America’s nuclear lobby spending up big to get $millions in State subsidies
In a Time of Cheap Fossil Fuels, Nuclear Power Companies Are Seeking — and Getting — Big Subsidies
Illinois and New York have approved hundreds of millions of dollars in clean-energy incentives for nuclear power companies. New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland could be next. Pro Publica by Talia Buford, April 17, 19“……….It would be a “safety net” for the company’s nuclear operations in New Jersey, Izzo said. ([Ralph Izzo, chairman, president and CEO of energy company PSEG] It would not, he emphasized, be “a bailout.” On Thursday, regulators in New Jersey are scheduled to decide whether PSEG has shown that it needs the subsidies, which would be paid for through a surcharge on all customer bills in the state. If the Board of Public Utilities approves the requests, New Jersey would join two other states, Illinois and New York, in giving nuclear power plants hundreds of millions of dollars in order to stay competitive in the wholesale energy market. The campaign for the subsidies took to the pages of the state’s largest newspaper, The Star-Ledger, this week. A full-page ad on Monday signed by the employees of the Salem and Hope Creek plants, and another on Tuesday, signed by eight former New Jersey governors, praised the subsidy plan and warned of the consequences of not acting. ………..In recent years, the nuclear power industry has ramped up efforts to cultivate influence with legislators and alliances with environmentalists. The industry’s gains thus far haven’t been easy, or cheap. In New Jersey, PSEG spent nearly $4 million over the course of 2017 and 2018 lobbying the Legislature on the nuclear subsidies. By comparison, groups lobbying on marijuana legalization, the other big issue of the last two legislative sessions, spent $1.7 million, according to the state Election Law Enforcement Commission……… In each state, the push for subsidies has come after warnings that the plants would have to close. But critics of the programs say that in many instances, the plants are profitable, and the companies are using scare tactics to bully legislators into subsidizing shareholder profits. “They rattled their saber many times,” said Abe Scarr, state director of Illinois Public Interest Research Group, a consumer organization that opposed the subsidies. “Regardless of whether it was a bluff or not, certainly their threats were a ploy to build pressure on Illinois decision makers.” Threatening to close plants in the name of shareholder profits is a tactic Stefanie Brand, director of the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, a state-appointed advocate for utility customers, said she hadn’t seen before. “It’s a level of coercion that is really unprecedented,” Brand said………https://www.propublica.org/article/in-a-time-of-cheap-fossil-fuels-nuclear-power-companies-are-seeking-and-getting-big-subsidies |
|
China gambles on untested “Hualong One” nuclear reactor, and plans for international sales
China goes all-in on home grown tech in push for nuclear dominance, David Stanway, SHANGHAI (Reuters)17 Apr 19 – China plans to gamble on the bulk deployment of its untested “Hualong One” nuclear reactor, squeezing out foreign designs, as it resumes a long-delayed nuclear program aimed at meeting its clean energy goals, government and industry officials said.
China, the world’s biggest energy consumer, was once seen as a “shop window” for big nuclear developers to show off new technologies, with Beijing embarking on a program to build plants based on designs from France, the United States, Russia and Canada. But after years of construction delays, overseas models such as Westinghouse’s AP1000 and France’s “Evolutionary Pressurised Reactor” (EPR) are now set to lose out in favor of new localized technologies, industry experts and officials said. ……….Though China has yet to complete its first Hualong One, officials are confident it will not encounter the delays suffered by rivals, and say it can compete on safety and cost. Beijing has already decided to use the Hualong One for its first newly commissioned nuclear project in three years, set to begin construction later this year at Zhangzhou, a site originally earmarked for the AP1000. [nL3N2152KM] ……… EDF, France’s state-run utility, which helped build the EPR project at Taishan in Guangdong province, declined to comment. Westinghouse, now owned by Brookfield after entering bankruptcy restructuring, also did not respond to a request for comment. INTERNATIONAL AMBITIONSChina’s ambitions for the Hualong One extend overseas as well. The first foreign project using the reactor is under construction in Pakistan and the model is in the running for projects in Argentina and Britain……..https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-nuclearpower-hualong/china-goes-all-in-on-home-grown-tech-in-push-for-nuclear-dominance-idUSKCN1RT0C0 |
North Dakota prohibits nuclear waste dumping in the state
Will the Japanese people agree to their government welcoming American nuclear weapons inside Japan?
The Pain and Politics of Hiroshima
Nuclear Weapons in the Reiwa Era https://allthingsnuclear.org/gkulacki/nuclear-weapons-in-the-reiwa-era, GREGORY KULACKI, CHINA PROJECT MANAGER AND SENIOR ANALYST | APRIL 11, 2019 Japan will soon have a new emperor and a new dynastic name to mark the traditional Japanese calender: Reiwa (令和). Interminable commentary on the significance of the name is just beginning, but in the end it will be defined not by words but by deeds. One of the most important acts the Japanese people may be compelled to take as the new era begins is to decide whether to allow their government to introduce US nuclear weapons into Japan. They may have to choose between continuing to honor the LEGACY OF HIROSHIMA and the warnings of the HIBAKUSHA or abandoning Japan’s longstanding role as a leading voice for peace and nuclear disarmament.
UCS obtained a document that contains a detailed description of the Japanese foreign ministry’s requirements for US nuclear weapons. Multiple conversations with the Japanese official who presented this document to his US counterparts not only confirmed its content, they also revealed this small group of hawkish officials wants to train Japanese military personnel to deliver US nuclear weapons. They would even like the United States to grant Japanese leaders the authority to decide when to use them. Japanese officials refer to this arrangement as “nuclear sharing.”
Public opinion polls indicate many Japanese people would like to make the use or threat to use nuclear weapons illegal, which is the purpose of the recently adopted UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). A large majority of their elected representatives, even within Abe’s ruling LDP, want to uphold Japan’s Three Non-Nuclear Principles, which forbid “nuclear sharing.” Many Japanese people take pride in the belief that their country plays a leading role in advancing nuclear disarmament.
Abe appears to have injected his nationalist agenda into the selection of the name for the new era. Press reports highlight that Reiwa (令和) is the first Japanese dynastic name not taken from the Chinese classics. The collection of Japanese poetry that inspired Abe’s selection was popular among the military officers of Imperial Japan who led their nation into World War II. Critics panned Reiwa as a cold expression of Abe’s authoritarian tendencies, but it seemed to be well-received and gave an immediate lift to the popularity of a man on track to become the longest serving prime minister in Japanese history.
Only time will tell. Japanese attitudes towards nuclear weapons may be the most important window into the ultimate meaning of Reiwa. Making sure the Japanese people know what their government is saying and doing about nuclear weapons may be the best way to ensure that window is clear.
As WHO upholds South Korea’s ban, Japan promotes Fukushima food exports
Japan pitches safety of food from Fukushima and Tohoku in wake of WTO ruling for South Korea, Japan Times ,12 Apr19, KYODO Japan will seek to reassure other countries about the safety of food produced in areas affected by the 2011 Fukushima nuclear crisis, officials said Friday, after the World Trade Organization supported South Korea’s import ban on some Japanese seafood.Fishermen in Tohoku, the region hit hardest by the devastating earthquake and subsequent tsunami that triggered the triple core meltdown at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, expressed disappointment with the WTO’s decision, saying their catches clear strict safety checks before shipment……….
Japan has been promoting its agricultural and seafood exports, which have been growing in recent years and reached ¥906.8 billion ($8.1 billion) in 2018, putting the government’s target of ¥1 trillion for this year in sight.
By holding baseball and soccer games in the disaster-hit region, Japan hopes to present the Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics in 2020 as a symbol of reconstruction.
“I will promote the high quality of food products (in the disaster-hit areas),” Olympics minister Shunichi Suzuki said at a news conference held just a day after he was reappointed to his role.
The WTO’s appellate body for dispute settlement on Thursday ruled in favor of South Korea’s import ban on fishery products from Fukushima and seven other prefectures, reversing an earlier decision.
Thursday’s ruling is final as the appellate body is the highest authority in the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism.
Due to fears of radioactive contamination, South Korea expanded its initial ban to include all fishery products from Fukushima and the seven other prefectures in 2013.
A total of 54 countries and regions introduced import restrictions following the meltdowns. The number has since declined, but South Korea is among 23 that are keeping the restrictions in place, according to the Japanese government. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/04/12/national/japan-pitches-safety-food-fukushima-vicinity-wake-wto-ruling-south-korea/#.XLEUO4kzbGg
Revised Ohio nuclear ‘bailout’ bill ould still exclude wind and solar from clean air credits
|
Revised Ohio nuclear ‘bailout’ bill raises more questions, ENERGY NEWS, 13 APR 19, John Funk,, An updated version of the bill would still exclude wind and solar from clean air credits, while allowing payments to unspecified “reduced emissions resources.”
COLUMBUS — Republican lawmakers in the Ohio House introduced legislation Friday that would provide subsidies for two Ohio nuclear power plants owned by FirstEnergy Solutions, while at the same time defunding decade-old renewable energy and efficiency programs. The bill also includes language to allow funds collected from ratepayers to “reduce the emissions from other generating technologies that can be readily dispatched to satisfy demand in real time,” without specifying what technologies that could include. The Ohio Clean Air Program created by the proposed legislation would provide an annual subsidy for any power plant producing zero carbon dioxide emissions at the rate of $9.25 for every megawatt-hour produced. While the word “nuclear” does not actually appear anywhere in the bill, this designation would include nuclear plants and potentially some wind and solar installations. But solar farms would have to be able to generate at least 50 megawatts (MW) in order to participate, and only wind farms between 5 MW and 50 MW could qualify. A spokeswoman for the office of House Speaker Larry Householder (R-Glenford) acknowledged that there are currently no solar farms that large in operation in Ohio, but that three have been approved and another six very large solar projects are pending………. Bill leaves many questions unansweredThe legislation proposes to create two categories of power plants — a “clean energy resource” and a “reduced emissions resource.” The first category would be defined as not producing any carbon dioxide, the latter describing power plants that have made, or will make, “significant contributions” to “minimizing emissions.” The legislation does not specify what those terms mean, and leaves the details to the Ohio Air Quality Development Board, which must develop and administer the program. The bill would expand the OARDC, whose members are currently appointed by the governor, to include four state legislators……. The company, FirstEnergy Solutions, which has just been dealt a setback in a federal bankruptcy court ruling rejecting its agreement holding parent FirstEnergy Corp. harmless for future environmental problems, has told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that it would close all three of its nuclear plants by the fall of 2021. Davis-Besse is the first plant it would close, by May 31, 2020. ……. ‘Nothing more than another bailout tax’Clean energy advocates immediately condemned the legislation. “The bill announced today is nothing more than another bailout tax for failing nuclear plants paid for on the back of hardworking Ohioans,” said Trish Demeter, vice president of Energy Policy at the Ohio Environmental Council. “The proposed bill would dismantle one of the only state policies that reliably deliver electric bill savings to customers, decrease air pollution and create new jobs in Ohio,” she added in a prepared release. Daniel Sawmiller, Ohio energy policy coordinator at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said “Ohio urgently needs to update its energy policies to match the national trend towards cleaner, cheaper and more reliable renewable energy and programs that reduce the amount of energy wasted in our homes and businesses.” Sawmiller also predicted that the legislation would eventually cost ratepayers more. “Eliminating the energy efficiency standard will result in higher electric bills as consumers would be forced to pay for energy that is unnecessarily wasted. This increases the output of Ohio’s generation stations, thereby increasing air emissions if we aren’t creating a path for significant renewable energy growth. “It’s also important to keep in mind, the energy efficiency industry accounts for around 70 percent of Ohio’s clean energy jobs.” The American Petroleum Institute was also sharply critical, calling the bill “nothing short of a taxpayer-funded bailout of failing nuclear power plants.”…….. https://energynews.us/2019/04/12/us/revised-ohio-nuclear-bailout-bill-raises-more-questions/ |
|
Ohio’s FirstEnergy Nuclear Bailout Bill designed to cut funding from renewables and energy efficiency
Ohio’s FirstEnergy Nuclear Bailout Bill Could Undermine Funding for Renewables and Efficiency https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/ohios-firstenergy-nuclear-bailout-bill-could-also-undermine-renewables-effi#gs.4ijvjd
The draft “clean air” bill would keep bankrupt utility’s nuclear plants open—but drain money from renewables and efficiency programs. Last week, Energy News Network released draft legislation (PDF) being circulated by majority leaders in Ohio’s Republican-controlled House of Representatives, primarily aimed at rescuing two nuclear power plants — the Davis-Besse plant near Toledo and the Perry plant near Cleveland, which bankrupt utility FirstEnergy Solutions has threatened to close by 2021. The draft bill would add a maximum surcharge of $2.50 per month to every residential customer’s bill, a $20 per month surcharge to every commercial customer’s bill and a $250 monthly charge to every industrial customer’s bill, to raise roughly $300 million a year. Of that, about $180 million would go to subsidize FirstEnergy’s two nuclear plants, according to analysis reported by Energy News Network. The remaining $120 million would be available to resources that are deemed by the newly created board of political appointees to meet the fund’s criteria. But the newly created board would operate with more secrecy than a regular public utilities commission proceeding. And while the draft bill doesn’t use the word “nuclear,” its criteria for which emissions-reducing technologies are allowed to claim a piece of the new pot of money would appear to exclude most of the carbon-neutral energy resources now available, besides nuclear power. Tailor-made for nuclearFirst, the draft bill would require any qualifying resource to “exclusively” obtain compensation from the wholesale energy markets run by mid-Atlantic grid operator PJM and overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission — a feature met by FirstEnergy’s nuclear plants, but not by energy efficiency, rooftop solar, or other non-wholesale forms of carbon-free energy. Second, the bill would exclude any facility that receives “state tax exemptions, deferrals, exclusions, allowances, payments, [or] credits, including production tax credits and investment tax credits” — the same federal tax credits provided to wind and solar, respectively. And third, it would bar any municipal utility or rural electric cooperatives. The release of the draft legislation prompted a legislative aide of one of the bill’s sponsors, Republican state Rep. Jamie Callender, to tell Cleveland.com that much of the text was out of date, with a new version “still in a state of flux.” The aide declined to say what would differentiate the newer version of the bill from the draft version obtained last week. The bailout bill comes at a difficult time for FirstEnergy, which has announced plans to close nuclear and coal-fired power plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania if it does not receive additional state or federal support. Last week, Bankruptcy Judge Alan Koschik, who is overseeing the utility’s case in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Northern District of Ohio, rejected FirstEnergy’s proposal to get out of bankruptcy more quickly in part by indemnifying parent company FirstEnergy Corp. from paying any future costs for environmental cleanup at its power plant sites. “Opt-in” to support renewablesOhio’s plan stands in stark contrast to the nuclear incentive programs that have been rolled out in states including Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Illinois. While these states have largely built their nuclear support programs on the foundation of existing state clean energy and carbon reduction policies, Ohio’s plan would actually undermine existing payment structures for the state’s relatively mild clean energy and efficiency goals. The draft bill would do this by declaring that Ohio’s existing monthly charges for renewable energy, energy efficiency and peak demand reduction are now “opt-in” rather than “opt-out” charges on residential and commercial customers’ utility bills. Today, these charges appear on every home and business electric bill, with only large industrial customers having the opportunity to opt out of them. But the draft legislation would flip this arrangement on its head, doing away with the monthly charges unless the utility customer sends “written notice of intent to opt in” to pay the extra fees. The vast body of utility experience shows that switching programs from opt-out to opt-in leads to a drastic reduction in participation rates, since few people will choose to pay more every month, even if they support the services the surcharges pay for. These numbers are likely to be winnowed even further if opting in requires written and mailed-in applications, rather than simpler on-bill, over-the-phone or online options. FirstEnergy Solutions bankruptcy rumbles onFirstEnergy Solutions filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in March 2018, after failing to convince the U.S. Department of Energy to issue an emergency declaration that would have forced grid operators and utilities to pay out-of-market prices to its coal and nuclear power plants. While FirstEnergy and the Trump administration have argued the plants are critical to keep the regional power grid stable, multiple studies from PJM indicate the closures won’t affect grid reliability. Many coal and nuclear power plants are struggling to remain competitive. Such plants have been closing at a record rate amid a flood of cheap electricity from natural gas and renewables, as well as continued gains in end-user efficiency. Pennsylvania lawmakers are also considering a bill that would increase utility bills by about $1.77 per household per month to raise about $500 million per year, largely to support two nuclear power plants that owners FirstEnegy and Exelon have said they will be forced to close in the coming years without state support. That bill has drawn fire from consumers and environmental groups for potentially allowing still-profitable nuclear power plants to receive incentives, while not addressing the state’s relatively low ranking in terms of the share of its electricity coming from wind, solar and other carbon-free resources. |
|
Satellite images reveal that Saudi Arabia has almost completed its first nuclear reactor site
Saudi Arabia has almost completed its first nuclear reactor site, satellite images reveal
Saudi Arabia’s latest construction is raising eyebrows in the West, with these new satellite images sparking fears about the kingdom’s quest for power. News.com.au, Gavin Fernando, @gavindfernando, 8 Apr 19
Saudi Arabia has nearly completed construction of its first nuclear reactor, sparking fears about the country’s quest for nuclear power.
New satellite images, first published by Bloomberg, show construction on the building site has made significant process over the past three months.
The three images below [on original] show the rapid developments on the site between April 2017 and today.
The images show the construction of a 10-metre high steel vessel, which would contain nuclear fuel, and construction work on the surrounding concrete building.
The facility is located in the southwest corner of the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology in Riyadh.
………Robert Kelley, a nuclear expert and veteran of the US Department of Energy, said the reactor could be completed in “nine months to a year”.
He said the construction appears to be small in size and intended for research and training purposes.
Mr Kelley also said that, before the kingdom can insert nuclear fuel into the reactor, it would have to abide by international agreements.
He said it had been surprising to him “how non-transparent” the kingdom had been in the process of building the reactor and “how they seem very cavalier about modifying their arrangements with the IAEA”.
Mr Kelley was referring to agreements the kingdom has signed. The kingdom agreed to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty three decades ago. In 2005, it signed an agreement with the IAEA known as the “small quantities protocol” that allowed countries with negligible nuclear programs to be exempt from regular inspections or nuclear monitoring.
However, once nuclear fuel was brought into the country to operate this small reactor, inspections by the IAEA would be required, Mr Kelley added.
…….. He said the Saudi reactor was being built by the Argentinian government-owned company INVAP. Before Argentina brings nuclear fuel to Saudi Arabia for the reactor, the IAEA agreement in place that exempts Saudi Arabia from inspections would need to be rescinded, Mr Kelley said.
“I think it’s a 100 per cent certainty that Argentina is not going to supply uranium fuel to a country that doesn’t have a safeguards agreement in force,” he added.
………. the kingdom has previously pushed back against agreeing to US standards that would block two paths to potentially making fissile material for nuclear weapons.
Last Friday, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was adamant that it was unacceptable for Saudi Arabia to become a nuclear power.
“We will not permit that to happen. We will not permit that to happen anywhere in the world,” he told CBS. “The President understands the threat of proliferation. We will never write a $150 million check to the Saudis and hand them over the capacity to threaten Israel and the United States with nuclear weapons, never.”
The publication of the satellite images follows a struggle between the Trump administration and Congress over the sale of nuclear technology to Riyadh.
Last month, The Daily Beast revealed the US Department of Energy had approved six authorisations for US companies that were looking to conduct nuclear-related work in the Middle Eastern kingdom.
The approvals, known as Part 810 authorisations, would allow companies to do preliminary work on nuclear power ahead of any deal but not ship equipment that would go into a plant………https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/saudi-arabia-has-almost-completed-its-first-nuclear-reactor-site-satellite-images-reveal/news-story/64346c4fbf0906ee7c2ddb3b95541c4d
Many obstacles to small modular nuclear reactors, but U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission recommends them, anyway
NRC recommends issuing early site permit for Clinch River Nuclear Site, OAK RIDGE TODAY, APRIL 8, 2019BY The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a final environmental impact statement, and the staff has recommended, based upon the environmental review, issuing an early site permit for the Clinch River Nuclear Site in west Oak Ridge, where two or more small modular nuclear reactors could be built.The final environmental impact statement, or EIS, was issued by the NRC on April 3. A notice of the EIS and the staff’s recommendation were published in the Federal Register on Monday, April 8.
The 935-acre Clinch River Nuclear Site is located in Roane County along the Clinch River……….
An early site permit is the NRC’s approval of a site for one or more nuclear power facilities. It does not authorize the actual construction and operation of a new nuclear power plant. That requires a construction permit and an operating license, or a combined license. ………
The Clinch River Nuclear Site could be used to demonstrate small modular reactors with a maximum total electrical output of 800 megawatts………
Now that the final EIS has been published, there will be a mandatory hearing with the NRC after a final safety evaluation report is issued. The NRC expects that report to be published in June. The five-member commission will make a decision after the hearing about whether to issue the early site permit.
A contested hearing could be held by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel if a member of the public or an organization successfully files a petition that raises safety or environmental concerns about granting the site a permit, the NRC said.
The NRC said an authorization for the construction or operation of new nuclear units at the Clinch River site is not being sought at this time.
The potential timing of any reactors being built at the site is not clear. Among other things, TVA doesn’t control the reactor certification process.
“There are currently no certified small modular reactor designs available, but TVA will continue working to ensure we are ready to fully evaluate them when they are available,” Hopson said.
Financial considerations would have to be evaluated, and the TVA board of directors would have the final decision “based on what they believe will be in the best interest of the people of the Tennessee Valley,” Hopson said.
Since a design hasn’t been certified for a small modular reactor, TVA used what is known as a “plant parameter envelope” as a surrogate for a nuclear power plant and its facilities when applying for the early site permit. The “plant parameter envelope” estimated the potential environmental impacts of building and operating two or more small modular reactors at the site. TVA used information from four small modular reactor vendors to develop the “plant parameter envelope.”
A reader has asked why TVA might consider adding new generating capacity at the Clinch River site even as it plans to retire coal-fired units like the Bull Run Fossil Plant in Claxton, citing flat or declining demand………https://oakridgetoday.com/2019/04/08/nrc-recommends-issuing-early-site-permit-clinch-river-nuclear-site/
Hanford nuclear mess; the clean-up is delayed by the Trump administration
The U.S. Department of Energy recently proposed hundreds of millions of dollars in budget cuts for cleaning up the vast Hanford Nuclear Reservation in southeastern Washington, even though the estimated cost of the cleanup has at least tripled and could reach more than $600 billion.
“That’s a huge, huge cost increase,” said Tom Carpenter, director of the watchdog group Hanford Challenge.
At a hearing in Washington, D.C., last week, Democratic Sen. Patty Murray questioned Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s assertion that his agency can meet a legally binding cleanup schedule despite the proposed budget cuts. Much of the site’s aging infrastructure is deteriorating, including underground waste storage tanks and tunnels.
The Energy Department issued a report in January that raised the remaining cost of Hanford’s environmental cleanup to between $323 billion and $677 billion, with the work lasting until 2079 or 2102, depending on which estimate proves true. That is much higher than the previous estimate of $107 billion in costs to complete the cleanup by 2066.
That is “a pretty shocking number,” Perry told members of the House Appropriations Committee last month.
Shortly after the higher estimates were revealed, the Trump administration proposed a $416 million cut in its budget for Hanford that would reduce it from about $2.5 billion for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 to $2.1 billion for the next fiscal year that starts Oct. 1.
Republican U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse, whose district encompasses the site, said the administration’s “budget request numbers would fall short of fulfilling the federal government’s obligation to clean up the Hanford site.”
U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, estimated it will take 300 years to clean up the site under the Trump administration’s proposed budget.
“Trump’s combination of bad math and shifty wordplay adds up to tragicomic incompetence,” said Wyden, a frequent critic of efforts to clean up the site.
Washington state officials have said the federal government has not provided enough funding to meet annual cleanup costs. They have suggested that least $3 billion annually is needed.
“We believe that the lack of adequate funding translates into a longer, more drawn-out cleanup, and that in turn is a significant factor in the increased cost of the total cleanup,” said Alex Smith, manager of nuclear waste programs for the Washington Department of Ecology.
Hanford was created by the Manhattan Project during World War II as the nation raced to build atomic bombs. The plutonium for the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, at the end of the war was made at the site, which then produced about 70% of the plutonium for the U.S. Cold War arsenal.
Saudi Arabia moves forward on developing a nuclear industry
Saudi plans to invite bids for nuclear power project in 2020 https://gulfbusiness.com/saudi-plans-invite-bids-nuclear-power-project-2020/ 7 Apr 19, The world’s top oil exporter wants to diversify its energy mix Saudi Arabia plans to issue a multi-billion-dollar tender in 2020 to construct its first two nuclear power reactors and is discussing the project with U.S. and other potential suppliers, three sources familiar with the plans said.The world’s top oil exporter wants to diversify its energy mix, adding nuclear power so it can free up more crude for export. But the plans are facing Washington’s scrutiny because of potential military uses for the technology.
Saudi Arabia, which aims to mine for uranium, says its plans are peaceful. But Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said in 2018 the kingdom would develop nuclear arms if Iran did.
U.S., Russian, South Korean, Chinese and French firms are in talks with Riyadh to supply reactors, a promising deal for an industry recovering from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster.
“Saudi Arabia is continuing to make very deliberate steps forward although at a slower pace than originally expected,” one of the sources familiar with the plans told Reuters.
Saudi officials previously said they aimed to select a vendor in late 2018, which then slipped to 2019. The sources said the tender would now be issued in 2020.
Two sources said the project was proceeding slowly partly because the kingdom was still in discussions with all potential suppliers rather than narrowing them down to a short list.
The plans have also been delayed by strained ties with Washington, which criticised Riyadh after the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the kingdom’s Istanbul consulate in October, a source familiar with the talks said.
Riyadh needs to sign an accord on the peaceful use of nuclear technology with Washington to secure the transfer of U.S. nuclear equipment and expertise, under the U.S. Atomic Energy Act. U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry said last week that the negotiations which began in 2012 were continuing.
The source said Washington has also been seeking to convince Riyadh to sign the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Additional Protocol on extra safeguards for verifying nuclear technology is used for peaceful applications. The kingdom has so far resisted, the source added.
The fate of these negotiations could determine whether Riyadh reaches a deal with U.S. firms, the source said.
WORKSHOPS
Saudi Arabia, which sent a “request for information” (RFI) to nuclear vendors in 2017, is holding workshops with vendors from five nations as part of the pre-tender process, one source said, adding that this was expected to last 12 to 15 months.
The King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy (KACARE), tasked with developing the nuclear programme, has brought in an executive from oil giant Saudi Aramco to help manage the pre-tender consultancy process, two sources said.
The Energy Ministry, overseeing the project, and the kingdom’s international press office did not respond to Reuters requests for comment.
KACARE has in the past said the kingdom was considering building 17.6 gigawatts of nuclear capacity by 2032, requiring about 16 reactors. But the sources said the focus for now was on the first two reactors and a potentially smaller programme.
Neighbouring UAE is building a nuclear power plant, the first in a Gulf Arab state. Iran, across the Gulf, has a nuclear plant in operation and has been locked in a row over its nuclear ambitions with the United States.
Saudi Arabia, which has long vied with Iran for regional influence, has said it will not sign any deal with the United States that deprives the kingdom of the possibility of enriching uranium or reprocessing spent fuel in the future, both potential paths to a bomb.
South Korea’s state-owned Korea Electric Power Corp (KEPCO), Russian state nuclear group Rosatom, French utility EDF, state-run China National Nuclear Corp and U.S. Westinghouse have expressed interest in the Saudi project.
Japan Business Federation, Keidanren, wants maximum service life of nuclear power plants extended to over 60 years
Keidanren wants maximum service life of nuclear power plants extended to over 60 years https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/04/06/business/keidanren-wants-lifetime-nuclear-power-plants-extended-60-years/#.XKpkBtIzbGg Keidanren will ask the government to consider extending the maximum service life of nuclear power plants beyond the current 60 years, informed sources have said.
Keidanren, also known as the Japan Business Federation, will also request that periods in which nuclear plant operations are halted be excluded from their operating life spans, the sources said Friday.
The requests will be announced by Chairman Hiroaki Nakanishi, also chairman of Hitachi Ltd., at a news conference Monday.
Keidanren, the country’s biggest business lobby, regards nuclear power as an energy source essential for the country to move toward the decarbonization of the power sector.
In the requests, Keidanren will stress that the use of existing nuclear power facilities that have been confirmed safe is important, according to the sources.
Japan effectively limits the service life of nuclear plants to 40 years. Under the current rule, the period may be extended by up to 20 years if state approval is given.
Ukraine’s President Poroshenko issues nuclear decree, demands new reactors be built
Poroshenko appears committed to having the new reactors approved and built as soon as possible. The decree highlights Poroshenko’s resolve to ease financial burdens on ….. (subscribers only) https://www.kyivpost.com/business/poroshenko-issues-nuclear-decree-demands-new-reactors-be-built.html
New Ohio Bill to promote nuclear energy, exclude wind and solar
Ohio bill would create ‘clean air’ fund to benefit nuclear, excluding wind and solar, ENERGY NEWS NETWORK, April 5, 2019
The draft legislation would create a new surcharge, with proceeds distributed to power plants that “make a significant contribution toward minimizing emissions.”
Legislation to subsidize two FirstEnergy Solutions nuclear power plants in Ohio is about to surface in the Ohio House.
Republican majority leaders have been circulating a proposal that would add up to $300 million annually to electric bills across the state, creating a state “clean air program” with grants administered by political appointees.
About $180 million would be earmarked for the FirstEnergy Solutions nuclear power plants, say analysts who have looked at the legislation. The remaining $120 million could be used to prop up other companies — though it appears those companies would not be owners of wind and solar farms.
The draft legislation, obtained by the Energy News Network, would add a $2.50 per month surcharge to every residential customer’s bill, a $20 per month surcharge to every commercial customer’s bill and a $250 monthly charge to every industrial customer’s bill.
The legislation would also eliminate existing surcharges that commercial and residential customers pay to support energy efficiency and peak reduction programs created by the utilities. Industrial customers can already opt out of these programs.
Customers who want to continue supporting the efficiency programs — on top of the new “clean air” charges — would have to notify the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio in writing.
The statewide aspect of the new proposal is a new twist to create a nuclear subsidy. Two previous legislative bailout efforts limited a nuclear surcharge to Ohio customers in FirstEnergy territory.
The draft legislation, now in its fifth revision according to its title page, doesn’t actually mention the word “nuclear” in its language.
Instead the bill would create the Ohio Clean Air Program, echoing the carbon-free argument that FirstEnergy Solutions lobbyists have been using to describe their nuclear power plants….
The funds generated by the new surcharge would not go directly to a utility or to the state’s general fund. Instead they would flow into a clean air fund to bankroll what the legislation calls the Ohio Clean Air Program.
The Ohio Air Quality Development Authority, whose members are political appointees, would run the program and designate which power plants are a “clean air resource.”
Only power plants designated as a clean air resource would be eligible for grants. Wind and solar installations that receive state tax exemptions and production tax credits would not qualify under the terms of the new legislation………
The development of the bailout legislation parallels an effort by FirstEnergy Solutions to emerge from a federal bankruptcy court debt-free and prepared to reverse its planned shutdowns of the Davis-Besse nuclear plant just east of Toledo and the Perry nuclear power plant northeast of Cleveland — if it can win a subsidy from Ohio lawmakers. FirstEnergy Solutions is running a similar legislative effort in Pennsylvania, where it owns a twin reactor plant near Pittsburgh.
Bankruptcy Judge Alan Koschik of the Northern District of Ohio on Thursday dealt a significant blow to the company’s plans to quickly get out of bankruptcy. He rejected a provision that would have indemnified FirstEnergy Crop., parent of FirstEnergy Solutions, against future costs for environmental cleanup of its former power plant sites. FirstEnergy Solutions said it would revise its plan.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This story has been updated to clarify that existing surcharges for clean energy and efficiency would be eliminated, not just made optional.
https://energynews.us/2019/04/05/midwest/ohio-bill-would-create-clean-air-fund-to-benefit-nuclear-excluding-wind-and-solar/
-
Archives
- May 2026 (72)
- 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





