nuclear-news

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

Baltic or Visaginas: Will any of the two nuclear neighbor-competitor plants get built?


http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2014-04-baltic-visaginas-will-two-nuclear-neighbor-competitor-plants-get-built  
VILNIUS—As the Lithuanian government has it, Russia’s halting its Baltic Nuclear Power Plant project in Kaliningrad Region is a result of Moscow’s failure to secure prospects of exporting the station’s energy and synchronizing the regional grid with that of Europe, but, says Vilnius, Lithuania – where politicians, against public disapproval, still have their sights set on a new reactor in Visaginas – should be able to avoid making the same mistakes. April 14, 2014 by Andrei Ozharovsky   This article was translated by Maria Kaminskaya.  idc.moscow@gmail.com

VILNIUS—As the Lithuanian government has it, Russia’s halting its Baltic Nuclear Power Plant project in Kaliningrad Region is a result of Moscow’s failure to secure prospects of exporting the station’s energy and synchronizing the regional grid with that of Europe, but, says Vilnius, Lithuania – where politicians, against public disapproval, still have their sights set on a new reactor in Visaginas – should be able to avoid making the same mistakes.

Kaliningrad Region “has no link connecting its power lines with Poland, and no guarantees that they will be able to deliver electric power to Lithuania [and] other countries, and building such a powerful site and producing energy in a situation where it can’t be sold to anyone would, I think, be a huge risk for [Russia],” Lithuanian Prime Minister Algirdas Butkevičius said in early April in a conversation with the national radio station LRT, the Baltic portal DELFI reported (in Russian).

Butkevičius said that “anyone familiar with the energy system that exists in Kaliningrad Region understands that after building a [nuclear power plant] they will have to install power lines to provide for transport of electric power to other countries.” And there is, Butkevičius added, another problem still in Kaliningrad Region’s energy system: “according to my information, […] they need to upgrade the domestic power lines as well, since these are worn out,” the prime minister said.

Russia’s project of a nuclear power plant (NPP) in Kaliningrad Region – a Russian territory bordered by the Baltic Sea in the west, Lithuania in the north and east, and Poland in the south, with Belarus lying further to the east – was aimed from the start at selling energy for export to neighboring states: The amount of power that the future Baltic NPP would produce – two units equipped with VVER-1200 reactors to a combined capacity of 2,300 megawatts – is well in excess of the region’s own needs. According to a late March report by the Russian daily Kommersant (in Russian), the region’s peak demand is 827 megawatts.

But all attempts by Russia to land power delivery contracts with potential customers in the European Union – first and foremost, Lithuania and Poland – fell flat, much like the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom’s negotiations to secure investment funds or loans from energy and banking heavyweights in Europe.

Late last May, news reports broke saying that work at the site in Kaliningrad’s Neman District, where construction started in 2010, had been halted, and that Rosatom was considering an alternative option of building small- and medium-capacity reactors at the site. In an extensive interview given to the popular radio station Ekho Moskvy last June Rosatom head Sergei Kiriyenko admitted the re-planning would cause construction to “definitely halt for a year to two years,” and, possibly, longer.

According to Lithuanian Prime Minister Butkevičius, Vilnius so far has no official confirmation of Russia’s decision to give up its project in Kaliningrad……….

…against the will of their voters

In October 2012, over 62% of votes cast in a national advisory referendum, held alongside  parliamentary elections, said “no” to building a new nuclear power plant in Lithuania……..

In a comment given to Bellona in early April, Linas Vainius, of the Lithuanian environmental organization Atgaja, said that “the referendum incurs explicit legal obligations, and decisions by the parliament should have followed which did not follow.”

“It is unbecoming of democratic parties and a democratic country of the European Union to negate and trample on a decision of their citizens that they expressed in a referendum. And this was a clear decision – ‘no’ to a new nuclear power plant,” Vainius said.

“As we see, the people’s representatives do not – or will not – understand and respect the will of the public. No wonder, given that the public is only remembered when the time comes to rise, with its help, to the height of power,” a statement by Lithuania’s environmental movement Association Žali.lt, published last October, said in response to the government’s continued attempts, over the year that had passed since the referendum, to push for the Visaginas construction.

“Those in power could gain back the respect of the public if they stopped listening to tall tales on the order of those told by [Belarusian President Alexander] Lukashenko and [Russian President Vladimir] Putin about the flourishing future of nuclear power, and if they stuck their heads from behind the dusty walls of the past, before the death knell is rung on this energy sector,” the statement read, referring to another nuclear project underway in the region – the two-unit Belarusian NPP, which is being built to a Rosatom-developed project near Ostrovets in Lithuania’s neighbor Belarus, close to the Lithuanian border.

All three NPP construction plans sparked a wide-scale cross-border activist campaign fighting to preserve the nuclear-free status of the region and uniting the efforts of political, environmental, and other NGOs from Russia, Lithuania, and Belarus in anti-nuclear initiatives and protest actions.

“The world – not just the regions affected by the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters – is fast distancing itself from this Cold War technology, which is not improving at all, but only becoming more expensive,” Žali.lt said in its statement.

August 25, 2017 Posted by | EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

The State, South Carolina, names the people who brought on the nuclear power fiasco

These are the people who brought us the SCE&G/Santee Cooper nuclear debacle http://www.thestate.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/cindi-ross-scoppe/article168891607.html, CINDI ROSS SCOPPE, Associate Editor, AUGUST 24, 2017 COLUMBIA, SC 

You want names? We’ve got names.

Names of the SC Public Service Commissioners, who have been acting on SCE&G’s rate requests and will decide how much more the utility can charge us for its unfinished nuclear reactors at the VC Summer nuclear facility.

Names of the commissioners who gave SCANA the initial go-ahead to start the project, back in 2008.

Names of SCANA’s management and board members.

Names of Santee Cooper’s management and board members.

 And a link to the names of legislators who approved the law that made it oh, so much easier for us to be charged already — and left holding the bag — for the failed project.

Public Service Commission

The links take you to contact and biographical information about them on the PSC website.

John E. “Butch” Howard, District 1*

Elliott F. Elam, Jr., District 2

Comer H. “Randy” Randall, Vice Chairman, District 3

Elizabeth B. “Lib” Fleming, District 4*

Swain E. Whitfield, Chairman District 5

Nikiya “Nikki” Hall, District 6

G. O’Neal Hamilton, District 7*

* Was serving on the commission in 2008, when the project was given its crucial, initial approval

PSC members in 2008, when the project was given initial approval

John E. “Butch” Howard, District 1, Charleston

David A. Wright, District 2, Columbia

Randy Mitchell, District 3, Saluda

Elizabeth B. “Lib” Fleming, District 4, Spartanburg

G. O’Neal Hamilton, chairman, District 5, Bennettsville

Mignon L. Clyburn, District 6, Charleston

C. Robert Moseley, vice chairman, at large, Irmo

SCANA Corp (parent of SCE&G)

Kevin Marsh, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Names and information about other corporate officers

Board of Directors

Gregory E. Aliff, Certified Public Accountant, Retired from Deloitte & Touche LLP, Reston, VA

James A. Bennett, South Carolina Central Area Executive, First Citizens Bank & Trust Company, Columbia, SC

John F.A.V. Cecil, President, Biltmore Farms, Asheville, NC

Sharon A. Decker, Chief Operating Officer, Tryon International Equestrian Center, Mill Spring, NC

D. Maybank Hagood, Chairman & CEO, Southern Diversified Distributors, Charleston, SC

Kevin B. Marsh, President & CEO, SCANA Corporation, Cayce, SC

Lynne M. Miller, Environmental Consultant, Great Falls, VA

James W. Roquemore, CEO and Chairman, Patten Seed Company, Orangeburg, SC

Alfredo Trujillo, President & COO, Georgia Tech Foundation, Atlanta, GA

Maceo K. Sloan, Chairman, President & CEO, Sloan Financial Group, Chairman & CEO, NCM Capital Management Group, Durham, NC

Santee Cooper

Lonnie N. Carter, President and Chief Executive Officer

Santee Cooper contact information

Names of other corporate officers

Board of Directors

W. Leighton Lord III, Chairman, Nexsen Pruet law firm, Columbia

William A. Finn, 1st Vice Chairman, chairman of AstenJohnson, a specialty textile company for the printing and papermaking industries based in Charleston

Barry Wynn, 2nd Vice Chairman, president of Colonial Trust Company, a private trust company specializing in investment management and estate services, Spartanburg

Kristofer Clark, broker with Easlan Capital and owner of Pristine Properties LLC., Easley

Merrell W. Floyd, retired staff coordinator at Horry Electric Cooperative, Conway

J. Calhoun Land IV, Land, Parker & Welch law firm, Manning

Stephen H. Mudge, co-founder, president and CEO of Serrus Capital Partners, a Greenville-based real estate investment firm

Peggy H. Pinnell, owner of the Peggy H. Pinnell Insurance Agency in Moncks Corner, a State Farm agency

Dan J. Ray, president of DR Capital Group, a Pawleys Island-based financial advisory and investment company

David F. Singleton, president of Singleton Properties, a real estate investment and sales firm, Myrtle Beach

Jack F. Wolfe Jr., past president and CEO of the Mid-Carolina Electric Cooperative in Lexington

Office of Regulatory Staff

Dukes Scott, executive director

You might also want to read these other pieces I’ve written

Here’s who voted to give SCE&G a blank check

How ‘waste not, want not’ became ‘spend more, profit more’

SCE&G nuclear fiasco: It’s complicated. Here are some explanations.

SCE&G law could cost you more than you imagine

This is what has to change after the SC nuclear meltdown

Ms. Scoppe writes editorials and columns for The State. Reach her at cscoppe@thestate.com or (803) 771-8571 or follow her on Twitter or like her on Facebook @CindiScoppe.

