nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Philippines prone to natural disasters, but still contemplates nuclear power

Philippines seeks to relaunch nuclear power ambitions, Country prone to natural disasters eyes potential suppliers including Russia and US, Ft.com 27 Dec 19. The Philippines plans to revive its long-discontinued nuclear energy programme to combat the threat of a future power supply crunch — a prospect likely to raise safety concerns in a country prone to typhoons and earthquakes. The country is working with the International Atomic Energy Agency to meet the UN watchdog’s safety and other requirements, and investigating potential suppliers from Russia, South Korea, China and the US, said Alfonso Cusi, the energy secretary.  

The Philippines built a nuclear plant on the Bataan peninsula near Manila during the rule of dictator Ferdinand Marcos, but it faced public opposition and the project was shelved when successor Corazon Aquino took power in 1986.
Any nuclear plant would probably face popular opposition. Critics say the Bataan plant sits on a dormant volcano in a region prone to earthquakes, a notion that the government, which has played down safety concerns, rejects.
 “Wherever you build nuclear plants, it is doubly risky. You could have the danger of nuclear contamination which could be worsened by the geological conditions of the country,” said Lea Guerrero, country director for Greenpeace. “We are in the Ring of Fire,” he added, referring to the circle of active volcanoes and frequent earthquakes in the Pacific Ocean.
In a sign of its renewed interest, the country’s president Rodrigo Duterte signed a letter of intent with Russia’s state nuclear company to co-operate on reactor technology during a trip to Moscow in October. Mr Cusi said the Philippines was also considering rehabilitating the Bataan plant with South Korean help. Westinghouse, which has its headquarters in the US, built the original plant, which was completed but never put into operation, and could also build a new facility, he said, but there was “nothing definite” on this front.
 ……. Some analysts voiced scepticism over the Philippines’ ability to execute a nuclear project because of the cost, as well as delays other big infrastructure projects have faced.  “The Philippines struggles to get far less technically complicated and far less politically controversial infrastructure projects through its bureaucracy and completed,” said Jon Morales of the Singapore-based Vriens & Partners consultancy.
“Seven years to nuclear power is overly optimistic.”  Andrew Harwood, Asia-Pacific research director for the consultancy Wood Mackenzie, said the Bataan plant required “quite a bit of investment to restart”, and that coal and renewables were the cheapest available option.   https://www.ft.com/content/4e5c8d72-20a8-11ea-b8a1-584213ee7b2b

December 28, 2019 Posted by | Philippines, politics | Leave a comment

Kyrgyzstan bans uranium, thorium mining

Above – radioactive tailings mountain in Central Asia

December 21, 2019 Posted by | ASIA, environment, politics, thorium, Uranium | Leave a comment

Yet more delay – Finland’s Olkiluoto 3 nuclear reactor already 12 years behind schedule

December 21, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, Finland, politics | Leave a comment

Boris Johnson’s overhaul of govt departments. Will it really be good for the environment?

Times 16th Dec 2019, Boris Johnson wants an overhaul of Whitehall that would merge departments and make it easier to fire civil servants and bring in experts from outside. Climate change would again become a separate department, allowing Mr Johnson to claim that he has a commitment to the environment.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prime-ministers-cummings-plan-for-civil-service-zv85vxd8z

December 17, 2019 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Call to postpone a  decision on Suffolk’s new nuclear power station bid

East Anglian Daily Times 16th Dec 2019, An MP has called on the Secretary of State for Energy to postpone a  decision on Suffolk’s new nuclear power station bid – accusing developers  of failing to address community concerns.

Central Suffolk and North Ipswich MP Dan Poulter told Andrea Leadsom that EDF Energy’s latest consultation on Sizewell C still failed to provide enough information for consultees to make an informed response. EDF is expected to make its ‘Development Consent Order’ to the Planning Inspectorate early next year – after finishing its stage four consultation in September.

But Dr Poulter, said the company’s stage four consultation still left too many unanswered questions. EDF said its consultation had engaged with thousands of people across East Suffolk, providing updates on its plans as they evolved. It said it held regular meetings with parish councils and had provided funding to offer themindependent and free guidance during consultation.

But it faced regular criticism over the level of detail supplied in each stage of consultation. Dr Poulter said EDF’s lack of detail was a “common theme”. “There was some hope among interested parties in East Suffolk that EDF would use the stage four consultation to address the numerous calls for better information, but a review of the responses indicates EDF has missed this opportunity,” Dr Poulter wrote.

He said the collective response from the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB was “particularly damning”. The response said the consultation failed to pay proper regard to the purposes of the AONB – “despite comments made in previous consultations”. Dr Poulter said the information called for should be provided in EDF’s DCO but he had “serious reservations” of its ability to do so, given its failings so far.

Even if EDF was able to provide the information, Dr Poulter said the amount of data consultees would need to go through would be “substantial” – meaning their ability to make proper responses would be “severely limited”. Explaining his letter, Dr Poulter said: “EDF are behaving in a disdainful and unacceptable way towards many of the communities in East Suffolk. They should engage
properly and consult with local communities so the very real concerns of
residents about what the construction of Sizewell C means for them can be
properly considered and addressed.”

https://www.eadt.co.uk/business/suffolk-mp-dan-poulter-calls-for-delay-to-edf-energy-s-sizewell-c-submission-1-6424742

December 17, 2019 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Sceptisim over Boris Johnson’s promises environment and climate

The Conversation 13th Dec 2019, Rebecca Willis: Climate change had a higher profile in the UK election campaign than ever before, with parties competing hard over their offer to concerned voters.

But this was a debate that the Conservatives – who won a landslide majority – largely stood back from. Their manifesto was light on detail compared to the other parties, and Boris Johnson chose not to take part in the first ever UK televised leaders’ debate on climate.

Conservative candidates were conspicuous by their absence in local climate
hustings, too. Neither was climate mentioned in their legislative plan for
the first hundred days. The Conservative government did legislate for a net
zero carbon emissions target back in June, following the advice of the
Committee on Climate Change. And there was an explicit manifesto pledge to
deliver on this target, with no signs of backtracking.

In his speech to the party faithful on the morning of his election, Johnson declared his ambition to “make this country the cleanest, greenest on Earth, with the most far-reaching environmental programme”, adding: And you the people of this country voted to be carbon-neutral in this election – you voted to be carbon-neutral by 2050. And we’ll do it.

But targets don’t reduce carbon. Policies do. And despite its much-admired Climate Change Act, the UK’s policy record lately has not been good. The Committee on Climate Change have repeatedly warned that the UK is off track to meet future commitments, a verdict shared by the independent Climate Action Tracker project, which assesses each country’s performance against the Paris Agreement. It rated the UK as “insufficient”, with policies compatible
with a 3°C world – not the 1.5°C level that we desperately need.

If the new government is serious about its commitment, it will have to signal this soon, and with confidence. Steps that it could and should take straight
away include: instigating a swift review of governance for net-zero, giving
responsibility and resources to other government departments, and,
crucially, to local areas, to deliver on carbon strategy; prioritising
climate and environmental protection in negotiations for a trading
relationship with the European Union; moving quickly to consult on a
phase-out date for petrol and diesel vehicles, as promised in its
manifesto; removing the de facto ban on onshore wind energy, which the
Committee on Climate Change advised needs to increase in capacity by 1GW a
year; confirming its opposition to fracking, and making its moratorium
permanent; pledging to formally consider the results of the national
citizens’ assembly on climate change, Climate Assembly UK, due to report
in 2020.

https://theconversation.com/what-boris-johnsons-government-needs-to-do-to-show-it-is-serious-on-climate-change-128885

December 16, 2019 Posted by | climate change, politics, UK | Leave a comment

UK election. Green Party grew by 60%

Business Green 13th Dec 2019, The Green Party saw its total number of votes grow by over 60 per cent in yesterday’s election, delivering the biggest percentage gains of any party following a campaign that saw environmental issues take centre stage.
Caroline Lucas retained her seat in Brighton Pavilion, increasing her share
of the vote by almost five per cent to 57 per cent.

https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/3084650/green-party-celebrates-60-per-cent-vote-surge

December 16, 2019 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear power the worst, most unsuitable, most expensive power option for Ontario

December 14, 2019 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

U.S. Democrats cave in to a weak compromise National Defense Authorization Act

December 14, 2019 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | 1 Comment

UK Conservatives get big donations from fossil fuel and weapons companiess

Unearthed 11th Dec 2019, The Conservative election campaign has received hundreds of thousands of pounds from wealthy investors in the global fossil fuels industry, according to a new analysis by Unearthed. Some of the companies and projects benefiting from donors’ investments are opening up new fossil fuel reserves – even as the world battles climate change and the UK
prepares to host a crunch summit next year.

One of the Tory’s major donors also runs a hedge fund that holds significant investments in a major weapons manufacturer and a mining giant. Meanwhile the Liberal Democrats have taken a significant donation from a subsidiary of a hedge fund that has a major stake in the energy firm being blamed for California’s deadly wildfires and another stake in a French oil services firm.

The analysis looked at donations to political parties over £50,000 during the first three weeks of the election campaign and the financial holdings of
investment companies, as collected and presented by Bloomberg.

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/12/11/donations-election-campaign-investments-fossil-fuels/

December 12, 2019 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

The status of Japan’s nuclear policy and future prospects

December 10, 2019 Posted by | Japan, politics | Leave a comment

France’s nuclear industry in dire straits

The French nuclear revolution is rusting away, December 6, 2019, THE AUSTRALIAN, Henry Ergas “……..France’s nuclear power industry faces a future that is more uncertain than ever.  The problems gripping the industry were highlighted late last month in an official report prepared by the former president and chief executive of PSA Peugeot Citroen, Jean Martin Folz.

While the report’s focus is on the difficulties that have plagued the construction of a new reactor at Flamanville in northwestern France, its implications reach much further.

With nuclear power plants accounting for more than 70 per cent of its overall electricity generation, no country is as dependent on nuclear energy as is France.

The decision to rely so massively on nuclear energy was taken in 1974, after the oil shock of the previous year had underlined France’s vulnerability to Middle Eastern oil. Prime minister Pierre Messmer launched a crash program that led to the construction of 56 reactors in just 15 years.

…….. however, most of France’s generators are approaching the final decade of their useful life. Planning for their replacement has been a stop-start affair, with the Greens’ increasingly strident opposition to nuclear power deterring successive governments from taking action.

As a result, only the Flamanville plant received the go-ahead, with construction beginning in 2007 for an expected entry into service in 2012. Virtually from the outset, the project was beset by woes. At this stage, the total costs of construction are four times greater than initially estimated, while the plant will not enter service before the end of 2022.

The problems stem partly from the sheer complexity of the new reactor, which is the first of its kind to be built in France.

Additionally, the catastrophe at Fukushima in 2011 led to regulatory changes that necessitated costly redesigns. And the project has suffered more than its fair share of mismanagement, aggravated by a byzantine allocation of responsibilities between EDF, the main French electricity utility, which oversaw the project, and many layers of subcontractors.

However, as the Folz report shows, the primary cause of the difficulties lies in the erosion of the industry’s skill base during the long hiatus from the end of the crash program in 1990 to the initiation of Flamanville………

There is, at this point, no prospect of France scaling up its nuclear program ………The cost blowout at Olkiluoto drove Areva, the “national champion” of France’s nuclear industry, into bankruptcy.

Even with an injection of $7.3bn in public funds EDF, which acquired Areva, lacks the balance sheet strength to underwrite new projects, while the French government’s borrowing ability is hampered by its already too high levels of debt.

To make matters worse, the regulated prices at which EDF has to sell the power it generates mean that it cannot charge its European clients the full value of the baseload it supplies.

As for global investors, who might provide the debt financing EDF would require, they are wary of projects that are risky in themselves ….

Given those constraints, the government has announced a modest plan to eventually build six additional reactors. So far, however, there are no actionable decisions beyond the completion of Flamanville. And work on the next generation of reactors….. has been quietly downgraded, making it likely that there will no fourth generation reactor of French design.

The consequences for France itself are far-reaching. Beginning in the late 1950s, French firms succeeded in one high-technology market after the other by developing or acquiring a rather basic design (including the Westinghouse Pressurised Water Reactor, the Mirage jet fighter and the TGV high-speed train) that they up­graded while producing it on a large scale.

That era is over, and there is every sign France is struggling with almost all the major projects it has in train.

The Folz report should therefore come as an ominous warning for Australia’s submarine project, as it identifies French industry’s serious managerial and technological weaknesses in a range of areas, such as precision welding, that are crucial to that project’s success……. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/the-french-nuclear-revolution-is-rusting-away/news-story/afe4546ed799939cf117d71f05035c5e

December 7, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, France, politics | Leave a comment

Nuclear power headed to be excluded from EU green finance scheme

‘Do no harm’: Nuclear squeezed out of EU green finance scheme, By Frédéric Simon | EURACTIV.com Dec 6, 2019 European Greens claimed victory on Thursday (5 December) after EU negotiators reached agreement on a green finance taxonomy aimed at channelling billions of private investor’s money into clean technologies. Coal, and – in principle – nuclear power, are out.

The deal, reached by national envoys and EU Parliament negotiators yesterday evening, marks a stunning defeat for France, which lobbied hard to win recognition for nuclear energy as a low-carbon source of energy…….

Do no harm” test

But the European Parliament “resisted attempts from national governments to politicise the environmental criteria” underpinning the EU’s new sustainable finance classification scheme, the Greens said in a statement.

A strengthened “do no harm” principle means nuclear power will – in all likelihood – be excluded from the EU’s green finance taxonomy when experts sit down to agree detailed implementing rules next year, they said.

The ‘no-harm’ test “will help avoid nuclear energy from being considered an environmentally sustainable investment,” the Greens said in a statement to the press.

The taxonomy will provide investors, pension funds and private equity firms with “a common definition of what is green and what is not” in order to channel more capital into sustainable businesses and prevent “green-washing,” the European Commission said last year when it tabled the proposed new regulation.

The deal creates three categories for sustainable investments: “green”, “enabling” and “transition”. It also obliges companies with more than 500 employees to disclose how much of their activities are compliant with the three new categories, the FT reported.

“Today’s compromise will shift financial flows away from dirty, carbon intensive investments and into sustainable economic activities,” said Bas Eickhout, a Dutch Green MEP who was the European Parliament’s lead negotiator on the draft EU regulation.

“Any investment in coal cannot be considered sustainable,” he said in a statement……..

EU experts will now have to sit down and lay out thresholds to determine which economic activities can qualify as green. These will include CO2 emission limits for power production, which EU experts have tentatively set at 100g of CO2 per KWh – a threshold that would, in principle, exclude natural gas.

Here again, the Greens claimed they won guarantees ensuring those implementing rules “will be prepared by a balanced platform of experts” – not national envoys.

During the negotiations, France pushed for technical thresholds to be decided by a group of experts appointed by EU national governments. But the Greens resisted those attempts, saying that would have exposed the group to political pressures.

“The key part of the agreement is the strong independent governance structure,” Jess said.

“The text establishes an independent Platform on Sustainable Finance who will be responsible for developing and maintaining the full taxonomy going forward,” he explained. The expert group will also be responsible for monitoring capital flows and advising governments in their economic transition.

The agreement still needs to be formally endorsed by EU member states and the European Parliament. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/do-no-harm-nuclear-squeezed-out-of-eu-green-finance-scheme/

December 7, 2019 Posted by | EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

NRC Approves Transfer of Nuclear Plant Operating Licenses From FirstEnergy Solutions to Energy Harbor,

NRC Approves Transfer of Nuclear Plant Operating Licenses From FirstEnergy Solutions to Energy Harbor, On November 25, FES announced that it will change its corporate name to Energy Harbor when its restructuring process is completed.AKRON, Ohio, Dec. 4, 2019 /PRNewswire/ — FirstEnergy Solutions (FES) announced today that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has approved the transfer of the operating licenses for the Davis-Besse, Perry and Beaver Valley nuclear power stations from the FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) to Energy Harbor Nuclear upon the company’s successful emergence from restructuring.

On November 25, FES announced that it will change its corporate name to Energy Harbor when its restr

completed…..https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nrc-approves-transfer-nuclear-plant-140000164.html

December 5, 2019 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

U.S. election – views of Presidential candidates about nuclear weapons

Nuclear weapons — they’re still out there. Presidential candidates have ideas on them,  San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko Dec. 1, 2019 ,  One topic that’s gotten little attention during the presidential campaign is the high-stakes issue of nuclear weapons. That’s partly because campaigns tend to focus on bread-and-butter issues, like health care and taxes. They largely steer clear of foreign policy, especially an aspect that’s downright terrifying.

But it’s an issue that matters, to the nation and the world. And the candidates’ public statements, and responses to Chronicle queries, reveal divergent views.

One question that has surfaced is whether the United States, the only nation that has ever used atomic weapons, should reverse its policy and declare it would not strike the first nuclear blow in a future war.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has introduced legislation that would establish “no first use” of nuclear weapons as binding law. Sen. Bernie Sanders, independent-Vt., is a co-sponsor. Former Vice President Joe Biden told a public gathering in June that “I supported it 20 years before she introduced it.” Several other presidential hopefuls — Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii; entrepreneur Andrew Yang; spirituality author Marianne Williamson; billionaire Tom Steyer — have endorsed the concept.

The only Democratic candidate with a contrary view is Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, who said in the second presidential debate in July that “I wouldn’t want to take that (first use) off the table.”

But others — Sens. Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, and former U.S. Housing Secretary Julián Castro — have told interviewers in recent months that they hadn’t reviewed Warren’s proposal and weren’t ready to take a position on it.

The interviewers were from the Union of Concerned Scientists, which favors nuclear de-escalation and sent young people to campaign events to question the candidates.

One prominent candidate, South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, appears to have come down on both sides…….

Besides no first use, The Chronicle asked candidates about the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, signed by the United States in 1963 but never ratified by the Senate; the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, a disarmament pact endorsed by the U.N. General Assembly and ratified by 33 nations so far, but not by the United States or any other nuclear powers; and the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a 1988 agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States under President Ronald Reagan that banned land-based ballistic missiles with a range of up to 3,400 miles. The Trump administration withdrew from that treaty in February.

Some candidates did not respond, including Warren, Harris and Booker. Among those who did, Sanders, Williamson and Steyer took the firmest positions in support of the weapons treaties……..

While Warren’s campaign did not reply to questions about the treaties, the senator has publicly opposed the nuclear buildup proposed by Obama and endorsed by Trump.

“No new nuclear weapons,” Warren said in a November 2018 speech on foreign policy. “We should not spend over a trillion dollars to modernize our nuclear arsenal, at a time when the president is doing everything he can to undermine generations of verified arms-control agreements.”

Perhaps some of those discussions will reach a public forum as the campaign continues.  Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: begelko@sfchronicle.com Twitter:@BobEgelko  https://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/article/Nuclear-weapons-they-re-still-out-there-14873992.php

December 3, 2019 Posted by | politics, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »