nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Trump’s reckless propping up of the nuclear industry pleases its big lobbyists

Trump has Plenty of Accomplices in his Reckless Energy Policies http://progressive.org/dispatches/trump-has-plenty-of-accomplices-in-his-reckless-energy-polic/, by Harvey Wasserman, May 24, 2018  

Some 360,000 Americans now work in the solar industry, more than in nukes and coal combined. In fact, more Americans are now working in California’s solar industry than are digging coal nationwide. And the U.S. wind business now employs more than 100,000 people.

But President Donald Trump wants to change that. He has already slammed the solar industry’s growth by slapping a 30 percent tariff on imported Chinese panels, slowing installations nationwide.

He’s also contemplating using an obscure Korean War-era “emergency” ordinance that would let the government bail out money-losing coal and nuclear plants at the expense of renewables.

The idea was presented to Trump while he dined with a lobbyist from the infamous Akron-based FirstEnergy, whose bad business decisions have hung it with four crumbling, money-losing nuclear power reactors and some eighty obsolete coal burners.

More than half the nation’s ninety-nine licensed commercial reactors are now losing money. FirstEnergy’s Davis-Besse, near Toledo, Ohio; Perry, east of Cleveland, Ohio, and Beaver Valley 1 & 2, outside Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, are bleeding radioactive red ink. One might expect “free market” corporate executives to cut their losses and let competition determine how our energy will be generated.

But FirstEnergy CEO Chuck Jones (annual salary: $8.7 million) has begged Ohio’s legislature and regulators to slap consumers with billions in higher electric rates. So far he’s failed, which is why he sent his lobbyist to dine with Trump.

Already, governments are doing what they can to prop up the nuclear power and fossil-fuel industries and damage the cause of renewable power.

Three nuclear reactors in Illinois have been granted a $200 million annual handout for the next decade. Pennsylvania and Connecticut may soon get soaked with massive rate hikes to keep reactors running there.

The New Jersey legislature has just approved spending $430 million over the next decade to run three more uneconomical reactors there, two at Salem and one at Hope Creek. Activists including actor Alec Baldwin have urged that state’s new Democratic governor to veto that proposal.

Throughout the United States, owners of even those few reactors that are still making money are poised to scam their way into compliant legislatures to see how much they can grab.

But the biggest nuke scam of all has been rammed through state regulatory agencies by New York’s “liberal” Governor Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo backs the 2021 shutdown of two decrepit reactors at Indian Point, saying they are too close to Manhattan to be considered safe.

But Cuomo wants ratepayers statewide to cough up a staggering $7.6 billion for four upstate reactors whose owners had them slated for decommissioning. To the astonishment of economists, ecologists, business and ratepayer groups, Cuomo’s hand-picked regulators approved the rip-off last year.

Nuclear opponents have gone to court to stop it. They argue that while less than four thousand jobs are tied to the reactors, many thousands more would be created by replacement wind and solar projects.

FirstEnergy’s scam is even more brazen. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the average reactor generally employs between four hundred and seven hundred workers. Some workers stay on long after shutdown to deal with issues of decommissioning and waste management.

But along with bailing out its four dying nukes, FirstEnergy wants a staggering $8 billion per year in above-market ratepayer fees for some 80 coal burners.

Rightwing think tanks like Heritage have joined financial and business groups in warning such rate hikes could decimate the area’s economy.

Meanwhile, a bitterly disputed “set-back” law has stopped some $4.2 billion in proposed wind projects along Ohio’s “north coast,” which is flat, windy, well-wired and full of farmers desperate for the projects to begin. But repeal has stalled, with tens of thousands of jobs and billions in income hanging in limbo.

They’ll all disappear if Trump and Energy Secretary Rick Perry approve FirstEnergy’s “emergency” bailout.

Last September, the Trump Administration approved another $3.7 billion in federal loans, on top $8.3 billion approved in the past, to sustain a scandal-ridden nuclear project in Vogtle, Georgia.

More recently, on May 10, Congress passed a new attempt to open the proposed Yucca Mountain waste dump. The plan to store some 70,000 tons of high-level commercial radwaste in an earthquake-riddled dormant volcano is overwhelmingly opposed by Nevadans and had long since been written off. But the measure was approved by a vote of 206 to 179, with ninety-four Democrats and eighty-five Republicans voting against. It now heads to the Senate.

As all of this plays out, tens of thousands of jobs hang in the balance. The nation’s entrenched fossil-nuclear corporate elites are more focused on propping up the industries of the past than embracing the technologies of the future.

Harvey Wasserman’s radio shows appear at prn.fm and KPFK-Pacifica, 90.7FM, Los Angeles. His America at the Brink of Rebirth: The Life & Death Spiral of US History from Deganawidah to the Donald will soon be published at Solartopia.org.

May 25, 2018 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Ontario NDP only party speaking out against nuclear waste bunker near Lake Huron

Global News, By Colin Perkel The Canadian Press   24 May 18, TORONTO — Of the three main parties vying for office in Ontario’s spring election, only the NDP has spoken out against building a $2.4-billion nuclear waste bunker near Lake Huron.

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath said the idea of burying radioactive waste so close to a major fresh-water source worries her and, should she be elected on June 7, would look to intervene against the project. “As a party, we’re not in favour of having that facility in that location,” Horwath said recently on the campaign trail. “It’s something that we’re quite concerned about. We know that other leaders, both in Canada and across the border in the States, have sent significant letters of concern and protest to the federal government in regard to the siting of this facility.” ………
scores of communities on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border have expressed alarm at the proposal. They maintain the consequences of contaminating the all-important fresh-water source is far too great to take.      “I hear big concerns from many different jurisdictions as well as individuals as well as communities,” Horwath said.
……… more than 100 mayors and other elected officials on both sides of the border — they claim to speak for 16 million people — urged federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna in November to reject the proposed bunker. They noted that local, county and state governments representing 23 million people had passed 230 resolutions opposing the burial of nuclear waste anywhere in the Great Lakes basin.Horwath agreed.

“When you’re talking about water, and the fact that we can’t live without clean water, we should be doing everything that we can not only to protect our fresh-water sources for our generation (but) for the next generations as well.” https://globalnews.ca/news/4223871/ontario-ndp-nuclear-waste-bunker-lake-huron/

May 25, 2018 Posted by | Canada, politics, wastes | Leave a comment

Trump’s lawyer Cohen opens doors for Alabama nuclear developer Haney

By Kyle Whitmire kwhitmire@al.com  “……Franklin Haney is a very rich man, and his money is hard at work in Alabama, in Washington, D.C., and maybe even the Middle East. The Chattanooga developer’s campaign cash has given him access to politicians from city council members to presidents of the United States.

And now, according to the Wall Street Journal, he has the help of President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer and political fixer, Michael Cohen, with designs on bringing online a nuclear power plant in northeast Alabama.

Two years ago, when I first wrote about Haney’s dream to buy a half-finished nuclear power plant in north Alabama and bring it online, I didn’t take his plans seriously for a couple of reasons.

Even if Haney could convince TVA to sell him the Bellefonte plant, even he — a billionaire — probably couldn’t afford to finish it, could he? Haney’s own projection was that the project would cost about $13 billion to complete. By most accounts, including Haney’s company’s website, he is worth less than that.

And even if he managed to finish it, there was no way the federal government would allow him to turn the thing on, would they?

The logistics and regulation of nuclear power make it nearly impossible to stop a project and then restart it again, which was a big reason the TVA never finished the job.

I wasn’t alone in that assessment.

Stephen Smith, the executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, said then that Haney’s plans for Bellefonte were delusional.

“The first concrete was poured in 1974,” he said. “That reactor is approaching 50 years old. Do you think the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is going give a license for a reactor that has been sitting around for 50 years?”

But Haney didn’t give up.