August 25, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

U.S. Senator wants report on costs and safety of Los Alamos National Laboratory

Senator seeks answers on LANL’s nuclear safety, By Rebecca Moss | The New Mexican, Aug 23, 2017,

A U.S. senator has asked the National Nuclear Security Administration to report to Congress by Thursday on the costs and safety of Los Alamos National Laboratory’s weapons production program and, in particular, the potential for critical accidents.

In early August, U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., a ranking member of the Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, sent a letter to Frank Klotz, administrator of the NNSA, saying she had serious concerns about poor federal oversight and management of the laboratory and requesting a report.

The inquiry was triggered by a series of investigative reports by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Public Integrity, which were published in The New Mexican and other newspapers earlier this summer. The series highlighted a number of serious incidents at Los Alamos’ plutonium facility, events that could have led to significant radiological releases and worker deaths. Poor management has resulted in unsafe working conditions, injured workers and federal violations at the plutonium facility and other sites, and senior officials rarely were penalized for the problems, the stories said……

Los Alamos was the only nuclear site that failed its annual review for nuclear criticality safety in fiscal year 2016, a program designed to prevent severe nuclear accidents. The lab was graded as “adequate but needs improvement” the previous year, according to a federal report.

In her Aug. 3 letter to Klotz, McCaskill said, “Private firms contracted to operate and maintain these facilities have not been held accountable in a meaningful way for the safety lapses that occurred under their watch.”….

I have previously noted my concerns regarding DOE’s poor oversight and management of its contracts and its inability to properly exercise effective oversight of its budget,” McCaskill said in the letter.

She asked the National Nuclear Security Administration to report on the current state of operations and safety testing at Los Alamos’ plutonium facility, known as PF-4, and whether safety standards have been met. She also asked the agency to provide costs associated with closing the facility, how much of the agency’s budget for fiscal year 2018 will go to improving safety standards, and if any penalties will be imposed on the lab or its management contractors.

“Does NNSA feel it is meeting its duty to prevent dangerous nuclear accident?” she asked.

U.S. Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., said in an email that McCaskill’s letter “raises some very serious and important questions, and I hope the NNSA answers these questions in a timely manner.”…….

Greg Mello, director of the Los Alamos Study Group, a nuclear disarmament-focused nonoprofit, said in a statement that McCaskill’s letter is “only the tip of the iceberg” of problems at Los Alamos.

“Bad management is a feature,” he said. “It is partly why people work at these facilities (LANL in particular) in the first place — low professional standards, high salaries, and lack of accountability.”

Contact Rebecca Moss at 505-986-3011or rmoss@sfnewmexican.com. http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/senator-seeks-answers-on-lanl-s-nuclear-safety/article_2e3901ef-fff5-5086-b270-eeb603c15e07.html

August 25, 2017 Posted by | politics, safety, USA | Leave a comment

Poll shows that most Americans oppose military threats against North Korea

Poll: Most Americans oppose military threats against North Korea, Gephardt Daily, By United Press International – August 21, 2017  Aug. 21 (UPI) — The majority of Americans oppose U.S. military threats against North Korea, according to a new poll. But that opinion changes if diplomatic efforts fail to solve the rift between the two countries.

The CBS News poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe the U.S. “should not” threaten military action against North Korea, while 33 percent said it should.

Among Republicans, however, those numbers are almost reversed. The poll found that 63 percent of GOP supporters believe the U.S. should threaten military action, while 30 percent said it should not.

Among Democrats, the vast majority — 82 percent — said the U.S. should not threaten military action, while only 11 percent said military threats are the right thing to do.

Independents tended to reflect the national average, with 58 percent against military threats and 33 percent in favor.

However, the poll also found that most Americans are in favor of military action if diplomacy doesn’t work…..http://gephardtdaily.com/national-international/poll-most-americans-oppose-military-threats-against-north-korea/

August 23, 2017 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Scott Pruitt has turned America’s Environment Protection Agency into a nerve-wracking mess

turning the agency into a hollow shell by whacking its budget, overturning rules based on bogus reports and keeping employees in the dark allows Pruitt and his allies to claim publicly that all they are doing is restricting the EPA to its original purpose, not demolishing it.

In fact, the damage that Pruitt is inflicting will take years to repair.

Scott Pruitt’s EPA Is Crazyland, Clean Technica , August 22nd, 2017 “…..By Meteor Blades     Coral Davenport and Eric Lipton at The New York Times report that Pruitt has injected a sense of paranoia at the agency, making career employees feel as if they are the enemy. Those staffers say floors at EPA HQ are frequently locked, and if they wish to see Pruitt, they must have an escort. They are often told to leave their cellphones behind and not to take notes in meetings with him:“Mr. Pruitt, according to the employees, who requested anonymity out of fear of losing their jobs, often makes important phone calls from other offices rather than use the phone in his office, and he is accompanied, even at E.P.A. headquarters, by armed guards, the first head of the agency to ever request round-the-clock security.

“A former Oklahoma attorney general who built his career suing the E.P.A., and whose LinkedIn profile still describes him as ‘a leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda,’ Mr. Pruitt has made it clear that he sees his mission to be dismantling the agency’s policies — and even portions of the institution itself.

 “But as he works to roll back regulations, close offices and eliminate staff at the agency charged with protecting the nation’s environment and public health, Mr. Pruitt is taking extraordinary measures to conceal his actions, according to interviews with more than 20 current and former agency employees.”…….

Among the examples of Pruitt’s moves to undermine the agency’s mission is what was done to the analysis of the Waters of the United States rule put in place during the Obama administration to expand EPA’s oversight of large bodies of water to the streams and rivers that feed them. This attempt to preserve wetlands and clean up polluted tributaries was widely attacked by farmers, real estate developers, and rightist ideologues.

Pruitt was determined to dump the rule. So he ordered a rewrite of a lengthy analysis that had shown that the rule’s economic benefits far outweighed its costs. The EPA’s staffers dutifully complied, and when their report emerged, more than half a billion dollars in benefits from the rule had been erased:

“Jeffrey Ruchs, the executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, an organization representing government employees in environmental fields, said the E.P.A. could not allow changes like this to take place, or expect its employees to follow such directives.

“‘This is a huge change, and they made it over a few days, with almost no record, no documentation,’ Mr. Ruchs said, adding, ‘It wasn’t so much cooking the books, it was throwing out the books.’ […]

“’The mere fact they are telling people not to write things down shows they are trying to keep things hidden,’ said Jeffrey Lubbers, a professor of administrative law at American University.”

The secrecy extends to the most mundane matters. Unlike previous agency administrators, he doesn’t post his schedule and makes it difficult for top staffers to even know where he is traveling on government business……

turning the agency into a hollow shell by whacking its budget, overturning rules based on bogus reports and keeping employees in the dark allows Pruitt and his allies to claim publicly that all they are doing is restricting the EPA to its original purpose, not demolishing it.

In fact, the damage that Pruitt is inflicting will take years to repair. https://cleantechnica.com/2017/08/22/scott-pruitts-epa-crazyland/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

August 23, 2017 Posted by | employment, environment, politics, USA | 2 Comments

America’s federal advisory committee on climate change abolished by Trump!

The Trump administration just disbanded a federal advisory committee on climate change, WP, By Juliet Eilperin August 20 The Trump administration has decided to disband the federal advisory panel for the National Climate Assessment, a group aimed at helping policymakers and private-sector officials incorporate the government’s climate analysis into long-term planning.

The charter for the 15-person Advisory Committee for the Sustained National Climate Assessment — which includes academics as well as local officials and corporate representatives — expires Sunday. On Friday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s acting administrator, Ben Friedman, informed the committee’s chair that the agency would not renew the panel.

The National Climate Assessment is supposed to be issued every four years but has come out only three times since passage of the 1990 law calling for such analysis. The next one, due for release in 2018, already has become a contentious issue for the Trump administration.

Administration officials are currently reviewing a scientific report that is key to the final document. Known as the Climate Science Special Report, it was produced by scientists from 13 different federal agencies and estimates that human activities were responsible for an increase in global temperatures of 1.1 to 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit from 1951 to 2010.

The committee was established to help translate findings from the National Climate Assessment into concrete guidance for both public and private-sector officials. Its members have been writing a report to inform federal officials on the data sets and approaches that would best be included, and chair Richard Moss said in an interview Saturday that ending the group’s work was shortsighted……

While many state and local officials have pressed the federal government for more concrete guidance on how to factor climate change into future infrastructure, President Trump has moved in the opposite direction.

Last week, the president signed an executive order on infrastructure that included language overturning a federal requirement that projects built in coastal floodplains and receiving federal aid take projected sea-level rise into account. Some groups, such as the National Association of Home Builders, hailed the reversal of that standard from the Obama administration on the grounds that stricter flood requirements would raise the cost of development and “could make many projects infeasible.”

Seattle Mayor Ed Murray (D) said in an interview Saturday that the move to dissolve the climate advisory committee represents “an example of the president not leading, and the president stepping away from reality.” An official from Seattle Public Utilities has been serving on the panel; with its disbanding, Murray said it would now be “more difficult” for cities to participate in the climate assessment. On climate change, Trump “has left us all individually to figure it out.”…..

Trump Cabinet officials have either altered the makeup of outside advisory boards or suspended these panels in recent months, though they have not abolished the groups outright. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt decided to replace dozens of members on one of the agency’s key scientific review boards, while Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is “reviewing the charter and charge” of more than 200 advisory boards for his department. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/08/20/the-trump-administration-just-disbanded-a-federal-advisory-committee-on-climate-change/

August 21, 2017 Posted by | climate change, politics, USA | Leave a comment

America: small, but growing Republican movement for action on climate change

More GOP lawmakers bucking their party on climate change, But if the Republican Party is undergoing a shift on climate, it is at its earliest, most incremental stage. Politico, By DAVID SIDERS. 08/19/2017 
LOS ANGELES — While President Donald Trump continues to dismantle Obama-era climate policies, an unlikely surge of Republican lawmakers has begun taking steps to distance themselves from the GOP’s hard line on climate change.

