nuclear-news

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

NUCLEAR SAUDI ARABIA: Oil-rich nation to extract uranium – but only for ‘peaceful’ uses

SAUDI Arabia has announced plans to go nuclear and extract uranium domestically in order to develop its nuclear power programme amid rising tensions over North Korea’s missile ambitions. Express UK By WILL KIRBYA senior government official insisted the uranium would only be used for “peaceful purposes” to allow the oil-rich nation to diversify its energy supply.

It comes amid soaring tensions on the Korean peninsula as Kim Jong-un continues to build his nuclear arsenal threatening the outbreak of World War 3.

But Saudi Arabia insists its nuclear power plans are for peaceful purposes.

Saudi Arabia is working towards “self-sufficiency” in producing atomic fuel, a senior official explained, and extracting its own uranium makes economic sense before it starts building its first nuclear reactors next year.

Hashim bin Abdullah Yamani, head of the Saudi government agency tasked with the nuclear plans, did not say whether the country plans to enrich and reprocess uranium – which would make it a potential option for military use……http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/873676/saudi-arabia-nuclear-power-energy-uranium-plant-iran-weapons-north-korea-news

November 2, 2017 Posted by | politics, Saudi Arabia | Leave a comment

South Africa Members of Parliament challenge Energy Minister’s pro nuclear plans

MPS CHALLENGE MAHLOBO OVER HIS STANCE ON NUCLEAR POWER http://ewn.co.za/2017/10/31/mps-challenge-mahlobo-over-his-stance-on-nuclear-power

Energy Minister David Mahlobo repeated the mantra on the trillion-rand nuclear programme; that it will be done at a scale and pace the country can afford. Gaye Davis | about 4 hours ago

CAPE TOWN – New Energy Minister David Mahlobo’s been challenged in Parliament over his stance on nuclear power.

Finance Minister Malusi Gigaba told Parliament last week the economy could not afford the government’s nuclear build programme right nowwhile making it clear it wasn’t off the agenda.

However, in his comments after Gigaba’s medium-term budget policy speech, Mahlobo appeared to favour a more bullish approach.

Democratic Alliance National Council of Provinces (NCOP) member Farhat Essack put the question: “You said that no one has the figures for a nuclear programme and that the government owns the numbers. Please explain to this House what exactly did you mean by that?”

Mahlobo repeated the mantra on the trillion-rand nuclear programme; that it will be done at a scale and pace the country can afford. Mahlobo says the opposition’s focus on nuclear has nothing to do with policy.

“It has everything to do with who gets the tender. I’m not in the business of tenders. I’m in the business of ensuring that you have energy here to pump our economy and we’re not going to be deterred in doing that.”

LISTEN: Will new Energy Minister push nuclear deal through?

November 1, 2017 Posted by | politics, South Africa | Leave a comment

Disappointment over Millstone nuclear bill – could cost consumers an extra $300 million

Malloy signs Millstone nuclear bill, By Ken Dixon, Ct Post, Tuesday, October 31, 2017 
HARTFORD — A bill that environmentalists and consumer advocates charged would allow the Millstone nuclear power plant the ability to compete with renewable sources of power, was signed into law Tuesday by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, following its passage last week in the Legislature…..
Opponents of the bill charged that allowing Millstone to compete with renewables, could costs consumers an extra $300 million a year in a state with some of the nation’s highest charges for electricity……
The AARP, one of the chief opponents of the legislation, voiced disappointment, especially since Dominion has been dragging its corporate feet on providing state regulators “vital information” even on a confidential basis……http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Malloy-signs-Millstone-nuclear-bill-12320251.php

November 1, 2017 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment

Evidence that Britain’s nuclear power industry subsidises nuclear weapons

channelling revenues ultimately funded by electricity consumers towards a joint civil-military national nuclear industry base

Evidence from Andy Stirling and Philip Johnstone: As the early part of the process of the BEIS Committee Brexit Inquiry has unfolded, the salience of this civil/military link is being further underscored in statements in which a number of relevant senior civil servants and ministers are confirming that the priority attached to UK military submarine capabilities is deeply entangled in strategic commitments to civil nuclear industry strategy 6 . Several possibly serious implications therefore arise in relation to the particular circumstances of Brexit.

Parliament 27th Oct 2017  http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/business-energy-and-industrial-strategy-committee/leaving-the-eu-implications-for-the-nuclear-industry/written/71514.pdf

Written evidence from the University of Sussex, Science Policy Research Unit (BRN0015)

  1. We submit this evidence to the inquiry on Brexit and the Implications for UK Business.s. The content draws on a detailed submission by the same authors to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), discussed at the PAC witness session on Monday 9 th October 2017, which informed illuminating exchanges with senior civil service witnesses to that Committee and was subsequently published by PAC 1 . A number of potentially important implications arise in relation to issues under discussion around Brexit.

2: This earlier evidence to PAC addressed the otherwise difficult-to-explain intensity of Government commitments to civil nuclear power in the face of growing recognition of the relative competitiveness of alternative UK low carbon energy investments. Multiple grounds were found for inferring that this persistent Government attachment is due, at least in part (and with no public discussion), to perceived needs to engineer a cross-subsidy from electricity consumers to help cover costs of a national nuclear industrial base that is deemed to be essential for maintaining UK military nuclear infrastructures 2 .

 

3: The issues that arise are central to the general remit of the BEIS Committee. For instance, this recent evidence to the PAC documents significant statements by the National Audit Office, which suggest that UK military nuclear infrastructures are being bolstered by revenue flows to UK industry strategy in other sectors 3 . Many statements in support of this interpretation are cited from defence policy discussions, acknowledging incentives to “mask” costs of military industrial strategy behind civil energy programmes 4 . As a result, it is evident that Government-negotiated, high-price, guaranteed long-term contracts for civil nuclear power, are channelling revenues ultimately funded by electricity consumers towards a joint civil-military national nuclear industry base, whose full costs probably could not otherwise feasibly be covered by defence budgets alone. Resulting implications for wider industry strategy and energy policy have received effectively zero Parliamentary or other policy scrutiny.

 

4: Much other evidence was presented in submission to PAC, concerning this evidently significant-buthidden influence on civil industry policy by military nuclear considerations 5 . As a result, it seems that undetermined but likely large cross-subsidies are being engineered from UK electricity consumers, in order to cover otherwise insupportable costs of military nuclear industry strategies. In the present evidence we outline key implications for the BEIS Committee inquiry on nuclear implications of Brexit

 

5: As the early part of the process of the BEIS Committee Brexit Inquiry has unfolded, the salience of this civil/military link is being further underscored in statements in which a number of relevant senior civil servants and ministers are confirming that the priority attached to UK military submarine capabilities is deeply entangled in strategic commitments to civil nuclear industry strategy 6 . Several possibly serious implications therefore arise in relation to the particular circumstances of Brexit.

 

6: First, there are well-documented general concerns that Brexit-related pressures on the UK industrial base are likely to have a particular impact on large infrastructure projects, specifically including new nuclear build. If these developments unfold, then pressures are likely to intensify around the interlinkages between UK civil and military nuclear infrastructures. With foregone opportunities for industry strategy in other sectors (like offshore wind), the these Brexit-related implications for UK industrial strategy are central issues for the BEIS Committee, which remain unexplored elsewhere 7 .

 

7: Second, there are concerns that the economic effects of Brexit may include current and possible continuing future depreciation of Sterling. If these effects transpire as variously predicted, then economic pressures will likely intensify to find ways to cross-subsidise growing military nuclear costs in some fashion that mitigates the impact on public spending. Brexit may thus exacerbate incentives to ‘mask’ otherwise-unbearable wider industrial costs of military nuclear submarine infrastructures behind strategic support for civil nuclear supply chains ultimately funded by electricity consumers 8 .

8: Third, there are prospects that demand for UK access to overseas specialist nuclear skills may be aggravated by Brexit-related constraints on labour movement. If this occurs, then competition can be expected to accentuate between recruitment needs for national civil and military nuclear industries. Since key military nuclear skills in particular must for obvious reasons be disproportionately UKbased, so Brexit may reinforce upward pressures on costs of military nuclear infrastructures and so help further increase the pressures for cross-subsidy documented in the earlier PAC evidence 9

9: Fourth, there is the likely effect of Brexit in reinforcing pressures towards Scottish independence. If this transpires, then strong opposition in Scotland to continued associations with the current UK nuclear weapons infrastructure, mean that Brexit will make it more probable that a move will be required of key military nuclear facilities away from Scotland. The result will be a very large Brexitrelated increase in military nuclear costs, further exacerbating pressures for cross-subsidies 10 . 10: We hope it is useful to draw these emerging issues to the attention of the BEIS Committee – both in relation to the above specific repercussions around Brexit and to their wider implications for UK energy strategies, industrial policy and more general qualities of national democratic accountability 11 . October 2017

Extensive references are given on the original document .

 

October 29, 2017 Posted by | politics, Reference, secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

No to nuclear power – South Africa’s Finance Minister Malusi Gigaba

Gigaba says no to nuclear, Fin 24, 2017-10-29  – Sipho Masondo and Setumo Stone, Johannesburg – Finance Minister Malusi Gigaba says drastic steps are needed to help South Africa’s ailing economy – including freezing senior civil servants’ salaries and selling chunks of state-owned enterprises.

In an exclusive interview with City Press on Friday, Gigaba unveiled the surprise moves, which include slamming brakes on the country’s estimated R1 trillion nuclear build programme, saying it is neither affordable nor currently necessary.

“There was a time when it was felt that nuclear is necessary and it must be implemented and programmes were started. But it became clear, as the economy took a serious dip, that we were not going to afford nuclear, that the country couldn’t afford it and the budget couldn’t afford it,” he said.

“It is quite clear that, at present, we can meet our electricity needs and we can even meet them into the future, given the excess electricity that we have.”

Nuclear power, Gigaba said, will remain part of the country’s energy mix. However, this will only happen when the economy is growing fast, when there is “high uptake of electricity from intensive users, when we can see that we are reaching the stage where existing capacity is being fully utilised and the demand and supply margin is very narrow”.

Gigaba said it was not a “malicious view” to shelve the nuclear programme for now, considering the R50bn budget shortfall, a rising budget deficit, National Health Insurance, demands for free higher education, and a national debt to GDP ratio which is set to breach the 60% threshold by 2022.

“If you look at Eskom’s balance sheet, they will not be able to afford nuclear, they will need a guarantee from government. Government guarantees are ultimately state debt, because when a state-owned company cannot afford to pay the guarantees, the national fiscus needs to step in and pay. That is what happened at SAA,” he said…….http://www.fin24.com/Budget/gigaba-says-no-to-nuclear-20171029-3

October 29, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, politics, South Africa | Leave a comment

UK Labour government would sign global anti-nuclear weapons treaty

Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow minister for peace has said a Labour government would sign a global anti-nuclear weapons treaty that would effectively confine the Royal Navy’s Trident submarines to port. Fabian Hamilton MP, in comments that risk reigniting the party’s internal divisions over the future of the UK’s nuclear deterrent, told i that while the issue of
Trident was “dead in the water” as it had been approved by Parliament,
a future Corbyn government would sign a UN treaty that bans nuclear weapons
and prohibits their use.

Labour included a promise to renew Trident in its
election manifesto, but Hamilton said that Corbyn’s leadership of the
Labour party presented a “golden opportunity” for opponents of nuclear
weapons, admitting the issue was still a “thorn in the side” of the
party.
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/trident-labour-sign-un-treaty-banning-nuclear-weapons/

October 29, 2017 Posted by | politics, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

France will detail at the end of 2018 how many nuclear reactors will close

France to decide by end 2018 how many nuclear plants to shut: minister PARIS (Reuters) 29 Oct 17, – France will detail at the end of 2018 how many nuclear reactors will close to meet a target on reducing atomic energy, Environment Minister Nicolas Hulot told French daily Le Monde on Saturday.

France aims to cut the share of atomic energy in power generation to 50 percent by 2025 from 75 percent now.

Nuclear plant closures represent a touchy topic, as the sector employs thousands of people and renewable energy alternatives struggle to grow fast enough to ensure energy needs are fulfilled.

According to France’s National Council of Industry, the nuclear sector supports about 220,000 jobs, directly and indirectly.

Hulot will lay out his so-called “green deal” on energy transition in the first half of 2018, he told Le Monde in an interview.

“In order to reduce to 50 percent the share of nuclear power, we will have to close a number of reactors,” he said, adding that he would detail the exact figure under a multi-year plan to be presented at end of 2018……https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclearpower/france-to-decide-by-end-2018-how-many-nuclear-plants-to-shut-minister-idUSKBN1CX0KP

October 29, 2017 Posted by | France, politics | Leave a comment

“No Unconstitutional Strike against North Korea” – Bill to prevent a Trump pre-emptive strike on North Korea

Democrats push bill to stop a Trump pre-emptive strike on North Korea

Conyers-Markey legislation has two Republican backers in House
President’s threat to ‘totally destroy’ North Korea fuelled nuclear war fears, Guardian, Julian Borger 27 Oct 17, Congressional Democrats have introduced legislation aimed at preventing Donald Trump from launching a pre-emptive attack on North Korea, as concerns grew about the administration’s failure to explore talks with Pyongyang.

The new legislation prohibiting an attack on North Korea without congressional authority was launched by Democrats John Conyers in the House and Ed Markey in the Senate. It has two Republicans among the 61 backers in the House, but at present no formal Republican backing in the Senate.

“As a veteran of the Korean war, I am ashamed that our commander-in-chief is conducting himself in a reckless manner that endangers our troops stationed in South Korea and our regional allies,” Conyers said.

“President Trump’s provocative and escalatory rhetoric, with threats to unleash ‘fire and fury’ and ‘totally destroy’ North Korea, cannot be allowed to turn into reality,” Senator Markey said. “As long as President Trump has a Twitter account, we must ensure that he cannot start a war or launch a nuclear first strike without the explicit authorization of Congress.”

The bill’s supporters acknowledge that it will not pass without attracting more Republican support, but they argue that it helps focus attention on the unlimited authority of a US president to order the use of nuclear weapons, many of which can be launched within a few minutes. No official has the power to stop or even delay the launch.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, speaking at a conference organised by the Ploughshares Fund, an non-proliferation advocacy group said she once asked a former head of US Strategic Command if he would carry out a launch order even if he knew it was a catastrophically bad decision. “He looked me straight in the eye and said: Yes,” Senator Feinstein recalled……..

Ted Lieu, the Democratic congressman who co-authored the bill in January to limit the president’s power to launch a first strike said the best recruiter for Republican support was Trump’s behaviour.

“Every time the president does something erratic, which is every day, we get more co-sponsors,” Lieu said. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/26/democrats-push-bill-to-stop-a-trump-pre-emptive-strike-on-north-korea

October 28, 2017 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

$10.6 billion yearly: the cost to USA taxpayers of the subsidy plan for coal and nuclear plants

Subsidy plan for coal and nuclear plants ‘will cost US taxpayers $10.6bn a year’ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/27/subsidize-coal-nuclear-plants-taxpayer-cost-rick-perry

Non-partisan analysis reveals the cost of energy secretary Rick Perry’s proposal to give handouts to some of the country’s oldest and dirtiest power plants, Guardian, Oliver Milman, 27 Oct 17, A Trump administration plan to subsidize coal and nuclear energy would cost US taxpayers about $10.6bn a year and prop up some of the oldest and dirtiest power plants in the country, a new analysis has found.

The Department of Energy has proposed that coal and nuclear plants be compensated not only for the electricity they produce but also for the reliability they provide to the grid. The new rule would provide payments to facilities that store fuel on-site for 90 days or more because they are “indispensable for our economic and national security”.

Rick Perry, the energy secretary, said the subsidies were needed to avoid power outages “in times of supply stress such as recent natural disasters”.

The plan would provide a lifeline to many ageing coal and nuclear plants that would otherwise go out of business, primarily due to the abundance of cheap natural gas and the plummeting cost of renewables.

The Department of Energy noted 531 coal-generating units were retired between 2002 and 2016, while eight nuclear reactors have announced retirement plans in the past year.

 Donald Trump has vowed to arrest this decline and end the “war” on mining communities by repealing various environmental regulations put in place during the Obama administration.

Perry’s pro-coal market intervention would cost taxpayers as much as $10.6bn a year over the next decade, according to a joint analysis by the non-partisan groups Climate Policy Initiative and Energy Innovation. Just a handful of companies, operating about 90 plants on the eastern seaboard and the midwest, would benefit from the subsidies, the report found.

“The irony of putting costs on consumers for resources that are no longer competitive is really striking,” said Brendan Pierpoint, energy finance consultant at Climate Policy Initiative. “It would serve to keep a lot of uneconomic plants in the market that currently can’t compete with the changing dynamics of cheap gas and the falling cost of renewables.”

The Trump administration has raised concerns that the growth of intermittent wind and solar energy could undermine the so-called “baseload” power provided by coal and nuclear, pointing to power outages during the Polar Vortex cold wave that swept over North America in 2014.

However, recent studies of the grid have found that it has not been weakened by the loss of coal and nuclear plants and is barely affected by power outages. Also, coal-fired plants are not immune to natural disasters, with facilities going offline during the Polar Vortex and Hurricane Harvey, which hit Texas this year.

An unlikely alliance of renewable energy advocates and the American Petroleum Institute has complained that Perry’s plan tips the scales in favor of a failing coal industry and has vowed to fight the proposal. The rule would also jar with the supposed free market principles of an administration that has attacked subsidies for wind and solar, as well as intervention in healthcare insurance markets.

“Perry’s obsession with propping up these expensive, dirty facilities will cost Americans real money,” said Mary Anne Hitt, a campaigner at the Sierra Club.

“These ageing coal plants are making Americans sick, and now Secretary Perry wants to force us to pay tens of billions of dollars to Wall Street to keep them running, so they can continue polluting our air and water.”

Perry’s plan has to be approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which is housed within the Department of Energy but is an independent agency. Two of FERC’s three commissioners were appointed by Trump, with one,Neil Chatterjee, already voicing support for subsidizing coal and nuclear. Perry has asked for a ruling on his request by 27 November.

The aggressively pro-fossil fuels stance of the Trump administration has been advanced elsewhere this week, with the House of Representatives approving a budget plan that would open the way for oil drilling in a vast Arctic wildlife refuge in Alaska.

Meanwhile, the interior department has released a plan to sweep away the regulatory “burdens” that slow down or prevent mining and drilling on public lands.

October 28, 2017 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

France’s Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) dithers on decision about continued operation of old reactors

 La Tribune 27th Oct 2017,[Machine Translation] The postponement of the generic Nuclear Safety
Authority (ASN) opinion on the continued operation of certain reactors
beyond the age of 40, revealed on 24 October, could have serious
consequences for the implementation of the law. And,
beyond, on the image of nuclear power in the public opinion, and the
perception of the role of the State in terms of energy strategy.
http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/energie-environnement/nucleaire-la-trajectoire-energetique-francaise-se-complique-755755.html

October 28, 2017 Posted by | France, politics | Leave a comment

Britain’s (really uneconomic) ‘peaceful’ nuclear power is actually subsidising nuclear weapons

New nuclear power plants linked to Trident weapons http://www.tribunemagazine.org/2017/10/new-nuclear-power-plants-linked-to-trident-weapons/ By: David Hencke: October 22, 2017 Senior civil servants have revealed that the government’s decision to build a new generation of civil nuclear power stations starting with Hinkley Point is linked to maintaining enough skills to keep Britain’s nuclear deterrent.

The disclosure came at a hearing of the Commons Public Accounts Committee looking at the huge cost of building Hinkley Point power station which critics see as uneconomic and not properly costed.

It was raised in a paper submitted to the committee by Professor Andy Stirling, Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences, and Dr Phil Johnstone, from the Science Policy Research Unit, Sussex University, which questioned whether the Ministry of Defence is being subsidized by the civil nuclear industry.

Their paper pointed out this is never publicly discussed but added: “If a UK withdrawal from civil nuclear power on grounds of uncompetitive economics were to leave these shared costs borne entirely on the military side, then UK military nuclear infrastructures would be significantly more expensive.

“If civil nuclear commitments are being maintained (despite adverse economics) in order to help cover these shared costs, then it is this that amounts to a cross-subsidy.”

The point was taken up by Meg Hillier, chair of the PAC, last week. She questioned Stephen Lovegrove, former Permanent Secretary, Department for Energy and Climate Change, on the issue.

“Mr Lovegrove, there has been an argument put forward by Sussex University that Hinkley is a great opportunity to maintain our nuclear skills base. With your hat on at the Ministry of Defence, are you having discussions with the business Department about this?”

Lovegrove replied: “We are, yes. In my last year at DECC, I was in regular discussion with Jon Thompson, former Permanent Secretary at the MOD, to say that as a nation we are going into a fairly intense period of nuclear activity … We are building the new SSBNs (nuclear armed nuclear submarines) and completing the Astutes … We are completing the build of the nuclear submarines which carry conventional weaponry. We have at some point to renew the warheads, so there is very definitely an opportunity here for the nation to grasp in terms of building up its nuclear skills.

“I do not think that that is going to happen by accident; it is going to require concerted Government action to make it happen. We are speaking to colleagues at BEIS ( Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy) fairly repeatedly about it, and have a number of forums in which we are doing that.”

The Sussex University paper also pointed out that private industry was making the link. Their paper said: “Rolls Royce acknowledged for the first time in a major public statement, that there also exists a deep interlinkage between British civil and military nuclear industrial capabilities … stating that “expansion of a nuclear-capable skilled workforce through a civil nuclear UK programme would relieve the Ministry of Defence of the burden of developing and retaining skills and capability. This would free up valuable resources for other investments.”

October 27, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, politics, weapons and war | Leave a comment

South Africa Finance Minister Malusi Gigaba says large nuclear power project is not affordable

Nuclear power ‘still unaffordable’ https://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2017-10-26-nuclear-power–still-unaffordable/ 26 October 2017    BY BUSINESSLIVE Nuclear remained in the energy mix but a large-scale nuclear power project was not affordable, Finance Minister Malusi Gigaba told reporters on Wednesday.

He was speaking ahead of his medium-term Budget speech, which did not mention nuclear power plans.

A new integrated resource plan on energy would provide more clarity, he said.

Proposals for a nuclear building project have been debated with a new urgency since weekend reports that President Jacob Zuma had recently met a Russian delegation.

Both the Presidency and the Russian embassy in Pretoria have denied that there was such a meeting, at which Zuma was said to have come under pressure to start implementing the nuclear power project with Russia.

Zuma’s cabinet reshuffle last week included the appointment of David Mahlobo as energy minister.

Mahlobo was reported to have travelled to Russia with convicts Gayton McKenzie and Kenny Kunene to facilitate a R5-billion nuclear deal with Russian company Rosgeo. Mahlobo was state security minister at the time of the trip.

Allegations that the energy sector has been captured go beyond the nuclear project. PetroSA is also being investigated.

October 27, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, politics, South Africa | Leave a comment

South Korea scrapping plans for 6 nuclear reactors, but will continue with 2

South Korea to resume building two new nuclear reactors, but scraps plans for 6 others http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-nuclear-warning/north-korea-diplomat-says-take-atmospheric-nuclear-test-threat-literally-idUSKBN1CU2EI?il=0, Jane Chung SEOUL (Reuters), 26 Oct 17,  – South Korea will resume the suspended construction of two new nuclear reactors from midnight, its energy ministry said on Tuesday, but has torn up plans to build six more reactors as Seoul seeks to meet pledges to cut reliance on nuclear power.

The move will restart work on the two reactors that was frozen after President Moon Jae-in came to power in May on a ticket calling for scaling back nuclear power. It comes after results of a survey unveiled last week found a majority of South Koreans actually backed the projects.

The world’s fifth-biggest nuclear energy user currently runs 24 nuclear reactors, generating a third of the country’s total electricity needs.

“Construction work (for the two new nuclear reactors) will begin immediately after midnight,” Paik Un-gyu, Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, told a news briefing in the capital.

But in a bid to press on with Moon’s commitment to boost use of natural gas and renewable sources in the nation’s energy mix, the ministry said Seoul will also cancel all plans to construct a further six nuclear reactors. The number of nuclear reactors operating in South Korea will be cut to a net 14 by 2038 it said.

The ministry said it will use alternative fuels such as solar and wind power to replace the six nuclear reactors with a projected combined capacity of 8.8 gigawatts (GW).

Additionally, the Asia’s fourth-largest economy will not allow extending the lifespan of 14 aging nuclear power stations, totaling 12.5 GW of capacity, the statement said.

The energy ministry said it will reflect changes in the country’s long-term energy mix plan, which is expected to be finalised in November.

Reporting by Jane Chung; Additional reporting by Christine Kim; Editing by Kenneth Maxwell

October 27, 2017 Posted by | politics, South Korea | Leave a comment

South Korea’s Nuclear Energy Debate

 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.

Se Young Jang is a nonresident scholar at the Nuclear Policy Program in the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. more https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/south-koreas-nuclear-energy-debate/

October 27, 2017 Posted by | politics, South Korea | Leave a comment

UK’s ban on developing new onshore wind farms – an expensive mistake

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.

That is the conclusion of new research by
the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) think tank, which estimates
electricity from 1GW of new onshore wind farms would cost £30m a year less
than obtaining the same amount of power from new offshore wind farms, even
when recent cost reductions from the offshore wind sector are taken into
account.
https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/3019755/report-uks-outdated-onshore-wind-ban-blocks-cheapest-form-of-new-energy

October 27, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, politics, renewable, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »