Swiss ban new nuclear reactors http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/swiss-ban-new-nuclear-reactors-39247 By Craig Morris on 11 October 2016 Energy Transition
Another setback for the “nuclear renaissance”: Switzerland voted on Friday to focus more on renewables and efficiency. For the first time ever, new nuclear plants are officially off the table—though admittedly, none were planned. The Swiss just “adopted the Energiewende,” writes the Neue Züricher Zeitung. Is no one paying attention? Craig Morris has the details.
Now here’s a news item you probably haven’t heard, at least judging from what I can gather on the internet: Switzerland’s new Energy Act (Energiegesetz, PDF) of 30 September 2016. You would think that, given its scope and Switzerland’s central role in Europe’s power sector, the following contents would have warranted a mention at, say, Reuters, CNN, Bloomberg, and Co.:
- The generation of non-hydro renewable power is to grow from 1.7 TWh last year (PDF in German and French) to 4.4 TWh by 2020 and 11.4 TWh by 2035 (nearly tenfold).
- “Per capita energy consumption” is to shrink by 16 percent from 2000 to 2020 and by 43 percent by 2035. “Per capita” is an important caveat in a small country whose population can easily grow quickly. (Switzerland’s is up around 10 percent over the past decade, like even smaller Norway’s.) Unfortunately, the law does not specify the most important aspect here: final or primaryenergy?
- Power consumption is to drop by 3 percent by 2020 and 13 percent by 2035.
- The law also, confusingly, speaks of “expanding” hydropower to 37.4 TWh by 2035 – even though it came in at 39.5 TWh last year. (If any readers know how to dissect this, please drop us a comment below.)
- It amends the 2003 Nuclear Energy Act (here’s the old one) to ban permits for new nuclear reactors. It also bans the reprocessing and export of spent fuel rods for reprocessing (except for research purposes with the consent of the Bundesrat). And “changes may not be made to existing nuclear plants.”
There’s a lot more in the law, much of which deals with the policy mechanisms (level of feed-in tariffs, etc.). But what’s above is a real breakthrough. So why has it gone unreported in English?
One reason may be that a referendum could change everything, as the Swiss press explains (in German). But the report also suggests there is little support for such a referendum in industry, so the referendum may not even take place; in other words, the Swiss business world is happier with renewables and efficiencythan with old-school energy production, consumption, and waste.
Another referendum will be held on 27 November 2016: the one for a closure of the existing reactors (in German). It does not necessarily stand a good chance of passing; parliamentarians overwhelmingly reject it (it’s an idea of the Swiss Greens). On the other hand, a recent survey of the public revealed support for a total phaseout by 2029 (basically, a limited service life of 45 years per reactor). This idea may have as much as 58 percent public support (in German)—possibly another example of politicians out of touch with the people. The first reactor to be shut down would then go offline in 2019. Leibstadt, the youngest, would be the last to go in 2029.
Opponents of the phaseout referendum will reportedly not try to reject the idea of a nuclear phaseout outright. Instead, they will try to win over the “silent majority” of undecided voters in the middle of the political spectrum by simply arguing that setting a specific date or service life for all reactors makes no sense. This clever tactic is likely to succeed, but a quick comparison with the historic debate in Germany over a nuclear phaseout suggests something less savory for nuclear supporters. Remember that slippery slope? By the time you resort to the tactic of “setting a date for a phaseout makes no sense,” you have reached the bottom of it. There is no way back up the slope for nuclear at that point.
Oddly, the Swiss press outlets all report that the new law is part of the government’s “Energy Strategy 2050” even though “2050” is never even mentioned in the new Act. This law is in fact just a starting point. By the end of this year, we will probably know what direction the country is headed.
One wonders when the international media will catch on. Maybe never—or did you know that Switzerland implemented a nuclear phaseout (by 2034) in the wake of Fukushima back in 2011?
October 12, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
opposition to nuclear, politics, Switzerland |
Leave a comment
Nuclear energy: Government to push for JVs in light water reactor projects, Economic Times By PTI | Oct 09, 2016, NEW DELHI: To meet the high cost of Light Water Reactors, the government has decided to bring in such projects, which currently involve foreign collaborators, as joint ventures (JVs)with public sector undertakings (PSUs).
October 10, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, India, politics |
Leave a comment
VPs raise energy, then drop it like a hot piece of coal, Evan Lehmann, E&E reporter ClimateWire: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 The candidates for vice president rushed into energy issues last night during their only debate before the election. In their opening answers, Democrat Tim Kaine, the Virginia senator, mentioned climate change, and Republican Mike Pence, Indiana’s governor, objected to a “war on coal.”
