America’s nuclear industry in bed with safety regulators – can Biden fix this?
|
Biden can rescue the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from industry capture, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, By Frank N. von Hippel | January 27, 2021 Over the past two decades, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has been captured by the nuclear power companies it is supposed to regulate. The process of capture and resulting erosion of regulation has been driven in part by the increasingly poor economics of nuclear energy as companies struggle to avoid large costs due to additional safety measures. However, the path has been laid to a potential disaster. The consequences of a severe nuclear accident in the US could potentially be 100 times worse than the 2011 Fukushima accident (Figure 1). The Biden administration has an opportunity to turn the situation around, but it is important to understand the problem.
Nuclear power is struggling economically in the United States. Nuclear power is declining— especially in states hosting about half of US nuclear capacity, where nuclear power plants have to compete with natural gas, photovoltaic, and wind-energy power plants. In Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, and Illinois, nuclear utilities have persuaded state legislatures to mandate subsidies averaging about $100 million per reactor per year to keep reactors on line. One justification has been that nuclear power is climate friendly and therefore should be subsidized as solar and wind power have been. Another locally important argument has been to preserve about 1,000 jobs per reactor. Finally, in Ohio and Illinois, utility bribes to legislature leaders are being investigated. In the absence of such subsidies, in 2019, nuclear power plants were shut down for economic reasons in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. In 2020, the Indian Point 2 reactor in New York was shut down because Governor Cuomo considered its location near New York City to be dangerous and excluded it from the state subsidy deal. Indian Point 3, the remaining reactor operating on the site, will be shut down in 2021. A reactor in Iowa, was also shut down in 2020 because of storm damage that was deemed too costly to repair. In Illinois, Exelon, the nation’s largest nuclear operator, has threatened to shut down in 2021 four reactors that were not included in the state subsidy deal. In regulated markets, where state regulators guarantee utilities that they will be able to recoup their investment and operating costs plus an agreed profit, most existing nuclear power plants are continuing to operate. One exception is California, where Pacific Gas & Electric decided to shut down the state’s last two nuclear power reactors in 2024 and 2025 because they “would be uneconomical to run in the near future.” That is the situation for existing reactors. The economic situation for new nuclear reactors is much worse because they have to pay off their high capital costs in additional to their operating costs. As a result, since the 1970s, there have been only two efforts in the US to launch construction of new power reactors. In 2008. nuclear utilities in the adjoining states of South Carolina and Georgia contracted to build a pair of new nuclear power reactors in each of those states. These decisions were facilitated by state regulators allowing the companies to charge their customers for a substantial part of the capital cost during construction. In addition, the US Energy Department guaranteed $12 billion in loans for the Georgia plant, enabling it to obtain low-interest credit. In 2017, however, the South Carolina project was abandoned due to huge cost overruns and schedule slippages. The project in Georgia continues despite a doubling of its estimated cost and at a delay of at least five years in its completion. These adverse developments caused the bankruptcy of Westinghouse Electric Co., the world’s leading designer of nuclear power plants in the 1970s. Given this history, it is generally agreed that US utilities are unlikely to make significant new investments in nuclear power. This is true despite the claims of advocates for “advanced” sodium-cooled and molten-salt reactors. Although beloved by some nuclear engineers, these are designs from the 1960s that were abandoned because they could not compete with the water-cooled reactors that dominate nuclear power today. Similarly, the “small modular reactors” that the US Department of Energy has been promoting for the past decade also appear to be noncompetitive. For the foreseeable future, therefore, the contribution of nuclear power to the US electricity supply will be almost entirely from the existing fleet of reactors. Even though the oldest US power reactor has only operated for 51 years, and the 11 power reactors that shut down during the past decade were all less than 50 years old, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has already begun to extend the licenses of US nuclear power plants to 80 years of operation ……..Risk-informed regulation or deregulation? Our protection against future accidents depends on expert and vigilant regulation. Unfortunately, as with the Federal Aviation Administration, which was captured by Boeing, resulting in the avoidable crashes of two new Boeing 737-MAX aircraft in 2018 and 2019, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission too is currently compromised by the industry it regulates. Because of the industry’s economic situation, the NRC has been pressed by its congressional overseers and the nuclear industry not to mandate costly safety upgrades such as those costing more than a billion dollars per reactor that regulators in France and Japan required after the Fukushima-Daiichi accident. “Risk-informed regulation” is the way in which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has justified avoiding imposing costly upgrades. It basically involves doing a cost-benefit analysis for any proposed new safety regulation for already-licensed nuclear power plants. The costs considered are