nuclear-news

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

Santee Cooper continues search for new owner after failed nuclear project

https://www.counton2.com/news/local-news/berkeley-county-news/santee-cooper-continues-search-for-new-owner-after-failed-nuclear-project/1820291050 MONCKS CORNER, SC – A special legislative committee is looking into what to do with state-owned utility, Santee Cooper.

The company is in billions of dollars in debt because of the failed nuclear reactor project in Fairfield County.

The State newspaper reports that this week the committee authorized co-chairmen State Senator Paul Campbell of Charleston and State Representative Murrell Smith of Sumter to hire an outside consultant.

That hire will eventually evaluate bids to buy Santee Cooper and negotiate with those potential buyers.

March 2, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Trump administration accepting the greedy “radiation is good for you” group

These assertions stand scientific consensus on its head. Most experts say to the contrary that even low doses of radiation cause cell damage that years later can promote uncontrolled cell growth and replication, and that children and fetuses are particularly susceptible to harm. That seven-decade-old view was reaffirmed as recently as last April in a study by a congressionally chartered nonprofit organization, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement.

The study, overseen by a dozen experts from the government, academia, and industry, and funded by the NRC, considered 29 contemporary scientific studies of the effects of low-dose radiation in reaffirming that even low-level radiation should be avoided to the extent possible.

RADIATION IS GOOD FOR YOU? THE FRINGE VIEWPOINT GAINS GROUND IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, https://publicintegrity.org/national-security/radiation-is-good-for-you-the-heretical-view-gains-ground-under-trump/The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is actively considering claims that low-dose radiation protections should be lifted because exposures make you healthier, a potential boon to radiation-related industries. 

Since World War II, virtually every American business where radiation is present – hospital emergency rooms and cancer wards, uranium mines, nuclear power plants, and others – has operated under rules generally requiring that exposures be kept as low as possible. The rules are based on a widely-accepted scientific dicta that even small amounts of extra radiation can be harmful to human health.

Following those rules, though, is costly and often cumbersome, and so the requirement for low-dose radiation protections – known as the ALARA standard for “as low as reasonably achievable” – has long been annoying to a large swath of American industry. Estimates of the costs associated with these protections run into the billions of dollars.

Until the Trump era, opponents of the rules have gotten little traction in trying to upend low-dose radiation protections – such as isolation units, elaborate shielding, specialized air cleaners, and elaborate worker training — in federal regulations. But proposed relaxations have been percolating in recent months, courtesy of a little-known advocacy group called Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information, or SARI.

Members of the group, which claims its ideas have been wrongly dismissed and belittled by mainstream scientists, subscribe to a minority theory known as “hormesis.” It defies conventional wisdom by holding that damaging things that are dangerous in high doses might actually be beneficial to human health in small doses.

Despite swimming against the tide in the past, one of the group’s members has just been appointed to head a Radiation Advisory Panel at the Environmental Protection Agency, which helps set federal standards for radiation doses received by the public and by workers. And several of its recommendations to ease radiation protections are presently under active consideration by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

SARI’s members typically have more day-to-day connections to radiation than others, and potentially more influence: They have held jobs connected to radiation protection at the EPA, the Department of Labor, the Energy Department and its sub-agency responsible for building nuclear weapons at nine factories across the country. Practitioners of nuclear medicine, people employed in the nuclear industry, and professors who teach nuclear medicine or industrial hygiene also populate SARI.

The NRC’s consideration of the SARI views got started when three members of the group petitioned it in 2015 to abandon its current approach and accept that radiation in low doses is not only benign, but improves health. That was two years after SARI’s founding by industry officials trying to tamp down public concerns about the radiation that spilled from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster.

The NRC took the petitions seriously. Its staff created a working group to study the issue, and insiders now say that work is done. According to Scott Burnell, an NRC spokesman, the five members of the commission as a result will take up the issue this spring. Continue reading →

February 28, 2019 Posted by | politics, radiation, Reference, spinbuster | 1 Comment

Japanese Govt Olympic Games campaign to “showcase” Fukushima’s recovery is not really working

Reconstruction Olympics’ theme said not to have gathered momentum https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/02/27/national/reconstruction-olympics-theme-said-not-gathered-momentum/#.XHcN_IkzbGg KYODO   AOMORI – Half of 42 municipalities in northeastern Japan hit by a massive earthquake in 2011 said the public is not fully aware of the government’s efforts to showcase the region’s recovery from the disaster through the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, a Kyodo News survey showed Wednesday.

The heads of 21 local governments in Fukushima, Iwate and Miyagi prefectures said in the survey that the “reconstruction Olympics” theme has yet to fully catch on among the public.

Asked whether the slogan has gained public attention, two mayors said “it has not” while 19 mayors said “it mostly has not.” Eighteen said “it has a little” and two said “it has.” The remaining municipality — the Fukushima city of Soma — did not answer.

“The phrase ‘reconstruction Olympics’ was thought up but no substantial progress has been made and the affected areas feel left behind,” said an official of the town of Minamisanriku in Miyagi Prefecture. “We have limited manpower and cannot spare personnel for Olympic events.”

“The sporting event will be held under the banner of the ‘reconstruction Olympics’ but venues are centered on Tokyo,” said an official of Otsuchi, Iwate Prefecture.

The Tokyo Organising Committee has promoted projects involving the disaster-stricken areas, such as holding baseball and softball games in Fukushima and starting the Japan leg of the Olympic torch relay in the prefecture, which was hit by a nuclear crisis in the wake of the earthquake and subsequent tsunami.

Before the relay, the flame will be displayed in the three northeastern prefectures. The Fukushima city of Iwaki expressed appreciation over the move to highlight the recovery of the affected areas in the Summer Olympics. “Fukushima will be hosting some games and the torch relay will start here. We have been given certain roles to play,” a city official said.

Asked what they expect from the Tokyo Games in a multiple-choice question, the biggest group, of 36 mayors, picked “promoting our progress toward recovery,” while 20 mayors, mainly from Fukushima, chose “overcoming reputational damage.”

“We want to use the Olympics as a chance to regain sales channels for our farm products,” said an official of the Fukushima town of Namie.

Hisashi Sanada, a professor of the anthropology of sport and Olympic history at the University of Tsukuba, said efforts by the central government and the organizing committee to promote reconstruction through the sporting event were “not enough.”

“The state needs to explain in detail to municipalities what kind of support it can offer, and the local governments should also rack their brains about how to link (the Olympics) to regional development,” Sanada said.

February 28, 2019 Posted by | Japan, politics, spinbuster | Leave a comment

A new moral low – Trump Selling Nuclear Technology to Saudi Arabia

Trump Selling Nuclear Technology to Saudi Arabia Is a New Moral Low,  Inderjeet Parmar, The Wire, 27 Feb 19

In doing so, he has declared the return of great power global rivalries, with China and Russia as the biggest threats to US power.

The Trump administration’s plan to sell nuclear technologies to the Saudi Arabian regime is a case study in the decay of American imperial power, the essential corruption of the Trump White House and the self-serving and reckless character of the military-industrial complex. After two years of this administration, it is shocking, if unsurprising, that President Trump shows flagrant disregard for the law, is hypocritical with regard to his claimed desire to ‘drain the swamp’ of big money lobbying and is enabling the intensified militarisation of great power geopolitical rivalries.

In so doing, Trump has accelerated longer-term trends begun under successive previous presidents since the end of Second World War. He has declared the return of great power global rivalries, with China and Russia as the biggest threats to US power.

But Trump is not alone in this drive to further destabilisation: the Saudis have also shortlisted Russia, China, France and South Korea to bid for nuclear contracts. Russia has already signed nuclear power agreements or understandings with Egypt, Jordan and Turkey. And China’s Belt and Road Initiative features plans to build nuclear plants in dozens of countries on the Silk Road; China has signed nuclear cooperation agreements with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Armenia and the UK.

There have been reports that Russian and Chinese firms would cooperate with other states’ nuclear plans in West Asia, including Trump’s, but that Obama-era US sanctions on Russia stood in the way. If taken seriously by the numerous investigating bodies focused on the Trump White House, this may well prove to be a key driver of Trump’s relatively non-hostile rhetoric towards President Putin.

But this ramped up cooperative competition for markets and contracts, and other pending arms deals, may also explain the immediate reasons why the Republican president ignored CIA intelligence that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had ordered and directed the killing and dismemberment of regime critic and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.

The gruesome killing of the journalist – a member of Trump’s “enemy of the people” fake media, as opposed to his supporters at Fox News – could hardly be expected to hold up the brutal jockeying for advantage in the world’s most volatile – and tragic – region.

An interim report by the Democrat Elijah Cummings-chaired House Committee on Oversight and Reform, based largely on credible whistleblower accounts – including emails and other documents from within the White House itself – suggests that Trump and his trusted lieutenants, in particular, Jared Kushner, regardless of legal advice to the contrary, are finalising plans that may violate the Atomic Energy Act 1954, which provides powers to Congress to oversee the sale and use of nuclear technologies……..

