Nuclear plant owners expand search for financial rescue, http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/04/nuclear_plant_owners_expand_se.html By Marc Levy | The Associated Press April 09, 2017 HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — The natural gas boom that has hammered coal mines and driven down utility bills is hitting nuclear power plants, sending multi-billion-dollar energy companies in search of a financial rescue in states where competitive electricity markets have compounded the effect.
Fresh off victories in Illinois and New York, the nuclear power industry is now pressing lawmakers in Connecticut, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania for action. Lobbying efforts are bubbling up into proposals, even as court battles in Illinois and New York crank up over the billions of dollars that ratepayers will otherwise foot in the coming decade to keep nuclear plants open longer.
Perhaps nuclear power’s biggest nemesis is the cheap natural gas flooding the market from the northeast’s Marcellus Shale reservoir, the nation’s most prolific gas field. Meanwhile, electricity consumption hit a wall after the recession, while states have emphasized renewable energies and efficiency.
“You put all of this together and it’s a perfect storm,” said John Keeley, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group.
Opposition to a so-called nuclear bailout is uniting rivals and the natural gas exploration industry. The potential for a hit to utility bills is drawing pushback from the AARP and manufacturers.
Subsidizing nuclear power could chill investment in lower-cost energy sources and erode competitive markets, critics say, and, with natural gas prices expected to stay low for some time, shutting down nuclear plants may have no impact on electricity bills.
For steel companies, paper companies, food processors and pharmaceutical makers whose electric bill might be their biggest expense, “a mil of an increase in a kilowatt hour turns into a lot of money,” said David Kleppinger of the Industrial Energy Consumers of Pennsylvania.
In Pennsylvania, the nation’s No. 2 nuclear power state after Illinois, it could mean propping up five nuclear plants to help feed the sprawling mid-Atlantic power grid that stretches from New Jersey to Illinois.
The owners of the 11 nuclear plants in Connecticut, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania are no small potatoes: Exelon, PSEG, FirstEnergy and Dominion, among them.
The plant owners’ strategy is similar to that in Illinois and New York: give nuclear power megawatts the kind of preferential treatment and premium payments that are given to renewable energies, such as wind and solar.
The industry’s pitch is part economic, part environmental. A plant shutting down would devastate a local economy, they say. And, nuclear waste and water consumption issues aside, zero-carbon nuclear plants are better suited than natural gas or coal to fight climate change, they say.
The claim to environmental credentials has drawn jeers from nuclear power’s traditional critics.
“When did highly carcinogenic toxic waste become green?” said Eric Epstein, a longtime nuclear power watchdog in Pennsylvania.
The most vulnerable nuclear plants are those with just one unit — such as Exelon’s Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, where a second unit was destroyed in a partial meltdown in 1979 — or those in need of expensive upgrades, analysts say.
FirstEnergy says it could decide next year to sell or close its three nuclear plants — Davis-Besse and Perry in Ohio and Beaver Valley in Pennsylvania — unless states make them more competitive.
Exelon is warning that it could close Three Mile Island and PSEG says it won’t operate nuclear plants — it owns all or parts of all three in New Jersey and part of Peach Bottom station in Pennsylvania — that are long-term money losers.
Should nuclear power disappear, it can be replaced.
“The question is, at what cost and whether or not you can find other resources that have the same emission characteristics,” said Joe Dominguez, an Exelon executive vice president.
In the mid-Atlantic grid, it likely would be natural gas. Some 190 natural gas power projects comprising roughly 59,000 megawatts are being studied or built, according to PJM Interconnection, the grid operator. That dwarfs the grid’s nuclear capacity.
April 10, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, USA |
Leave a comment
France’s oldest nuclear plant in Fessenheim to close by 2020 http://www.dw.com/en/frances-oldest-nuclear-plant-in-fessenheim-to-close-by-2020/a-38358239 Amid a whirlwind of controversy, the French government has ordered the closure of the nuclear power plant. But its closure is dependent on the commissioning of a state-of-the-art nuclear plant in Normandy. French Environment Minister Segolene Royal announced on Sunday that the country’s oldest nuclear power plant will close by 2020.
“The decree on the closure of the Fessenheim plant has been signed and published this morning in the official (government) journal,” Royal said in a tweet.
According to the decree, the Fessenheim plant will close once the new reactor being built at Flamanville on the Normandy coast “enters service.”
The plant has been operational since 1977 and sits near Germany’s border with France. The decree marks the partial fulfillment of French President Francois Hollande’s campaign pledge during the 2012 presidential election to close the plant during his term, which ends in May.
The government’s decision comes days after French nuclear plant operator EDF said it would only shutter the Fessenheim plant after receiving compensation for its closure alongside the successful commissioning of the Flamanville plant.
“I would like to pay tribute to the work of Fessenheim employees and services providers who operate our industrial equipment safely and with excellent performance. I assure them of the consideration I shall bring for their future in all circumstances,” said EDF chief executive Jean-Bernard Levy in a statement.
Problematic reactors The Fessenheim plant has been a source of tensions between France and its neighbors Germany and Switzerland. In 2014, one of the plant’s reactors had to be shut down after water was discovered leaking from several places.
According to documents obtained by the “Süddeutsche Zeitung,” the reactor had to be shut down by adding boron to the pressure vessel, an unprecedented procedure in Western Europe, according to experts. The incident allegedly occurred due to jammed control rods.
However, French authorities played down the incident by not divulging the gravity of the situation. An official report from France’s nuclear authority ASN did not contain information on the need to use boron, nor was the incident reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency in that manner.
Despite the incident, France continues to rely on nuclear energy, which covers 75 percent of its energy needs.
April 10, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
France, politics |
Leave a comment
Ohio lawmakers weigh bailout for FirstEnergy nuclear plants, by Associated Press April 9, 2017 TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) – A bailout proposed for Ohio’s two nuclear plants would keep alive a big source of jobs and tax money but end up increasing electricity rates for FirstEnergy Corp.’s customers in the state.
It will be up to the legislature and Republican Gov. John Kasich whether to approve what would amount to a huge subsidy for the plants.
While it’s not known how much FirstEnergy’s rates could go up, the increases would be capped at 5 percent.
Exactly how much the plan would generate for the nuclear plants isn’t clear yet because it’s based on a complex formula that involves plant emissions.
Both New York and Illinois recently approved multibillion-dollar subsidies to stop unprofitable nuclear plants from closing prematurely.
Akron-based FirstEnergy says the subsidies are needed to save the Davis-Besse and Perry plants that sit along Lake Erie and make 14 percent of the state’s electricity. The company has said both might be sold even if the subsidies are approved………http://nbc4i.com/2017/04/09/ohio-lawmakers-weigh-bailout-for-firstenergy-nuclear-plants/
April 10, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Experts agree that in limited instances, such as the Syrian missile attack, a president has legal authority provided in the Constitution as commander-in chief.
“Because the air strikes were undertaken by cruise missiles that put virtually no American lives at risk and because the strikes lasted only minutes, the president’s action would seem to be a lawful use of force under the Constitution. Needless to say, if further military actions were to be undertaken, they could rise to the level of requiring congressional authorization.”
Mark Pocan wrongly claims Donald Trump had no legal authority to launch missile attack on Syria http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/apr/07/mark-pocan/mark-pocan-wrongly-claims-donald-trump-had-no-lega/ By Tom Kertscher on Friday, April 7th, 2017 The morning after the U.S. cruise missiles assault on a Syrian air base, U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan questioned the legal authority of President Donald Trump to order the attack.
“There is no legal basis for last night’s missile strike against Syrian military assets,” the Madison-area Democrat declared in a statement on April 7, 2017. “Congress must be called back immediately, if President Trump plans to escalate our military involvement. He must send a new Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to Congress, as I have previously called for.”
The 59-missile assault was launched in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack by the government against Syrian civilians two days earlier. News reports quoted U.S. officials as saying Trump had the right to use force to defend national interests and to protect civilians from atrocities.
Meanwhile, first-term U.S. Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Green Bay, while praising the “limited strikes,” also said Trump “should seek congressional authorization for any sustained military operation in Syria.”
There’s certainly debate over the extent of a president’s authority to use military force without approval from Congress.
But Pocan went too far in saying there is no legal basis for Trump’s action.
Competing arguments To support Pocan’s claim, his office noted the U.S. Constitution assigns to Congress the power to declare war, and sent us commentary on that provision and the missile attack by the American Civil Liberties Union.
The ACLU reiterated its position that “the decision to use military force requires Congress’ specific, advance authorization.”
Pocan also cited the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which was enacted over a veto by Republican President Richard Nixon. It says “the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities” can be done only “pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
And Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith, an assistant attorney general under Republican President George W. Bush, argued in 2013 that Democratic President Barack Obama didn’t have unilateral authority to launch attacks against Syria, as was being considered at the time.
Goldsmith said the president’s authority to use force without congressional approval had been extended to protect American persons and property abroad, but that rationale would not have applied to the attacks Obama contemplated (but never carried out).
The Trump administration, meanwhile, also invokes the Constitution (Article 2) in asserting that the president has the power to defend the U.S. national interest.
In this case, that interest is described as “promoting regional stability, which the use of chemical weapons threatens” — which the Trump administration likened to the Obama administration’s justification for using force in Libya in 2011.
Other views
Experts agree that in limited instances, such as the Syrian missile attack, a president has legal authority provided in the Constitution as commander-in chief.
Cameron University history and government professor Lance Janda said he agrees with Pocan’s call for a new congressional authorization for use of force, adding: “We have not declared war on anyone since 1941, and yet we are the most active nation state on the planet when it comes to military action.”
But “having said that,” Janda continued, the Constitution gives the president authority as commander in chief to use force to protect our national interests and War Powers Resolution gives the president “leeway to respond to attacks or other emergencies.”
McGill University professor of international relations Mark Brawley also said the president has authority to use military force in a crisis, but then should notify Congress within 48 hours. The president also should ask Congress for authority to use military force if there will be extended conflict, or for a declaration of war, if the United States will be at war with Syria, he said.
Like the Trump administration, Georgetown University professor Anthony Arend, whose specialties include international relations and constitutional law of U.S. foreign relations, also cited Article 2 of the Constitution and the president’s power as commander-in-chief. He told us:
“While the precise scope of this power is unclear, a strong argument can be made that the president can use force in short military operations — especially where there is minimal risk to American lives — without congressional authorization. Indeed, over the years, Congress has generally acquiesced in such presidential uses of force.
“Because the air strikes were undertaken by cruise missiles that put virtually no American lives at risk and because the strikes lasted only minutes, the president’s action would seem to be a lawful use of force under the Constitution. Needless to say, if further military actions were to be undertaken, they could rise to the level of requiring congressional authorization.”
Added Richard Stoll, an international conflict scholar at Rice University, about the Trump attack: “This is not new.” Stoll said he would advise a president to get congressional approval before taking additional action, but presidents many times have taken a “one-off” action such as the Syrian attack.
Those views correspond to a 2013 fact check of then-U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, who said Obama would have had the legal authority to strike Syria without a vote from Congress. PolitiFact National’s rating was True. As our colleagues reported:
- Since the last time Congress declared war, at the beginning of World War II, presidents have generally initiated military activities using their constitutionally granted powers as commander in chief without having an official declaration of war in support of their actions.
- Even under the War Powers Resolution, the president can send in forces without approval from Congress.
- Lower courts have ruled in favor of the White House in the use of force, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal on that point.
Our rating
Pocan said: “There is no legal basis” for Trump’s “missile strike against Syrian military assets.”
For limited military activities like the missile strike, presidents can send in forces without approval from Congress.
We rate Pocan’s statement False.
April 8, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA |
Leave a comment
nuClear News No.94 April 2017 The UK Government has been forced to pay nearly £100m in a settlement with two US companies – Energy Solutions and Bechtel – for mishandling the way it awarded a £6.1bn nuclear decommissioning contract. Ministers have ordered an inquiry headed by the former boss of National Grid to find out why the procurement process was so flawed. Labour said the payout showed “dramatic levels of incompetence”. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) will also terminate the contract it awarded for cleaning up the UK’s old Magnox reactor sites nine years early. The sites include Bradwell, Chapelcross, Hinkley A and Hunterston A. (1)
The High Court ruled last summer that the NDA had “manipulated” and “fudged” the tender process. It meant that the wrong company won the work to decommission 12 UK nuclear sites (10 Magnox sites plus Harwell and Winfrith). The move opens the door for other bidders to attempt to reclaim their bid costs, which could run to an additional £50m. The contract was awarded in 2014 to Cavendish Fluor Partnership, a joint venture between the UK’s Babcock International and Texas-based Fluor. However, the consortium cannot be asked to take on the extra work because that could increase potential compensation claims by companies that wrongly lost out in the tender. Some industry sources have complained that the government plumped for an unrealistically low bid for the work at the outset. Another losing bidder, UK Nuclear Restoration Ltd, which is a consortium of Amec Foster Wheeler, Atkins and Rolls-Royce, said that the settlement “raises serious concerns” about the procurement process and that it has raised the implications of the judgment with the government and the NDA. (2)
Former National Grid chief executive Steve Holliday has been appointed to lead an independent inquiry into what went wrong. The inquiry will look at how the mistakes were made and by who, how the litigation was handled, and the relationship between the NDA and the government departments. Holliday will publish an interim report in October. The government now has the daunting task of starting a new tendering process for the 12 sites, as the deal with Cavendish Fluor Partnership (CFP) will end early, in September 2019 instead of 2028. (3)
Babcock said in a statement the CFP, in which it has a 65% stake, has come to a mutual agreement with the NDA to bring to an end the contract at the end of August 2019, having operated the contract for a full five years. Babcock said it had become apparent that the work that needs to be done is now materially different in volume from that specified in the NDA’s tender, and this puts the contract at risk of a legal challenge. What those material differences are remains a mystery.
The Business Secretary, Greg Clark, said: “It has become clear to the NDA through this consolidation process that there is a significant mismatch between the work that was specified in the contract as tendered in 2012 and awarded in 2014, and the work that actually needs to be done. The scale of the additional work is such that the NDA board considers that it would amount to a material change to the specification on which bidders were invited in 2012 to tender.” (4)
The failure of the contract award process was “inevitable” according to nuclear power expert Dr Paul Dorfman, from University College London’s Energy Institute. “They were set up to fail and have failed because the understanding of costs and complexity to nuclear decommissioning is changing all the time,” he said. “Magnox reactors were thrown up in a rush to give electricity too cheap to meter and create plutonium and there was no thought of how they would be decommissioned. Each Magnox reactor is bespoke so decommissioning each one is different with its own complexities and challenges. The more we learn about dealing with the ‘back end’ of nuclear power, the more we see how complex and costly it is.” (5)
Stop Hinkley Spokesperson Roy Pumfrey said: “Why should anyone believe that this astonishing level of incompetence will suddenly end when we start to build new reactors? Just because Hinkley Point C is not a Magnox reactor doesn’t just suddenly make the industry competent.” (6)
The Daily Telegraph declared today “if we could, we would stop this madness … In committing to new nuclear, we seem to have joined a runaway train, with no hope of getting off. Has not the time finally arrived for a fully fledged rethink of the merits of Britain’s nuclear energy strategy?” (7)
Roy Pumfrey continued: “We agree – it is time to stop this madness. The UK’s nuclear decommissioning costs have increased from £55.8 billion in 2008 to £117.4 billion at the last count. Although EDF is required to set aside funds for decommissioning Hinkley Point C, this is only up to an agreed limit. The taxpayer will be on the hook for the all too predictable shortfall.”
Chris Huhne, former energy secretary for the coalition government, said the remit for the enquiry by Steve Holliday was not broad enough and it needed to look at the total cost of nuclear decommissioning. “It is a complete mess, it’s deeply embarrassing but it’s actually I’m afraid only the latest in a long line of embarrassments,” Huhne told BBC Radio 4. “We’re not even scraping the surface with the problem that this legal case has exposed.” Huhne, who was energy secretary between 2010 and 2012 and left the before the contract was awarded, said the cost of decommissioning the UK’s old nuclear fleet had increased £107bn in the last five years to £161bn. “In terms of industrial strategy this makes every other disaster in the post-war period pale into insignificance.” He said the problem stemmed from how early reactors stations were complex bespoke constructions made without consideration to how they would later be disassembled. “We ordered a whole series of Savile Row suits rather than a bunch of work-a-day Marks & Spencer suits… Every single one of those reactors is different. Even the fuel rods in every single one of those reactors are different – crazy.” (8) Huhne called on the government not to allow subsidies for new reactors. That was the coalition government policy. It should be the policy again but the government seems to be relenting – it’s opening the door to exactly a repetition of the sort of disaster that we see today. (9) http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo94.pdf
April 8, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
decommission reactor, politics, UK |
Leave a comment
Hawaii congresswoman says Trump ‘acted recklessly’ with Syria missile strikes https://www.businessinsider.com.au/trump-syria-missile-strikes-reckless-nuclear-tulsi-gabbard-2017-4?r=US&IR=T BRYAN LOGAN APR 7, 2017 Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii torched President Donald Trump on Thursday night over his decision to launch a missile strike against airfields in Syria.
Gabbard said Trump “acted recklessly” in authorizing the strikes on Shayrat airfield and nearby military infrastructure controlled by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The operation was a response to a chemical weapons attack that killed at least 80 civilians in northwestern Syria earlier this week.
Gabbard said: “It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government.” The Democrat congresswoman made similar remarks after returning from a trip to Syria days after Trump’s inauguration.
Gabbard called the strike “short-sighted,” and said it would lead to “more dead civilians, more refugees … and a possible nuclear war between the United States and Russia.”
Her statement represents one of the strongest condemnations of Trump’s strike order, and a departure from a bipartisan group of congressional lawmakers who cautiously applauded the commander-in-chief’s action late Thursday night.
Read Rep. Gabbard’s full statement below:
“It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government. This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a possible nuclear war between the United States and Russia.
This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States’ attack on Syria without waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning. If President Assad is indeed guilty of this horrible chemical attack on innocent civilians, I will be the first to call for his prosecution and execution by the International Criminal Court. However, because of our attack on Syria, this investigation may now not even be possible. And without such evidence, a successful prosecution will be much harder.”
April 8, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Seven Lessons From Trump’s Syria Strike, The Atlantic, DAVID FRUM, 7 APR 17
The attack raises a series of questions about the president’s approach to America’s political processes and institutions. When the Electoral College elevated Donald Trump to the presidency, it conferred on him the awesome life-and-death powers that attend the office. It was inevitable that President Trump would use those powers sooner or later. Now he has. For the effects on the region, I refer you to the powerful piece by The Atlantic’s Andrew Exum. I’m concerned here with the effects on the U.S. political system. Seven seem most immediately relevant.
Trump’s Words Mean Nothing
If there was any one foreign policy position that Donald Trump stressed above all others, it was opposition to the use of force in Syria. Time has helpfully compiled Trump’s tweets on the subject dating back to 2013. For example:
April 8, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA |
Leave a comment
While this might mean huge losses for taxpayers, the real tragedy is that financial entanglement with the project could have been avoided altogether. It’s not clear what the Department of Energy can do now to mitigate the potential for losses. In the end, the Vogtle mishap could be a very expensive way to learn what we should have known all along – the federal government cannot ignore risk when taxpayers’ money is on the lin
The High Cost of Ignoring Risk https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/articles/2017-04-06/westinghouse-bankruptcy-shows-cost-of-energy-department-ignoring-risk
The bankruptcy of a company in the midst of building two nuclear reactors could leave taxpayers on the hook. By Ryan Alexander |April 6, 2017, Last week, Westinghouse Electric Co. announced that it will be filing for bankruptcy. Westinghouse, a subdivision of Toshiba Corporation, is in the process of building two AP1000 nuclear reactors for a power plant known as Plant Vogtle in Georgia. In fact, Westinghouse is bankrupt largely because of Vogtle. The project is a mess, and thanks to the $8.3 billion worth of loan-guarantees federal taxpayers have put into the project, courtesy of the Department of Energy, we are the ones who are going to take the hit if the whole things goes belly up.
In 2008, when the project originally applied for a federally backed loan guarantee, it was estimated that the two reactors under construction would begin commercial operation in April 2016 and 2017, respectively, and cost $14.3 billion. Instead of being completed this month, the project is less than halfway done, more than 39 months behind schedule, and at least $3.3 billion over budget. Now this.
The Title XVII program at the Energy Department provides broad authority for it to guarantee loans for early commercial use of advanced technologies if there is a “reasonable” prospect of repayment by the borrower. Loan guarantees are like cosigning a loan. The government (taxpayers) are on the hook for repayment of the loans if the borrower defaults. Building a nuclear reactor – two nuclear reactors – is expensive and risky.
The amount of risk represented by a particular loan guarantee is measured in the project’s “
subsidy cost.” The higher the risk, the higher the cost that gets assigned to the guarantee. You would think a loan guarantee for a nuclear power plant – the riskiest project of all – would be assessed a pretty high price. It should have been. But the Energy Department guaranteed at least $6.5 billion of the $8.3 billion total
at a cost of $0. That is, it recorded
no potential liabilities for its guarantee of more than $6 billion in loans for the construction of two nuclear power plants.
What is even more maddening is that the inexplicable decision to pretend like there was no risk in the Vogtle project was made knowing that for years the project has been beset by problems. From mispoured cement in one of the reactor’s foundation to poorly constructed reactor parts, the project began hitting snag after snag. Deadlines were missed and costs mounted. The three major credit ratings agencies eventually downgraded the creditworthiness of all of the project partners. If taxpayers end up forking over billions of dollars to pay off Westinghouse’s loans, we can’t say we didn’t see it coming.
While this might mean huge losses for taxpayers, the real tragedy is that financial entanglement with the project could have been avoided altogether. It’s not clear what the Department of Energy can do now to mitigate the potential for losses. In the end, the Vogtle mishap could be a very expensive way to learn what we should have known all along – the federal government cannot ignore risk when taxpayers’ money is on the line.
April 8, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, USA |
Leave a comment
And yet that appears to be precisely what we’re seeing with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a potential 2020 challenger to Trump who until recently had a strong record advocating for the planet.
Most notably, Cuomo as governor banned fracking statewide, which was a huge win for the movement and also recently closed Indian Point nuclear power plant, a move that may have saved the lives of millions of people.
But the goodwill from those arguably heroic acts has evaporated because of another Cuomo directive that’s causing problems nationwide, but has barely made headlines outside New York.
Last year, Cuomo quietly ordered New York’s Public Service Commission—which regulates energy companies in the state—to slip subsidies into electric bills for all New Yorkers to prop up three aging, unsafe, unprofitable nuclear power plants.
He’s not calling it a tax, but it is and one that will bring in an estimated $7.6 billion over the next 12 years for Exelon, the $34 billion Fortune 100 corporation that operates the plants.
As if handing more than $7.6 billion to a nuclear energy company isn’t outrageous enough, he did it in the name of his otherwise commendable “Clean Energy Standard,” which calls for 50 percent of New York State’s energy to be renewable by 2030, and the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions and other heat-trapping pollutants by 40 percent from 1990 levels.
Unfortunately, the idea to make ratepayers—some of whom have opted into renewable programs for which they’re already paying a premium—subsidize nuclear power plants has spread to other states, with proposals now pending in Ohio, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
Meanwhile, Illinois, where Exelon is located, had repeatedly fought off a similar program. After Cuomo authorized New York’s bailout, however, they approved ratepayer-funded nuclear subsidies in late 2016 to keep two plants there open.
All total, consumers can be on the hook for $3.9 billion in higher bills as a result of these subsidies, according to a Bloomberg analysis.
Cuomo’s decision, and the resulting ramifications nationwide, is a hard blow and environmentalists won’t soon forget it—especially if, as early signs seem to indicate, he runs for the White House in 2020.
After four years of Trump, what this country will need is a president who is both consistent and creative when it comes to the environment. We’ve seen neither of those qualities from Cuomo.
Cuomo has an environmental record with some serious achievements, but if he’s looking to be the next president, he needs to take such bold action again, not support corporate welfare.
There is still time for Cuomo to make this right. Just as he directed New York’s Public Service Commission to include the surcharge tax in the Clean Energy Standard, he can direct them to remove it and build a better, more ambitious plan that relies on energy efficiency and renewables and moves away from nuclear power.
The people and the planet deserve nothing less.
April 8, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Another month in UK’s failing new nuclear programme nuClear News No.94 April 2017 The ongoing collapse of the Moorside nuclear project has hit the headlines. But the French nuclear industry continues to be mired in scandal as EDF starts pouring nuclear safety critical concrete at Hinkley. And now we learn that the chief executive of Wylfa Newydd developer Horizon Nuclear Power says he needs to raise cash or the Anglesey project will not go-ahead.
Moorside Collapse On 29th March 2017, Westinghouse Electric Company, a subsidiary of Japanese company Toshiba and the largest historic builder of nuclear power plants in the world, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York. (1)
Toshiba owns 60% of the NuGen consortium which is planning to build 3 AP1000 reactors at Moorside next to Sellafield in Cumbria. Senior figures in the UK nuclear industry told the Financial Times that Westinghouse’s bankruptcy has crystallised doubts about the project. There is now considerable doubt about whether NuGen will be able to find a new source of funding. (2)
As we reported last month the owner of 40% of the NuGen Moorside consortium, French company Engie (33% owned by the French Government) declared last December that it would like to abandon the project. (3) Now the Company has exercised its right under the NuGen consortium agreement to sell all of its shares to Toshiba in the “event of a default”. Toshiba’s decision to place Westinghouse – into bankruptcy protection qualifies as such an event. Toshiba said it would pay around $138.7m for Engie’s stake. Under its agreement with the French utility, it is required to pay at least the amount that Engie invested to acquire the stake. (4)…….
Engie is the seventh international energy utility to give up on UK new nuclear build. Over the past decade, on top of Toshiba, E-on (Wylfa), RWE Npower (Wylfa), Iberdrola (Moorside), SSE (Moorside), and Centrica (Hinkley Point) have all pulled out of developing new nuclear reactors in the UK. (6)
This leaves a very limited field of companies for the UK to approach in its hunt for a new partner for the Moorside scheme. South Korea’s KEPCO remains the most likely suitor, but Reuters reports that the giant utility won’t be rushed. It is one of few utilities remaining with global nuclear ambitions, but despite the fact that the AP1000 reactor has now received approval from the Office for Nuclear Regulation and the Environment Agency, may still want to use its own technology – the APR1400. This would delay the development by a further four to five years No2NuclearPower nuClear news No.94, April 2017 3 whilst the South Korean reactor is put through its Generic Design Assessment by UK Regulators. Greg Clark, the Business Secretary, was in Seoul for talks at the beginning of April, but offered no evidence of concrete progress in the negotiations. (7)
KEPCO would also want to know more about the causes of the problems with two new nuclear projects in the US, involving AP1000 reactor designs which brought Westinghouse to its knees. Were the problems specific to the AP1000 reactor or a classic big project issue of not having done your homework before you start digging? (8)…….
KEPCO is unlikely to be tempted into taking over the troubled Moorside nuclear project without some sort of public financing, says former energy minister and chairman of New Nuclear Watch Europe, Tim Yeo. He says they will also be hesitant to step in and save the development unless it can use its own reactor technology. “I’ve been arguing for some time that we should look at providing during the construction phase some government finance.” Yeo said this would have to be on the basis of repayments beginning as soon as the plant is generating. (10) http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo94.pdf
April 8, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, politics international, UK |
Leave a comment
Another month in UK’s failing new nuclear programme nuClear News No.94 April 2017 Who will put up the cash for Wylfa? Hitachi Ltd, the owner of Horizon nuclear, which is proposing to build two Advanced Boiling Water Reactors (ABWRs) with a total capacity of 2.7MW at Wylfa on Anglesey, is set to lose tens of billions of yen this financial year after withdrawing from a uranium enrichment joint venture in the US.
Hitachi is expected to report a 70 billion yen ($620 million) non-operating loss by the time books were closed at the end of March. The deficit is largely attributed to the joint venture GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy Inc. withdrawing from the uranium enrichment project. Hitachi no longer expects any profits from the North Carolina-based company, of which it owns 40% and the rest by General Electric. Hitachi and GE were expecting more nuclear power plants to be built when they launched the joint fuel enrichment business, but orders have been sluggish across the globe, forcing the project to be shelved. Nevertheless, Hitachi says it will be sticking with its nuclear power business and plans to proceed with its project to build Wylfa by ensuring costs are thoroughly managed. (22)
The chief executive of Horizon Nuclear, Duncan Hawthorne, says funding is the key issue to ensure the nuclear plant gets built. Wylfa Newydd would be the “showcase plant” for Horizon and Hitachi and important for the UK and Japanese Governments, which means there is huge resolve to get the project done successfully. But without the private investment and Government support the £14bn project would not happen. He said the deal that was struck for Hinkley Point would not work for Wylfa Newydd due to the fact they are private investors. Hinkley is supported by state backed Chinese and French enterprises. Hitachi are funding the project to the ‘Final Investment Decision’, with around £2.5bn of cash. He said he was very aware of the need to keep the Anglesey community behind the project, showing them what benefits the scheme could bring: “Without community support we can’t do anything.” (23)
Meanwhile Horizon has taken another major step towards delivering The Wylfa Newydd power station with the submission of its application for a nuclear site licence. A site licence is one of the main permissions Horizon will need as it looks to build and operate two ABWRs on Anglesey. Receipt of the application by the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) now triggers a rigorous 19-month programme of assessment and intervention to establish whether Horizon can demonstrate it will be in control of all safety related activities on its site. (24) http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo94.pdf
April 8, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, UK |
Leave a comment
FirstEnergy Corp. gets introduction of the nuclear bailout bill it sought, Crains Cleveland Business, By
DAN SHINGLER, 7 APR 17,
FirstEnergy Corp. got the legislation it apparently sought introduced to the Ohio Senate in the form of
Senate Bill 128.
And the company probably got the reaction it expected from various consumer and industrial groups — mostly a chorus of boos.
The bill, which has been introduced by Republican Sens. John Eklund of Geauga County and Frank LaRose of Hudson, would give so-called zero emissions credits to FirstEnergy’s nuclear plants near Perry and Toledo.
If the plants are sold, however, the legislation would reduce the credits through a formula based on the sales price and the revenues it generates for FirstEnergy, unless the company sold the plants out of bankruptcy.
Of course, those credits won’t be spun from straw. They will result in an extra charge on the bills of FirstEnergy’s electricity customers. It would reportedly give the plants an extra $300 million per year in revenue — mostly to help them compete with wind- and natural gas-generated electricity — and cost consumers an extra 5% on their electric bills, or about $57 per year per household.
What’s at stake, the company insists, is nothing less than the future of Ohio’s Perry Nuclear Power Plant and Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, if not the future of Akron-based FirstEnergy itself. The plants are having difficulty competing with low-cost natural gas and subsidized wind energy that can encroach on nuclear’s turf.
Not surprising, the legislation was applauded by FirstEnergy, which has been lobbying for its introduction in Columbus for months……..Likewise, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, with members working at FirstEnergy’s nuclear plants, supported the legislation………
But from others, the response was negative.
“Senate Bill 128 is nothing more than another attempt by utilities to force customers to pay above-market prices for electricity … FirstEnergy should not be allowed to prop up its business on the backs of Ohio consumers. While manufacturers support nuclear power as part of an all-of-the-above energy portfolio, Senate Bill 128 is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. We will actively work to oppose this misguided bill,” wrote the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association on Thursday, April 6.
Then came angry retirees.
“Deregulation of the market in Ohio is working,” said AARP state director Barbara Sykes. “Ohioans have the ability to buy power from whoever they want, forcing competitive pricing. This legislation unfairly props up businesses, such as FirstEnergy, who have failed to remain competitive by passing the costs of doing business on to consumers. We are firmly opposed to this for all Ohioans, but especially for those age 50-plus who are living on fixed incomes.”
And, finally, the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel in Columbus — which pegged the cost of the proposed bill at $57 per year for 2 million FirstEnergy customers — gave one of the sternest rebukes.
“What needs to stop is the electric utilities’ dependence, since 2000, on government subsidies — $14.7 billion to date — that have been charged to Ohio families and businesses,” wrote OCC public affairs coordinator Molly McGuire. “Under the legislature’s 1999 vision for benefits from power plant deregulation, Ohioans should not pay more than the market price of electricity on their electric bills.”
Such reactions might be an indication of how steep a climb FirstEnergy has ahead of it if it’s to get the legislation passed. So far, the legislation has no sponsor in the House, where some observers predict it will face obstacles, including from free-market Republicans.http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20170407/NEWS/170409853/firstenergy-corp-gets-the-nuclear-bailout-bill-it-sought
April 8, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Another month in UK’s failing new nuclear programme nuClear News No.94 April 2017 EDF Finances A French Parliamentary report from the National Assembly’s Commission for Sustainable Development and Regional Development says the clean-up of French reactors will take longer, be more challenging and cost much more than French nuclear operator EDF anticipates. Whereas Germany has set aside €38 billion to decommission 17 nuclear reactors, and the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority estimates that clean-up of UK’s 17 nuclear sites will cost between €109‒250 billion over the next 120 years, France has set aside only €23 billion to decommissioning its 58 reactors. In other words France estimates it will cost €300 million per gigawatt (GW) of generating capacity to decommission a nuclear reactor, Germany estimates €1.4 billion per GW and the UK estimates €2.7 billion per GW.
EDF says it wants to set aside a €23 billion fund to cover decommissioning and waste storage for an estimated €54 billion final bill ‒ and the difference between these two figures will be closed through the appreciating value of its equities, bonds and investments ‒ in other words, ‘discounting’. Unfortunately, recent experience has taught us that markets can go up and down over time ‒ especially the very long-time periods involved in radioactive waste management. But for a company that has huge borrowings and an enormous debt of €37 billion, €23 billion is a large sum of money to find. Any significant change in the cost of decommissioning would have an immediate and disastrous impact on EDFs credit rating ‒ something that the debt-ridden corporation can simply not afford. EDF is already in financial trouble. Along with bailing out collapsing AREVA, EDF also has to bear the huge financial burden of the failing reactor newbuild at Flamanville. It will also have to pay for extending the life of France’s existing nuclear power stations (to 2025), at a cost of €55 billion.
On top of all this the French authority tasked with disposal of all the countries vast and increasing waste burden (Andra) has recently ramped up the estimated cost for the planned national nuclear waste repository at Cigéo, to €25 billion ‒ and EDF must pay for most of Cigéo’s construction. Although €5 billion more than EDF anticipated, it still seems a gross underestimation, and the costs are likely to rise considerably. (21) http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo94.pdf
April 8, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, decommission reactor, France, politics |
Leave a comment
With Westinghouse Bankruptcy, the Nuclear Energy Story Nearly Over The much touted nuclear renaissance is now over. News Click Prabir Purkayastha 07 Apr 2017 With Westinghouse announcing its bankruptcy, India’s pledge to buy at least 10,000 MW as a part of the India US Nuclear Deal and reiterated by Modi last year, should be given a decent burial. Any agreement with Westinghouse now means that India would be bailing out Westinghouse and the US nuclear industry with Indian peoples’ money.
This also draws to a close all talk about a nuclear renaissance. The three major reactor manufacturers – Toshiba-Westinghouse, GE-Hitachi and Areva, France – are all in major financial difficulties. Only a fool will still believe their promise that the 3rd generation reactors they are developing – none of which have been successfully commissioned as yet – are either safe or cheap.
The Left’s position during the India US 123 Deal was that it neither served India’s strategic interest, nor made sense in energy terms. It also meant abandoning India’s self-reliant nuclear reactor industry for importing costly and unproven US reactors. Though it failed to stop the 123 Agreement in Parliament, the Left successfully led the struggle to modify India’s Nuclear Liability Act, ensuring that nuclear suppliers, like in any other hazardous industry, should be liable for their faulty equipment.
The Fukushima disaster has shown that a nuclear accident can cost up to $200 billion . Even this could be a conservative estimate. The Indian liability law caps operator and suppliers’ liability to just $ 407 million (300 million SDR’s). Though cost of a reactor is in billions of dollars, even this small liability, only a fraction of its cost, was perceived to be too “dangerous” and unacceptable to the US suppliers.
Last year, Modi, announced during one of his US visits that not only would India buy US reactors, a continuation of the assurance given by Shivshankar Menon, the Foreign Secretary under Manmohan Singh (Letter September 10th, 2008 ), but would also assume the liabilities of the US suppliers in case of of a nuclear accident. India offered Mithi Virdi in Gujarat to Westinghouse and Kovvada in Andhra to GE as the two sites. Subsequently on GE’s failure to show any successful contract combined with local resistance in Mithi Virdi, GE’s project was considered cancelled, and its Andhra site offered to Westinghouse.
Fortunately for India, Modi’s assurances have come too late for the US nuclear industry. The much touted nuclear renaissance is now over. In OECD countries, only 7 new reactors are being built with varying degrees of state support. With huge cost and time overruns, the curse of the nuclear industry, all of them are in deep trouble. GE, unsuccessful in selling even one of its so-called advanced design, has virtually pulled out of the nuclear business. After huge and continuing losses, Areva, the French reactor supplier, is being taken over by EdF, the French state-owned energy utility. EdF has already scrapped the new Areva EPR design, with which the Finnish Olkiluoto and French Flamanville plants were being built. This is also the design Areva is trying to sell for the Jaitapur project in Maharashtra.
The major objections of the Left regarding imported reactors have been proven correct. The untried and untested designs have meant numerous changes and difficulties in construction, leading to significant delays and sharp increase in costs. The cost of the two Areva plants of Euro 3 billion each originally, have increased by almost three times .
The Westinghouse story is no different………
In the exchanges between the UPA and the Left during Manmohan Singh’s government, the cost of new nuclear plants from French or US suppliers had come up. The UPA had presented figures for capital cost per KW of $1,500 and the price of power to be Rs. 1.49 paise per unit from imported nuclear plants. The Left had given figures from Olkiluoto and the US, showing that the capital cost would be at least $4,000 per KW and the price of electricity from such plants around Rs. 5 per unit.
The figures from the US and French projects now show that the capital cost per KW for such plants is in the range of $6,000-7,000, and therefore the price per unit of electricity from such plants will not be less than Rs. 8-10 per unit.
Why did the UPA claim such absurdly low figures for nuclear energy? They were either figments of their imagination or took these figures straight from the promotional material of the nuclear suppliers. To claim nuclear energy to be competitive, the nuclear suppliers took a 60-year life of the plant, left out the interest on capital during construction as a component of the cost, and claimed their new designs had much lower capital costs. They then did what are called levellised cost calculations – the cost of electricity over the lifetime of the plant. By this sleight of hand, they reached figures for the cost of nuclear power to be competitive with coal and gas.
Of course, the actual capital costs are much higher than what the nuclear industry was claiming. The regulators and utilities that price the electricity, have also to look at all the cost components including cost of capital, interest on loans, etc., and fix the price that of electricity. What matters to consumers and utilities (distribution companies or state electricity boards) is not the levellised cost of electricity, but the entry cost of nuclear power to the grid. This is what needs to be competitive to other sources. Any such calculations shows that nuclear energy is simply not competitive.
The collapse of Westinghouse, which has either built or licensed its designs to almost half the world’s reactors, shows that the nuclear story is nearly over. The reality is that with the cost of renewables – solar photovoltaics and wind – dropping sharply, the economics are increasingly against nuclear energy. This is apart from danger of catastrophic accidents or danger from long-term storage of radioactive nuclear wastes. It may still sustain itself for some time in countries, where there is a strong indigenous nuclear industry, such as India, China, Korea and Russia. But its days are now clearly numbered. http://www.newsclick.in/westinghouse-bankruptcy-nuclear-energy-story-nearly-over
April 8, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, India, politics, politics international, USA |
Leave a comment
What specifically makes this new plan different from the operations of administrations past is the new autonomy it gives the military from civilian control, not only in terms of congressional oversight but also in terms of presidential direction.
Trump’s dangerous expansion of executive war powers For decades, Congress has relinquished its constitutional role in declaring war. But Trump is taking it to new extremes. Politico, By BONNIE KRISTIAN 04/03/17 With Washington distracted by the health care debate, President Donald Trump has quietly overseen an expansion in the administration’s war-making powers, giving the Department of Defense greater autonomy to conduct military operations independent of the White House.
Already, the Pentagon has used this expanded authority in Yemen, where the U.S. has recently conducted significant air operations against AQAP, an Al Qaeda offshoot. And on Friday, Trump extended the authority to parts of Somalia where the U.S. is targeting Shabab, a terrorist group. In military terms, Yemen and Somalia are now “areas of active hostility,” a bureaucratic way of saying that the U.S. is conducting military operations there, with little input or oversight from either the White House or Congress.
This expanded bombing campaign, though, could be just the tip of the iceberg. In early March, The Guardian reported that the White House is considering a secret Pentagon proposal to designate temporary areas of active hostility in which the military could launch what amounts to six-month wars without congressional approval. Under the proposal, once the president signs off on a temporary battlefield, commanders would be given “the same latitude to launch strikes, raids and campaigns” as they now have in active U.S. warzones like Iraq. Protections for civilians would also be scaled back.
These temporary battlefields, as The Guardian dubbed them, are not exactly new; the Obama administration already applied the label to conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. But the proposal Trump is considering would expand and formalize that decision, stretching the temporary battlefield designation to cover entire countries in which the United States is technically not at war. Despite the bureaucratic language, Trump’s plan, if implemented, is a flagrant perversion of the Constitution, redoubling the worst excesses of the Obama administration and further undercutting the rule of law.
To understand the recklessness of this proposal, a little history is in order. Though it names the president as “Commander in Chief” of the U.S. military, the Constitution explicitly delegates the power to “declare war” to Congress. The choice of the word “declare” was a careful one, as James Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention reveal. Originally written as the power to “make war,” it was amended to communicate that while the executive is permitted “the power to repel sudden attacks” on American soil, it is not allowed to “commence war” independent of the legislature.
George Mason, the “father of the Bill of Rights,” was against “giving the power of war to the Executive, because [it was not] safely to be trusted with it,” Madison records, and Mason supported using “declare” as a means of “clogging rather than facilitating war [and instead] facilitating peace.”…….
With this “temporary battlefields” idea, the White House once again strips Congress of what was left of its responsibility for our military, taking unilateral control of foreign policy for the foreseeable future.
What specifically makes this new plan different from the operations of administrations past is the new autonomy it gives the military from civilian control, not only in terms of congressional oversight but also in terms of presidential direction. In Obama’s scheme, which was already far afield from the constitutional war powers framework, the president and his top national security advisers remained intimately involved in the approval process for U.S. strikes outside of active war zones in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. With the new plan, military commanders would be able to make these decisions independently during 180-day periods. This puts major foreign policy decisions one step further away from congressional influence and civilian control………
this proposal is regression, not reform. It demolishes the last remnants of one our Founders’ most necessary constitutional protections, and it opens the gate to a host of dangerous, imprudent military interventions with no demonstrable connection to U.S. national security interests.
After the last 15-plus years of imprudent executive war-making, what we need is not less oversight of our foreign policy, but more—more open debate about our goals and strategy, more realistic risk analysis, and more careful determination of what political outcomes we can achieve through military force.
Bonnie Kristian is a fellow at Defense Priorities. She is a weekend editor at The Week and a columnist at Rare, and her writing has also appeared at Time Magazine, CNN, Politico, Relevant Magazine, The Hill, and The American Conservative, among other outlets. http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/04/trumps-dangerous-expansion-of-executive-war-powers-000387
April 7, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
nuclear-news 