France could face winter power cuts, hit by nuclear dependence, Channel News Asia,
09 Nov 2016 PARIS: France could impose power cuts this winter due to an electricity shortage, an unprecedented step in the wealthy nation which would expose the vulnerabilities of its dependence on nuclear power.
The warning was issued on Tuesday by grid operator RTE, which said power supply had been hit by the closure of around a third of the country’s ageing nuclear reactors for safety checks. The country’s regulator has ordered a review of the strength of crucial steel components after the discovery of manufacturing irregularities.
France relies on nuclear for three-quarters of its power, more than any other country. RTE said the amount of nuclear power available was at a record low for this time of year, around 10,000 megawatts lower than a year ago – equivalent to more than twice the consumption of Paris and Marseille combined……..
GENERIC DESIGN
The discovery last year of weak spots in the steel of the EPR reactor state-backed utility EDF is building in Flamanville in northwest France led nuclear regulator ASN to take a closer look at manufacturing procedures of state-owned reactor builder Areva.
In May, the ASN said the anomalies found in Flamanville had also been discovered in reactors being operated by EDF and ordered safety tests on 18 out of EDF’s 58 reactors.
Unlike other nuclear countries such as the United States and China, which have used different reactor models and suppliers, all French reactors are pressurised water reactors made by the same manufacturer, a forerunner of Areva.
This standardisation allowed France to build reactors relatively quickly and cheaply, but also created the risk that a generic design flaw or manufacturing problem would affect many reactors and incapacitate a large part of the fleet. Green activists have warned of this possible scenario for years………
“The outlook is pessimistic, notably for the first three weeks of December,” said a Paris-based power trader, adding that power outages could easily happen.
PROFIT WARNING
The reactor closures are weighing on the power sales of EDF, which has cut its nuclear production target three times this year. They are also forcing the utility to buy expensive power on the market, further weighing on its profitability.
Ratings agency Moody’s said on Tuesday that EDF was unlikely to benefit from rising power prices offsetting the expected shortfall in volumes.
Last week, EDF issued its second profit warning of the year, lowering its 2016 core earnings forecast to 16-16.3 billion euros from the original 16.3-16.8 billion euros.
The company finally secured approval from the British government in September to go ahead with its 18 billion pound (US$22 billion) project to build two nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in England………
EDF has faced internal dissent over the project, with many critics saying the company’s balance sheet is already too stretched. EDF needs to borrow money just to pay its dividend, and will have to spend about 50 billion euros (US$55.1 billion) on upgrading its ageing nuclear fleet and several billion more for its planned takeover of the reactor division of Areva http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/france-could-face-winter-power-cuts-hit-by-nuclear-dependence/3272948.html
November 11, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
France, politics |
Leave a comment
Ministry devises crafty finance scheme favoring nuclear power http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201611080049.html The Asahi Shimbun, Nov. 8 The industry ministry, the supposed champion of electricity market deregulation, is making a move that runs counter to the principles of reform by giving preferential treatment to nuclear power.
A proposal by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry would force new electricity suppliers that have entered the market in response to its liberalization to shoulder part of the costs of decommissioning the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.
The plan was submitted to an expert council discussing the issue.
The ministry, which regulates the power industry, has already presented a plan to make such new utilities bear part of the costs of decommissioning aging reactors at other nuclear power plants.
The power market reform, which was expanded this spring to cover retail electricity sales as well, is designed to abolish the regional monopolies of established utilities, thereby encouraging new entries into the market.
It is also aimed at lowering electricity rates by separating the operations of power plants and transmission grids to promote fair competition.
The ministry cannot claim it is working for fair competition if it is now creating rules that force new electricity providers that have nothing to do with any nuclear power plant or the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster to pay part of the decommissioning bills.
In its attempt to get new utilities involved in the financing plan, the ministry is targeting the fees they pay to use the power transmission lines operated by established utilities.
The total cost of decommissioning the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant is estimated at several trillion yen.
The ministry has stressed its intention to protect the public from the huge financial burden. It has promised to make Tokyo Electric Power Co., operator of the Fukushima plant, pay for the work by saving necessary funds through streamlining its operations.
But the ministry has proposed a new system to use the money saved from more efficient power grid operations primarily to cover decommissioning costs.
The current rule requires major utilities to lower the charges they impose on smaller power suppliers using their transmission lines when higher efficiency lifts their profits. But the proposed system would exempt the big power companies from the rule when they spend the money saved on decommissioning reactors.
The ministry seems to be trying to convince the public that this approach would not increase the financial burden on consumers because it doesn’t involve price hikes.
But this idea raises some questions that cannot be overlooked.
The costs of decommissioning reactors are by nature expenses related to power generation. But the ministry’s proposal would transfer part of the expenses to the operations of transmission lines.
As a result, new power suppliers using TEPCO’s transmission cables would have to pay higher fees.
Subscribers to such new utilities would also have to shoulder part of the burden. In particular, the envisioned system would be totally unacceptable for consumers who have switched to new power providers to avoid using electricity generated by nuclear plants.
The ministry appears to be targeting an “easy source” of revenue. The charges on using transmission lines are not highly visible to general consumers. The ministry’s plan to use power transmission charges as a source of funds to decommission reactors is a crafty scheme to give preferential treatment to nuclear power. Its aim is to ensure nuclear plants will not lose their cost competitiveness against other electricity sources like thermal power generation.
For many years, both the government and established utilities have been emphasizing that atomic energy is a low-cost source of electricity.
They are grossly irresponsible and insincere if they are trying to impose part of the inevitable cost burden of decommissioning reactors on competitors.
The ministry should rethink the idea from the viewpoint of the basic principles of market deregulation
November 11, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Japan, politics |
Leave a comment
China starts to build its first floating nuclear power reactor for deployment off coast, Times of India, Reuters | Updated: Nov 7, 2016, BEIJING: China has started to build its first floating nuclear power reactor, which it plans to deploy off its coast by the end of the decade.
State-controlled China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN) has begun construction of the ACPR50S reactor, and will acquire the reactor pressure vessel that encloses the reactor core from Dongfang Electric, CGN said in a statement on Friday.
The 200-megawatt reactor will help power offshore facilities in China’s open sea and island reefs, CGN said, adding that offshore energy supply is an issue that China has to overcome in order to become a naval power…….http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/China-starts-to-build-its-first-floating-nuclear-power-reactor-for-deployment-off-coast/articleshow/55298242.cms
November 11, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
China, politics, technology |
Leave a comment
Donald Trump’s Nuclear Policy: Global Implications – Analysis , Eurasia Review, 5 Nov 16 “……. the weightiest concern within the US and in the rest of the world is the future of the global nuclear order. What would be the effect on that order if Donald Trump becomes the next US President? The US is the first country to make a nuclear weapon, the first and only country to have used the bomb during the Second World War, the pioneer in efforts to prevent other countries from acquiring nuclear weapons capability, and, above all, the most powerful nuclear-capable country in the world. The pervasive disquiet related to his views and policies on nuclear weapons thus are unpretentious.
President Barack Obama has backed the idea of a nuclear weapons free world, at least in principle. Will Trump endorse the idea of a world rid of nuclear weapons? ……
Will Trump spend more time and energy in nuclear arms control negotiations with Russia? ….
In the perceived march of China towards super power status, will Trump take steps to rope in China for arms control negotiations?…
How will a probable Trump presidency handle the Iranian nuclear question? His campaign has repeatedly condemned the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran….
Much more significant will be a Trump presidency’s policy towards Japan and South Korea. ….. http://www.eurasiareview.com/05112016-donald-trumps-nuclear-policy-global-implications-analysis/
November 8, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
USA elections 2016 |
Leave a comment
Government could part-fund new UK nuclear plants, NuGen suggests, Telegraph UK, Emily Gosden, energy editor 5 NOVEMBER 2016
Taxpayers could shoulder the multibillion-pound cost of civil engineering works for new nuclear power plants to make them easier to finance and reduce their impact on energy bills, the company seeking to build reactors in Cumbria has suggested.
Tom Samson, chief executive of NuGen, proposed reviewing how the different elements of new nuclear plants could be “carved up in different way to allow the Government to take a role in some of the enabling infrastructure”.
This could include funding major aspects of construction such as “the civil works”, he told a House of Lords committee.Mr Samson’s company wants to build three Westinghouse reactors at Moorside, near Sellafield in Cumbria, in a 3.8-gigawatt project he said was expected to cost up to £15bn.
But financing presents a major challenge for the project, which is 60pc owned by Japan’s Toshiba and 40pc by France’s Engie, formerly GDF Suez. It has been in talks with potential investors for months about a deal.
Under the funding model used for the £18bn Hinkley Point nuclear plant, developer EDF is to shoulder the full cost of construction in return for a 35-year contract from the Government guaranteeing it subsidies for the electricity it eventually produces.
These will be levied on consumer energy bills and could cost as much as £30bn.
But the model has been criticised as inefficient and expensive.
Even EDF, which is majority-owned by the French government, struggled to raise enough funds for the construction, raising major questions about how non-state-owned groups like Toshiba could hope to…….
NuGen is already lobbying via the Cumbrian Local Enterprise Partnership for Government assistance in improving the transport infrastructure in the Cumbrian area to help support both decommissioning operations at Sellafield and the proposed construction site at Moorside.
Ministers are reported to have commissioned a study earlier this year to consider alternative funding models, which also suggested the Government could take direct stakes in future projects.
Earlier this year rival developer Horizon warned that the Government needed to come up with a framework that was palatable for private investors, not just state companies like EDF….. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/05/government-could-part-fund-new-uk-nuclear-plants-nugen-suggests/
November 8, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, UK |
Leave a comment
Whose Finger on the Nuclear Button?Election 2016 and playing a game of chicken with nuclear strategy, Common Dreams by Michael T. Klare , 7 Nov 16
Once upon a time, when choosing a new president, a factor for many voters was the perennial question: “Whose finger do you want on the nuclear button?” Of all the responsibilities of America’s top executive, none may be more momentous than deciding whether, and under what circumstances, to activate the “nuclear codes” — the secret alphanumeric messages that would inform missile officers in silos and submarines that the fearful moment had finally arrived to launch their intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) toward a foreign adversary, igniting a thermonuclear war.
Until recently in the post-Cold War world, however, nuclear weapons seemed to drop from sight, and that question along with it. Not any longer. In 2016, the nuclear issue is back big time, thanks both to the rise of Donald Trump (including various unsettling comments he’s made about nuclear weapons) and actual changes in the global nuclear landscape.
With passions running high on both sides in this year’s election and rising fears about Donald Trump’s impulsive nature and Hillary Clinton’s hawkish one, it’s hardly surprising that the “nuclear button” question has surfaced repeatedly throughout the campaign. In one of the more pointed exchanges of the first presidential debate, Hillary Clinton declared that Donald Trump lacked the mental composure for the job. “A man who can be provoked by a tweet,” she commented, “should not have his fingers anywhere near the nuclear codes.” Donald Trump has reciprocated by charging that Clinton is too prone to intervene abroad. “You’re going to end up in World War III over Syria,” he told reporters in Florida last month.
For most election observers, however, the matter of personal character and temperament has dominated discussions of the nuclear issue, with partisans on each side insisting that the other candidate is temperamentally unfit to exercise control over the nuclear codes. There is, however, a more important reason to worry about whose finger will be on that button this time around: at this very moment, for a variety of reasons, the “nuclear threshold” — the point at which some party to a “conventional” (non-nuclear) conflict chooses to employ atomic weapons — seems to be moving dangerously lower.
Not so long ago, it was implausible that a major nuclear power — the United States, Russia, or China — would consider using atomic weapons in any imaginable conflict scenario. No longer. Worse yet, this is likely to be our reality for years to come, which means that the next president will face a world in which a nuclear decision-making point might arrive far sooner than anyone would have thought possible just a year or two ago — with potentially catastrophic consequences for us all.
No less worrisome, the major nuclear powers (and some smaller ones) are all in the process of acquiring new nuclear arms, which could, in theory, push that threshold lower still. These include a variety of cruise missiles and other delivery systems capable of being used in “limited” nuclear wars — atomic conflicts that, in theory at least, could be confined to just a single country or one area of the world (say, Eastern Europe) and so might be even easier for decision-makers to initiate. The next president will have to decide whether the U.S. should actually produce weapons of this type and also what measures should be taken in response to similar decisions by Washington’s likely adversaries.
Lowering the Nuclear Threshold………
The New Nuclear Armaments
Both countries are already in the midst of ambitious and extremely costly efforts to “modernize” their nuclear arsenals. Of all the weapons now being developed, the two generating the most anxiety in terms of that nuclear threshold are a new Russian ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) and an advanced U.S. air-launched cruise missile (ALCM). Unlike ballistic missiles, which exit the Earth’s atmosphere before returning to strike their targets, such cruise missiles remain within the atmosphere throughout their flight……..
On the American side, the weapon of immediate concern is a new version of the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile, usually carried by B-52 bombers. Also known as the Long-Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO), it is, like the Iskander-M, expected to be deployed in both nuclear and conventional versions, leaving those on the potential receiving end unsure what might be heading their way. In other words, as with the Iskander-M, the intended target might assume the worst in a crisis, leading to the early use of nuclear weapons. Put another way, such missiles make for twitchy trigger fingers and are likely to lead to a heightened risk of nuclear war, which, once started, might in turn take Washington and Moscow right up the escalatory ladder to a planetary holocaust.
No wonder former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry called on President Obama to cancel the ALCM program in a recent Washington Post op-ed piece. “Because they… come in both nuclear and conventional variants,” he wrote, “cruise missiles are a uniquely destabilizing type of weapon.” And this issue is going to fall directly into the lap of the next president.
The New Nuclear Era
Whoever is elected on November 8th, we are evidently all headed into a world in which Trumpian-style itchy trigger fingers could be the norm. It already looks like both Moscow and Washington will contribute significantly to this development — and they may not be alone. In response to Russian and American moves in the nuclear arena, China is reported to be developing a “hypersonic glide vehicle,” a new type of nuclear warhead better able to evade anti-missile defenses — something that, at a moment of heightened crisis, might make a nuclear first strike seem more attractive to Washington. And don’t forget Pakistan, which is developing its own short-range “tactical” nuclear missiles, increasing the risk of the quick escalation of any future Indo-Pakistani confrontation to a nuclear exchange. (To put such “regional” dangers in perspective, a local nuclear war in South Asia could cause a global nuclear winter and, according to one study, possibly kill a billion people worldwide, thanks to crop failures and the like.)
And don’t forget North Korea, which is now testing a nuclear-armed ICBM, the Musudan, intended to strike the Western United States. That prompted a controversial decision in Washington to deploy THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) anti-missile batteries in South Korea (something China bitterly opposes), as well as the consideration of other countermeasures, including undoubtedly scenarios involving first strikes against the North Koreans.
It’s clear that we’re on the threshold of a new nuclear era: a time when the actual use of atomic weapons is being accorded greater plausibility by military and political leaders globally, while war plans are being revised to allow the use of such weapons at an earlier stage in future armed clashes.
As a result, the next president will have to grapple with nuclear weapons issues — and possible nuclear crises — in a way unknown since the Cold War era……..http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/11/06/whose-finger-nuclear-button
November 8, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
USA elections 2016 |
Leave a comment
South Africa’s power utility wants to finance nuclear. This is a bad idea. , enca, Seán Mfundza Muller, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of Johannesburg Sunday 6 November 2016 JOHANNESBURG – South Africa’s cabinet is to consider a proposal that a mooted nuclear power deal for the country be financed through the state-owned power utility Eskom. This is the latest twist in South Africa’s controversial efforts to expand its nuclear power capability by commissioning up to 9.6GW of energy from six nuclear power stations. The decision has been mired in controversy and still hangs in the balance and the offer by Eskom to foot the bill raises more questions than it provides answers.