those that would be incurred by the nuclear utilities if the safety improvement were required. The benefits are the projected reductions of the probability-weighted number of cancer deaths and losses of property due to accidents. One problem with risk-informed regulation is that probability calculations for major accidents are very uncertain and subject to arbitrary assumptions. An example is the commission’s decision to assume that there is zero probability that terrorists could cause a large release because regulatory requirements have been established for protections against terrorist attack: Because various studies and regulatory changes implemented following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have considered security issues associated with [spent fuel pools], malevolent acts are not included in this analysis. On the basis of that logic, the probability of criminal acts should be zero because we have crime-prevention programs, Major errors in consequence calculations also are buried in the commission’s massive, opaque regulatory analyses. For example, the commission underestimated by more than an order of magnitude the economic losses due to a release of radioactivity from a spent fuel fire 100 times larger than that from the Fukushima accident by: 1) only taking into account losses within a 50-miles radius (see Figure 1); 2 on original) secretly increasing the threshold contamination level for long-term population relocation by a factor of three in its consequence calculations; and 3) assuming that huge areas could be decontaminated within a year, in complete disregard to actual post-Fukushima experience in Japan. Correction of these errors would have increased the estimated average cost of a spent fuel pool fire in the United States to about $2 trillion and forced the commission to end its unsafe practice of allowing US nuclear utilities to dense-pack their spent fuel pools up to five times their original design capacity. The opaqueness of the cost-benefit analyses—along with assumptions such as those above that the commission refuses to change when challenged—suggests that these analyses may be deliberately skewed to avoid requiring nuclear power plant operators to make costly investments in safety at a time when many plants are in a precarious economic situation. That suspicion is consistent with an account of the origin of risk-informed regulation given by former US Sen. Pete Domenici in his 2004 memoir, A Brighter Tomorrow: Fulfilling the Promise of Nuclear Energy………….. When the commission’s staff urged that, despite the results of the cost-benefit analysis, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should require the improvements because of “the importance of containment systems within the [commission’s] defense-in-depth philosophy,” the nuclear industry mobilized a furious letter of opposition from the Republican majority of the House oversight committee and the majority on the commission voted against the staff recommendation. Under the Trump administration, the commission moved further toward industry self-regulation………….. In response to the commission’s request, the plant operators of 55 of the 61 US nuclear power plants reported that their plants faced flood heights beyond those they had been designed against. But upgrades in seismic and flood protection could be costly, and some plants might close down if required to make those investments. The Trump-appointed commission majority overruled the staff and decided that any upgrades would be voluntary, not compulsory……… Rescuing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Biden administration has an opportunity to fix this situation. After President Biden won the election, NRC Chair Christine Svinicki announced she would resign on his inauguration day, sparing herself the indignity of being replaced as chair as President Trump had replaced her predecessor three days after Trump’s inauguration. This left the 5-person commission with both a vacancy and a need for a new chair. As a first step, President Biden appointed one of the Democratic commissioners, Christopher Hanson, as chair. With regard to the vacancy, by statute, no more than three members of the commission can be from the same party. Of the remaining four commissioners, two are Democrat and two are Republican appointees. The president therefore can fill the vacancy. With a knowledgeable and independent nominee, the NRC could be put back in the middle of the regulatory road. Commissioners are subject to Senate confirmation, however, and if the nuclear utilities deem a candidate to be anti–nuclear energy, industry opposition could make confirmation impossible. It is therefore important to find a nominee for the next vacancy who is knowledgeable but cannot be credibly attacked by the industry as “anti-nuclear.” At the same time, however, the Biden administration should not lean over backward—as some previous administrations have—and require advance clearance for its nominee from the nuclear industry. It is critical that the US have an independent and credible Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Historically, the NRC has had a strong staff and should be able to recover from the anti-regulatory bias of its recent majority. If there is a new leadership that is willing to endorse real safety improvements while avoiding to the extent possible accelerating the demise of the industry, the staff will support it. Informing regulatory decisions with cost-benefit analyses can be part of the process, but the biases that have been built into the process will have to be fixed, and the large uncertainties in estimates of the probabilities of low-frequency events will have to be taken into account in the policy-making process https://thebulletin.org/2021/01/biden-can-rescue-the-nuclear-regulatory-commission-from-industry-capture/ |
|
It is all over for Britain’s £20bn Wylfa nuclear project
Wylfa: End for £20bn nuclear plant bid as plans ditched, It is all over for the £20bn project to build a new nuclear power plant on Anglesey, after developers dropped their planning bid.
Horizon Nuclear Power has pulled a request to approve reactor designs at Wylfa, blaming UK government funding options as one reason.
Japanese backers Hitachi pulled out of the development last September.
Another firm has since unveiled plans for a smaller hybrid nuclear and wind plant on a separate site at Wylfa.
The Development Consent Order (DCO) process, which is the name given to planning applications for major UK infrastructure projects such as Wylfa, has been under consideration since June 2018.
A decision was due to be made on the plan by the UK’s business and energy secretary at the end of April, following a series of requests by Horizon to extend the process while it held talks with other interested parties.
But Horizon has now written to the Planning Inspectorate and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, confirming the end of the troubled project.
Its letter said negotiations on the future of Wylfa had been “positive and encouraging”.
However, it added: “They have not, unfortunately, led to any definitive proposal that would have allowed the transfer to some new development entity.
“In light of this and in the absence of a new funding policy from HM Government, Hitachi Ltd., has taken the decision to wind-up Horizon as an active development entity by 31 March 2021.
“As a result, we must now, regretfully, withdraw the application.”…… https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-55833186
Why Samantha Power should not hold public office in USA administration
|
JANUARY 27, 2021 BY DAVIDSWANSON https://davidswanson.org/why-samantha-power-should-not-hold-public-office/ It took a variety of approaches to market the 2003 war on Iraq. For some it was to be a defense against an imagined threat. For others it was false revenge. But for Samantha Power it was philanthropy. She said at the time, “An American intervention likely will improve the lives of the Iraqis. Their lives could not get worse, I think it’s quite safe to say.” Needless to say, it wasn’t safe to say that.Did Power learn a lesson? No, she went on to promote a war on Libya, which proved disastrous.
Then did she learn? No, she took an explicit position against learning, publicly arguing for the duty not to dwell on the results in Libya as that might impede willingness to wage war on Syria. Samantha Power may never learn, but we can. We can stop allowing her to hold public office. We can tell every U.S. Senator to reject her nomination to lead the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Samantha Power, as “Human Rights Director” at the National Security Council and Ambassador to the United Nations, supported the U.S.-Saudi war on Yemen and Israeli attacks on Palestine, denouncing criticisms of Israel and helping block international responses to the attacks on Yemen. Power has been a major proponent of hostility toward Russia and of unfounded and exaggerated allegations against Russia. Power has, in lengthy articles and books, shown remarkably little (if any) regret for all the wars she’s promoted, choosing instead to focus on her regret for missed opportunities for wars that didn’t happen, especially in Rwanda — which she misleadingly depicts as a situation not caused by militarism, but in which a military attack would have supposedly reduced rather than increased suffering. We don’t need war advocates who use more humanitarian language. We need peace advocates. President Biden has nominated a far less enthusiastic war proponent than usual to direct the CIA, but it’s not clear how much that will matter if Power is running USAID. According to Allen Weinstein, a co-founder of the National Endowment for Democracy, an organization funded by USAID, “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” USAID has financed efforts aimed at overthrowing governments in Ukraine, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. The last thing we need right now is a USAID run by a habitual “intervener.” Here’s a link to an online email-your-senators campaign to reject Samantha Power. |
|
Bradwell: UK’s ill-conceived nuclear project, with cronyism and vested interests, will damage environment.