Conflicts of interest abound in this matter. Trump acolytes are looking to make billions of dollars by winning fees, commissions and contracts in Saudi Arabia. What is sold as an attempt to make Saudi Arabia less reliant on fossil fuels for revenues, and more secure against regional powers like Iran and Syria, appears to be a rather unsubtle money grab. At the centre of the controversy is IP3 International, a firm whose leadership reads like the membership list of the morally and intellectually bankrupt military-industrial complex. Its name, according to its website, is an abbreviation for ‘international peace, power and prosperity’.  

Before digging a little deeper into IP3 International, it’s worth looking at where within the Trump camp this scheme originated and developed. Retired General Michael Flynn’s name is all over this plan. His Flynn Intel Group consultancy is closely linked with IP3 International’s plan to build dozens of nuclear reactors in Saudi Arabia and across the Gulf states. Flynn pushed the Saudi plan before and after the 2016 election, once he was named national security adviser and even after he had been dismissed for lying about his discussions with the Russian ambassador about US sanctions; he’s currently awaiting sentencing for lying to the FBI, among other things.

Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, troubleshooter and West Asia peace envoy, has been praising and protecting the Saudi crown prince as some sort of Kemal Ataturk-like visionary set to drag the kingdom and the region into the 21st century. Kushner has links with Westinghouse Electric Company – a nuclear services breakaway from the original Westinghouse Electric Corporation – and its current major shareholder, Brook Asset Management, which is closely linked with IP3 International.

Trump’s inauguration lead and close confidant, Tom Barrack, was reported by the New York Times as having raised investments topping $7 billion since Trump’s nomination, with a quarter of that deriving from the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Barrack justified his and the Trump administration’s business dealings with Saudi Arabia by praising the economic vision of the kingdom’s “young, brilliant new leader”. He justified the killing of Khashoggi thus: “Whatever happened in Saudi Arabia, the atrocities in America are equal or worse than the atrocities in Saudi Arabia.” Skullduggery, falsehood and self-interest justified by a self-serving admission of truth, while Trump’s brutal anti-immigrant policies and defence of police killings continue apace.

IP3 International and Flynn Intel Group are core drivers of the programme, as are ACU Strategic Partners – a nuclear power consultancy led by Alex Copson, who was advised by Michael Flynn; and Colony NorthStar, Tom Barrack’s real estate investment firm.

IP3 International’s leadership team is almost a case study of the military-industrial complex. Of its leadership team of 21, there are five retired US generals and four retired US Navy admirals. Among its three co-founders are General John ‘Jack’ Keane and Robert ‘Bud’ McFarlane. An architect of Reagan’s Star Wars nuclear programme, McFarlane is a convicted felon from the Iran-Contra scandal – found guilty of illegally selling arms to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war to illegally fund the Contras fighting the revolutionary-democratic Sandinista administration in Nicaragua. Congress had banned US aid to the Contras at the time. McFarlane spends some of his time promoting US wars via the Committee on the Present Danger. He is a non-executive director of the British military corporation Aegis Defence Services, which has ‘offices’ across West Asia.

General Keane retired from the military in 2003, became an analyst with Fox News and advised on the US occupation of Iraq. He was an architect, along with Fred Kagan, of the murderous 2007 “surge” in Iraq. Keane is a director of General Dynamics, consultant-advisor for the Erik Prince-founded private military company Blackwater, now called Academi, and executive chair of the Humvee manufacturer AM General.

Finally, ambassador Denis Ross is on IP3 International’s advisory board. Ross, a Democrat, has faithfully served American imperial power for decades – under both Republican and Democratic presidents. IP3 International opens its coffers and serves both parties. Ross is an arch-Zionist, indeed named as such in Walt and Mearsheimer’s The Israel Lobby as a key supporter of AIPAC. He advised Hillary Clinton on West Asian affairs, and considers the Saudi crown prince a true “revolutionary”……….

Kushner heads off to West Asia in the final days of this month to continue discussions on the nuclear programmes. President Trump is reported to have attended a meeting on February 12 at the White House with private nuclear corporations including Westinghouse, General Electric, and AECOM, “led by General Keane… ,” according to the congressional report.

