Hitachi renews interest in Wylfa nuclear project, wants government assurance on funding
Hitachi seeks to resurrect Welsh nuclear plant plans, Ft.com, 16 Aug 20,
Japanese industrial group wants clarity from UK ministers on financing model,
Hitachi is talking to the UK government about resurrecting plans for a nuclear power plant in north Wales, which were frozen at the start of last year.
Maldon District Council now to hold Nuclear Public meeting In Secret
Maldon Nub News 14th Aug 2020, THERE was turmoil at a Maldon District Council meeting yesterday (Thursday,
13 August) when it was abandoned during a row between councillors over whether some of the debate on plans for a nuclear power station at Bradwell should be held in public or private.
The virtual meeting had three major planning applications on the agenda – with a planned exclusion of the
public and press after the first while councillors heard ‘exempt information’ on the two applications listed last on the agenda –including the power station plan. Independent Councillor Chrisy Morris then objected to the exclusion of the public and press.
He argued that the entire discussion of the Bradwell plans should be heard in public and demanded a committee vote on whether to continue in private or not. Chair of the meeting, Deputy Leader and Conservative Councillor Maddie Thompson, did not agree and the discussion became heated before public and press access to the live stream was cut off.
The meeting was not resumed later as planned. A spokesperson for Maldon District Council said: ““Due to the
continued interruptions during the meeting, the Deputy Leader decided that the best option was to call a halt to the meeting.
Discussions are currently taking place as to when this meeting can be reconvened.” In a statement after the meeting, Cllr Morris said: “The councillors quite overwhelmingly refused these applications and we asked the officers to make
our objections watertight if the applicants were to appeal.
It appears that they instead decided to seek legal advice that would make our objections seem unreasonable at appeal in an attempt to change our minds – my personal opinion is this is bullying. “I am against hearing this advice in private as if an attempt to bully us is made – the public have a right to know. I believe that once there was a possibility that this bullying attempt was going to be in the public domain, they used it to shut the meeting. “I am
here to represent the wishes of the people and will not be bullied. The public has a right to know.”
No prefecture in Japan wants to host nuclear waste dump
 No Japan prefectures positive about hosting nuclear waste site https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/08/14/national/prefectures-nuclear-waste-site/ –14 Aug 20, KYODO Nearly half of Japan’s 47 prefectures said they are opposed to or held negative views about hosting a deep-underground disposal site for high-level radioactive nuclear waste, a Kyodo News survey showed Friday.
None expressed a favorable stance. The result signals further woes for the central government in its attempt to find a permanent geological disposal repository. Little progress has been made since the process to find local governments willing to host one started in 2002, due mainly to opposition from local residents. The survey was sent to all prefectures in July, with additional interviews conducted depending on their answers. While 16 prefectures such as Fukushima, Kanagawa and Okinawa clearly opposed hosting a site, seven others including Hokkaido, Kyoto and Nagasaki also expressed negative views. Most of the others did not make their positions clear.
“We are already undertaking a certain amount of social responsibility by hosting nuclear plants and providing energy,” Niigata Prefecture said in its response. Fukui Prefecture said, “We are generating power. Nuclear waste disposal should be handled by others.” Meanwhile, Hokkaido mentioned its existing ordinance to prevent nuclear waste from being brought into the northernmost main island, a view that contradicts the relatively positive stance held by one of its municipalities. The town of Suttsu said Thursday it is considering signing up for preliminary research into its land to gauge its suitability for hosting a disposal site. On Friday, however, its mayor, Haruo Kataoka, said the town has been asked by the prefecture not to apply for the preliminary study. Before Suttsu, the town of Toyo in Kochi Prefecture applied for the study in 2007, but it later withdrew the application following strong protests by local residents. In the Kyodo News poll, the western prefecture expressed opposition to hosting a disposal site, saying it faces the need to take measures against a possible major earthquake in the region. For permanent disposal, high-level radioactive waste, produced as a result of the process of extracting uranium and plutonium from spent fuel, must be stored more than 300 meters underground so that it cannot impact human lives or the environment. Elsewhere in the world, Finland and Sweden are the only countries to have decided on final disposal sites. |
|
Alberta joins Ontario, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan -led by the nose by nuclear NuScam?
Going Nuclear: Alberta Signs Inter-Provincial MOE to Explore Small Modular Reactors, J.D. Supra, 14Aug 20,
On August 7, 2020, the Government of Alberta announced its intention to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to explore emerging nuclear power generation technology in the form of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs).
