Edie 27th Feb 2018, Jeremy Corbyn has pledged that Labour would keep Britain in the EU internal
energy market (IEM) and the Euratom nuclear co-operation treaty. In a
landmark speech setting out his party’s stance on the UK’s future
trading relationships following Brexit, the opposition leader said it was
in Britain’s interests to remain part of Euratom. He said: “We will
want to remain a part of agencies like Euratom, regulating nuclear
materials in energy and health sectors.” The Labour leader also used his
speech to signal Labour will seek continued UK membership of the IEM to
help support the development of the low carbon energy sector. He said
barrier-free trade of low carbon goods is necessary to underpin the growth
of the UK’s low carbon and renewable energy sectors. https://www.edie.net/news/11/Labour-would-keep-Britain-in-EU-internal-energy-market/
Democratic Senator Ed Markey, of Massachusetts, says any deal is “almost certain” to require a non-proliferation accord, known as a “123 agreement,” of the type the United States has previously signed with South Korea and India, and which is designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
“Previous US efforts to conclude a 123 agreement with Saudi Arabia have been unsuccessful because of its long-standing refusal to commit to foregoing any uranium enrichment or spent-fuel reprocessing on its territory — the so-called… ‘gold standard’ for 123 agreements,” Markey, of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Energy Secretary Rick Perry.
AFP on Tuesday obtained a copy of the letter, which is dated February 26.
Riyadh plans to announce at the beginning of March its short list of firms which will bid to build its nuclear reactors.
Besides the US company Westinghouse, Russian, French, Chinese and South Korean firms are in the running.
A nuclear accord between Riyadh and Washington would allow US corporations to export their nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia, while tensions are high surrounding the civil nuclear program of Riyadh’s regional rival Iran.
US President Donald Trump has threatened to tear up a 2015 global pact under which Iran — facing suspicions it was working towards a nuclear bomb — agreed to curb its nuclear program in exchange for a lifting of sanctions.
Both Washington and Riyadh have complained of Iran’s “destabilizing” acts in the Middle East.
Markey says Saudi Arabia’s “unwillingness” to commit to a “gold standard” 123 agreement “is particularly concerning in light of comments made by Saudi officials and members of the royal family suggesting that a nuclear program may be as much for geopolitical purposes as for electricity generation.”
According to several US media reports, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman — the main driver of a more aggressive regional push by the kingdom — is to visit the United States in early March to meet with Trump.
The visit has not been officially confirmed by either country.
Ties between the kingdom and Washington have strengthened since Trump assumed office early last year. His first official trip abroad was to Saudi Arabia, which is trying to diversify its oil-based economy and energy sources.
Preparations for a potential reboot of the licensing process for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository will gather steam this week at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, even though Congress has not funded the storage project.
Some members of the Board of Public Utilities voiced doubt about a possible investment in a small-scale nuclear power project Wednesday during a meeting with the Department of Public Utilities.
The meeting was a preview of a joint public meeting the board will have about the project with the County Council at 6 p.m. March 6 at the county Municipal Building.
The board was expecting answers about what the risk would be to the county if the project went sour.
The project is proposed and designed by Nuscale and consists of 12 50-megawatt light water, nuclear reactor modules. The units would be installed in Idaho.
The Board of Public Utilities is expected make a decision about whether to invest $500,000 in the project in late March.
BPU member Stephen McLin wanted to know why they haven’t given them more definite answers, since the initial Jan. 25 meeting explaining the project.
“These cost commitments that we’re about ready to make… I think that the board members, I can’t really speak for them, but I think we had it in our mind that we were going to be voting on about $500,000 commitment for the next six months or so, and that was going to keep us in a kind of holding pattern until other costs could be fleshed out,” McLin said. “I’m really starting to question the wisdom of making even that investment based on tonight’s performance, these questions have not even been summarized. Why not?”
Deputy Manager Steve Cummins replied they were aiming for the Board of Public Utilities March 6 meeting.
“We are working very diligently, everybody is, for the March 6 meeting. As I mentioned during our introduction, one of the biggest concerns we heard was about cost, exposure and things like that to the county. So, we put a lot of time in the last couple of weeks on the resolution I talked about that’s going to be now made into a contract. Actually, we’re pretty happy about that. We see it as a huge step in the right direction,” Cummins said.
McLin then asked what happens to the county’s financial risk while it waits for the project to be approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He said he would like to see those numbers at the March 6 meeting.
“The track record is very ugly… 12- to 15-year timelines from the license submission to approval,” Mclin said. “In my mind, I’m calling it the second step for the county. What kind of commitment are we making as we submit that application. I think that’s what got a lot of people concerned. It would be helpful to see a lot of these costs and options laid out. To see them in black and white would be very helpful.”
Board of Public Utilities member Kathleen Taylor feared cost overruns on the project would drive up the costs of the construction, which would then affect the rate they pay for the power from the plant, which is expected to be between $45 and $65 per kilowatt hour.
“I want to see cost overruns and what caused them,” Taylor said. We need to see it in black and white. That’s the stopper. If they can’t build this plant in three our four years or whatever it’s going to take, then we’re off into Never Never Land. I’d like to see it in black and white.
Utilities Manager Tim Glasco said he would provide her slides NuScale provided, but said it would be up to her to decide “if they’re all wet or if they’re any validity to the claims of what they did different” in other projects.
Cory Bernardi says a nuclear power dump could make us the ‘Saudi Arabia of the south’, news.com.au 26 Feb 18 CORY Bernardi is pushing to reignite a controversial development in South Australia, saying it could make the state the “Saudi Arabia of the south”.
LEADER of the Australian Conservatives party Cori Bernardi is pushing for a nuclear waste dump in South Australia, which he says will transform the state into the economic “Saudi Arabia of the south”.
Speaking at the party’s election launch in South Australia on Sunday, founder and federal Senator Cory Bernardi said he wanted to reopen the debate on an outback nuclear dump.
He called for changes to the law to allow for “all forms of energy production”, including nuclear power, urging authorities to “complete a full rigorous analysis” of the idea.
According to The Advertiser, he claimed the dump would generate up to $6.7 billion in gross state product, allow for $3 billion in annual taxes to be scrapped, and see the state reaping in $445 billion over the next century.
“Imagine that legacy for our children … to draw on in developing this state,” he said. “We would be an economic powerhouse. We would be the strongest state in the Commonwealth.”
Upper House candidate Robert Brokenshire said the party is “committed to looking at all types of energy production including nuclear energy to find the cheapest and most reliable form of energy”.
Labor Premier Jay Weatherill was quick to rule out the suggestion.
“That’s dead,” he said on Sunday. “Labor Party policy has been opposed to a nuclear waste facility in the past and there’s no prospect of changing that in the future.”
Mr Weatherill did not rule out pursuing a High Court case against the Turnbull government if a national nuclear waste dump was to be approved in South Australia, The Australian reported last month.
At the end of last year, Flemish nationalists spoke publicly against the withdrawal of nuclear power endorsed by the Energy Pact project that was designed by the country’s four ministers for energy on the basis of the cost for households and companies. The Plan Office and Professor Johan Albrecht have been asked to evaluate the cost evolution of power in Belgium in the years to come, taking various scenarios into consideration.
The extra cost for households would come to 15 euros plus VAT as of 2025, the planned date for the phasing-out of nuclear power. It includes the producers’ investment in gas power plants, the price of gas necessary for the production of electricity, as well as the federal government’s subsidies for plants. This figure, however, does not take into account the cost of the plants’ dismantlement or the nuclear waste reprocessing, and it only covers the expenses which fall within the federal competence. The support cost for the sustainable, therefore, is not included.
For the companies, the situation will be “slightly more complicated,” according to the minister. Discounts to be discussed with partners of the majority could be granted to companies competing with foreign offers, she indicated.
Mahlobo must accept death knell of Nuclear Deal – Gavin Davis, Politics Web, Gavin Davis | 22 February 2018
DA MP says President must stop the gazetting of Integrated Resource Plan
Nuclear Deal: Ramaphosa must stop the gazetting of the Integrated Resource Plan
22 February 2018
Minister Gigaba’s Budget Speech, which contained no funding for a new nuclear build, should signal the death knell of the nuclear deal.
The time has come for Minister Mahlobo to accept that his attempt to deliver the nuclear deal has failed. With Zuma gone, he has outlasted his usefulness and should be removed from Cabinet without delay.
The Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), that was apparently approved by the Zuma Cabinet in December, left the door open for a new nuclear build. This was despite every credible study rejecting new investment in nuclear as part of the IRP and recommending investment in renewables and gas instead.
We call on President Ramaphosa to put a stop to the gazetting of Mahlobo’s IRP. Instead, Minister Mahlobo should be removed from office and a new Minister appointed to ensure that the new IRP is based on the latest cutting-edge modelling and research……..
https://fr.reuters.com/article/africaTech/idAFL8N1QC7B5 Rédaction Reuters PARIS, Feb 22 (Reuters) – France has no need to build new nuclear reactors in addition to the one currently being assembled in Flamanville, in western France, Environment Minister Nicolas Hulot said on Thursday.
President Emmanuel Macron said last week he would not rule out France building new nuclear reactors to replace state-controlled utility EDF’s ageing reactors.
“For the moment, frankly, there is no need to consider building other nuclear reactors in addition to Flamanville,” Hulot told lawmakers.
Hulot said in November last year that reducing the share of nuclear energy in France’s power mix to 50 percent from 75 percent would probably take until 2030-35, dropping an initial 2025 target date.
Reporting by Simon Carraud; Writing by Matthias Blamont. Editing by Jane Merriman
New Power 22nd Feb 2018, The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has begun procuring a system to
track nuclear materials in the UK and ensure they are not diverted from
civilian uses, which will be required if, as planned, the UK exits the
Euratom treaty as it leaves the EU.
ONR said it has to develop and deliver a UK State System of Accountancy for and Control of Nuclear Material by 29
March 2019. It will include a Safeguards Information Management and
Reporting System that meets international reporting obligations. Without
the system, ONR said it will not be able to effectively deliver the
necessary nuclear materials accountancy.
It must be ready for parallel running by the end of December 2018 and go live by 29 March 2019. ONR has
published a procurement notice on the government’s digital marketplace
website. It says questions can be asked until 28 February and applications
must be made by midday on 7 March. The contract award is expected on 1 May
and by then the bidder must have security clearance for all personnel
involved. https://www.newpower.info/2018/02/onr-begins-procurement-to-replace-euratom-nuclear-safeguards-system/
Trump floats pay bonus for teachers who carry guns in class, NBC News 22 Feb 18 byALI VITALI WASHINGTON— President Donald Trump expanded on his idea to train and arm some teachers with guns Thursday, suggesting that firearm-adept school staff be given “a little bit of a bonus” for carrying weapons, and promising federal funds for their training.
At a White House discussion of school safety solutions with state and local officials, Trump said “highly adept people…who understand weaponry” could carry guns in schools, estimating that between 10 and 40 percent of teachers could be qualified for such a task. Those who are would undergo “rigorous training,” he said, later adding that he’d consider offering federal money for that effort. Officials “can’t just give a teacher a gun,” he said.
The interior ministry announced the evacuation after it was underway, with scores of police in body armor moving in before daylight to evict activists occupying the zone, backed up by an earthmover.
The plan to store long-life nuclear waste 500 meters below ground in impermeable clay has not yet got government approval and is strongly opposed by local groups and environmentalists.
President Emmanuel Macron’s government is keen to prevent a proliferation of such protester-occupation movements following one that lasted year at a site earmarked for a new airport near Nantes in the west of France – a building plan it dropped last month.
Japan to resume aid for firms’ nuclear power plant exports, Japan Times, 20 Feb 18 Two government-affiliated bodies plan to resume financial support for Japanese companies’ nuclear power plant exports in fiscal 2018 at the earliest, according to informed sources.
The Japan Bank for International Cooperation and Nippon Export and Investment Insurance effectively suspended the provision of loans and trade insurance for nuclear plant export deals following the March 2011 disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant.
South Africa’s Electricity Choice, Part 4: The dangers of dealing with Russia, Daily Maverick, ANTON EBERHARD & AMORY LOVINS, SOUTH AFRICA, 19 FEB 2018
Read parts 1, 2 and 3 of this series here,here and here
.
Courts may have struck down the nuclear agreement between South Africa and Russia but ministers in the Zuma government have indicated they are not done discussing nuclear power and Russian involvement. This is of major concern to many – not only because of a possible compromise in SA’s national sovereignty and independence but also due to the ulterior motives Russia might have due to its economic troubles and the dubious need to build nuclear power plants despite lacking the capital to finance it.
Procurement and financial risks
South African officials have made a wide range of statements in the past few years about whether the government intends a “fair, transparent and competitive procurement process”, or a process with that form but not its substance (as vendors may expect), or an opaque direct negotiation between the South African government and another government, most likely that of the Russian Federation. During a series of private presidential meetingsover the past seven years, these two countries concluded an unusually strong and specific nuclear agreement. It gave Russia a veto over South Africa’s nuclear co-operation with any other country, enabled Russia to withhold any data it wishes from public scrutiny, exempted Russia from any accident liability and promised Russia favourable tax and financial treatment. While denying favouritism, South Africa did not appear to have offered similar terms to any other potential partner. Though the April 2017 decision of the Western Cape High Court set aside this agreement, officials have continued to imply that a nuclear deal with the Russians is likely……..
is Russia a credible and reliable financial partner?Its National Wealth Fund, estimated at $72-billion, is under pressure; by early 2015 it was already overextended by $24-billion pledged to finance nuclear exports to four countries. (Those included the Hungarian Paks nuclear deal, whose low-interest loan commitment helped crash Russia’s foreign-trade bank needing an $18-billion bailout.) About another $64-billion would be needed to fulfil other offers already extended. And even that couldn’t go far if more than a handful of deals were like the proposed Bangladeshi Rooppur plant mentioned above – 90% financed ($12-billion) at 2.55 percent annual interest with a 10-year grace period, then an 18-year repayment.
Rosatom, the self-regulated state nuclear enterprise, is led by a former prime minister reporting to President Vladimir Putin and exempted from all normal state controls. Independent experts agree that Rosatom (or any other state entity) would be lucky to build half the 30 additional nuclear projects it’s trying to sell for $300-billion to a dozen more countries including South Africa. Russia’s interest rate in early 2016 was twice (and in an earlier spike, over three times) what any coal-competitive nuclear project would require. The Russian state’s capacity to absorb the spread is quickly vanishing. Russia’s domestic reactor starts halved in 2015; all state nuclear subsidies are to halt in 2016. Yet without those subsidies, “Rosatom wouldn’t complete a single project anywhere”.
Russia needs huge amounts of outside capital to finance its nuclear commitments. …….
Not just Russian but any nuclear new-build is a poor choice for South Africa. It cannot compete with efficiency and renewables, by every relevant measure: cost, timeliness, financing, jobs, economic development, environmental and safety risk, independence, security, abundance of eternally free local energy sources, and the social good of “energy democracy”. These goals support and are advanced by the agenda of “an electricity sector that will deliver, transparently, competitively, reliably and sustainably, the electric services that will power economic growth and improve the welfare of all our people”.
It has come to this: ever more sales-starved nuclear vendors, seeking ever less solvent customers, now offer a risky project the seller can’t finance to a customer who can’t pay – a customer with no need, enchanted by the same nuclear devotees whose broken promises already cost the nation dearly, and with no apparent accountability.
#NukeGate: Shady Offline Negotiations Must Stop, FITS News, 17 Feb 18
More than perhaps any other lawmaker, fiscally liberal state senator Luke Rankin of Horry County, South Carolina bears direct responsibility for the now-notorious “Base Load Review Act.”
This, of course, is the constitutionally dubious, special interest legislation that effectively socialized $2 billion (and counting) worth of investment risk associated with the abandoned V.C. Summer nuclear power expansion project – a.k.a. #NukeGate.
Basically, lawmakers allowed crony capitalist utility SCANA and its state-owned partner, Santee Cooper, to force ratepayers to shell out this cash on a pair of next generation reactors that are now unlikely to ever be completed.
In addition to being a lead sponsor of this legislation in the Senate, Rankin – a party-switching “former” Democrat – was a member of the S.C. Senate judiciary subcommittee that advanced this legislation to the floor of the Senate (where it passed on a unanimous voice vote).
His fingerprints are all over the hated law, in other words.
Same goes for establishment “Republican” senator Larry Grooms of Berkeley County – who joined Rankin and more than a dozen other senators (ahem) in sponsoring this abomination back in 2007.
Why are we singling out Rankin and Grooms today? Because these two politicians – who deserve to be run out of the S.C. State House on a rail for their shortsightedness and subservience to the status quo – are among the state senators currently engaged in offline negotiations to “extricate” the Palmetto State from this $10 billion hole in the ground.
That’s right … the politicians who landed our state in this mess now want us to trust them to dig us out.
Oh, and they want to conduct their negotiations under the cover of darkness …
What could possibly go wrong, right?
We addressed these offline negotiations earlier this week in this piece, and several weeks ago we exclusively reported on another round of offline negotiations involving newly elected state senator Mike Fanning – who represents the district where the abandoned reactors are located.
In fairness to Fanning, he has infinitely more credibility here than either Rankin or Grooms (who ought to recuse themselves from any role in these discussions). Not only does Fanning represent the impacted area, but as a newly elected senator he has no connection to the legislation that created this debacle in the first place.
Still, all of these offline negotiations are problematic …
First and foremost, they are being conducted behind closed doors – which is especially troublesome considering one of the items up for sale is a government-owned utility.
Shouldn’t public officials discussing the possible sale of a state-owned asset conduct their deliberations in the light of day?