The House Climate Solutions Caucus, a bipartisan backwater when it formed early last year, has more than tripled in size since January, driven in part by Trump’s decision in June to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord.

 And last month, 46 Republicans joined Democrats to defeat an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill that would have deleted a requirement that the Defense Department prepare for the effects of climate change.

The willingness of some Republicans to buck their party on climate change could help burnish their moderate credentials ahead of the 2018 elections. Of the 26 Republican caucus members, all but five represent districts targeted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee next year.

But it has also buoyed activists who view the House members’ positioning as a rare sign of GOP movement on climate change……http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/19/more-gop-lawmakers-bucking-their-party-on-climate-change-241800

August 21, 2017 Posted by | climate change, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Taiwan Premier Lin Chuan steadfast in goal of a non nuclear future

Focus Taiwan 17tyh Aug 2017, Despite  a nationwide power outage caused by a technical error at the
Tatan, Taoyuan power plant on Tuesday, Premier Lin Chuan on Wednesday said
the government still plans to stick to its non-nuclear homeland goal by
relying on nuclear power as little as possible.

During an interview with CNA on Wednesday afternoon and following an upsurge in criticism of the
government’s energy policy focused on Taiwan Power Co., Lin said it was
illogical to call for the long-term use of nuclear power as a way to solve
the short-term problem of an accidental power outage.
http://focustaiwan.tw/news/aipl/201708170027.aspx

August 21, 2017 Posted by | politics, Taiwan | Leave a comment

Right wing in South Korea calling for nuclear weapons

Time for nuclear balancing act?, Korea HeraldBy Yeo Jun-suk, 20 Aug 17 Calls grow in Seoul to deploy tactical atomic weapons to counter NK nuclear threats, Aug 20, 2017 Despite under a constant threat of war from the communist North Korea, South Korea has remained a nuclear weapons-free zone since 1991. But with Pyongyang nearing the finish line in its atomic weapons program, politicians and security experts in Seoul are calling for “a balancing act” to adapt to the new security environment on the Korean Peninsula: A North Korean nuclear weapon can only be deterred by a nuclear weapon — by either South Korea’s own or the US, they said.

“We can’t fight against the North with bare hands,” said Rep. Jeong Yong-ki, a spokesman for the main opposition Liberty Party Korea. “It’s time for us to be in a tit-for-tat over North Korea’s nuclear weapons.”

The conservative party, who favors hardline approaches toward the North, adopted as its party platform last week a call for redeploying US tactical nuclear weapons that were withdrawn from the peninsula in 1991.The minor conservative Bareun Party, while also advocating nuclear deterrence, floated an idea of US “sharing” its nuclear weapons with South Korea. 

As opposed to the Liberty Party’s proposal of bringing US nuclear weapons back here, the idea calls for the US granting South Korea a right to use US nuclear assets operating outside the peninsula, such as nuclear-powered submarines or fighter jets carrying nuclear bombs, when the need arises.

“Our idea allows us to have nuclear deterrence without deploying nukes here,” while avoiding possible backlashes from neighboring countries, said Rep. Ha Tae-kyung of Bareun Party.

The need for a nuclear deterrent was echoed even from a former security advisor to President Moon Jae-in, a liberal favoring re-engagement with the North and nuclear disarmament of both Koreas. …….http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20170820000215

August 21, 2017 Posted by | politics, South Korea, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Did South Carolina agency do enough to protect utility customers from nuclear financial fiasco?

After paying for abandoned nuke project, do SC consumers need a stronger advocate?, The State, BY SAMMY FRETWELL sfretwell@thestate.com  AUGUST 19, 2017 COLUMBIA, SC 

A state agency whose job is to look out for utility customers finds itself explaining whether it did enough to protect ratepayers from rising power bills that resulted from a bungled nuclear expansion project.

The S.C. Department of Regulatory Staff, a 71-person agency with a $13.3 million budget, is drawing scrutiny for what critics say was a tepid defense of SCE&G ratepayers who were charged about $2 billion for the costs of two new reactors. SCE&G abandoned the unfinished reactor construction project July 31 after hitting customers with nine rate increases to pay for the work.

Regulatory staff officials say they did plenty to help ratepayers. But state law also requires the department to weigh the interests of utilities against those of customers. The Office of Regulatory Staff initially supported SCE&G’s plan to charge customers through a series of rate increases…….http://www.thestate.com/news/article168181267.html

August 21, 2017 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Continuing questioning about Trump’s mental stability

Schiff: Jury’s out on Trump’s mental stability, Politico.com , By KYLE CHENEY, 08/20/2017
Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Sunday that he and his colleagues are increasingly concerned about President Donald Trump’s mental fitness.

