Bailout chances may be good for FirstEnergy Solutions’ Ohio nuclear plants, Crains Cleveland Business
The company is hoping the state will grant what are known as zero emissions credits to the plants, which would effectively subsidize them, through fees on Ohio electricity users.
FES announced the plant closures in March 2018. Soon after, it entered bankruptcy proceedings and moved to split from its parent, FirstEnergy. FES has since reached a restructuring agreement with its creditors, but that plan is still working its way through the courts. FES now operates independently of its parent, as a result of its bankruptcy case, but FirstEnergy remains the owner of FES pending a resolution of that case. …….
“Bailing out uneconomic power plants will only distort markets and restrict innovative and competitive technologies,” said Dick Munson, director of Midwest Clean Energy at the New York-based Environmental Defense Fund, in an email. The fund has noted the “resurgence of interest” in an Ohio subsidy for FES that it attributes to the company’s lobbying and campaign contributions.
Before its bankruptcy proceedings, FES tried a similar approach but its lobbying efforts failed to gain support among lawmakers or then-Gov. John Kasich. That bailout, had it been enacted, would have cost the average Ohio electricity customer about $5 per month and generated $300 million a year for FirstEnergy’s retail customers.
What’s different now? The occupants of the statehouse and the governor’s mansion, Brakey and Rains said.
“All three Ohio House Republican leadership spots are occupied by supporters of the state’s nuclear plants, including House Speaker Larry Householder, Floor Leader Rep. Bill Seitz and Assistant Floor Leader Rep. Anthony DeVitis,” Rains wrote in a February report that he shared. “The odds favor approval of some measure to support the Buckeye State’s ailing nuclear fleet before the end of June, when the state’s budget is due.”
As for Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, when running for election last year, he said he favored keeping the nuclear plants open……..
With legislation not yet introduced, it’s not known what the cost of a potential bailout would be or how ratepayers would be affected……..
If lawmakers choose to bail out Ohio’s plants, they may have to choose between making the entire state less competitive in terms of electricity costs or making much of Northern Ohio even less competitive with a subsidy spread among fewer customers. Brakey suggested lawmakers look at ways to relieve the burden on other industries that also produce valuable jobs in the state, such as exempting some heavy industrial users from having the fee be applied to all of their electricity.
“There is always a hidden economic loss with a subsidy like this…….. https://www.crainscleveland.com/energy-and-environment/bailout-chances-may-be-good-firstenergy-solutions-ohio-nuclear-plants
March 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Nuclear power company backs Ford government energy plan, Canada’s National Observer , By Alastair Sharp March 21st 2019 Premier Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservative government said on Thursday it will reform Ontario’s electricity system in a bid to reduce costs overall and lower rates for businesses, a move critics say limits the most efficient way to save money in the power grid and threatens thousands of clean energy jobs.
The plan, announced by Energy Minister Greg Rickford, confirm details reported exclusively by National Observer on Wednesday about a series of cuts to programs that were designed to save energy in buildings. …….
Environmental groups and opposition political parties say the moves don’t make economic sense, pointing to the IESO’s estimates that it costs more than four times more to produce nuclear energy than to conserve electricity, with nuclear costs likely to double in coming years.
The IESO estimates that it costs 1.7 cents to save a kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity while Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG) nuclear electricity costs 8.8 cents per kWh and is forecast to rise to 16.5 cents per kWh by 2025 to pay for the re-building of the Darlington Nuclear Station.
“I’m worried that today’s announcement might set the stage for the abandonment of energy efficiency efforts while going all-in on expensive, outdated nuclear power,” Ontario Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner said in a statement.
Rickford’s plan would also threaten thousands of jobs in companies working on energy efficiency projects, according to Efficiency Canada, a lobby group that represents companies that provide energy efficiency products and services.
Corey Diamond, executive director of Efficiency Canada, said that this field of the economy has the potential to create over 14,000 jobs per year.
“Energy efficiency is the best bang for the buck for the people of Ontario,” said Diamond in a statement. “Scaling back on programs means fewer local jobs in communities across the province,” he said.
The group representing local power distributors also criticized the changes, citing IESO data showing local hydro utilities had saved over 5.8 billion kWh, enough to power more than 640,000 homes for a full year.
Local distribution companies “have made a vital contribution to delivering savings to all customers across Ontario, including families, small businesses, farmers, medium and large businesses,” said Teresa Sarkesian, president and CEO of the Electricity Distributors Association (EDA).
Ontario NDP energy and climate change critic Peter Tabuns said he agreed that the previous government’s plan was disastrous, but said that the Ford government was about to make the situation worse.
“For years, families saw their utility bills skyrocket under the Wynne Liberals and were left struggling to make ends meet each month,” Tabuns said. “Instead of making things better, and dropping the disastrous Liberal hydro borrowing scheme, the Conservatives are ripping up programs that help everyday families save money on their utility bills, so families and businesses will see their bills jump, yet again.” https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/03/21/news/nuclear-power-company-backs-ford-government-energy-plan
March 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Canada, politics |
1 Comment
Zuma said the country would have spent trillions over a short period, but it would have been able to make returns.
But energy expert Tobias Bischof-Niemz disagrees with Zuma, saying the process could have taken about ten years, leaving the country in crisis till 2023.
“The nuclear project that was in discussion for years stems from the integrated nuclear plan.
“As for that plan, the first reactor would have come online in 2023,” said Bischof-Niemz.
“Even if we had implemented the IRP 2010, the first reactor would come online in four years from now.”
March 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, South Africa |
Leave a comment
To Save a Nuclear Plant, Trump Taps the Solyndra Loan Program He Tried to Cut, Bloomberg, By Ari Natter, March 23, 2019,
- $3.7 billion loan guarantee a key lifeline for nuclear project
- Aid to Southern Co. raises concerns with taxpayer watchdogs
President Donald Trump is dipping into a federal loan program that his administration has repeatedly sought to kill as a way to rescue a struggling nuclear power project in Georgia that critics say poses a credit risk to U.S. taxpayers.
The Trump administration announced Friday it’s finalizing a $3.7 billion loan guarantee for two nuclear reactors being built by Southern Co. Called Plant Vogtle, it’s the only nuclear facility under construction in the U.S. and one seen as vital for an industry that’s lagged due to competition from cheaper natural gas and renewable energy.
“This is the real new green deal,” Energy Secretary Rick Perry said Friday during a visit to the site near Waynesboro, Georgia, alongside Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and Southern Chief Executive Officer Tom Fanning. “If you want clean energy that helps your environment, there is no source that is cleaner than nuclear energy. This is it.”
The source of the aid is an Energy Department loan program that’s been in the cross-hairs of the Trump team since before his inauguration, when his transition team saw it as corporate welfare. Trump has asked Congress to ax the program for three years running, including in the budget submitted this month, arguing that financing provided by the fund should come from the private sector instead.
…….. The aid to Southern and its partners building the plant comes on top of a record $8.3 billion in loan guarantees inked by the Obama administration for the project, bringing the total amount of exposure to taxpayers to $12 billion.
That’s raised concerns among watchdog groups and critics of the project, which is supposed to be completed in late 2022, who are questioning the wisdom of more government loans.
“It would be a gross understatement to say this decision is fiscally reckless,” said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a non-partisan group based in Washington. “Putting the full faith and credit of the U.S. Treasury behind a project after it’s been plagued by skyrocketing costs and multi-year delays is an unjustifiable handout to the well-heeled Southern Company and its partners. Throwing good money after bad is never good policy.”
Behind Schedule
The project, which is more than five years behind schedule and has doubled in cost to $28 billion, was dealt a major setback after contractor Westinghouse Electric Co. went bankrupt in 2017. Southern assumed responsibility for managing construction of the project after that…….. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-22/trump-taps-solyndra-loan-program-he-wants-cut-for-nuclear-plant
March 23, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, USA |
Leave a comment
|
 Fight over America’s nuclear arsenal heats up in Congress, Defense News, By: Joe Gould 23 Mar 19, WASHINGTON — U.S. lawmakers have drawn battle lines over whether full nuclear modernization is worth the cost, and now they’re gathering ammunition.
As the Republican-led Senate and Democratic-led House prepare competing versions of the annual defense policy bill, they’ve been soliciting expert testimony to build their arguments on one of the key defense budget fights to come: How much nuclear modernization does America need?
Citing a $1.2 trillion Congressional Budget Office estimate, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith, D-Wash., supports nuclear modernization but argues that America can spend less and still deter its foes. He’s called for America to adopt a no-first-use policy for nuclear arms and opposed both the Obama-era Long-Range Standoff Weapon and the Trump administration’s low-yield W76-2 warhead.
Smith hosted a March 6 hearing with outside experts at which Bruce Blair, a former U.S. missile-launch officer and now a nuclear security expert at Princeton University, said the nation could maintain “a fully adequate deterrent threat” with a monad of five Ohio-class nuclear-powered submarines — rather than the established triad of submarines, bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles.
The focus, Blair said, should be on repairing dangerous vulnerabilities in nuclear command-and-control infrastructure. “There’s concern that the president who has only about five minutes under current strategy to make a decision on whether and how to retaliate to an attack — five minutes [in which he] may have to rely on information that has been corrupted,” Blair said. ….. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/03/22/fight-over-americas-nuclear-arsenal-heats-up-in-congress/
|
|
March 23, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Australia is back in the nuclear game, Independent Australia, By Noel Wauchope | 24 March 2019, One of Australia’s chief advocates for nuclear power Dr Adi Paterson, CEO of Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, (ANSTO), has done it again.
This time in China, he quietly signed Australia up to spend taxpayers’ money on developing a new nuclear gimmick — the Thorium Molten Salt Reactor (TMSR).
This new nuclear reactor does not physically exist and there is no market for it. So its development depends on government funding.
Proponents claim that this nuclear reactor would be better and cheaper than the existing (very expensive) pressurised water reactors, but this claim has been refuted. The TMSR has been described by analyst Oliver Tickell as not “green”, not “viable” and not likely. More recently, the plan has been criticised as, among other things, just too expensive — not feasible as a profitable commercial energy source.
Paterson’s trip to China and his signing up to this agreement received no Parliamentary discussion and no public information. The news just appeared in a relatively obscure engineering journal.
The public remains unaware of this.
In 2017, we learned through the Senate Committee process that Dr Paterson had, in June 2016, signed Australia up to the Framework Agreement for International Collaboration on Research and Development of Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems (also accessible by Parliament Hansard Economics Legislation Committee 30/05/2017).
This was in advance of any Parliamentary discussion and despite Australia’s law prohibiting nuclear power development. Paterson’s decision was later rubber-stamped by a Senate Committee……..
Dr Paterson was then obviously supremely confident in his ability to make pro-nuclear decisions for Australia.
Nothing seems to have changed in Paterson’s confidence levels about making decisions on behalf of Australia.
Interestingly, Bill Gates has abandoned his nuclear co-operation with China. His company TerraPower was to develop Generation IV nuclear reactors. Gates decided to pull out of this because the Trump Administration, led by the Energy Department, announced in October that it was implementing measures to prevent China’s illegal diversion of U.S. civil nuclear technology for military or other unauthorised purposes.
Apparently, these considerations have not weighed heavily on the Australian Parliament.
Is this because the Parliament doesn’t know anything about Dr Paterson’s trip to China and his agreement for Australia to partner with the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics (SINAP) in developing Thorium Molten Salt Reactors? https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/australia-is-back-in-the-nuclear-game,12488#.XJWdhxDqitc.twitter
March 23, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA, politics, politics international |
Leave a comment
Truthout, Mike Ludwig, March 22, 2019 As politicians and pundits opined on the 16-year anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq this week, organizer and veteran Perry O’Brien observed that people who were born after the 9/11 attacks and the beginning of the global war on terror are now
old enough to join the military and deploy to Afghanistan, where fragile
peace talks between with the Taliban continue.
Blood is still spilling in Kandahar, the province in Afghanistan where O’Brien served as a medic during the early years of the Afghan war.
“In 2003, the idea of being in Afghanistan even five more years would have sounded unlikely; 15 years would have been madness,” O’Brien said in an interview with Truthout.
Nowdays, O’Brien is a political organizer with Common Defense, a nationwide group of progressive veterans that grew out of protests against President Trump’s racist remarks on the 2016 campaign trail. Conservative political forces have long held a monopoly on the public image of military service and patriotism, O’Brien said, but the nationwide community of progressive veterans is actually “enormous.”
“We didn’t want to be props for Trump’s campaign for hate,” O’Brien said. “We were outraged by his remarks about Muslims and immigrants, and the whole platform and were, you know, angry with … how he wraps himself in the flag and the symbols of service even though he has never served anything other than himself.”
Common Defense organizes and trains veterans to advocate on issues ranging from racial and economic justice to opposing the Trump administration’s ban transgender troops, but after nearly two decades of seemingly endless war, O’Brien and other vets want to make it glaringly clear to policymakers that supporting U.S. military intervention has nothing to do with supporting the troops.
“There is a mistaken view that the military community wants you to show your support for the troops by being pro-intervention,” O’Brien said. “Nothing could be further from the truth in terms of what the military community really wants.”
Congress Debates U.S. Militarism Under TrumpCommon Defense is one of several veterans’ groups on both the left and the right that are putting mounting pressure on Congress to bring a clear end to the “forever wars.” Now that the war on terror has come to 80 countries, directly caused nearly half-a-million deaths and cost taxpayers more than $5.9 trillion since 2011, momentum among lawmakers to reassert their constitutional war-making authority is gaining steam after years of inaction and failed bipartisan attempts to rein in the White House and Pentagon.
Both the House and Senate have approved resolutions to end U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition fighting in Yemen’s bloody civil war, a clear rebuke of both the Saudi royal government and its cozy relationship with President Trump. Lawmakers in both chambers, particularly Democrats, have warned against U.S. military intervention in Venezuela, where hawks in the Trump administration are actively supporting a right-wing opposition leader as the country suffers an ongoing political and humanitarian crisis. …… https://truthout.org/articles/veterans-demand-congress-end-the-forever-wars/
March 23, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Trump to finalise $3.7 billion in aid for troubled nuclear reactor project https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/trump-to-finalise-3-7-billion-in-aid-for-troubled-nuclear-reactor-project-119032001089_1.html
The plant is seen as critical to the nuclear industry’s future because existing reactors are struggling to compete with cheap natural gas and renewable energy Ari Natter | Bloomberg March 20, 2019
The Trump administration will finalize $3.7 billion in loan guarantees to Southern Co. and its partners who are building a troubled nuclear reactor project in Georgia — the last of its kind under construction in the U.S. — according to two people familiar with the matter.
The guarantees, expected to be announced Friday when U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry visits Plant Vogtle alongside Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and Southern Chief Executive Officer Tom Fanning, represents a critical lifeline for the project, which is more than five years behind schedule and has doubled in cost to $28 billion.
The additional help also puts taxpayers on the hook for more money if the project were to collapse. Southern and its partners in Plant Vogtle were already recipients of record $8.3 billion in federally-backed loan guarantees from the Obama administration, but asked the Trump administration to come to their aid amid ballooning costs and setbacks caused in part by the bankruptcy of a contractor, Westinghouse Electric Co.
The plant, near Waynesboro, Georgia, is seen as critical to the nuclear industry’s future because existing reactors are struggling to compete with cheap natural gas and renewable energy. Scana Corp. abandoned its plans to build two reactors in South Carolina after expenses spiraled above $20 billion.
President Donald Trump has made the revival of the coal and nuclear industry a priority. His administration in 2017 announced it would provide a conditional loan guarantee for the Plant Vogtle project.
Representatives of the Energy Department and Southern didn’t immediately respond to requests for comments.
March 21, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA |
1 Comment
THE ASAHI SHIMBUN March 20, 2019 Tohoku Electric Power Co. plans to give an estimated 400 million yen ($3.58 million) to a village that hosts one of its nuclear power plants, but denies it is compensation for losses stemming from the facility’s suspension since the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster.
The utility said March 19 it will make a donation to Higashidori, Aomori Prefecture, where its Higashidori nuclear power plant is located, through a corporate version of the “furusato nozei” (hometown tax payment) system.
The company did not disclose the amount, but only said it wants to donate “about half” the maximum amount that the village is allowed to receive under this system. The ceiling for the village is about 800 million yen.
The village government called for Tohoku Electric’s response because the volume of work related to the nuclear plant, such as maintenance, declined due to the suspension and a number of accommodations relying on plant workers have closed.
Satoshi Shimoyashiki, vice manager of Tohoku Electric’s Aomori branch, rejected the notion that the donation was meant as compensation for such economic losses and emphasized that it is being made as “part of corporate social responsibility (CSR).”…….. http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201903200054.html
March 21, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Japan, politics |
Leave a comment
Campaigning in Vegas, Gabbard calls for end of ‘wasteful wars,’ nuclear tension, http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/03/19/campaigning-vegas-gabbard-calls-end-wasteful-wars-nuclear-tension/March 19, 2019 at 4:48 AM HST – Updated March 19 at 4:48 AM
LAS VEGAS (AP) – Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard says her top priorities if she’s elected to the White House in 2020 would be to end military action in countries like Iraq and Syria and to de-escalate tensions with nuclear-armed countries like Russia and China.
The Hawaii congresswoman told a small but diverse crowd in Las Vegas on Monday afternoon that she wants to end what she called “wasteful regime change wars” that are costing the country trillions of dollars and instead spend that money on health care, education and other needs in the U.S.
Gabbard, a 37-year-old combat veteran, was making her first foray into early-nominating state Nevada as a presidential candidate.
She planned to hold a “meet and greet luau” west of the Las Vegas Strip later in the evening.
March 21, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA |
2 Comments
GDF Watch 17th March 2019 The sociopolitical challenges RWM faces were starkly revealed by the
community sector’s response to a recent major Government funding
announcement. Their reaction suggests that the package of GDF-related
investment and other funding, while being ‘necessary’, is not
necessarily ‘sufficient’ to secure a community’s consent to start
initial discussions or formally enter the siting process. At the forefront
of the sectors’ concerns is ‘collaboration’, and more active
involvement in shaping policy and how it is implemented. This aspiration,
particularly in the context of a ‘consent-based’ siting process, is
likely to become a key area of discussion as RWM seeks to build awareness,
trust and confidence with communities. The evidence for this analysis can
be found in the community/civil society sector reaction to the
Government’s recent £1.6 billion ‘Stronger Towns Fund’ announcement.
Instead of welcoming the extra cash, across the board there was frustration
and concern that once again there had been no consultation with those
affected, that this was another top-down solution, and was throwing good
money at bad means of delivering real benefits to communities.
http://www.gdfwatch.org.uk/2019/03/17/to-consult-or-to-collaborate-that-is-the-community-question/
March 20, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, UK |
Leave a comment
Dave Toke’s Blog 17th March 2019, Labour’s energy spokesperson, Rebecca Long-Bailey, having previously pledged to put renewable energy on top of the energy agenda has now relegated it far below nuclear power. They have done this with a pledge to take partial state ownership of new nuclear power projects and saying they will do this for nuclear projects that have been abandoned. But giving state priority to these projects, far from keeping the lights on will actually ruin the chances of aspiring renewable energy generators.
The figures speak for themselves. Bailey pledges to reverse what she calls the Government’s ‘cancellations’ of new nuclear projects (Moorside, Oldbury, Wylfa) (factcheck; it was the developers who cancelled them despite being promised tens of billions of state aid). If these projects are brought on line (in addition to the existing Sizewell B and still-not-cancelled projects of Hinkley C and Sizewell C) then nuclear generation will climb to at least 35 per cent of current generation – and even that does not count the Chinese led project at Bradwell.
Meanwhile renewable energy generated 33% of UK electricity in 2018, a figure that, with the recently announced ‘sector deal’ for offshore wind, will increase to around 65% by 2030 even without any more onshore wind and solar pv which the Labour Party claims to support. It doesn’t need a mathematical genius to work out that with 35% coming from nuclear power, there simply will not be any market space for any more renewable energy.
Yet renewable energy, as we have discussed is cheap, becoming cheaper, and needs little or no public subsidy – a big contrast with nuclear, which despite all the promised support, high consumer subsidies, public guarantees of loan funding (none of which is available for new renewable schemes) has failed so far to generate a single kWh. And it will not until at least 2026 even if EDF’s schedules for Hinkley C construction prove (miraculously in the light of recent nuclear construction history) to be achievable………..
Labour have come out with a daft policy that threatens to take us back to the dinosaur age by comparison.
I really hate to say this, but because the Tories have actually (so far) stopped short of the financial insanities involved in getting all of the projected new more nuclear power stations online and are thus leaving some space for new renewable energy schemes, there is actually a plausible argument to say that now, compared to Labour’s new policy position the Conservative Party policy actually favours renewable energy more than Labour! http://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.com/2019/03/labour-undermines-renewable-energy.html
March 20, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, UK |
Leave a comment
FROM JOSEPH FARAH’S G2 BULLETIN
DEMS PROPOSE U.S. GIVE UP FIRST-STRIKE NUCLEAR OPTION https://www.wnd.com/2019/03/dems-propose-u-s-give-up-first-strike-nuclear-option/ Plan would pledge to use nukes only in response to attack
18 Mar 19, Democrats are proposing in Congress that the United States give up the option for a nuclear first strike – for any reason, reports Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.
The policy for decades deliberately has been one of “calculated ambiguity.” It stemmed from a Cold War era in which the U.S. and NATO faced “numerically superior” Soviet and Warsaw Pact conventional forces in Europe, explains a document prepared by the Congressional Research Service.
“At the time, the United States not only developed plans to use nuclear weapons on the battlefield to disrupt or defeat attacking tanks and troops, but it also hoped that the risk of a nuclear response would deter the Soviet Union from initiating a conventional attack. This is not because the United States believed it could defeat the Soviet Union in a nuclear war, but because it hoped the Soviet Union would know that the use of these weapons would likely escalate to all-out nuclear war, with both sides suffering massive destruction.”
That policy of ambiguity has been continued, with even the Obama administration promising that the U.S. “would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances,” far short of a promise never to use them first.
Democrats now are demanding to change that.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mas., and Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., have proposed legislation, S. 272 and H.R. 921, that would adopt the statement: “It is the policy of the United States to not use nuclear weapons first.”
Other members of Congress are divided,” the report from the CRS explained, with Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., warning the Democrats’ plan “betrays a naïve and disturbed world view.”
Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2019/03/dems-propose-u-s-give-up-first-strike-nuclear-option/#6cgKvfB7PXt22tiR.99
The Trump administration already had rejected the idea, in its 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, which said the weapons contribute to “deterrence of nuclear and non-nuclear attack; assurance of allies and partners; achievement of U.S. objectives if deterrence fails; and the capacity to hedge against an uncertain future.”
For the rest of this report, and more, please go to Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.
March 18, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Internal emails uncovered by The Ferret reveal that the First Minister was advised to turn down a request for a meeting in 2018 so as not to become a “focus for criticism”. But officials said the public reason given for her refusal would be “on the standard basis of diary pressures”.
Campaigners reacted with sadness, saying that the Scottish Government’s “ears are closed”. The government stressed that it had “very limited scope” to address the issues raised.
Nuclear fuel was sent from an Australian research reactor to Dounreay on the north coast of Scotland for reprocessing in the 1990s. The resulting radioactive waste, amounting to 51 cemented drums, was originally due to be returned to Australia for disposal.
But under the terms of a waste substitution deal in 2014, Scottish and UK governments agreed that the drums should stay at Dounreay. Instead, the plan is to send four containers of “radiologically equivalent” waste to Australia from the Sellafield nuclear complex in Cumbria.
Two sites have been identified for a planned store for the waste in south Australia – Wallerberdina Station, near Hawker, and Kimber – both of which face opposition from indigenous communities. The Ferret reported in February that Scottish ministers had been advised that they had powers to prevent the waste being exported to protect human rights.
March 16, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA, politics, politics international, UK |
Leave a comment
US senators seek probe of Trump admin nuclear energy talks with Saudi Arabia https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190315-us-senators-seek-probe-of-trump-admin-nuclear-energy-talks-with-saudi-arabia/A Democratic US senator and his Republican counterpart on Friday asked Congress’ investigative arm to probe Trump administration talks with Saudi Arabia over sharing nuclear power technology, Reuters reports.
In the latest effort by lawmakers to shed light on the potential deal, Democratic Senator Bob Menendez and Republican Senator Marco Rubio asked the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, to investigate the talks as soon as possible. They also asked the GAO to review executive branch negotiations with Saudi Arabia on nuclear energy since 2009, when Democrat Barack Obama was president.
Rubio and Menendez, members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, want to ensure any agreement “includes rigorous nonproliferation safeguards and other conditions to prevent nuclear cooperation with Saudi Arabia from undermining or threatening regional or international security,” said their letter to the GAO, a copy of which was seen by Reuters.
Saudi Arabia, which is seeking to build at least two nuclear power plants, has been in talks with the United States for years on importing technology.
The OPEC member, which is also in talks with countries including Russia, China and France, has at times resisted US standards on sharing nuclear technology that prevent uranium enrichment and spent fuel repossessing.
Both of those techniques are potential paths to clandestinely making fissile material for nuclear weapons.
Nonproliferation experts worry that if Saudi Arabia is not held to such a “gold standard,” in what is known as a 123 agreement, it could risk a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. The United Arab Emirates, which recently built reactors, could renegotiate its nonproliferation agreements if Saudi Arabia is allowed to bypass the standards.
Concerns in Congress rose last year after Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told CBS News his kingdom would develop nuclear weapons if archrival Iran did. The killing of journalist and US resident Jamal Khashoggi in a Saudi consulate in Istanbul last year has also sparked backlash against any deal.
US Energy Secretary Rick Perry has had quiet talks with Saudi officials, including his friend, Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih, on nuclear power.
The Department of Energy and the National Security Council did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The senators said the negotiations are occurring in a “very opaque manner” and that the Trump administration is not keeping their committee informed.
Perry has said he told Saudi Arabia it is important for the kingdom to be seen around the world as strong on nonproliferation. He also said that part of the talks center on making sure any nuclear inspections would not be intrusive for sensitive areas in the kingdom.
Perry told the Financial Times this week that talks with Saudi Arabia were at a pace “closer to one mile an hour than to Mach 1.2.”
Last month, Democratic House members alleged in a report that top White House aides ignored warnings they could be breaking the law as they worked with former U.S. officials in a group called IP3 International to advance a multibillion-dollar plan to build nuclear reactors in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia.
March 16, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA |
Leave a comment
nuclear-news 