Then those issues evaporated, as the running mates defended the positions of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on issues like the proliferation of nuclear weapons, diplomacy with Russia and the role of government in abortion.
Instead, the arguments over climate change largely took place outside the debate hall at Longwood University in Farmville, Va.
Hours before the debate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) urged undecided voters in Minneapolis to support Clinton based on her plan to address rising temperatures. That dovetails with the Clinton campaign’s efforts to attract young voters who supported Sanders in the primary race, but who have resisted committing to Clinton.
“So I say to anyone out there who is wavering as to whom they may want to support for president, think about your kids, think about your grandchildren, think about future generations and understand that we cannot elect a president of the United States who believes that climate change is a hoax,” Sanders said, referring to Trump. “We need to elect a president who is going to be aggressive in transforming our energy system, and that candidate is Hillary Clinton.”
Former Vice President and climate activist Al Gore is also planning to campaign on Clinton’s behalf to shore up her flagging support among millennials, a key demographic that is showing signs of splitting for third-party candidates. CNN and The Washington Post first reported Gore’s involvement.
The Clinton campaign has in recent weeks taken advantage of Trump’s previous comments questioning the existence of climate change. Trump has called global warming a “hoax” and said it’s “bullshit,” a position that roughly half of Republicans agree with, according to polls.
Yesterday, Clinton took aim at Pence. Hours before last night’s debate, the campaign released an online video describing Pence as “a divisive, anti-woman, anti-worker extremist.” The video also highlighted a Pence campaign web page from 2000 that described climate change as a liberal invention to advance the Kyoto Protocol.
“Global warming is a myth,” Pence said on the website, according to the Clinton campaign. “The global warming treaty is a disaster. There, I said it. Just like the ‘new ice age’ scare of the 1970’s, the environmental movement has found a new chant for their latest ‘chicken little’ attempt to raise taxes and grow centralized governmental power. The chant is ‘the sky is warming! the sky is warming!'”
Kaine, who has led the campaign’s climate attacks, has been using Trump’s views to help mobilize young Democrats to vote.
“Do you believe in climate science, or don’t you?” Kaine said recently in Houston. “If you do, you should vote for Hillary and Tim, because the other guys are against you.”
He also mentioned Pence specifically…….http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060043857
October 7, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
USA elections 2016 |
Leave a comment
Trump punts on Yucca nuclear waste site, The Hill, By Timothy Cama – 10/06/16 Donald Trump isn’t taking a position for the time being on the highly contentious, decades-old proposal to build a federal nuclear waste repository in Nevada.
Speaking late Wednesday with Las Vegas television station KSNV, the Republican presidential nominee acknowledged the controversial nature of the Yucca Mountain proposal, and said he would eventually stake out a position on it.
“I’m going to take a look at it, because so many people are talking about it. I came into town and everyone’s talking about it. So I will take a very strong look at it, and the next time you interview me, we’ll talk about it for five minutes,” Trump said in an interview………
Clinton told the Las Vegas Sun in January that Yucca should be permanently “off the table” as a nuclear dump……..http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/299575-trump-punts-on-yucca-nuclear-waste-site
October 6, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
USA elections 2016 |
Leave a comment
On Nuclear Policy, Trump and Clinton Agree: Armageddon Is an Option
While you were up watching reruns of Seinfeld, the first presidential debate turned into Dr. Strangelove. The Nation , By Andrew J. Bacevich, 5 Oct 16,
You may have missed it. Perhaps you dozed off. Or wandered into the kitchen to grab a snack. Or by that point in the proceedings were checking out Seinfeld reruns. During the latter part of the much hyped but excruciating-to-watch first presidential debate, NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt posed a seemingly straightforward but cunningly devised question. His purpose was to test whether the candidates understood the essentials of nuclear strategy.
A moderator given to plain speaking might have said this: “Explain why the United States keeps such a large arsenal of nuclear weapons and when you might consider using those weapons.”
What Holt actually said was: “On nuclear weapons, President Obama reportedly considered changing the nation’s longstanding policy on first use. Do you support the current policy?”