The military-industrial complex has made the US government and geopolitical interests inseparable from their own personal and corporate interests. A remarkable March 4, 2017 email from McFarlane to the National Security Council’s Derek Harvey, titled “We’re Very Close to Losing Our Position in the Middle East” and reproduced in the House committee’s interim report, makes this all too clear……..https://thewire.in/world/trump-selling-nuclear-technology-to-saudi-arabia-is-a-new-moral-low

February 28, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, politics, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

Danger signs in Trump and co’s continuing push to sell nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia

Why proposals to sell nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia raise red flags, The Conversation,  Chen Kane,Director, Middle East Nonproliferation Program, Middlebury, February 23, 2019 According to a congressional report, a group that includes former senior U.S. government officials is lobbying to sell nuclear power plants to Saudi Arabia. As an expert focusing on the Middle East and the spread of nuclear weapons, I believe these efforts raise important legal, economic and strategic concerns.

It is understandable that the Trump administration might want to support the U.S. nuclear industry, which is shrinking at home. However, the congressional report raised concerns that the group seeking to make the sale may have have sought to carry it out without going through the process required under U.S. law. Doing so could give Saudi Arabia U.S. nuclear technology without appropriate guarantees that it would not be used for nuclear weapons in the future.

A competitive global market

Exporting nuclear technology is lucrative, and many U.S. policymakers have long believed that it promotes U.S. foreign policy interests. However, the international market is shrinking, and competition between suppliers is stiff.

Private U.S. nuclear companies have trouble competing against state-supported international suppliers in Russia and China. These companies offer complete construction and operation packages with attractive financing options. Russia, for example, is willing to accept spent fuel from the reactor it supplies, relieving host countries of the need to manage nuclear waste. And China can offer lower construction costs.

Saudi Arabia declared in 2011 that it planned to spend over US$80 billion to construct 16 reactors, and U.S. companies want to provide them. Many U.S. officials see the decadeslong relationships involved in a nuclear sale as an opportunity to influence Riyadh’s nuclear future and preserve U.S. influence in the Saudi kingdom.

Why does Saudi Arabia want nuclear power?

With the world’s second-largest known petroleum reserves, abundant untapped supplies of natural gas and high potential for solar energy, why is Saudi Arabia shopping for nuclear power? Some of its motives are benign, but others are worrisome. ………..

US nuclear trade regulations

Under the U.S. Atomic Energy Act, before American companies can compete to export nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia, Washington and Riyadh must conclude a nuclear cooperation agreement, and the U.S. government must submit it to Congress. Unless Congress adopts a joint resolution within 90 days disapproving the agreement, it is approved. The United States currently has 23 nuclear cooperation agreements in force, including Middle Eastern countries such as Egypt (approved in 1981), Turkey (2008) and the United Arab Emirates (2009).

The Atomic Energy Act requires countries seeking to purchase U.S. nuclear technology to make legally binding commitments that they will not use those materials and equipment for nuclear weapons, and to place them under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. It also mandates that the United States must approve any uranium enrichment or plutonium separation activities involving U.S. technologies and materials, in order to prevent countries from diverting them to weapons use.

American nuclear suppliers claim that these strict conditions and time-consuming legal requirements put them at a competitive disadvantage. But those conditions exist to prevent countries from misusing U.S. technology for nuclear weapons. I find it alarming that according to the House report, White House officials may have attempted to bypass or sidestep these conditions – potentially enriching themselves in the process.

According to the congressional report, within days of President Trump’s inauguration, senior U.S. officials were promoting an initiative to transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia, without either concluding a nuclear cooperation agreement and submitting it to Congress or involving key government agencies, such as the Department of Energy or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. One key advocate for this so-called “Marshall Plan” for nuclear reactors in the Middle East was then-national security adviser Michael Flynn, who reportedly served as an adviser to a subsidiary of IP3, the firm that devised this plan, while he was advising Trump’s presidential campaign.

The promoters of the plan also reportedly proposed to sidestep U.S. sanctions against Russia by partnering with Russian companies – which impose less stringent restrictions on nuclear exports – to sell reactors to Saudi Arabia.

Flynn resigned soon afterward and now is cooperating with the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. But IP3 access to the White House persists: According to press reports, President Trump met with representatives of U.S. industry, a meeting organized by IP3 to discuss nuclear exports to Saudi Arabia as recently as mid-February 2019……..https://theconversation.com/why-proposals-to-sell-nuclear-reactors-to-saudi-arabia-raise-red-flags-112276

February 25, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, politics, politics international, Saudi Arabia, USA, weapons and war | 1 Comment

Iran’s nuclear power station struggling financially

Financial Future Of Iranian Nuclear Power Plant In Question, February 24, 2019, Radio Farda
While the parliament weighs President Hassan Rouhani’s budget for the new Iranian year (beginning March 21), senior officials at the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) have complained of the “minimal” budget allocated to the Bushehr nuclear power plant.The head, deputy head, and spokesman for AEOI have all criticized the government, saying the budget allocated to the plant in southern Iran is so low that it endangers the future of the nuclear reactor.

The Energy Ministry “pays peanuts” for electricity produced at Bushehr, AEOI and former Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said on February 23. “For each kilowatt per hour of electricity produced at Bushehr, ME pays half a cent but exports electricity for nine cents,” he said.

Speaking at an industrial seminar, Salehi said, “The electricity produced at Bushehr reactor is bought for $40 million, while the annual budget needed for running the plant is $120 million. There’s a deficit of $80 million for which we don’t know how to compensate.”

Iran is currently suffering from an acute economic crisis and has been unable to issue a budget for the upcoming Iranian fiscal year. U.S. economic sanctions have halved Iran’s oil exports, which provide the hard currency needed for government operations.

AEOI spokesman Behrooz Kamalvandi says that given the budget allocated to Bushehr, the fate of Iran’s only nuclear power plant now hangs in the balance.

Bushehr’s construction started during the reign of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in 1975 by Kraftwerk Union, a Siemens company, along with several other German firms.

Following the downfall of the monarchy, work on the nuclear reactor ground to a halt.

A veteran Iranian diplomat and former foreign minister, Abbas Khalatbari, was executed by firing squad in April 1979 for charges that included signing a contract with Germany for the power plant’s construction.

However, in 1988, Russia signed a contract with Iran to complete the project……..

Based on a parliamentary motion endorsed by the parliament 14 years ago, the Iranian government is obliged to construct 13 more plants with output similar to Bushehr’s.

Opponents have long insisted that since Iran is rich in oil and natural gas resources and poor in uranium ore deposits, the viability of its nuclear program is questionable. …….. https://en.radiofarda.com/a/financial-future-of-irn-nuclear-power-plant-uncertain-salehi/29787790.html

February 25, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, Iran, politics | Leave a comment

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal seen as a winner

A winner: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal, Independent Australia

By Dr Steven Hail | 24 February 2019, The Green New Deal offers a unique chance to stop the worst effects of climate change, writes Dr Steven Hail.

YOU MUST HAVE noticed the emergence of a new political phenomenon in Washington D.C. – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The youngest ever Congresswoman – she has the values, the attitude and the agenda you might expect from a progressive millennial from the Bronx. More than that, she has charisma. For many of us, she is a beacon of hope.

For the Trumpian Republicans, she is their worst nightmare.

Her most important contribution so far is the Green New Deal. Its objective is to, finally, confront the threat of imminent and potentially catastrophic climate change, and the role the U.S. economy and its energy system are playing in driving global carbon emissions and the resulting apparently inexorable increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

You have probably read numerous articles referring to the Green New Deal – some enthusiastic and supportive; some (from the conservative side, and what a misnomer the word “conservative” is when used to refer to destructive climate change deniers) aggressively dismissive; and some (from the establishment democrat side) affirming its ideals, but bemoaning its lack of realism, and offering to devise a more “pragmatic” approach.

What does the Green New Deal actually involve? You can read it for yourself. It is House Resolution 109 in the 116th Congress (2019-20).

This resolution accepts the evidence from climate scientists that climate change is driven by human activity. It accepts that warming of more than two degrees over pre-industrial levels will have a series of catastrophic consequences, which it lists. It accepts the scientific evidence that major emissions reductions are needed within ten years and that net-zero emissions worldwide must be achieved within thirty years if we are to be confident of avoiding this outcome……..https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/a-winner-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal,12393

February 25, 2019 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

U.S. Congress starts investigation into Trump administration’s plan to build nuclear reactors in Saudi Arabia

February 23, 2019 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear energy just IS NOT clean energy

Nuclear energy is not the same as clean energy https://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion/illinois-clean-energy-policy-nuclear-energy/  Gail Snyder, board president, Nuclear Energy Information Service , 21 Feb 19,  “……  While legislation advancing renewable energy and energy efficiency is to be applauded, the $2.3 billion bailout to three privately owned Exelon nuclear energy facilities should be evaluated for its costs and the impact on expanding renewable energy. Of course, legislators should do so promptly, as it seems Exelon did so well with their last bailout that they are going to come back for another.

