On Friday (30 March), the Belgian government approved a new energy pact that will see the country phase out atomic power between 2022 and 2025.
Belgium’s federal government signed off on an agreement that will see the country’s seven nuclear reactors shuttered by 2025.
As part of a package of other measures, Doel and Tihange nuclear power stations will be closed and more investment will be pumped into renewable energy capacity building, particularly offshore wind farms………
Micro-cracks were discovered in reactors at both power plants in 2013 and were closed until 2015 while extensive safety checks were carried out. Environmental groups were outraged when their licences were extended until 2025, by which time they will nearly be half a century old.
Minnesota Is the Latest Frontier in a Showdown Over Nuclear Costs, Xcel Energy seeks upfront approval for nuclear repairs and maintenance. Greentech Media, EMMA FOEHRINGER MERCHANTAPRIL 02, 2018
Bills working through both chambers of the Minnesota legislature would grant the state’s largest utility, Xcel Energy, approval for nuclear facility cost recovery before the money is spent. Currently, the utility commission uses rate cases to analyze returns after the utility shells out.
Last week, the Senate version passed out of committee.
The divisions the bills have created within the state — with the utility commission, some lawmakers, clean energy advocates and the executive branch on one side, and Xcel and other members of the legislature on the other — echo wider debates about large nuclear power plants in the U.S., and who should pay for them.
South Carolina is still negotiating the fallout from the cancellation of two new reactors at its VC Summer Plant. Ratepayers there have already paid billions of dollars for a project that will never be completed. In March, Georgia regulators approved a merger of Scana Corporation and Dominion Energy, which may provide some relief for ratepayers. But the deal still needs federal approval as well as the OK of South Carolina regulators and Scana shareholders. Lawmakers in the state are also still mulling how much more ratepayers should pay for the failed project.
Meanwhile, progress at the controversial Vogtle Nuclear Plant in Georgia continues trudging along.
…….Another nuclear battle is playing out in New York, with competitive power producers such as NRG Energy and Dynegy challenging the state’s use of zero energy credits, footed by ratepayers, for nuclear power plants. The plaintiffs say the credit’s use interrupts competition. Lower courts have ruled in favor of the state in both New York and in a similar case in Illinois.While varied in their policy implications, all of these state cases have spurred debates about whether large-scale nuclear — which has proven itself to be very costly — should receive monetary support or subsidies, and in what form. In the first days of 2018 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission killed a proposal from Energy Secretary Rick Perry to buoy nuclear (and coal) power plants. Another resilience proceeding is now underway at FERC to assess what benefit, if any, these plants should receive.
A bankruptcy declaration from FirstEnergy days after the company requested a bailout for its coal and nuclear plants from the Department of Energy indicates the economics are not getting better for these plants.
While the New York and Illinois cases wend their way through the courts and FERC considers its next move, the debate over nuclear support in Minnesota may end more quickly: at Governor Mark Dayton’s desk. He has said he won’t sign the bill because it undermines the authority of the PUC.
Irish Times 29th March 2018, Irish Government and public urged to comment on Hinkley facility before April
17th. The UK’s nuclear power expansion programme, including the building
of the Hinkley Point C facility in Somerset, poses an unacceptable risk to
the island of Ireland, according to an alliance of political parties and
environmental groups.
Green Party Senator Grace O’Sullivan said the
Government “has been dozing at the wheel… and essentially failed the
Irish people because we have not had timely opportunity to be consulted”
about Hinkley, which is located less than 250km from south east Ireland.
Speaking at a press conference in Dublin, she said the UK government was
found to have failed to consult neighbouring states under the UN Espoo
Convention. After a five-year legal battle, in which Irish environmental
groups – An Taisce, Friends of the Irish Environment and the
Environmental Pillar – fought to uphold the rights of the Irish public,
“a long overdue consultation” began on February 20th. “People can
make their submissions to their relevant local authority. We strongly
encourage them to do so before April 17th.” https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/government-dozing-at-wheel-over-uk-nuclear-power-plans-1.3445065
A relic of Canada’s atom age, the NRU reactor is shutting down for good, CBC 31st March 2018
On March 31, a little-known part of Canada’s nuclear history will go dark for the last time.
The National Research Universal Reactor — or NRU — at Chalk River, Ontario will be turned off for good Saturday evening. It first came online in 1957…….
When ZEEP went online in September 1945, it was the first operational nuclear reactor outside of the United States.
A small, prototype reactor, it was built to demonstrate that uranium and heavy water could be used for nuclear fission and that plutonium could be produced and extracted from the process for military applications……
The NRU was once responsible for producing about 40 per cent of the world’s supply of the medical isotopes used for diagnosis and cancer therapy — starting with cobalt-60 and later extending to other isotopes, such as molybdenum-99. …..
More than 60 years of nuclear research at Chalk River have left behind a legacy of low-level radioactive waste that now has to be contained at a near-surface facility.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited estimates the cost of dealing with waste at all of its federally regulated sites, including Chalk River, could be as high as $7.6 billion.
More Nuclear Power Plant Shutdowns, Bailouts In The Works, WSKG, 1 Apr 18 ByReid FrazierSTATE IMPACT PENNSYLVANIA – Citing market challenges,” electric utility FirstEnergy says it will close three nuclear plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania, while at the same time asking the Department of Energy for immediate help to keep its fleet of coal and nuclear plants open.
The company, which could be near bankruptcy according to a report at cleveland.com, gave regional grid operator PJM interconnection notice that it will deactivate Beaver Valley Power Station and two other plants — Davis-Besse in Oak Harber, Ohio, and Perry Nuclear Power Plant in Perry, Ohio — by 2021.
……. Natural gas and renewable energy have been making up a larger amount of the country’s electric grid, eating into coal and nuclear power on wholesale markets. With that backdrop, FirstEnergy is also asking the Department of Energy to issue an immediate emergency order to PJM Interconnection, the grid operator for mid-Atlantic states, to provide “just and reasonable” compensation to its fleet of aging coal and nuclear power plants in order to keep them open.
“Nuclear and coal-fired generators in PJM have been closing at a rapid rate — putting PJM’s system resiliency at risk — and many more closures have been announced,” the company said, in a letter to Energy Secretary Rick Perry. “PJM has demonstrated little urgency to remedy this problem any time soon — so immediate action by the Secretary is needed to alleviate the present emergency.
…..The order would be similar to one that Perry’s own Department of Energy proposed last year, which would have made ratepayers pay more for energy produced at coal and nuclear plants. In January, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rejected the proposal.
Environmental groups were swift to label the plan a “bailout” for the coal industry.
“If Rick Perry and Trump Administration take the bait and actually issue this ill-advised and illegal emergency order, that means they’re happy to let energy bills and pollution skyrocket, just to bail out a handful of rich coal and nuclear executives,” said Mary Anne Hitt, Director of Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign, in a statement.
The oil and gas industry was no less harsh in its criticism……..
In addition to looking for federal assistance, FirstEnergy is asking states for help, too.
In 1976, an agreement between the Soviet Union and Cuba was signed on the construction of two VVER-440/318 type reactors with a capacity of 440 MW each. The power plant was slated to be located in the southern part of Cienfuegos province, near the township of Juragua.
However, the plans for the completion of construction were thwarted due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the destruction of economic ties between Cuba and the new Russia. Cuba did not have the know-how nor the financial means to unilaterally terminate the construction of the nuclear power plant.
They mention Burson-Marsteller but avoid mentioning WPP LLC (Its parent company) who are behind the scenes covering up SCL (Cambridge Analytica) election voting scandals, The BP Gulf Oil Disaster, The Fukushima nuclear disaster etc etc. A great bit of investigative Journalism by Christine Maguire here;
“…Previously, the small firm didn’t have a record of dealing with governments, but has ties to Trump. President Jacob Daniels was chief of staff at Trump’s Michigan campaign and owner Robert Stryk is a Republican operative who represented former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.
The list of US firms on the Saudi payroll is extensive. Other companies include The Harbour Group, Burson-Marsteller, Hill & Knowlton, King & Spalding, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP, Fleishman-Hillard Inc, Hogan & Hartson. The FT reported in September the kingdom’s information ministry was seeking to set up ‘hubs’ in Europe and Asia “to promote the changing face of KSA to the rest of the world and to improve international perception of the kingdom.”
Despite the best efforts of the multitude of PR firms, Saudi Arabia’s attempts to completely rebrand have fallen short. Bin Salman’s war in Yemen and the subsequent blockade on aid remains a sore point. Then there’s his November crackdown on corruption, which saw hundreds of businessmen and members of the royal family imprisoned in a luxury hotel where accusations of torture soon emerged.
The kingdom’s much-touted reform when it comes to women is the best PR for the country. However, with multiplereports that bin Salman has imprisoned his own mother to prevent her from influencing his father, not to mention the other obstacles imposed on the women of Saudi Arabia, the crown prince has a long way to go before he can truly be considered any sort of feminist, as Amnesty International noted on Thursday….”
May 2011 (Post Fukushima)
“…Crisis management may, in its turn, mitigate the cost and impact of disasters, even those that are the product of mismanagement. Anterooms to the executive suite are suddenly crowded with advisers eager to point out that BP’s bill would have been lower if it had fostered better political connections before, and communicated and lobbied differently after, the Gulf of Mexico catastrophe. ...”
Please note that the extensive articles posted on this blog on this companies connection to industrial disaster crisis management for governments and corporations, that mentioned WPP LLC complicity to the Fukushima nuclear disaster are not accessible as the new Google search algorythm (since July 2017) seems to block much of the content posted on this (and other websites, blogs etc) blog (Shaun aka arclight2011). Some evidence for that here;
Leaked Memo: EPA Shows Workers How To Downplay Climate Change
Point 5: Suggest that humans are only responsible “in some manner.”, HuffPost, By Alexander C. Kaufman , 30 Mar 18The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday evening sent employees a list of eight approved talking points on climate change from its Office of Public Affairs ― guidelines that promote a message of uncertainty about climate science and gloss over proposed cuts to key adaptation programs.
An internal email obtained by HuffPost ― forwarded to employees by Joel Scheraga, a career staffer who served under President Barack Obama ― directs communications directors and regional office public affairs directors to note that the EPA “promotes science that helps inform states, municipalities and tribes on how to plan for and respond to extreme events and environmental emergencies” and “works with state, local, and tribal government to improve infrastructure to protect against the consequences of climate change and natural disasters.”
But beyond those benign statements acknowledging the threats climate change poses are talking points boiled down from the sort of climate misinformation EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has long trumpeted.
“Human activity impacts our changing climate in some manner,” one point reads. “The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue.”
The other states: “While there has been extensive research and a host of published reports on climate change, clear gaps remain including our understanding of the role of human activity and what we can do about it.”
The email was sent under the subject line: “Consistent Messages on Climate Adaptation.” ………
The delivery of the talking points comes a week after Pruitt announced plans to restrict the agency’s use of science in writing environmental rules, barring the use of research unless the raw data can be made public for other scientists and industry to scrutinize. That directive would disqualify huge amounts of public health research conducted on the condition that subjects’ personal information will remain private. Two former top EPA officials called the move an “attack on science” in a New York Times op-ed published Monday.
Last year, the EPA reassigned the four staffers in the policy office who worked on climate adaptation, shuttered its program on climate adaptation and proposed eliminating funding for programs that deal with rising seas and warming temperatures.
Pruitt personally oversaw efforts to scrub climate change from EPA websites, and staunchly defended President Donald Trump’s decision last June to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord. In October, Pruitt proposed repealing the Clean Power Plan, one of the only major federal policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The agency had also suggested zeroing out funding for most of its major climate and regional science grant programs, only to see Congress reject most of the cuts in the budget bill passed last week.
The assertions made in the new EPA talking points are not rooted in science. Ninety-seven percent of peer-reviewed research agrees with the conclusion that emissions from burning fossil fuels, deforestation and industrial farming are enshrouding the planet in heat-trapping gases, and are the primary causes of rising planetary temperatures. A research review published in November 2016 found significant flaws in the methodologies, assumptions or analyses used by the 3 percent of scientists who concluded otherwise.
As the nuclear option looks less and less sensible, it becomes harder to explain Whitehall’s enthusiasm. Might it be to do with the military? Guardian, Andy Stirling and Phil Johnstone, 29 Mar 18,
The depth of this Whitehall bias creates a challenging environment for reasoned debate over British energy policy. To many, it seems scarcely believable that UK plans are so massively out of sync with current trends. The sheer weight of UK nuclear incumbency has successfully marginalised the entirely reasonable understanding that – like many technologies before it – nuclear power is simply going obsolete.
With direct reasons for the UK’s eccentric national position still unstated, we should pay attention to body language. Here, clues may be found in the work of the National Audit Office (NAO). Its 2017 report of 2017 points out serious flaws in the economic case for new nuclear – highlighting “unquantified”, “strategic” reasons why the UK still prioritises new nuclear despite the setbacks and increasingly attractive alternatives. Yet the NAO remains uncharacteristically unclear as to what these reasons might be.