The framing of the question posited no small amount of knowledge on the part of the two candidates. Specifically, it assumed that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton each possess some familiarity with the longstanding policy to which Holt referred and with the modifications that Obama had contemplated making to it………
Cruelly, the moderator invited Trump to respond first. The look in the Republican nominee’s eyes made it instantly clear that Holt could have been speaking Farsi for all he understood……..
in the arcane theology of nuclear strategy, “first strike” and “first use” are anything but synonymous. “First strike” implies a one-sided, preventive war of annihilation. The logic of a first strike, such as it is, is based on the calculation that a surprise nuclear attack could inflict the “nuclear alternative” on your adversary, while sparing your own side from suffering a comparable fate. A successful first strike would be a one-punch knockout, delivered while your opponent still sits in his corner of the ring.
………..The Republican nominee promptly revoked his “no first strike” pledge by insisting, in a cliché much favored in Washington, that “I can’t take anything off the table.”……..
It was now Clinton’s turn to show her stuff…..
What followed was vintage Clinton: vapid sentiments, smoothly delivered in the knowing tone of a seasoned Washington operative. During her two minutes, she never came within a country mile of discussing the question Holt had asked or the thoughts she evidently actually has about nuclear issues……..
What do our presidential candidates talk about when they don’t want to talk about nuclear war? The one, in a vain effort to conceal his own ignorance, offers rambling nonsense. The other, accustomed to making her own rules, simply changes the subject.
October 5, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
USA elections 2016 |
Leave a comment
Nuclear power lobby names new CEO, The Hill, By Timothy Cama – 10/04/16 The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) has tapped Maria Korsnick, a veteran of the nuclear industry, to be its new CEO.
Korsnick, currently the chief operating officer at NEI, will start her new role Jan. 1, when Marv Fertel, the current CEO, retires.
She has previously held executive positions at Constellation Energy Nuclear Group and Exelon Corp……..
The changes come at a crucial moment for the nuclear sector. Numerous plants are expected to close in the coming years amid competition from cheap natural gas and renewables, and increasing safety and security requirements.
A small handful of new plants or reactors are under construction domestically as well.
NEI is working on various major policy priorities, like getting a tax credit renewed for newly built plants, trying to get the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site built and reforming the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/299158-nuclear-lobby-names-new-ceo
October 4, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA |
Leave a comment
South Africa: Nuke RFP Delayed in Order to Give Eskom Greater Say and Avoid Parliamentary Scrutiny http://allafrica.com/stories/201609300697.html By Gordon Mackay, 30 Sep 16 At a cabinet briefing today, Minister in the Presidency, Jeff Radebe, confirmed that it was highly unlikely that the nuclear RFP would be issued tomorrow as announced by the Minister of Energy, Tina Joemat-Pettersson, three weeks ago in Parliament.
Minister Radebe also suggested that the delay in issuing the RFP is largely due to a decision by cabinet to strip the Department of Energy of its role as government’s designated procurement agent in favour of Eskom.
This must be seen for what it is – a blatant attempt by the Zuma administration to:
- side-line parliamentary oversight of the nuclear new build programme;
- block public debate on the need for additional nuclear capacity;
- create a veil of secrecy around the procurement process which would now be subject to internal Eskom processes and procedures;
- give President Jacob Zuma greater control of the nuclear procurement process.
Designating Eskom as the procuring agent of the state will fundamentally limit the role and capacity of Parliament to oversee the nuclear deal and, in doing so, increase the potential of corruption surrounding the trillion rand deal.
The DA rejects any attempt to designate Eskom, headed by CEO and Zupta buddy, Brian Molefe, as the procuring agent for nuclear. Eskom has proven with Medupi and Kusile that it is unfit to manage mega-projects. It has also proven that its governance procedures are lax and the Supreme Court of Appeal has found its Board Tender Committee to be corrupt.
The DA is further concerned that the nuclear new build programme will further be subject to undue influence by the President, who is the Chair of the SOE Co-ordinating Committee.
We will use every mechanism available to us to ensure that this deal – which we do not need and cannot afford – is not pushed through without proper parliamentary oversight and scrutiny.
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, South Africa |
Leave a comment
Signs of a great rift over Zuma’s nuclear programme, Rand Daily Mail, RAY HARTLEY 30 SEPTEMBER 2016 In another indication of President Jacob Zuma’s dimishing influence, his headlong rush to build a ‘fleet’ of nuclear reactors has been halted. And there are signs that it is going to be cut down to size, if it goes ahead at all.
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, South Africa |
Leave a comment
Hillary Clinton Is More ‘Dovish’ Than Obama on Nukes, Hacked Audio Suggests, NY Mag, By Eric Levitz ” ……………his (Obama’s) administration is pursuing a $1 trillion nuclear “modernization” program, which many experts think will only heighten the risk of atomic war.
