South Korea’s experiment in deliberative democracy will impact President Moon Jae-in’s nuclear phase-out policy. The Diplomat, By Se Young Jang, October 26, 2017……….The current controversy over the Shin Kori is only the beginning of South Korea’s long journey toward achieving a social consensus on its energy policy. The country is still divided on how to plan and prepare for its energy future. Some experts warn that Moon’s nuclear phase-out policy could lead to the sharp rise of electricity bills, a potential energy shortage, and the downturn of South Korea’s nuclear export capacity. They also point out that increasing the share of LNG in South Korea’s energy mix would create another problem, while renewable energy technology is still in a rudimentary stage. In contrast, supporters for Moon’s phase-out policy assert that safety and environmental concerns should be given first priority, rather than economic gains, and argue that less dangerous LNG could be used as a bridge energy source until renewables become more competitive. Even though nuclear safety measures would be sufficiently advanced, critics argue that the impact of any nuclear accident caused by human mistakes or misjudgment would be far more critical than accidents involving other sources of electricity generation.
On the one hand, the key schism here has been created by the lack of transparency in planning and implementing nuclear energy policy, which has been heavily dominated by key stakeholders including the central government, KHNP, nuclear academia, and business for several decades. The cover-up of a station blackout incident at the Kori nuclear power plant and the falsification of safety documents for nuclear power plant components are only a few examples among many. Although the knowledge and opinion of experts on nuclear technology should be respected in any case, it is notable that today’s conflicts on South Korea’s nuclear energy future are deeply rooted in the public’s growing distrust of the expert community, which failed to assure the public of their expertise in successfully preventing and controlling a potential nuclear accident…….
The deliberative polling with regard to the resumption of construction on the Shin Kori 5 and 6 reactors had its own limits, such as insufficient time assigned for deliberation and a lack of consideration for the voices of local residents around the plant. Despite these limits, this experiment in deliberative democracy is expected to serve as an important precedent for the new administration’s work on peacefully resolving or managing conflicts over other highly divisive issues, like the storage of spent nuclear fuel. Both pro- and anti-nuclear energy advocates, in addition to the Moon administration, now face a new task: how to effectively inform and persuade the public in this era of deliberative democracy. Politics is an art of persuasion, after all.
Business Green 25th Oct 2017, The government’s “outdated” ban on developing new onshore wind farms on
mainland Britain is blocking access to the cheapest available form of new
electricity generation, and having a negative impacts on bills, climate
change targets, and businesses.
“NO BAILOUT!” BACKLASH BUILDS: 10,000+ COMMENTS AGAINST NUCLEAR, COAL HANDOUTS TO BE DELIVERED TO FERC https://www.nirs.org/press/no-bailout-backlash-builds-10000-comments-nuclear-coal-handouts-delivered-ferc/Signers Oppose Crowding Out Renewables With “Old, Unsafe and Dying” Energy WASHINGTON, D.C.///October 11, 2017///More than 10,000 comments were submitted today for the record at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in opposition to Trump Administration plans for the Commission to enact massive bailouts of the coal and nuclear industry at the expense of renewable energy and with the added downside of higher bills for consumers. The comments were delivered at 9 a.m. shortly after an 8:45 a.m. protest organized by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) outside the main entrance of FERC at 888 First St NE, Washington, D.C.
NIRS noted that the stakes for wind, solar, and the pocketbooks of U.S. ratepayers is very high. A November 2016 report by NIRS concluded that a federal bailout for nuclear alone could add up to $280 billion by 2030. When a major nuclear reactor project in South Carolina failed this year, ratepayers were left holding the bag for $9 billion or more—even though they will never see a single electron of electricity for their steep investment.
NIRS Executive Director Tim Judson said: “Survey after survey shows that Americans want more clean and safe renewable energy and there is very little support for perpetuating the old, unsafe and dying coal and nuclear industries. To artificially prop up these dirty energy industries and then to force consumers to pay the bill to enrich these already astonishingly profitable companies would have to rank as one of the most anti-environment and anti-consumer steps of the last 50 years.”
Most of the 10,000 individuals’ public comments to FERC submitted by NIRS read as follows:
“Call off your plans to promote coal and nuclear power, and commit to a transition to 100% clean, efficient, renewable energy. Nuclear and coal are two of the dirtiest, most polluting, dangerous, and uneconomical energy sources in the world.”
“If you really want to revive our economy, create jobs, revitalize local communities, and boost small businesses—then clean energy is the only way to go. Our green energy economy can keep the lights on and create millions more jobs than dirty energy could ever provide. Solar and wind are already creating twice as many jobs as coal and nuclear combined—that is ten times as many for the amount of energy generated, and at lower cost.”
“Renewable energy is now providing more electricity than nuclear power. Wind and solar are growing by leaps and bounds, are already cheaper than coal and nuclear, and will soon be the cheapest sources of power available.”
Last winter, and to the delight of utility executives, a bipartisan majority in the Illinois State Legislature offered them a generous gift they had long sought: a $16.4 billion bailout to keep a pair of nuclear plants in operation.
The executives had lobbied hard for this, warning of the loss of 4,200 jobs and carbon-free electricity if the money-losing Clinton and Quad Cities nuclear plants closed. The two plants, owned by Chicago-based Exelon Corporation, were in jeopardy of closing because they were losing a combined $100 million a year due to the increasing availability of cheap natural gas and renewables.
With less than an hour remaining in the legislative session, the state legislature passed the Future Energy Jobs Act, a multi-billion-dollar bailout that provides taxpayer subsidies to keep the nuclear plants operating for at least another 10 years. The cost of power for Chicago-area ratepayers has increased 16 percent since May due to higher capacity charges coupled with the nuclear subsidies. Power rates will go up at least an additional 5 percent next May based on capacity charges that have already been set. For consumers in a typical suburban Chicago household, the increases will boost their annual electricity bill by at least $140.
The ripple effects from the bailout may well lead to future increases on top of the new surcharges. Subsidizing the two nuclear plants has the unintended consequence of potentially harming the owners of unsubsidized, competing power plants. The PJM Interconnection, an organization that sets the rules for wholesale power markets, is contemplating changes that would compensate the owners of natural gas and coal plants. Simply put, households and businesses in Illinois could be paying twice to keep the same nuclear plants open.
What has yet to be determined is how much electricity bills will rise as a result of the bailout. They’re already on the upswing due to earlier changes PJM made to reward nuclear plant operators and owners of other “base-load” plants that run most of the time for their reliability during periods of intense heat or cold.
And the same basic story applies at a broader level. Nuclear subsidies are expected to raise the electricity bills of New Yorkers by $7.6 billion over 12 years, thanks to the bailout of three nuclear plants in upstate New York. The New York State Legislature approved the bailout on a promise to save 2,600 jobs. The Exelon Corporation stands to benefit the most from the bailout. The company owns two of the plants and, since the bailout last year, purchased a third plant. Other states considering bailouts of nuclear plants are Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Connecticut.
Now, on top of that, Energy Secretary Rick Perry recently called on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to come up with a new pricing system to reward power plants that help ensure reliability by storing months’ worth of fuel on site. This is an attempt to help financially-distressed coal and nuclear plants nationwide.
There was a time not too long ago when market competition, one of the most basic cost-control methods, was a driving force in the electricity market, and everyone benefitted from it. History clearly shows that market competition lowers costs, boosts performance, and spurs innovation. In the end, consumers get reliable power at competitive prices.
What we don’t need, and can’t afford, is another round of misguided nuclear bailouts that saddle households and businesses with higher electricity bills. If greater use were made of low-carbon natural gas and renewables, and if more failing nuclear plants were closed, the country and economy would be better off. As it is now, in a quest to shield some utilities from the marketplace, more nuclear plants will receive taxpayer subsidies, the growth of more competitive power, along with more jobs, may be slowed. And millions more will be wasted to perpetuate a cycle that not only abuses consumers but promotes what is at best a dubious energy policy.
Mark J. Perry (@Mark_J_Perry) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan’s Flint campus.
In what has been interpreted by some as an attack on Donald Trump, actor makes remarks in a speech at the White House, Guardian, 24 Oct 17, The actor Leonardo DiCaprio has said he thinks that those who don’t believe in climate change should not hold public office.
Speaking at the White House ahead of a screening of his new documentary, Before the Flood, DiCaprio said such rejection indicated an inability to engage with the rational world.
“If you don’t believe in climate change, you don’t believe in facts, and science, and empirical truths,” he said.
“And, in my humble opinion, [you] should not be allowed to hold public office.”
The words were interpreted as a slight against presidential candidate Donald Trump, who has frequently tweeted his scepticism – despite denying he had made such claims in last week’s presidential debate……Before the Flood premiered in September at the Toronto film festival, where DiCaprio told the audience: “We cannot afford, at this critical moment in time, to have leaders in office that do not believe in the modern science of climate change.” https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/oct/04/leonardo-dicaprio-climate-change-donald-trump-before-the-flood-documentary
New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern signs coalition deal, names Winston Peters Deputy PM, ABC News 24 Oct 17, New Zealand’s incoming Government is hoping to make the nation greener by planting 100 million trees each year, ensuring the electricity grid runs entirely from renewable energy, and spending more money on cycle ways and rail transport.
Key points:
Incoming prime minister Jacinda Ardern signs coalition deal with NZ First and the Greens Party
Ms Ardern says the country aims to generate 100 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2035
She also plans to raise the minimum wage by 27 per cent
Prime minister-elect Jacinda Ardern and NZ First Leader Winston Peters — who will serve as deputy prime minster and foreign affairs minister in the new Government — signed the coalition agreement on Tuesday and outlined their priorities……
Ardern aiming for 100 per cent renewable energy
Ms Ardern’s plan is for New Zealand to reduce its net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by the year 2050.
Some of the targets will require only incremental changes.
New Zealand already generates about 85 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources including hydroelectric, geothermal and wind.
Ms Ardern plans to increase that to 100 per cent by 2035, in part by investigating whether solar panels can be used atop schools.
She said the country would need to double the amount of trees it plants each year, a goal she said was “absolutely achievable” by using land that was marginal for farming animals.
Ex-energy regulators denounce Trump bid to boost coal, By MATTHEW DALY, WASHINGTON (AP), 24 Oct 17 — Eight former federal energy regulators — including five former commission chairs — oppose a Trump administration plan to bolster nuclear and coal-fired power plants, arguing it would raise prices and disrupt electricity markets.The former officials, who served under presidents from both parties, call the plan “a significant step backward.”
The plan by Energy Secretary Rick Perry would reward nuclear and coal-fired power plants for adding reliability to the nation’s power grid. Perry says the plan is needed to help prevent widespread outages such as those caused by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Mari
The plan aims to reverse a steady tide of retirements of coal and nuclear plants, which have lost market share as natural gas and renewable energy flourish. President Donald Trump has vowed to revive the struggling coal industry and expressed strong support for nuclear power, while casting a skeptical eye toward renewable energy such as wind and solar power.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is considering the plan and could decide by mid-December.
A letter signed by eight former energy commission members said “subsidizing resources” such as coal and nuclear plants “so they do not retire would fundamentally distort markets … and inevitably raise prices to customers.”
The plan could backfire as investors lose confidence in energy markets, the former officials said. “This loss of faith in markets would thereby undermine reliability,” they wrote.
The letter was signed by officials who served under every president since Ronald Reagan, including former FERC chairs Elizabeth Moler, James Hoecker, Pat Wood III, Joseph Kelliher and Jon Wellinghoff. Moler, Hoecker and Wellinghoff are Democrats, while Wood and Kelliher are Republicans.
The American Public Power Association also urged FERC to reject the plan, saying in a statement Monday it would “impose significant costs on customers without any justification.”…..https://www.apnews.com/9c2b530d60bd4b8fac4630ab05c0c614
Designs for ‘mini’ nuclear power plants proposed by Rolls-Royce led group set to be given go-ahead, Telegraph Alan Tovey 22 OCTOBER 2017
An important report assessing the viability of new “mini” nuclear power plants for the UK to be published this week is expected to give the green light to develop designs proposed by a British consortium led by Rolls-Royce.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is set to issue a study which formally ends a competition between different types of low-carbon power generation to assess which should be supported.
Industry sources say a concurrent Techno-Economic Assessment for the government by EY concludes that designs for small nuclear reactors (SMRs) from the Rolls consortium are the more likely to succeed.
Trump Plan for Coal, Nuclear Power Draws Fire From Environmental, Oil Groups
Critics from factions often at odds are calling Trump administration’s proposal a bailout for struggling power plants, By Timothy Puko Oct. 22, 2017 WASHINGTON—A Trump administration proposal aimed at shoring up coal-fired and nuclear power plants across the nation has generated opposition from an array of energy and consumer interests, including some who are often at odds on energy policy.
EPA’s climate change website reappears, missing the word ‘climate’, Mashable, BY ANDREW FREEDMAN, On April 28, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) abruptly took down its long-standing treasure trove of online climate change resources, and put up a message stating that they were being updated to reflect the new priorities of the Trump administration.
It’s becoming more and more clear that one of those priorities is to downplay the threat of climate change. And one way way to do that is to ignore it altogether.
To that end, on Friday, a group that monitors federal websites for changes in climate change content reported that the some of the climate websites taken down in April have returned to the EPA’s site, with all references to climate change removed.
According to the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative’s website monitoring group (EDGI), an EPA website that previously offered climate and energy resources for state, local, and tribal governments has been stripped of its references and links to climate science and policy. Prior to April 28, the site had contained programs and tools to assist these government entities in becoming more energy efficient, using more renewable energy, and developing climate change policies.
Instead, that main site is now a page on “energy resources,” including a “Clean Energy Finance Tool,” Energy Information Administration state reports, newsletters, and other resources with links to previously existing EPA climate sites removed as well. The new webpage, which went online in late July, but was just analyzed in detail on Friday, omits about 15 mentions of the word “climate” from the main page for local governments.
“Large portions of climate resources that were formerly found on the previous website have not been returned, and thus have ultimately been removed from the current EPA website,” the EDGI web monitoring group stated.
he EPA’s voluminous climate change website had previously been maintained under both Republican and Democratic administrations dating back at least to the first Bush administration, and it had served as a valuable tool for teachers and students, researchers, and government officials looking for data and advice on climate resilience efforts.
However, the site has become another casualty of an administration that appears hellbent on erasing as much climate science and climate policy from the books as possible.
Since becoming EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt has pursued an aggressive agenda of dismantling the Obama administration’s climate change regulations, culminating in his action on Oct. 10 to withdraw the Clean Power Plan, which would limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
Pruitt has said he doesn’t believe that science shows greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels are the main cause of global warming, even though scientific evidence demonstrates exactly that link.
As talks of military confrontation between the US and North Korea continue to escalate, Today Show host Matt Lauer raised an incredible question: What if White House officials really did have to physically stop President Donald Trump from starting a nuclear war?
As ridiculous as the idea may seem, there have been reports circulating in which WH aides suggest that Chief of Staff John Kelly and Secretary of Defense James Mattis may have formulated a plot to physically apprehend Trump before he reaches the nuclear football.
These reports inspired Lauer to ask Brennan the following:
“I feel weird asking you this, but you’ve read the same stories I’ve read. You know the key players around the president in Mattis, Mcmaster and John Kelly. Stories are going around out there that if the president inches closer to some kind of a nuclear confrontation with North Korea, that those guys are going to do something. They’re going to lock him in a room. They’re going to tackle him. You’re smiling. But these are the stories that are out there. And they will prevent him from carrying out any action that would cause that. Is that all nonsense?”
Despite the preposterous, slapstick image that Lauer’s question conjures up — Kelly or Mattis leaping like an NFL safety at Trump while he’s mid-nuclear launch — the always professional Brennan calmly clarified that the president alone has “unilateral authority” on military action. The former CIA director said Mattis’ options for protest include trying to talk the president out of it or tendering his resignation — the possibility of tackling Trump was not a listed option, though.
When asked whether or not he would follow unethical orders from his authorities, Brennan said that in certain cases — such as a command to bring back waterboarding — he would choose getting fired over following directives.
As for the Mattis, Kelly, and H.R. McMaster, Brennan commended all of them, saying, “They’re patriots… They understand the gravity of this situation, and I don’t think Trump does.”
Patricia Zengerle WASHINGTON (Reuters) 21 Oct 17, – The U.S. House of Representatives will vote next week on new sanctions on Iran’s ballistic missile program and on Lebanon’s Iran-backed Hezbollah militia, senior House Republicans said on Friday, seeking to take a tough line against Iran without immediately moving to undermine the international nuclear deal.
President Donald Trump defied both allies and adversaries on Oct. 13 by refusing to certify that Iran is complying with an international agreement on its nuclear program, and threatened that he might ultimately terminate the accord.
That threw the fate of the agreement between Iran, the United States and other world powers into the hands of Congress, by opening a 60-day window in which Congress could reimpose, or
“snap back,” sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program that were lifted under the agreement.
However, many of Trump’s fellow Republicans – who all opposed the deal reached under former Democratic President Barack Obama – have said they see no immediate need to do so.
Proposed resumption of nuclear reactors to delay Moon’s new energy policy http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2017/10/20/0301000000AEN20171020004651315.htmlSEOUL, Oct. 20 (Yonhap) — President Moon Jae-in was forced to push back the start of his new nuclear-free energy policy Friday after a public debate commission recommended resuming the construction of two unfinished nuclear reactors he earlier promised to scrap.
The resumption of the construction, however, may have limited effect on the president’s energy policy, which seeks to ultimately build a nuclear energy-free nation.
The commission said 59.5 percent of 471 citizens and experts who took part in the debate voted in favor of completing the Shin Kori-5 and Shin Kori-6 reactors, while 40.5 percent sided with the president to remove the unfinished reactors for good.
The presidential office Cheong Wa Dae said it respects the commission’s recommendation, adding it will soon take necessary measures to resume the construction of the two nuclear reactors.
Such a swift response from Cheong Wa Dae comes after the president earlier said he would respect the outcome of the debate, noting it would mark the start of what he called “deliberative democracy.”
“The process of reaching a social consensus requires a lot of time and money. But I believe it is a valuable process, considering the social cost we must bear when such decisions are made unilaterally,” the president said earlier.
Scrapping the two new nuclear reactors was a key election pledge of Moon.
Despite the inevitable delay in the start of Moon’s new energy policy, the outcome of the monthslong debate on the fate of the two new nuclear reactors will likely have little or no effect on the president’s ongoing plan to build a nation free of nuclear energy.
The president has noted his new energy policy did not seek to immediately shut down nuclear reactors that are currently in operation, but to do so when they run out their natural designed lifespan, a process he said would take at least four decades, considering the 40-year lifespan of the reactors recently built.
The Shin Kori reactors will also operate for at least 40 years following their completion, which is expected to take a few more years.
Before it was disrupted in July, the Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. said the construction of the two reactors was 28.8 percent complete. Work on them began in 2016.
Officials at the presidential office Cheong Wa Dae insisted the president’s new energy policy was launched the day he took office in May, saying the policy also relied on not building any more nuclear reactors.
The public debate commission also hinted that its recommendation on the fate of the Shin Kori reactors may have been influenced by economic reasons, noting 53.2 percent of those who took part in the process voted in favor of reducing nuclear energy while 35.5 percent said the number of nuclear reactors should be maintained at the current level.
Only 9.7 percent said the number of nuclear reactors should increase, the commission said.
The government earlier said scrapping the construction of the Shin Kori reactors may cost more than US$2 billion for the payment of damages to developers and builders.
The president also remains firm on building a nuclear energy-free nation, the Cheong Wa Dae officials said.
“Up until now, the lives and safety of the people have been put in the backseat when establishing and implementing energy policies, while environmental considerations have also been overlooked,” Moon said earlier.
“To build a safe Republic of Korea and keep pace with the global trend, we … have to implement a great shift in our national energy policy that will reduce nuclear and coal-fired power plants, and implement and increase (the use of) clean, safe future energy.”
Efforts underway to remove ‘redundant’ nuclear safety board, Santa fe – New Mexican , By Rebecca Moss | The New Mexican, Oct 19, 2017
Efforts have been underway to defund and dismantle an independent board charged with overseeing safety and security at nuclear weapons sites, and much of that work has been spearheaded by the board’s own Republican chairman, according to an investigative report released Thursday.
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, a five-person panel appointed by the U.S. president, has been charged for three decades with conducting independent safety reviews at Los Alamos National Laboratory and other nuclear sites, as well as with advising the U.S. energy secretary and informing Congress about potential health and safety risks to workers and communities, accidents and contamination events at the sites, and efforts to remedy problems.
The board’s recommendations do not require action by the labs or the Energy Department but have led to more intense scrutiny of labs — including Los Alamos, which has had a poor safety record in recent years, with several serious breaches — and more stringent regulations.
In June, Sean Sullivan, a Republican member of the nuclear safety board who was appointed chairman by the Trump administration, proposed in a letter to the White House Office of Management and Budget that the board be eliminated. He called it a Cold War legacy that is no longer relevant and said it creates “myriad unnecessary costs for the Department of Energy.”……
The efforts to disband the board and undermine its independence come amid increasing questions about the safety culture at a number of national labs, but particularly at Los Alamos.
In the past year, Los Alamos has faced a federal investigation for improperly shipping nuclear materials out of state and violated nuclear safety protocol in August at its plutonium facility. A small fire there in April also caused one worker to suffer second-degree burns.
Most of these issues were made public by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, which posts its weekly reports online.
Earlier this year, the safety board voiced concerns to Congress about Los Alamos’ ability to handle nuclear materials and raised questions about whether the lab’s nuclear facilities are structurally sound.
In early June, the board held a hearing in Santa Fe to question lab and Energy Department officials about whether the lab would be prepared to manage increasing quantities of nuclear material as ramped-up production of plutonium pits — the grapefruit-sized triggers inside nuclear bombs — begins as part of a plan to modernize the nation’s nuclear arsenal.
Given the protracted and ongoing safety issues at Los Alamos, a number of safety board members and lawmakers have objected to any relaxed oversight at the lab.
U.S. Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., told the Center for Public Integrity that repeated safety issues, “including the two [labs] in New Mexico, are among the reasons for strengthening — not eliminating the outside oversight board.
President Donald Trump’s bellicose rhetoric on North Korea appears to have had the effect of stiffening people’s resolve, with some North Koreans even believing they could survive nuclear conflict.
In this newly nuclear nation there seems to be more bikes on the road than cars. For decades they’ve had a military-first policy; that’s what we’re going to see. We are very quickly learning that President Trump’s rhetoric is having a profound effect. Officials here, talking to us about President Trump, the Vice Foreign Minister warning that he believes this region is on the brink of war, and if that is the case, then we are standing here on the front line,” reports NBC’s Kier Simmons.
“This is the border, the demilitarised zone between the north and South Korea. President Trump is expected to visit South Korea next month. I asked a Lieutenant-Colonel who is based here ‘What do you think about President Trump?’ He said to me, very plainly, that he believes the president is mentally ill. I spoke to another North Korean official who’s the father of a young son, and I said to him, ‘Aren’t you frightened by the prospect of war?’ And you know what he said to me? He said that all his life he has felt as if his existence is threatened by the United States, and he said that he thinks that North Korea and the North Koreans could even survive a nuclear war.”
nuclear-news 