As energy legislation hits Springfield again, the public will be inundated with the terms “clean,” “renewable,” “green,” “low carbon,” “carbon neutral,” “carbon free,” “non-carbon,” and “net-zero emissions.” These terms will be used interchangeably, which only serves to confuse this fact: Nuclear waste and radioactive releases are not part of the calculus when the nuclear industry and others try to sell nuclear energy as “clean.” It is not.

Legislation that speaks only to “clean” as it relates to managing carbon emissions, without considering the 10,000 tons of nuclear waste in Illinois (the most nuclear waste of any state) is misleading. Also, consideration of the entire nuclear fuel cycle and storage of nuclear waste is carbon- intensive, which is not part of the “clean” calculus either.

We would also like to see Illinois legislators ‘step in’ again on energy policy, but this time with both the “carbon footprint” and the “nuclear footprint” included.

February 23, 2019 Posted by | politics, spinbuster, USA | Leave a comment

Trump’s son in law Jared Kushner linked to unusual dealings about nuclear reactor sales to Russia – Congressional report

February 21, 2019 Posted by | politics, Russia, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

Tough times ahead for America’s nuclear industry

U.S. Nuclear Has A Tough Road Ahead https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/US-Nuclear-Has-A-Tough-Road-Ahead.html By Tim Daiss – Feb 19, 2019, The United States nuclear industry is in a tough spot. It’s unpopular with the public due to high-profile disasters like 1979’s Three Mile Island meltdown, and its bottom line has been hit hard by the rise of ultra-cheap domestic shale oil and gas as well as a nearly plateaued post-recession demand for electricity. Some states, including New York, New Jersey, and Illinois have approved financial packages to revive their failing nuclear industries, and now Pennsylvania could be the next if they can push past a plague of doubt.Pennsylvania is a hard sell for nuclear support as the home of the United States’ most famous nuclear disaster at the Three Mile Island site in Dauphin County 40 years ago. The nuclear industry has continued to function, however, in Pennsylvania in the intervening decades–in fact, it’s the second biggest nuclear power state in the country–it hasn’t been until the recent surge of cheap domestic fossil fuels thanks to the boom of production in the Permian Basin that the sector has hit a rough patch that they are unable to surmount on their own.

Even the notorious Three Mile Island plant itself remains in operation today. It has survived four decades of being synonymous with everything that’s wrong with nuclear in the United States, until now. The Chicago-based owner of the plant, Exelon Corp., has announced that the plant will finally be closing its door on September 30th of this year unless the state of Pennsylvania can pull it out of its financial hole. The Three Mile plant would soon be followed by Beaver Valley nuclear power plant in western Pennsylvania and two nuclear plants in Ohio, which Ohio-based owner FirstEnergy Corp. said they will close within the next three years if Pennsylvania can’t pass a financial package to save them.

In light of this newfound hardship, over the past few years industry leaders in Pennsylvania have been working diligently to rouse support for a financial package like those approved in other nearby states to keep the floundering industry afloat. While nuclear support packages have been approved in New York, New Jersey, and Illinois, the path has not been laid clear for Pennsylvania to follow–those already-approved initiatives have been mired in legal appeals debate between federal energy regulatory authorities, and general outcry against a rise in electricity prices for consumers.

The already-socially-sticky-situation is only made more politically complex by the ongoing litigation surrounding nuclear bailout packages, making the decision to push any such financial package in Pennsylvania a particularly precarious one. “Anything that Pennsylvania does is going to be subject to a degree of policy and legal uncertainty,” said University of Pennsylvania’s Christina Simeone, director of policy and external affairs at the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy.

Further complicating the issue, the contentious and divisive topic of nuclear energy’s future has recently entered the national spotlight with a new fervor thanks to the Democratic party’s newly unveiled Green New Deal. Although the official bill itself makes no mention at all of nuclear (a striking omission in and of itself), a fact sheet released alongside the bill, made public by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, states outright and in no uncertain terms that the Democrats’ Green New Deal “will not include investing in new nuclear power plants.”

The debates on the national stage as well as on a state level, such as what’s happening in Pennsylvania, are indicative of a larger issue: in a world with rising temperatures and populations and declining reserves of traditional fossil fuels, is the United States willing to follow in the footsteps of other world powers and make politically unpopular moves in order to confront our new energy reality? So far, in Pennsylvania at least, the answer seems to be a resounding “we don’t know.” By Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com

February 21, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Britain’s energy policy in a right mess, as new nuclear power stations are shelved

February 21, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Bailout tax: Profitable corporations need to come clean on nuclear energy

Penn Live, Feb 19 By Eric Epstein, Maureen Mulligan and David Hughes, guest contributors

It is the duty of state legislators to draft laws that respond to the needs of the districts that they represent. Some electric utility companies that own low or unprofitable nuclear plants want Pennsylvania lawmakers to enact legislation that will provide subsidies to utilities that own and operate uneconomical nuclear power plants.

Proponents of a nuclear bailout tax frequently argue that these subsidies are necessary for grid reliability and to meet statewide greenhouse gas emissions goals, and that plant closures would create economic hardships in the communities where they operate. While these are all important priorities, the measures the nuclear power industry is proposing would not produce the proclaimed results.

PJM Interconnection, the regional power grid operator responsible for grid reliability for 65 million customers in 21 states including Pennsylvania and the mid-Atlantic region, has published multiple studies making it clear that closing these plants would not affect grid reliability. The lights will continue to shine if uneconomical nuclear power plants retire, thanks in part to increased solar and wind generation coming online throughout the state.

An analysis by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) provides evidence that “continuing to operate these plants does nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from current levels.” In fact, more cost-effective, economically productive and environmentally benign options are available.

As multiple studies have proved, despite the mythology, nuclear power is not a carbon-free source of energy. Greenhouse gases are emitted in all stages of the life cycle of a nuclear reactor: construction, operation, fuel production, dismantling and waste disposal. In addition, nuclear plants routinely vent some of the deadliest gases known to exist.

And, of course, there is the issue of what to do with the dangerous radioactive waste. Nuclear power is an old and expensive technology. Subsidizing aging, unprofitable reactors on the verge of retirement anyway diverts large financial resources from investments in new technologies and infrastructure and slows renewable energy growth that is driving down emissions without seeking a handout.

The analysis by NIRS highlights that potential job losses can be addressed without making electricity ratepayers pay more to bail out the owners of these uneconomical plants. In fact, the increased energy costs to manufacturers — some of the biggest energy users in the commonwealth — as a result of a nuclear bailout could lead to job losses and lack of economic growth in the state that are the same or worse than a plant closure. …….https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2019/02/bailout-tax-profitable-corporations-need-to-come-clean-on-nuclear-energy-opinion.html

February 21, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

South Africa inquiry hears how former president Jacob Zuma pressed for ‘astronomically expensive’ nuclear deal

#StateCaptureInquiry: ‘If nuclear had proceeded, SA would’ve been in trouble’ https://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/statecaptureinquiry-if-nuclear-had-proceeded-sa-wouldve-been-in-trouble-19365917 18 FEBRUARY 2019, ZINTLE MAHLATI  JOHANNESBURG – Former National Treasury director-general Lungisa Fuzile has corroborated former minister Nhlanhla Nene’s evidence regarding pressure to implement the nuclear deal.

Fuzile returned to the state capture inquiry on Monday to finalise aspects of his testimony.
He told the commission of a meeting with former president Jacob Zuma where the nuclear deal was discussed.
He said Zuma made various comments that were concerning. And even with doubts from Treasury and Nene, there was pressure to go ahead with the deal.
Nene had testified when he appeared last year at the inquiry that the nuclear deal would have cost a lot of money and place massive risk on the country’s fiscus.
“The costs associated with it were astronomical. The envisaged 9.6 GW programme would have constituted the largest investment project in SA history. The investment required would have been estimated at R200 billion for a phased approach,” said Nene.
Fuzile said in a meeting with Zuma on the eve of Nene’s firing, officials from Treasury explained to Zuma and other officials why the project would be a risk yet Cabinet moved to approve the first phase of the deal.
“This was the biggest procurement ever in the history of the country, yet the processes were rushed and some of the stuff that was talked about was not followed. If nuclear had proceeded, this country would have been in trouble. The process that was followed was seriously flawed. There was a brushing aside of the true cost of the project,” said Fuzile.
Zuma commented that Fuzile and former minister Pravin Gordhan had stopped the PetrolSA Engen deal and said it was Treasury’s job to find the money.
Nene had testified that he suspects he was fired because of his objection to the nuclear deal.
Lungisa also touched on the PetroSA deal which did not go through, something Zuma appeared unhappy about.
He also testified about concerns from some board members at South Africa Airways (SAA) about the Airbus deal.
Lungisa also noted the resistance for the removal of former SAA board chair Dudu Myeni. He said it did not make sense why there was so much resistance especially as lenders for SAA did not enjoy working with the SAA board led by Myeni
Lungisa’s testimony was largely focused on corroborating information already provided by Nene and Gordhan when they appeared at the inquiry last year.
The inquiry continues.

February 19, 2019 Posted by | politics, secrets,lies and civil liberties, South Africa | Leave a comment

Focus now on Pennsylvania, in the nuclear industry’s battle to get tax-payer funding

Pennsylvania Is Newest Nuclear Subsidy Battleground, Power Magazine, 02/14/2019 | Sonal Patel, Pennsylvania, the nation’s second-largest nuclear power-producing state, is now definitively a battleground for nuclear power subsidies. 

Last week, in two memos that were circulated in the state House and Senate, seven lawmakers signaled they would soon introduce legislation that would update a 2004 state law—the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards (AEPS)—to include nuclear power. The law currently requires that 18% of electricity sold should come from renewable sources by 2021, including at least 0.5% of solar photovoltaic power. …….

The memo specifically cites concerns about Beaver Valley and Three Mile Island, which, barring legislative remedy, will shut down soon because they cannot compete with cheaper sources of generation in PJM Interconnection’s wholesale electricity market.

FirstEnergy Solutions Banks on Reforms

FENOC, a subsidiary of FirstEnergy Solutions (FES) that sought bankruptcy protection in March 2018, last year notified PJM Interconnection it would shutter Beaver Valley in 2021 (as well as two Ohio plants, the single-unit 908-MW PWR at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station in Oak Harbor by 2020, and the single-unit 1,268-MW BWR at the the Perry Nuclear Power Plant in Perry in 2021). At the time, a company executive said, “Though the plants have taken aggressive measures to cut costs, the market challenges facing these units are beyond their control.”…….

Pennsylvania Could Be Newest Victory for Exelon

Meanwhile, Exelon in May 2017 announced it would shutter Three Mile Island in September 2019 unless policy reforms are enacted in Pennsylvania. Industry observers, however, point out that the gambit is similar to one employed in Illinois to help enact the Future Energy Jobs Act in December 2016 (it went into effect in June 2017), keeping Exelon’s Clinton and Quad Cities plants running. Exelon also strongly backed New York’s Clean Energy Standard, a measure that became effective in April 2017, to preserve the at-risk Nine Mile Point, FitzPatrick, and Ginna reactors in upstate New York. And in 2018, New Jersey also enacted zero-emission credits (ZECs) to bolster profitability of the Hope Creek plant, which is owned by PSEG, and Salem, whose output Exelon owns jointly with PSEG. 

As financial documents Exelon filed on Feb. 8 show, the New York and Illinois ZEC measures have proven beneficial for the company, whose 32.7 GW generation portfolio comprises a 20.3 GW nuclear fleet—the largest in the nation. In 2017, Exelon recorded ZEC revenues from New York and Illinois of $343 million. For the full year of 2018, Exelon Generation recorded a net income of $370 million, while adjusted operating earnings for 2018 soared to $1.3 billion (its net income was $2.7 billion in 2017, and adjusted operating earnings were $989 million).

The company noted that 2018 adjusted operating earnings reflect “the favorable impacts of New York and Illinois ZEC revenue (including the impact of ZECs generated in Illinois from June 1, 2017 through Dec. 31, 2017), increased capacity prices, tax savings related to the [2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act], realized gains on nuclear decommissioning trust (NDT) funds and decreased nuclear outage days, all of which were partially offset by lower realized energy prices and the absence of earnings from Exelon Generation Texas Power due to its deconsolidation in the fourth quarter of 2017.”……..

Widening ZEC Horizons

If Pennsylvania backs nuclear subsidies, it will become the fifth state in the U.S. to do so on a statewide basis. Along with Illinois, New York, and New Jersey, in 2017, Connecticut also enacted legislation to allow Dominion’s Millstone nuclear plant to become eligible for a state procurement process for ZECs, upon certification of financial need. ……..

The nation’s 98 licensed nuclear power reactors at 59 sites in the U.S. generate about 20% of the nation’s power. However, the nuclear sector is facing severe financial pressure from cheaper power produced by natural gas plants, growing supplies of renewables, and stagnant electricity demand. Between 2013 and 2018, seven U.S. reactors were permanently shuttered, and 12 others are planned for closure through the mid-2020s. Dismal economics have stymied plans to build up to 30 new U.S. reactors, which were announced over the past 10 years. Only two reactors are under construction today—at Plant Vogtle in Georgia, which continues to face major challenges.   https://www.powermag.com/pennsylvania-is-newest-nuclear-subsidy-battleground/?pagenum=1

February 16, 2019 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »