UK consumers could pay for new nuclear power plants years before they are built
Nuclear Finance NuClear News http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/NuClearNewsNo110.pdf Sept 18 Consumers could pay for new nuclear power plants years before they are built. The government is considering using a controversial financing system to build new nuclear power stations which would see customers charged for construction costs long before a project has actually been built. The fact that Mark Corben – former chief financial officer at the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for the Thames Tideway Tunnel – has moved to the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) to advise on development of a new finance model for funding new nuclear projects, confirms that the Government is seriously considering this method of finance. (1
The approach, called the Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model, has been described as an “open cheque book” for developers, as consumers could be locked into paying the costs of a project going wrong – like construction taking longer than planned, or prices spiralling – indefinitely until it’s complete.
Shadow energy minister Alan Whitehead MP said: “The problem with this model as applied to new nuclear power stations is that it transfers all the risk of construction from the developer to the customers, with the rather wobbly promise of benefits to come in the future.” Like other publicprivate finance models, the RAB model has a sticky history. The government has already supported the use of RAB for the Thames Tideway Tunnel, a £4.2bn project to revamp 15 miles of sewer lines in North London, which Thames Water says a RAB model has helped lower costs. As well as taking a RAB approach to financing the Thames Tideway, the government offered a “contingent financial support” package which guarantees public money when certain parts of the project go wrong. It’s this transfer of liability first to the consumer, and then also the taxpayer, which helps lower risk and attract investors. A similar package may be offered to nuclear developers.
In 2017, the cross-party British Infrastructure Group of MPs, chaired by Conservative exminister Grant Shapps, raised concerns that bill payers had been asked to write a “blank cheque” for the project. The National Audit Office (NAO) has also been critical of the Thames Tideway contract, as it still isn’t clear how much consumers will have to pay. The idea of a RAB approach has already proven popular with the nuclear industry. EDF boss Humphrey Cadoux-Hudson recently told the Financial Times that he is in talks with dozens of private investors over financing Sizewell C, the French giant’s post-Hinkley nuclear project in Suffolk – and that the RAB model could be pivotal.
Much of the work around taking a RAB approach to financing nuclear power has been carried out by Dieter Helm, professor of Energy Policy at the University of Oxford and a figure respected by government. Writing in a blog about the model’s application to nuclear last month, Helm highlighted a number of open issues – such as which regulator would set the RAB for nuclear projects, as well as the “very severe lobbying pressures” any regulator would come under when making its RAB evaluations. Helm concludes that the RAB may be an efficient approach to financing nuclear power, but still doesn’t address fundamental issues about its cost competitiveness with other technology like wind and solar, or what do with all its radioactive waste. “It is for society to decide whether it wants new nuclear or not,” he said. “The market cannot decide.” (2)
Finally the Government has, after I feared so long it would, chosen the doomsday option to fund new nuclear power stations – one that will be disastrous for the consumers and taxpayers, says Dave Toke, reader in Energy Policy at Aberdeen University. After years of swearing that they would not offer subsidies to nuclear power, and saying that in the future the terrible drain of (historical) over-spending on nuclear power would stop, the Government has gone back to square zero. Essentially, under the Government’s proposals nuclear developers will have no real limit on what they can spend to build the power stations. It is a recipe for national disaster. No private developer is willing to take the construction risks of funding nuclear power in the UK, whatever ‘strike price’ is offered for the electricity that might be generated in future.
For Hinkley Point C the French state will pay for the inevitable cost overruns that come along with building the plant, combined quite probably, with an out-of-contract bailout by the British Government when the going gets tough. But now the Government is casting around for another nuclear power plant to be built, – Wylfa or Sizewell C – but neither developer (Hitachi or EDF) wants to take the risk of paying the almost inevitable losses on the project. So enter the Government’s new proposals which will no doubt be promoted as a simple accountancy trick to lower costs. But it hides the fact that taxpayers will take the losses. Under the RAB arrangements electricity consumers will start paying extra on their bills from when construction starts, which could be anything from 7-10+ years ahead of any energy being generated. (3)
NuGen searches for a buyer for Moorside nuclear project
http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/NuClearNewsNo110.pdf NuClear News Sept 18 Kepco, the Korean state-owned nuclear company, which was looking at rescuing the troubled Nugen project at Moorside has strong reservations about the proposed funding model – the Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model. The company is no longer the leading bidder, and according to the Korean press prefers the Contract for Difference (CfD) deal given to EDF for Hinkley C. (1)
Sources in Korea blame the shift in Government policy on support for new nuclear for delaying the deal between Kepco and Toshiba. The Korea Herald, a daily English language newspaper based in Seoul, quoted a Korean government official who claims that the deal for NuGen is being renegotiated because the UK government’s decision to “change profit models for the project”. (2)
Toshiba has opened the door to alternative buyers for NuGen, raising doubts over the future of Moorside. Talks with Kepco, however, are still continuing, despite Kepco being stripped of its preferred bidder status. (3)
Cumbrian MPs have been demanding Government help to make sure nuclear new build happens. Trudy Harrison, Tory MP for Copeland said: “The Government must take a proactive stance. Nuclear new build is not commercially viable without Government support. It is now time for Government to get a grip on our energy policy. In Cumbria we have the skills and experience.” Mrs Harrison is setting up a Moorside strategic partnership, with representatives from Sellafield, Cumbria LEP and councils.
Sue Hayman, Labour MP for Workington, has written to the Government to ask them to act immediately over NuGen. She is co-chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Nuclear Energy. “NuGen is now in the last chance saloon. The Government must act now or it will be too late, and West Cumbria will not get the 20,000 jobs, economic investment and infrastructure improvements that depend on Moorside.”
Barrow’s MP, John Woodcock, now sitting as an Independent says: “We cannot wait much longer for the government to step in and rescue the stalled £15billion Moorside project”. (4)
NuGen announced it was restructuring as part of a review because of the “prolonged time” it had taken to seal the deal with the Korean utility. Around 100 staff and contractor jobs, including that of chief executive Tom Samson, are at risk under the restructuring plans. (5)
Toshiba has set a deadline to secure a deal by the end of September, according to the Financial Times. The Company is believed to have spent hundreds of millions of pounds on developing the site so far. It was forced to pay close to $139m to buy a 40% stake held by France’s Engie last year. The Korean government is understood to remain keen to progress with the investment because it would give it a foothold in one of the few western nations backing the construction of new reactors. But it has said the investment must pass a “national audit” test before it can proceed. Kepco wants to deploy two of its APR-1400 reactors at Moorside to generate a combined electricity of about 3GW – close to 7% of Britain’s electricity needs. Kepco said it was “too early” to say whether it would be able to meet the criteria for the audit. (6)
Meanwhile, NuGen has provided information to support the Moorside site in Cumbria being carried forward into the UK government’s new national policy statement as a site for a new nuclear power plant. NuGen CEO Tom Samson said, “NuGen remains committed to delivering a nuclear power station at Moorside in Cumbria.” (7)
UK’s Bradwell B nuclear project entering an uncertain phase
NucClear News Sept 18, Bradwell B nuclear project is entering a new phase according to China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGN) and EDF. The developers have begun analysing the findings from early investigative work carried out on the site on the Dengie peninsula. China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGN) and EDF are at the pre-planning stage of their plans to build a UKHPR1000 nuclear reactor plant, with the design for this currently undergoing a Generic Design Assessment (GDA) by the Office for Nuclear Regulation and the Environment Agency.
The East Anglian Daily Times reports that up to 30 people were on site during more than 40,000 hours of investigative work, with specialist firms such as Structural Soils Ltd working alongside local firms such as Scott Parsons Landscaping Services at Burnham-on-Crouch taking part. The landscaping firm’s project team has used drilling rigs to complete 20 boreholes. These will be used to analyse the make-up of the land using geophysical testing which should be completed later this year.
Since the start of the year, more than 3000 metres of exploratory holes in the ground have been completed and soil samples taken from each. These will now be taken to various laboratories for testing and examination as part of EDF’s engineering analysis. Now the firm is sending out a newsletter update to local residents explaining the progress of the project. (1)
The Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG) responded to the newsletter saying it was a partial and misleading piece of smooth ‘nuke speak’ that gives all the upsides and none of the downsides of a new nuclear power station at Bradwell. Nowhere in the newsletter is there the slightest hint that Bradwell B might not go ahead. In fact, early stage or not, so sure is CGN/EDF of success that an indicative project timeline is provided, showing that construction ‘begins’ in 5 – 7 years from now.
The newsletter tells us that comments can be made on the Generic Design Assessment (GDA) process. But one might well ask if there is any point in commenting on this given the obvious confidence of CGN/EDF that the Hualong 1000 reactor, not yet in use anywhere in the world, will pass the regulators’ tests. Yet all the digging of boreholes and marine surveys cannot disguise the fact that the site is in Flood Zone 3 and, therefore, totally unsuitable for potentially dangerous new nuclear reactors. Words such as ‘flooding’, storm surges’, ‘other coastal processes’, ‘all predicted to get worse with climate change’.
There is no mention in the newsletter of the immense upheaval, currently taking place around Hinkley Point C in Somerset, that will take place on the estuary if Bradwell B goes ahead, making it a major industrial site and changing it forever; of the jetty on the Blackwater that will likely be needed to bring in large pieces of equipment to the construction site; of the routine radioactive emissions that will take place; of the on-site, long-term highly radioactive waste stores. (2)
BANNG has sent comments to the GDA process. Although the process is meant to be generic, not site-specific, BANNG is calling for the continuing viability of coastal sites under the threat of climate change to be taken into consideration. BANNG considers that the continuing integrity of sites is an issue that must be identified and taken into account in the GDA. Sites that are liable to inundation within the next 200 years should be ruled out. Forecasts of coastal change reveal that the parts of the Dengie peninsula on which Bradwell B is proposed will be permanently below sea level within the next century. Assuming Bradwell B starts generating in 2030 with an operational lifetime of 60 years followed by, perhaps, fifty years storage on site before a GDF is available it will be at least the middle of the next century before the site is fully decommissioned and cleaned up. Estimates of time-scale are, of course, uncertain but these are broadly in line with current government forecasts. And this is a highly optimistic picture. Decommissioning is likely to be a protracted exercise, a GDF may not be available for new build spent fuel and site deterioration may set in well before the site is cleared. It is highly probable there will be nuclear activity on floodable sites for up to two centuries. Indeed, this may be a conservative estimate.
The GDA is predicated on the eventual development of a disposal facility. Although the government has stated that ‘it is satisfied that effective arrangements will exist to manage and dispose of the waste that will be produced from new nuclear power stations’ this amounts to no more than a claim. http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/NuClearNewsNo110.pdf
‘Key insights’ from the 2018 World Nuclear Industry Status Report
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2018 As always there is much of interest in the latest edition of the WorldNM865.4747 The 2018 edition of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report has just been released. Here are the ‘key insights’ from the report:
China Still Dominates Developments
• Nuclear power generation in the world increased by 1% in 2017 due to an 18% increase in China.
• Global nuclear power generation excluding China declined for the third year in a row.
• Four reactors started up in 2017 of which three were in China and one in Pakistan (built by a Chinese company).
• Five units started up in the first half of 2018, of which three were in China ‒ including the world’s first EPR and AP1000 ‒ and two in Russia.
• Five construction starts in the world in 2017.
• No start of construction of any commercial reactors in China since December 2016.
• The number of units under construction globally declined for the fifth year in a row, from 68 reactors at the end of 2013 to 50 by mid-2018, of which 16 are in China.
Operational Status and Construction Delays
• The nuclear share of global electricity generation remained roughly stable over the past five years with a long-term declining trend, from 17.5% in 1996 to 10.3% in 2017.
• Seven years after the Fukushima events, Japan had restarted five units by the end of 2017 ‒ generating still only 3.6% of the power in the country in 2017 ‒ and nine by mid-2018.
• As of mid-2018, 32 reactors ‒ including 26 in Japan ‒ are in Long-Term Outage (LTO).
• At least 33 of the 50 units under construction are behind schedule, mostly by several years. China is no exception, at least half of 16 units under construction are delayed. Of the 33 delayed construction projects, 15 have reported increased delays over the past year.
Only a quarter of the 16 units scheduled for startup in 2017 were actually connected to the grid.
• New-build plans have been cancelled including in Jordan, Malaysia and the U.S. or postponed such as in Argentina, Indonesia, Kazakhstan.
Decommissioning Status Report
• As of mid-2018, 115 units are undergoing decommissioning ‒ 70% of the 173 permanently shut-down reactors in the world.
• Only 19 units have been fully decommissioned: 13 in the U.S., five in Germany, and one in Japan. Of these, only 10 have been returned to greenfield sites.
Interdependencies Between Civil and Military
Infrastructures
• Nuclear weapon states remain the main proponents of nuclear power programs. A first look into the question whether military interests serve as one of the drivers for plant-life extension and new-build.
Renewables Accelerate Take-Over
• Globally, wind power output grew by 17% in 2017, solar by 35%, nuclear by 1%. Non-hydro renewables generate over 3,000 TWh more power than a decade ago, while nuclear produces less.
• Auctions resulted in record low prices for onshore wind (<US$20/MWh) offshore wind (<US$45/MWh) and solar (<US$25/MWh). This compares with the “strike price” for the Hinkley Point C Project in the U.K. (US$120/MWh).
• Nine of the 31 nuclear countries ‒ Brazil, China, Germany, India, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Spain and United Kingdom (U.K.) ‒ generated more electricity in 2017 from non-hydro renewables than from nuclear power.
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt et al., Sept 2018,
‘The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2018’, www.
worldnuclearreport.org/Nuclear-Power-Strategic-Asset- Liability-or-Increasingly-Irrelevant.html
Congress must curb Trump’s power to start a nuclear war. He is not a well man
President Trump is not well. Congress must curb his power to start a nuclear war. The fate of the earth depends on it The Inquirer, Will BunchWithin seconds after someone at the New York Times hit the “send” button about 4 p.m. on Wednesday, an op-ed by a supposed senior official in the Trump administration — the identity known to less than a handful of Times editors — instantly became the lodestar, to borrow a suddenly popular word, of those hoping to end Donald Trump’s presidency before Jan. 20, 2021.
The most depressing thing about the anonymous op-ed from this high-level Trump insider was not its assertions that the “amorality” of America’s 45th president is a threat to the nation’s welfare, or that the commander-in-chief is fundamentally antidemocratic, or that The Donald’s leadership style is “impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.” Nor is it the less-than-“cold comfort” (to steal another hot phrase) that there’s some sort of “resistance” within the White House, claiming it’s somehow saving America from the absolute worst of Trump.
No, the most depressing thing is that a majority of Americans already knew most, if not all, of these things about the short-fingered vulgarian currently ensconced in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue from the day he descended from Trump Tower in June 2015 to launch his hate-laden, xenophobic campaign. And the people elected him anyway. And that now that he’s here, President Trump seems impossible to remove. ……
Even if the overall tone of the Woodward book and the Times’ op-ed is to confirm what we already instinctively knew about Trump’s unfitness for office and the massive dysfunction that stems from that, the post-Labor Day bombshells still raised enough questions for four or five different potential columns. There’s the fun but wildly overrated parlor game of speculating who wrote the anonymous diatribe (cough, cough, director of intelligence Dan Coats? … maybe, although he denies it) to questioning whether the Times should have granted anonymity (yes … although other journalists disagree) to whether going semi-public with the view from inside the White House “resistance” was an act of courage … or cowardice (more on that in a minute).
For example:
— Just one month into his presidency, according to Woodward’s Fear, Trump ordered the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford, to begin drawing up plans for a preemptive military strike against nuclear-armed North Korea — a request that “rattled” the Marine Corps veteran. The fact that, for the time being, Trump has chosen to get along with — if not venerate — North Korean strongman Kim Jong Un is indeed cold comfort, especially as we gain more insight into the dangerous, flip-flopping mind of the American president. Military experts say a war of the type that Trump coveted would kill 20,000 South Koreans a day — and that’s before it went nuclear.
— An emotional reaction to a disturbing event — an April 2017 lethal chemical attack traced to the Syrian government — provoked a Trump command that was both troubling and potentially illegal. The president called in the secretary of defense, James Mattis, and issued an order to assassinate the Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad. “Let’s f–ing kill him! Let’s go in. Let’s kill the f–ing lot of them,” Trump said, according to Woodward. The book says the Trump cabinet member assured the commander-in-chief that he’d take care of it, even as he told a top aide he’d do no such thing. Instead, America bombed a Syrian airfield,killing an unknown number of soldiers and civilians. There seems to be little discussion of how any of this might affect the tinderbox that is the Middle East.
— With surprisingly little fanfare, the Trump administration continues to actively weigh a military invasion of Venezuela, where the socialist government of Nicolás Maduro has been imploding, with a sometimes violent crisis bringing economic despair and a growing number of refugees. As with other proposed military interventions, the main proponent of this highly dubious course of action is the president himself — with top advisers continually trying to convince the commander-in-chief that a U.S. invasion would not only destabilize South America but turn much of the region against us. At one point last year, Trump reportedly raised his enthusiasm for an invariably bloody incursion with four top leaders from the region, adding, “My staff told me not to say this.”
Beyond that, the Founding Fathers vested the power to declare war with Congress — a sound idea that’s been completely lost in our post-World War II national security state, even after efforts to rein in the president’s war powers after the debacle in Vietnam. Some of that stems from the arrival of the nuclear age — the realization that snap decisions about a war that would kill millions of people might have just a 5- or 10-minute window. But in the last 20 months, the fear that America’s “nuclear football” travels with a president that even his close advisers now say is both mentally and morally unfit — and that there’s currently nothing to prevent Donald Trump from initiating a nuclear war — has grown palpable.
“Under existing laws, the president of the United States can start a nuclear war – without provocation, without consultation and without warning,” Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey told a hearing last year. “It boggles the mind.” It’s even more mind-boggling the more we know about the ugly state of mind of the current president. Markey and Capitol Hill lawmakers introduced landmark legislation that would prevent any U.S. president — not just Trump but those who come after him — from launching a nuclear first strike without a declaration of war by Congress. Not surprising, their bill has so far gone nowhere in a do-nothing Congress dominated by Trump allies. And while there are legitimate questions about how such a law would work in practice (hopefully the world never finds out), the measure would provide a sound legal basis for military leaders to refuse an unlawful and irrational order.
Call to USA’s military to save the nuclear power industry
Senators from both parties look to the military to save nuclear power https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/senators-from-both-parties-look-to-the-military-to-save-nuclear-powerm by John Siciliano, September 06, 2018 A bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate on Thursday would leverage the buying power of the U.S. military to help along the struggling nuclear energy industry, if the Pentagon is OK with paying above market rates.
“Our bipartisan bill will help rejuvenate the U.S. nuclear industry by providing the tools, resources, and partnerships necessary to drive innovation in advanced reactors,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a sponsor of the legislation.
The bipartisan legislation, called the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act, would establish at least one power purchase agreement with the Defense Department, or another federal agency, by Dec. 31, 2023, to buy electricity from a commercial nuclear reactor.
Joining Murkowski on the bill are Democratic Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, and Chris Coons of Delaware. Republicans James Risch and Mike Crapo of Idaho and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia also cosponsored the bill.
Since the Defense Department is the largest consumer of energy in the federal government, its role would seem paramount in implementing the legislation once passed.
But the cost for the nuclear-powered electricity would be higher than the market rate, as the bill is focused on driving ahead advanced and “first-of-a-kind” technology, according to the bill.
“An agreement to purchase power … may be at a rate that is higher than the average market rate,” reads the bill.
The bill would also extend the maximum length of federal power purchase agreement from 10 to 40 years, according to a summary of the bill issued by the Nuclear Energy Institute.
The industry group explains that the length of the agreement is important for new reactors, which need the extra revenue from longer agreements to pay for the initial capital costs. The current 10-year agreements used in energy contract with federal facilities are not sufficient.
The industry group says the longer federal agreement could also help the existing fleet of reactors, which are currently not being “adequately compensated for their carbon-free electricity, by establishing longer term, guaranteed revenue streams.”
“This legislation sends an unmistakable signal that the U.S. intends to re-commit itself as a global leader in clean, advanced nuclear technology,” said Maria Korsnick, the nuclear group’s president. “Next generation nuclear technology is being aggressively pursued globally, and in order for the American nuclear industry to compete with state-owned or state-sponsored developers in rival nations — especially China and Russia — we must have significant collaboration between the federal government, our national labs, and private industry in order to accelerate innovation.”
South Africa not planning for nuclear power, as renewable energy costs go down
Instead, he says the country’s energy demands have decreased.
Briefing Parliament’s energy committee on Tuesday, Radebe also pointed out that the cost of renewable energy technology has also come down.
According to the draft IRP, nuclear energy will only account for about 4% of the country’s energy mix by 2030.
This means no nuclear build programme is being envisaged.
Radebe says there are some misunderstandings about the decision taken on nuclear energy.
“It is not in the plan together with a number of other technologies for the period ending 2030 due to lower demand and lower cost of other technologies.”
MPs say they are relieved a new nuclear project has been scrapped for now, because it is not only unaffordable but would open the door to corruption.
(Edited by Thapelo Lekabe)
If Democrats take over Congress in November, there’ll be cuts to USA’s nuclear weapons spending
Cuts to nuclear spending and special ops oversight: Expectations for new congressional leadership https://www.defensenews.com/smr/defense-news-conference/2018/09/05/cuts-to-nuclear-spending-and-oversight-of-socom-what-to-expect-from-a-democratic-hasc/
Will UK’s House of Lords agree to force a geological nuclear dump on Cumbria
Radiation Free Lakeland 2nd Sept 2018 , Will These Lords Leap to Cumbria’s Defence? Will They Shout About the
“Implementation” of Geological Dumping of Nuclear Wastes. On the 6th
September the House of Lords will be debating the Government’s cunning
plan to implement Geological Disposal of Nuclear Wastes. Radiation Free
Lakeland have sent a letter to all of the Cumbrian Lords to urge them to
tear up this policy which seeks to force a geological nuclear dump on
Cumbria and instead to scrap the whole “Implementation” plan. Our
letter is below [on original] and we urge all those who love Cumbria to write a similar
letter to any or all of the Cumbrian members of the House of Lords.
https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2018/09/02/will-these-lords-leap-to-cumbrias-defence-will-they-shout-about-the-implementation-of-geological-dumping-of-nuclear-wastes/
Even before Wylfa nuclear station approved, Horizon Nuclear Power wants to demolish buildings, clear area
North Wales Chronicle 31st Aug 2018 , Horizon Nuclear Power is seeking planning permission 
to carry out the 15
month long process that includes clearing field boundaries, demolishing
buildings and “relocating species”, covering an area the equivalent of
almost 500 football pitches. The plans, to be discussed by Anglesey
Council’s planning committee next week, also include building car parks
and offices at the site on the outskirts of Cemaes.
Recommended for approval by officers, Horizon has endeavoured to begin the work even before
the fate is known of the necessary Development Consent Order (DCO)
application for the nuclear plant itself. A process that could take at
least 18 months for the Planning Inspectorate to decide upon, the DCO will
also include a substantial public consultation period.
http://www.northwaleschronicle.co.uk/news/16611204.740-acre-site-for-wylfa-newydd-recommended-for-approval/
Resignation of France’s environment Minister – he did not do a great deal to pull back nuclear power
French environment minister resigns https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2018/08/29/french-environment-minister-resigns/Update: A newly leaked report examines the possibility of France building six new EPR reactors starting in 2025, after a prolonged period of inactivity in the industry. The report was ironically commissioned by Hulot and economy minister, Bruno Lemaire, and concludes that France “cannot stop building” reactors in order to maintain industrial know how and provide jobs, according to the newspaper, Les Echos, which broke the story. The report’s finding may have contributed to Hulot’s decision to resign. However, the notion that France would build six more EPRs was met with derision by nuclear critics who pointed out that the French nuclear industry has been unable to complete even one EPR in either France of Finland, where both projects are years behind schedule and massively over-budget.
Japan’s municipalities in growing rejection to hosting nuclear waste dumps
Assemblies make moves to reject playing host to nuclear waste http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201808280029.html By CHIAKI OGIHARA/ Staff WriterAugust 28, 2018 More local assemblies are taking measures to send a strong message to the central government not to bother asking them to host storage facilities for nuclear waste.The moves, in the form of ordinances, were accelerated after the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry in July 2017 released its Nationwide Map of Scientific Features for Geological Disposal that classified areas around Japan into four colors denoting their suitability as storage sites for nuclear waste.
Electric power companies are looking for land plots to construct an interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel. The central government is planning a final storage facility where high-level radioactive waste would be mixed with glass and vitrified before being buried more than 300 meters underground.
Twenty-two municipal assemblies now have ordinances that limit the entry of highly radioactive waste into their communities.
About half of the ordinances were adopted by 2005, followed by an extended period when concerns decreased about being chosen as a site for nuclear waste storage facilities.
But the release of the geological disposal map prompted five municipal assemblies to quickly adopt ordinances limiting the introduction of nuclear waste to their communities.
Dark green areas on the map show places deemed appropriate for hosting the final storage facility. They are all within 20 kilometers from the coast, have favorable geological features and are considered adequate for the transportation of waste.
About 900 municipalities fall into the dark green areas.
Light green areas on the map have favorable geological features but face problems in transporting the waste.
Orange areas are considered inappropriate from a geological standpoint, while silver areas are also deemed inappropriate because they have reserves of natural resources that could be mined in the future.
Between autumn 2017 and spring 2018, the village of Yamato and the towns of Higashi-Kushira and Kimotsuki–all in dark green areas in Kagoshima Prefecture–adopted ordinances to reject the acceptance of nuclear waste.
Two towns in Hokkaido passed similar ordinances. Biei, located in a light green area, took the action in April, while Urakawa, which lies mostly in a dark green area, adopted the ordinance in June.
Kagoshima Prefecture has the most municipalities–11–with such ordinances. In 2000 and 2001, six municipalities adopted the ordinances amid rising concerns that an interim spent fuel storage facility would be brought in. Between 2005 and 2015, four other municipalities followed suit.
The town of Yaku was among the first group, but its ordinance became invalid after it merged with Kami-Yaku to form the new town of Yakushima.
The Yakushima town assembly is now planning to submit an ordinance in its September session to reiterate its opposition to serving as a site for nuclear waste storage.
However, the law for nuclear waste storage would take legal precedence over any municipal ordinance, meaning that the local governments could still be asked to accept the nuclear waste.
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan (NUMO) is in charge of the final nuclear waste storage project, and it has held explanatory meetings around Japan about the geological disposal map.
At those meetings, NUMO officials have stressed that it would not force a locality to accept nuclear waste if the prefectural governor or municipal mayor was opposed.
Still, Kohei Katsuyama, chairman of the Yamato village assembly in Kagoshima Prefecture, said the ordinance serves as a strong sign of the municipality’s stance of rejecting any idea of serving as host of a nuclear waste storage facility.
France’s Environment Minister quits in protest about nuclear and climate policy
Popular French environment minister quits in blow to Macron, Laurence Frost, Geert De Clercq, PARIS (Reuters) 28 Aug 18 – French Environment Minister Nicolas Hulot resigned on Tuesday in frustration over sluggish progress on climate goals and nuclear energy policy, dealing a major blow to President Emmanuel Macron’s already tarnished green credentials.
Hulot, a former TV presenter and green activist who consistently scored high in opinion polls, quit during a live radio interview following what he called an “accumulation of disappointments”.
“I don’t want to lie to myself any more, or create the illusion that we’re facing up to these challenges,” Hulot said on France Inter. “I have therefore decided to leave the government.”
Hulot was among Macron’s first ministerial appointments following his May 2017 election victory. His inclusion helped to sustain a green image France had earned 18 months earlier by brokering the Paris Agreement to combat global greenhouse emissions.
But the centrist president has watered down a series of campaign pledges on the environment, including a commitment to cut the share of nuclear power in French electricity to 50 percent by 2025 and boost renewable energy.
Those policy shifts have been a repeated source of frustration for Hulot. Since a post-election honeymoon period, they have been accompanied by a sharp slide in Macron’s ratings, which touched new lows after his bodyguard was filmed assaulting demonstrators last month.
……. Greenpeace France director Jean-Francois Julliard said that while Macron had “made some fine speeches” and stood up to U.S. President Donald Trump on climate change, he had “never turned these words to concrete action” at home……..https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-politics/popular-french-environment-minister-quits-in-blow-to-macron-idUSKCN1LD0K0
The danger if other countries followed Australia on its dismissal of climate action
if all other countries were to follow Australia’s current policy settings, warming could reach over 3°C and up to 4°C.
Climate Change Policy Toppled Australia’s Leader. Here’s What It Means for Others, New York Times, By Somini Sengupta Aug. 24, 2018
Climate change policy toppled the government in Australia on Friday.
How much does that really matter?
It is certain to keep Australia from meeting its emissions targets under the Paris climate agreement.
It’s also a glimpse into what a potent political issue climate change and energy policy can be in a handful of countries with powerful fossil fuel lobbies, namely Australia, Canada and the United States.
In Australia, the world’s largest exporter of coal, climate and energy policy have infused politics for a decade, helping to bring down both liberal and conservative lawmakers.
This week, the failure to pass legislation that would have reined in greenhouse gas emissions precipitated Malcolm Turnbull’s ouster as prime minister. He was elbowed out by Scott Morrison, an ardent champion of the Australian coal industry who is known for having brought a lump of the stuff to Parliament.
It could be a bellwether for next year’s Canadian elections, expected in October, in which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau faces a powerful challenge from politicians aligned with the country’s oil industry. Conservatives have pledged to undo Mr. Trudeau’s plans to put a price on carbon nationwide if they take power. At the provincial level, conservatives won a majority in Ontario after campaigning against the province’s newly enacted cap-and-trade program.
The Australian parallels with the United States are striking. The Trump administration has promised to revive the coal industry, rolled back fuel emissions standards and announced the country’s exit from the Paris pact altogether. Climate change is not a driving issue in the United States midterm election campaign, though it is for liberal Democrats, a recent study by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication has shown.
Environmental policy and global warming are top priorities for those who describe themselves as liberal Democrats, the study found, after health care and gun control.
……… Robert C. Orr, dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, pointed to another parallel: In both Australia and the United States, local leaders have embraced renewable energy even as national politicians promote fossil fuels.
“Australia is a lot like the U.S.,” said Dr. Orr, who is also the special adviser on climate change to the United Nations secretary general. “Climate policy has really been driven from below, from the state, local and business level. That is not going to change.”
Most Australian states have renewable energy targets, and Australians are powering their houses with solar energy at one of the highest rates in the world. But Australia’s emissions have continued to rise.
Australia is among several industrialized nations that are not on track to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to keep global warming below two degrees Celsius as the Paris accord promises, according to independent analyses.
Climate Action Tracker, an alliance of European think tanks that tracks countries’ climate pledges under the agreement, concluded recently that “if all other countries were to follow Australia’s current policy settings, warming could reach over 3°C and up to 4°C.” Those are levels that climate scientists consider “highly insufficient” to stop the worst effects of climate change. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/24/climate/australia-climate-change.html
Imran Khan and Pakistan’s nuclear bomb
Managing Pakistan’s Bomb: Learning on the job, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientisrs, By Pervez Hoodbhoy, Zia Mian, August 17, 2018 “…….the biggest and most important challenge Imran Khan will confront as prime minister is something he did not mention at all in his speech—how to manage the Bomb. The lives and well-being of Pakistan’s 200 million citizens and countless millions in India and elsewhere depend on how well he deals with the doomsday machine Pakistan’s Army and nuclear complex have worked so hard to build.
To be fair, it is not clear that Imran Khan will have much choice regarding nuclear policy. For Pakistani politicians, the options largely come down to either support the Bomb, or keep quiet about it. Like other prime ministers before him, Imran Khan may go and have his picture taken with the missiles that will carry nuclear warheads and pose with the scientists and engineers that make them and the military units that plan and train to fire them.
Imran Khan’s two-decade-long political career overlaps with the creation of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, but he has had very little to say about the Bomb. When he has spoken, it has been as a Bomb supporter…….
Imran Khan also has courted the support of Abdul Qadeer Khan (no relation), the man most closely identified in Pakistani minds with the country’s Bomb. ……..
This history suggests that Imran Khan may be likely to support the continued build-up of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. It is estimated that the arsenal now is on the order of 150 nuclear weapons, with Pakistan being able soon to deliver these weapons from airplanes (either via bombs or cruise missiles), on land-based ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, and on cruise missiles launched from submarines…….https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/managing-pakistans-bomb-learning-on-the-job/?utm_source=Bulletin%20Newsletter&utm_medium=iContact%20email&utm_campaign=August24
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (91)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 