An earlier NAO report may shed more light. Their 2008 costing of military nuclear activities states: “One assumption of the future deterrent programme is that the United Kingdom submarine industry will be sustainable and that the costs of supporting it will not fall directly on the future deterrent programme.” If the costs of keeping the national nuclear submarine industry in business must fall elsewhere, what could that other budget be?
So why does the UK debate on these issues remain so muted? It is now beyond serious dispute that nuclear power has been overtaken by the extraordinary pace of progress in renewables. But – for those so minded – the military case for nuclear power remains. In a democracy, it might be expected that these arguments at least be tested in public. So, the real irrationality is that an entire policy arena should so comprehensively fail to debate such crucial issues. In the end, all technologies become obsolete. If we are not honest about UK civil nuclear policy, the danger is that British democracy may go the same way.
FirstEnergy seeks emergency lifeline for U.S. nuclear, coal plants,Scott DiSavino, Valerie Volcovici, MARCH 30, 2018 , NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. power company FirstEnergy Corp (FE.N) urged the federal government on Thursday to evoke little-used emergency powers to help it keep several struggling nuclear and coal-fired power plants open, a move critics blasted as an attempt at a corporate bailout.
FirstEnergy’s FirstEnergy Solutions unit called on U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry to use the emergency powers to order PJM Interconnection, the regional power grid operator, to negotiate a contract that would compensate owners of coal and nuclear plants for the benefits such as reliability and jobs those units provide.
On Wednesday, the company said it would shut several nuclear plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania in the next three years without some kind of relief.
Romandie 29th March 2018, Orano, a company resulting from the restructuring of giant Areva and refocused on the nuclear fuel cycle, has slightly widened its loss during
the year 2017, she said Thursday, in a context of nuclear market that remains difficult. The group’s net loss widened 4.5% to 252 million euros
compared to last year, according to a statement. EBITDA was down 29.3% to 946 million euros, mainly due to the impact of reduced volumes sold. Sales
reached € 3.9 billion, down 10.8%. These results, “in line with expectations” according to the text. https://www.romandie.com/news/903937.rom
Utility Week 28th March 2018, Half nuclear safety team recruited for post-Brexit Euratom role. The
government has recruited just over half of the staff it will need to police
the UK’s nuclear safeguarding regime once the UK leaves Euratom. The
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [BEIS] department published its
first quarterly update on the UK’s withdrawal from the EU umbrella nuclear. https://utilityweek.co.uk/half-nuclear-safety-team-recruited-post-brexit-euratom-role/
Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG), 29 Mar 18, BANNG despairs at the lack of mention of potentially serious problems atBradwell B cheerleading event hosted by Maldon District Council.
Reports in the local press of Maldon District Council playing host to the recent
annual meeting of the New Nuclear Local Authority Group (NNLAG) have been
met with amazement by the Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG).
The location was chosen because of the proposals for a new nuclear power
station and the meeting included a visit to the proposed Bradwell B site.
Stephen Speed of the Civil Nuclear and Resilience Directorate at the
Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and John
Devine from the Department for International Trade attended the meeting.
‘Not a whisper of the environmental problems at this utterly quite
unacceptable site is contained in the media reports – but they do talk of
the huge potential envisioned for the region from a new nuclear power
station. It is as if gold dust is being rained down on innocent citizens
and wildlife and landscape.
But it is gold dust that could quickly turn to
radioactive rain, polluted air, contaminated land and radioactive
discharges into the Blackwater estuary’, said BANNG’s Chair, Professor
Andy Blowers. ‘No word is spoken that this massive engine of radioactive
risk with its inevitable cargo of spent fuel and dangerous radioactive
wastes will be left on the site for way over a century.
And what will the territory be like then – if it exists at all? ‘No mention is made of the
fact that the site is only designated until 2025. Beyond that there is no
site at Bradwell. The site does not exist. So, to overcome this, the
Government is busily undertaking a deceptive consultation on siting
criteria, re-running the same ideas of a decade ago when Bradwell was
deemed a potentially suitable site for new nuclear development that could
be operational by 2025 – of course, it will not be.
If Bradwell was a poor site then, it is an impossible one now. And the case for nuclear
energy has, in the meantime, all but disappeared. By the time the Chinese
could build their reactors at Bradwell, a new nuclear power station will be
as dead as a dodo.
‘It’s scandalous that BEIS which is running the
consultation should be supporting this latest jamboree. It gives
credibility to the project, suggesting it is a foregone conclusion. But it
is not and the Government should insist it is neutral as to whether the
site should be designated. ‘BANNG and its supporters feel badly let down
by the biased approach being taken. Essex County and Maldon District
Councils appear to have totally ignored the fact that Colchester Borough
and West Mersea Town Councils do not support the new power station.
The environmental, public health, security and safety issues and the
indefinite, long-term storage on-site of radioactive wastes are not
mentioned – yet the public is overwhelmingly opposed to the project on
these grounds.’ BANNG has set out the case against the project in its
response to the consultation on siting criteria (see BANNG Paper 34 at banng.info) and will shortly be meeting with the developers, EDF and China
General Nuclear Power Corporation. https://www.banng.info/category/news/
Is China losing interest in nuclear power? China Dialogue Feng Hao 19.03.2018 Slowing demand for electricity and competition from renewables have halted new reactor approvals.Globally, the outlook for new, large nuclear reactors is gloomy, according to the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) World Energy Outlook. A lot of countries have backed away from nuclear power in recent years due to concerns over public safety, cost and the complex challenge of getting plants built.
This year, five reactors are expected to come online in China, with the IEA predicting that by 2030 the country will overtake the United States as the world’s biggest generator of nuclear power.
Pushing nuclear
Increasingly, China’s decision to move ahead with new nuclear seems at odds with other countries that are abandoning the technology in favour of other low carbon options, such as wind and solar.
Xu Jiangfeng is a researcher at the Planning Research Centre of the China National Offshore Oil Corporation’s Research Institute. He told chinadialogue that the government’s concern with energy security has resulted in a diverse mix of energy resources and technologies being pursued, including nuclear……….
Approvals freeze
Policymakers may cite various strategic reasons for backing nuclear power but there is a question mark hanging over the sector’s future growth.
China has 20 gigawatts of nuclear power capacity under construction but plans for additional capacity are being delayed. A 2020 target of 58 gigawatts of installed nuclear capacity now looks out of reach.
The National Energy Administration did not approve any new nuclear plants between 2016 and 2017. In 2017, only three new reactors started operating.
Reasons for the shift, according to Shi, include mixed attitudes towards new nuclear power within government, and the over-supply that’s affecting China’s power generation sector.
As China’s economic growth has eased, so too has the growth in electricity demand. In 2015, electricity consumption rose just 0.5%, the lowest in 40 years.
“Work out supply and demand and you can see that the market is unable to absorb any more nuclear power,” Kang Junjie, chief engineer with Dongdian Wanwei Technology (Beijing) told chinadialogue.
This leaves little room for expansion of electricity generation, meaning fierce competition between nuclear, solar, wind and hydropower. Globally, solar and wind are replacing nuclear power as the first choice for new power generation. This is true in China, too.
Cost is a key factor: the earlier nuclear power plants are now in the mid-to-late stages of their lifecycle, with operational and maintenance costs rising, according to Kang Junjie. Meanwhile, renewables are in the ascendant, with costs continuing to fall.
John Bolton’s Radical Views on North Korea, The president’s new national-security adviser doesn’t seem to think the current strategy is likely to work.The Atlantic, Joshua Roberts / Reuters URI FRIEDMAN, MAR 23, 2018, The Trump administration’s plan for dealing with North Korea’s nuclear-weapons program currently consists of two main components: an international campaign of economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure against the Kim regime, plus direct nuclear talks this spring between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un. The president’s new national-security adviser, John Bolton, doesn’t seem to believe that either of these approaches is likely to work.
Bolton is instead one of the most prominent proponents of a radical idea, which some hardline U.S. officials in Congress and the White House have refused to rule out but have not recommended with Bolton-like conviction: striking North Korea now, and risking the most destructive war in living memory, to prevent it from threatening the United States with nuclear weapons later.
……….. Once ensconced in his West Wing office, Bolton could surprise everyone and become a convert to a North Korea policy of pressure and engagement. But Bolton’s firm belief in the purifying power of regime change, his confidence in the efficacy of war and distrust of measures short of war, suggest he’s more likely to steer the Trump administration in an even more hardline direction. And that doesn’t just apply to North Korea. Bolton has asserted that Iran “is nearly as imminent” a threat because the Obama administration’s 2015 nuclear deal has given the Iranians access to money to purchase nuclear hardware from North Korea. What’s at stake in North Korea and Iran, he claims, is nothing less than whether nuclear weapons become “commonplace” throughout the world. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/03/john-bolton-north-korea/556370/