“There are some serious issues,” Schiff said on CNN’s “State of the Union,” adding that “the pressures of the job may only get worse.”

The California lawmaker’s comments came after he was asked by host Jake Tapper to respond to Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier’s call Tuesday to invoke the 25th Amendment, which empowers the vice president and Cabinet to remove a president who is incapable of serving. That remedy, Schiff noted, was primarily envisioned for a president who has “some kind of physical incapacitation or serious mental illness, a breakdown.”

“We’re still far from concluding that that’s the case, even though we find, many of us, his conduct anathema,” Schiff said. He added, “I don’t think we’re at a point of thinking about the 25th Amendment.”……

Schiff emphasized that colleagues on both sides of the aisle have recently questioned Trump’s stability, most notably Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who said Thursday that Trump “has not yet been able to demonstrate the stability nor some of the competence that he needs to demonstrate in order to be successful.”

“I certainly think that there’s an issue with the president’s capability,” Schiff said, describing “some aspect of his character” that’s “incapable of introspection.” “I think it’s a question people are asking.” http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/20/schiff-trump-mental-health-241835

August 21, 2017 Posted by | politics, USA | 1 Comment

State legislatures made nuclear power LOOK profitable – when it wasn’t!

How ‘waste not, want not’ became ‘spend more, profit more’ The State, CINDI ROSS SCOPPE, 18 AUG 17, COLUMBIA, SC , IT’S GOT to be one of the toughest decisions we ever face: When do we bail?…..

Imagine you’re the chief executive officer of SCANA, the parent company of SCE&G. You’re building the first of a new generation of nuclear reactors, and almost from the start, costs are higher and progress is slower than projected. But delays and cost overruns are a standard part of any big construction project, and they’re even more likely in this case, because it’s been decades since anyone tried to build a nuclear reactor in this country.

So you don’t panic. Instead, you tell regulators the cost and time projections have increased, and ask their permission to proceed. The state Office of Regulatory Staff raises questions about some of your costs, so you reduce them, and your modification sails through the state Public Service Commission.

 Then it happens again. And again. And At some point, you have to realize that you can’t keep digging the hole ever deeper. But when? As long as you stick with the project, there’s a chance that it will work out in the long run. The moment you quit, you lock in the losses.

And what would motivate you to make that gut-wrenching decision?

You’re a private-sector, regulated utility, so your job is not to protect ratepayers. They’re stuck with you, and besides, it’s the government’s job to look out for them. Your job is to protect your stockholders. And you’re doing that. Magnificently. That’s why you and your executive team keep getting those huge bonuses.

There’s this law, the Base Load Review Act, that your team convinced the Legislature to pass in 2007. It says your stockholders won’t suffer the consequences of your decisions, no matter how much you go over budget.

In fact, the more you spend, the more they profit, because they’re guaranteed a 10.25 percent return on investment. So you have no incentive to keep costs down. Just the opposite.

You have no incentive to get out unless things get so bad that it would be “imprudent” — an important legal term that can yank that profit out of your fingers — to continue. Like, say, if your prime contractor goes belly up. And your 45 percent partner bails on you.

Until that happens, invest more, profit more.

When you add this bizarre economic incentive to the natural human inclination toward inertia, it’s almost impossible not to keep sending money on the project. More than you should. Longer than you should.

That situation is not SCANA’s fault, at least not mostly. It’s the fault of our Legislature, which created that disincentive to keep costs down. Or pull the plug……

Corporations do not have an obligation to anyone except their stockholders. It is government that has an obligation to all of us. And doubly so, I would argue, when government grants a monopoly, which forces us to do business with a corporation whose interests are very different than our own.

Now, Santee Cooper is an entirely different matter. Santee Cooper does not have stockholders. Santee Cooper is an agency of the state of South Carolina. Santee Cooper’s job is to serve the people of South Carolina. Santee Cooper failed us. Miserably.

There are a number of reasons for Santee Cooper’s failure, and I promise I am eventually going to explore them more fully, but one is painfully obvious: Santee Cooper didn’t have to justify its decisions to the Office of Regulatory Staff or the Public Service Commission. It merely had to justify its decisions to … itself.

Santee Cooper’s president — who is also very well compensated, though not nearly so well as the SCANA president — merely had to convince his bosses, the board of directors, that what he was doing was OK. And his bosses? Well, the governor can’t remove them, even when they make lousy decisions.

In both cases, it was the Legislature that created the situation that allowed — even invited — the failure to be bigger than it might otherwise have been.

And in both cases, it is the Legislature that must reduce or eliminate the disincentives to public-focused decision-making, so that someone is looking out for the interests of the utility ratepayers, who are, after all, the public.

