Bulgaria is set to restart construction of a Russian designed nuclear power plant first proposed at the end of the Cold War. The move, supporters say, could reduce the country’s energy dependence on Russia.
The Belene nuclear power plant, designed by Russian-state corporation Rosatom, has already cost Bulgaria millions of euros after the project was halted by Prime Minister Boyko Boriov in his first stint as leader and then revived after his return to power.
The Bulgarian Minister of Energy concluded the most appropriate option for rational use of the available equipment at Belene, was to resume action finding investors to construct the NPP jointly with a strategic investor, on a market principle and without any sovereign guarantee. The Ministry of Energy believes this option would allow Bulgaria to reimburse the costs incurred over the years under the project and to ensure long-term energy security of Bulgaria.
Borisov’s Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria (GERB) party has not always been in favour of Belene NPP during his three separate terms in office. Borisov was Prime Minister from 2009-2013 and from 2014-2017 as well.
“It is difficult to answer the question why the project was restarted now, in 2018, after the same prime minister for 6 years had a pronounced negative attitude towards Belene,” the former Bulgarian Prime Minister Plamen Oresharski, of the Bulgarian Socialist Party told Euronews. Oresharski held power between Borisov’s terms from 2013-2014, until his government resigned in July 2014 after a long series of mass protests against the cabinet.
The project has faced opposition on environmental and safety grounds, but the biggest friction has been around the role of Moscow. In 1999, Bulgaria agreed to close four older reactors at the already functioning nuclear plant at Kozloduy, as a precondition for beginning negotiations to join the European Union. The EU held a hard line against countries with the oldest-generation design of Soviet reactors joining. Bulgaria officially joined NATO in 2004 and the European Union in 2007. …….http://www.euronews.com/2018/06/08/russian-designed-nuclear-power-plant-causes-tension-in-bulgaria
Unearthed 5th June 2018 Hitachi is seeking billions of pounds from the British government to help build a new nuclear power plant at Anglesey in Wales – but experts say the technology being used is far from proven.
Last week Hitachi-rival Toshiba confirmed that they are pulling out of a major nuclear power project in the USA which planned to use a similar reactor type to the one planned for Wylfa. Toshiba said in a press release that the South Texas
Project had “ceased to be financially viable” due to prevailing economic conditions.
The announcement leaves the UK as one of the last countries looking to build this technology, called the Advanced Boiling
Water Reactor (ABWR). Steve Thomas, Professor of Energy Policy at the University of Greenwich, said that while there are some small differences between the European reactor led by Hitachi and the abandoned US reactor
from Toshiba, the “perception that this is proven technology is not supported by the facts”.
Although there are four similar reactors that have been built in Japan, plans for construction elsewhere have seen a
series of failures. And because of the long lead-in times for developing and building nuclear reactors, power plants built today may have been designed decades ago, Thomas said
“The technology that has been built already is actually 30 year old technology, which has been updated twice
over. So the plants that are operating do not really represent what we would build, and also the performance of the plants in terms of their reliability has actually been very poor.” https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/06/05/wylfa-hitachi-nuclear-reactor-type-awbr/
Here’s why Trump’s new strategy to keep ailing coal and nuclear plants open makes no sense The Conversation. James Van Nostrand, Director, Center for Energy and Sustainable Development; Professor of Law, West Virginia University,
President Donald Trump recently ordered Energy Secretary Rick Perry to take “immediate steps” to stop the closure of coal and nuclear power plants.
And according to a draft memo that surfaced the same day, the federal government may establish a “Strategic Electric Generation Reserve” to purchase electricity from coal and nuclear plants for two years.
Both proposals, which have garnered little support, are premised on these power plants being essential to national security. If implemented, the government would be activating emergency powers rarely tapped before for any purpose.
Based on my four decades of experience as a utility regulatory attorney and law professor, I can see why this proposal has caused much controversy, partly because of how energy markets work.
No credible evidence
To be sure, these industries are in trouble.
The share of U.S. power derived from coal has fallen from about one-half in 2000 to less than one-third in 2017. ……
The share of power generated by nuclear reactors, despite holding steady at about one-fifth of the national grid since 2000, is about to slide. More than 1 in 10 of the nation’s nuclear reactors are likely to be decommissioned by 2025. If completed, the only two large-scale ones under construction will cost far more than originally planned.
