los Alamos will make 30 pits a year starting in 2026 and Savannah River 50 pits a year — a number that is likely to grow, Hruby said.
In the next five years NNSA, a semi-autonomous agency within the U.S. Department of Energy responsible for applying nuclear science to military weapons, plans to complete five warhead modernizations, build at least six major construction projects and rebuild numerous facilities and capabilities that have “atrophied or disappeared” since the Cold War, she said. Many of the plants and labs are still cleaning up deadly contamination left from the Cold War.
“The American people are hearing more about nuclear issues than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis, or the collapse of the Soviet Union,” Hruby said.
At the conclusion of her talk, which began at 8:30 a.m. on Valentine’s Day, moderator DJ Johnson, vice president of Honeywell’s Federal Solutions Business Enterprise, prompted the audience like a cheerleader………………
The audience applauded, a bit halting at first, perhaps because of two sobering messages that accompanied NNSA’s accomplishments. The first involved new international threats that in the last year shattered the foundations of nonproliferation treaties and the delicate balance of power and peace that had prevailed since the 1960s:………………………………………………………………………….
The second sobering message involved the enterprise’s brain deficit. Last year, the complex hired 11,000 people, but lost 7,000……………
Attrition at some plants is as high as 10% a year, nearly a third of the federal overseers are nearing retirement and 40% of the workforce has less than five years’ experience……………….
As the 500 enterprise employee met and contemplated a future full of nuclear weapons, two men stood across the street from the hotel, holding hand-painted signs. “Nuclear Weapons are illegal,” said one. “The World Wants Nuclear Disarmament,” said the other.
Seoul aims to use strengthened US ties to expand nuclear plant exports
The Yoon Suk Yeol administration has scrapped the former Moon Jae-in administration’s nuclear phase-out policy based on the view that nuclear power is essential for the long-term sustainability of South Korea’s economy and its nuclear power industry
Settlement between Westinghouse and KEPCO is necessary for Washington-Seoul to expand alliance into nuclear energy
Korea Times, By Kim Yoo-chul 26 Feb 23,
Unlike the previous Moon Jae-in administration, President Yoon Suk Yeol and his foreign affairs team are clearly aiming to grow South Korea into a pivotal state given Seoul’s competitive standing to increase interoperability among a range of partners, specifically in the Indo-Pacific region.
This policy drive is backed by his administration’s concerted backing of Washington’s various protectionist industrial policies and regional security agenda items.
South Korea’s support of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), CHIPS and Science Act, the country’s participation in a U.S.-initiated Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) and Chip 4 alliance are the examples signifying Seoul’s shift toward U.S. policies………………………….
Seoul’s backing of [U.S. President Joe] Biden’s signature industrial and regional security policies illustrates the fact that the country is prepared to withstand any economic and political costs by raising its profile as an advocate of major policy initiatives outlined and being managed by the U.S.’ partners and its like-minded allies,” a senior government official said in a telephone interview, adding that the majority of his comments do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of South Korea.
Despite Seoul maintaining strategic cooperation with Beijing given its heavy reliance on the Chinese market _ China is the largest trading partner of South Korea _ and China’s huge political influence on North Korea, the Yoon administration’s apparent shift in position favoring the Biden administration’s moves to revive U.S. manufacturing, has so far been successful……………………………………..
Now, as the Biden administration has set its sights on boosting U.S. energy independence, the Yoon administration is hoping to expand its alliance with Washington into nuclear energy, in addition to batteries and chips, security analysts and company officials said.
SMRs emerge as option, legal troubles
The prime goal of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is aimed at addressing rising inflation. However, the IRA also includes several tax incentives for clean energy technologies including advanced small modular reactors (SMRs). This means the IRA will possibly become a game changer for Washington’s participation in the new energy economy……………………
the IRA will have profound effects on South Korean nuclear energy and reactor companies, because they are in a better position to become one of the top beneficiaries of the act,” a trade ministry official said by telephone.
The Yoon Suk Yeol administration has scrapped the former Moon Jae-in administration’s nuclear phase-out policy based on the view that nuclear power is essential for the long-term sustainability of South Korea’s economy and its nuclear power industry. There are hopes that Yoon might reach a consensus with his U.S. counterpart on the sidelines of the Korean leader’s scheduled state-visit to the White House in late April to expand the Washington-Seoul alliance in the area of SMRs, industry sources told The Korea Times………….
U.S.-based Westinghouse and KEPCO, alongside KEPCO’s subsidiary Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP), are involved in negotiations over their legal dispute after the U.S. company filed a lawsuit against KHNP in a U.S. federal court to block it from selling reactors to Poland. KEPCO and its subsidiary, KHNP, have been accused of infringing on Westinghouse’s intellectual property rights and Washington’s nuclear export controls.
“Reaching a settlement is highly likely before Yoon’s visit to the U.S. Westinghouse and KEPCO, along with KHNP, have until March 17 this year to address their legal issues. As nuclear technologies have also become a security issue, all parties involved in the legal dispute will have to find a compromise under the principle of reciprocity that won’t hurt national interests,” said Seok Kwang-hoon, a senior analyst at Energy Transition Korea. Westinghouse officials were not immediately available for comment.
“Westinghouse itself has no question about the significance of its commercial partnership with South Korea given the country’s supply chains for future AP1000 nuclear reactors. That means if the ongoing settlement negotiations fail, then this will impact Seoul’s efforts to win reactor deals from Poland and the Czech Republic, the countries categorized as South Korea’s target markets. It’s a plausible idea for South Korean companies to acquire Westinghouse’s property rights,” said Kim Sang-tae, a professor of nuclear engineering at Hanyang University in Seoul. https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2023/02/419_346075.html
Cost of EDF’s new UK nuclear project rises to $40 billion (msn.com).
By America Hernandez, 21 Feb 23 PARIS (Reuters) – EDF’s new nuclear plant in southwest England is likely to cost about 2% more than its last budget estimate as inflation propels the price tag to almost 33 billion pounds ($40 billion), EDF documents show.
Britain plans to build new nuclear plants to boost its energy security and help meet a target for net zero emissions by 2050.
EDF warned in a results presentation on Friday the cost of the Hinkley Point C project, Britain’s first new nuclear plant in more than two decades, “could reach 32.7 billion pounds” based on inflation indexes as of June 30, 2022.
Its previously published cost estimate in May 2022 was 31-32 billion euros when adjusted for inflation.
PARIS (Reuters) – EDF’s new nuclear plant in southwest England is likely to cost about 2% more than its last budget estimate as inflation propels the price tag to almost 33 billion pounds ($40 billion), EDF documents show.
Britain plans to build new nuclear plants to boost its energy security and help meet a target for net zero emissions by 2050.
EDF warned in a results presentation on Friday the cost of the Hinkley Point C project, Britain’s first new nuclear plant in more than two decades, “could reach 32.7 billion pounds” based on inflation indexes as of June 30, 2022.
Its previously published cost estimate in May 2022 was 31-32 billion euros when adjusted for inflation. https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/other/cost-of-edf-s-new-uk-nuclear-project-rises-to-40-billion/ar-AA17IxdK?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a11054ac2c0c487f9a20627240342227
1 This Month
4 August – WEBINAR – Hiroshima & Nagasaki: Nuclear Bombs Never Again
Tuesday, Aug. 4 at 5 pm PT / 8 pm ET.
Aug 5, 2026 10:00 AM in Australia/Melbourne
Join the Nuclear Bombs Never Again webinar on August 4th at 5pm Pacific Time / 8pm Eastern Time / 9am Japan Standard Time.
Cross generational voices at the intersection of Japan-Korea-US policy and militarization will share their lived experiences, nuclear impacts in these contexts, anti-war strategies, and actions you can take to advocate for a world with Nuclear Bombs Never Again. This 75-minute event is co-hosted by WILPF US and Korea Peace Now.
22,000+ miles voyaging for nuclear disarmament
and a radiation-free environment https://vfpgoldenruleproject.org/
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- July 2026 (309)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 