Ms. Scoppe writes editorials and columns for The State. Reach her at cscoppe@thestate.com or (803) 771-8571 or follow her on Twitter or like her on Facebook @CindiScoppe. http://www.thestate.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/cindi-ross-scoppe/article167934377.html

August 19, 2017 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

In South Africa, nuclear and coal lobbies wage a (losing) war against renewables

Nuclear and Coal Lobbies Threaten to Scupper Renewables in South Africa, http://energypost.eu/nuclear-and-coal-lobbies-threaten-to-scupper-renewables-in-south-africa/ August 17, 2017 by Hartmut Winkler, South African power utility Eskom recently repeated that it will not conclude supply contracts with the developers of new renewable energy power stations. These developers were selected under a programme to facilitate private sector involvement in the building of medium-sized renewable energy power stations.

The programme has won plaudits for its success in facilitating the establishment of multiple solar and wind farms in record time. But Eskom is once again stalling.

The power utility’s stand threatens the viability of the entire renewable energy sector in the country. It’s hostility also defies logic given that the whole world is embracing renewable energy as key to a clean energy future and combating climate change.

So what lies behind the opposition?

The answer lies in the fact that two powerful lobbies are at work in South Africa. One is pro-coal, the other pro-nuclear. This has made the success of the renewable energy projects a target for attacks from interested parties in both. Disrupting the renewable energy sector would ensure that the coal sector remains dominant. And that, over time, it is gradually displaced by nuclear.

Eskom has pointed to the oversupply of electricity as the reason for its objection. But elsewhere it has trumpeted the need for more nuclear power. It can’t have it both ways

The lobby groups attached to coal and nuclear appear to have had powerful allies on the state utility’s board. There is mounting evidence that they have been furthering the interests of a group linked to the Gupta family. It in turn has been accused of capturing state entities to further its own ends, as well as those of President Jacob Zuma, his family and allies.

It has also been widely argued that the massively expensive proposed nuclear build is being driven by the same interest groups.

The battle over renewables is therefore closely linked to a wider political confrontation over control of key aspects of the South African economy.

Eskom’s flawed argument

The renewables dispute centres on the state utility’s refusal to endorse 1121 MW of new renewable energy. This translates to about 1% of Eskom’s current generated electricity, given that renewable energy supply is intermittent. This additional renewable energy would make up 5% of the total renewable energy generating capacity projected by 2030.

Eskom accepts the need to expand its generating potential in the long term. The additional contribution from renewables is well within its broader expansion targets. And tariffs on the energy from renewable sources would be almost half of the estimated cost of new coal and new nuclear power.

Until two years ago Eskom was seen as a neutral player committed to effectively provide electric power in the best interests of the country. But that all changed in 2015 after Brian Molefe was appointed CEO

The Public Enterprises Minister Lynne Brown has been disingenuous in citing cost as a reason to stop the last phase of renewables. The higher costs she recently quoted were presumably those associated with the first round of renewable energy projects. These contracts were concluded in 2012 and prices for renewables have come down considerably since.

For its part Eskom has pointed to the oversupply of electricity as the reason for its objection. But elsewhere it has trumpeted the need for more nuclear power. It can’t have it both ways.

Powerful forces at play

Until two years ago Eskom was seen as a neutral player committed to effectively provide electric power in the best interests of the country. It threw its weight behind previous power procurement plans.

But that all changed in 2015 after Brian Molefe was appointed CEO.

Molefe and his successor Matshela Koko are both linked to the controversial Gupta family. Their names featured in the Public Protector’s State of Capture report as well as in a bulk leak of emails which implicated the Guptas and other leading figures in the state capture network.

Molefe and Koko played a pivotal role in helping the Guptas purchase a coal mine – the Optimum mine – and to secure a lucrative coal supply contract with Eskom. Both are also strongly pro-nuclear. They have also gone on record to argue that renewable energy is too expensive.

Eskom has furthermore listed renewables as the reason for planning to shut down four coal power plants. In reality, these old plants had already been destined for closure in anticipation of the imminent additional power supply expected from two new coal plants – Medupi and Kusile.

Ultimately South Africa won’t be able to buck international trends. That means that, in the longer term, the future of renewables in South Africa remains bright

It’s suspicious that one of the power stations facing closure, Hendrina, is supplied by coal from the Optimum mine. The effect of stalling renewable power expansion could force the extension of Hendrina’s life span.

Brown is in the process of restructuring the Eskom board after Molefe departed, Koko was suspended and the chairperson of the board resigned. Although there are signs that the minister is aware that she has been misled by the Eskom board on other matters, she doesn’t seem to believe this is true when it comes to renewables, repeating recently the view that it’s too expensive.

Brown’s counterpart in the energy portfolio, Nkhensani Kubayi, has displayed little sympathy for the renewable energy sector, also making far-fetched and easily disprovable claims that the initial solar and wind power stations have resulted in zero jobs. Renewable energy is in fact estimated to eventually generate over 100 000 jobs in South Africa.

Kubayi has also shown that she’s highly receptive to the nuclear lobby. Visiting a nuclear industry fair in Russia in the middle of June she expressed concern that the judicial disqualification of the existing nuclear cooperation agreement damaged relations with that country.

It has been convincingly argued that South Africa can’t afford the nuclear option in the current economic environment.

The immediate future

The global ascendancy of renewables and their particular pertinence in South African climatic conditions may even make coal and nuclear energy technologies obsolete in the distant future. Ultimately South Africa won’t be able to buck international trends. That means that, in the longer term, the future of renewables in South Africa remains bright.

August 18, 2017 Posted by | politics, South Africa | Leave a comment

UK govt inviting plans for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors.

Utility Week 15th Aug 2017, Major players in the nuclear industry have been summoned by the government
to present their plans for the development of small modular reactors.
NuScale and Rolls-Royce among companies reportedly invited to talks with
the government over the next few weeks. Hitachi and Westinghouse have also
been invited.

The meeting is likely to relate to a competition launched by
the government in March 2016 to find the best value SMR design for the UK.
The results were originally due to be revealed last autumn alongside a
roadmap for the development of SMRs. Appearing before the House of Lords
science and technology committee in March former energy minister Jesse
Norman told members the competition would be “back on track” soon.
http://www.utilityweek.co.uk/news/nuclear-players-to-present-smr-plans-to-ministers/1309792

August 18, 2017 Posted by | politics, technology, UK | Leave a comment

Americans all too easily accept the idea of a pre-emptive nuclear strike?

The Real Nuclear Option, Americans are disturbingly unbothered by the idea of striking first with nuclear weapons, Slate ,By Fred Kaplan, 15 Aug 17, As President Trump rails against North Korea, threatening to rain down “fire and fury like the world has never seen” if it so much as tests another long-range missile, the world can’t help but wonder: Would he really do this? Would he order a nuclear strike, the ultimate fire and fury, against a country that hadn’t attacked us first?

Many are doubtful. His top security advisers would oppose such a move. So would the American people who, though they have no formal say in the matter, would impose constraints on a president’s actions—or so goes the conventional wisdom. Some scholars have written of a “nuclear taboo” ingrained in our sensibilities since the bombing of Hiroshima. Others detect a growing revulsion against the killing of noncombatants even with conventional weapons.

However, a new study suggests that these comforting notions are mistaken.

In the latest issue of the journal International Security, Scott Sagan and Benjamin Valentino, respectively professors at Stanford University and Dartmouth College, conclude that the American public is “unlikely to serve as a serious constraint on any president who might consider using nuclear weapons in the crucible of war.” In fact, under pressures similar to those facing President Harry Truman at the end of World War II, a clear majority of the public would support the first use of nuclear weapons now, just as it did back then.

Some opinion polls appear at first glance to show otherwise. A majority of Americans now say that Truman was wrong to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But Sagan and Valentino regard those polls as “a misleading guide” to understanding Americans’ “real views” on the use of nuclear weapons and the killing of civilians.

The problem with the Hiroshima polls is that Americans today lack the mindset of Americans in the time of World War II. Japan is now a leading U.S. ally. Few among the living remember the shock of Pearl Harbor or the horrors of the war in the Pacific and the desperate desire to stop the slaughter of American troops by any means necessary. So, the two professors—Sagan an eminent scholar of nuclear strategy, Valentino an expert on public opinion and the use of force—came up with a clever way of gauging how Americans would react in a similar situation today.

They commissioned the polling firm YouGov to conduct a survey in which those polled were shown a mock news story. In this story, the United States imposes sanctions on Iran for violating the Iran nuclear deal. Iran then attacks an American aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, killing 2,403 U.S. military personnel (the same number as those killed at Pearl Harbor, though this parallel isn’t drawn explicitly). The U.S. responds with airstrikes on Iranian military facilities. Iran refuses to surrender. The U.S. invades Iran but gets bogged down after 10,000 American troops are killed.

Those polled were then given a choice. Should we persist with the ground invasion all the way to Tehran, knowing that 20,000 American soldiers would be killed? Or should we drop a nuclear bomb on Mashhad, Iran’s second-largest city, “to pressure the Iranian government to surrender”—an attack that would kill 100,000 Iranian civilians (an arbitrarily chosen number).

The results were unsettling, though not so surprising. More than half of the respondents, 55 percent, favored dropping a nuclear bomb rather than proceeding with the invasion. An even higher number, 59 percent, said they would approve the president’s action after the fact if he chose to drop the bomb.

Then the pollster changed one key premise: What if the nuking of Mashhad killed 2 million Iranian citizens—which would you prefer: dropping the nuclear bomb or proceeding with the ground invasion, which would kill 20,000 U.S. soldiers?

Those favoring the nuclear option did drop, but not by much—from 55 percent (under the scenario with 100,000 killed) to 47 percent (under the scenario with 2 million killed). More sobering, the same number as before—59 percent—said they would approve the president’s action, after the fact, if he decided to drop the bomb.

In other words, to 47 percent—nearly half—of those polled, killing 2 million Iranian civilians is preferable to killing 20,000 American military personnel, a ratio of 100:1….. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2017/08/sagan_and_valentino_study_shows_americans_would_likely_support_nuclear_first.html

August 16, 2017 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »