A state senator says he wants answers on why uranium leaked through a hole in the floor of a Richland County nuclear plant with a history of troubles and groundwater contamination.
State Sen. Darrell Jackson, D-Richland, is asking the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control to explain what it knows about uranium contamination discovered recently at the Westinghouse nuclear fuel factory on Bluff Road.
At Jackson’s request, DHEC has agreed to hold a public meeting to discuss the leak and other problems. Jackson sent a letter to DHEC on Thursday outlining his concerns………
A state senator says he wants answers on why uranium leaked through a hole in the floor of a Richland County nuclear plant with a history of troubles and groundwater contamination.
State Sen. Darrell Jackson, D-Richland, is asking the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control to explain what it knows about uranium contamination discovered recently at the Westinghouse nuclear fuel factory on Bluff Road.
At Jackson’s request, DHEC has agreed to hold a public meeting to discuss the leak and other problems. Jackson sent a letter to DHEC on Thursday outlining his concerns.
………The uranium leak is the latest in a series of problems that have plagued the facility for decades. In the early 1980s, regulators discovered the groundwater was contaminated with fluoride and ammonia. Solvents later were found in groundwater. Solvents are particularly toxic to people exposed to them. The agency also found nitrate in the groundwater that dates to the 1980s. Nitrate is toxic to babies who drink formula with contaminated water.
Efforts to clean up the contamination have produced mixed results, with some pollution continuing to show up in the water……..
In addition to those problems, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has fined and cited Westinghouse more than a dozen times dating to at least 1993. Those problems range from buildups of uranium in air-pollution control devices and incinerators to worker accidents.https://www.thestate.com/latest-news/article215543880.html
USA Today 25th July 2018 For all the serious national security threats currently facing our country,
it seems like a waste of time and resources to use a nearly 70-year-old
defense law to rescue failing, outdated industries.
Yet that is precisely what the Trump administration is planning to do. The administration
indicated last month that it intends to use the Defense Production Act of
1950, enacted as a drastic national-security measure to be deployed in time
of war, to prop up failing coal and nuclear power plants.
Invoking this act would be a blatant misuse of the law, which came into effect at the outset
of the Korean War and with the intent of ensuring rapid mobilization of
U.S. industries within the larger context of the Cold War. And it will be
costly for anyone who pays an electric bill.
Today, the president wants to rely on the act to intervene in the energy market and bail out unprofitable
power plants that can no longer compete against natural gas and renewables.
The administration claims these plants are necessary to prevent blackouts
on the grid — a claim nearly all experts say is untrue. The
administration is instead motivated largely by politics — Trump promised
repeatedly on the campaign trail and while in office to bring about a
renaissance in an industry that is in irreversible decline. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/07/25/donald-trump-energy-plan-save-coal-cost-consumers-column/792523002/
Study: US Unlikely To See New Nuclear Power Anytime Soon, WABE MOLLY SAMUEL•Nuclear power doesn’t have much of a future in the U.S., according to a recent paperthat says the country is unlikely to see many new reactors in coming decades, unless there are major policy changes.
That means the only nuclear reactors under construction in the country right now, which are here in Georgia, could be the last ones built in the U.S. for years.
Afifth of the nation’s electricitycomes from nuclear power, but the number of plants isshrinking. Some have already closed, and others are scheduled to. Low natural gas prices have made building new nuclear reactors less competitive, and renewable energy is getting more competitive………..The findings in the paper weren’t a surprise to Sara Barczak, regional advocacy director with the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, a group that has been critical of the nuclear expansion at Plant Vogtle in Georgia.
She said years ago, there were more than 15 new reactors planned in the Southeast, but now there are only the two at Vogtle going forward. A similar project in South Carolina was canceled last year.
“The authors took a hard look at the realities … coming to the conclusion that it’s extremely costly, it takes quite a long time for these things to come online if they do, ever,” she said.
And the idea that nuclear power faces an uncertain future isn’t bad news to everyone.
“Nuclear energy is too expensive and too dangerous, and uses a ton of water,” said Colleen Kiernan, executive director of the group Georgia Conservation Voters.
Instead, she supports investing more in energy efficiency, renewable power and battery storage.
The two nuclear reactors under construction at Plant Vogtle, near Augusta, are years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget. Last year, when the future of that project was up in the air, there were questions of whether it was really needed in Georgia. ….https://www.wabe.org/study-us-unlikely-to-see-new-nuclear-power-anytime-soon/
EDF Wooing Pension Funds to Finance Sizewell U.K. Nuclear Plant, Bloomberg, By Rachel Morison 12 pension funds interested in backing plant in East Anglia Plant would lower nuclear costs by copying design of Hinkley
The developer of Britain’s first nuclear power station in more than three decades has approached 12 pension funds about helping finance a sister plant on the other side of the country.
Electricite de France SA is working on ways to pay for its Sizewell C project in East Anglia that will make it cheaper than the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant it’s building on the coast of Southwest England. Hinkley has been a lightning rod for controversy since the government pledged to pay 92.50 pounds ($122) a megawatt-hour for its power, more than 60 percent more than the latest offshore wind farms……..
Nuclear operators must have insurance, energy and clean growth minister Claire Perry told parliament, and any costs more than €1.5bn (£1.33bn) would be “met at parliament’s discretion”.
The Westminster Hall debate followed a report in the Times that claimed Japanese company Hitachi would not pay for any accidents at the proposed plant in Anglesey, north Wales.
Energy and clean growth minister Claire Perry said: “There were some questions about liability in the event of an accident. I am happy to say that the last significant incident was the Windscale fire in 1957, and we are light years away from that plant in terms of nuclear operating technology and the safety regime that we operate.
“The Nuclear Installations Act 1965 makes the insurance that I mentioned a requirement, without which operators cannot operate. As the hon. Member for Southampton, Test mentioned, we also have legislation based on the Paris and Brussels conventions.
If the total cost of claims ever exceeded €1.2 billion, a further €300 million would be provided by all contracting parties to the Brussels supplementary convention. Any further claims above that total would be met at Parliament’s discretion.”
Alan Brown MP said: “It marks a departure from the “polluter pays” principle. It is critical that the UK Government do not sign up to any such crazy proposals.”The government is in “commercial negotiations” with Hitachi over the plans, and will take a £5bn stake in the project.
New Economy 25th July 2018 The cost of EDF’s new Flamanville nuclear reactor has swelled to more
than three times the French state-owned utility’s original budget after
further issues were revealed in the construction process. EDF said target
construction costs had risen by €400m ($468m) to €10.9bn ($12.7bn).
Already seven years behind schedule, the project will now be delayed by
another year, with the loading of nuclear fuel not expected until the
fourth quarter of 2019. In April, EDF revealed that problems with the
weldings at its flagship nuclear site could impact the project’s costs
and timetable following an assessment by the French Nuclear Safety
Authority.
On July 25, EDF said 33 of 148 inspected welds were found to
have “quality deficiencies” and would be repaired: “EDF teams and
their industrial partners are fully mobilised and are continuing all other
assembly and testing activities at the Flamanville [European Pressurised
Reactor (EPR)], including the system performance tests.” France’s
Flamanville project is one of three EPRs currently being built across
Europe.
Politics Home 24th July 2018 , Alan Brown MP: Government mustn’t sign up to ‘crazy proposals’ leaving the taxpayer facing unlimited risk over nuclear incidents. Shadow SNP
Spokesperson for Energy, Alan Brown MP, writes ahead of his Westminster
Hall debate on ‘Taxpayer liability for safety at the Wylfa Nuclear power
project’. The nuclear industry in the UK, whilst keeping the lights on for
decades has come at a price.
The legacy of contamination and clean-up is
estimated by the National Audit Office to come in at £121bn by completion
in 2020. The Magnox swarf storage silo contains waste sludge which is
corrosive and radioactive and deemed a hazard until 2050 and there are a
number of existing nuclear power stations still to be decommissioned.
Yet we are told by the UK Government that we need more nuclear as a low carbon
means of energy generation. While the process may indeed be low carbon, it
is anything but green given the toxic legacy.
Why do we want to commission more at exorbitant costs?
With regards the cliché “we need the baseload,” as far back as 2015, the chief executive of National Grid
argued that the baseload concept was outdated. The only other reasoning I
can see is the equally outdated concept of the UK being a world leader in a
particular sector.
I have my own bias of course, but I would suggest the UK
may be the world leader in bad nuclear deals. A 35 year agreement for
Hinkley Point C at £92.50/MWh, when offshore wind recently came in at
£57.50 for a 15 year tenure. The Hinkley deal so bad it was criticised by
the NAO as bad value for money.
Part of the problem with Hinkley was the
risk and the financial exposure to private investors. A risk allayed with
the fact the technology for the European Pressure Reactor (EPR) has still
to be proven, with all existing EPR projects under construction facing
delays.
As investment in nuclear around the world falls, the UK has ten
stations on the go in terms of planning. Yet, the National Infrastructure
Commission’s latest report states that they believe there should be a
maximum of just one new nuclear contract signed before 2025. This is
because of the reduced costs of renewables and the other emerging
technologies including the massive decrease in cost of batteries.
Their report also illustrates that over the years the cost of nuclear has not
decreased, debunking another UK Government aspiration. This backdrop brings
us directly to Wylfa. Direct information from the Government remains
difficult due to the claims of “commercial confidentiality”. However,
again it is clear that the private developer, Hitachi, has had difficulties
with the costs and risks associated with the project. This has led to the
suggestion of the Government taking a £5bn direct stake in the project. In
principle for key infrastructure projects, a direct Government stake makes
sense as it can borrow cheaper than the private sector.
However, this seems to be part of another wider blank cheque type agreement for a Government
desperate to get the project over the finishing line. When strike rate
figures of £77.50/MWh are quoted for Wyfla, then this stake is one reason
for the reduction. Under the Paris and Brussels conventions, a nuclear
operator has the liability for any nuclear incidents. Even so, there is a
cap ay £1.2bn euros, so way below the true cost of a catastrophic
incident. Hitachi has already had two serious safety breaches in other
nuclear developments, and for one was fined $2.7bn from the US Government.
Apparently learning from this, Hitachi are resisting taking on liability
for nuclear incidents. We do not know exactly what they are proposing, but
it marks a departure from current agreements and the “polluter pays”
principle. It is critical that the UK Government does not sign up to any
such crazy proposals. The cost legacy is bad enough; we still don’t have
a solution to long term disposal of nuclear waste and it is folly to sign a
deal for the taxpayer to take unlimited risk on a nuclear incident. This
could prove to be the worst deal yet unless the Government changes tact
soon. https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/energy/nuclear-power/opinion/house-commons/97117/alan-brown-mp-government-mustnt-sign-crazy
Nucnet 23rd July 2018, Rolls-Royce is preparing to shut down its project to develop small modularnuclear reactors if the government does not make a long-term commitment to the technology, including financial support, in the coming months, the Financial Times reported. According to the UK-based newspaper, the UK aero-engine maker has scaled back investment significantly, from several millions to simply paying for “a handful of salaries”. Warren East, Rolls-Royce chief executive, told the Financial Times:
However, David Orr, executive vice-president of Rolls-Royce’s SMR programme, said that without comfort from the government on two fronts the project “will not fly. We are coming to crunch time.”
Koizumi calls on opposition to challenge LDP’s nuclear policy, THE ASAHI SHIMBUN, July 24, 2018
Former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has criticized the Abe administration for its pro-nuclear energy stance and called for the policy to be made an election issue when Japanese go to the polls next year.
In a recent interview with The Asahi Shimbun in Tokyo, Koizumi, 76, said, “It isn’t possible any more for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to end nuclear power generation. He did not try to do so, even though he could have.”
Among extremely rare remarks for a former prime minister and former Liberal Democratic Party lawmaker to make, Koizumi also said he expects opposition parties to make ending Japan’s reliance on nuclear power a key point for debate in the next Upper House election to be held in summer 2019.
Koizumi made his anti-nuclear stance clear in a news conference in 2013, seven years after he stepped down as prime minister.
Since then, he has repeatedly demanded that the Abe administration change its energy policies and bring nuclear power generation to an end.
U.S. to probe whether imports are threat to national security
Tariffs on imports ‘would drive up the price of uranium’
The Trump administration’s decision to consider tariffs on uranium imports may raise the cost of fuel for nuclear reactors and undermine a separate initiative to shore up struggling electricity generators.
The Commerce Department said Wednesday it will probe whether uranium imports “threaten to impair” national security. U.S. miners Energy Fuels Inc. and Ur-Energy Inc., which requested the probe in January, want 25 percent of the domestic market reserved for U.S. producers. Domestic companies supply less than 5 percent of U.S. consumption and would need about three years to ramp up production to meet that target.
The prospect of trade barriers comes after President Donald Trump last month ordered his energy secretary to take action to extend the life of money-losing coal and nuclear power plants that face competition from cheap natural gas and renewable energy. Those efforts may be hindered as the prospect of tariffs threatens to deal another blow to financially strapped reactor operators……..https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-19/uranium-tariffs-threaten-nuclear-plants-trump-is-trying-to-save
The analysis, by Massachussetts-based research firm The Brattle Group, looked at the costs associated with keeping the U.S. coal and nuclear fleets operating as is for the next two years.
“Arresting the retirement of uneconomic generating assets in the current market environment will likely prove quite costly,” the report reads.
The study was commissioned by groups including American Petroleum Institute, Advanced Energy Economy and American Wind Energy Association, after the leak of a memorandum from the Department of Energy calling for the White House to use national security powers to save coal and nuclear plants.
Energy Secretary Rick Perry has been championing such actions since last year, arguing the shutdowns theater the stability of the nation’s power grid.
“Further, bailouts of coal and nuclear plants around the country could raise costs on American consumers and fundamentally hurt the administration’s goal of American energy dominance throughout the world,” said Todd Snitchler, market development director at the American Petroleum Institute.
https://www.nippon.com/en/features/h00238/ [2018.07.19] Seven years on from the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, nine reactors are operational in Japan as of July 2018. Unlike the Fukushima Daiichi reactors, all of these are pressurized water reactors and they are based in western Japan.
On March 11, 2011, there were 54 nuclear reactors in operation in Japan supplying approximately 30% of the country’s electric power. However, the Great East Japan Earthquake and subsequent devastating tsunami that brought disaster to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station transformed attitudes and nuclear energy usage nationwide.
In July 2013, the Japanese government established new regulatory standards for nuclear power plants. To withstand earthquakes and tsunami, new stricter safety regulations must be met, involving huge costs to implement necessary safety countermeasures. Additionally, in municipalities where plants are located, whether operations are allowed to resume has become an election point for local politicians, and residents continue to file injunctions against bringing plants online again. Even if the hugely expensive safety countermeasures are implemented, numerous hurdles remain to be overcome.
As of July 12, 2018, there are five plants with a total of nine reactors that have met the new standards: Ōi and Takahama (Kansai Electric Power Company), Genkai and Sendai (Kyūshū Electric Power Company), and Ikata (Shikoku Electric Power Company). Meanwhile, it has been decided that 19 reactors will be decommissioned.
The nine reactors that have resumed operations are based in western Japan. All of them are pressurized water reactors, thereby differing from the Fukushima Daiichi plant operated by Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), where the accident occurred. When it comes to nuclear plants that have the same boiling water reactor system as Fukushima Daiichi, reactors 6 and 7 of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa (TEPCO) have passed the new standards review and Tōkai Daini (Japan Atomic Power Company) is now at the final stage awaiting official approval. However, as they are the same types of reactors as Fukushima Daiichi and memories of the huge earthquake are still strong in people’s minds in eastern Japan, it is difficult to gain approval from local residents and municipalities. No plans have been set for restarting them
NORTHAMPTON — On the steps of City Hall, U.S. Rep. James McGovern became the first voting member of Congress to officially pledge his support for the abolition of nuclear weapons across the world.
On Saturday afternoon, candidates running for the state Legislature joined the congressman in calling on the United States government to sign, ratify and implement the 2017 International Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The United Nations adopted the treaty last July and so far 59 countries have signed it. U.S. Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton of Washington, D.C., also signed the pledge in May, but she does not have voting power in the House.
“This treaty to put an end to nuclear weapons once and for all was not started by the great powers, but by grassroots organizations and the leadership of small and medium-sized nations,” McGovern said before a crowd of 70. “I believe it takes hard work, hard organizing, to get people and nations to recognize that nuclear weapons remain one of the greatest threats to all humankind, to the environment, to the planet — and they must be eliminated.”
The Resistance Center for Peace and Justice, formerly the American Friends Service Committee of Western Massachusetts, partnered with NuclearBan.US, a national campaign founded by
Northampton residents Vicki Elson and Dr. Timmon Wallis, to host an event that saw numerous prospective lawmakers voice their support for the dismantling of the country’s nuclear arsenal. Both groups are official partners of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, which won the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its work on the treaty.
The treaty prohibits signatories from the development, testing, producing, manufacturing, transferring, possessing, stockpiling, using or threatening to use nuclear weapons under international law.
Since the treaty was adopted last year, 59 countries have signed it and 11 parliaments have ratified it, according to Wallis. The United States has not signed it, nor has any other nation that possesses nuclear weapons.
Grassroots effort
In order for the treaty to go into effect, 50 countries have to ratify it, which Wallis said he expects to happen at the end of next year. In September, there will be another signing ceremony at the United Nations in New York, where he expects nine countries to sign on.
Local statehouse office-seekers who signed the ICAN Candidate Pledge for a Nuclear Weapons Free Future included Chelsea Kline, Jo Comerford and Steven Connor for state Senate; Marie McCourt, Eric Nakajima, Lindsay Sabadosa and Mindy Domb for the Hampshire House seat; Natalie Blais, Jonathan Edwards, Casey Pease, Christine Doktor, Kate Albright-Hanna and Nathaniel Waring for the 1st Franklin District seat; Tanya Neslusan for the Hampden House seat; Amaad Rivera for the Hampden Senate seat; and Jamie Guerin for state treasurer.
“It’s precisely because our national leadership is failing us that we need a grassroots movement to change things,” McGovern said. “If we are going to abolish nuclear weapons, it’s going to have to be a worldwide grassroots movement.”
The world cannot count on the leadership of President Donald Trump or President Vladimir Putin of Russia, he said, so change must come from regular people around the globe. McGovern said taking the pledge was an easy decision to make and he credited the event organizers for focusing his attention on the need to take action against the threat of nuclear weapons.
“Being in Washington right now is like drinking water from a fire hose, and there are a thousand horrible things happening all the time,” McGovern said. “But if nuclear weapons were ever used, that may be the end of the Earth. This is an incredibly important issue and I am very proud of this movement.”
Lining up support
Elson and Wallis said they are currently working with mayors from Northampton, Easthampton and Holyoke for their cities to become treaty-compliant. As part of their work for NuclearBan.US, they urge people to hold accountable the 26 companies known to help make nuclear weapons, many of which are based in the U.S., by boycotting and divesting from these companies.
With President Trump reversing course on a lot of former President Barack Obama’s efforts at disarmament, Wallis said the campaign faces an uphill battle.
“Of course, the U.S. government is putting pressure on all these countries not to sign and not to ratify, so that is part of what we are up against,” Wallis said.
Elson said, “The citizens are rising up, that is what we are all about.
“The treaty is the tool we can use to solve this problem once and for all,” she said. “Then we won’t be worried about this leader or that leader, or this country or that country. If these weapons don’t exist we would be a whole lot safer, and then we can go on to solve other problems.”
Takoma Park, Md., and Berkeley, Calif., are the first two cities in the nation to declare themselves treaty-compliant through the efforts of NuclearBan.US. In western Massachusetts, the Northampton Quaker Meeting, Broadside Books, Elements Spa, Arcadia Herbs, and Paradise Copy are now treaty-aligned.
NuclearBan.US has a goal of gaining the support of individuals, faith organizations, schools, towns, and cities to demand the attention of the U.S. government.
“Now is the time that we must come together to demand nuclear weapons be abolished, and fortunately we have the tool to do so,” Lydia Wood of NuclearBan.US said. “Now that we have this tool, it is up to us to make it successful … It is unacceptable to make money off the most destructive and potentially apocalyptic weapon ever created. We can make it politically unacceptable by publicly shaming and stigmatizing the companies making billions off of these weapons.”
Government advisers have told ministers to back only a single new nuclear power station after Hinkley Point C in the next few years, because renewable energy sources could prove a safer investment.
The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) said the government should cool down plans for a nuclear new build programme that envisage as many as six plants being built.
The commission, launched by George Osborne in 2015, said that a decade ago it would have been unthinkable that renewables could be affordable and play a major role in electricity generation. But the sector had undergone a “quiet revolution” as costs fell, it said.
Sir John Armitt, the NIC’s chairman, said: “They [the government] say full speed. We’re suggesting it’s not necessary to rush ahead with nuclear. Because during the next 10 years we should get a lot more certainty about just how far we can rely on renewables.”
He argued that wind and solar could deliver the same generating capacity as nuclear for the same price, and would be a better choice because there was less risk. “One thing we’ve all learnt is these big nuclear programmes can be pretty challenging, quite risky – they will be to some degree on the government’s balance sheet,” he said.
“I don’t think anybody’s pretending you can take forward a new nuclear power station without some form of government underwriting or support. Whereas the amount required to subsidise renewables is continually coming down.”
Renewables were a “golden opportunity” to make the UK greener and make energy affordable, he added.
Armitt said he was agnostic about whether the next power station was the one Hitachi wanted to build in Wales, or one EDF Energy hoped to build in Suffolk. The government is in the process of negotiating a deal with Hitachi to enable the project at Wylfa on Anglesey to go ahead.
But the NIC’s report was unequivocal. It said: “Government should not agree support for more than one nuclear power station beyond Hinkley Point C before 2025.”
Armitt said: “By that point we should be in better position on storage technology and presumably [will] continue to see a drop in price on renewables.”
The NIC said that by 2030 a minimum of 50% of power should come from renewables, up from about 30% today.
New figures released by energy analytics firm EnAppSys show renewables have already overtaken nuclear for electricity generation. Wind, solar and biomass power stations supplied 28.1% of power across April, May and June, with nuclear at 22.5%, the third quarter in a row that renewables have outstripped nuclear.
But Armitt said he was hopeful that, as an independent adviser to ministers, his recommendations would fall on receptive ears. “We’ve seen how long it took to negotiate Hinkley – does the government really want to have to keep going through those sort of negotiations?” he said.
Separate research commissioned by the NIC and published on Tuesday found that nuclear and renewables could meet climate targets for comparable costs.
Aurora Energy Research concluded that, regardless of which technology was pursued, the power sector would have to reach zero emissions by 2050 to hit legally binding carbon goals.
In a statement, EDF Energy said it believed “in having as much renewable power as practically possible and is making major investments in renewables. However, having too much of one energy type creates risks to security of supply and increases costs.”
London Economic 4th July 2018 After weeks of discussions over the risks of investing in large-scale
energy projects, the British government proposed to become an equal
investment partner in the new Wylfa Newydd nuclear plant. Under a
tripartite financing structure, London is going to take a £16 billion
stake in the plant, signalling that it has learned its lessons from past
failures. Both in Wales and further east in Europe, a public stake plays a
critical role in facilitating large-scale, low carbon energy projects.
Any discussion of the planned Wylfa Newydd project is obliged to give a cursory
nod to Hinkley Point C, the first and only nuclear power station to be
built in the UK since 1995. When complete, Hinkley Point will produce the
most expensive electricity compared to all power stations bar none.
Globally.
The irony is that this is largely due not to the installation
costs (admittedly somewhat higher than competition) but to its financing
model. The House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts frets that with
“estimated costs to the consumer having risen five-fold” since the
project’s go-ahead, the deal struck on Hinkley Point locks Brits into
footing the bill for the government’s lack of nous when negotiating the
‘strike price’ for electricity produced at the facility. https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/opinion/splitting-the-financial-atom-how-public-backing-produces-cheaper-nuclear-power/04/07/
nuclear-news 