Central Europe keeps the nuclear faith, DW, 2 May 17 The financial and geo-political risks attached to nuclear power are rising, but Central Europe’s belief is unshakable. Tom Gosling reports from Prague. Nuclear power is facing a fight for its life. Increased safety concerns, weak energy markets, and shifting technological potential look to be pulling the rug from under the 20th-century dream of a nuclear future of clean, cheap and plentiful energy. Struggling projects across the Visegrad region illustrate the difficulties.
In spite of the shadows cast by Chernobyl and Fukushima, and the pickle in which US-Japanese giant Westinghouse finds itself, nuclear remains at the forefront of national energy strategy in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia.
The projects have spent years treading water, and many are thought unlikely to ever become a reality. Yet in contrast to many countries to the west, it’s not public opinion but hard cash that’s the problem.
“Nuclear is a religion in Visegrad,” announces Jan Haverkamp of Greenpeace CEE (Central and Eastern Europe). “There is no discussion of investment risk or real safety concerns. The only thing discussed is who will pay for the initial project.”
No business for private investors
That sticking point has seen a longstanding political scrap in the Czech Republic flare up again ahead of elections later this year. The expansion of the nuclear fleet is the central plank in the country’s long-term energy strategy, but no one wants to stump up the 300 billion Czech crowns (11 billion euros; $12 billion) it would cost……..
While the public may be convinced, nuclear projects are too rich and too risky for private investors. Prague’s efforts to push Czech state-controlled energy group CEZ into building new units face a “big obstacle” in the form of private shareholders, says Petr Bartek, an analyst at Erste Group.
However, squeezed by financial constraints and EU regulation, states are not keen either. The Czech government insists it will not offer power price guarantees – a stance that saw CEZ scrap an eight-billion-euro tender in 2014.
Even when the state is ready to play a role, it doesn’t necessarily work out. Slovakia’s project to expand the Mochovce plant is hugely over budget and delayed by several years. The problems provoked a bitter spat with project partner Enel, and the Italian utility plans to exit the country, handing local oligarchs greater leverage over the energy market as it goes……..
While Prague insists an open tender remains the preferred route, analysts are skeptical that the cash for new Visegrad nuclear plants will be found anywhere but Moscow or Beijing.
However, not everyone is keen on help from outside. Fearing leverage from abroad, the nationalist Polish government has recently gone back to the drawing board on financing plans for the country’s first nuclear plant, which would cost around 10 billion euros…….http://www.dw.com/en/central-europe-keeps-the-nuclear-faith/a-38659364
WRVO By KAREN DEWITT 2 May 17 Assembly Democrats grilled Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s energy officials for more than four hours Monday about a plan executed by the Public Service Commission and a major energy company that will keep three upstate nuclear power plants alive for the next 12 years.
Utility ratepayers, mostly from downstate, will pay for the deal through a surcharge on their bills.
Assemblyman Steve Englebright, chairman of the Environmental Committee, said he’s “very disappointed” in what he said was an opaque process hastily decided last summer that ratepayers ultimately will have to finance…….
The hearing will likely not result in any changes to keeping the nuclear power plants open. The state already has signed contracts with the energy company Exelon and handed over the plants’ operating licenses on April 1.
Gregg Sayre, Cuomo’s interim Public Service Commission chair, testified about the 2016 decision to have the state pay nearly $8 billion to keep the FitzPatrick, Nine Mile Point and Ginna nuclear power plants open. He said it was in part dictated by the timetable of the energy companies who own the plants………
Audrey Zibelman, the former head of the PSC who oversaw the deal, left for a job in Australia earlier this year and has not yet been replaced……..
Englebright also questioned what he said is the “profound contradiction” of the state propping up the over 40-year-old plants in the Oswego and Rochester areas, while moving to close the Indian Point Nuclear Plant in Westchester, citing potential dangers……
Cuomo has said that keeping the Indian Point plant open defies “basic sanity” because of inherent risks. That plant will close in 2021.
Other Assembly members complained about the extra charges that ratepayers will have to finance from the rescue deal for the three plants. Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz represents portions of the Bronx, which he said includes a large number of low-income people who will be unfairly burdened by the deal…..http://wrvo.org/post/lawmakers-grill-cuomo-officials-nuclear-power-plant-bailout
CSIR proposes excluding nuclear http://www.iol.co.za/business-report/energy/csir-proposes-excluding-nuclear-8920098 2 May 2017 Johannesburg – For the latest Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity in South Africa, IRP 2016, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) proposes a “Least Cost”, unconstrained scenario, or a “Decarbonised” scenario, both of which exclude nuclear power in the electricity mix to 2050.This is the executive summary of the full submission and response by the CSIR to the Draft Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity (Draft IRP 2016) issued by the South African Department of Energy in November 2016, for comment and input from relevant stakeholders and the general public by end March 2017.
The CSIR is the national scientific and industrial research facility of South Africa, reporting to the South African Department of Science and Technology.
Click here to download the full CSIR response, study and report
Executive summary
by Jarrad G. Wright, Tobias Bischof-Niemz, Joanne Calitz, Crescent Mushwana, Robbie van Heerden and Mamahloko Senatla, CSIR
As defined in the Electricity Regulation Act, 2006; the Department of Energy (DoE), the system operator and the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) are responsible for the development of the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) as a plan for the electricity sector at the national level in South Africa. The IRP broadly includes input planning assumptions (on the supply and demand side), a modelling process and scenario planning following which a base plan is derived from the least-cost generation investment requirements within the electricity sector. The primary result from the IRP is the identification of the generation capacity required (per technology) and the requisite timing in the long-term based on a set of input assumptions and predefined constraints.
The most recent approved and gazetted version of the IRP is the IRP 2010-2030. The current revision of the IRP (the Draft IRP 2016) was published by the DoE for public comment in October 2016 and includes updated input assumptions including demand forecasts, existing plant performance, supply technology costs, decommissioning schedules and newly commissioned/under construction as well as preferred bidder power generators (as part of the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Programme (REIPPPP) and base-load coal Independent Power Producer (IPP) program). The time horizon for the draft IRP 2016 is up to the year 2050. The plan defined some preliminary results in the form of a proposed Base Case and two other selected scenarios.
As part of the IRP update process, the DoE engages in a multi-stage stakeholder engagement process (including public engagements) to ensure all affected stakeholders are consulted including national and local government, business, organised labour and civil society. This document contains the CSIR’s formal comments on the draft IRP 2016.
The CSIR determined the least cost, unconstrained electricity mix by 2050 as input into the IRP 2016 public consultation process. A conservative approach is always taken where pessimistic assumptions for new technologies and optimistic assumptions for established technologies are always made. More specifically; conventional technologies (coal, nuclear, gas CAPEX) were as per IRP 2016, stationary storage technologies (batteries) were as per IRP 2016, natural gas fuel costs were assumed slightly more expensive than IRP 2016, solar PV was aligned with original IRP 2010 cost assumptions while wind is kept constant into the future at the latest South African REIPPPP result (by 2030/2040/2050). Job numbers were also conservative (from McKinsey study commissioned by the DoE in the context of the Integrated Energy Plan (IEP)) but adjusting upwards for coal power generation
and coal mining.
The result of this is that it is least cost for any new investment in the power sector to be solar PV, wind or flexible power. Solar PV, wind and flexible power generators (e.g. gas, CSP, hydro, biogas) are the cheapest new-build mix. There is no technical limitation to solar PV and wind penetration over the planning horizon until 2050. A >70% renewable energy share by 2050 is cost optimal, replacing all plants that decommission over time and meeting new demand with the new optimal mix.
South Africa has the unique opportunity to decarbonise its electricity sector without pain. By this, the authors mean that clean and cheap are no longer trade-offs anymore. The Least Cost scenario run is the mix that is the cheapest, emits less CO2, consumes less water and creates more jobs in the electricity sector than both Draft IRP 2016 Base Case and Carbon Budget scenarios.
In this submission, deviations from Least Cost have been quantified to inform policy adjustments. Compared to the Least Cost:
The IRP 2016 Base Case is R70-billion/year more costly, emits twice as much CO2, two and a half times more water is consumed and provides 10% less jobs by 2050.
The IRP 2016 Carbon Budget scenarion is R60-billion/year more costly, emits 15% more CO2, consumes 20% more water and provides 20% less jobs by 2050.
The Decarbonised scenario is R50-billion/year more costly, 95% decarbonised, uses 30% less water and provides 5% more jobs by 2050.
Read also: #NuclearDeal: Full judgment
The Least Cost scenario is also adaptable and resilient to a range of input assumption changes relative to other scenarios and therefore more robust against unforeseen changes in demand and cost. In addition to the detailed study performed to determine the Least Cost energy mix for South Africa, this submission includes technical aspects of power system operations and planning including transmission network infrastructure requirements and system services.
The cost of ensuring system frequency stability (sufficient system inertia) has been quantified in this submission. Connecting conventional technologies (nuclear/coal/gas) via HVDC and/or solar PV/wind to the grid reduces system inertia. This reduces the inherent stabilising effect of synchronous inertia during contingency events. Many technical solutions to operate low-inertia systems are available but the CSIR assumed a worst case using state-of-the-art technology (very high costs, no further technology and/or cost advancements) nor further increase in engineering solutions to deal with low-inertia systems. In all scenarios, the worst-case cost are well below 1% of total cost of power generation by 2050 (some scenarios are much lower than 1%).
Transmission network infrastructure was costed at a high level for selected scenarios (Base Case, Carbon Budget and Least-Cost). The high-level cost estimates for shallow and deep grid connection costs for all scenarios showed that the Least Cost scenario scenario is also R20-30 billion/yr cheaper compared to the Draft IRP 2016 Base Case and Carbon Budget case on transmission network infrastructure requirements.
Click here to download the full CSIR response, study and report
S.C. congressional delegation loses fight to get nuclear tax credit in government spending bill, The Post and Courier, By Emma Dumain edumain@postandcourier.com May 3, 2017
WASHINGTON — The budget agreement worked out in Congress has disappointed every member of the South Carolina delegation after a highly desired nuclear power plant tax credit was left out.
Excluded from the plan that’s supposed to keep the government running through September is a provision extending the deadline for nuclear power plants to take advantage of the tax bonus, threatening to undermine a major economic driver in the state.
At issue is a credit Congress created in 2005 to incentivize nuclear power production. But it gave plants a 2020 deadline to complete their work in order to qualify.
Westinghouse Electricity’s recent bankruptcy filing, however, has had a profound effect on the V.C. Summer nuclear power plant’s ability to stay on schedule, putting the site’s future in question.
Jimmy Addison, SCANA’s executive vice president and chief financial officer, said last week the production team needed assurances soon as to whether it would receive a deadline extension. Otherwise, SCANA would have to decide whether it could afford to continue construction at the site near Jenkinsville…….
while rewriting tax law is a priority for President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans, there’s no guarantee lawmakers will be able to advance such a bill, nor is there any clear timeline for consideration…….http:// http://www.postandcourier.com/news/s- c-congressional-delegation- loses-fight-to-get-nuclear- tax/article_c68a5cde-2f42- 11e7-ba6f-977391a7c898.html
Lawmakers to grill regulators on upstate nuclear plant bailout plan, Lohud, Thomas C. Zambito , tzambito@lohud.com April 30, 2017 Town of Bedford Supervisor Chris Burdick says that since the town agreed to pay to take part in a state program that supports renewable energy, it should not be forced to subsidize failing upstate nuclear power plants. Seth Harrison/lohud
State lawmakers will get a second crack at grilling state energy regulators about a multi-billion dollar bailout plan for three upstate nuclear power plants that critics have dubbed “The Cuomo Tax.”
State Public Service Commission officials are expected to testify at a Monday Assembly hearing in Albany on a plan to subsidize three upstate nuclear plants through monthly surcharges on ratepayers’ electric bills over the next 12 years.
The last time the Assembly held a hearing on the issue, state officials were a no-show, to the dismay of lawmakers who considered blocking the plan until state regulators testified.
Among them is Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, D-Scarsdale.
I want to hear why we continue to bear ever more costs,” said Paulin, noting that New Yorkers already pay some of the highest utility rates in the nation. “We want some answers. It’s adding costs to our utility bills.”
State officials promised to attend Monday’s hearing, which will focus on the decision-making process that led the Public Service Commission to approve the Clean Energy Standard (CES) this summer. Interim PSC chairman Gregg Sayre is expected to testify.
……The bailout plan has attracted critics on a number of fronts. The “Stop the Cuomo Tax” campaign has pegged the total cost to ratepayers at $8 billion over 12 years. ……..
Towns challenge bailout
Several towns in northern Westchester County — North Salem, Bedford and Mamaroneck — joined a legal challenge of the CES this year. Officials say many of their residents already heeded the governor’s clean energy call by voluntarily agreeing to buy their electricity from renewable sources.
The “Stop The Cuomo Tax” campaign has taken out billboards and radio ads attacking the plan.
On Thursday, the campaign released figures claiming that New York utility ratepayers have already paying out approximately $1.37 million per day since the surcharges were tucked into bills on April 1. They say the money could have gone to hire 570 teachers or to forgive the student loans of 1,230 New Yorkers.
…….You don’t have to be an economist to realize that this is bad public policy,” said Blair Horner, the executive director of the New York Public Interest Research Group. “New York could be facing a significant budget shortfall if there are cuts in federal funding for state programs. Gov. Cuomo should be focused on supporting critical government programs, not lavishing ratepayer dollars on profitable businesses.”
The three plants are owned by Chicago-based Exelon Corporation……..http://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/indian-point/2017/04/30/lawmakers-grill-regulators-upstate-nuclear-plant-bailout-plan/101035740/
The push to save U.S. nuclear plants for the sake of fighting climate change is threatening support for the bread and butter of clean power: wind and solar. New York and Illinois have already approved as much as $10 billion in subsidies to keep struggling reactors open for the next decade as part of a plan to limit fossil fuel consumption. Lawmakers in Ohio, Connecticut and New Jersey are debating whether to do the same…….
Many environmentalists remain leery of supporting nuclear power, citing terrorism risks, the problem of dealing with spent nuclear fuel, and more. Instead of propping up struggling reactors, states should promote energy efficiency and encourage development of wind, solar and power storage, said John Coequyt, the Sierra Club’s director of climate campaigns.
Nuclear’s economic woes comes as wind and solar are starting to show they’re cheap enough to compete with traditional generators, after years of help from subsidies. …..
There are key differences between wind and solar subsidies and those for nuclear, according to clean-energy developers. Renewable energy credits have spurred an emerging industry, whereas nuclear subsidies are to preserve aging plants. And while wind and solar developers compete against each other for subsidies, those for nuclear benefit a single technology.
“The renewables industry has been playing by competitive market rules that have helped to produce good prices,” Amy Francetic, an Invenergy senior vice president, said in an interview. “This is picking and winners and losers in a way that’s troubling.”
Propping up nuclear plans won’t be cheap. If every reactor across the northeast and mid-Atlantic wins subsidies at the same level as those New York, ratepayers would need to pay an additional $3.9 billion annually, according to Bloomberg Intelligence. The subsides are being challengedin federal court by power generators including Dynegy Inc. and NRG Energy.
“This has taken a lot of wind from the green economy’s sails,” Abraham Silverman, an attorney for NRG, said in an interview. “We see an enormous lost opportunity to invest in truly clean infrastructure.”…..https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-24/lifeline-for-nuclear-in-u-s-states-seen-threatening-wind-solar
FirstEnergy looks to the feds for help with coal and nuclear April 28, 2017 By Anya Litvak / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette The future of FirstEnergy’s coal and nuclear power plants in Pennsylvania and Ohio now is being assessed through the lens of a speedy federal study which, it is widely understood, is looking for ways to prop up coal and nuclear plants.
Chuck Jones, the CEO of Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp., said the company’s subsidiary that operates those plants has delayed a decision on filing for bankruptcy until the Department of Energy releases a study it commissioned two weeks ago.
The study which, among other things, is meant to explore “the extent to which continued regulatory burdens, as well as mandates and tax and subsidy policies, are responsible for forcing the premature retirement of baseload power plants,” is supposed to be done by June 19.
“I think the administration is serious about this,” Mr. Jones said during a call with analysts on Friday. “Our Washington team tells me that this is a very serious initiative. If their intention is to keep these fuel-secure base load assets from closing then they’re going to have to do something to make sure that there’s a financial incentive for these plants to not close,” he said.
Mr. Jones said he’s traveled to Washington D.C. to discuss this matter with representatives of the Trump administration and officials at the Department of Energy.
“And I’m sure this also clearly ties in to one of the President’s key initiatives, which is to protect our coal natural resource and the mining and jobs that go along with that,” he said.
Another government solution that could impact the company’s bankruptcy considerations is a set of bills moving through the Ohio legislature that would to subsidize nuclear plants through zero emission nuclear credits. If enacted, the measures would give FirstEnergy’s two nuclear power stations in Ohio $300 million in annual income.
But that alone won’t be enough to ward off bankruptcy, Mr. Jones cautioned. What it will do, he said, is give those plants a better chance of being scooped up by a buyer during a bankruptcy proceeding.
While he did not address efforts brewing in Pennsylvania to explore nuclear subsidies, he said the way the Ohio legislation is currently written, the Beaver Valley nuclear plant might qualify for credits across the state line.
It’s unusual for financial analysts to throw as much cold water on a company’s narrative as was spilling every which way during FirstEnergy’s earnings call on Friday.
Some questioned whether the Department of Energy has the power to enact measures that would help coal and nuclear plants directly. Others said that even if the DOE study does produce a policy framework, it will likely trigger involvement from other federal agencies, stretching the timeline for implementing any helpful measures……..
What’s clear is that the current system isn’t working, he said, because FirstEnergy’s power plants aren’t making enough money to stay alive. In its quarterly report, FirstEnergy said “prolonged decrease in demand and excess generation supply” compelled it to close more than half of its generation capacity in recent years……..
Stu Bresler, senior vice president of operations and markets at PJM, recently told Pennsylvania’s nuclear caucus that if all of the state’s nuclear plants were to shut down — a scenario he believes is unlikely — the grid would remain reliable.
Anya Litvak: alitvak@post-gazette.com http://powersource.post-gazette.com/powersource/companies/2017/04/28/FirstEnergy-Chuck-Jones-CEO-Akron-looks-to-the-feds-for-help-with-coal-and-nuclear/stories/201704280208
No2 Nuclear Power No 95 May 17 Hinkley Notes · The government has been slammed by the Information Commissioner’s Office over a number of “unjustifiable” delays in publishing details of contracts for Hinkley Point C. Whitehall officials were guilty of “egregious” and unjustifiable delays before revealing details of government contracts for Hinkley Point C awarded to a company facing a potential conflict of interest. Leigh Fisher, a management consultancy, was awarded a £1.2 million contract by the Department of Energy and Climate Change for its advice on Hinkley Point, despite the British division of Jacobs Engineering, an American group that also owns Leigh Fisher, working for EDF on the project. The advice from Leigh Fisher helped the government to agree the 35-year subsidy deal with EDF. Details of the arrangement with Leigh Fisher, which has concerned MPs including Iain Wright, chairman of the Commons’ business, energy and industrial strategy select committee, emerged in November after The Times obtained redacted details of the tender documents under the Freedom of Information Act. However, it took the business department almost six months to release information after it was requested. Public bodies typically are required to respond to FOI requests within 20 working days. The department also heavily redacted details of separate Hinkley Point contracts awarded to KPMG and Lazard, including passages regarding potential conflicts of interests. KPMG was paid about £4.4 million for its work by the department and Lazard £2.6 million. (1)
EDF Energy has confirmed that discussions are ongoing in a dispute over pay involving ground workers at Hinkley Point C. (2) EDF said on 24th April it was still in dialogue with trade unions after payment offers were labelled “derisory” and “unacceptable” in a Unite press release. The row over bonus pay is threatening to lead to an industrial dispute among construction workers on the site. A consultative ballot is to be held among 700 members of Unite and GMB, which could lead to a vote on industrial action. (3) ·
The news of a possible strike comes days after crew members had to be rescued from a Hinkley Point ship as it began to sink in the Bristol Channel. The three crew members of a former military landing craft had to be rescued following a mayday call in the Bristol Channel. The vessel, which takes building materials to the Hinkley Point C power station under construction, had started to take on water. A crew member was airlifted to hospital in Cardiff suffering from hypothermia after three lifeboats and a helicopter were scrambled to the scene. The craft finally beached in the mouth of the River Parrett. (4)
Work is gathering pace on Hinkley Point C says the FT. (5) The once grassy valley, carrying the Holford stream towards the Bristol Channel, is being filled with earth and rubble excavated from the adjacent construction site. Last month concrete pouring started on the first permanent structures: an 8km network of tunnels that will carry piping and cables around the site. The Guardian says the site looks more like Mordor, from Lord of the Rings, a scarred landscape and hive of activity driven with a single purpose: ensuring these reactors do not repeat the delays and overspends at Flamanville and Olkiluoto. (6) Vincent de Rivaz, head of EDF in the UK, says work is on schedule. Yet as one set of hurdles is cleared, another is looming. French nuclear regulators are investigating potential safety problems with steel components destined for Hinkley from a foundry suspected of falsifying quality-assurance documents. The probe involves Areva, the French nuclear reactor manufacturer and close partner of EDF, and has already caused temporary shutdowns of several existing reactors in France to check for faults. Only the hopelessly naive would believe EDF’s claims that Hinkley will start generating electricity by 2025, says Geoff Ho, writing in The Express. The likelihood of it being delivered on time and on budget is remote. Unions are already threatening to go on strike over bonus payments, and there are the unresolved safety concerns about the EPR design Given Britain’s less than glorious history of infrastructure projects being delivered late and massively over budget, he cannot see Hinkley Point C bucking the trend. (7)
A group of activists has filed a legal challenge with the French prime minister’s office against the extension of EDF’s licence for construction of the Flamanville nuclear reactor in northern France. The move by Greenpeace and other anti-nuclear groups is in response to safety concerns over the Flamanville reactor and is a precursor to elevation of their challenge to the State Council, the country’s highest administrative court. The lobby groups said in a statement that the licence, issued in 2007 and renewed this year, should not have been granted because EDF and reactor supplier Areva were aware of technical shortcomings at Areva’s Creusot Forge nuclear foundry since 2005. In 2014 Areva discovered that the lid of the Flamanville reactor vessel manufactured by Creusot Forge showed abnormally high carbon concentrations, which weaken its steel. (8)….
http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo95.pdf
Tories are ‘fanatics’ for saying they would start a nuclear war, Green Party says http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-nuclear-first-strike-war-green-party-fanatics-jeremy-corbyn-jonathan-bartley-a7700071.html Green co-leader Jonathan Barley attacked the Tories and Labour’s positions on Trident, Jon Stone Political Correspondent @joncstone, 25 Apr 17, The Green Party has accused the Conservatives of “fanaticism” after the Defence Secretary admitted that Theresa May could start a nuclear war.
Michael Fallon had said the Prime Minister could launch a nuclear attack against another country, even if the UK was not under nuclear attack, in “the most extreme circumstances”.
Speaking at St George’s Hospital in Tooting on Monday the Green co-leader pledged spend the cost of the weapon on the NHS.
“Voters are being offered a choice between Tory first strike fanaticisms and Labour’s HMS Pointless. What could be more immoral than considering a first use of nuclear weapons, knowing full well that it would lead to the death of countless civilians?” he said.
“And what could be more illogical that pledging to renew a multi-billion pound nuclear weapons system that will never be used? With people struggling to get by in Britain it’s inexcusable to be ploughing people’s money into this cold war relic.
“Instead of replacing this nuclear monstrosity the Green Party would give the NHS an emergency kiss of life. People are being treated in corridors while we flush money away on nuclear weapons. Cancelling Trident would give our NHS more than £3bn per year – which must be added to additional funding from raising taxes.
“Real security means having a world class health service, not locking ourselves into replacing these weapons we’ll never use. Imagine the impact on our NHS of employing 85,000 more nurses, midwives and health professionals – that’s what is at stake here.”
Speaking on Sunday Labour leader Mr Corbyn said he would try to de-escalate a nuclear war and said that “any use of nuclear weapons is a disaster for the whole world”. His party however says it is committed to maintaining a “nuclear deterrent” and would renew Trident.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4 this morning Mr Fallon, Ms May’s defence secretary, said: “In the most extreme circumstances, we have made it very clear that you can’t rule out the use of nuclear weapons as a first strike.
Asked in what circumstances, he replied: “They are better not specified or described, which would only give comfort to our enemies and make the deterrent less credible.”
The highest estimate of the cost of replacing Trident is £205 billion over its lifetime, according to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. One estimate collated from ministerial statement by Crispin Blunt, the Tory MP who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, pegged the cost at £167 billion.
The independent Trident Commission, which reported in 2014, pegged the cost at closer to £100 billion.
Future of nuclear energy bleak in Korea All major candidates vow to stop building new reactors, Korea Times, By Jung Min-ho, 21 Apr 17, The future of nuclear energy looks bleak in Korea for whoever becomes the next president.
All major candidates have vowed to stop building new nuclear reactors and close down older ones in an effort to reduce the country’s dependence on nuclear energy.
Left-leaning Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) candidate Moon Jae-in, the frontrunner in the race, promised to cancel construction plans for two additional nuclear reactors ― Shin Kori 5 and 6. He believes Korea will have to phase out all of its remaining nuclear power plants over the next 40 years.
Ahn Cheol-soo of the People’s Party, the runner-up, also made the same promises, though he did not mention specifically by when he plans to remove all nuclear reactors. Korea has 23 nuclear reactors in operation, from which it gets about 30 percent of its power. Five more reactors are under construction.
Sim Sang-jeung of the minor Justice Party is taking the strongest stance against nuclear energy. She said she will immediately close down all the reactors under construction and rid the country of nuclear reactors by 2040.
The two right-wing candidates ― Yoo Seong-min of the Bareun Party and Hong Joon-pyo of the Liberty Korea Party ― are more cautious about the idea of removing all the nuclear reactors, but still, they are not far apart on the issue compared to other candidates.
“Compared with the previous presidential election, candidates have taken more progressive approaches over the issue,” said Kim Mi-kyung, a climate change activist at the environmental group Greenpeace. “We expect Korea to follow the global trends of nuclear-free, coal-free and more renewable energy.”
Jeremy Corbyn does not guarantee the Labour manifesto will back Trident nuclear weapons
Jeremy Corbyn was grilled on pushing the “nuclear button” and killing the leader of ISIS in his first big TV interview of the general election campaign, Mirror, DAN BLOOM 23 APR 2017
Jeremy Corbyn has thrown Labour’s controversial support for Britain’s nuclear weapons programme Trident into question by failing to guarantee it will be in the party’s manifesto.
The Labour leader swerved the question in a TV interview today by saying the document was still being drawn up.
That has caused ructions in the 18 months since he became Labour leader and the party split three ways on whether to back renewal last year. In a testy interview Mr Corbyn also did not guarantee he would push the so-called “nuclear button” to launch a pre-emptive strike.
And he did not guarantee he would authorise a strike to kill ISIS’ leader, instead saying any killing must support a “political solution”.
Pressed on whether killing ISIS’s leader would help that solution, Mr Corbyn said: “I think the leader of ISIS not being around would be helpful and I’m no supporter or defender in any way whatsoever of ISIS.”
But he added the bombing campaign had killed innocent civilians.
Labour later attempted to clarify Mr Corbyn’s remarks in a statement saying: “The decision to renew Trident has been taken and Labour supports that.”
Mr Corbyn clashed with the BBC’s Andrew Marr in his first major broadcast interview of the 2017 general election campaign……..http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-not-guarantee-labour-10278663
Nuclear ‘bailout’ debate heats up, http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/nuclear-bailout-debate-heats-up-1.2184204 BY ROBERT SWIFT, HARRISBURG BUREAU CHIEF, 23 APR 17, HARRISBURG —Nuclear energy is emerging as a live issue at the statehouse in a way not seen since the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in March 1979 — nearly 40 years ago.
The formation of a very diverse coalition to oppose any nuclear “bailouts” following the creation by lawmakers last month of a pro-Nuclear Energy caucus sets the stage for a potential clash over the future of nuclear plants. The nuclear industry has faced plant shutdowns across the nation and problems selling its electricity at competitive rates, with competition from cheaper natural gas in recent years.
New York State has approved a surcharge on customers’ electric bills to provide a subsidy to keep plants open. Other bailout proposals would inflate electricity prices to help the industry.
No actual proposals have surfaced in Harrisburg to have electricity customers pay surcharges to help keep Pennsylvania’s five nuclear plants open. The legislative caucus said its top priority is preserving the jobs of nuclear plant workers, including 1,000 employees at the Susquehanna power plant in Salem Twp. owned by Talen Energy.
But Citizens Against Nuclear Bailouts isn’t waiting for a bill to appear. This coalition of consumer groups, business groups and other power generators wants to stop a bailout in its tracks. Surcharges would hit senior citizens and working families, coalition members said. A bailout would fly in the face of Pennsylvania’s decision to deregulate its electric market nearly 20 years ago, they added.
The statement by the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association is interesting:
“Like every other industry, nuclear power providers should be free to compete for customers in the electricity market, but they shouldn’t benefit from a taxpayer or ratepayer bailout,” said PMA President David Taylor
Donald Trump has ‘dangerous mental illness’, say psychiatry experts at Yale conference Mental health experts say President is ‘paranoid and delusional’, Independent UK, 21 Apr 17 May Bulman @maybulman Donald Trump has a “dangerous mental illness” and is not fit to lead the US, a group of psychiatrists has warned during a conference at Yale University.
Mental health experts claimed the President was “paranoid and delusional”, and said it was their “ethical responsibility” to warn the American public about the “dangers” Mr Trump’s psychological state poses to the country.
Speaking at the conference at Yale’s School of Medicine on Thursday, one of the mental health professionals, Dr John Gartner, a practising psychotherapist who advised psychiatric residents at Johns Hopkins University Medical School, said: “We have an ethical responsibility to warn the public about Donald Trump’s dangerous mental illness.”
Dr Gartner, who is also a founding member of Duty to Warn, an organisation of several dozen mental health professionals who think Mr Trump is mentally unfit to be president, said the President’s statement about having the largest crowd at an inauguration was just one of many that served as warnings of a larger problem.
“Worse than just being a liar or a narcissist, in addition he is paranoid, delusional and grandiose thinking and he proved that to the country the first day he was President. If Donald Trump really believes he had the largest crowd size in history, that’s delusional,” he added.
Chairing the event, Dr Bandy Lee, assistant clinical professor in the Yale Department of Psychiatry, said: “As some prominent psychiatrists have noted, [Trump’s mental health] is the elephant in the room. I think the public is really starting to catch on and widely talk about this now.”……..
James Gilligan, a psychiatrist and professor at New York University, told the conference he had worked some of the “most dangerous people in society”, including murderers and rapists — but that he was convinced by the “dangerousness” of Mr Trump…….
Dr Gartner started an online petition earlier this year on calling for Mr Trump to be removed from office, which claims that he is “psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President”. The petition has so far garnered more than 41,000 signatures.
It states: “We, the undersigned mental health professionals (please state your degree), believe in our professional judgment that Donald Trump manifests a serious mental illness that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States.
“And we respectfully request he be removed from office, according to article 4 of the 25th amendment to the Constitution, which states that the president will be replaced if he is ‘unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office’.” ……..
The doctors have said that even if it is in breach of tradition ethical standards of psychiatry, it was necessary to break their silence on the matter because they feared “too much is at stake”.It is not the first time Mr Trump’s mental health has been called into question. In February, Duty to Warn, which consists of psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers, signed an open letter warning that his mental state “makes him incapable of serving safely as president”.
The letter warned that the President’s tendency to “distort reality” to fit his “personal myth of greatness” and attack those who challenge him with facts was likely to increase in a position of power. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-dangerous-mental-illness-yale-psychiatrist-conference-us-president-unfit-james-gartner-a7694316.html
The next French president’s nuclear problem, Candidates face tough decisions on the country’s nuclear energy future. Politico By 4/20/17,France’s next president is in for a big nuclear headache.
He or she will have to figure out how to either extend the life of or shut down 58 reactors fast approaching retirement age and keep the country’s energy supply flowing at the same time. All the options risk being complicated and costly — financially and politically — and require savvy planning to encourage France’s dominant electricity company EDF to shift away from an energy source that has long been the core of its business.
The top candidates going into the April 23-May 7 election have widely varying nuclear energy policies, from a far-left push to get rid of it entirely to a far-right call to hang on to the country’s biggest energy source and a decades-old source of pride in the country’s industrial prowess. Center-left front-runner Emmanuel Macron falls somewhere in the middle: He wants to carry on with the existing policy, which aims to shrink the share of nuclear energy in France’s mix from 75 percent to 50 percent.
“These things are being discussed as if they were a matter of opinion, and they are not,” said Mycle Schneider, a Paris-based energy policy adviser. “The financial stress has become so harsh that it is virtually impossible to imagine maintaining a nuclear fleet of 58 reactors. They cannot afford to maintain the status quo, so consecutive shutdowns will be forced upon decisionmakers.”
Despite the industry’s financial problems, navigating the politics of nuclear power can be dangerous in a very close election campaign. A 2016 poll by the French public opinion institute Ifop found that 53 percent of people are against a nuclear phase-out. Right-leaning voters are generally pro-nuclear, while left-leaning ones support a phase-out — which keeps candidates from shifting positions.
EDF and France’s nuclear technology company Areva have experienced huge financial strain in recent years as European power prices dropped and new nuclear plants under construction in France and Finland ran into significant cost overruns and delays. As a result, the French government pushed EDF to take over Areva and approved €3 billion in support before EDF committed to building a new nuclear plant in the U.K. last year. The costs and problems around these projects, however, have raised doubts about the future of Areva’s European Pressurized Reactor technology after the British plant.
French divisions over nuclear were on display this month in a battle over the closure of France’s oldest nuclear power plant, the 39-year-old Fessenheim………
Whatever the campaign rhetoric, France’s next president will have to take into account an unpleasant truth: Any option is going to cost a lot of money.
Decommissioning nuclear power plants is complicated, long and expensive work, but so is building new reactors or upgrading old ones. A quick nuclear phase-out would cost €217 billion, according to the French liberal think tank Institut Montaigne. The Mélenchon and Hamon campaigns responded by pointing to a Court of Auditors estimate that it would cost €100 billion to keep existing reactors running. http://www.politico.eu/article/the-next-french-presidents-nuclear-problem-election-france-power-energy/
Eskom admits trying to dodge procurement procedures for nuclear deal, Business Tech April 21, 2017 State power utility, Eskom, says that earlier reports made by the Democratic Alliance about trying to dodge correct procedures for nuclear procurement are partially true, but stressed that it is only looking for exemption from certain areas of the process.
Earlier this week, the DA alleged that Eskom had made a direct application to the National Treasury chief procurement officer, Schalk Human, asking to be exempted from the prescribed procurement procedures for the new nuclear power acquisition.
The party stated that this was done in an apparent bid to accelerate the nuclear new build programme, “in a move that would mean that the country’s biggest ever procurement deal would not be subject to due diligence and correct procedures”……….
As indicated in the original report by the DA, it appears that the political party will fight the rushed process.
DA shadow minister of energy, Gordon Mackay, said that the exemption is ‘significant’ and would mean Eskom is embarking on the country’s single biggest public procurement – without fully assessing associated risks and consequences for South Africa’s economy.
“All state entities are bound by specific procurement standards and requirements. These processes are vital to ensure the effective, efficient and transparent acquisition of goods and services by the State and its entities. If procurement standards cannot be met – procurement should not commence,” Mackay said.
“The DA is strongly opposed to the nuclear deal and will continue to pursue all avenues to scrutinise every process involved and to ultimately put a stop to a deal that will enslave future generations of South Africans.”https://businesstech.co.za/news/energy/171505/eskom-admits-trying-to-dodge-procurement-procedures-for-nuclear-deal/
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
nuclear-news 