The president’s plan involves breaking up America’s existing nuclear stockpile into smaller, more reliable weapons, including cruise missiles with nuclear tips. This allows Obama to maintain his pledge to create no “new nuclear weapons,” while developing a sleek, modern arsenal that will, somehow, further deter enemy nations from attacking the United States.
There are a few problems with this plan. For one thing, building more precise nuclear cruise missiles only makes their use “more thinkable,” in the words of former vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James E. Cartwright. What’s more, the move threatens to kick off a new round of nuclear proliferation, as Stephen Kinzer, a scholar of international relations at Brown University,
recently observed:…….
Finally, there’s the program’s exorbitant cost. At a time when deficit politics are constraining our government’s ability to invest in basic social services and infrastructure improvements, do we really need to spend $1 trillion on renovating weapons we don’t ever want to use?
Hillary Clinton, for one, thinks not.
Earlier this week, the Washington Free Beacon published an audio recording of a fundraiser Clinton held back in February, which was gleaned from the hack of a campaign staffer — reportedly, as part of the same hack that exposed DNC emails.
In that audio, Andrew C. Weber, a former Defense Department official, asks Clinton if she would cancel the nuclear-cruise-missile project, were she elected president.
“I certainly would be inclined to do that,” she replied. “The last thing we need are sophisticated cruise missiles that are nuclear-armed.”
Clinton went on to suggest that such weapons would likely encourage a nuclear arms race, and praised former Defense secretary William J. Perry for his public opposition to the modernization program.
“This is going to be a big issue,” Clinton added. “It’s not just the nuclear-tipped cruise missile. There’s a lot of other money we’re taking about to go into refurbishing and modernization … Do we have to do any of it? If we have to do some of it, how much do we have to do? That’s going to be a tough question, so I will look to people like you and Bill Perry to help me answer that question.”
Elsewhere in the recording, Clinton took a more “hawkish” stance on cybersecurity, suggesting the United States must deter attacks from China and Russia through retaliatory measures. ……http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/clinton-to-the-left-of-obama-on-nukes-hacked-audio-suggests.html
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
USA elections 2016 |
Leave a comment
Hillary Clinton ‘Inclined To’ Cancel Nuclear Cruise Missile, Aviation Week Sep 30, 2016 by Lara Seligman in Ares As the Pentagon moves ahead with a trillion-dollar modernization of its nuclear arsenal, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton seems to be breaking with the Obama administration’s posture, signaling she might cancel a planned replacement of the legacy nuclear-tipped cruise missile.
Reports emerged this week that Clinton broke her silence on the administration’s planned modernization of strategic submarines, bombers and siloed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM ), expressing doubts during a February fundraiser about whether the U.S. should go forward with the overhaul.
“The last thing we need are sophisticated cruise missiles that are nuclear armed,” Clinton said, according to reports of an audio recording of the fundraiser that appeared on the website of The Washington Free Beacon.
During the event, Clinton was asked about the modernization effort and whether she, as president, would cancel the replacement for the legacy Air-Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM), dubbed the Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) weapon.
“I certainly would be inclined to do that,” she answered. “The last thing we need are sophisticated cruise missiles that are nuclear-armed.”
LRSO may be the most vulnerable piece of the Pentagon’s nuclear arsenal. In her opposition to the new cruise missile, which will arm Northrop Grumman’s B-2s and next-generation B-21 bombers, Clinton joins a chorus of dissenters from Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont to former defense secretary William Perry. Warren and Sanders, along with several other senators, called on Obama in July to cancel LRSO, saying it “would provide an unnecessary capability that could increase the risk of nuclear war.”………http://aviationweek.com/blog/hillary-clinton-inclined-cancel-nuclear-cruise-missile
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
USA elections 2016 |
Leave a comment
This has drawn attention to South Africa’s status as a global model for renewable energy, and raises new question about why the country is pursuing nuclear when renewables look so promising.
South Africa has the fastest growing green economy in the world, according to credit rating agency Moody’s.
“South Africa was the continent’s largest renewables market in 2015 in terms of asset finance for utility-scale projects and it saw the highest year-on-year growth globally,” said Christopher Bredholt, a Moody’s vice president, in a Sept. 16 report. Asset finance is usually used by businesses to lease equipment without having to buy it outright, according to Finance & Leasing Association.
South Africa had the highest growth globally for asset finance in 2015 at 300 percent, representing $4.5 billion, according to Moody’s.
Continue reading →
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, renewable, South Africa |
Leave a comment
South Africa: Nuclear Plan On Ice As Eskom May Take Ownership AllAfrica.com 30 Sept 16 Early indications are that Eskom may ultimately be responsible for the management and implementation of South Africa’s nuclear plan and not the Department of Energy as had originally been planned.