Once a door-to-door Bible salesman, Haney became a self-made billionaire through working as the government’s landlord. He acquires and develops property, which he leases to local, state and federal agencies.

And he makes connections first with political donations. He’s donated to Democrats and Republicans. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have benefited from his largess, as have Republicans, including Alabama Gov. Bob Riley………

TVA agreed to sell the power plant to Haney, but he still had those two hurdles left — regulation and capital.

Enter Donald Trump.

After the president’s victory in 2016, Haney donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund, and last summer Bloomberg reported that Haney had bragged about dining with Trump about a dozen times during the president’s first six months in office. Haney could have had those opportunities because he’s a member of Trump’s club, Mar-a-Lago.

And it turns out, the Wall Street Journal reports, Haney had another connection, too. He is a client of Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal lawyer and political fixer, who appears to have turned his proximity to the president into a lucrative business opportunity.

According to the Journal, Haney hired Cohen to help him solicit investments for the Bellefonte project, and in April, the two met in Miami with Sheikh Ahmed bin Jassim bin Mohammed al-Thani, the minister of economy and commerce of Qatar and the vice chairman of the Qatar Investment Authority.

Previously, Cohen had solicited $1 million from Qatar for access to the Trump administration, the Washington Post reported last month. The Qatar government declined that solicitation.

It’s unclear whether the meeting was fruitful for Haney, but what is clear is that the law might not allow significant foreign investment in the Bellefonte project. Under the  Atomic Energy Act, the NRC may not issue licenses for projects owned or controlled by a foreign entity.

But laws change, especially when men with money need them fixed, and if the Trump administration has shown anything, it’s that it cares little about regulations, environmental protections and foreign influence in domestic affairs.

Haney’s hurdles are still high. They are still there. But his money is working harder than ever to tear them down.

And anyone who cares about the safety of northeast Alabama should take him very seriously. https://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2018/05/cohen_opens_doors_for_alabama.html

 

May 25, 2018 Posted by | politics, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

Many years before massive nuclear power station could be built at Bradwell, UK

Maldon Standard 23rd May 2018 , THE site of the new nuclear power station at Bradwell is staggering in
size. Measuring the length of six football pitches, it sits on land near to
the existing station, now being decommissioned. The Standard was given
exclusive access to see how work was progressing at Bradwell B. EDF Energy
and the China General Nuclear Power Group have been carrying out early site
investigations into the site since December. Since then, the company has
been drilling and digging sampling holes and testing the soil. While work
is underway, the project is still very much in the beginning stage. Once
all groundwork is complete proposals for what the new power station could
look like will be drawn up. Then, a huge public consultation will be held,
alongside a generic design assessment, environmental assessment, and
nuclear site licence being sought. In short, we are many years away from
any station being built.
http://www.maldonandburnhamstandard.co.uk/news/16242529.Digging_deep__A_look_into_the_site_for_a_new_nuclear_power_station_in_Bradwell/

May 25, 2018 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Huge corporate subsidy to be given by New Jersey Governor to nuclear industry

New Jersey Governor Plans to Sign Nuclear Bailout Bill, Bloomberg, By Elise Young and Brian Eckhouse

  • Bill seen costing customers more than $300 million a year
  •  
    Exelon, Public Service Enterprise Group own reactors in state

  • New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy plans to sign a bill requiring utility customers to spend more than $300 million a year to rescue struggling nuclear power plants run by Exelon Corp. and Public Service Enterprise Group Inc., according to a person familiar with the matter.

    The legislation, approved in April by the state’s Democratic legislature, aims to keep the state’s three nuclear plants operating, after owners warned the facilities were no longer economic amid lower power prices.

    Murphy, a Democrat who was sworn-in in January, has not said publicly if he supports the measure, which some environmentalists oppose. A schedule released by his office Tuesday said he planned to sign “energy bills” at 11 a.m. Wednesday.

    …….. Exelon and PSEG didn’t immediately comment. A spokesman for the Electric Power Supply Association, which represents independent power producers and has opposed subsidies for coal and nuclear plants, called the move “disconcerting.”“If news reports are true that Governor Murphy will sign the nuclear bailout legislation without seeking amendments, it is a sad day for New Jersey consumers and the future of competition in the state,” John Shelk, president of the Washington-based association, said in an email.

  • ……. The Sierra Club is one of several environmental groups that have criticized the plan, calling it the “biggest corporate subsidy in state history.”https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-22/new-jersey-governor-is-said-to-plan-to-sign-nuclear-bailout-bill

May 25, 2018 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Call to White House to oppose Saudi Arabia’s threat to acquire nuclear weapons

White House Should State Opposition to Saudi Threat to Acquire Nuclear Weapons http://www.ipsnews.net/2018/05/white-house-state-opposition-saudi-threat-acquire-nuclear-weapons/

By Daryl G. Kimball and Thomas Countryman  Daryl G. Kimball is Executive Director, Arms Control Association & Thomas Countryman is Board of Directors, Chairman, and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation   WASHINGTON DC, May 16 2018 (IPS) – We are deeply disappointed by the counterproductive response from the Trump administration to the statements from senior Saudi officials threatening to pursue nuclear weapons in violation of their nonproliferation commitments. 

We call on the White House to immediately reiterate the longstanding, bipartisan policy of the United States that it will actively work against the spread of nuclear weapons to any country, friend or foe.

President Donald Trump’s reckless decision to violate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which has blocked Iran’s pathways to nuclear weapons and put in place a robust monitoring system to detect and deter cheating, has not only opened the door to an expansion of Iran’s capability to produce bomb-grade nuclear material, but it has increased the risk of a wider nuclear arms race in the Middle East, which is already home to one nuclear-armed state.

Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister Adel Al-Jubeir told CNN May 9, that his country, which, like Iran, is a party to the 1968 nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), stands ready to build nuclear weapons if Iran restarts its nuclear program.

Al-Jubeir also praised Trump’s decision to abandon the Iran nuclear deal and seek to reimpose sanctions on firms and business engaging in legitimate commerce with Iran.

Asked what his country will do if Iran restarts its nuclear program, he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that “we will do whatever it takes to protect our people. We have made it very clear that if Iran acquires a nuclear capability, we will do everything we can to do the same.”

Asked to clarify whether that means the kingdom will work to acquire its own nuclear capability, al-Jubeir replied, “That’s what we mean.”

This follows similar comments by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in a March 15 interview with CBS News that Saudi Arabia will quickly follow suit if Iran acquires nuclear weapons.

When asked May 9 whether Saudi Arabia would “have the administration’s support in the event that that occurred,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said:

“Right now, I don’t know that we have a specific policy announcement on that front, but I can tell you that we are very committed to making sure that Iran does not have nuclear weapons,” she stated.

The administration’s nonresponse to Prince Salman’s threat in March and Sanders’ weak response May 9 amounts to an irresponsible invitation for mischief.

They imply that Trump administration would look the other way if Saudi Arabia breaks its NPT commitments to pursue nuclear weapons.

It is bad enough that the Trump administration, by violating the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, has threatened the NPT regime by opening the door for Iran to expand its nuclear capacity.

President Trump and his advisors must not compound that error by swallowing their tongues when another NPT member state in the region threatens to pursue the bomb.

We call on the White House to immediately clarify that it is the longstanding policy of the United States, as an original party to the NPT:

“…not to in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons …” and “… to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament ….”

We also call on the U.S. Congress to reject any proposed agreement with Saudi Arabia that permits U.S. nuclear cooperation if Saudi Arabia seeks to or acquires sensitive uranium enrichment or plutonium separation technology which can be used to produce nuclear weapons.