But are experts worried about any electricity shortages or outages between now and 2025? Well, no. Other alternatives, mainly natural gas, wind and solar energy are poised to keep filling the gaps created in recent years by other coal plant closures.
Disregarding the findings of its own study, the agency proceeded to ask the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, an independent federal agency known as FERC that regulates energy rates and policies, for permission to subsidize coal and nuclear plants. The agency unanimously rejected that proposal.
More recently, PJM Interconnection – the nation’s biggest grid operator – declared that its power supply is not in jeopardy and that there is no reason to take this anticipated policy move.
The North American Reliability Corporation, the federal entity responsible for power reliability, has reached similar conclusions.
Unprecedented intrusion
In short, there is no emergency that justifies this unprecedented intrusion into the electricity markets that would warrant forcing taxpayers and utilities to pay a premium to keep coal and nuclear plants online.
But the Trump administration appears to be arguing that a provision known as Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act and the Defense Production Act grant the secretary of energy the power to nationalize parts of the power sector during wartime or amid other emergencies.
I believe that the sole rationale for this new policy is as a way for Trump to keep his campaign promise to revive the ailing coal industry.
Most likely, nuclear reactors are included in the proposal because that industry is increasingly unable to compete. Also, some companies, on the brink of bankruptcy, have stepped up their lobbying.
In many cases, the power generated by coal andnuclear power plantssells at prices that are too low to cover operating costs. The federal government does not typically intervene in wholesale electricity markets, other than to enforce rules intended to ensure that the competition is fair.
Because it would override the results of competition, I have no doubt that the Trump administration’s proposals would mark a radical intervention by the government into the electricity markets.
Winners and losers
Shareholders of the energy companies that own money-losing coal and nuclear plants stand to gain if this policy gets implemented because they are unable to compete in the wholesale power markets without this kind of assist.
The Lobbying Bills Attached to FirstEnergy’s Coal and Nuclear Emergency Action
The bankrupt business has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbying so far this year. GTM, EMMA FOEHRINGER MERCHANTJUNE 05, 2018
In the month following its declaration of bankruptcy and its request for an emergency orderto support coal and nuclear plants, FirstEnergy Solutions spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbying, documents show.
Lobbying filings show a bill of $230,000 for FirstEnergy Solutions with top lobbying firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld so far in 2018. In total, FirstEnergy spent about $750,000 on activities with the firm, billed under work on “energy regulation” as well as federal and state government affairs. FirstEnergy did not work with Akin Gump in 2017.
“The court filing includes fees for all services provided to FirstEnergy Solutions, including restructuring advice, corporate advice, regulatory advice, etc. The lobbying report includes only fees for lobbying services,” said a FirstEnergy Solutions spokersperson. “FirstEnergy Solutions has not engaged Akin Gump in connection with the 202(c) application or with advocating for relief under any other federal statute.”
Akin Gump’s invoice for May 30 through April 30, which it filed as part of FirstEnergy Solutions’ bankruptcy proceeding, shows that the firm billed for time spent in communication with members of Congress and in calls with the Department of Energy and the White House regarding FirstEnergy’s Section 202(c) request.
The lawmakers Akin Gump contacted hail from coal states including Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. Among those lobbying for FirstEnergy on behalf of the firm Sam Olswanger, a former staff member for Republican Representative Daniel Webster of Florida, who has roots in West Virginia.
The Energy and Policy Institute, a renewable energy advocacy organization, annotated the recent filing and argued it showed the “high-priced campaign” FirstEnergy has waged to secure emergency assistance for coal and nuclear. It’s a market intervention that many in the energy industry, particularly the clean energy space, vehemently oppose.
……Between 2008 and 2017, FirstEnergy Corp. spent an annual average of about $2.05 million on lobbying. Its spending hasn’t dipped below $1.8 million since 2011.
This year, Akin Gump seems to have found an audience with the administration. On Thursday, Bloomberg reported that the administration is preparing to use Section 202 of the Federal Power Act and the Defense Production Act to “stop the further premature retirements of fuel-secure generation capacity” from coal and nuclear.
