Morrison cited several fears some of the townsfolk have about the project, such as negative impact on tourism, water contamination from the DGR boring project and the risk of accident while transporting high level waste along the highway.
Morrison said money has already come into Hornepayne because of its progression into the project. NWMO’s Learn More Project provides funding to cover travel expenses for individuals who represent the community to meet with the NWMO at its office in Toronto. It also funds the hiring independent experts to advise the community ($15,000 or less) and pays to support authorities to engage citizens in the community to learn about the project ($20,000 or less).
“Businesses that are for the project get some of that money from council and businesses that aren’t don’t get any.”
Nuclear waste debate divides Northern town Ben Cohen Special To The Sault Star, August 3, 2018 Hornepayne, Ont., a community of 980 people about 400 kilometres northwest of Sault Ste. Marie, is one of the five finalists to see who becomes home to a nuclear waste facility.
In 2011, the town entered a bid to become a repository for 5.2 million log-sized bundles of used nuclear fuel. They were joined by 21 other Canadian communities that have since been whittled down due to internal protest or geological unsuitability.
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) of Canada’s plan is to take this used fuel, known as “high-level nuclear waste,” contain it in steel baskets stuffed into copper tubes and encased in clay, and place that in a Deep Geological Repository (DGR), a 500-metre deep hole reinforced with a series of barriers. This is where it will stay for the 400,000 years it remains radioactive.
Bradley Hammond, senior communications manager for NWMO, told the Sault Star that the project only moves forward if it receives “broad social acceptance” within the selected communities.
“We won’t proceed in an area with opposition,” he said, adding that he has complete confidence that NWMO will find a suitable town by 2023.
When asked if there was a plan in place if all five of the finalist communities, Huron-Kinloss, Ont., Ignace, Ont., Manitouwadge, Ont., and South Bruce, Ont., back out of the project, Hammond indicated there isn’t, because that would be impossible.
A rally is being held in Hornepayne Aug. 14 to oppose the town being used for nuclear waste storage. Those at the helm of the rally said the project “exploits” their small town. Continue reading →
Moorside nuclear bidder stripped of preferred status, Construction News, 3 AUGUST, 2018BY BINYAMIN ALI
The £10bn Moorside nuclear power plant has been plunged into further doubt after Korean energy firm Kepco lost its preferred bidder status to develop the scheme.
The plant’s current developer Toshiba is now looking at alternative options for the future of the site after negotiations with Kepco failed to reach a conclusion.
Toshiba said this week that a sale to Kepco was still on the table and it was in “consultation with stakeholders including the UK government” to find a solution.
The protracted negotiations have also forced NuGen, Toshiba’s Moorside development body, to restructure its business………
NHK 2nd Aug 2018 The president of Tokyo Electric Power Company says the utility is
considering scrapping some of the reactors at its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant,
at the request of one of the 2 municipalities that host the nuclear
facility. TEPCO President Tomoaki Kobayakawa revealed for first time the
request is under consideration during a meeting with Kashiwazaki Mayor
Masahiro Sakurai. The pair met in the Niigata Prefecture city located on
the Japan Sea coast on Thursday. https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20180802_36/
REPORT PROJECTS DOE COAL, NUCLEAR BAILOUT COSTS COULD TOP $34 BILLION, Popular Resistance, By Emma Foehringer Merchant, Greentechmedia.com
A previous estimate, from a pro-coal group, put the cost at $4 billion.
Analysis out this week from The Brattle Group estimates the Trump administration’s coal and nuclear support plan could cost between $9.7 billion and $17.2 billion annually.
Working off of the scant details presented in a draft memorandum released by Bloomberg in May, The Brattle Group analyzed several scenarios the administration might employ to support nuclear and coal-fired power plants.
One assumes the government would pay an average $50-per-kilowatt flat rate to all plants, costing $16.7 billion a year. In another scenario, facilities experiencing shortfalls would be compensated directly at a customized level between $43 to $58 per kilowatt, costing between $9.7 billion and $17.2 billion each year. The draft memo suggested facilities would receive payments for two years, putting high-end cost estimates north of $34 billion for the duration of the program.
If the administration moves forward with a plan that pays facilities back for capital already invested in power plants, in addition to operating shortfalls, it bumps the price to $20 billion to $35 billion per year.
Brattle’s cost estimates dwarf the $4 billion calculated by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, presented in a report earlier this month. Groups that have opposed the potential policy, including Advanced Energy Economy, the American Wind Energy Association and the Natural Gas Supply Association, funded the Brattle report.
The widely varying price tags echo diverging opinions on the bailout policy.
In a statement on the Brattle analysis, Amy Farrell, senior vice president for government and public affairs at the American Wind Energy Association, called the costs “a steep price to pay in an era of U.S. energy abundance, when independent regulators and grid operators agree that orderly power plant retirements do not constitute an emergency.”……https://popularresistance.org/report-projects-doe-coal-nuclear-bailout-costs-could-top-34-billion/
Building 26th July 2018, The National Infrastructure Commission’s landmark report this month
seemed to sound the death knell for nuclear energy new-build, calling for a
large-scale shift to renewables by 2050 – and for only one more nuclear
power station approval by 2025. But are we really likely to get 90% of
Britain’s electricity from green sources within a generation? The NIC’s
assessment does not call for the end of all nuclear new-build aspirations.
But the direction of travel is clear: its prediction is that the cost of an
energy system heavily reliant on nuclear will, on current terms, be
marginally more expensive than one powered 80%-90% by other renewables, and
– importantly – that the cost of renewables is much more likely to fall
in future and thus ultimately work out significantly cheaper.
It is only because of all the uncertainties inherent in these predictions that it
recommends continuing with nuclear at all, albeit on a “go slow” basis,
so as not to entirely lose capacity in the industry in case the programme
has to be fired up again.
The assessment says a minimum of 50% and as much
as 90% of UK electricity should come from renewables such as wind and solar
power by 2050. And hence, that no more than one further nuclear reactor
should be given the go-ahead before 2025. This, it says “will allow the
UK to maintain, but not expand, a skills base and supply chain [and] to
pursue a high renewables mix […] without closing off the nuclear
alternative”. This may sound like a nuanced shift, but for those in the
sector it is very radical.
Few outside of environmental lobby groups have
ever proposed a UK electricity generation sector reliant 80%-90% on
renewables before. Richard Lowe, director of power in Aecom’s
environmental division, welcomes the emphasis on renewables but questions
how realistic it is. “Others such as the Committee on Climate Change have
done their own projections as to what is realistic, and I wouldn’t say
this is the midpoint of the range – it’s very much at one end of the
scale.”
Arizona’s nuclear power caught in crossfire, A renewable energy ballot measure could shutter the largest nuclear plant in the country. High Country News, Elena Saavedra Buckley July 27, 2018 “……. in the light of a controversial ballot measure meant to steer Arizona towards renewable energy, Palo Verde’s fate has been caught in the crossfire of a battle between state utilities and environmentalists.
Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona, a committee backed by former Californian hedge fund manager Tom Steyer, drives the initiative. They submitted over twice the amount of signatures needed to get on the ballot. If successful, the measure would constitutionally require Arizona utilities to use 50 percent renewable resources by 2030, holding them accountable for certain percentages each year.
But Arizona Public Service, the state’s largest utility, funded a lawsuit filed last week against the initiative. The political action group that filed the suit claims most of the signatures are fraudulent, which the initiative denies. The utility has bigger worries than the signatures, though — they’re worried the measure would force Palo Verde to close in six years. An oversupply of solar, they say, would render the plant useless.
………..In Nevada, an identical, Steyer-backed measure is already on the ballot. If the measures pass in November, the two states will join California as the West’s most ambitious examples of renewable commitment.
…….. Beyond Arizona, nuclear energy’s place in the carbon-free future of the West is an open question. In California, whose renewable goal is already 50 percent by 2030, nuclear plants have closed decades before their licensed expiration dates, struggling to compete with cheaper natural gas and solar. Whether nuclear plants should stay open as a stable alternative to fossil fuels divides environmentalists. Amanda Ormond of the Western Grid Group, which promotes incorporating clean energy into the grid, thinks nuclear power is an obstacle to a functional renewable future.
“Transitions have costs, and this is a huge transition,” Ormond said of the ballot measure’s proposals. “Palo Verde might close anyway. It’s an inflexible, expensive resource, and it will face the consequences of any resource.”
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.