May 22, 2018 Posted by | politics, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Japanese government’s inflexibility in keeping its nuclear power goals, despite the global transition to renewables

Gov’t energy plan inflexibility on nuclear, renewables reveals lack of vision  (Mainichi Japan) The government has unveiled its revised basic energy plan, though its core elements concerning the ratio of Japan’s electricity needs to be supplied by nuclear power and renewables by fiscal 2030 has not changed from the plan adopted three years ago.

In that three years, conditions surrounding energy production have changed drastically both inside and outside Japan, so it is very difficult to understand why the government has chosen to simply maintain course.

The energy plan calls for 20-22 percent of Japan’s energy mix to be made up of nuclear power in 2030, with renewables accounting for 22-24 percent — just as the 2015 version did. However, while Japan has been marking time, other advanced nations have been moving fast to expand solar and other renewable power generation. The reason is simple: measures to combat global warming simply cannot wait.

…….Renewable energy already makes up about 15 percent of Japan’s electricity production. The big utilities have also been expanding their renewable generation base as electricity market liberalization has spurred competition. Keeping the 2030 renewables target as-is could discourage this trend.

We must also question the continuing role projected for nuclear power. Around 30 reactors would be required to fill 20-22 percent of Japan’s energy needs as laid out in the plan, but only eight are now back in operation following the shutdowns after the triple-meltdown at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant.

Serious questions are being raised over the economic viability of nuclear plants, as is shown by the fact that Kansai Electric Power Co. decided last year to decommission two of its larger reactors. Even experts are shaking their heads in doubt at the energy plan’s targets for nuclear power generation……..https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20180519/p2a/00m/0na/016000c

May 22, 2018 Posted by | Japan, politics | 1 Comment

Hitachi’s nuclear export transfers risks to both Japanese and British people while companies get profits

Urgent Joint Statement: Hitachi’s nuclear export transfers risks to both Japanese and British people while companies get profits http://www.foejapan.org/en/energy/doc/180502.html 

Responding to the upcoming meeting between Hitachi Chairman Nakanishi and Prime Minister May


Hitachi’s Chairman Nakanishi is reportedly going to visit British Prime Minister Teresa May on 3rd May to ask the U.K. government to take a direct stake in Wylfa Newydd nuclear power project in Anglesey, Wales. The report says Hitachi is going to ask not only for direct investment but also an assurance for a power purchase agreement(1). Hitachi’s struggle just shows the risks of the nuclear power project is simply huge.

In February, Mr. Nakanishi already expressed the view that the project would not happen without government commitment and stated “Both UK and Japanese governments understand that the project would not go on without the commitment by the governments”(2). To reduce the risk of the project, the project is said to be insured by Nippon Export and Investment Insurance(NEXI), 100 percent Japanese government owned export credit agency(3).

In addition to huge construction cost, nuclear projects are associated with various risks such as accidents, increased cost for tougher regulations, opposition from local people, radioactive waste management and so on. Risks are too huge to manage. Thus, it is clear that companies should decide to retreat from the project. While transferring risks of the project to people, it is unacceptable that the companies and banks take profits.

Electricity generated from Hinkley Point C nuclear power, which is currently under construction in UK will be purchased at £92.5/MWh, which is approximately twice as expensive as the average market price. National Audit Office of UK warned that this would increase ratepayers burden (4). If UK government gives an assurance for expensive price of electricity to Hitachi, the project will put more burden not only Japanese taxpayers with huge risks, but also British ratepayers with huge costs. For whose sake is this project? 

The project site for Wylfa Newydd is surrounded by pristine nature. Colonies of protected bird such as Arctic terns was discovered near the site(5). The National Welsh Coastal Path borders the land bought by Hitachi which is in an area of Otstanding Natural Beauty. The project would put a heavy burden on the social and economic infrastructure on the island rather than benefitting the local economy(6) .  

 
The Spokesperson from People Against Wylfa B, Dylan Morgan says;
“Don’t pour good money in to the bottomless black hole of nuclear power. This is an old fashioned, dirty, dangerous and extortionately expensive technology. The Fukushima triple explosions and meltdowns has and will continue to cost the people of Japan greatly. There is no end in sight for this continuing tragedy, which means that no new nuclear reactors are going to be built in Japan. It is unacceptable that Japan wish to export this deadly technology to another state in order to keep Japan in the nuclear club.”

TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident is not over. Globally the cost of renewable energy decreases dramatically and energy efficiency is also improved. Exporting nuclear power is against that trend. This is morally and economically the wrong direction. Moreover, pouring public money to a handful of private companies without consulting the public or having discussion at a parliament is unacceptable.

Japanese government and companies should seek and promote nuclear phase out and sustainable and democratic energy systems based on thorough reflection on the lessons learned from the nuclear accident. We strongly oppose Hitachi’s Wylfa Newydd project. No money from Japanese and British taxpayers should be used to save this totally outdated and dangerously wasteful project. 

1. “Hitachi seeks assurance from UK’s May on shared stake in nuclear project” Nikkei Asia Review, 29th April 2018.
2. ”Committements by both UK and Japanese government necessary fro Hitachi’s nuclear project, says next chair of Keidanren” (In Japanese) Reuters, 13th Feb 2018.
3.“Japanese and UK government to support Hitachi’s nuclear project, loss may result in public financial burden (in Japanese)” Asahi Shimbun, 11th Jan 2018.
4. “Hinkley Point C” National Audit Office, 23th June 2017
5.“Plans for Welsh nuclear power plant delayed by concerns over seabirds” Guardian, 9th Apr 2018.
6.“Wylfa Newydd: Nuclear plant ‘increases homelessness risk’” BBC, 27th Mar 2018. 

 
Please sign the petition from HERE (via Change.org) or here (for organizational sign-on)

Contact:
Friends of the Earth Japan
fukakusa@foejapan.org
+81-3-6909-5983
Ayumi Fukakusa

People Against Wylfa B
pawbcymru@gmail.com
Dylan Morgan

May 22, 2018 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Uncertainty about China’s nuclear power future

“……….Uncertainties for Nuclear Power, Carnegie Endowment, Mark Hibbs,  14 MAY 18  

China’s nuclear power wager might not indefinitely pay high dividends. Until now, the state has boosted the nuclear power industry with incentives that, in the future, may come under pressure. The electric power system is subject to reform in the direction of more transparent oversight and pricing that might disadvantage nuclear investments. President Xi Jinping supports state control of strategic economic sectors, but he also advocates market reforms that have helped lead Western nuclear power industries into crises.

The nuclear sector must withstand what Xi calls “new normal” conditions: a gradual slowing down of China’s economy, characterized by diminishing returns on capital goods investments and translating into rising debt and overcapacity. Nuclear investments may be affected by demographics, changes in electricity load profile, and technology innovations including emergence of a countrywide grid system able to wheel bulk power anywhere.

There is also political risk. Public support for nuclear power in China is volatile and may be low. Concerns since the Fukushima Daiichi accident in Japan have prompted Beijing not to proceed with long-established plans to build most of China’s future nuclear plants on inland sites. Should this policy continue into the 2020s, prospects for China’s nuclear construction sector will decline; indefinitely continuing nuclear construction at eastern coastal sites (where nearly all of China’s nuclear power is generated) may encounter resistance on economic, capacity, and political grounds.

Under Xi, China’s globalization continues but the state is assuming ever-greater liability. Political decisionmaking and corporate culture may not support an indefinite increase in the risk presented by more nuclear power investments. Some quasi-official projections before Fukushima that China by 2050 might have 400 or more nuclear power plants have been cut in half. Beijing’s risk calculus may reflect that China’s population would blame the Communist Party and the state for a severe nuclear accident. In a country with a patchy track record for industrial safety, said one Chinese planning expert in 2016, “The more reactors we have, the greater our liability.”

…….. If China merely replicates others’ collective past experience, it will reinforce the view that fast reactors and their fuel cycles are too risky, complex, and expensive to generate large amounts of electricity. 