Alberta is the fourth province to sign the MOU, following in the footsteps of the governments of Ontario, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan, which signed the MOU in December 2019. Ontario and New Brunswick are Canada’s only provinces currently producing nuclear energy, while uranium fuel is mined in Saskatchewan. Athabasca Basin contains the world’s largest high-grade deposits of uranium and straddles the Alberta-Saskatchewan border……
Malaysia rejects nuclear power, focuses on renewable energy
Khairy says nuclear energy ‘not on the table’ for now, focus on renewable energy sources, Malay Mail, Friday, 14 Aug 2020, BY YISWAREE PALANSAMY KUALA LUMPUR, — Science, Technology and Innovation Minister Khairy Jamaluddin said today that the idea to develop nuclear energy as a power source will be a last option for Malaysia, as there are many other sources of energy in the same category which the country has yet to explore.
The Rembau MP said that his ministry is not considering nuclear energy development for now…..
In February, then Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad spoke of the inherent need for a more non-polluting renewable energy source for the world, but rejected nuclear energy source, over the fear of the radioactive level in its waste.
Dr Mahathir pointed out that Malaysia does not have enough expertise in science that is needed to manage nuclear power.
He also expressed worry about the long-term effects of radioactive waste.
In July 2018, Yeo announced that the then PH government would not be building nuclear power plants or explore nuclear energy.
In winding up her ministerial reply on the 2020 Budget in Parliament last year, Yeo also announced that the Malaysian Nuclear Power Corporation (MNPC) would be shut down. ……. https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2020/08/14/khairy-says-nuclear-energy-not-on-the-table-for-now-focus-on-renewable-ener/1894036
Survey finds that U.S. Democrats and Republicans both want to phase out land-based nuclear missiles
|
Democrats And Republicans Agree: Phase Out Land-Based Nuclear Missiles https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewkorda/2020/08/12/democrats-and-republicans-agree-phase-out-land-based-nuclear-missiles/#74441be7109d Matt Korda I write about the nexus between nuclear weapons, climate change, and injustice. Although Democrats and Republicans increasingly seem worlds apart, when it comes to nuclear weapons issues, they’re actually much closer than one might think.
According to a new report by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland, 61 percent of Americans–including both Democratic and Republican majorities–are in favor of phasing out the United States’ aging fleet of 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles. This finding is highly noteworthy, as it runs in direct contrast to the Pentagon’s current plan of spending approximately $100 billion to buy a brand-new generation of ICBMs by 2030. The survey, entitled “Common Ground of the American People,” is a compilation of studies conducted over the past five years, collecting data from nearly 86,000 individuals throughout the polling process. It specifically aimed to place the respondents into the shoes of a policymaker: respondents were first given an issue briefing, and were then asked to evaluate arguments for and against various policy proposals, before finally offering their recommendations.
The survey’s unique methodology is highly illuminating, because it allows readers of the report to see which arguments were deemed to be most or least convincing, and by whom. For example, Republicans preferred a proposal to phase out ICBMs while maintaining the same number of deployed warheads, while Democrats preferred a proposal to phase out ICBMs and reduce the arsenal to a lower number of deployed warheads.
The main takeaway though, is that–regardless of how the ICBM phase-out takes place–69 percent of Democrats and 53 percent of Republicans agree that the land-based leg of the nuclear triad should be eliminated entirely.
It makes sense that both Democrats and Republicans would agree on phasing out ICBMs: they are outdated, destabilizing, and very expensive. Intercontinental ballistic missiles are largely relics of the Cold War, when the United States and the Soviet Union alike feared a “bolt-from-the-blue” nuclear attack. At the time, it was believed that both countries having large land-based nuclear arsenals would prevent each other from launching a massive surprise attack. However, in today’s multipolar nuclear environment, the likelihood of such an attack is extremely slim, and so ICBMs no longer hold much strategic value. Given the abundance of more flexible options in the U.S. arsenal, U.S. Strategic Command would certainly turn to nuclear bombers or submarines–not ICBMs–in the event of a low-level nuclear crisis.
Additionally, the inherent vulnerability of the ICBM fleet actually creates a psychological pressure to launch them during a nuclear crisis, before an adversary’s missiles can wipe them out. This is why siloed ICBMs–like those deployed across the United States––are commonly referred to as “use ‘em or lose ‘em” weapons. In the event of a false alarm, accident, or miscalculation, this pressure to “use ‘em” could inadvertently trigger a nuclear war. No other nuclear weapon in the US nuclear arsenal comes with this kind of destabilizing psychological pressure. ……
Perhaps knowing this, the Pentagon argues that ICBMs are necessary as a “hedge” in case technological advances suddenly render the United States’ nuclear-armed submarines vulnerable. However, the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review admits that “When on patrol, [ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs)] are, at present, virtually undetectable, and there are no known, near-term credible threats to the survivability of the SSBN force.” This condition is likely to continue as US submarines get even quieter, thus making these fears seem relatively exaggerated. On top of this, replacing the ICBMs with brand-new missiles would be extremely expensive. The latest estimate for the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, as the replacement program is called, totals approximately $100 billion. In reality, these costs are expected to rise, given that the contract will be sole-sourced to Northrop Grumman NOC -0.7% after Boeing BA -2.6% pulled out of the competition last year. The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee has called this development “very troubling,” and the sole-source contract has since triggered a Federal Trade Commission investigation into Boeing’s allegations that Northrop Grumman was engaging in anti-competitive behavior.
Given these underlying programmatic and strategic concerns––in addition to the new survey demonstrating that both Democrats and Republicans want to phase out ICBMs entirely––why is this $100 billion project still moving forward? In the midst of an election, a recession, and a devastating pandemic, it seems like common sense to delay the program at the very least.
However, a robust lobbying effort by weapons contractors has impeded public scrutiny of the program. Northrop Grumman––the only bidder for the ICBM replacement contract––spent more than $162 million on lobbying between 2008 and 2018, with the bulk of the contributions going to members of the “ICBM Caucus”––a coalition of Senators from states where ICBMs are deployed. In 2018, this lobbying effort helped kill an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act which called for a feasibility study on extending the life of the current ICBM force, rather than rebuilding it from scratch. This has had the effect of suppressing public debate over the future of the ICBMs; without studies like this one, the public is being asked to blindly swallow the pro-ICBM claims of those that would materially benefit from their replacement.
The University of Maryland’s report offers a new tool to push back against the “business” of nuclear policy. The survey suggests that corporate lobbying and “special interests” are alienating the public from their elected representatives, and dividing the two political parties even further. Therefore, treating its respondents as neutral “policymakers” clearly demonstrates that without the presence of moneyed interests, Democrats and Republicans agree on much more than one might think. And in this particular instance it is clear: majorities from both parties want to phase out intercontinental ballistic missiles.
|
|
North Dakota shows how to deter any plan for nuclear waste dumping
The Legislature passed a bill into law in 2019 that prohibits the disposal of high-level radioactive waste in North Dakota. For the rules to even take effect, “the first thing you have to do is get that law overturned or thrown out,” State Geologist Ed Murphy said.
Regulators prep for an industry few want: nuclear waste disposal, Bismarck Tribune, 10 Aug, 20
The state Industrial Commission approved the regulations in late July, as well as new rules surrounding deep geothermal wells, another industry that does not exist in North Dakota but could emerge one day.
The waste disposal rules spell out all the steps an entity would have to go through if it were to propose storing “high-level radioactive waste” in North Dakota. Such waste is highly radioactive material generated from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, for example, and it requires permanent isolation……
The Legislature passed a bill into law in 2019 that prohibits the disposal of high-level radioactive waste in North Dakota. For the rules to even take effect, “the first thing you have to do is get that law overturned or thrown out,” State Geologist Ed Murphy said.
“We were writing rules for a program that, by law, is prohibited,” he said.
Roers said the thinking behind establishing the rules in light of the ban is that if the federal government were ever to try to trump North Dakota’s prohibition, it might still agree to follow the regulations established by the state.
If the entity wanted to move forward with a project, it would then need a “facility permit,” which would prompt a similar vetting process. Officials would have up to a year to decide whether to issue a permit.
Before granting a permit, the operator would need to deposit at least $100 million in a new state fund.
“The half-lives of some of the radioactive waste will be dangerous much longer than any sign, monument, or avoidance structures would remain unless they are maintained in perpetuity,” the regulations state. “This money is to be used to ensure the passive institutional controls are maintained for thousands of years.”
If a facility were to make it through the permitting process, it would have to pay an annual operating fee of at least $1 million to the state. It also would need to provide monthly reports on activities at the site and comply with reclamation rules when the site is no longer in use.
Documents regarding the location and depth of the site, as well as details about the half-life of the radioactive waste buried there, must be stored in local, state and national archives — an effort to ensure they last in perpetuity in case the information is needed hundreds or thousands of years down the road, Murphy said.
While counties cannot outright impose a ban on the disposal of the materials, any project would need to adhere to local zoning regulations as to the size, scope and location of the site.
Murphy said the state examined the regulations of 13 other states in developing its rules…………..
The new rules for high-level radioactive waste and deep geothermal energy have one final hurdle to clear before they become official — they will go to a legislative Administrative Rules Committee for approval. ….. https://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/regulators-prep-for-an-industry-few-want-nuclear-waste-disposal/article_5afd3c76-9ac1-556f-be69-50f6c9811642.html
UK Chancellor evasive on the involvement of China in building Bradwell nuclear plant
|
LBC 7th Aug 2020 The Chancellor refuses to rule out a U-turn on the involvement of China in
the building of the Bradwell nuclear power station in Essex. Tom Swarbrick asked Chancellor Rishi Sunak if the Government would still allow a Chinese state-owned nuclear power company to build a nuclear power plant at Bradwell, in Essex. Rishi Sunak said the Government’s position hasn’t changed adding “decisions haven’t been made” for the project. The
Chancellor said the Business Secretary would be the lead minister on this issue and he thought a paper would be published on it in Autumn. When LBC host Tom asked if the Chancellor thought Chinese president Xi Jinping was a “reliable partner,” Mr Sunak said he thought the UK should have an “eyes wide open relationship with China.” He added the country was “obviously
important to us in many ways” for supply of goods and as a trading partner. But, the senior Minister said, “we should be eyes wide open where we have different values and interests and we should be robust in standing up for those things.” The Chancellor cited Huawei as an example of the Government taking “quite strong, and significant action over time.”https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/tom-swarbrick/chancellor-says-uk-needs-eyes-wide-open-relationship-with-china/ |
|
|
Nuclear crime seems to have actually still been worth it for South Carolina fraudsters
Executive admits fraud in fleecing ratepayers and shareholders https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/72759838/posts/2851460855 By Linda Pentz Gunter
“It looks like crime might well pay after all.”
That was the weary and only slightly tongue-in-cheek conclusion drawn by longtime anti-nuclear campaigner, Tom Clements recently, after a former South Carolina nuclear utility executive pled guilty to fraud in federal court.
Clements is the director of Savannah River Site Watch, but his activism has, for decades, extended well beyond the perimeter of that vast nuclear site.
For years, Clements and others have followed — and attempted to stand in the way of — the forced march of South Carolina ratepayers toward nuclear fiasco. When it finally unraveled in late July, there was only cautious cause for celebration.
On July 23, Stephen Byrne, the former COO of SCANA, the South Carolina utility originally in charge of the construction of two new nuclear reactors in the state, pled guilty in a massive nuclear conspiracy that defrauded ratepayers, deceived regulators and misled shareholders.
Byrne is charged with lying about progress on two Westinghouse AP 1000 reactors under construction — and since abandoned — at the V.C. Summer site, where costs ballooned to more than $9 billion.
The lies — or “intentional misrepresentations” as court documents described them — were necessary to make the case that the two new reactors would be finished on time, thereby qualifying the company for $1.4 billion in future federal tax credits.
But when Clements did the math, Byrne still came out ahead. “One of the court filings says Byrne earned $6.3 million from 2015-2017,” Clements said. “The project originally started with a filing with the SC Public Service Commission in 2008 and ended in July 2017. His plea agreement says he will pay a $1 million fine, though the judge could make it higher.”
So yes, crime still pays.
And so did South Carolina ratepayers. They were bilked of at least $2 billion until the project faltered and finally collapsed. A class action law suit and decisions by judges will see millions returned to ratepayers.
Ironically, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s lobbying group, gave Byrne the opportunity to explain exactly how ratepayers could be fleeced in advance to save money. In this 2012 NEI video, Byrne describes how Construction Work in Progress (CWIP) would allow the utility to collect funds from ratepayers in advance rather than waiting for construction completion — which has now, of course, not happened, even though customers paid for two new reactors that failed to materialize.
Byrne, who began cooperating with investigators about two years into the now three year-long investigation, could face jail time and a fine, but will likely testify against his co-conspirators to reduce his punishment.
For the time being, the judge has let him go home without even requiring he post the $25,000 bond. Sentencing could be years down the road. Clements believes Byrne “should face prison time” and that he “must fully reveal the criminal role of others in the conspiracy that has been so disastrous for ratepayers.”
Two other top SCANA executives could also be in the FBI’s crosshairs by now — former CEO Kevin Marsh and former chief financial officer Jimmy Addison.
Early warning signals of trouble to come sounded in February 2020, when Byrne and Marsh were charged with civil fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The agency said the pair “lied and deceived shareholders, regulators, and the public regarding the construction of two new nuclear units at the V.C. Summer site, which the company abandoned amid massive cost overruns in July 2017,” according to reporting in Energy and Policy.
The thoroughly duped — or possibly hopelessly biased — S.C. Public Service Commission, had earlier “allowed SCE&G to raise its electric rates nine times to finance the doomed V.C. Summer Nuclear Station project,” reported the Charlotte Observer.
But by January 2019, the PSC had changed its mind, saying that “SCE&G intentionally misled the commission about a failing nuclear reactor construction project to win electric rate hikes.”
Clements joined other protesters outside the Columbia, SC courthouse where Byrne pled guilty to his offenses. “As he scurried into the federal courthouse, Byrne refused to tell us if he would apologize for his crime against ratepayers,” Clements said.
He, along with other South Carolina activists, and with support of Friends of the Earth, had consistently opposed the state law (CWIP, described in the NEI video), that had allowed the utility to fleece ratepayers in advance of completion of the reactors. The groups had also contested approval of the two-reactor project before the SC PSC since 2008.
