The very costly effort of trying to resuscitate the dying nuclear industry
Nuclear Energy — The High Cost Of A Dying Industry, Clean Technica, October 6th, 2020 by Johnna Crider
Nuclear energy has had a seriously rough year. In an article by OilPrice.com, the author asked a question: “Why is nuclear energy so expensive?” One answer, besides the obvious 2020 curse that was activated when Egyptian authorities opened up 30 ancient wooden coffins in 2019, is that other sources have just gotten much cheaper while nuclear hasn’t……….
As we know, in 2020, the coronavirus pandemic shut down US energy demand, and this added nuclear energy to a long list of energy industries that are begging for taxpayer money — well, in the case of nuclear, even more taxpayer money. And the Trump administration came through for this dying and expensive industry. Back in June, the Department of Energy announced that it would award more than $65 million in nuclear energy research. This would cross-cut technology development, facility access, and infrastructure awards.
PowerTechnology reported that these awards would be for these departments’ nuclear energy programs:
- The Nuclear Energy University Programme
- Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies
- Nuclear Science User Facilities.
That $65 million will also be poured into 93 advanced nuclear technology projects in 28 states. And the Office of Nuclear Energy, which is part of the US Department of Energy (DOE), has spent more than $800 million on research since 2009. OilPrice noted that the $65 million would probably be “too little, too late for domestic nuclear energy.” CleanTechnica‘s perspective is that nuclear has been long dead and we’re just waiting for the green leaves of the tree (existing power plans) to turn brown (close down). New nuclear is financially hopeless, many times more expensive than renewable energy options even with energy storage costs included.
Global State Of Nuclear Energy
Antony Froggat, who co-authored the report and is a Senior Research Fellow at Chatham House in London, said, “At the same time, COVID-19 puts additional stress on the sector. In economic terms, renewables continue to pull away from nuclear power, over the past decade the cost estimates for utility-scale solar dropped by 89 percent, wind by 70 percent, while nuclear increased by 26 percent.”
Also in the US, force-on-force exercises were suspended. These are simulated terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants that use a mock adversary force to replicate design basis threat characteristics during an attack. These are supposed to help assess and improve readiness in case of an actual terrorist attack on a nuclear reactor.
In Russia and Sweden, control room staff were made to isolate in housing that was located onsite. They lived at their jobs. In Russia, one national operation reported weekly on infections among the nuclear staff. In July, there were a total of 4,500 cases.
Technology Costs
The report compared the costs of solar, onshore wind, and nuclear. The report looked at analyses for the US conducted by Lazard at the end of 2019, which advises on financial matters while managing investment portfolios. This is what they found out in a nutshell:
- Solar PV (crystalline, utility-scale) averaged $40/MWh, compared to $65/MWh in 2015.
- Onshore wind was $41/MWh, compared to $55/MWh in 2015.
- Nuclear is $155/MWh, compared to $117/MWh in 2015.
The report points out that over the past 5 years, the annual Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) for nuclear has risen by over 50%. In stark contrast, renewables have become the most inexpensive of any type of power generation. “What is remarkable about these trends is that the costs of renewables continue to fall due to incremental manufacturing and installation improvements, while nuclear, despite over half a century of industrial experience, continue to see costs rising. Nuclear power is now the most expensive form of generation, except for gas peaking plants.”
The report also states that even though Trump’s White House supports nuclear power and coal, both have not thrived at all under his presidency. This is due, the report says, to renewables being cheaper and basic economics. Lazard also assessed that the costs of renewables continue to fall. You can learn more about the nuclear report here.
Whether it’s the curse of 2020 or humans are slowly evolving, we are phasing out of the old and phasing in the new. In the case of energy, it’s renewables, which will benefit not only our planet but the health and well-being of people all across the globe. For now, though, it seems that taxpayers will continue footing nuclear’s expensive high maintenance bills. https://cleantechnica.com/2020/10/06/nuclear-energy-the-high-cost-of-a-dying-industry/
Ukraine’s President enthuses over their nuclear reactors – but they’re all ageing Soviet ones
On a visit to Ukraine’s Rivne nuclear plant, President Volodomyr Zelensky issue full throated support for the development of his country’s nuclear industry, despite opposition from other countries and a fleet of elderly Soviet-era reactors that are reaching retirement age, Interfax reported.
His remarks came on October 1 and highlight his recent decree that orders the government to submit bills concerning the country’s nuclear power sector for parliamentary debate. Ukraine’s 15 reactors – all of which were built while the country was still a republic of the Soviet Union – supply more than half of the domestic electricity supply.
“We have a strategy for the development of nuclear energy and the completion of nuclear power plants in Ukraine,” the Zelensky said, addressing the possibility of completing two reactors at the country’s Khmelnitsky nuclear plant. The construction of those reactors, which are Russian-designed VVER-1000 units, began in the 1980s but was shelved in 1990.
He also dismissed opposition to nuclear development on grounds of safety, saying: “We understand that if professionals are doing the construction, if the state is working on the safety of nuclear power plants, then there is no threat either to the environment or the climate. It’s a safe form of electricity.”
Pushing back against a host of European countries that have begun to back away from nuclear power, Zelensky said Ukraine would instead embrace it as a national priority.
“In the coming years, many countries will work against nuclear power generation,” he said. “We, on the other hand, will defend it. We must do this because today we have every opportunity to be among the first [in nuclear energy], both in Europe and in the world.”
Zelensky’s remarks come as work to fully clean up the site of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster is still ongoing. Since 2015, an enormous steel dome, called the New Safe Confinement, has enclosed the plant’s exploded No 4 reactor, trapping radiation and facilitating risky dismantlement efforts. But most experts say it will take another 20,000 years before the area immediately surrounding the plant – called the exclusion zone from which more than 100,000 people were evacuated – will again be fit for human habitation.
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Ukraine inherited not only the embers of Chernobyl, but also four other nuclear power plants: The Rivne plant in the country’s northwest; the Khmelnitsky plant, to Rivne’s south; The South Ukraine plant, near the Black Sea, and the Zaporizhia plant, whose six VVER-1000 reactors make it the largest nuclear power plant in Europe.
All but three of Ukraine’s reactors began operations in the 1980s, putting most of them troublingly close to the end of their engineered lifespans of 40 years. In fact, 12 of Ukraine’s reactors were slated to retire this year.
To continue to produce some 52 percent of the country’s energy, it is presumed that all of these reactors will eventually be granted extensions on their runtimes of several decades.
Given the age of the nuclear industry as a whole, such lifetime extensions have become common practice worldwide. But two recent Bellona publications – one on Ukraine’s nuclear industry, and another on the practice of reactor lifetime extensions – have cast light on the dangers of this approach.
One study by Ukrainian experts, cited in Bellona’s report, shows that Ukraine’s older reactors are becoming more prone to accidents and malfunctions. It is hoped that safety upgrades that would precede the granting of lifetime would eliminate such technical glitches.
But the Bellona study highlighted that two reactors at the Rivne plant – the one Zelensky visited – had been given lifetime extensions without any safety upgrades at all.
The longer Ukraine’s reactors operate, the more they will contribute to the country’s supply of radioactive waste, which is currently the second largest in Europe. This problem has only gotten more serious since 2018, when Russia began returning to Ukraine the spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste Moscow had been accepting and reprocessing after the Soviet Union dissolved.
The problem of Ukraine’s overabundant radioactive waste would seem less critical if the country were taking steps to build a long-term repository, such as finding a suitable location for one – or indeed even had plans to do so. But as the Bellona report reveals, the bureaucracies in Kiev that are responsible for such questions are inefficient, if not, in some instance, entirely lacking, and in any case have little in the way of public faith in their competent operation.
Prospects are slightly brighter when it comes to dealing with spent fuel from Ukraine’s nuclear reactors. Ukrainian nuclear Officials know how much there is and they intend to build a centralized facility to store it. But as is the case in other parts of the industry, Kiev has little hope of building it without significant funding from other countries.
While it’s unclear if Zelensky’s new embrace of nuclear energy has taken full account of the issues facing his aging reactors, it is hoped that any continued reliance on Ukraine’s Soviet inheritance will do so.
Too much power to USA president, to control nuclear war strategy: what if he is ill?
Why The President Is The Weakest Link In U.S. Nuclear Strategy, Forbes, Loren Thompson 7 Oct 20 President Trump’s hospitalization after testing positive for Covid-19 is one of many instances in which the performance of the nation’s chief executive has been impaired by medical issues.
Eisenhower had a massive heart attack in 1955. His successor, John F. Kennedy, was afflicted by Addison’s disease and various other maladies that required heavy use of painkillers. Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon Johnson, was hospitalized during the Hong Kong flu pandemic of 1968.
Other presidents have seen their performance compromised by psychological issues.
Richard Nixon became clinically depressed during the Watergate controversy and took to drinking heavily. Ronald Reagan may have exhibited early symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease during the closing years of his presidency.
Such frailties have long been a part of the human condition, but the advent of nuclear weapons raised alarming possibilities about where presidential disability might lead. You see, the president has unilateral authority to launch nuclear weapons, and that power is one of the few places in the federal system where no checks and balances exist.
Thus, the prosect that a president might be physically or mentally impaired is alarming………
Mr. Trump’s recent hospitalization highlights some of the things that might go wrong. A report released this week by the Northwestern Medicine healthcare system found that a third of the patients hospitalized for Covid-19 in the system’s Chicago-area facilities developed altered mental states, including confusion and delirium.
In addition, President Trump’s doctors administered a heavy regimen of drugs aimed at mitigating the health consequences of his infection. Unfortunately, one of those drugs was a steroid, and steroids are known to cause psychological symptoms in some patients such as anxiety, agitation and mood swings.
When you consider the awesome nuclear authorities vested in the president, it is unsettling to contemplate how impaired judgment or medical disability might impact decision-making in a crisis……… https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2020/10/07/why-the-president-is-the-weakest-link-in-us-nuclear-strategy/#7f5796d76aee
Pressure on U.S. Congress to reinstate research on links between nuclear stations and cancer
Activists push Congress to revive probe into links between nuclear plants and cancer
Nuclear Regulatory Commission killed study in 2015 after spending five years and $1.5 million on the effort, Orange County Register, By TERI SFORZA | tsforza@scng.com | October 5, 2020 Scientists and activists were stunned back in 2015 when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission pulled the plug on what was designed to be the best study of cancer near nuclear power plants ever done.
Last week, a petition with some 1,200 signatures demanding that the study resume went to members of Congress representing Southern and Central California.
“This is a scientific endeavor which will improve our understanding of cancer, the leading cause of death in California,” the petition states. “It is especially important for women, children, and the human fetus who are much more vulnerable to the biological effects of harmful ionizing radiation.”
No one knows threat
The retired San Onofre and Diablo nuclear power plants, both shut down in 2013, have been discharging low-level radioactivity into the ocean and atmosphere for decades, the petition continues, and no one knows for sure whether that poses a threat to nearby residents………
More modern studies in Europe have found that children living within 3 miles of nuclear power plants had double the risk of developing acute leukemia as those living farther away, with the peak impact on children ages 2-4.
Bart Ziegler, president of the Samuel Lawrence Foundation, said the inquiry is long overdue and must begin right away. https://www.ocregister.com/2020/10/05/activists-push-congress-to-revive-probe-into-links-between-nuclear-plants-and-cancer/
Design not even finished! But UK govt to subsidise Small Nuclear Reactors (SMRs)
The plan is for 16 of them – at ? £2bn each?
FT 7th Oct 2020, Downing St considers £2bn support for mini nuclear reactors
Consortium wants to build up to 16 generators . Downing Street is supporting plans to spend up to £2bn of taxpayers’ money on a
new generation of mini nuclear reactors. Consortium wants to build up to 16 generators to help UK meet carbon emissions targets. The first SMR is expected to cost £2.2bn and be online by 2029.
Government and industry figures confirmed that a pledge of £1.5bn-£2bn is being discussed which could even see taxpayers acquire an equity stake in the programme.
However, discussions are still ongoing and any final decision will be subject to the Treasury’s current multiyear spending review, which is due later this year. The government could also commission the first mini power station, giving confidence to suppliers and investors. The consortium, which also includes the National Nuclear Laboratory, will seek additional funding of at least £2bn, including from private investors and the capital markets.
Support for SMR technology is expected to form part of Boris Johnson’s “10-point plan for a green industrial revolution” which he will set out later in the autumn. …….. Under the plans being considered by Number 10, the small
modular reactors would be manufactured on production lines in central plants and then transported to sites for assembly. Each mini power station would operate for up to 60 years, providing 440MW of electricity per year — enough to power a city the size of Leeds.
The government’s support “should deliver sufficient cash to get the consortium through building
factories and well on the way to construction of power stations prior to finding more money from other sources,” said one person with knowledge of the situation.
The consortium is expected to finalise the SMR design by April next year, when it hopes to launch the four-year licensing process.
During that time it hopes to begin recruiting employees for the business, and identifying the sites for powers stations and the factories to build the components and modules for the SMRs. The business department hasalready pledged £18m towards the consortium’s early-stage plans.
https://www.ft.com/content/d7016b80-e0c4-4444-a059-2daf32b9a4ab
Ohio nuclear reactors expect tax-payer subsidy, they’re making a profit anyway !
Nuclear plants at center of Ohio subsidy fight operating above wholesale prices, S and P Global,Darren Sweeney, Gaurang Dholakia 5 Oct 20,
As the owner of two Ohio nuclear plants is pressed to open its books on the profitability of the units, the timing of subsidies at the center of a federal criminal investigation may be a larger issue.
An S&P Global Market Intelligence analysis shows Energy Harbor Corp.’s 908-MW Davis-Besse and 1,268-MW Perry nuclear plants, both in northern Ohio, have operating costs higher than wholesale electricity prices. A mid-2019 analysis showed the plants with operating costs running below wholesale electricity prices.
The most recent analysis shows wholesale prices in the PJM Interconnection rising through the end of 2020 and into 2021, which is when Ohio’s clean air credit for nuclear plants kicks in.
House Bill 6, which establishes a $9/MWh credit for clean air resources, provides $150 million in annual financial support for the Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear units beginning Jan. 1, 2021, through Dec. 31, 2027…………
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has reportedly told state lawmakers to bring Energy Harbor and FirstEnergy Corp. officials before legislative committees to disclose whether the nuclear plants need the subsidies.
In addition, Yost on Sept. 23 filed a civil lawsuit to halt the collection of ratepayer-backed subsidies for the state’s nuclear plants.
The lawsuit and legislative hearings come after federal prosecutors in July filed bribery charges against former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder and four associates. They have been indicted and accused of using “more than $59 million” through a “slush fund” to steer H.B. 6 through the Ohio Legislature. An affidavit filed by an FBI special agent implies that FirstEnergy and affiliated entities, though not mentioned by name, wired funds through a 501(c)(4) nonprofit group called Generation Now to support H.B. 6 and combat a statewide referendum to repeal the law.
Former FirstEnergy subsidiary FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. emerged from bankruptcy in late February as Energy Harbor. https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/nuclear-plants-at-center-of-ohio-subsidy-fight-operating-above-wholesale-prices-60569193
Cost and safety dangers should rule out nuclear power for the Philippines
A report this year placed the cost of reviving the BNPP, as estimated by a foreign group, at $3 billion to $4 billion. Reviving it will go against a trend in other countries to reduce nuclear power in their energy mix, because of safety concerns in the power plants as well as the risks posed by nuclear waste, which remains radioactive and cannot be destroyed or recycled……..
Like Japan, the Philippines sits along the Pacific Ring of Fire. Before the start of this year’s pandemic, Taal Volcano’s powerful phreatic explosion emptied surrounding communities, displaced thousands and blanketed towns and cities all the way to Metro Manila with toxic, suffocating ash. Earthquakes and aftershocks continue to be recorded in Taal, with seismologists warning of the possibility of a cataclysmic eruption.
If the BNPP is revived, at great cost to a cash-strapped government, what happens if Mount Natib also acts up, or if an earthquake hits Bataan? If all the proponents of nuclear energy will live together with their immediate families near the BNPP – and not just for show, buying a house nearby while the kids live in an exclusive village far from harm’s way – then by all means, go ahead with the project. https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2020/10/03/2046802/editorial-going-nuclear
America’s nuclear waste crisis doesn’t get a mention in Democrats’ or Republicans’ platform
|
Four powerful players want a nuclear waste solution. What’s stopping them? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists By David Klaus, September 29, 2020 The 92-page platform adopted at the Democratic National Convention does not include a single sentence on the issue of how to manage the more than 80,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel sitting at 70 sites in communities across the country. The Republicans adjourned without adopting any new platform for 2020, leaving their 2016 platform in place—but it also did not address the nuclear waste issue.
Ironically, political interest in addressing the spent fuel issue is decreasing at a time when the number of closed nuclear plants in the United States is increasing—and it is common practice to level the plant and leave the spent fuel behind. If the issue had been as significant a political priority today as it was in the past, it would have been included in one or both of the platforms. In its 2004 and 2008 platforms, the Democratic Party committed to “protect Nevada and its communities from the high-level nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, which has not been proven to be safe by sound science.” Republicans, in their 2012 platform, focused on how “[t]he federal government’s failure to address the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel has left huge bills for States and taxpayers.” with the 2020 elections around the corner and Congress winding down, it is clear that is nothing is going to happen anytime soon. Why? Because none of the organizations claiming they want a permanent waste disposal facility is actually serious about a solution. The missing coalition. There should be a powerful coalition of diverse interests working to find a permanent disposal path for the thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel held in temporary storage facilities at commercial nuclear plants across the country. That coalition would include:
Such a coalition of diverse interests should be an effective political force. Why hasn’t it produced any results? The answer is that, notwithstanding their public statements, none of these potential interests really supports addressing the spent fuel issue or is willing to make it a political priority. Economic disincentives. For the nuclear utility companies, nuclear waste management is a matter of simple economics. Under current court orders, the US government covers the utilities’ cost for storing spent nuclear fuel. In addition, the courts have put a freeze on utility payments to the Nuclear Waste Fund. Every legislative proposal to address the spent fuel issue reinstates utility payments to the fund and potentially shifts short-term storage costs back to the utilities. For Congress and the White House, enthusiasm for ending the current $600 million per year payments to the utilities is complicated by budget scoring rules. Today, payments to utilities are made out of the federal government’s Judgment Fund, because they are required by court order rather than statute. The Judgment Fund is an indefinite appropriation and is considered to be off-budget, which means payments from the fund are not counted in the budget scoring system or allocated against specific accounts. Legislation to address the spent fuel issue would change that, forcing appropriators to find $600 million in savings from other programs or to identify new revenue sources to offset the expenditure. It’s easier for Congress and the administration to keep their heads in the sand. The nuclear industry’s position in support of spent fuel legislation is tempered by a combination of reality and priorities. While the industry regularly testifies in favor of finding a long-term solution to the spent fuel problem, the reality is that state legislative prohibitions on the construction of new nuclear reactors are meaningless, given that no new reactors are planned in the foreseeable future. It is uneconomic and/or not politically viable to build a new reactor in the United States—even one of the small modular reactors under development. The nuclear industry has other significant political issues related to its existing fleet of reactors, and these have pushed the spent fuel issue toward the bottom of the priority list. ………. Ultimately, leadership on the issue is going to have to come from a president and congressional leaders who take seriously the US government’s legal obligation to accept commercial spent fuel and build a long-term repository to hold it. This obligation is grounded in nonproliferation policy and was established by statute in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. ……. https://thebulletin.org/2020/09/four-powerful-players-want-a-nuclear-waste-solution-whats-stopping-them/ |
|
|
False claims of hacked voter information likely intended to cast doubt on legitimacy of U.S. elections
 FALSE CLAIMS OF HACKED VOTER INFORMATION LIKELY INTENDED TO CAST DOUBT ON LEGITIMACY OF U.S. ELECTIONS https://www.ic3.gov/media/2020/200928.aspx, September 28, 2020 Questions regarding this PSA should be directed to your local FBI Field Office.Local Field Office Locations: www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices The FBI and CISA are issuing this PSA as a part of a series on threats to the 2020 election to enable the American public to be prepared, patient, and participating voters. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) are issuing this announcement to raise awareness of the potential threat posed by attempts to spread disinformation regarding cyberattacks on U.S. voter registration databases or voting systems.During the 2020 election season, foreign actors and cyber criminals are spreading false and inconsistent information through various online platforms in an attempt to manipulate public opinion, discredit the electoral process, and undermine confidence in U.S. democratic institutions. These malicious actors could use these forums to also spread disinformation suggesting successful cyber operations have compromised election infrastructure and facilitated the “hacking” and “leaking” of U.S. voter registration data.
In reality, much U.S. voter information can be purchased or acquired through publicly available sources. While cyber actors have in recent years obtained voter registration information, the acquisition of this data did not impact the voting process or the integrity of election results. In addition, the FBI and CISA have no information suggesting any cyberattack on U.S. election infrastructure has prevented an election from occurring, compromised the accuracy of voter registration information, prevented a registered voter from casting a ballot, or compromised the integrity of any ballots cast. RECOMMENDATIONS
The FBI and CISA coordinate closely with federal, state, and local election partners and provide services and information to safeguard U.S. voting processes and maintain the integrity of U.S. elections. Both organizations urge the American public to critically evaluate the sources of the information they consume and to seek out reliable and verified information. The FBI is responsible for investigating malign foreign influence operations and malicious cyber activity targeting election infrastructure and other U.S. democratic institutions. CISA is responsible for protecting the nation’s critical infrastructure from physical and cyber threats and has provided voluntary guidance, training, exercises, and other resources to help state and local election officials secure their voter registration systems and data. VICTIM REPORTING AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONThe FBI encourages the public to report information concerning suspicious or criminal activity to their local field office (www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices) or to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (www.ic3.gov). For additional assistance, best practices, and common terms, please visit the following websites:
|
|
UK govt to give EDF a blank cheque for building Sizewell C nuclear power plant.
Dave Toke’s Blog 29th Sept 2020, It is looking increasingly likely that the British Government is about to cave-in to EDF’s demand that the British energy consumers should pay what could be massive cost overruns for building Sizewell C nuclear power plant.http://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.com/2020/09/is-treasury-about-to-cave-in-over-edfs.html
Plans for Bradwell B nuclear power station could collapse
Campaigners claim plans for Bradwell B nuclear power station could collapse, Clacton Gazette , By Alex Gidden Reporter 28 Sept 20, CAMPAIGNERS claim plans to build a nuclear power station off the coast of Essex could collapse before the end of the year.
Group chairman Prof Andy Blowers made the bold claim after seeing Japanese firm Hitachi pull out of plans to build its own nuclear power station in north Wales.
He says Hitachi’s decision underlines the “huge expense” associated with building nuclear power stations and believes the Bradwell B project will be binned because of the costs and scale of opposition.
Both Colchester and Maldon councils have rejected planning applications for the power station in the past month.
The applications were jointly submitted by the China General Nuclear Power Group, also known as CGN, and energy firm EDF.
A spokesman for the Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group said: “CGN is now fully aware of the mountain it has to climb to get anywhere near planning permission for its massive nuclear juggernaut, which will utterly destroy the environment and wellbeing of the Blackwater region.
“Widespread public protest and influential councils have produced a powerful coalition of outright opposition to the proposals.
Its progress will not be straightforward and will take years to complete.
“By the time it could start operating, it will be a white elephant, unnecessary, uneconomic and redundant……… https://www.clactonandfrintongazette.co.uk/news/north_essex_news/18749213.campaigners-claim-plans-bradwell-b-nuclear-power-station-collapse/
Greater Cleveland Partnership calls for repeal of Ohio nuclear bailout law
|
Greater Cleveland Partnership calls for repeal of Ohio nuclear bailout law, By staff | cleveland.com28 Sept 20, CLEVELAND, Ohio – The Greater Cleveland Partnership is calling on Ohio lawmakers to repeal and possibly replace House Bill 6, the $1.3 billion nuclear plant bailout law that federal authorities say was the product of a massive corruption scheme.
“We recommend a repeal and replace stance on HB 6 to remove the alleged stain of corruption on the law and to enable the restoration of the energy efficiency programs supported by our members,” said Joe Roman, President and CEO of the GCP. “Our membership continues to encourage policies that provide incentives for businesses to leverage energy programming to foster growth. We recognize a level of flexibility may be needed to meet those goals, reverse HB 6, and balance Ohio’s energy environment………. A select committee of lawmakers is considering whether to repeal and replace the law. The committee has held hearings but hasn’t yet recommended specific actions. The nuclear bailout is funded by new monthly surcharges ranging from 85 cents for residential customers to as much as $2,400 for large industrial plants. In addition to the nuclear plant bailout, House Bill 6 provides subsidies to specific coal and solar plants around the state, dismantles the state’s green-energy standards for utilities, and allows FirstEnergy Corp. and other utilities to lock in a guaranteed level of ratepayer revenue for years to come. https://www.cleveland.com/open/2020/09/greater-cleveland-partnership-calls-for-repeal-of-ohio-nuclear-bailout-law.html |
|
Do Ohio nuclear stations really need a bailout ? Where’s the evidence?
Where’s the proof that nuclear power plants need a bailout? This Week in the CLE, By Laura Johnston, cleveland.com 28 Sept 20, CLEVELAND, Ohio — How do Ohioans know Energy Harbor’s nuclear power plants need a $1.3 billion bailout? Cleveland.comThe company hasn’t said, and we’re talking about the lack of disclosure on This Week in the CLE…….
Here are the questions we’re answering today:
French taxpayers don’t want to pay for Sizewell nuclear station, neither do British.
France’s EDF demands clarity on British nuclear power plans Times John Collingridge 27 Sept 20, French energy giant EDF is set for a showdown with the Treasury over state funding for nuclear power stations as Britain’s atomic future faces a make-or-break moment.Jean-Bernard Lévy, chairman and chief executive of Électricité de France, will speak to chancellor Rishi Sunak via video link on Wednesday to demand clarity over Britain’s plans for funding nuclear power.
The industry was left reeling this month when Japan’s Hitachi quit its Horizon project to build a £20bn plant on Anglesey.
That shock retreat, after years of prevarication by Westminster over state support for nuclear power and turmoil in the Japanese nuclear industry, left only EDF and China General Nuclear with plans for atomic power stations in the UK.
EDF and China are building the delayed and over-budget £22.5bn Hinkley Point C power station in Somerset, but Paris has balked at
the prospect of French taxpayers funding the next nuclear project in Britain.
Instead, EDF, which is 84% owned by the French state, wants British taxpayers to underwrite a new plant at Sizewell in Suffolk. A
proposed new financial structure, the regulated asset base, would levy a tax on UK household energy bills to help pay for the project.
Other options include the British government taking a stake — although that has worried the Treasury, which is anxious about adding to its debt mountain.
EDF declined to comment. With most of Britain’s ageing reactors due to close by the end of the decade, Sunak and Boris Johnson face the dilemma of whether to fund more big nuclear plants, or rely on wind, solar, gas, small reactors and imported power to keep the lights on.
The American government has warned Hitachi against selling the Anglesey site to China, and is understood to be considering bankrolling US companies to take it over. Westinghouse, which makes the AP1000 nuclear plant, and NuScale Power,
which is developing small, modular reactors, are both believed to be
exploring options for the site. South Korea’s Kepco is also understood to
be interested, as is EDF.
Former UK Energy Minister Sir Ed Davey says new Sizewell nuclear station is too expensive
Suffolk’s Sizewell C too expensive, says Sir Ed Davey, BBC, By Vikki Irwin & Chris Bond
28 Sept 20, Former energy secretary Sir Ed Davey has said building a new nuclear power station at Sizewell is “too expensive”.
1 This Month
26 April – Chernobyl: Inside the Meltdown airs on National Geographic on Sunday 26th April from 4pm
29 April – Nuclear Expert Webinar #1 – Radiation Impacts on Families with Mary Olson and Cindy Folkers
- 12:15 PM MT – 1:45 PM MT
- Location: Virtual – REGISTER TODAY
4 May -West Suburban Peace Coalition to discuss Iran war at May Educational Forum
Monday, May 4, 7:00 – 8:00 PM Central Standard Time
Title: : How Trump’s Narrative Tries to Shape the Reality of the War on Iran.
Contact Walt Zlotow, zlotow@hotmail.com 630 442 3045 for further information
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
Pine Ridge Uranium is the real threat, not Tehran- Tell Burgum: Stop the Extraction.
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (12)
- 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)
-
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 