Bradwell B Action Network 24th Jan 2021, Appeal to Prime Minster, Foreign and Energy Ministers, selected MP’s and Essex County Councillors to Reconsider Chinese State Plans for Essex Nuclear Power Plant by local community. Bradwell B Action Network (BAN), a front-line grass roots campaign organisation, sent a strong message to the Prime Minster and other representatives including the government energy andforeign ministers and their opposites, pointing out a broad range of concerns and urging them to take immediate action to halt CGN’s plans for the Bradwell B nuclear plant.
State owned CGN are planning to build and operate. The site, at Bradwell on Sea, Essex is also within 30km range of large urban populations to the North, West and South. Despite UK security services raising concerns over the plans, consecutive Conservative governments have chosen to ignore the threats and allow CGN to pursue this ill-conceived project.
More than half of public supports UK joining UN ban on nuclear weapons.
The National 22nd Jan 2021, More than half of public supports UK joining UN ban on nuclear weapons.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19029821.half-public-supports-uk-joining-un-ban-nuclear-weapons/
So called “Improved” process for Cumbrian nuclear waste dump removes local right of veto

Keep Cumbrian Coal in the Hole 21st Jan 2021 Copeland “Working Group” along with Allerdale “Working Group” are ostensibly the “local support” for a Geological Disposal Facility in Cumbria. They are enthusiastically going along with the ‘new and improved’ process of steps towards Geological Disposal of Heat GeneratingNuclear wastes.
Taiwan. Nuclear power plant referendum set to take place in August
Nuclear power plant referendum set to take place in August, Taipei, Jan. 22 (CNA) A national referendum on activating the long-mothballed Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in New Taipei will be held on Aug. 28, after the Central Election Commission (CEC) confirmed the date that was already set in stone in the Referendum Act.
The Referendum Act stipulates that national referendums can only be held once every two years starting from 2021 and only on the fourth Saturday of August during those years.
The CEC said in a statement Friday that polling stations will be open on Aug. 28 from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m………
Critics….. have warned of the safety hazards of the plant in particular and nuclear power in general, citing the 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant meltdown in Japan. ……… https://focustaiwan.tw/politics/202101220020
Biden keeps Trump appointee as acting nuclear weapons chief
|
Biden keeps Trump appointee as acting nuclear weapons chief
By: Aaron Mehta 22 Jan 21, WASHINGTON — Charles Verdon will serve as acting administrator for the National Nuclear Security Agency, serving under acting energy secretary David Huizenga as the Biden administration begins.
Huizenga, the new acting energy secretary, had been serving as associate principal deputy administrator for NNSA. He comes from the nonproliferation side of the agency and has experience with DoE’s office of environmental management. Verdon, who was confirmed in 2018 as head of defense programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration, is one of the few Trump political appointees being kept in a national security position. Previously a career NNSA employee, Verdon has largely avoided politics during his time in office, focusing instead on the technical details behind America’s planned nuclear warhead modernization efforts. The NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency located within the DoE. While the Pentagon is in charge of developing the planes, submarines and missiles that deliver nuclear weapons, the NNSA is in charge of developing and producing the actual warheads. The department’s fiscal 2021 budget request for nuclear weapons activities was $15.6 billion. ……. https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nuclear-arsenal/2021/01/21/biden-keeps-trump-appointee-as-acting-nuclear-weapons-chief/ |
|
100 year licences for nuclear reactors? – a hazardous plan
What a great idea! This way, all the nuclear industry heavies, all the regulatory officials involved, will be long gone when disaster strikes. They get off scot free – no costs, no blame, no shame. Just leaves the taxpayers’ grandchildren, great grandchildren and so on, to deal with the massive problems caused bu these self=serving decision-makers.