As Clements watched Byrne enter the courthouse, finally forced to face up to his crimes, he basked, for a brief moment, in the glow of the celebratory light at the end of the tunnel.
“I’m glad there is going to be a little bit of justice,” Clements told the Post and Courier. And in an email, he wrote: “Nukes bring fraud, graft and corruption wherever they go. The next charges here will be more serious, I think.”
The Post and Courier described the nuclear debacle as “one of the worst economic calamities in South Carolina history”.
But while there may eventually be a day of reckoning — and sentencing — until then, South Carolina ratepayers could keep right on paying.
That is because, when SCANA went bankrupt over the Summer debacle, Dominion Energy took over. Dominion, says Clements, “will file a rate-hike request next month and the cost to ratepayers for the nuclear construction debacle will go up.”
Nuclear blackmail in Illinois — Beyond Nuclear International
Ratepayers robbed of renewables as well as cash
Nuclear blackmail in Illinois https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/72759838/posts/2851460456
Exelon stranglehold on energy legislation runs long and deep
By David Kraft, 9 Aug 20
The recent Illinois lobbying corruption scandal involving Exelon Corporation, its subsidiary Commonwealth Edison and Democratic House Speaker, Michael Madigan, demonstrates the extent to which nuclear “power” is about more than electrons.
The FBI arrests of the Ohio House Speaker and five others in a $60 million bribery/corruption scheme; the $10 billion Exelon nuclear bailout in New York; the questionable circumstances surrounding Exelon’s 2016 PepCo merger; and the South Carolina $9 billion SCANA fraud case, suggest that this may be a national pandemic.
All of this was summarized nicely in a recent New York Times opinion column, “When Utility Money Talks,” (8/2/20).
However, the situation in Illinois with Exelon, and its subsidiary ComEd, has been longstanding and particularly egregious.
For decades, Exelon’s stranglehold on Illinois energy legislation, in cooperation with the currently investigated Mr. Madigan, has stuck Illinois with more reactors (14) and high-level radioactive waste (>11,000 tons) than any other state. It has also severely stifled expansion of renewable energy and energy efficiency, and hampered the Illinois energy transformation to renewables needed to deal with the worsening climate crisis.
For decades, the Illinois environmental community has seen renewables expansion thwarted because no significant renewable energy buildout could occur without concessions to either Exelon or ComEd, and without Speaker Madigan’s approval. The most recent instance was the 2016 $2.35 billion bailout of three uncompetitive Exelon reactors.
This “nuclear blackmail” politics has forced environmentalists wanting to see new legislation pass that would expand renewables, into a reluctant and grudging alliance with Exelon, but on Exelon’s terms, with capacity market “reform” rewarding both renewables and ten of the company’s operating reactors.
If passed in its presently proposed form, this new legislation would provide yet another nuclear bailout under the disguise of “market-based reform.”
To ratchet up the pressure to enact this nuclear prop-up even more, Exelon CEO Chris Crane, in Exelon’s 2Q quarterly earnings call with analysts, once again dangled the prospect of closing up to six reactors if this market-based-bailout is not granted in 2021.
Under the current ongoing FBI corruption investigation, this reluctant alliance of necessity has turned disastrous, given the political toxicity of any current association with either ComEd or Exelon.
It is just and reasonable that ComEd executives (and the so-called “bad apples” who “retired” already), should be penalized and prosecuted for their misdeeds, even if they are reportedly “cooperative.”
However, a $200 million “settlement” penalty for a $34 billion corporation, which for decades has gouged billions from Illinois ratepayers through admittedly corrupt illegal practices, is a slap on the wrist.
Further, the $200 million penalty agreement provides no restitution for the decades-long societal damage done via nuclear pay-for-play.
Illinois rate payers deserve restitution from these and any predatory, corrupt companies that would engage in such activities. This may require explicit legislation. How can one logically or ethically assert that ill-gotten gains (e.g., the 2016 $2.35 billion nuclear bailout) are still “good for the public” when bribery and corruption were used to get them?
Last Fall, a spokesperson for Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker stated, “The governor’s priority is to work with principled stakeholders on clean energy legislation that is above reproach.” Gov. Pritzker – your moment of truth has arrived.
We urge the governor and the legislature to begin the restitution process by repealing the $2.3 billion 2016 nuclear bailout. Further, and as others like Crain’s Joe Cahill have suggested, Crane must step down completely from all functions at Exelon.
The legislature should also enact explicit utility ethics legislation, with transparent oversight of utility contracting and philanthropic giving activities, to insure that this kind of corrupt behavior is not repeated.
And if Crane’s threat of imminent reactor closure is true, then community just-transitions legislation to protect those negatively impacted communities should be a priority of the legislature.
As NEIS has maintained — and advocated since 2014 — it’s the reactor communities (and equally adversely affected coal mining and power plant communities) that need state support and bailouts when plants are threatened with closure, not profitable private corporations like Exelon.
Finally, we support the FBI’s continued investigation into the activities of Speaker Madigan, his associates, and other legislators if necessary, to ferret out the remaining political corruption that has abetted this corporate larceny.
This is the only way to send a significant and lasting message that nuclear pay-for-play in Illinois is over.
David Kraft is the director of Nuclear Energy Information Service
Nuclear scandals in Ohio and Illinois raise serious issues about the role of government in the electricity sector.
  Twin nuclear scandals in Ohio and Illinois show why politicians shouldn’t be picking energy winners and losers: Josiah Neeley and Michael Haugh https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2020/08/twin-nuclear-scandals-in-ohio-and-illinois-show-why-politicians-shouldnt-be-picking-energy-winners-and-losers-josiah-neeley-and-michael-haugh.html Aug 09, 2020 “……… two very similar political scandals involving the nuclear industry are playing out in Ohio and Illinois. In both cases, the operators of nuclear power plants are alleged to have bribed the state’s speaker of the house in exchange for enactment of favorable treatment and government bailouts.
These twin scandals raise serious issues about the role of government in the electricity sector.
Take Illinois first. On July 17, electric utility Commonwealth Edison (ComEd) admitted in court documents that it had directed jobs and contracts to associates of Illinois speaker Michael Madigan in exchange for favorable treatment by the legislature, such as approval of rate increases. ComEd is paying a $200 million fine to avoid prosecution. Madigan has denied the charges.
The situation in Ohio is even wilder. The 82-page criminal complaint for federal racketeering, money laundering and bribery alleges that the speaker of the Ohio House essentially set up a “dark money” account into which eventually was poured over $61 million by a power company and others that stood to benefit from legislation. The money was used partly to finance primary candidates over an election cycle to secure the vote for the top leadership position in the Ohio House of Representatives. Perhaps even more disgusting, the bulk of it, $38 million, was allegedly used for ads to defeat a referendum attempt and to harass and buy off signature gathers who were trying to keep the legislation from going into effect via a vote of the people.
The major alleged funder of this effort was FirstEnergy Corp., identified as Company A Corp. in the complaint, then-owner through a subsidiary of the only two nuclear plants in Ohio. In return, the speaker allegedly delivered a $1 billion bailout of FirstEnergy’s failing nuclear plants in House Bill 6 and set up his own little fiefdom of representatives.
Corruption is as old as human history. But it’s worth considering whether there is something about the way that power plants are operated and regulated that makes scandals like those in Ohio and Illinois more likely. In Ohio, a person identified as Company A Corp.‘s CEO provided an answer in comments detailed in the complaint about a provision added to HB 6 in the Ohio Senate to “decouple” the company’s revenue from the amount of energy sales. Under this provision, if the utility made less money in a year than it had in 2018, it could add a surcharge to customers’ bills to make up the difference. As the CEO bragged to investors, the provision would help make them “somewhat recession-proof.” Revenue guarantees may be a great deal for electric providers, but they aren’t necessarily for consumers. Nevertheless, they are actually the norm throughout much of the United States. This is because electric providers were once all government-sanctioned monopolies, the rates of which were set to cover their costs plus a set percentage of profit. In recent decades, some states have moved away from this model, introducing more competition into the system, but there are still too many avenues open for government intervention. One of the main arguments used in favor of HB 6 was that the state had already intervened to support alternative energy, and so it was only fair to bail out nuclear plants, too.
Ultimately, there are two ways for a business to make money. One is through the market. The other is through politics. The more space we give to the latter, the more likely we are to see corruption. And the one who will definitely pay for this corruption is the customer. Josiah Neeley is a resident senior fellow in energy with the R Street Institute. Michael Haugh is a senior fellow with the R Street Institute. The libertarian-leaning institute favors free-market solutions.
|
|
Trump administration keen for nuclear power, – so is Joe Biden
 Trump Administration Pivots To Nuclear Energy, Finds Lever Against China, Russia, Forbes, Dipka Bhambhani, 9 Aug 20, Expanding U.S. commercial nuclear power abroad could become the Trump administration’s strongest lever against Chinese hegemony and Russian expansion in the global market. The U.S. Department of Energy, which is leading the national initiative, is on an aggressive timeline—five to seven years—to bring new advanced nuclear reactors for electric power to the international market. A senior Energy Department official told Forbes it’s a matter of national security……. a year ago, President Trump asked his Energy Secretary, Dan Brouillette, to assemble a nuclear energy working group to find ways to expand the U.S. nuclear energy industry in an effort to compete globally. ……
This May, DOE released Restoring America’s Competitive Nuclear Energy Advantage, a blueprint to transform a U.S. nuclear industry notorious for massive facilities, long construction timelines, cost overruns and a sour public opinion.
Baranwal has launched the $230 million Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP) currently calling on the U.S. private sector to apply to demonstrate they can construct smaller, more efficient, more affordable advanced reactors that can be commercially available within five to seven years. Applications are due August 12.
…..the issue is bipartisan, giving it breath to continue regardless of who wins in the presidential election in November.
For about a dozen years, the U.S. government poured money into nuclear energy research and development (R&D) at DOE’s national laboratories. Now, the U.S. government will use those existing platforms, resources, materials and expertise to help commercialize private sector innovation and bring new nuclear reactors to the world market. ……. Government Financing for Nuclear is Lining Up DOE’s blueprint tacitly instructed the U.S. Development Finance Corporation (DFC), formerly the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, to remove legacy policies that prevented it from investing in nuclear power projects overseas. A few weeks ago, DFC did just that. It said it would “prioritize support of advanced nuclear technology in emerging and frontier markets that adheres to the highest safety standards.” DOE also cited a role for the U.S. Export-Import Bank (EXIM Bank). Last November, Republican and Democratic lawmakers agreed to President Trump’s request to reauthorize the country’s export credit agency. EXIM Bank is chartered to finance and facilitate the sale of U.S.-made products for export. Forbes reported extensively on the long-term value of the reauthorization, proving useful for global nuclear energy. …… Chinese officials told Forbes the country would be willing to sign new 123 agreements with the U.S. and welcomes continued cooperation, not an adversarial relationship. China and the U.S. established a 123 agreement about two decades ago led by the DOE’s assistant secretary of international affairs in the Clinton administration, Robert Gee, now president of Gee Strategies Group in Washington. Zheng Dongdong, director of China’s Department of Energy Research, said, “Nuclear energy expansion is a global issue that should be considered with global perspective.” Zheng is also China’s assistant secretary-general of the Energy Investment Professional Committee under the Investment Association of China, an administrative arm of China’s Ministry of Civil Affairs, which promotes global investment in China. Zheng said the energy relationship with the U.S. has not always been strained. In 2007, China, the United States, France, Japan, and Russia jointly established the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a multilateral effort to share R&D of advanced nuclear energy technologies, adopt safe, reliable global nuclear energy power systems and promote nonproliferation. “This is a good platform and a very effective means to strengthen global nuclear energy cooperation,” Zheng said…… https://www.forbes.com/sites/dipkabhambhani/2020/08/07/trump-administration-pivots-to-nuclear-energy-finds-lever-against-china-russia/#70baa6f547b1 |
|
Conservative politicians in UK gathering opposition to China’s involvement in nuclear projects
|
China tensions raise doubts over UK nuclear projects
After Huawei’s ban, rebel Tory MPs turn their sights on CGN and its plans to build a new plant Ft.com
Jonathan Ford and Jim Pickard in London and Nathalie Thomas in Edinburgh AUGUST 6 2020 Flushed with their success at changing UK government policy towards Huawei, rebel Conservative MPs are now turning their attention to a proposed Chinese project to build a nuclear power station at Bradwell-on-Sea in the south-east of England.
In their sights is an agreement forged by the government of David Cameron, that would allow the Chinese nuclear group CGN to build its own nuclear plant in return for backing two giant French-led nuclear projects in Britain. The first of those French projects — a plant at Hinkley Point in the south west of England that could cost £22.5bn — is well under way and CGN has already pumped billions into the scheme.
“There are an awful lot of Tory MPs who will use their summer break to get their heads around the CGN situation,” said one person close to the rebel MPs. “Bradwell will be the focus of attention.” Just as with the decision to remove telecoms company Huawei from Britain’s 5G mobile phone networks by 2027, they are being encouraged by a US administration vocal in its opposition to China’s involvement in Britain’s nuclear programme.
In 2018, the US assistant secretary for international security and non-proliferation, Christopher Ashley Ford, warned the UK against partnering with the company, saying Washington had evidence it was taking civilian technology and converting it to military uses. CGN declined to comment.
At a private meeting with MPs last month, the subject of CGN’s activities was raised by US secretary of state Mike Pompeo, according to one person in the room. The senior Tory MP, Iain Duncan Smith has called for a review of nuclear contracts on the grounds that China is not a “trusted vendor”, and has likened Britain’s commercial dealings with Beijing to 1930s appeasement.
The closer scrutiny of China’s role in Britain’s nuclear programme comes at a crucial moment. The UK’s Committee on Climate Change has said that the country might need 38 per cent of its power from non-weather-dependent sources to help achieve “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050. Supporters of nuclear say it is the only proven technology capable of delivering that target. Yet despite this, plans to build a fleet of new reactors using private sector funding have stalled. ……..
Some MPs believe that Britain no longer needs CGN’s money because Boris Johnson’s government may be willing to contemplate public subsidies. The government last year launched a consultation on an alternative funding model, Regulated Asset Base (RAB), which is used for other infrastructure such as the Thames Tideway “super sewer” and would see consumers pay for nuclear plants upfront via their energy bills. Some experts have also floated the idea of the state taking direct stakes in schemes. …….
So far CGN has invested £3.8bn in the UK, the majority in Hinkley. CGN is funding a third of the construction costs for Hinkley and 20 per cent of the development costs of Sizewell C in Suffolk. ………
Ministers are yet to deliver their verdict on the RAB funding model and have continuously delayed a white paper on energy, originally expected last year, and which nuclear industry executives hope will emerge in October.
Last week the managing director of Hinkley Point C, Stuart Crooks, said the UK government “needs to decide if it wants nuclear or not.” ……..
environment groups such as Greenpeace insist there are far cheaper, greener ways of meeting the future country’s energy needs, such as offshore wind power. …… https://www.ft.com/content/9d0d3a75-d3f4-4cab-9176-be582140987c
|
|
Nuclear testing: ‘Why do we need to start a new arms race?’
|
Nuclear testing: ‘Why do we need to start a new arms race?’
Provision in National Defense Authorization Act to ban testing, Big Country, by: Alexandra Limon Aug 7, 2020 WASHINGTON (Nexstar) — The United States has not conducted live nuclear weapons tests for 28 years. But reports indicate the Trump Administration has discussed re-starting the nuclear testing program.
That has Democrats from the areas impacted by past testing — in Nevada and Utah — pushing a provision in this year’s National Defense Authorization Act to ban new nuclear tests. “It would prevent this administration or any in the future from using funds to restart nuclear weapons testing,” said Nevada Rep Dina Titus, who introduced the bill with support from Utah’s Ben McAdams. “Thousands and thousands of Utahns have developed cancer and died from those tests. And I think it’s important that we don’t see that testing resume,” he said. The ban on live nuclear testing was included in the House version of the NDAA, but it’s unclear if it will make it into the final version. “We can test our stockpile without doing tests with yield and our scientists have been doing it for over 20 years,” Titus said. “Why do we need to start a new arms race?”……. The National Defense Authorization Act likely won’t be finalized until after the November election. https://www.bigcountryhomepage.com/news/politics/nuclear-testing-why-do-we-need-to-start-a-new-arms-race/ |
|
NuScam’s (sort of) small nuclear reactors rejected by Utah Taxpayers Association
Critics of planned nuclear power project urge Utah cities to pull out before it’s too late, Utah Taxpayers Association warns it believes proposal is too costly, not transparent DeseretNews, By Amy Joi O’Donoghue@Amyjoi16 Aug 4, 2020 SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Taxpayers Association and a former member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission are urging cities that have signed on to a planned nuclear power plant in Idaho to get out while they can before costs become too great.
NuScale’s Small Modular Reactor is planned for construction at the Idaho National Laboratory near Idaho Falls and would provide 720 megawatts of power, or enough energy for 720,000 homes.
The Carbon Free Power Project is promoted as the next generation design for nuclear power, featuring 12 distinct modules, with the first scheduled to come online in 2029 with the 11 others following the next year.
The project is a collaborative effort involving the U.S. Department of Energy, NuScale and the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, a political subdivision of the state of Utah. ……
there are several off-ramps in those phases for cities to exit, one of which is coming up Sept. 14. That deadline prompted the taxpayers association to urge cities to get out now before they get trapped into paying millions for a technology it says is unproven.
“Small modular reactor power is just not cost competitive,” said Rusty Cannon, vice president of the taxpayer group, adding participating cities and districts should hold a public vote to withdraw from the project……..
Peter Bradford, a former member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said enthusiasm over new developments in nuclear technology that turned out to be flawed have cost ratepayers and taxpayers in multiple states billions of dollars.
He said that of 31 projects pending before the commission in 2009, only two remain — with the rest canceled or indefinitely postponed.
“The stranded costs of nuclear plants paid off by customers in the 1990s exceeded $50 billion nationwide,” he said. “Each period of abject failure is followed by an array of new proposals.”…….
The project is backed heavily by the U.S. Department of Energy, which gave NuScale a competitive award of $226 million in 2013 to develop the technology. Two years later, the federal agency gave NuScale $16.7 million for licensing preparation……..
Cannon and Bradford also criticized the municipal power association for not being transparent enough because its briefing meetings are exempt from the Utah open meetings law and are closed……… https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/8/4/21354171/critics-nuclear-power-project-urge-utah-cities-pull-out-nuscale-small-modular-reactor-idaho
1 This Month
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- October 2026 (268)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
-
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
