CAN SMALL DOSES OF RADIATION HARM YOU? THE EPA ISN’T CONVINCED. A new rule might open the door for regulation rollbacks on radiation and harmful chemicals. Pacific Standard EMMA SARAPPO OCT 3, 2018
On Tuesday, the Associated Press reported that the Trump administration was quietly seeking to roll back the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations on radiation exposure. The story took a closer look at a rule the EPA proposed back in April called “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science.” When it was released, most coveragefocused on the proposal’s potential limitation of what studies the EPA could and could not use in decision-making—it essentially demanded the EPA not use any studies based on data that isn’t publicly available.
Ironically, the transparency rule is hiding another agenda. Paragraphs scattered throughout the document make it clear that the proposed rule is meant to re-evaluate the science behind “the dose response data and models that underlie what we are calling ‘pivotal regulatory science.'” That jargon means the EPA wants to challenge the assumptions that underlie its current guidelines on toxic exposure.
“The so-called transparency rule is an insidious dodge,” said Rush D. Holt, a former congressman and current president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, before a Senate subcommittee on October 3rd. “It apparently is about reducing regulation.” And though the actual rule is vague, comments in the press release and a July update to the EPA guidelines on radiation exposure make it seem that nuclear regulation is on the chopping block.
Currently, the nuclear industry, the EPA, and other groups operate on the assumption that there is no safe dose of radiation, no matter how small. This is based on the “linear no-threshold” model (LNT). The LNT model is based on studies of people exposed to high and medium doses of radiation, including survivors of Hiroshima, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. That data shows that the higher the dose of radiation you receive, the more severe the consequences—in other words, that the response to doses is linear. The more radiation, the more health effects.
Because it’s much harder to accurately measure small doses of radiation in large populations over long periods of time, there isn’t much data available on the lower end. Still, most scientists agree that the relationship stays the same for small amounts of ionizing radiation: Small doses increase the aggregate risk of cancer by a relatedly small amount. LNT’s prevalence pushes regulatory agencies, professional associations, and medical fields to keep radiation doses “as low as reasonably achievable” in all people, especially considering some groups (children, especially) are more vulnerable to radiation than others.
……..in a larger public-health sense, LNT is cautious and prudent. Just because there isn’t documented proof of harm at very low doses doesn’t mean harm isn’t being done, and an inaccurate model means that it’s also possible that LNT sometimes underestimates cancer risks from low doses. In the absence of more definitive data, multiple groups and studies—the National Academy of Sciences, the International Commission on Radiological Protection, and more—have recommended holding fast to regulations that keep radiation exposure as low as possible, at least until a new model is robustly tested and accepted.
Others go even further and argue that small doses of radiation are good for you. Edward Calabrese, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, is quoted in the April EPA press release—he was glad the agency was “recognizing the widespread occurrence of non-linear dose responses,” and he appeared in the October 3rd Senate hearing on the rule.
Calabrese is a major critic of the LNT model. He is famous for championing “hormesis”—the idea that small amounts of radiation are beneficial, or “hormetic,” ………
Although Calabrese focused on more mainstream criticisms of LNT before the Senate, his hormesis work is controversial. In 2010, Kristin Shrader-Frechette used Calabrese’s work as a case study of “special-interest science.” Shrader-Frechette compares Calabrese and others to the Queen of Hearts in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass. “Just as the Queen claimed she could believe six impossible things before breakfast, SIS proponents often use scientific concepts/methods in ways that are ‘impossible,'” she wrote. She points out that Calabrese’s CV shows significant research funding from Atlantic Richfield Oil (ARCO), Dow Chemical, ExxonMobil, Proctor and Gamble, and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco. And despite Calabrese’s nearly 20 years of advocacy for the theory, even friendly reviews indicate radiation hormesis needs further scientific support.
……the rule promises to give special consideration to studies exploring “various threshold models across the exposure range” and pledges to “evaluate the appropriateness” of using the LNT model. If it’s approved, the EPA’s accepted scientific standard for acceptable radiation doses could change from “as low as reasonably achievable” to a standard that identifies no effect or positive effects from low doses. That could lead to the repeal of strict regulations on radiation containment, which the EPA might deem unnecessary. https://psmag.com/news/can-small-doses-of-radiation-harm-you-the-epa-isnt-convinced
Make nuclear waste site Ottawa Valley election issue: coalition https://www.insideottawavalley.com/news-story/8948934-make-nuclear-waste-site-ottawa-valley-election-issue-coalition/ NEWS Oct 05, 2018 by John Carter Arnprior Chronicle-Guide A group of concerned citizens is making a concerted effort to make the proposed nuclear waste disposal at Chalk River an election issue throughout Renfrew County, especially those municipalities along the Ottawa River.The informal alliance that also includes Ottawa Riverkeeper, the Coalition Against Nuclear Dumps on the Ottawa River and two cottagers groups, has sent a lengthy letter to each municipal candidate, spelling out “major concerns” about the plan. The groups stress they’re not advocating the closure of Chalk River nuclear laboratories but want changes to proposals on how and where radioactive nuclear waste is to be disposed.
It asks candidates to support efforts to petition the federal government to move the proposed radioactive nuclear disposal site “much farther away” from the Ottawa River and to use more-secure containment methods.
“Your constituents are very worried that large amounts of radioactive waste could contaminate the Ottawa River if these plans are not changed,” says the letter. That would affect the drinking water of millions of people.
The letter points out the contract includes the requirement to “seek the fastest, most cost-effective means” to dispose of all the radioactive waste that has been accumulating at Chalk River and other federal nuclear sites. The contract also includes decommissioning and entombing the nuclear reactor at Rolphton, which the coalition calls inappropriate.
The letter says the proposed 27-acre containment “mound” will contain up to one million cubic metres of radioactive nuclear waste, including materials transported in from other Canadian decommissioned nuclear sites. It is to be covered over by a combination of sand, stone, gravel and topsoil that could reach about 25 metres high.
The coalition is particularly concerned because the location is directly over an active earthquake zone, above porous and fractured rock, and less than a kilometre from the Ottawa River. It is beside a small lake that drains directly into the Ottawa River through a small creek, the letter points out.
The letter says the danger is exacerbated if the mound is left uncovered for more than 50 years, as planned. Furthermore, “climate change brings unpredictable, catastrophic weather that could cause permanent radioactive contamination of the Ottawa River,” the letter adds.
It suggests retired Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) senior nuclear scientists have raised serious concerns about the proposal. It quotes Dr. J.R. Walker as saying it “employs inadequate technology and is problematically located” and “does not meet regulatory requirements with respect to the health and safety of persons and the protection of the environment.”
The letter urges candidates, if elected, to introduce resolutions questioning the process and opposing the waste proposals as they currently stand, as well as the importation of nuclear waste to Chalk River from other locations “as more than 135 municipalities in Ontario and Quebec have already done.”
What does the UK’s nuclear future look like?,By Chris MasonPolitical correspondent, BBC News, 5 October 2018
Six months out from Brexit, how are those involved with the UK’s nuclear sector viewing the prospect?
The area around the Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria is the heartland of the UK’s nuclear industry…….. The word that sums up what everyone told us is “uncertainty”, but a particular kind of uncertainty, grounded in the history of this industry.
Months after Calder Hall opened, the Euratom Treaty established the European Atomic Energy Community. The UK did not formally join straight away but did have a relationship with it.
Euratom oversees nuclear research, sets the rules on where nuclear material is and how it is moved around. It knows, for instance, exactly how much spent uranium is in a storage pond at Sellafield.
But the government has decided leaving the European Union means leaving Euratom, and that is likely to mean potentially huge changes to the way nuclear businesses operate.
Mr Coughlan fears losing out on nuclear decommissioning orders from elsewhere in Europe, especially from Germany and Sweden.
“Once we are out, and no longer part of Euratom, it means we will not be able to participate in those markets,” he says. “The negotiations have been pretty disastrous for the UK,” says Sue Ferns, deputy general secretary of the Prospect trade union, who adds that current “uncertainty” over Brexit negotiations is damaging.
It’s that word again.
So, given such concern, why is the UK leaving Euratom?
After all, former government adviser Dominic Cummings, a leading advocate of Brexit, has described ministers as “morons” for advocating withdrawal from the organisation.
The House of Lords also tried to force the government to keep the UK in Euratom.
The crux of the government’s opposition is the way Euratom itself is overseen by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The prime minister insists this cannot happen – the UK cannot be subject to the decisions of a foreign court.
The government argues a central driving motivation for Leave voters was the desire to, as the slogan put it, “take back control”, meaning there can be no role for the ECJ.
Instead, ministers say, they will reach alternative arrangements with the EU, and have speeded up arriving at nuclear co-operation agreements with other countries worldwide.
But what do those who work for Euratom have to say about this big change?
Dame Sue Ion, who chairs Euratom’s Science and Technology Committee, says the UK has a lot of world-class expertise and creating new post-Brexit arrangements has meant a huge extra burden of unnecessary work.
She feels that ministers must “keep their foot on the gas pedal” to ensure international nuclear co-operation agreements after Brexit are as broad-based as possible.
The government has set out its plans for the nuclear sector in the event of no deal with the EU. A law has already been passed so that the Office for Nuclear Regulation in the UK, which already exists, could oversee “domestic safeguards” instead of Euratom. New agreements have also been signed with the International Atomic Energy Agency to replace the existing agreements between it, Euratom and the UK.
We understand bringing jobs to the state has been the governor’s chief priority and achievement, and it is one economic benefit of the project. But utility customers should only have to pay for their electric power, not a jobs program without end or limits on how much is spent.
The project, the nation’s only nuclear plant construction still ongoing, is already a year overdue, nowhere near finished and $1 billion overbudget. final cost is expected to reach near $27 billion, more than twice the original $13 billion price tag. Last year’s bankruptcy filing of the project’s lead contractor, Westinghouse, set the deadline back even further.
Yet late last year, the Georgia Public Service Commission fended off pressure from ratepayers and anti-nuclear advocates and voted to back Georgia Power’s request to continue the work.
But now, after years of seemingly exhaustive support for an enterprise with no limits, some are finally fed up enough to say no.
The most recent and crucial rebellion came recently from one of the project’s partner utilities. Oglethorpe Power threatened to pull out of the reactor construction if some effort wasn’t made to ease its financial commitment. Oglethorpe is one of three smaller electric membership corporations that serve as junior partners in the project along with Georgia Power and its parent, the Southern Company.
But though Georgia Power is a for-profit with shareholders to help shoulder the costs, smaller EMCs don’t have that flexibility and must make their customers bear the funding burden.
Oglethorpe balked at reaffirming its partnership and argued its case to lawmakers for relief. They seemed to find sympathetic ears, with 20 legislators, including Hall County Sen. Butch Miller and other influential leaders, urging the partners to consider a cap on the project’s costs before more losses are passed on to consumers.
The new deal doesn’t exactly do that, but it does to ensure that further cost overruns will be shared more equitably among Georgia Power and the owners of the project — Georgia Power, Oglethorpe Power, the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia and Dalton Utilities. Specifically Georgia Power must take on a greater portion of future deficits.
Yet even with a somewhat more reasonable deal for the owners, it could still leave ratepayers on the hook for the extra costs as the project wobbles toward the finish line.
“We’re very concerned about today’s announcement because it’s clear the Plant Vogtle nuclear project is in serious trouble if this much arm twisting is necessary to keep all four partners at the table,” Stephen Smith, executive director of Southern Alliance for Clean Energy said in an emailed statement.
Liz Coyle, executive director of consumer advocate Georgia Watch, said it “appears the owners have decided to plow ahead with a project that holds continued uncertainty and certainly clear risk of major cost increases and very little, if any true protections for Georgia’s electric customers.”
It’s worth noting that in addition to those who see the reactor construction as an endless money pit, others object over the viability and safety of nuclear power as a long-term solution to ease off carbon-based fuels.
Defenders of the Vogtle reactors argue that the jobs it creates in that part of the state justify its support. Among them is Gov. Nathan Deal, who urged Oglethorpe to stay with construction plans “before walking away from 7,000 Georgia jobs.”
We understand bringing jobs to the state has been the governor’s chief priority and achievement, and it is one economic benefit of the project. But utility customers should only have to pay for their electric power, not a jobs program without end or limits on how much is spent.
Oglethorpe’s resistance to continuing without some guarantees was timely and needed, but it’s only the first step. The only way to ensure customers won’t have to keep paying more is if legislators insist on the cost caps they suggested. Perhaps that would accomplish what the Public Service Commission has thus far been unwilling or unable to do to rein in cost overruns.
Remember, that five-member board voted unanimously last year to allow the utilities to keep charging customers for its boondoggle. It fits the profile of a state agency that over the years has seldom met a rate hike it wouldn’t rubber-stamp for utilities, many of which provide campaign donations to its members.
Yet Georgians do get a say in how this plays out. There’s a statewide election in less than a month and two PSC seats are on the ballot. Perhaps if commissioners got a message from voters making it clear they’re tired of footing the bill, the board wouldn’t be as eager to keep signing off on this and other costly ventures.
Customers of Georgia Power and its partner EMCs already have paid more than their fair share to get the reactors on line. Even if the plant is finished and begins turning out electrical power, it will take years to recoup what has been invested. It’s time to unplug ratepayers from the burden and let the big corporation’s shareholders take that responsibility.
Even the strongest advocates for nuclear power as a replacement for carbon-based energy have to understand there isn’t an endless supply of construction money in the pockets of Georgia utility consumers.
Akkuyu nuclear plant construction site holds Open Doors Day MERSİN, 7 Oct 18 The AkkuyuNuclear Power Plant, whose construction was launched in April in a groundbreaking ceremony, opened its doors on Oct. 6 for the first time.
…..President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his Russian counterpart VladimirPutin launched the construction of the Akkuyu plant at a ceremony in Ankara in early April.
…….“In 2023, we will put the first unit into operation and Turkey will thereby join those countries that use nuclear energy … On the anniversary of our republic, we will crown this work with success,” Erdoğan said.
A week or so earlier, a pro-nuclear lobby group, New Nuclear Watch Institute, which masquerades as a think tank, issued a tendentiously inaccurate 34 page report, arguing that new nuclear is essential to meet carbon emission reduction targets. It was reported in The Guardian
In response I wrote this unpublished letter, below, correcting certain factual mistakes:
Here we go again! Your energy editor’s on line article (“Abandoning nuclear power plans ‘would push up carbon emissions,” 26 Sept) reports lobby group the New Nuclear Watch Institute as claiming nuclear power is both low carbon and its alternatives “ will raise the cost of electricity.
All the robust evidence demonstrates the opposite in both cases. Just over a year ago you published a letter from me challenging the low or even zero carbon claims of nuclear ( “Beware nuclear industry’s fake news on being emissions free,”17 Sept 2017;www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/17/beware-nuclear-industrys-fake-news-on-being-emissions-free)
In my letter from a year ago, I pointed out I had challenged this nuclear low carbon myth in your columns 12 years earlier. (“There is nothing green about Blair’s nuclear dream, “ 20 October 2005<https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/oct/20/greenpolitics.world.
I said in my letter a year ago “It is about time this dangerous falsehood was confined to the dustbin of history.”
Sadly it seems, like Freddy, it seems it is going to be resurrected each mellow autumn!
Here are some of the more egregiously challengeable extracts from the report……..
The bill reinforces the administration’s efforts to revitalize the U.S. nuclear industry. GreenTech Media
JULIA PYPEROCTOBER 01, 2018“…….On Friday, President Trump signed the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act (NEICA), which passed earlier last month with bipartisan support. The bill is expected to speed up the development of advanced reactors in the U.S. by eliminating several of the financial and technological barriers standing in the way of nuclear innovation…….
NEICA was designed to foster collaboration between the public and private sectors, building on relationships formed under the Department of Energy’s Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear program. To help offset upfront costs, the bill calls for a cost-share grant program to cover a portion of the licensing fees charged by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission during its new technology review process.
It also directs the DOE to facilitate the siting of advanced reactor research demonstration facilities through partnerships with private industry.
On the technical side, the legislation requires DOE to develop a fast test reactor, or fast neutron source, used for testing advanced reactor fuels and materials. The U.S. doesn’t currently have this capability.
In addition, DOE must expand its high-performance computing expertise by focusing on the modeling and simulation of advanced nuclear reactors. “The national labs, universities and private sector will help develop new software and tools for developers to use to speed up their research on fission and fusion reactors, in addition to space applications,” according to the DOE announcement.
Nuclear power advocates pushed for several of these reforms in a recent policy paper.
Energy Secretary Rick Perry now has 180 days to provide Congress with a report assessing the ability to host and operate experimental advanced nuclear reactors at the national labs or other DOE sites. He must also submit two 10-year budget plans for nuclear R&D.
The renewed focus on advanced nuclear technology builds on the Trump administration’s support for traditional nuclear power plants. Last fall, Secretary Rick Perry introduced a planto shore up power plants with 90 days of fuel on site — something only nuclear and coal plants can provide. But that proposal was ultimately rejected by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
In June, the White House issued a new order for Secretary Perry to stem the loss of existing nuclear and coal power resources. A leaked memo revealed the administration is working on a new plan to offer guaranteed profits for nuclear and coal plants, leveraging emergency authorities.
Hornepayne, Ont., municipal election to become debate on nuclear waste, Community one of three in northwestern Ontario to consider hosting nuclear waste Jeff Walters · CBC NewsOct 04, 2018 Voters in the small northwestern Ontario town of Hornepayne will have more to consider at the ballot box than tax rates and economic growth.
The township of 1,000 located between Highways 11 and 17 is in the running to host a nuclear waste repository. It’s one of three in northwestern Ontario, the others being Manitouwadge and Ignace.
Aison Morrison organized a walk this summer to demonstrate against hosting the toxic waste and is now running for town council.
The thought of having a burial area near her family camp, about 20 kilometres from town, caused Morrison to become more vocal in her opposition…….Nearly all of the communities in northwestern Ontario who have shown an interest in hosting the facility, including those no longer in the process, had fallen on hard economic times. Many had lost their primary industry, be it a sawmill or mine.
Morrison said she fears the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) will use its counts of ‘engagements’ as a sign the community supports the site – which she believes the silent majority does not.
Ken Fraser, who is also running for Hornepayne town council, believes the major motivator for the site is financial.
He said the community has received about $1.3 million in funding from the NWMO, and continues to get about $300,000 annually which supports community events, including Canada Day celebrations and the local fish derby…….Morris and Fraser both hope a victory at the ballot box will mean they can change the current direction of how council feels about hosting nuclear waste. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/hornepayne-nuclear-waste-2018-election-1.4849106
The municipal election is October 22.
Fraser said the population of the town, just under 1,000 people, should not be ‘bought’ at any cost.
“And over an eight year period, that’s what it comes out to, 49 cents. So, they divided a town, they’ve actually, you have family fighting, friends fighting friends for 49 cents a day.”
Welsh leaders urged to halt ‘nuclear mud’ dumping off Cardiff, Sediment from Hinkley Point C construction site is being disposed of at Cardiff Grounds, Guardian, Steven Morris @stevenmorris20– 2 Oct 2018 Pressure is increasing on the Labour-led Welsh government to halt the dumping of “nuclear mud” in the sea close to Cardiff after a campaign by an eclectic group of scientists, surfers and a pop star.
A motion calling on the government to suspend the licence allowing mud excavated from the construction site of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station in Somerset to be disposed of just off the Welsh capital is to be debated next week in the national assembly for Wales.
The development prompted Cian Ciarán, the keyboard player from Super Furry Animals, to discontinue an attempt on Tuesday to obtain a court injunction to stop the dumping.
There is growing concern and anger that 300,000 tonnes of sediment from the Hinkley Point C site is being disposed of at the Cardiff Grounds sandbank.
Campaigners claim the mud has not been tested properly and could contain particles that may pose a health risk. They have described the sediment as “nuclear mud” and nicknamed the sea off Cardiff “Geiger Bay”, a play on Tiger Bay, the old slang name for the city’s docklands. One of their main concerns is that the sediment could be washed ashore in a storm.
Welcoming the assembly debate, Ciarán said: “This Labour government has taken the Welsh people for granted and has risked the health of the nation. For me the core message of the campaign remains unchanged: the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence and therefore the precautionary principle should dictate a rethink. We will continue to seek the answers the Welsh public deserve.”
He called for the Welsh government’s patrol vessel, FPV Rhodri Morgan, to monitor the dumping that is taking place. “It is a duty for every Welsh assembly member to do right by its people and hold to account the government that granted the licence,” he said.
UTILITIES SUBMIT PROPOSALS FOR NUCLEAR SUBSIDIES, NJ Spotlight TOM JOHNSON | OCTOBER 3, 2018
While some residential customers may end up paying $30 more annually, large energy users may see their bills rise by $1 million a year.
It will be months before the state decides whether customers need to subsidize nuclear power, but New Jersey’s four electric utilities are already proposing how they will recover those costs.
In filings with the Board of Public Utilities, each of the utilities submitted tariffs disclosing how they will recoup the cost of buying Zero Emission Certificates (ZECs), the potential $300 million annual subsidy aimed at propping up the state’s supply of nuclear power.
The proposals are the latest in a series of filings that could boost bills to customers by billions of dollars if approved by the regulatory agency, most stemming from two bills signed into law this spring that will transform energy policy in New Jersey.
PSEG threatened to shut down units in South Jersey
The most contentious bill involved proposed subsidies to avert the closing of the three remaining nuclear power plants in New Jersey. Without financial incentives, Public Service Enterprise Group threatened to shut down the units it operates in South Jersey……
Is it a done deal?
“It gives the appearance of being a fait accompli,’’ said Doug O’Malley, director of Environment New Jersey, part of a coalition that opposed the nuclear bill. “The ZEC tariffs give the appearance that it is a done deal.’’
The board must still approve the tariffs, as well as any application by a nuclear-plant owner for the subsidy.
The proposed surcharge is established by the bill signed by Gov. Phil Murphy, but the tariffs submitted to the BPU vary on how much customers will pay depending on what customer class they’re in……..
Stefanie Brand: ‘It all adds up’
“The numbers appear small, but in fact they are quite large,’’ said Steve Goldenberg, an attorney representing large energy users. When you multiply the change by a whole lot of kilowatt hours, you derive a very large number.’’
The annual costs for some large energy users will exceed $1 million, Goldenberg said. “The lowest I’ve heard is $300,000.’’
Others worry the potential subsidies, when added to other costs that are pending before the BPU, or recently approved, will be a huge hit to ratepayers.
“It all adds up,’’ said Stefanie Brand, director of the Division of Rate Counsel. PSE&G has more than $10 billion in proposed rate increases pending before the BPU, if a recent $1.9 billion gas modernization program is included, Brand said.
Those cases include $2.5 billion to improve the resilience of its electric and gas distribution system; a $4 billion clean-energy initiative filed last Friday, and the proposed nuclear subsidy.
Bernard McNamee could soon sit on the commission that unanimously rejected a DOE coal and nuclear bailout plan he has championed.
JEFF ST. JOHNOCTOBER 03, 2018President Donald Trump has nominated Bernard McNamee to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, seeking to put a chief proponent of the Energy Department’s coal and nuclear bailout efforts on the same commission that has unanimously rejected these efforts over the past year.
Environmental groups were quick to decry McNamee’s choice to replace outgoing Commissioner Ron Powelson, a Republican who nonetheless voted last year with the rest of the commission to deny Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s proposal for FERC to use its authority to create out-of-market payments for coal and nuclear power plants.
McNamee, by contrast, worked on this proposal as DOE’s deputy general counsel for energy policy and defended it in a Senate hearing this year as head of DOE’s Office of Policy. He has also defended the department’s ongoing efforts to demand out-of-market payments for coal and nuclear power plants, using federal laws intended to keep critical infrastructure running in times of national emergency.
These efforts have been roundly decried by environmental groups, state and federal regulators including many former FERC commissioners, consumer advocates, and the natural gas, solar, wind and energy efficiency industries. They’ve also been undermined by data from mid-Atlantic grid operator PJM, which has reported no threats to grid reliability from the impending closures of several coal and nuclear plants in its territory .
These power plants belong to FirstEnergy, the utility that in March asked DOE to use its emergency power to prop up its now-bankrupt generation unit. DOE’s plan was also influenced by Perry’s association with coal company CEO and owner Robert Murray, an outspoken financial supporter of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, whose company sells much of its coal to FirstEnergy’s plants.
DOE hasn’t made its plans public — they were revealed via a leak of a supporting document in June — which makes it difficult to assess how they would affect energy markets. But forcing utilities to buy power from the power plants likely to be supported could raise costs for U.S. consumers by billions of dollars per year. Preliminary estimates range from the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity’s projection of about $4 billion per year, to The Brattle Group’s estimate of between $9.7 billion and $17.2 billion per year.
Unlike Powelson, who previously served as a utility executive and Pennsylvania utility regulator before being appointed to FERC, McNamee is an attorney who’s worked for the attorneys general of Texas and Virginia and for Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), as well as for anti-regulation think tanks.
His nomination, first floated as a possibility by Politico in August, has largely been seen as the Trump administration’s efforts to get a reliable pro-coal and nuclear vote on FERC.
“The selection is not at all unanticipated, as Powelson’s departure was widely seen as opportunity for the White House to more closely align FERC with its own policies,” Jason Johns, a partner at the law firm Stoel Rives, wrote in a Wednesday email. “It is my belief that Powelson’s opposition to certain policy efforts came as a surprise to the White House, particularly the White House’s efforts to subsidize coal and nuclear facilities. I’m confident the White House is looking to address those surprises with this choice.”
John Moore, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Sustainable FERC Project, noted that “McNamee’s past writings and career track record suggest that he would seek every opportunity possible to support fossil fuels. […] He should be prepared to answer some very hard questions about his previous comments and positions, and how they would affect FERC independence” during his Senate confirmation hearings.
Mary Anne Hitt, senior director of Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign, called McNamee “a political plant for Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Donald Trump. Collectively, they are trying to use FERC to manipulate America’s electricity markets to bail out dirty and expensive coal plants that are heading toward retirement, while locking in a fossil fuel future for communities across the country.”
NJ BPU set to move ahead with nuclear subsidy application process, By Daniel J. Munoz, NJBIZ October 4, 2018The state’s public utilities board is set to begin the process for determining which nuclear power plants should receive ratepayer subsidies to stay afloat.
Known as the zero emissions certificate (ZEC) program, $300 million of subsidies would be paid through an additional surcharge on ratepayers bills, and nuclear power plant operators can apply for a piece of the pie.
The ZEC program was enacted with Gov. Phil Murphy’s signing of Senate Bill 2313 in May.
Thursday evening in Hackensack, the board will hold the first of three public sessions to gather testimony on how it will structure the application process. The board will hold additional hearings in Atlantic City on Oct. 10 and in New Brunswick on Oct. 11.
The BPU is scheduled to unveil the program recipients in April……….
The state’s largest utility, Public Service Enterprise Group, threatened to shut down its South Jersey Salem and Hope Creek nuclear power, if it did not receive the subsidies.
PSEG argued that the plants were losing money and could not stay afloat without the ZEC subsidies.
On Aug. 29, the BPU sent out a letter regarding the ZEC program’s implementation to the state’s largest electric companies: PSEG, Jersey Central Power & Light Co., Rockland Electric Co. and Atlantic City Electric Co. The letter was also sent to the New Jersey Rate Counsel and Butler Power & Light.
But the ZEC program has fallen under disapproval by New Jersey’s environmental activists.
Jeff Tittel, president of the environmental advocacy group the New Jersey Sierra Club, said the program is a subsidy to PSEG and other nuclear plant operators at the expense of ratepayers.
Energy firms demand billions from UK taxpayer for mini reactors Ministers under pressure to fund new generation of small-scale nuclear power stations,Guardian, Adam Vaughan Energy correspondent @adamvaughan_uk, 1 Oct 2018 Backers of mini nuclear power stations have asked for billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to build their first UK projects, according to an official document.
Advocates for small modular reactors (SMRs) argue they are more affordable and less risky than conventional large-scale nuclear plants, and therefore able to compete with the falling costs of windfarms and solar power.
But the nuclear industry’s claims that the mini plants would be a cheap option for producing low-carbon power appear to be undermined by the significant sums it has been asking of ministers.
Some firms have been calling for as much as £3.6bn to fund construction costs, according to a government-commissioned report, released under freedom of information rules. Companies also wanted up to £480m of public money to help steer their reactor designs through the regulatory approval process, which is a cost usually paid by nuclear companies.
Ten companies hoping to build the plants requested direct government funding, according to the briefing paper by the Expert Finance Working Group on Small Reactors. While the report named the companies involved in the mini nuclear projects, it did not specify who was asking for
David Lowry, a nuclear policy consultant who obtained the document, said: “SMRs are either old, discredited designs repackaged when companies see governments prepared to throw taxpayers’ subsidies to support them, or are exotic new technologies, with decades of research needed before they reach commercial maturity.”
The working group that drafted the report, and was appointed by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), urged the government in August to put in place a framework to help bring the smaller plants to market.
The government has already offered £44m of funding for research and development of one group of SMRs, which typically have a capacity of less than a tenth of the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant being built in Somerset, or enough power for 600,000 homes.
Mini nuclear power stations are unlikely to supply clean energy to Britain’s homes and businesses any time soon. Of more than 30 British, US and Chinese companies that have expressed an interest in building one in the UK, the majority told the working group that their power stations would be ready to deployed in the 2030s.
The companies include UK firms such as Rolls-Royce, Sheffield Forgemasters and Atkins, along with China’s CNNC, US companies NuScale and Westinghouse, and France’s EDF Energy.
The working group found the firms’ cost estimates “varied significantly”, to the degree that some of the companies clearly had a “lack of understanding” of how British nuclear regulation works.
It also noted that some of the companies proposed using “non-standard fuels” rather than the conventional uranium used by today’s nuclear plants, which “may add cost to business models” because of new facilities to produce and later manage the spent fuel.
The firms told the group that the four main barriers they faced were finding and confirming sites, the cost of regulatory approval for their designs, a lack of state funding and unclear policy.
On 24 September, shadow chancellor John McDonnell confirmed that a Labour government would keep the UK’s nuclear arsenal. He said, however, that as prime minister Jeremy Corbyn would only use it in consultation with the cabinet, parliament, and the “wider community”.
Right-wing attacks
In spite of the comments, the right-wing media attacked McDonnell’s statement as too soft. The Sun, for example, said that McDonnell “sparked ridicule” for suggesting that a Corbyn-led government would only launch a nuclear strike after “ask[ing] for the British public’s permission”.
A favourite weapon
Indeed, Corbyn’s former opposition to renewing the UK’s nuclear arsenal, known as Trident, has been one of the right’s favourite weapons with which to attack him. Some right-wing media outlets have called him “loony left” for his life-long commitment to nuclear disarmament.
And some from the Blairite wing of his own party have also piled on the abuse. In 2015, then Labour MP John Woodcock, for instance, called Corbyn’s position on Trident “childish” and “dangerously naïve”.
Expert view
But a scarcely viewed video on YouTube shows that the anti-Trident position is actually supported by one of the world’s leading experts on nuclear weapons. In a 2016 interview on Al-Jazeera with Mehdi Hasan, former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix backed Corbyn’s call to scrap Trident.
Asked by Hasan whether he supports the scrapping of Trident, he replied:
Yes, I think it’s a tremendous cost, and I do not see that it really, perceptively adds to British security
Blix is a Swedish diplomat and served as minister of foreign affairs in the Ola Ullsten administration in the 1970s. He became famous for his role as a senior UN weapons inspector in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. He has also served as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
“Sentimental status-seeking”
And for Blix, it’s apparently the pro-Trident people who are being childish and naïve. He said that holding on to Trident is “more a question of sentimental status-seeking”. He added that the UK will keep its permanent seat at the UN Security Council regardless of whether it holds on to nuclear weapons. Interestingly, Blix also says that he does not “see any enthusiasm in Washington for Trident, either.”
The hard-hitting video makes nonsense of the right’s endless fear-mongering, and provides a welcome antidote to the attacks on the Labour leadership.
Fortunately, shadow peace minister Fabian Hamilton is reportedly drawing up a nuclear disarmament proposal for the shadow cabinet’s consideration. And it would be well served to heed Blix’s advice.
Months after Calder Hall opened, the Euratom Treaty established the European Atomic Energy Community. The UK did not formally join straight away but did have a relationship with it.
nuclear-news 