No “green light” for £20bn Sizewell nuclear project, but the UK govt “in talks” with EDF
Sizewell C: Government in talks to fund £20bn nuclear plant, BBC , By Roger Harrabin & Simon Read, 14 Dec 20, The government has begun talks with EDF about the construction of a new £20bn nuclear power plant in Suffolk…….. it has proved controversial with campaigners saying it is “ridiculously expensive” and that taxpayers will have to foot the bill for extra costs.
The government said any deal would be subject to approval on areas such as value for money and affordability.,,,,,,
The government said talks with EDF about Sizewell C would depend on the progress of the Hinkley Point C. However, that project is set to cost up to £2.9bn more than originally thought and will be up to 15 months late.
China General Nuclear Power has a 20% stake in Sizewell C but is thought to be planning to pull out after security concerns were raised about a Chinese state-owned company designing and running its own design nuclear reactor on UK soil…….
If it does pull out, it would increase the need for new investors. One option could be for the government to take a stake in the plant……
“We are starting negotiations with EDF, it is not a green light on the construction,” Business and Energy Secretary Alok Sharma told the BBC’s Today programme. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55299511
Japanese govt trying to entice people by money grants, to come and live in Fukushima
Japan government planning grants for those willing to reside in Fukushima Prefecture, https://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0006996690, December 13, 2020
The Yomiuri ShimbunGovernment grants of up to ¥2 million will be provided next fiscal year to people who move to one of 12 municipalities surrounding the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant, where meltdowns occurred following the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, according to sources. The 12 municipalities — all in Fukushima Prefecture — are Futaba, Okuma, Tomioka, Namie, Iitate, Kawamata, Minami-Soma, Katsurao, Naraha, Kawauchi, Tamura and Hirono. Next March will mark 10 years since the nuclear accident at the plant operated by Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, Inc., but the population of these municipalities still hovers around 20% of the number in the basic resident register. Evacuation orders were issued at the time of the accident but have since been gradually lifted. The government aims to promote the reconstruction and revitalization of the area by not only encouraging evacuees to return, but also by getting people from outside the area to move in. The grants will be offered, likely next summer or later, to people who did not live in the 12 municipalities at the time of the 2011 accident. A family moving in from outside Fukushima Prefecture will receive ¥2 million, and a family from within the prefecture will be offered ¥1.2 million. For a single-person household, the grant will be ¥1.2 million for a newcomer to the prefecture and ¥800,000 for someone from Fukushima Prefecture. Recipients would be required to live in the region for at least five years and to have a job. People who live in the 12 municipalities and telework for firms outside the region will also be eligible for a grant. Those who start businesses within five years of moving to one of the municipalities will also receive three-quarters of the necessary expenses, with a maximum limit set at ¥4 million. The grants will be paid from resources including subsidies to accelerate the revitalization of Fukushima Prefecture, provided to the Fukushima prefectural government and the 12 local governments by the Reconstruction Agency. |
|
Beware the nuclear road to nowhere
Nuclear power is the slowest and most expensive way to reduce carbon emissions, per kilowatt hour. Choosing new nuclear therefore impedes and supplants renewable energy development, which would save more carbon far sooner and faster and at a lower cost.
Beware the nuclear road to nowhere
Don’t be led up the garden path on the nuclear road to nowhere, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2020/12/13/dear-people-of-anglesey/By Linda Pentz GunterDear people of Anglesey:
The announcement that a US consortium, consisting of American companies Bechtel, Southern Company and Westinghouse, could take over the Wylfa B nuclear power project in North Wales, may sound like a much-needed jobs panacea, but it is another cruel joke on the people of Anglesey.
Horizon/Hitachi’s legacy of broken promises, destroyed homes and landscapes, and a 100% failure to deliver the promised two-reactor Wylfa B project, is already a bitter pill. Inking a new nuclear deal with the American consortium would turn it into a poison one. Trust me, we know. We’ve already swallowed it.
Here in the US, the track record of Bechtel, Southern Company, Westinghouse and the AP1000 reactor design, now being proposed for Wylfa B, should send a dire warning to Wales.
Westinghouse’s AP1000 two-reactor project at the V.C. Summer site in South Carolina ballooned to $9 billion in costs and bilked ratepayers of $2 billion before it was abandoned in 2017 after a 9-year debacle. The project’s director, Stephen Byrne, pled guilty to a massive nuclear conspiracy that defrauded ratepayers, deceived regulators and misled shareholders, but not before pocketing a tidy $6 million for himself.
The company’s former CEO, Kevin Marsh, has agreed to plead guilty to federal conspiracy fraud charges, will go to prison for at least 18 months, and will forfeit $5 million in connection with the $10 billion nuclear fiasco.
Southern Company’s “flagship” nuclear project at Plant Vogtle in Georgia, where two AP1000 reactors are still under construction, is now five years behind schedule with costs soaring to at least $28 billion, more than double the original projection. The site has recently suffered an epidemic of Covid-19, as the company rushes to meet completion deadlines and save additional costs.
Even $12 billion in federal loan guarantees wasn’t enough to keep the Georgia project afloat, so ratepayers are helping to foot the bill in advance under a law similar to the UK’s regulated asset base scheme, with no guarantee that the reactors will ever be finished.
Bechtel is no more reliable and was caught up in a 2016 lawsuit that led to a $126 million settlement for subpar work while building a nuclear waste treatment facility at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.
Of course, that’s just the tip of Bechtel’s ugly iceberg. It, too, has seen company executives convicted of crimes, and was a key player in Iraq, before, during and after the US war there, helping to bring about the war in the first place, then scoring more than $680 million in contracts to help rebuild what it was complicit in destroying.
Efforts to find a new buyer for Wylfa B now that Hitachi, which owns the land, has decided to withdraw, are also rife with hollow promises. One such claim, that a revived Wylfa B would deliver electricity at a “market competitive price”, really means that Welsh electricity customers and British taxpayers will pay, because nuclear by itself isn’t competitive. That’s already borne out by the financial collapse of the AP1000 Moorside project in Cumbria, where weeds now obscure the NuScale sign at the abandoned site.
The false narrative put forward to justify resumption of nuclear construction at Wylfa B — that it is essential in order to reach a 2050 net zero emissions target — is disproven by reality: new nuclear power plants are by far the most expensive option, especially compared to the rapidly falling cost of renewables, and take far too long to tackle climate change, which is here, now.
Nuclear power is the slowest and most expensive way to reduce carbon emissions, per kilowatt hour. Choosing new nuclear therefore impedes and supplants renewable energy development, which would save more carbon far sooner and faster and at a lower cost.
Fortunately there are alternatives for the region, whose young people should not feel forced to leave to find work; whose farmers should be able to maintain their way of life; whose families should not have to watch their ancestral homes torn down; and whose local businesses could once again thrive.
Sustainable, Wales-based projects that employ local people in the long-term, while preserving language, culture and landscape, are abundantly possible. Many of these can be found in a new report from SAIL, which outlines a foundational economy for Ynes Môn — as Anglesey is more properly known in Welsh — and Gwynedd.
Reclaiming the Wylfa site to re-wild it would do more for climate change than a nuclear power plant and would attract visitors to its natural wonders, Heritage Coastline and extraordinary wildlife. More visitors in turn helps stimulate local businesses.
The island is even primed for new renewable energy projects, especially offshore wind, which again would provide much-needed, longterm employment.
There is no need for the people of Anglesey to be deceived once again by foreign corporations bearing false nuclear gifts that fail to materialize. Opening the door to Bechtel and co. will only lead to yet more environmental damage, and to more despair and disillusionment as, once again, promised nuclear jobs fail to materialize.
Anglesey can avoid being led down another garden path, soon to be overgrown with weeds, on the nuclear road to nowhere. It’s time for Anglesey Council to step up and say no to nuclear and commit to projects that will deliver safe, long-term jobs to the region without stealing money from the pockets of ratepayers and without wrecking the precious landscape they call home.
Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear and writes for and edits Beyond Nuclear International.
Biden’s opportunity to make much needed changes on nuclear weapons policy
|
Biden’s First Move on Nuclear Weapons, https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/12/bidens-first-move-nuclear-weapons/170652/
When Putin calls to congratulate the new U.S. president, Biden should seize the opportunity. By GLENN NYE and JAMES KITFIELD, At some point in the coming weeks President-elect Joe Biden will likely receive a call from Russian President Vladimir Putin congratulating him on his election victory. Biden should seize the opportunity to provide an overdue reality check on nuclear weapons.Tensions between the two nations that possess roughly 90 percent of the world’s nuclear warheads are reaching levels not seen since the darkest days of the Cold War, even as the edifice of arms control agreements that kept Cold War dangers in check teeters on the verge of collapse. Under the guise of weapons modernization both nations are also engaged in an incipient nuclear arms race. Little wonder that the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has reset its Doomsday Clock to just one hundred seconds to midnight, the closest it’s ever been to Armageddon. When he takes office on Jan. 20, Biden can help arrest that dangerous spiral by fulfilling his campaign pledge to extend the New START Treaty before it expires in early February, and to use it as a foundation to pursue new arms control agreements. Recent jockeying between U.S. and Russian negotiators on a one-year extension of New START highlight just how complex and difficult arms control negotiations have become. In an era of renewed major power competition, destabilizing new technologies, and rising international tensions and distrust, managing U.S.-Russian relations already are difficult. They only will become more so as Moscow comes to terms with a new Biden administration unwilling to overlook, as President Donald Trump has, Russia’s history of cyber and disinformation attacks on the American political system. Before the election, talks between U.S. and Russian negotiators on extending New START bogged down over the Trump administration’s insistence that a one-year extension include a freeze on strategic nuclear weapons that are currently covered by the treaty, as well as tactical nuclear weapons that are not. As is often the case in arms control talks the devil was in the details of a verification regime to monitor such a “freeze.” But the goal of constraining shorter-range tactical nuclear weapons was laudable and should be pursued in follow-on talks. |
|
U.S. House Armed Service Committee calls for new National Defense Strategy, including “no first use” nuclear policy.
HASC Chair Smith Calls For New National Defense Strategy, Nuclear Policy Review, USNI News, By: John Grady
As part of that strategy, “I think we should have a no-first-use policy” because “nuclear weapons are a special case. They are “weapons that could destroy the planet.” Rep. Adam Smith, (D-Wash.) said while speaking at a Center for Strategic and International Studies online forum Friday said he also wants the United States to maintain “robust deterrence” but delivered with “a more cost-effective approach.”
mith recognized the strong opposition he has from progressives in the Democratic Party and also among some Republicans to spending on military projects, modernization, basing and operations. Left-leaning Democrats see these efforts “as pivoting to a new Cold War” that will “come into conflict with Russia and China.”
Smith said later that “there are plenty of other ways of deterring our adversaries” other than engaging them in war.
He said three questions needed to be asked when building a “robust” and “cost-effective” defense:
What is the goal; what is the objective; and what are the tools you need to get there.
mith recognized the strong opposition he has from progressives in the Democratic Party and also among some Republicans to spending on military projects, modernization, basing and operations. Left-leaning Democrats see these efforts “as pivoting to a new Cold War” that will “come into conflict with Russia and China.”
Smith said later that “there are plenty of other ways of deterring our adversaries” other than engaging them in war.
He said three questions needed to be asked when building a “robust” and “cost-effective” defense:
What is the goal; what is the objective; and what are the tools you need to get there………… https://news.usni.org/2020/12/11/hasc-chair-smith-calls-for-new-national-defense-strategy-nuclear-policy-review
Iran Awards Military Medal To Nuclear Scientist Assassinated Last Month
Iran Awards Military Medal To Nuclear Scientist Assassinated Last Month NDTV 13 Dec 20, Tehran:
Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Sunday posthumously awarded a prestigious military decoration to top nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, who was assassinated last month, state television reported.
Fakhrizadeh was killed on a major road outside Tehran in late November in a bomb and gun attack that the Islamic republic has blamed on its arch foe Israel……. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/iran-awards-military-medal-to-nuclear-scientist-mohsen-fakhrizadeh-assassinated-last-month-2338031
Nuclear developers keenly await UK government support for new reactors large and small
Nuclear Developers Dust Off Plans for More Reactors in U.K. Bloomberg,By Rachel Morison, 11 December 2020,
Industry sees shift to allow more reactors to be built
Government is due to release a paper on financing projects. Nuclear power developers are refreshing plans for new reactors in the U.K. after speculation that the government could be willing to support building more plants than the industry had been expecting.
A little-noticed paper issued by the Treasury on Nov. 25 said it is important that the U.K. can “maintain options by pursuing additional large-scale nuclear projects,” assuming they can be done in a cost-effective way. That wording, with a notable plural on the word “projects,” went beyond a recommendation made two years ago that Britain should build only one more major atomic facility.
After years of waiting for a signal, the document was read by nuclear industry executives as evidence that energy policy could be shifting their way. They anticipate the government may soon look more favorably on nuclear after more than a decade of tilting toward renewables. Electricite de France SA, Hitachi Ltd. and China General Nuclear Power Corp. are looking at ways to revive designs that were shelved in the past few years.
“Large-scale projects have a bright future in Britain if the government backs a financing model to cut the cost of capital,” said Tom Greatrex, chief executive officer of the Nuclear Industry Association. “There are a number of viable sites.
For its part, government insists its policy on nuclear hasn’t changed — even with all the debate about exiting the European Union. It’s allowing EDF to seek planning permission for the Sizewell plant in east England, but ministers have been quiet about what, if any, further plants might win favor.………
China’s Bid
One of the biggest question marks is whether China will be able to move ahead with a long-planned reactor in the U.K. despite a political chill toward investment from that nation. Under pressure from the U.S., the government has clamped down on the spread of 5G mobile technology from Huawei Technologies Ltd.
China General Nuclear’s Chief Executive Officer Rob Davies said the company is willing to self-finance the Bradwell B project in southeast England. His remark suggests the company would take a market power price for electricity sold from the plant, a break from EDF’s move at Hinkley Point to secure a long-term contract before moving ahead.
The project would be a Chinese-designed reactor, called HPR1000. It would showcase the nation’s technical skill in Europe. Davies said CGN is committed to nuclear development in the U.K. regardless of the political winds.
We plan to maintain our support for Hinkley Point C, to help Sizewell C to reach a Final Investment Decision, to complete the general design assessment for the HPR1000 and to continue with Bradwell. That’s our plan and that’s our offer to the U.K. And we’ll self finance,” he said at an industry event this month.Hitachi in Wales
The CEO of Hitachi Ltd.’s Horizon Nuclear Power Ltd. subsidiary said he’s lining up a project for the Wylfa site in Wales. His remark is an indication that the project may still be revived even after Hitachi exited it in September after failing to agree on financing.EDF’s Work in Moorside
In June, EDF revamped plans for the Moorside site in Cumbria that Toshiba Corp. pulled out of in 2018. The proposed Clean Energy Hub includes a large nuclear plant, the same design as Hinkley Point and Sizewell, small modular reactors and advanced modular reactors…….
Not all of these projects will be built. In the U.K., EDF is building the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant in Somerset and next in line is the Sizewell site in Essex northeast of London. The government is keen on small modular reactors that are quicker [?} to build and cheaper [?]. If it gets enough of those, there may not be a need for any more large scale stations. That’s what policy makers will hope to avoid tying themselves into. ……https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-11/nuclear-developers-dust-off-plans-to-build-more-reactors-in-u-k
Sizewell C nuclear power station, thrown into doubt as China ponders pulling out of £20bn project
Sizewell C nuclear power station, thrown into doubt as China ponders pulling out of £20bn project, This Is Money, By FRANCESCA WASHTELL FOR THE DAILY MAIL 12 December 2020
China is considering pulling out of the Sizewell C nuclear plant in a move that throws the future of the project into doubt.
The country’s nuclear agency, China General Nuclear Power (CGN), is planning to duck out of the next phase of the £20billion project, claim industry sources.
CGN holds a 20 per cent stake in the Suffolk plant and has spent years developing it with French energy giant EDF.
The agency has not revealed how much it has invested in the Sizewell C development phase, though it is estimated to be hundreds of millions.
Its departure at the construction stage could leave a huge hole in the project’s funding – and could deal another body blow to the Government’s energy strategy.
The reports come as tensions between London and Beijing have flared since the Government’s decision to exclude Huawei’s equipment being used in new 5G networks.
The recent clampdown on foreign investment and takeover rules have also added to the hostility.
An industry source said: ‘If the UK were to lose Chinese know-how in nuclear it would be a shame given their expertise in building and operating the reactors that would be used at Sizewell C.’………. https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-9044795/Sizewell-C-nuclear-plant-doubt-China-ponders-pulling-out.html
Growing political opposition in Canada to Small Nuclear Reactors
Hill Times -Political opposition growing to new nuclear reactors, https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/74740422/posts/3066856410By EVA SCHACHERL DECEMBER 9, 2020 The nuclear industry and Liberals have not only been laying the groundwork for government funding. It appears they have been ensuring that the framework for nuclear energy in Canada gets even more accommodating. Natural Resources Minister Seamus O’Regan has been hyping so-called next-generation reactors for months, portraying the industry as a future utopia.
Many Canadians are anxious to see what our energy future will be. Politically, it’s a question that stirs passions from Alberta’s oil patch to Ontario’s cancelled wind farms. But political debate is picking up around our nuclear energy future. And with good reason. Government-funded expansion of the nuclear industry, and a simultaneous watering-down of regulations, could be the Liberal government’s toxic legacy.
Natural Resources Minister Seamus O’Regan has been hyping so-called next-generation reactors for months. A recent nuclear industry summit—hosted with federal funding—portrayed nuclear energy expansion in Canada as a future utopia. The Green Party caucus, the NDP’s natural resources critic Richard Cannings, and the Bloc Québécois’s environment critic Monique Pauzé have all slammed O’Regan’s expected small modular reactor (SMR) “action plan.” They say it does not belong in a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Energy efficiency, wind, solar, and storage technologies are ready to build, and much cheaper, according to Lazard, a financial advisory and asset management firm. The prototype reactors will take years, if not decades, to develop, and could absorb hundreds of millions, even billions, in taxpayer subsidies, according to Greenpeace Canada.
That would mean opportunities lost for those dollars to build many times the amount of zero-emission energy with renewables and energy-efficiency projects. The latter would not create toxic radioactive waste for future generations to contend with. Independent research says that a nuclear solution for remote communities (as proposed by the government) is likely to cost 10 times more to build and operate than the alternatives. It seems inevitable that the Liberal action plan will soon be launched with generous handouts for the nuclear industry, whose aspiring players in Canada today include SNC-Lavalin and U.S. corporations like Westinghouse and GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy. Few Canadians are aware that “Canadian” Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) is owned by a consortium of SNC-Lavalin and two U.S. firms, Fluor and Jacobs.
In recent years, the nuclear industry and Liberals have not only been laying the groundwork for government funding. It appears they’ve also been ensuring that the framework for nuclear energy in Canada gets even more accommodating. The biggest step was exempting most new reactors from the Impact Assessment Act, which, in 2019, replaced the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This was deemed so important to the nuclear industry’s future that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) lobbied the Liberal government to exempt small reactors—and won. So much for the CNSC, the regulator that’s supposed to oversee the industry, being seen as objective and “world class.”
The Impact Assessment Act was intended to create “greater public trust in impact assessment and decision-making.” But there will be no federal assessment of nuclear reactors up to 200 thermal MW in size, nor of new reactors built at existing nuclear plants (up to 900 MWth). Yet new tidal power projects, as well as offshore wind farms with 10 or more turbines, need an assessment under the regulations, as do many new fossil fuel projects.
Also exempted from federal assessment is the “on-site storage of irradiated nuclear fuel or nuclear waste” associated with small modular reactors. This will make it easier for SMRs’ radioactive waste to be potentially left in the northern, remote, and First Nations communities, where they are proposed to be built. The nuclear regulator has also been responsible for introducing a suite of “regulatory documents” on reactor decommissioning and radioactive waste that environmental groups have called “sham regulation.”
Meanwhile, the bureaucrats at the CNSC have been busy signing a memorandum of cooperation with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Small Modular Reactors. This agreement means that Canada can recognize U.S. reviews of reactor designs in order to “streamline the review process.” CNSC has also outlined its plan in a document called Strategy for Readiness to Regulate Advanced Reactor Technologies. In a nutshell, the document says that regulations for new reactor designs will have to be flexible. It notes that CNSC regulated the earlier generation of water-cooled reactors (such as CANDUs) at first based on “objectives” in the 1950s and ‘60s. Then, as experience with these reactors evolved, regulations became more detailed and prescriptive. It says the same may have to happen with the new next-gen reactor designs.
In the 1950s, there were indeed few “prescriptive requirements” for the newfangled reactors. In 1952, the NRX reactor at Chalk River, Ont., had a meltdown. It was the first large-scale nuclear reactor accident in the world and took two years to clean up—which, by 1950s standards, included pumping 10,000 curies of long-lived fission products into a nearby sandy area. Then in 1958, the NRU reactor at Chalk River—a test bed for developing fuels and materials for the CANDU reactor—had a major accident, a fuel-rod fire that contaminated the building and areas downwind. It took 600 workers and military personnel to do the top-secret clean-up. Let’s hope today’s regulators and lawmakers can learn from history. Does Canada really need or want to be the “leading-edge” testing ground for new experimental nuclear reactors? Canadians should have their say in a referendum—or at the ballot box. |
Opponents of the Ohio bailout of nuclear industry want more than just a freeze on this law
|
Opponents of HB6 Say Nuclear Bailout Freeze is not Enough https://www.wksu.org/government-politics/2020-12-08/opponents-of-hb6-say-nuclear-bailout-freeze-is-not-enough
The Statehouse News Bureau | By Andy Chow December 8, 2020, New charges are set to appear on everyone’s electric bills in Ohio to support a nuclear power plant bailout. While that bailout is linked to an alleged bribery scheme, House Republicans seem poised to freeze the law rather than repeal it. House leadership is signaling a freeze to the bailout, HB798, will be the vehicle used to address the energy laws created through HB6. The energy law allows for new charges of up to $2.35 a month on electric bills for nuclear, coal, and solar subsidies. Rachael Belz with Ohio Consumers Power Alliance says a freeze on the new charges doesn’t truly help the ratepayers. “It’s more like pushing something off that you never intend to get back to,” Belz said. Talk of an HB6 repeal began after House Speaker Larry Householder was arrested about five months ago accused of a bribery scheme that helped him rise to leadership and HB6 become law. It’s believed FirstEnergy funneled millions of dollars into the alleged scheme. HB6 accomplishes several things on the company’s legislative agenda. The nuclear and solar subsidies amount to a $0.85 monthly charge on electric bills. That new charge generates $150 million a year for two nuclear power plants in Ohio and $20 million for existing solar farms. HB798 would not repeal the provisions in HB6 that cuts renewable energy standards and eliminates energy efficiency standards. |
|
Iran hastens nuclear legislation in response to the assassination of its nuclear scientist
Iran vows to build two new nuclear facilities, alarming observers https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/iran-vows-build-two-new-nuclear-facilities-alarming-observers By Richard StoneDec. 8, 2020,
|
Iran’s possible responses to the assassination of a prominent nuclear scientist go well beyond boosting uranium enrichment and expelling weapons inspectors, two provisions of a law passed by Iran’s parliament that alarmed nonproliferation experts last week. Equally worrisome are new facilities the law requires, which could enable Iran to make plutonium and fashion uranium into bomb components. The legislation had been in the works for months, but parliament fast-tracked it after the 27 November killing of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, director of a Revolutionary Guard research unit who had previously led a secret nuclear weapons program shuttered in 2003, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Iran’s powerful Guardian Council last week approved the law. The potential limits on IAEA monitoring are of particular concern, says a European diplomat involved in negotiations with Iran. “IAEA would go blind in many areas of Iran’s nuclear establishment.” Posing a fresh proliferation risk are the new facilities the bill mandates: a lab for working with uranium in metal form—a vital skill if Iran were to make nuclear weapons—and a heavy water reactor that could accumulate plutonium in its spent fuel. “If either was to proceed, that would stand out as a major proliferation concern,” says Richard Johnson, senior director for fuel cycle and verification at the nonprofit Nuclear Threat Initiative. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s administration opposed the legislation. However, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told an international forum last week, “We will implement it. We have no other choice.” But Zarif noted the law is reversible. “The remedy is very easy,” he said: Iran would shelve the law if the United States returns to the 2015 nuclear deal, formally called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which restrained Iran’s nuclear program in return for relief from economic sanctions. The Trump administration pulled out of the JCPOA in 2018; President-elect Joe Biden has pledged to rejoin it. The JCPOA, proponents say, lengthened the time Iran would need to accumulate enough fissile material for a bomb, from several weeks to at least 1 year. A key provision is a cap on uranium enrichment at 3.67% of the fissile isotope uranium-235 (U-235), which is a level sufficient for civilian nuclear reactors. One year after the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA, and after Europe’s failure to deliver promised economic relief, Iran began to breach the pact, including increasing enrichment to 4.5%. A hike to 20%—which last week’s law requires—is a big step toward weapons-grade uranium, which is generally defined as greater than 90% U-235. A heavy water reactor would pose another headache. Before the JCPOA, Iran was building a 40-megawatt heavy water reactor in Arak to produce radioisotopes for medicine. As originally designed, the reactor would have accumulated one or two bombs’ worth of plutonium each year in its spent fuel. The JCPOA required that the facility, not yet complete, be redesigned as a 20-megawatt reactor that largely eliminates plutonium production. But the redesign stalled after the U.S. Department of State in May canceled sanction waivers permitting import of necessary equipment and technology. The new law orders the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) to complete the 40-megawatt reactor—apparently the configuration originally planned at Arak—and design a second 40-megawatt heavy water reactor; a timetable for completion of both projects is due in early January 2021. The law also mandates that AEOI inaugurate a “metallic uranium factory” in Isfahan within 5 months. Iran had agreed under the JCPOA to a 15-year moratorium on uranium and plutonium metallurgy. Any provocation from the West could spur the Iranian government to implement the law even faster. “Many things could go wrong in the next several weeks,” the European diplomat says. And a U.S. return to the pact would not be instantaneous. “We can’t just snap our fingers and say, ‘We’re back in,’” Johnson says. The Biden administration would have to rescind sanctions that run contrary to the JCPOA, while Iran would have return to compliance by mothballing advanced centrifuges, for example, and steeply reducing a growing stockpile of enriched uranium. |
|
Botches and crisis in France’s nuclear energy system
|
Sueddeutsche Zeitung 7th Dec 2020, Group therapy with President. In the industrial forge in Le Creusot, components for nuclear power stations were tampered with. Now the French President wants to give the nuclear industry new impetus. Le Creusot, important components for France’s nuclear power plants and nuclear weapon systems are manufactured. In a country that gets 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear fission and believes in its status as a nuclear power, Le Creusot can see itself as a critical infrastructure. Emmanuel Macron is going there this Tuesday.
**************
The critical branch of the nuclear industry is itself in a critical condition after costly breakdowns and scandals. So the President wants to give encouragement to the industry that, after the Second World War, contributed more than any other to theFrench self-image.
**************
Macron will assure the top managers of the energy company EDF, the power plant builder Orano and the military shipyard Naval
Group, who have gathered in Le Creusot, that they are still “a trump card”, as it is called in Macron’s environment. And: the man who rules France’s nuclear button will announce the construction of a new nuclear submarine. **************
Nevertheless, French nuclear power is in crisis. A few days ago, the network operator RTE warned that electricity would be scarce in winter: Many of the 56 reactors in the country, which once knew an abundance of nuclear power, urgently need maintenance and are therefore shut down. The shutdown of the breakdown-prone power plant in Fessenheim, Alsace, in the summer, which was also carried out under pressure from Germany, is less significant. The shortage is exacerbated by the abandonment of coal-fired
electricity in recent years and the slow expansion of renewable energies. Macron wants to drive that forward. **************
At the same time, the life of the old nuclear power plant is to be extended – and up to six new, more powerful
reactors are likely to be built. Even if the prototype of these reactors, which is currently being built in Normandy, costs more than twelve billion euros instead of the originally estimated 3.5 billion euros. The botch in Le Creusot is also to blame for the rise in costs.https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/atomkraft-macron-frankreich-1.5140488 |
European Commission excludes nuclear power from the EU’s proposed green finance taxonomy,
Federal funding for new nuclear reactors is a serious mistake that blocks swift ation on climate
|
France and European Union have not yet agreed on nuclear reform
France yet to agree with EU over nuclear reform: official, By Gwénaëlle Barzic-PARIS (Reuters) 7 Dec 20, – France and the European Union are yet to reach a firm agreement over Paris’s plans for a reform of its nuclear industry, an Elysee presidential palace official said on Monday, amid talks that will entail a reorganisation of power group EDF.
The talks between France and the European Commission include the ARENH price mechanism under which competitors can get access to nuclear energy produced by EDF. Because EDF is a state-owned utility, the EU has a say on its reform on competition grounds.
The looming reform, which would see EDF’s nuclear business separated from others such as renewable energy, has already raised hackles among labour unions, fearful that a split will have consequences for jobs.
“There is not yet an agreement with the Commission on some of the key parametres,” an official with the Elysee presidential palace said, speaking ahead of President Emmanuel Macron’s visit to a nuclear equipment factory run by a EDF subsidiary Framatome on Tuesday.
The official said it was too soon to say when the new legislation on the nuclear sector could emerge.
France is due to cut its reliance on nuclear energy from 75% to 50% by 2035, but must also decide by 2023 whether to commission next generation EPR reactors.
The government will be seeking more information from EDF by the middle of next year about the cost, timeframe and feasibility of new projects, the Elysee official said.
-
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