NRC to discuss 100-year licenses for nuclear plants, Facilities could receive longer extensions, Gloucester Daily Times. By Heather Alterisio Staff Writer, 9 Jan 21, SEABROOK, N.H. — A daylong Nuclear Regulatory Commission meeting Thursday will revolve around discussion of any technical issues that could arise if nuclear power plants were licensed to operate for 100 years.
When a nuclear power plant is first licensed by the NRC, that license permits a plant to operate for 40 years. After that, owners of nuclear plants can apply for a 20-year license extension. Nearly every power plant in the U.S. has gone through that renewal process at least once, according to NRC spokesman Scott Burnell.
Seabrook Station at 626 Lafayette Road received approval from the NRC in 2019 to extend its operating license from 2030 to 2050. The plant sits about 17 miles northwest — as the seagull flies — from parts of Cape Ann.
As of Oct. 31, the federal Energy Information Administration said there were 56 commercially operating nuclear power plants with 94 nuclear reactors in 28 states.
About 10 years ago, the NRC began discussions to address what protocols should be put in place if plant owners wanted to renew their license a second time, allowing operation for 80 years. Burnell said the law does not set a limit on how many times a plant can apply to renew its license.
The NRC has since awarded second renewals to a Florida plant and one in Pennsylvania, allowing operation for 80 years. The meeting Thursday — which will be online and open to the public — poses the question, what protocols should be in place if a plant owner pursued a third renewal, allowing it to operate for 100 years?………
Natalie Hildt Treat, executive director for C-10, an Amesbury-based nonprofit that monitors Seabrook Station and its impact on surrounding communities, said C-10 has already brought attention to issues related to aging concrete at Seabrook, the first nuclear power plant known to have this problem.
Prior to and while Seabrook Station was undergoing its recent license renewal process, C-10 pressed the NRC to address concrete degradation caused by alkali-silica reaction in which tiny cracks develop in concrete structures. C-10 worked closely with Victor Saouma, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Colorado Boulder and an expert in alkali-silica reaction.
Saouma is one of the experts who will speak Thursday on technical issues relating to concrete. C-10 believes there should be federal regulations that include taking concrete samples from all of the nation’s nuclear reactors, testing them “rigorously,” and creating protocols for how to manage issues as they arise, Treat said.
“We don’t think the NRC or the plant operators have a handle on whether these reactors are safe today, much less an unprecedented number of decades,” she said.
Treat added that Seabrook Station, like other plants around the country, was designed a few decades ago and they “are not getting any safer as they age.”
It is implausible to think that plants could safely operate for more than double of their anticipated life span,” she said.
Construction of the Seabrook reactor began in 1976 and the plant began operating at full power in 1990.
More information on the work of C-10 may be found at www.c-10.org.
The public meeting is Thursday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. For more information or for the Microsoft Teams webinar details, visit www.nrc.gov/pmns/mtg?do=details& Code=20201407.
To access the meeting by telephone, call 301-576-2978 and then enter the passcode, 835226175#.
Heather Alterisio may be contacted at halterisio@gloucestertimes.com
Biden can’t ignore that continuing crisis -the danger of nuclear annihilation.
|
Biden can’t lose sight of the nuclear crisis, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/19/biden-cant-lose-sight-nuclear-crisis/ by Katrina vanden Heuvel, Columnist, Jan. 20, 2021 At Wednesday’s inauguration, President-elect Joe Biden is likely to address the “four historic crises” he has repeatedly identified as confronting our country: a global pandemic, a severe recession, climate change and systemic racism. Yet even as so many challenges compete for our attention, we can’t afford to lose sight of a fifth crisis: the continued danger of nuclear annihilation. Overlooking the nuclear crisis might feel unthinkable for Americans who came of age during the Cold War, when nuclear destruction preoccupied our collective imagination. In 1983, for instance, 100 million Americans watched “The Day After,” a made-for-TV movie that depicted a potential nuclear holocaust. As detailed in a recent documentary, its haunting images — which included a mushroom cloud erupting over the plains of Kansas and scorching bodies in its blast radius — terrified viewers, including President Ronald Reagan. And it spurred our political leaders to join millions of grass-roots activists around the globe in taking action to prevent nuclear war. While nuclear conflict has largely faded from public consciousness, it still poses a clear and present danger. America is now locked in a new Cold War with Russia, with multiple direct engagements between the two countries’ forces and rising tensions between Russia and the United States’ NATO allies. Meanwhile, the United States and Russia still maintain nearly 2,000 atomic bombs on hair-trigger alert. It’s no wonder that, last year, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists adjusted its Doomsday Clock to reflect an increased likelihood of global annihilation. It is high time to step back from the brink of catastrophe. Fortunately, Biden has long championed stronger nuclear arms controls. And his administration can act immediately to make our world safer. Biden will have just two weeks to complete the first move, as the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) between the United States and Russia is set to expire on February 5. Negotiated by the Obama administration, the pact limits the capabilities of the two countries’ respective nuclear arsenals. Allowing it to lapse would represent yet another blow to the international arms control framework that protected us for decades and is being systematically dismantled. President George W. Bush, for instance, ended America’s Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. And President Trump pulled us from the Open Skies Treaty despite the pleas of our allies. The good news is that both Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin have expressed willingness to reverse that dangerous trend and extend New START — which can be accomplished through a simple exchange of diplomatic letters. The Biden administration should make this goal an immediate priority. Preserving New START, while an important step, should also be exactly what it sounds like: a start. There are many other actions Biden should take to reduce the likelihood of nuclear conflict — and move our nation further toward the ultimate goal of abolishing all nuclear weapons. Former defense secretary William Perry and nuclear scholar Tom Collina outline a series of strong steps in their recent book, “The Button.” One key suggestion is retiring the nuclear football that gives presidents the sole discretion to launch atomic attacks. Even after Trump was banned from tweeting, he still wielded unfettered power to destroy the world. We can’t ever allow that situation to repeat itself. All subsequent presidents should have to share this authority with a select group from Congress. Biden should also scrap the Trump administration’s plans to spend $264 billion on a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). These land-based weapons offer little military value, since our nuclear-armed submarines can already retaliate against another country’s first strike. And building more ICBMs only heightens our very real risk of accidentally launching a nuclear war. These actions should be accompanied by a broader reimagining of our national security. America is poised to spend $2 trillion over the next 30 years replacing every Cold War submarine, bomber, missile and warhead. These expenditures aren’t driven by military necessity or grand strategic plan, but they do have the support of hundreds of defense industry lobbyists. Protracted cold wars with powers like Russia and China aren’t just dangerous — they’re also expensive and distracting. And as America confronts multiple crises, we simply can’t afford to engage in them. We can prevent future conflicts by balancing sober realism with well-measured diplomacy — including reestablishing bonds with the many long-standing allies Trump spurned. As former governor Jerry Brown (D-Calif.) argued in a just-released open letter to Biden, reopening dialogue with Russia around the nuclear crisis would allow us to end the arms race and free up resources to enact the core elements of Biden’s agenda — from delivering covid-19 relief to combating climate change to advancing racial justice. While the destruction portrayed in “The Day After” no longer dominates our public consciousness, the threat of nuclear war remains a vital issue. Today, those who understand what is at stake should recapture the energy of previous generations and ensure our new administration understands the danger we face. In the words of Perry and Collina: “We need to bring the bomb into the new mass movement.” The president-elect must recognize both the danger — and the opportunity — at hand. |
|
|
Japanese govt plans to extend nuclear funding to communities, but there is public opposition
Funding law for areas home to nuclear plants eyed for renewal http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14119178, By NORIYOSHI OHTSUKI/ Senior Staff Writer, January 19, 2021 The central government plans to extend by 10 years a soon-to-sunset law that allows extra financial assistance to jurisdictions housing nuclear power plants–its first time up for renewal since the 2011 Fukushima disaster.
The potentially controversial move could likely spark debate in the Diet due to widespread opposition to nuclear energy following the accident, triggered by the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami.
The law was originally enacted in 2000 as a temporary measure and set to expire after a decade. A group of pro-nuclear power lawmakers had sponsored it to ease the concerns of jurisdictions home to nuclear plants.
Those local governments had become increasingly wary about adding more reactors at the existing plants in their communities after a critical accident occurred in 1999 at a facility operated by JCO Co., a nuclear-fuel processing company, in Tokai, Ibaraki Prefecture.
Two workers died and hundreds of residents were exposed to radiation in the accident.
The law was designed to provide public funds to local jurisdictions hosting nuclear plants so that their governments could build new roads and ports, and lure in businesses to their areas through tax breaks.
The law was revised to add another decade to its lifespan right before the triple meltdown at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant in March 2011, when the Democratic Party of Japan was in power.
But the law is set to expire at the end of March this year.
The central government plans to submit a revision bill to extend the funding mechanism by another 10 years during the current Diet session, after gaining Cabinet approval as early as this month.
The government has decided to extend it given that many localities with nuclear plants proceeded with their public works projects while counting on an extension, according to central government officials.
In fiscal 2019, a total of 14.4 billion yen ($138.7 million) was injected into local communities through the funding provisions, according to the Cabinet Office.
But the soundness of renewing the life of the special temporary law has only rarely been publicly debated.
Critics say there is room to question whether the extension can be justified.
Apart from the temporary law, local governments with nuclear facilities have received a large amount of grants and subsidies from the national coffers to help develop their communities since the mid-1970s. The source of that funding is ultimately the electricity charges that users pay.
The proposed extension follows a pledge by the central government to reduce the country’s reliance on nuclear energy in response to growing public opposition to nuclear power.
Local governments in Japan growing more reliant on nuclear taxes
|
Local governments growing more reliant on nuclear taxes, THE ASAHI SHIMBUN, by Hideki Muroya and Takuho Shiraki.January 20, 2021 Local governments are increasingly depending on tax revenues from the nuclear plants they host, a relationship that has deepened over the 10 years since the Fukushima nuclear disaster, an analysis by The Asahi Shimbun shows.That follows the introduction of new tax regimes that ensure a steady flow of nuclear-related tax yields–even when reactors are idle or in the process of being decommissioned. They were brought about largely through increasing existing taxes on nuclear fuels and levying new taxes on spent nuclear fuels kept at the plants.
In fiscal 2011, right after the triple meltdown at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, jurisdictions home to nuclear plants and related facilities yielded some 20.1 billion yen ($193.7 million) in taxes. The bulk of that came from taxes on nuclear fuel; many local governments only began collecting spent fuel taxes years after the accident. But then the figure more than doubled to an estimated 46.7 billion yen in fiscal 2020, ending in March, despite the nuclear plants being offline. The Asahi Shimbun studied nuclear-related tax revenues received by host municipalities and the 13 prefectures where those municipalities are located. Local governments can impose taxes on nuclear fuel and spent nuclear fuel at plants and related facilities through approving ordinances to do so. Of all the jurisdictions examined, Aomori Prefecture, where nuclear fuel cycle facilities are concentrated, and Fukui Prefecture, which hosts 15 reactors, the most in Japan, account for more than 60 percent earned through those taxes. The amount for fiscal 2020 is larger than the 40.3 billion yen brought in during fiscal 2010, when the plants were operating. Nuclear fuel taxes were originally based on the value of reactor fuel. As a result, six prefectures housing nuclear plants reported no tax revenues from nuclear fuel taxes in fiscal 2011. Desperate to secure income sources even during plant closures, Fukui Prefecture introduced in autumn 2011 a new fuel-tax system based on reactor output capacity–meaning the reactors can be taxed even when shut down. Other jurisdictions home to nuclear plants followed suit. ….. http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14121969 |
|
|
“They’ll be able to dream up some bogus price” – UK nuclear proponents want financing system
|
UK needs new finance model for nuclear – experts, Montel News , KELLY PAUL, London 18 Jan 2021
The UK must adopt a regulated asset base model (RAB) to kickstart investment in nuclear development, or risk the country missing its target to be net zero by 2050, proponents of the financing mechanism say.
A RAB model for financing could attract pension funds, insurance firms, sovereign wealth funds and infrastructure asset managers to shore up French utility EDF’s funds and carry a new nuclear project through to completion, industry experts told Montel. The UK’s plans to build new nuclear infrastructure in the country have stalled against a backdrop of political reticence to commit, spiralling costs associated with Hinkley Point C, which EDF is building, and the steady retreat of potential investors. …… Under RAB, an economic regulator would grant a licence to a company to charge a regulated price to users in exchange for the provision of infrastructure, in this case a nuclear reactor. …….
The UK government recently confirmed it has entered into negotiations with EDF on the Sizewell C reactor in Suffolk and has pledged to reach an investment decision on at least one nuclear power station by the end of the current parliament. High cost EDF itself signalled that the cost for the Hinkley C reactor would be between GBP 21.5 billion and GBP 22.5 billion, a rise of between GBP 1.9 billion and GBP 2.9 billion as compared with previous estimates. In France, meanwhile, the operator’s Flamanville reactor is running 11 years behind schedule and EDF’s estimated cost of completion has spiralled to EUR 12.4bn, up from its original estimate of EUR 3.3bn.
Blank cheque Detractors of the RAB model have dismissed the mechanism as a “blank cheque” for UK consumers to sign, while others called into question the price competitiveness of new nuclear given the falling cost of renewables. Critics maintain that by guaranteeing a significant source of capital ahead of the expensive construction phase, as RAB does, consumers are essentially being asked to pay for a reactor when they have no way of assessing how costly it will be, or if any of the delays that have marred Hinkley could occur again. At the government’s recent consultation on the RAB model, specific figures relating to financing were not discussed. “They’ll be able to dream up some bogus price,” said Stephen Thomas, emeritus professor of energy policy at the University of Greenwich. https://www.montelnews.com/en/story/uk-needs-new-finance-model-for-nuclear-experts/1187367 |
|
The hidden costs of France’s old, past-their-use-by-date nuclear reactors
Ian Fairlie’s Blog 16th Jan 2021, In early 2019, four French EDF scientists wrote a 22 page report on load following in French nuclear reactors. The English version was first published on April 1 2020 but this has only recently been brought to my attention (ie mid Jan 2021).
This report is instructive and worrying, and requires careful reading. In essence, it discusses how French nuclear engineers have managed to retrofit and configure France’s reactors so that they can follow the diurnal loads increasingly required by France’s electricity needs.
It should be borne in mind that EDF’s 58 nuclear reactors are very old and past their sell-by dates. Most are between 30 and 40 years old with an average age of 33 years in 2018.
Some background is necessary to explain why this report was written. French reactors have been
operating since the 1980s. Since their gross output has usually exceeded French domestic requirements, especially at night, much is exported to France’s neighbours i.e. UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Spain.
Large amounts were until recently also sent to large pumped storage schemes in Switzerland at night. These transfers have been at a considerable financial loss to EDF and the French Treasury as the prices for such supplies are understood to be low. In addition, during the day, France imports significant amounts of electricity- mainly from the renewables in Germany.
https://www.ianfairlie.org/news/french-report-nuclear-power-plant-flexibility-at-edf/
Donald Trump and the ”nuclear football” on January 20
Independent 16th Jan 2021, Donald Trump will get to take the nuclear football with him when he leaves Washington DC on his final day in office – but the codes will be deactivated at the stroke of noon.
Mr Trump will be accompanied by the 45-pound briefcase when he flies to Florida on the morning of Joe Biden’s inauguration, as he is reportedly expected to do. But the nuclear codes that accompany it will stop working as soon as Mr Biden is sworn in as his successor 1,000 miles away on Wednesday.
-
Archives
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
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