And Akin Gump isn’t the only one working on the coal and nuclear bailout. Jeff Miller, a former adviser to Rick Perry who maintains close ties to the Trump administration, has signed clients including FirstEnergy Solutions parent company FirstEnergy Corp. since moving to Washington and founding his lobbying firm Miller Strategies last year.
In a Q1 2018 filing, Miller noted that his firm was lobbying the Energy Department, the Executive Office of the President and the U.S. House of Representatives on “issues related to grid resilience” for FirstEnergy.
In addition to the $330,000 FirstEnergy paid Miller in 2017 and so far in 2018, according to filings, the firm has also received $60,000 each from the Nuclear Energy Institute and Southern Company. A $110,000 lobbying filing for Pacific Electric & Gas mentions issues such as “climate resilience” that Miller’s firm brought before the Department of Energy, Executive Office of the President, and the U.S. House of Representatives.
While it’s not unusual for a company to hire lobbyists to pursue its interests in the halls of influence, Miller’s previous ties to the Trump administration are worth noting. As the Associated Press has reported, Miller ran Perry’s presidential campaign just two years ago and helped him through his confirmation process as Energy Secretary……. https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/firstenergy-coal-and-nuclear-request-lobbying#gs.1Yq=Pus
World’s Biggest Nuclear Plant Is Center Stage in Rural Election, Stephen Stapczynski– 8 June 2018 (Bloomberg) — The fate of the world’s largest atomic plant may be decided by a local election this weekend in a rural Japanese prefecture better known for its skiing and sake.
The top two candidates running in the June 10 Niigata gubernatorial race are opposed to the speedy restart of Tokyo Electric Power Co. Holding Inc.’s nuclear reactors — which the utility, known as Tepco, aims to fire-up as soon as 2019. But the degree to which the candidates oppose atomic power is being watched closely by investors, voters and local media.
……..While candidates backed by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party and the opposition both want to finish investigations into atomic safety before the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa reactors restart, their views diverge after that.
Chikako Ikeda, a member of the prefecture’s assembly and backed by a coalition of opposition parties, has said she doesn’t support Tepco restarting the facility. She is also calling for a local referendum to decide the fate of the units after the prefecture finishes its investigations, which could take another three years.
Hideyo Hanazumi, a former vice-governor of Niigata backed by Abe’s LDP party, has refused to say whether he supports the restart but has insisted that the prefecture’s investigations be completed before a decision is made. Tepco shares have lost almost 14 percent since the day before May 9 when he said the nation should rid itself of nuclear power in the long-term and continue the prefecture’s investigation.
Nikkei Asian Review 6th June 2018 Britain’s move to finance much of a Hitachi nuclear power plant underscores
how such projects have grown too costly for the private sector to bear
alone, raising further questions about a key component of Japan’s ambitious
plans to export infrastructure worldwide.
The threat of electricity shortages spurred by factors including aging power plants drove London’s
pledge to loan a full 2 trillion yen ($18.2 billion) for the Japanese
industrial group’s plan to build two nuclear reactors in Wales, a project
slated to cost over 3 trillion yen.
The Wylfa saga illustrates how the expense of building nuclear power plants has become a deterrent to their
construction. Estimates for the Wales reactors have roughly doubled from
the initial outlook, owing to snowballing costs for safety and other
provisions. apart from Hitachi’s U.K. project, most of Japan’s overseas
nuclear efforts face an uncertain future at best.
Plans for new reactors are stalling around the world as countries get caught between the need for
energy security and the risks associated with nuclear energy. A Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries plan to build four reactors in Turkey’s Black Sea coastal
city of Sinop has doubled in cost to around 5 trillion yen, owing mainly to
additional precautions against earthquakes. Now the project “will not turn
a profit unless the Turkish government more than doubles the price at which
it buys electricity,” said a source affiliated with Mitsubishi Heavy.
Trading house Itochu has pulled out of the business alliance behind the
project. Toshiba’s former nuclear unit Westinghouse Electric, which was
building four reactors in the U.S., filed for bankruptcHitachi still faces
other hurdles on the Wylfa project. Lining up investors is proving
difficult on the Japanese side.
The U.K. government likely will drive a
hard bargain on power purchase prices, having drawn criticism for agreeing
to pay far above market rates for electricity from Hinkley Point C, a
nuclear power plant being built by France’s EDF and state-owned China
General Nuclear Power Group. Clarifying liability for accidents will be
another issue. https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Business-Trends/Hitachi-s-UK-nuclear-project-shows-heavy-risks-for-private-sector
NIRS 6th June 2018 The controversial Trump Administration plan to nationalize the nuclear
energy marketplace could cost U.S. consumers up to $17 billion a year in
artificially high electricity bills, with the prospect of extensive
coal-fired power plant subsidies potentially doubling that figure.
Further, the bailouts of nuclear and coal could trip up America‘s renewables
industry, leaving the U.S. even further behind in the global race for clean
energy technology development and deployment, according to three experts
participating in a news conference today.
Today, the Nuclear Information & Resource Service (NIRS) updated and expanded the nuclear bailout costs
estimated in its November 2016 report that concluded that federal handouts
for nuclear alone could add up to $280 billion to electricity bills by
2030. A bailout of coal-fired power plants would leave ratepayers and
taxpayers holding the bag for even more. NIRS estimates that the current
Trump bailout scheme could cost consumers $8-$17 billion for just the
nuclear element and as much again for coal subsidies. https://www.nirs.org/press/experts-nuclear-bailout-could-cost-up-to-17-billion-a-year-and-destroy-renewables-industry-in-u-s/
Stake in nuclear plant would be dramatic change of policy for UK, Government has not revealed terms of sensitive deal with Hitachi over Wylfa, Ft.com, 5 June 18, NICK BUTLER
Last Monday, the board of Hitachi met in Tokyo to consider the future of their proposed new nuclear power plant at Wylfa in north Wales. The Japanese company decided neither to approve nor to drop the plan but to continue the negotiations with the UK government.
As Toshiaki Higashihara, Hitachi’s chief executive, said after the meeting: “No decision has been taken.”
They were right to pause because the deal on the table was weak and inadequate as protection against the risks involved in a project of such scale. Wylfa is set to cost at least £20bn — and, given the record of new nuclear construction, that figure can only rise.
As reported by the Japanese press, at that stage the deal appeared to involve simply a UK government “guarantee” to cover the construction phase of the project, which is when the risks are highest.
But, within days, authoritative reports in the FT and elsewhere indicated that Britain had gone further and decided to make a direct investment of public money into the project.
This would be a dramatic change of policy with many implications.
First, it would mark the reversal of 40 years of a privatisation of the energy sector begun by Margaret Thatcher and Nigel Lawson. Suddenly, the state is back in business and the arguments against other proposed nationalisations, for instance of the railways or energy retailers, are undermined.
Second, taking a direct stake in one energy supplier opens up issues of competition policy. Will the government take shareholdings in other new nuclear projects including Hinkley Point C ? If nuclear, why not offshore wind or gas-fired power stations?
Then there is the question of the use of resources. There appears to be almost no extra money for anything from the National Health Service to defence and security. But suddenly several billion pounds have been found for a single nuclear power station……..
A direct shareholding will almost certainly be challenged in the courts on the grounds of competition policy and European state-aid rules. Britain is likely to be subject to EU rules at least until the end of the Brexit transition period.
And it must face scrutiny in parliament, where it will be weighed against other potential uses of the money.
Examination of this deal is likely to force a strategic review of energy policy, which would include just how much nuclear power is really needed — a question that has not been answered since 2013. In those five years, much has changed and there is a good case for a fundamental and open reappraisal.
The bankrupt business has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbying so far this year., EMMA FOEHRINGER MERCHANTJUNE 05, 2018
In the month following its declaration of bankruptcy and its request for an emergency orderto support coal and nuclear plants, FirstEnergy Solutions spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbying, documents show.
Lobbying filings show a bill of $230,000 for FirstEnergy Solutions with top lobbying firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld so far in 2018. In total, FirstEnergy spent about $750,000 on activities with the firm, billed under work on “energy regulation” as well as federal and state government affairs. FirstEnergy did not work with Akin Gump in 2017.
Akin Gump’s invoice for May 30 through April 30, which it filed as part of FirstEnergy Solutions’ bankruptcy proceeding, shows that the firm billed for time spent in communication with members of Congress and in calls with the Department of Energy and the White House regarding FirstEnergy’s Section 202(c) request.
The lawmakers Akin Gump contacted hail from coal states including Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. Among those lobbying for FirstEnergy on behalf of the firm Sam Olswanger, a former staff member for Republican Representative Daniel Webster of Florida, who has roots in West Virginia.
The Energy and Policy Institute, a renewable energy advocacy organization, annotated the recent filing and argued it showed the “high-priced campaign” FirstEnergy has waged to secure emergency assistance for coal and nuclear. It’s a market intervention that many in the energy industry, particularly the clean energy space, vehemently oppose.
The White House, the Department of Energy and FirstEnergy did not respond to request for comment regarding the filing.
Between 2008 and 2017, FirstEnergy Corp. spent an annual average of about $2.05 million on lobbying. Its spending hasn’t dipped below $1.8 million since 2011.
This year, Akin Gump seems to have found an audience with the administration. On Thursday, Bloomberg reported that the administration is preparing to use Section 202 of the Federal Power Act and the Defense Production Act to “stop the further premature retirements of fuel-secure generation capacity” from coal and nuclear.
And Akin Gump isn’t the only one working on the coal and nuclear bailout. Jeff Miller, a former adviser to Rick Perry who maintains close ties to the Trump administration, has signed clients including FirstEnergy Solutions parent company FirstEnergy Corp. since moving to Washington and founding his lobbying firm Miller Strategies last year.
In a Q1 2018 filing, Miller noted that his firm was lobbying the Energy Department, the Executive Office of the President and the U.S. House of Representatives on “issues related to grid resilience” for FirstEnergy.
In addition to the $330,000 FirstEnergy paid Miller in 2017 and so far in 2018, according to filings, the firm has also received $60,000 each from the Nuclear Energy Institute and Southern Company. A $110,000 lobbying filing for Pacific Electric & Gas mentions issues such as “climate resilience” that Miller’s firm brought before the Department of Energy, Executive Office of the President, and the U.S. House of Representatives.
While it’s not unusual for a company to hire lobbyists to pursue its interests in the halls of influence, Miller’s previous ties to the Trump administration are worth noting. As the Associated Press has reported, Miller ran Perry’s presidential campaign just two years ago and helped him through his confirmation process as Energy Secretary.
He has also contributed to the campaign coffers of Greg Pence, Mike Pence’s brother, who just won a congressional primary in Indiana. The president of America First Action, a pro-Trump super PAC (political action committee), also confirmed to the AP that Miller works with the group as a volunteer.
On Friday, after Bloomberg broke the news that the administration was planning to move forward with plans to prop up coal and nuclear, President Trump asked Perry to draw up recommendations to do so.
During a Tuesday conference in Washington, D.C. hosted by the Energy Information Administration, the Department of Energy spoke for the first time since the memo release. Comments from Undersecretary of Energy Mark Menezes indicate DOE is sticking to the administration’s script.
“The president rightly views grid resilience as a national security issue,” he said, adding that closing nuclear and coal plants means “we’re losing more than grid resiliency; we’re losing energy security.”
Trump Plan to Prop Up Coal, Nuclear Won’t Protect the Electric Grid The Trump administration says it needs to support struggling coal and nuclear plants to safeguard the grid. Experts say it’ll do the opposite. U.S. News, By Alan Neuhauser, Staff WriterJune 4, 2018 PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP and Republican political leaders spent close to eight years accusing the Obama administration of picking winners and losers in the energy sector, but Trump’s order to the Energy Department last week to prop up failing coal and nuclear power plants does exactly what he vilified – and proposes the opposite of what’s needed to best safeguard the nation’s vulnerable electric grid, experts say.
Citing national security and defense concerns caused by the “rapid depletion of a critical part of our nation’s energy mix,” Trump on Friday directed Energy Secretary Rick Perry “to prepare immediate steps to stop the loss of these resources.”
The administration referred to coal and nuclear plants as “fuel-secure,” because they can house their fuel supplies on site, rather than relying on pipelines like natural gas plants.
Much remains unclear about the proposal, including how it will be implemented and how many plants it will seek to prop up. However, it encountered swift opposition from a broad range of energy experts, industry executives and advocates from across the spectrum. It’s also expected to face legal challenges in federal court, particularly from natural gas and renewables companies, which compete with coal and nuclear plants for market share.
Notably, a dispersed electric grid – one that relies on a diverse array of wind and solar power, in addition to natural gas, hydropower and, perhaps one day, advanced nuclear – is widely seen as far more resilient to attack or accident than one that depends on large, centralized power resources such as coal or large-scale nuclear.
The Defense Department, for example, isexpected to spend as much as $1.4 billion by 2026 on developing decentralized electric systems known as micro-grids, and the Energy Department in 2015partnered with private firms to research and develop distributed energy systems to boost the resilience for the civilian grid.
“If you really want security, you get away from all that and you decentralize the grid,” says David Bookbinder, chief counsel at the Niskanen Center, a libertarian-leaning think tank in the nation’s capital.
In particular, he continues, “residential solar is the single most secure form of power we have in the United States: It’s secure both from a fuel supply side – no one’s blocking the sun – and a distribution side: it goes from roof into your house, so there’s no problem with the transmission. That is a secure energy supply.”
Trump last year introduced a 30 percent tariff on imported solar panels, which is expected to crimp the solar industry’s growth in the coming years.
The biggest threat to the nation’s electric grid, meanwhile, isn’t believed to be an attack or accident that would take down a power plant but instead a disruption of the distribution network: the transmission lines, transformers and substations that carry electrons from the nation’s power plants to its homes and businesses.
……….”Most of the outages occur on the distribution system, which has nothing to do with the power plants connected to the system,” says John Larsen, director in the energy and climate practice at Rhodium Group, a research firm. “That’s not to say the loss of power from a particular plant doesn’t cause a loss of power here and there. But the vast majority of power outages occur elsewhere in the system.”
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which oversees electricity markets,reached a similar conclusion in January, after the Trump administration made what was then its first attempt to subsidize struggling coal and nuclear plants.
FERC Commissioner Richard Glick, a Trump appointee, wrote in an opinion concurring with the agency’s decision to reject the administration’s proposal that “if a threat to grid resilience exists, the threat lies mostly with the transmission and distribution systems, where virtually all significant disruptions occur.”
The administration’s latest attempt to prop up coal and nuclear plants is expected to face similar challenges. The White House, in a memo made public last week, cited Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act, as well as the Defense Production Act, which authorizes the Energy Department to nationalize parts of the nation’s electric sector during wartime……….
On Monday, 4 June 2018, comments from the public on the draft Integrated Planning Framework Bill are due to the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) in the Presidency.
The call for comments makes the draft bill sound fairly benign, in that the DPME says the bill will provide for the functions of the department and establish an institutional framework for “a new predictable planning paradigm and discipline within and across all spheres of government”.
However, upon analysis, the bill could be the latest worrying development in the relentless bid to push the new-nuclear build programme forward.
On 17 May 2018, Loyiso Tyabashe, senior manager of nuclear new build at Eskom, said at African Utility Week that Eskom is continuing with front-end planning for a nuclear build programme. This despite Cyril Ramaphosa sending clear signals at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January that South Africa does not have money to pursue a major nuclear plant build.
Within this context, consider the following lines contained in the draft integrated planning framework bill, which says that the Minister in the Presidency must:
(c) annually in consultation with the Minister of Finance develop a budget prioritisation framework in order to guide the allocation of resources to organs of state in the national sphere of government;
(d) annually give input to the Minister of Finance in the preparation of the budget on—
the status of the economy and the possible macro-economic interventions;
its alignment with the National Development Plan; and
the proposed capital and development projects and programmes and related expenditure;
Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma is Minister in The Presidency responsible for Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation. This bill would give the minister the ability to develop a budget prioritisation framework that outlines which capital programmes to prioritise and to propose the related expenditure. Capital projects could include such contentious projects as the nuclear build, the Moloto Rail and the Mzimvubu dam.
In February 2018, which is after Cyril Ramaphosa signalled at the World Economic Forum that South Africa has no money for major nuclear expansion, the DPME launched a discussion paper on energy. The DPME’s website notes that enquiries related to this discussion paper could be directed to Tshediso Matona.
Tshediso Matona is the Secretary for National Planning at the DPME and is also the fired former Eskom boss to whom former President Jacob Zuma apologised about the way he was treated when he was fired.
The discussion paper reiterates that “the promulgated IRP 2010-2030 included 9.6 GW of nuclear power generation capacity, which has been confirmed as existing policy on numerous occasions. The Draft IRP 2016 that is in the public domain for consultation following a significant time-lapse since the promulgation of the IRP 2010-2030 in 2011 has a Base Case that requires nuclear power by 2037 (earliest) while a Carbon Budget scenario requires it by 2026.”
The discussion paper does acknowledge that the court case in which the Inter-Governmental Agreements (IGAs) with the United States of America, the Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation were legally challenged, determined the IGAs to be irrational, unlawful and unconstitutional. The court ruled that they should be set aside.
However, the paper then continues to say that the opportunity for small modular reactors to be included in the integrated energy planning framework should be considered. While it says that appropriate realistic costs should be considered, the paper outlines in the line immediately before that small modular reactors have typically been considered prohibitively expensive. With regards to the small modular reactors, the paper refers to revived research and previous research in preparation for the shelved Pebble Bed Modular Reactor which cost about R10-billion before it was shut down.
So, if a smaller nuclear build at an appropriate realistic cost could be possible, should taxpayers be worried? According to two recently released reports by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), there is cause for concern. The WWF reports look at the players’ potential strategies for pushing the nuclear new-build programme as well as the domestic procurement and public finance implications. WWF cautions that suggestions for smaller amounts of installed nuclear capacity appear to be an attempt to gain support for smaller amounts of nuclear energy and use these as a stepping stone towards building the full 9.6 GW.
How might the Integrated Planning Framework Bill play a role in the continued push for nuclear? If the bill is legislated it would give the Minister in the Presidency responsible for Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation the ability to give input to the Minister of Finance on proposed capital and development projects and programmes and related expenditure. The financing would need to come from somewhere.
WWF notes that finance for electricity generating plants typically comes from “corporate finance, government equity, government guarantees, loans from development finance institutions, a long-term loan from an export credit agency, and extra cash generated from regulated tariffs”.
However, says the WWF, it is unlikely that corporate finance would be used; government-to-government loans or financing from state banks or development finance institutions of the vendor’s home country are more likely to be used, with sovereign wealth funds another possibility. In order to enable a loan, National Treasury may need to put up a loan guarantee. Given the alarming trend of State-owned Entities including Eskom needing bailouts, the possibility of the loan being called in would be a risk. The ratings downgrade that Eskom received would also mean that a loan, if it were granted to Eskom, would attract a higher interest rate than previously.
The draft Integrated Planning Framework bill is currently in white paper form. When it comes before Parliament, there is a strong rationale for civil society to study it closely and make submissions to ensure that it is not used as a tool to push corrupt capital projects through the system. DM
UK takes £5bn stake in Welsh nuclear power station in policy U-turn, Ministers reach initial agreement with Japanese firm Hitachi over new Wylfa plant, Guardian, Adam Vaughan, 3 June 18,
The UK will take a £5bn-plus stake in a new nuclear power station in Wales in a striking reversal of decades-long government policy ruling out direct investment in nuclear projects.
Ministers said they had reached an initial agreement with the Japanese conglomerate Hitachi to back the Wylfa plant but emphasised that no final decision had yet been made and negotiations were just beginning.
The business secretary, Greg Clark, announcing the Wylfa agreement in the Commons, said: “For this project the government will be considering direct investment alongside Hitachi and Japanese government agencies.”…..
Caroline Lucas, the co-leader of the Green party, said: “Taking a stake in this nuclear monstrosity would see taxpayers locked into the project and paying out for a form of electricity generation that’s not fit for the future.”
Greenpeace attacked what it called a “bailout” of the project and accused Clark of being coy about what Hitachi had been offered.
Heller maintains fight to exclude Nevada’s Yucca Mountain as federal nuclear dump site, By
Ripon Advance News Service | June 5, 2018 U.S. Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) hailed a federal appeals court decision rejecting a Texas petition that sought to compel a licensing decision on the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage project in Nevada.
“A nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain has the potential to inflict immeasurable harm on the health and safety of Nevadans and our economy, and that’s why I’m pleased with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision today to grant Nevada’s motion to dismiss,” Sen. Heller said after the court issued the ruling on June 1.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Court granted a motion filed by Nevada to dismiss the Texas lawsuit, which alleged that the federal government had ignored a 2012 deadline to complete the licensing process for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository site.
……… The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has spent an estimated $8 billion studying the site and constructing an exploratory tunnel beneath Yucca Mountain – which is pretty much all that exists there now, according to the office. DOE estimates costs could reach $97 billion to construct and operate a repository at the site. Moreover, because no railroad exists to transport waste to the site, one would have to be built through Nevada to the mountain site. The estimated price tag could top $3 billion, according to the EYCMI Office.
Thus far, no federal funds have been allocated for the DOE’s proposed Yucca Mountain site, where proponents think burying the waste combined from 131 different U.S. sites would be the safest bet, while opponents of the plan say the desert mountain’s underground site isn’t a viable option to host a nuclear waste repository because the area is prone to earthquakes and even volcanic activity, according to the ECYMI Office.
……… Sen. Heller, who has been fighting to exclude the Nevada site as the nation’s main location for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel, most recently led successful efforts to ensure that the U.S. Senate excluded the proposed $30 million provision to store defense nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain from the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019, H.R. 5515…..https://riponadvance.com/stories/heller-maintains-fight-exclude-nevadas-yucca-mountain-federal-nuclear-dump-site/
Dave Toke’s Blog 4th June 2018 , For the sake of artificially massaging down the price paid for electricity
from the proposed Wylfa nuclear plant the Government is about to commit the
country to pay for billions of pounds of almost inevitable construction
cost overruns.
In doing so the Tories will be junking their opposition to
doing such a thing. In 2010 The Conservative Party election manifesto
stated that: ‘we agree with the nuclear industry that taxpayer and
consumer subsidies should not and will not be provided – in particular
there must be no public underwriting of construction cost overruns’
There was a very good reason for this manifesto commitment. None of the nuclear
power plant currently operating in the UK were constructed according to
their original cost estimates. They were built during the time when
electricity was nationalised, and so the costs were spread around all
consumers and there was limited transparency about the economics of
building nuclear plants.
The Tories decided that there should be no more
wastage of public money on nuclear plant which soaked the public purse.
They wanted competition in electricity generation. Nick Butler in the
Financial Times has made some perceptive comments on this peculiar deal. He
is one of the few who has done some serious thinking about how it can
possibly be the case that the Wylfa project will be sold on a ‘cheaper’
price than Hinkley C despite the fact that the projected cost of building
Wylfa is actually higher than Hinkley
Times 3rd June 2018 ,Ministers will this week reverse decades of opposition to investing taxpayer money in nuclear energy by agreeing to bankroll a £15bn-plus power station in Wales. The government will commit to taking a direct stake in the Wylfa plant on Anglesey, planned by the Japanese industrial giant Hitachi, after more than two years of negotiations.
It is understood the government will also provide the vast bulk of the £9bn debt. State equity will slash the cost of borrowing, but leave the taxpayer exposed if costs balloon or the project overruns. It has, though, helped ministers to
negotiate a strike price — a guaranteed payment for the plant’s electricity — of about £77.50 per megawatt hour. The government was determined to achieve a cheaper price than the £92.50 agreed with EDF, which is building the £20bn Hinkley Point power station in Somerset.
It is understood that this week’s heads of terms agreement with Hitachi will refer to “lessons learnt” from Hinkley. That deal was criticised by the National Audit Office for driving up the cost by piling too much risk on EDF. The deal this week has had to overcome opposition from the Treasury and will be a coup for the business secretary Greg Clark, who sees nuclear power as a key pillar of the government’s industrial strategy. Hitachi is believed to be considering increasing the number of reactors at Wylfa from two to four, with a strike price of less than £70, and to be planning a plant in Gloucestershire. Wylfa’s three shareholders — the UK and Japanese governments and Hitachi — will pump in about £6bn of equity on top of the £9bn debt provided largely by UK taxpayers. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/taxpayer-bankrolls-15bn-nuclear-plant-at-wylfa-in-wales-0p7dnxfhq