Recent claims by Eskom’s management fail to adequately address any of the fundamental criticisms of the proposed nuclear programme.
Statements that Eskom can “finance nuclear on its own”, or absorb the risks from an incorrect decision, don’t add up economically or financially, and are misleading.
Furthermore, changes in Eskom’s rationale for justifying nuclear procurement over the last two years call into question the merits and motives of these arguments. Its claims about financing also raise serious questions about the arguments it presented to Parliament last year to justify a R23 billion cash injection and writing off a R60 billion loan.
The right decision would be for cabinet to defer further consideration of the programme for at least two years. In addition Eskom should account to Parliament on discrepancies in its statements about its financial situation.
THE FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS IN THE CASE FOR NUCLEAR
The three main problems with the case for nuclear procurement are well-established.
The actual power probably will not be needed. Recent trends in economic growth and electricity demand are much lower than the original forecasts on which the supposed need for nuclear power were based.
The programme is also likely to be very costly although there are still no credible, government cost estimates in the public domain. Many energy experts have argued that even if additional capacity was needed, other energy sources may be cheaper or more appropriate.
Finally, the combination of insufficient demand and costly supply means that nuclear poses a serious threat to the future stability of the country’s public finances and economic growth.
November 6, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, South Africa |
Leave a comment
Vietnam looks to delay Japan-, Russia-backed nuclear plants amid funds crunch, Japan Times, 6 Nov 16 KYODO HANOI – Vietnam’s ruling Communist Party in October instructed government authorities to revise plans to build nuclear power plants with Russian and Japanese assistance with a view to delaying them due to the government’s tight finances, it was learned Sunday from party and government sources.
The government is now working on a comprehensive revision of the plan and intends to submit a report to the National Assembly, according to the sources.
According to one of the sources, a considerable investment at the present time is “extremely difficult” given the financial situation of the government…….
some members of the Communist Party’s new leadership selected at a party congress in January have expressed concern over nuclear power plant construction while public debt remains high as well as over the safety of nuclear power.
At the fourth plenum of the 12th Party Central Committee in October, agreement was reached to reconsider the plan with a view to its postponement……http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/11/07/business/vietnam-looks-delay-japan-russia-backed-nuclear-plants-amid-funds-crunch/#.WB_SydJ97Gg
November 6, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, Vietnam |
Leave a comment
$2 Billion Needed Annually for Advanced Nuclear, Group Says 
http://www.bna.com/billion-needed-annually-n57982082293/ Bloomberg BNA By Rebecca Kern Nov. 3 — Advanced nuclear reactor technologies would be speeded up if the federal government increased spending to $2 billion annually on research and development test beds and demonstration projects, nuclear experts advised.
In order to move advanced nuclear reactors from the conceptual stage where they are today to the testing stages and eventual deployment, the government needs to increase its funding from its approximately $500 million per year to $2 billion per year over a 10-year period, Armond Cohen, executive director of the Clean Air Task Force, said during a Nov. 3 event releasing the Global Nexus Initiative’s policy memo outlining a framework for advanced reactors.
The Global Nexus Initiative is a group formed two years ago by the Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents the nuclear industry, and the Partnership for Global Security, a nonpartisan, non-profit focusing nuclear security policy.
The report is based on discussions during the group’s February workshop on the challenges to deploying advanced reactors, which are non-light water nuclear reactors that rely on other substances, such as sodium, to cool the reactor that have the potential to be cheaper to build and safer than existing reactor technologies.
Todd Allen, a senior visiting fellow at Third Way, a policy research group, said that government funding should be focused on early innovation for startup companies, of which some fraction will move up to commercial deployment….. http://www.bna.com/billion-needed-annually-n57982082293/
November 5, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Gatchalian with Duterte on stand vs nuclear power . By: Tarra Quismundo / @TarraINQ Philippine Daily Inquirer / November 04, 2016 Sen.Sherwin Gatchalian on Friday expressed agreement with President Rodrigo Duterte’s stand against the use of nuclear power, saying further studies must first be undertaken to ensure that it would be a viable and safe energy source for the Philippines.
Gatchalian, chair of the Senate energy committee, said the Department of Energy should first “formulate a comprehensive nuclear energy policy” before forging ahead with the use of nuclear power.
Energy Secretary Alfonso Cusi earlier proposed the use of the long-mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, but Gatchalian expressed reservations, citing safety concerns over the aged facility.
“The President and I see eye to eye on this matter. More research should be done to prove that nuclear power is a safe and viable energy option for the Philippines. At this point, I am not convinced,” said Gatchalian in a statement.
He said he was willing to hear out advocates of nuclear power but proposed to shift focus first on more viable energy sources……http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/841149/gatchalian-with-duterte-on-stand-vs-nuclear-power
November 5, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Philippines, politics |
Leave a comment
Can Eskom can be trusted with such a huge, risky and expensive exercise?
Between the Chains: Eskom just can’t do nuclear http://www.financialmail.co.za/opinion/Betweenthechains/2016/11/03/between-the-chains-eskom-just-can-t-do-nuclear
BY SIKONATHI MANTSHANTSHA, NOVEMBER 03 2016, By the time you read this, Statistics SA will have published yet another electricity production report that exposes the propaganda coming out of Eskom for the lie it really is. The last electricity production report, released in the first week in October, shows Eskom has been generating ever-shrinking amounts of power for the past decade. For the eight months to August, it produced a total 152,432 gigawatt hours (gWh) of electricity. For the whole of last year Eskom generated 230,122gWh of power, a far cry from the 241,170gWh it churned out in 2007, the year the screws really came off. The next-best generation performance came only in 2010, with 240,528gWh of electricity produced. It has been on a downward production spiral since then.
This year’s production figures also include the more than 2,000MW that is produced by private, renewable-power operators.
Yet for the past year the utility has been feeding the nation the lie that it has improved its generation performance, pointing at the absence of load shedding as proof. Only when confronted with the evidence do Eskom’s executives reluctantly admit that the much lower demand “has contributed” to the lack of load shedding.
Stats SA collects its information from the utility itself. So who is Eskom fooling with its public-relations spin?
Now that they have been repeating the “superb performance” narrative, Eskom’s managers are beginning to believe it and are becoming more ambitious and brazen. Generation chief Matshela Koko has been generating a storm of hot air about why Eskom must handle the procurement of the next fleet of nuclear power stations. And now that energy minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson has effectively handed the responsibility to Eskom, the utility says it will use its balance sheet to fund the nuclear power stations, which it would operate when the first one comes into operation by 2026……..
While I believe that SA does need to build more nuclear power stations in order to restore energy security, I do not think Eskom can be trusted with such a huge, risky and expensive exercise at this stage. And I believe we only need to build a maximum 3,000MW of new nuclear capacity during the next 20 years, not the 9,600MW government has been pushing for.
As a start, it is fanciful and misleading at best to say a nuclear power station can be commissioned by 2026. Certainly not by Eskom. The worst possibility is that Eskom executives are deliberately misleading SA into believing they can efficiently manage such a process.
Over budget and years late
Since August 2007, Eskom has been bumbling and unnecessarily costing SA billions trying to build the Medupi and Kusile power stations. Both are way over budget and at least five years late.
It is not only lack of skills causing these delays and cost overruns. Corruption inside Eskom and at government level has played the biggest role. And corruption has since got worse, not better.
The biggest lie in Eskom’s bid to control the nuclear procurement is that it has a balance sheet capable of handling such a commitment. Koko conveniently forgets that in 2009 Eskom abandoned its nuclear build programme, and handed the responsibility to government.
The reason was stated clearly: Eskom alone could not afford the commitment, said then chief generation officer Brian Dames in 2009. The utility has since leant on government for financial guarantees and bailouts to support its current capital investment programme. The taxpayer is exposed to more than R170bn in Eskom guarantees alone. Eskom did not have the money then. It does not have it now.
November 5, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, secrets,lies and civil liberties, South Africa |
Leave a comment
Barack Obama is the first climate president http://www.skepticalscience.com/obama-first-climate-president.html 2 November 2016 by John Abraham
My how far we’ve come in less than eight years. We have seen happen what those of us in the climate and energy fields knew could happen. The US has become a world leader on climate change, dramatically increased our production of clean and renewable fuels, reduced our emissions of greenhouse gases, signed major international agreements to continue progress into the future, and have done so without cost increases or power disruptions that the denial community proclaimed would occur.
As we in the United States get ready to elect a new president, it is helpful to think about the impact a president can have. Particularly since we transitioned from the worst climate president ever (Bush) to the best (Obama). I am going to detail what I think are Obama’s signature accomplishments.
In my mind, the most important part of President Obama’s legacy on climate is that he changed the conversation. He showed that not only should the US play a role in reducing emissions, but we can do just that. He showed that this problem isn’t too big to solve. In fact, most of the solutions are subtle enough that we don’t even notice them. He showed that we can change our future for the better.
With respect to specific actions, the Clean Power Plan is one of his biggest accomplishments. By working with the EPA, he created the first ever carbon pollution standards for the largest source of pollution – power plants. He did this in the midst of a do-nothing congress that fought him every step of the way.
Under his presidency, we made huge investments in clean energy, which are paying off already. Jump starts to the wind and solar industry have led to enormous cost decreases – dirty energy isn’t cheaper anymore. It is really astonishing – wind power has tripled and solar power has increased by 30 times since he took office.
Under his presidency, we improved standards for fuel economy of our vehicles, which not only reduces pollution but also saves money. Furthermore, Obama set targets to reduce the federal government’s emissions by nearly 20% by 2025. He has worked to reduce other types of greenhouse gases such as methane and hydrofluorocarbons, not only within the US but through international agreements.
And those aren’t the only international efforts. Obama made a joint plan with China that is almost unbelievably ambitious. It will reduce our emissions by approximately 27% by 2025 and puts major limits on Chinese emissions as well. He also forged an agreement with India to help low-income countries transition to modern economies that are not as polluting as current developed nations.
There are many more items which would be too numerous to mention but I wanted to know how his presidency is viewed within Washington DC. I mean, among climatescientists, he is the president we’ve been waiting for, but what do legislators think? I asked representative Betty McCollum from Minnesota for her view. Ms. McCollum has a long history of focusing on the environment in general and climate change in particular – long before it was popular. She told me: Click here to read the rest
November 4, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
climate change, politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Eskom’s nuclear energy offer doesn’t add up, Independent Online 3 November 2016, The power utility’s financial statements need scrutiny, writes Seán Mfundza Muller South Africa’s cabinet is to consider a proposal that a mooted nuclear power deal for the country be financed through the state-owned power utility Eskom. This is the latest twist in South Africa’s controversial efforts to expand its nuclear power capability by commissioning up to 9.6GW of energy from six nuclear power stations.
The decision has been mired in controversy and still hangs in the balance and the offer by Eskom to foot the bill raises more questions than it provides answers. Recent claims by Eskom’s management fail to adequately address any of the fundamental criticisms of the proposed nuclear programme. Statements that Eskom can “finance nuclear on its own” don’t add up and are misleading.
Changes in Eskom’s rationale for justifying nuclear procurement over the past two years call into question the merits of these arguments.
Its claims about financing also raise serious questions about the arguments it presented to Parliament last year to justify a R23 billion cash injection and write off a R60bn loan.
The right decision would be for the cabinet to defer further consideration of the programme for at least two years. In addition, Eskom should account to Parliament on discrepancies in its statements about its financial situation.
The three main problems with the case for nuclear procurement are well established.
The actual power probably will not be needed. Trends in economic growth and electricity demand are much lower than the original forecasts on which the supposed need for nuclear power were based.
The programme is also likely to be very costly although there are still no credible, government cost estimates in the public domain. Many energy experts have argued that even if additional capacity was needed, other energy sources may be cheaper or more appropriate.
Finally, the combination of insufficient demand and costly supply means that nuclear poses a serious threat to the future stability of the country’s public finances and economic growth.
An indicator of problematic motives is the way in which the arguments made for it keep shifting. Last year Eskom chief executive Brian Molefe told Parliament that procurement of nuclear was “urgent” and feasible. Molefe argued that nuclear costs were lower than critics implied and financing concerns reflected a “pedestrian” attitude.
Subsequent to this, Eskom decided on a new line of attack: trying to limit procurement of power from independent renewable energy producers………
It should therefore be clear that the case for proceeding with the procurement of nuclear power is fundamentally flawed. The rational and responsible decision by cabinet would be to halt it.
If economic growth and energy demand increases significantly over the next few years, the matter could be revisited based on an appropriately updated Integrated Resource Plan that uses credible forecasts of future energy needs. http://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/opinion/eskoms-nuclear-energy-offer-doesnt-add-up-2086209
November 4, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, South Africa |
Leave a comment
http://www.lohud.com/story/opinion/readers/2016/11/01/energy-rights-group-blasts-cuomo-plan-bail-out-nuke-plants/93007830/ Re “Nuclear plant bailout burdens New Yorkers, NYPIRG writes,” Oct. 24 Community View: Nancy S. Vann, president of Safe Energy Rights Group.
It’s not surprising that the Cuomo administration’s decision to burden New Yorkers with a nuclear bailout was shrouded in secrecy. Behind closed doors, it was decided that our electric bills would be raised by $7.6 billion to bail out old, failing nuclear power plants in upstate New York.
Here in Westchester, our ConEdison rates could go up by $705.8 million to sustain these unprofitable, dangerous plants. These plants are losing money and were slated to be shut down until this administration partnered with the owner of the plants, Exelon, to make them profitable on the taxpayers’ dime. If the state is forced to add the failing Indian Point plant to the list, the costs could be even higher.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo should scrap this huge rate hike and instead develop a new plan — one that focuses on keeping rates low and invests in affordable 21st century clean energy technology that creates jobs, improves our communities and protects the environment. New Yorkers deserve investments that work for them, not irresponsible bailouts for dying industries.
November 4, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Hinkley Point deal under fire as construction ‘milestone’ hit before contract signed, Telegraph, Emily Gosden, energy editor 30 OCTOBER 2016
The Government is facing fresh criticism over the Hinkley Point nuclear deal after it emerged a condition supposed to ensure the £18bn plant was being built on schedule had already been met before contract was signed.
A clause in the subsidy deal gives ministers the right to cancel the contract if EDF, which has been plagued by delays building reactors elsewhere, has not hit a construction “milestone” within 33 months of taking its final investment decision.
The milestone requires the “commissioning of the main concrete batching plant” at the Somerset site.But the Telegraph can disclose that EDF believes it has already “achieved that milestone”, after two concrete batching plants were commissioned earlier this year, months before the deal was inked in September.
While the meeting of the condition still has to be officially signed off by the Government agency handling the contract, EDF expects this to be “completed shortly”.
This renders the milestone clause largely pointless and leaves no other lever to ensure construction is proceeding as planned in coming years.
Ministers argue EDF has an incentive to build Hinkley by its 2025 target date because it will not receive any income until it starts generating.
However, the contract, which has been widely criticised as too generous, allows EDF to retain the same subsidy deal if Hinkley is up to four years late and only lets the Government cancel if it is still not running by 2033.
Alan Whitehead MP, Labour’s shadow energy minister, said ministers must confirm whether they knew the concrete plants has already been built when the subsidy contract was signed.
If they did, it would be “a pretty alarming reflection on the way this particular contract may have been drawn up” and raised “serious questions”, he said.
Milestones were intended as a “protection of public money” to enable ministers to act “where funding is going into something which it is evident is not going to happen”, he said.“You could be forgiven for the suspicion that this was a potentially deliberate clause which could have been designed to make it impossible for the milestone agreement to be breached,” he said………http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/30/hinkley-point-deal-under-fire-as-construction-milestone-hit-befo/
November 4, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, UK |
Leave a comment
nuclear-news 