At the same time the much anticipated request for proposal for the nuclear plan won’t be issued on Friday as mooted by Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson earlier this month.
Jeff Radebe, Minister in the Presidency responsible for Planning and Monitoring, reiterated at a cabinet briefing on Thursday that more consultations need to take place before a request for proposal (RFP) can be issued on 30 September 2016.
Joemat-Pettersson issued a statement a few hours after Radebe’s briefing, confirming this………..
At the time of the previous cabinet meeting on the issue of nuclear in December 2015, nuclear was going to be led by Energy,” Radebe said during question time on Thursday.
“But recently there are references made to Eskom. That’s why I’m talking about issues of consultation. Those types of consultations must unfold before the RFP is issued. The instituting authority must be clearly defined.”
State-owned nuclear firm Necsa could also play a bigger role in the process. “Necsa has had discussions with government officials and Eskom – and there are clear indications that Necsa will play a major role as the primary nuclear centre of the country,” Necsa chair Kelvin Kemm told Fin24 on Thursday.
Asked during question time if he meant that Eskom instead of the DoE would be driving South Africa’s nuclear build programme, Radebe responded, saying when cabinet previously deliberated on the nuclear process in December 2015, the decision was that the Department of Energy would be driving the process. “If there is a change it will have to come back to cabinet for deliberation,” he said.
Radebe also repeated that the RFP would not be issued on Friday, despite previous assertions by Joemat-
Pettersson that the RFP was due for Friday. “There was no contradiction,” Radebe said with reference to Pandor’s statement on Tuesday.
“My understanding is that what minister Pandor was saying, due to the processes of consultation [and the fact that] processes had not completed, the RFP will only be issued after all those issues of consultation have been concluded and being brought back to cabinet. So I do not envisage that tomorrow on the 30 of September the RFP will be issued by the Department of Energy,” Radebe said.Source: Fin24 http://allafrica.com/stories/201609300935.html
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, South Africa |
Leave a comment
Pakistan is running full speed to develop tactical nukes in their continuing hostility with India’
U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has expressed concern over the possibility of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons falling into the hands of jihadists, which she said was “a threatening scenario,” according to a media report.
“Pakistan is running full speed to develop tactical nukes in their continuing hostility with India,” the former Secretary of State told a close door fundraiser in Virginia in February, The New York Times reported, citing 50-minute audio audio hacked from the Democratic Party’s computers.
“But we live in fear that they’re going to have a coup, that jihadists are going to take over the government, they’re going to get access to nuclear weapons, and you’ll have suicide nuclear bombers. So, this could not be a more threatening scenario,” the daily quoted Ms. Clinton as saying in the audio that appeared on The Washington Free Beacon website.
During the fund raiser, responding to a question on modernisation of nuclear weapons, the daily said, Ms. Clinton went beyond the question to warn of an emerging nuclear arms race, naming Russia and China as well as Pakistan and India.
“This is one of the most dangerous developments imaginable.”
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
USA elections 2016 |
Leave a comment
NO DEALS SIGNED YET ON SA NUCLEAR PROGRAMME – RADEBE http://ewn.co.za/2016/09/30/No-deals-signed-yet-on-SA-nuclear-programme Minister Jeff Radebe says the request for proposals will clarify if the country can afford nuclear power.Clement Manyathela | JOHANNESBURG – Minister in the Presidency Jeff Radebe says no deals have been signed for the nuclear build programme and says the request for proposals will clarify if the country can afford it or not.
Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Petterssen was meant to issue a request for proposals for the nuclear build programme as part of the procurement process today but this has now been postponed to allow more time for further consultation.
Radebe says the request for proposal will be issued after consultations.
“The Minister of Energy issued a statement confirming that the request for proposals is not going to be issued until such time that we’ve concluded those consultation processes.”
He says it will also advise government on whether or not it can afford nuclear power.
“That’s precisely the reason why the proposal is going to be issued in order to understand whether, as the country, we’re going to be affording it in terms of testing the market.”
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, South Africa |
Leave a comment
South Africa will delay tendering for new nuclear power stations after requests for consultation and discussion made it impossible to start the process by the end of September as initially planned, the energy minister said on Thursday.
A statement said energy minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson remained “fully committed” to plans for nuclear procurement. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-safrica-nuclear-idUSKCN11Z1SW
September 30, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, South Africa |
Leave a comment
nuclear-news 