May 22, 2018 Posted by | China, politics | Leave a comment

Ballot initiative could shut down Phoenix-area nuclear plant

Santa Fe New Mexican, By Faith Miller | Cronkite News, May 19, 2018  “……. If the Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona initiative appears on the ballot in November, voters will decide the plant’s future. The initiative calls for 50 percent of Arizona’s electrical energy to come from renewable sources, mostly solar and wind, by 2030. Nuclear power would be hit hardest among sources of power in Arizona, because Palo Verde — the nation’s largest power producer — could not operate at levels low enough to satisfy the initiative’s requirements.

      Supporters of the initiative, including Sandy Bahr of the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon chapter, argue that the long-term benefits outweigh the immediate costs.

“Here in Arizona, solar is a great resource that we have that we should be utilizing more of,” Bahr said. “And I think the public gets that, the voters get that, and they’re very supportive of it. That’s why the utilities are trying so hard to create confusion and to create fear and try and undermine it.”

Because generating nuclear energy produces radioactive waste and involves mining and processing uranium, a nonrenewable resource, nuclear isn’t classified as renewable.

…….“From the perspective of someone who wants clean, sustainable, renewable energy, nuclear power doesn’t cut it,” Bahr said.

Supporters of the Clean Energy initiative must get nearly 226,000 signatures by July 5 to get it on the November ballot. Backers include the Arizona Asthma Coalition and the Natural Resources Defense Council. http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/ballot-initiative-could-shut-down-phoenix-area-nuclear-plant/article_3eba46db-0ca5-5f45-8696-09ab40b0b1e6.html

May 22, 2018 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

UK Nuclear Subsidies – We Told You So – Hinkley Point C

NuClear News No.107 May 2018

Ten years ago Steve Thomas, Professor of Energy Policy at Greenwich University predicted that nuclear companies would eventually insist on receiving subsidies to build new reactors, and the government would be forced to drop its refusal to give subsidies or abandon its nuclear ambitions. Regrettably his prediction has come true. (1)

 Hitachi Chairman Hiroaki Nakanishi had a face-to-face with Prime Minister Theresa May earlier this month, and according to the Japanese media the UK government has offered to shoulder 2 trillion yen (£13.3 billion) in loans and other means to cover a huge portion of the cost of new reactors at Wylfa. Whether that will be enough to persuade Hitachi to go-ahead remains to be seen. The Company is reported to be planning to decide week ending 19th May according to the Mainichi newspaper. (2)

 Horizon was supposed to be submitting its application for Development Consent to the Planning Inspectorate by the end of March, but this has now been delayed until spring or summer. (3) Officially the application has been delayed by concerns over the plant’s impact on colonies of protected seabirds. The Company said it needs to thrash out the impact building the power station will have on colonies of sandwich, Arctic and common terns. The species are protected under the EU birds and habitats directive. Nearby Cemlyn nature reserve is home to thousands of sandwich terns, which account for about fifth of the birds’ UK population and is the biggest on the country’s west coast. Wildlife groups are concerned about the effect of noise and light from the power station’s construction, as well as a reduction in food for the birds to forage on. Land clearance for the vast site is also expected to displace potential predators, such as rats and foxes. The company says it hopes to resolve the issues and submit the Development Consent Order (DCO) application before the end of June. The delay is expected to be a bump in the road rather than major headache for Horizon, which, rather optimistically believes Wylfa could be generating electricity by the mid-2020s. (4)

Horizon might be telling the truth about the need to resolve these wildlife issues, but the delay gives the Company more time to lobby the Westminster Government for more financial support to build the reactors.

Hitachi now says it wants to slash its Horizon shareholding. The Chairman was apparently planning to ask Theresa May to take direct stake in Horizon. According to the Nikkei Asian review Hitachi expects the U.K. government to invite private British companies to participate and hopes to reduce its own stake to less than 50%.

 Hitachi has recently concluded that the risk of proceeding with the Anglesey project, at an estimated cost of more than 3 trillion yen (£20 billion), is too great to manage on its own as a private company. It plans to withdraw from the project if restructuring negotiations fall through. Such a move would have significant repercussions for nuclear power policy for both Britain and Japan. In response to Hitachi’s concerns, the British government earlier this month proposed that U.K. interests and Japanese public and private interests join with Hitachi to move Wylfa forward. The three sets of shareholders would each put 300 billion yen into the project, giving each a one-third stake. According to sources, the company and the Japanese government.

see it as too risky for Japanese interests to retain a majority shareholding and hope that British interests will acquire a controlling stake. (5)

 Number 10 remained tight-lipped over its negotiations with Hitachi, and a spokesman declined to comment on the latest talks. Hannah Martin, of Greenpeace, said the “information blackout” is “unjustifiable” because of the high costs to be paid by energy users to support the projects. “The public have a right to know what the government is planning to do with their money and why,” she said. “Major Western economies are reducing their exposure to nuclear, so why is Britain doing the exact opposite? It would make no sense to waste yet more on expensive and outdated nuclear when technologies such as offshore wind can do the same job faster and cheaper”. (6)

The Times reports that the entire £15bn-plus cost of Wylfa could land on the government’s balance sheet, even though taxpayers are expected to hold only a minority stake. The final deal with Hitachi may see taxpayers take an equity stake in Wylfa, possibly as much as 33%, alongside Hitachi and the Japanese government. Direct state exposure to the construction of a nuclear plant has faced stiff resistance from the Treasury because of fears about cost overruns and the impact on government debt. Industry insiders said a minority taxpayer stake could result in the entire liability landing on the state’s books, despite the Japanese partners, because official statisticians now take a more conservative approach to accounting for risk where the government is concerned. Any state stake in Horizon would be sold on once construction was completed. (7)

The Japanese Mainichi newspaper reported that Hitachi had received an assurance from the British government that it will guarantee loans for the construction of two reactors in Wales. But Hitachi is still pushing for the British government to take a stake in the project and guarantee electricity prices to ensure it is profitable, the Mainichi said. The cost of the Hitachi project in Wales has ballooned to 3 trillion yen (£20 billion) due to the tougher safety measures, the newspaper said. But BEIS said “We don’t recognise these reports. Nuclear power remains a crucial part of the UK’s energy future but we have always been clear that this must be delivered at the right price for consumers and taxpayers.” (8)

The Times concluded that Britain’s plans to offer financial support for Wylfa were mired in confusion amid conflicting reports of the meeting between the prime minister and Hitachi. Duncan Hawthorne, chief executive of Horizon, told The Times last year that loan guarantees would not make the plant viable and the company had been seeking direct government investment as well as a subsidy contract. Mainichi reported that the plant would cost more than £20 billion, making it even more expensive than EDF’s Hinkley Point C project. A Horizon source distanced itself from that figure. (9)

Caroline Lucas says if Theresa May has agreed to a £13.3 billion loan she’s doing it “without any transparency or scrutiny”, effectively lending out public money behind closed doors. (10) The SNP demanded the Government rule out public money on “failing nuclear projects”. Drew Hendry, their business spokesman, said: “This is yet another damning report of the UK government’s misguided nuclear obsession. Hinkley Point is already set to cost consumers a fortune because of the appalling strike price deal the UK government made with EDF. The Prime Minister must now categorically rule out any public bail out of this, or any other nuclear project and put an end to secret discussions behind closed doors.” (11)

Hannah Martin, Head of Energy at Greenpeace UK, said: “No bank, hedge fund or insurer will touch the UK’s new nuclear programme with a bargepole. So Hitachi has no option but to ask the government for a taxpayer bailout to keep their collapsing reactor programme afloat. This would leave the British public to carry much of the cost and all of the risk. Any prudent investor would laugh at this request. After the Hinkley debacle, it’s vital that the government stops trying to keep our energy policy a secret and presents any offer of a deal to Parliament before the Hitachi board meeting at the end of May. Otherwise it’s difficult to know where their generosity to the nuclear industry might end.”

Prof Stephen Thomas says Wylfa could provide a new model for UK nuclear projects. The Government needs something to demonstrate that Hinkley is the exception rather than the rule. Wylfa has 3 big advantages – support of the Japanese Government; unlike Areva and Westinghouse Hitachi-GE is not bankrupt and disgraced; and it is claimed that the ABWR is a proven technology. The project is a little bit cheaper than Hinkley but only because it’s smaller. Loan guarantees will be essential, and will reduce interest payable to banks. Hitachi is too small to own and operate a facility that is going to cost £25bn. And they don’t have the experience to operate it. The ABWR is actually quite an old reactor design. There are no other prospects for Hitachi to sell the ABWR. 4 reactors in Japan were completed in 4 to 5 years, but that’s the same for other reactors in Japan. There are 2 uncompleted reactors in Japan; and 2 reactors ordered for Taiwan but work suspended. The lifetime load factor of the 4 reactors has been very poor 47 – 71%. All have suffered long shutdowns. In 3 cases this was down to seismic issues. Two reactors had big turbine problems. Even if you take out those years when the reactors were shut performance was still poor. It’s a pre-Chernobyl; pre 9/11; pre-Fukushima design that we have a track record for. (12)

Steve Thomas’ briefing for Greenpeace on “The failings of the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) proposed for Wylfa Nuclear Power Station” is available here: https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/ABWR-briefing-final.pdf

Greenpeace has also published a briefing on “Hitachi’s nuclear safety breaches and the case against public funding for the proposed Wylfa Nuclear Power Station.” https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/hitachi-briefing-final.pdf    http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/NuClearNewsNo107.pdf

May 19, 2018 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear Subsidies – We Told You So – Moorside and Sizewell UK

NuClear News No.107 May 2018,  Moorside Seeking a Government stake in Horizon has been a key lobbying strategy for Hitacji for well over a year now, but the UK government’s refusal to make even a commitment in principle on that front has many in the UK nuclear industry worried. None more so than those invested in the success of another nuclear developer: NuGen, the company Toshiba hopes to sell to exclusive bidder Korea Electric Power Co. (Kepco). Kepco appears to be losing enthusiasm for the project in the absence of support from the UK government — especially with prospects of a reactor deal in Saudi Arabia. (13)

The state-run Korea Electric Power Corp. (KEPCO) is now saying that it will finalise its purchase of NuGen by September after analyzing its potential profits and viability. Yet in December, when KEPCO was selected as a preferred bidder by Toshiba, the company said it would finalise the deal in early 2018.The Seoul government is involved in the negotiation and is delving into the nuclear project’s profitability and potential risks, while the two companies have been discussing the detailed terms of contracts. Unlike KEPCO’s UAE project, which only involves the construction of nuclear reactors, market watchers say the Moorside project is more risky because KEPCO has to come up with financial solutions for construction and operation. The state-utility firm plans to build two of its APR-1400 reactors on the site, which would have a combined capacity of up to 3 gigawatts. (14)

Back home KEPCO is struggling with snowballing losses because of the South Korean government’s plan to shift to renewable energy from nuclear and coal power. (15)

Sizewell

Meanwhile EDF Energy appears to be going through the same process as Hitachi – demanding huge government subsidies to continue with the project and threatening to pull out if it doesn’t get them; then denying that it was threatening and starting negotiations with a government obsessed with building new reactors. EDF Energy told the Times at the start of April that it would reconsider plans for Sizewell C if it is unable to agree a viable financing model with the UK government. EDF threatened to abandon work unless it receives assurances from the government this year that a viable funding model exists. Simone Rossi, EDF Energy’s UK chief executive, said that rapid progress was needed because promised cost savings would not materialise if there was a significant delay between work on Hinkley and work on Sizewell. Mr Rossi has promised that Sizewell should be a fifth cheaper to build than Hinkley Point because EDF will be able to replicate much of the design work and will have a fully qualified workforce and supply chain ready to transfer across. However, he warned that a delay could jeopardise this. A lull of six months could be surmountable, but two years or more would be a problem. (16)

Later EDF denied it had threated to abandon work on Sizewell C and distanced itself from a report that it may pull the plug on the project unless it receives financial assurances from the Government. (17) Emily Gosden, author of the Times story tweeted “apparently EDF has ‘distanced itself’ from my story this morning… which reported what its chief executive told me on the record.”

In May Le Monde reported that EDF had launched discussions with the British government to find a new way of financing new reactors in Sizewell. (18)

 The GMB called on the government to stop dithering and get Sizewell built. It’s an absolute no brainer that Britain will need at least six new nuclear plants, it said, because the National Grid has forecast up to 35 million pure electric vehicles will be on the roads by 2050 needing an extra 30 gigawatts of power — the equivalent of 10 Hinkley Point power stations. (19)

 Dr Simon Evans of Carbon Brief tweeted in response: Energy-related press releases from GMB union are a sight to behold. They constantly repeat the same talking points, many of which are misleading or just plain wrong. Also of note: with rare exceptions, the quotes never end up in the papers. GMB union keeps saying National Grid has forecast a need for 30GW of extra power for EVs. At best, this is hopelessly misleading. We explained why last year, but that hasn’t stopped GMB. (See https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-much-power-will-uk-electricvehicles-need )

It is worth noting that Framatome (formally Areva NP, which is now owned by EDF, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) and Assystem), is working on a ‘new model’ EPR, the EPR-NM, “offering the same characteristics” as the EPR but with simplified construction and significant cost reduction – about 30%. The basic design was 30% complete by March 2016, and EDF has said that it, not the complex EPR being built at Flamanville, would be the model that replaced the French fleet from the late 2020s. (20) EDF has already said it hopes to reduce the costs of Sizewell C by 20-30%. (21)

 Since Sizewell C isn’t expected to become operational until 2031, with construction starting around 2021, (22) it seems highly unlikely that EDF would try building anything other than an EPR-NM design. The question then is whether the EPR-NM would be required to undertake a new Generic Design Assessment.

In April Caroline Lucas asked the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, whether the Design Acceptance Certificate for the European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) could be used for a re-designed EPR. Energy Minister, Richard Harrington, replied that a GDA is not a statutory requirement of the nuclear licensing regime and any site specific elements of EPR design will be assessed by the Office for Nuclear Regulation as part of a site specific safety case ahead of any construction. (23) The DAC for the European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) was issued on 13 December 2012 and is valid for a period of ten years. Renewal of the DAC is not mandated. Harrington also noted that ONR expect to complete its assessment of the EPR sitespecific safety case for Hinkley Point C in 2018. DAC renewal is not mandated and EDF has not informed Government that it plans to seek a renewal.

 It is hard to see how such big cost reductions can be achieved without some dramatic changes sufficient to require a new safety case

According to the FT the Labour party is divided over whether to back new nuclear power stations. The high cost of Hinkley has prompted questions across Westminster about whether nuclear still represents value for money. Some MPs favour the industrial benefits of building power stations, while a growing faction wants to support only renewable wind and solar energy programmes. “It’s like a wasp’s nest, the differences are really bad,” said one shadow minister. “The jury is out and personally I’m still not convinced that nuclear should be part of the mix.” Rebecca Long-Bailey, shadow business secretary, remains adamant that Labour should continue to support Wylfa, as well as Moorside. “Public investment in nuclear energy would bring huge benefits through the nuclear supply chain and energy security,” she said. Ms Long-Bailey’s position is also supported by Sue Hayman, shadow environment secretary, whose constituency is in Cumbria. Large unions, including Unite and the GMB, are also strong advocates of nuclear energy. But other senior Labour figures are arguing for a U-turn, unless the cost of new nuclear plants can be reduced sharply. One compromise under consideration could see Labour keep the commitment it made in last year’s manifesto by supporting smaller “modular” reactors. Senior people in the nuclear industry said they remained confident about Labour’s continued support for their projects, because of the strength of union backing. (24)

May 19, 2018 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Hinkley point nuclear project grinds onwards through a sea of problems

 NuClear News No.107 May 2018

EDF has detected quality deviations on certain welds at its new Flamanville-3 reactor – an EPR – the same type of reactor as the two being built at Hinkley Point. It has informed the French nuclear safety regulator ASN. Possible adjustments to the start-up timetable and costs can only be made after further checks and the licensing process by the ASN.

Flamanville-3 is currently expected to reach full power in Q4 2019 with fuel loading and first hot tests scheduled at the end of 2018. The quality deviations concern the welding of pipes on the main secondary system and are in addition to a deviation with respect to the correct application of “high-quality” requirements of the main secondary system that EDF flagged on February 22 to the ASN.

EDF has decided to carry out additional controls on the 150 welds in question and has ordered a full report into the causes and nature of the deviations. The additional controls and report will be completed by the end of May. The construction cost is currently estimated at £9.2bn. (1)

 When EDF first reported welding problems on Feb. 22, it initially said there would be no impact on safety, costs or the reactor start-up schedule. However, France’s ASN nuclear regulator warned on Feb. 28 that the substandard welding could well have an impact the start-up. Even before the welding problems emerged, ASN had warned several times the reactor’s construction schedule was tight. “Following the current checks and the licensing process by the ASN, EDF will be able to specify whether the project requires an adjustment to its timetable and its costs,” (2)

The welding revelations come just a few short weeks after Britain’s nuclear regulator raised concerns about substandard quality control checks on EDF’s supply chain for Hinkley Point (See nuclear News No.106)

25 years after French engineers began working on the EPR, they have yet to get one running. Flamanville was due to start up in 2012 at a cost of €3.3 billion. EDF now hopes to switch it on next year and says that the reactor will cost €10.5 billion, though these targets could slip further in light of the latest setback.

Flamanville has faced several other setbacks, the most serious of which was the discovery that the reactor vessel was weaker than planned because of an excess carbon content. A raft of quality control failings at the Creusot Forge plant that made the vessel were found, including falsified documents. This triggered the Office for Nuclear Regulation’s decision to review the Hinkley Point supply chain, leading to a critical report last month.

The Times said one Flamanville is quite enough: The 1,650 megawatt European pressurised reactor is a mere six years late and three times over budget. And all the more exciting for it being the prototype for an even bigger nuclear disaster: the £20 billion, 3,200MW Hinkley Point C. At least the French nuclear guinea pig is finally on its home run, due to be loaded up with nuclear fuel in the last quarter of this year. Always assuming that EDF can sort out the dodgy welding on the cooling pipes. Anyway, it’s another EDF success story, up there with the carbon spots on the steel for Flamanville’s nuclear dome, the ones that potentially weakened it. Or the lost safety records from its Creusot Forge supplier. And it does make you think. It’s bad enough Theresa May signing us up to the world’s most financially radioactive energy project, without monthly reminders of EDF’s technical ineptitude. (4)

Hannah Martin, head of energy at Greenpeace UK, said: “The reactor destined for Hinkley Point was supposed to be cooking turkeys by Christmas 2017. As yet more construction flaws are revealed at its sister plant under construction in France, it’s starting to look like the only turkey the EPR reactor design is going to cook is EDF.”

 Commenting on the news about defects in welding Stop Hinkley spokesperson Roy Pumfrey said

“The European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR) reactor proposed for Hinkley Point C is like watching a car crash in slow motion. It is the unloved, unwanted, and unbuildable child of former EDF boss Vincent de Rivas. We can still stop this before it gets even worse. Although abandoning this ill-fated project now would incur cancellation costs consumers could still save almost £1.5bn per year for 35 years from 2027 onwards. Flamanville is seven years late, one in Finland is ten years late and even two in China will be at least five years late.” (5)

Dave Toke, reader in Energy Policy at Aberdeen University says the welding problems could spell the end for Hinkley C. Treasury backed loan guarantees have been linked to a target date for commissioning of the Flamanville plant of the end of 2020. Yet the current target date of completion by the end of 2019 has been thrown in doubt by the freshly announced problems. According to the analyst Professor Steve Thomas, the rules agreed between the European Commission and the British Government stipulate that until Flamanville 3 was in commercial service, there would be a cap on the guaranteed loans effectively meaning funding would be primarily through equity. It is very difficult to see how EDF could build the plant without the Treasury loan guarantee – something like £17 billion (probably more) would be needed as a loan. EDF just won’t have the ability to raise anything like £17 billion on the bond markets. Indeed the decision to go ahead with preliminary works on the site (building a jetty and a cement works) alone, without the loan guarantee being in place, was regarded as so risky that the firm’s Finance Officer resigned in protest at the decision. But EDF will not start building the main parts of the power station until it has the necessary finance. (6)

New problems have arisen at the EPR in Finland where TVO is carting out hot tests at Olkiluoto 3. The connection line of the main pipework of the plant, the reactor cooling circuit, vibrates more than allowed. According to the Finnish regulator, STUK, the reason for the vibration is still under investigation. (7)

China has begun loading fuel at its EPR at Taishan – a sign that the long-delayed project could finally be close to completion. Fuel loading could take several months, meaning the reactor could go into full operation and be connected to the grid before the end of the year. China began building the EPR in Taishan in 2009, with the first of two units originally scheduled to be completed in 2013. (8)

Meanwhile, the Irish Parliament’s (Oireachtas) Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government decided to investigate the possible transboundary effects on Ireland of Hinkley Point C. Professor John Sweeney of the National University of Ireland at Maynooth, Professor Stephen Thomas of Greenwich University and Attracta Ui Bhroin of the Irish Environmental Network were invited to give evidence. The meeting coincided with a recent consultation, organised by the Irish Government and facilitated by Irish Councils, that allowed environmental groups and concerned members of the public to put forward their concerns to the UK Government over the transboundary effects of the proposed Somerset new nuclear site. (9)

Attracta Uí Bhroin, of the Irish Environmental Network told the Committee that her intention was not to panic people or cause unnecessary concern, but her organisation wants to ensure Irish people’s rights are upheld. Although the process for the new nuclear site at Hinkley Point, which is 250km from the coast of Ireland, began five years ago, it was only in 2016 that the news about the plans broke. Hinkley Point C was given the final investment approval by French energy giant EDF, which has a two-thirds share and which is building the plant in conjunction with a Chinese company. Speaking to TDs and senators Uí Broin pointed out that of the eight power plants the UK has planned as part of its energy expansion, “five are on the west coast of the UK, facing Ireland on the most densely populated east coast”. Some of these plants are planned in locations closer than Hinkley Point C. The potential economic impact of a nuclear leak or meltdown could be very serious, she explained.

A 2016 ESRI report considered a scenario where there was a nuclear incident, but with no radioactive contamination reaching Ireland. “Even then they estimated that impact economically could be in the order of €4 billion,” she said, explaining that an incident such as this would have serious implications for the agrifood and tourism industries in Ireland. In the event of an incident where there is a risk of contamination, she said there are no detailed plans in place to protect Irish people, the water supply, or the country’s farm animals and produce.

Uí Bhroin was joined by Professors John Sweeney and Steve Thomas, who outlined some of the specific concerns around safety assessment and treatment of waste. Sweeney was critical of the models used in risk assessments – some older models were used in calculations, for example, despite the fact that more modern ones exist. Thomas spoke about some of the parts of the plant which are being made in France and which French regulatory authorities will not a clear for use in French nuclear plants. Uí Bhroin said there was an “extraordinary level of frustration, anger and disappointment” among environmental groups at the government’s reaction to these plans. (10)

Prof Thomas added that the reputation of both Flamanville and Hinkley’s supplier “is in tatters” after it emerged in 2015 that parts of the safety-critical reactor vessel supplied to Flamanville did not meet specification, he said. The French nuclear safety regulator, ASN, ordered the company to review its quality control procedures and “it has emerged that quality control documentation had been falsified at Creusot” for several decades, he added. In April 2018, EDF Energy also announced that up to 150 welds in key parts of Flamanville did not meet the required specification. Prof Thomas added: “This has created major concerns about parts manufactured there for nuclear plants in France and elsewhere.” (11)

John Sweeney, emeritus professor of geography at Maynooth University and a climate change expert, told the Oireachtas committee on planning yesterday that estimates used by the UK to assess its impact were not credible. “Combinations of rare events do occur, as was demonstrated by Fukushima [the nuclear incident in Japan in 2011], where total atmospheric releases are now estimated to be between 5.6 and 8.1 times that of Chernobyl,” Professor Sweeney said. Meteorological data used was “inadequate”, he added, arguing they relied on wind figures for three years when 30 years was the standard period required. “It’s rather dangerous to draw conclusions from a very short period. Three No2NuclearPower nuClear news No.107, May 2018 12 years of data, even ten years of data, is insufficient to characterise the wind climate at an individual location, and any modelling based on this is highly suspect.” He claimed the UK government failed to take account of climate change in estimating extreme high and low water levels when the difference between the annual high water mark and a once in a 10,000-years high water level at the site of the plant was just 1.3 metres. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted sea levels would continue to rise for centuries, with increases of up to three metres possible, which meant the UK’s estimates were not credible, he said. He claimed the failure to acknowledge that there was a known flood risk meant there were “serious implications for the safety of spent fuel which is intended to be stored on site for up to a century” (12) http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/NuClearNewsNo107.pdf

May 19, 2018 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

The British government has offered 2 trillion yen ($18 billion) to Hitachi to built Wylfa nuclear power station

British government offers $18 billion to Hitachi’s UK nuclear project: Kyodo, Reuters Staff TOKYO (Reuters) 17 May 18 – The British government has offered 2 trillion yen ($18 billion)in financial support to a unit of Japan’s Hitachi Ltd (6501.T) to build nuclear reactors in Wales, Kyodo News reported on Thursday.

…….. The British government is offering support in loans and other ways to Hitachi unit Horizon Nuclear Power to cover a large proportion of the cost of its Wylfa Newydd project in Wales, Kyodo reported, citing a source close to the matter.

…….. Hitachi could decide as early as this week whether to go ahead, Kyodo said. It said the government’s offer was aimed at easing concerns about rising cost expectations, which have increased to 3 trillion yen.

A Hitachi spokesman declined to comment when contacted by Reuters.

The Kyodo report cited unidentified observers questioning whether the government would be able to carry out the offer, due to parliamentary opposition.

The British government played down a Japanese media report last week which said it would guarantee loans for the construction of the two reactors in Wales.

Britain is seeking new ways to fund nuclear projects after drawing criticism over a deal awarded to France’s EDF (EDF.PA) to build the UK’s first nuclear plant for 20 years, which could cost 30 billion pounds ($40 billion).

Hitachi’s Horizon plans to construct at least 5.4 gigawatts of nuclear capacity at two sites in Britain – the first at Wylfa Newydd, and the second at Oldbury-on-Severn in England…….. Reporting by Aaron Sheldrick and Kiyoshi Takenaka; additional reporting by Nina Chestney in London; editing by Christian Schmollinger, Jason Neely and Dale Hudson https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-nuclear-hitachi/british-government-offers-18-billion-to-hitachis-uk-nuclear-project-kyodo-idUSKCN1II17C

May 18, 2018 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

A New ‘Screw Nevada’ Bill Passes the House

Yucca Redux and the Nuclear Shell Game   https://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/27-27/50088-yucca-redux-and-the-nuclear-shell-game by James Heddle   , 14 May 2018 07:33

A New ‘Screw Nevada’ Bill Passes the House

On Thursday, May 10, the  U.S. House of Representatives approved the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 2018 – HR 3053 – by a vote of 206 to 179, with 94 Democrats and 85 Republicans voting ‘Nay.’

Now, what some Nevadans have dubbed, ‘The Screw Nevada Bill 2.0,’ will go to the Senate, perhaps in this Session.

According to the Las Vegas Sun, just as with the first attempt to push it as the national high-level radioactive waste repository, opposition in Nevada continues to be strong.

In a letter to House leaders, the Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce made the quite logical point that,

Nevada is ranked by the U.S. Geological Survey as the fourth most active seismic area in the United States. The potential for seismic activity in the region raises serious questions about the logic and prudence of storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Seismic activity in the region is another reason why Yucca Mountain is not a feasible or practical site for the storage of nuclear waste.

And in their own letter to the House, Las Vegas business owners made it clear that,

We stand with the many concerned citizens, small-business operators and bipartisan members of the Nevada delegation in staunch opposition to any attempt to restart the repository licensing process and will work tirelessly to ensure that radioactive waste is never stored anywhere near the world’s entertainment capital in Las Vegas.

The Shimkus Bill

Named for its author, Illinois Rep. Congressman John Shimkus, the legislation seeks to renew the licensing and funding process to re-open Yucca Mt., and authorize a so-called Centralized Interim Storage (CIS) program that would trigger massive, on-going shipments of high-level radioactive wastes on the country’s poorly-maintained network of highways, bridges and rail lines, through major population centers, for many years to come.

Grassroots nuclear safety advocacy groups have variously dubbed the plan ‘Mobil Chernobyl’ and ‘the Fukushima Freeway.’  Each of the 10,000 plus shipments would contain roughly the same amount of radioactive Cesium as was released by Chernobyl, and as much plutonium as was in the Hiroshima bomb.

To some, it may seem ironic that, as China moves ahead on its ‘One Belt, One Road’ initiative, known as the ‘New Silk Road’ – a trade and transport network across Eurasia, Africa and beyond – forces in the U.S. are hard at work to establish a network of ’new nuke roads’ all across America.

Revisiting the Sad, Silly Saga of Yucca Mountain

In Nevada, just across the California border, sits a volcanic formation called Yucca Mountain.  It’s in a region of ongoing volcanic and earthquake activity, on land long held sacred – and still claimed as tribal land according to the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley – the Western Shoshone and the Southern Paiute.  Largely composed of a porous material called volcanic tuff, the mountain is permeable to water penetration and sits in close proximity to an aquifer extensively used by regional inhabitants – both native American and white – for their drinking and agricultural water supplies.

Yucca is located about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas in what’s called the Great Basin, south of the Nevada Test and Training Range in the Nevada National Security Site, where over a hundred atmospheric and underground nuclear bomb tests were carried out for decades.  It is, in large part, already a national nuclear ‘sacrifice area.’

In the government’s search for permanent deep geological repositories in which to bury the country’s energy and weapons waste that it pledged to take possession of and responsibility for, the government’s original goal was to identify and ‘scientifically characterize’ at least two sites, one east, one west of the Great Divide.

As the process played out over the years, however, it came to be more one of politics than of science.  Of the nation’s 99 licensed, operating reactors, less than a dozen are West of the Mississippi.  The so-called ‘NIMBY’ or ‘Not In My Backyard’ syndrome kicked in big time.  Eventually just three potential sites were identified, all in the west: in Texas, Washington and Nevada – with the latter being at the time the state with the least political clout.

Thus, in 1987, came to be passed the first, now infamous “Screw Nevada” bill.

Though Nevada has no nuclear power plants of its own, its Yucca Mountain site became the sole target for waste from all the nation’s nuclear energy and weapons-producing states.  Millions of dollars were spent in an attempt to justify ‘scientifically’ a site that had actually been chosen politically.

But then, for a while at least, the political balance of power changed.  Enter Nevada Senator Harry Reid.

As an erstwhile Democratic power broker, Reid secured a pre-election promise from then-candidate Obama to shutter the Yucca project in return for electoral support.  Once in the White House, President Obama actually kept his promise.  In 2009, the project was effectively terminated: its staff scattered to other employment, its equipment sold off, its infrastructure allowed to sink into desuetude, the site effectively abandoned.  Just a big, expensive hole in the volcanic tuff, a monument to the nation’s on-going nuclear follies.

Then the political balance of power picture changed again with Senator Reid’s retirement and the GOP/Trump ascendancy.

Back in 2014 the unashamedly ‘captive regulatory agency,’ the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), had set the stage for a potential Yucca revival by releasing a long-delayed report concluding that the Department of Energy had “demonstrated compliance with NRC regulatory requirements” that would limit leakage from the repository for the long-term.

A New York Times headline of the day trumpeted, “Calls to use Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste site, now deemed safe.” Rep. Congressman John Shimkus – from the nation’s most densely nuclearized state, Illinois – exulted, “Today’s report confirms what we’ve expected all along: Nuclear waste stored under that mountain, in that desert, surrounded by federal land, will be safe and secure for at least a million years.”

The Distinguished Gentleman from Illinois then introduced H.R 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018, which passed the House today.

Close analysis of the Shimkus Bill reveals that, if passed in its present form, it will:

  – Preempt or jeopardize existing federal, state and local water and air rights, and rights to oversight, input, transparency, and other rights, including congressional oversight.

  – Remove storage and transport safety requirements needed to prevent radioactive leaks.

  – Provide inadequate funding to transport and store nuclear fuel waste.

  – Make federal reimbursement for nuclear waste storage discretionary instead of mandatory.

  – Allow ownership of nuclear fuel waste to be transferred to the Department of Energy (DOE) at existing nuclear utility sites, making them vulnerable to insufficient funding for nuclear waste storage. Current DOE nuclear waste sites have repeatedly leaked radiation into groundwater and air partly because of this.  https://sanonofresafety.org/

Once upon some indefinite future date, when Yucca is deemed ready to take all that waste from ‘interim’ sites, it is slated to be moved again, for ‘permanent isolation’ in the site’s volcanic tuff.

There are many problems with this rosy scenario, of which more below.  But chief among them, according to many critics – including former NRC Commissioner Victor Gilinsky – is that “The NRC staff did not explain, and no one in the media seems to have caught on, that its favorable conclusion reflected the Energy Department’s pie-in-the-sky design for Yucca Mountain—not the repository as it is likely to be configured.

In his 2014 article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, ‘Yucca Mountain redux,’ Gilinsky explains,

The [actual] likely repository configuration doesn’t come close to meeting NRC requirements.  The key design element in question is something the Energy Department calls a “drip shield.” This is a kind of massive, corrosion-resistant titanium alloy mailbox that is supposed to sit over each of the thousands of waste canisters in Yucca Mountain’s underground tunnels. In NRC’s definition, it is designed “to prevent seepage water from directly dripping onto the waste package outer surface.”

The name drip shield itself is a giveaway that there is a water problem at Yucca Mountain. There is indeed a lot more water, and it is flowing faster, than the Energy Department imagined when it picked the site, which is why it added the drip shield to the original design. Without the titanium shields, dripping water would corrode the waste canisters placed in the repository and release radioactive waste, and the moving underground water would carry it to the nearby environment.

Using the corrosion data in the Energy Department’s license application, one can calculate that this corrosion would take not the “million years” cited by Mr. Shimkus, but about 1,000 years.

Nonetheless, the NRC-approved DOE plan – in an apparent attempt to make up-front costs more palatable to Congress – does not call for the installation of the ‘drip shields’ until a hundred years have passed.

Gilinsky concludes, “If you look more closely into the situation, you can’t escape the conclusion that it is highly implausible that the drip shields will ever be installed. In fact, as a practical matter, it may not even be physically possible to install them.”

Pie-in-the-Underground

Will the DOE, or the US government even exist in a hundred years?  Will the know-how, institutional memory, technology, manufacturing base and funding still be available at that distant date to build the necessary infrastructure to allow robots to enter the highly radioactive, probably geologically degraded and possibly collapsed repository tunnels to perform the intricate operations required to install hypothetical ‘drip shields’ that have not as yet even been designed or fabricated?

And what deadly, irremediable leakage into the environment will by then have occurred?

Ian Zabarte, spokesperson for the Western Shoshone, calls this environmental racism.

Meanwhile, the bureaucratic, technological, budgetary and political impediments to actually restarting the project are legion, and sure to delay any real progress for years, if not decades.

Based on its record, there’s no use expecting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to act in the interest of public safety.  Gilinsky points out that,

A truly independent regulatory agency—one truly representing the public interest—would not have been silent on the low likelihood that drip shields will ever be installed and would have insisted on getting the Energy Department’s calculations on what happens if the drip shields don’t get installed. What it comes down to is this: The NRC is going along with a shell game to advance the political fortunes of the Yucca Mountain project.

CIS – A Nuclear Shell Game – Fighting ‘Fukushima Freeway’

So just imagine, if you dare, the following proposed harebrained scenario known as ‘Consolidated Interim Storage’ or CIS:

For decades to come, ultra-heavy shipments of thousands of metric tons of high-level radioactive waste will become a common daily occurrence on America’s already rickety roads, railways and collapsing bridges, headed for the Southwest.

They will pass un-announced – but probably easily identified by those who know what to look for – through our nation’s towns and densely populated urban areas, vulnerable to human error, accidents and terrorist attacks.

Their deadly radiation fields – extending for a yard in every direction – will shower train passengers and motorists, unlucky enough to share those routes and be close enough, with DNA and immune system damage.

The shipment carriers will pull into gas stations, truck stops and roadside rest areas, exposing the luckless families, children and pregnant women nearby using those same facilities.

Then, if they do manage to reach their temporary, ‘interim’ waste consolidation sites without catastrophe, they will eventually hit the road again, on their way to the mythical Yucca repository.

Local Opposition

Eighty percent of Nevada residents and elected officials strongly oppose this Yucca reboot plan.  As before, their legal and technical opposition will prevent the plan from going forward for many years.  Additionally, a new railroad line would need to be built through several mountain ranges at great expense.  Will Congress provide the funding?

But, what might be more immediately enabled, are two proposed ‘interim storage facilities’ currently seeking NRC license approval on either side of the New Mexico-Texas border.  A few politicians are promoting these sites as ‘good for the local economy,’ but public opposition is strong among those who know about the plan – including the region’s growers, dairy ranchers and especially oil men for whom the region is a fracking and drilling cash cow.

Both proposed sites are in what locals call ‘Nuclear Alley,’ just down the road from the Urenco uranium enrichment plant and the infamous Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIIP), site of the recent nuclear ‘cat litter’ explosion.

If approved as part of the Shimkus Bill’s Consolidated Interim Storage provision, these ‘parking lot’ dumps could well become the nation’s de facto permanent radioactive waste depository, in the very likely event that Yucca never gets built.

More on that in future articles, except to note that the dire implications of CIS and its ‘Fukuishima Freeway’ failed to be acknowledged in the House’s approval of HR 3053.

For more, check out the Nuclear Information and Resource Service’s Don’t Waste America page.

James Heddle is a filmmaker and writer who co-directs EON – the Ecological Options Network with Mary Beth Brangan.  Their forthcoming documentary SHUTDOWN: The California-Fukushima Connection is now in post-production.  He can be reached at  jamesmheddle@gmail.com

May 18, 2018 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »