nuclear-news

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

Donald Trump not psychologically safe for military service, (but OK for President?)

TrumpAuthor Eric Schlosser: That “emotionally unstable” Donald Trump could end up with the nuclear codes is “like the plot out of a science-fiction film”http://www.salon.com/2016/09/13/author-eric-schlosser-that-emotionally-unstable-donald-trump-could-end-up-with-the-nuclear-codes-is-like-the-plot-out-of-a-science-fiction-film/

Schlosser explained that in the military, Trump “would be forbidden from working with nuclear weapons Eric Schlosser, author of “Command and Control,” in a Facebook Live interview with Salon’s Andrew O’Hehir on Tuesday, warned of the dire possibility that GOP presidential nominee could wind up with sole control of the United States’ nuclear arsenal.

 “I feel compelled to make a political remark,” Schlosser said. “It’s extraordinary that there’s any possibility Donald Trump could be president of the United States and commander-in-chief and in charge of our nuclear arsenal. Under the law, the only person who’s authorized to order the use of nuclear weapons is the president. And he or she is pretty much unrestricted about when he or she wants to use them.

Schlosser explained that people who work with nuclear weapons in any capacity must pass a personnel reliability program — “basically a personality test to see if you should be let anywhere near nuclear weapons.”

“Donald Trump would fail that on every score,” he continued. “He’s a liar, he’s got all kinds of personal business problems and debts, he’s clearly emotionally unstable, and in the military he would be forbidden from working with nuclear weapons. And the notion of him being commander-in-chief, with the launch codes, capable of devastating cities and countries, is extraordinary. It’s like the plot out of a science-fiction film.”

September 14, 2016 Posted by | USA elections 2016 | Leave a comment

New York downstate lawmakers resent subsidising upstate nuclear reactors

text-my-money-2Feeling the heat: Downstate legislators aren’t keen on subsidies for upstate nukes Watertown Daily Times , SEPTEMBER 12, 2016 Some downstate lawmakers don’t appreciate the fact that their constituents must now subsidize a form of energy produced in upstate regions.

The legislators take issue with the state Public Service Commission’s decision to include subsidies for nuclear power in the Clean Energy Standard approved Aug. 1. The CES calls for half of New York’s energy to come from renewable sources by 2030.

The nuclear energy subsidies, though, will benefit power plants located hundreds of miles away from the districts of these legislators.

“Members of the New York State Assembly, including James Brennan from Brooklyn, Amy Paulin from Westchester County, Jeffrey Dinowitz from the Bronx, and Charles Lavine and Stephen Englebright from Long Island, sent a letter to Audrey Zibelman, chair of the New York State Public Service Commission, saying that the commission’s order forcing downstate electric customers to pay nearly 60 percent of the electric rate increase to bailout the Exelon Corp. and keep four upstate nuclear units was unfair,” according to a news release issued Wednesday. “They said there was no way downstate electric customers used 60 percent of the output of the nuclear reactors and that the amounts should be reduced. Electric generation in the NYC-Westchester service territory, and purchases of electricity from other sources, account for the overwhelming percentage of the use of electricity there. Long Island’s situation is similar — the overwhelming percentage of its power does not come from upstate New York.”…

September 13, 2016 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Trans Pacific Partnerships’ major problem – Investor-State Dispute Settlements

the easiest way to fix ISDS is to throw it out. Several countries, including India,Indonesia and Ecuador, have told their trade partners they’re considering terminating bilateral treaties because of ISDS. Some experts question whether the system is necessary even in the situations it was originally designed for
 
texy-TPPThe Big Problem With The Trans-Pacific Partnership’s Super highly-recommendedCourt That We’re Not Talking About, Huffington Post, David Dayen Financiers will use it to bet on lawsuits, while taxpayers foot the bill. August 30, 2016 A secretive super-court system called ISDS is threatening to blow up President Barack Obama’s highest foreign policy priority.

Investor-state dispute settlement — an integral part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal — allows companies to sue entire countries for costing them money when laws or regulations change. Cases are decided by extrajudicial tribunals composed of three corporate lawyers. Buzzfeed, in a multi-part investigation launched Sunday, called it “the court that rules the world.”

 Although the ISDS process has existed for years, TPP would drastically expand it. The most common criticisms of the system are that it’s secret, that it’s dominated by unaccountable big-firm lawyers, and that global corporations use it to change sovereign laws and undermine regulations. That’s all true.
 But here’s what most of the coverage and the critics are missing.

The ISDS system ― which is now written into over 3,000 international trade treaties, including NAFTA ― was designed to solve a specific problem. When corporations invest abroad, they fear that their factories might be nationalized or their products expropriated by governments that also control the local courts. ISDS is meant to give companies confidence that if a country seizes their accounts or factories, they’ll have a fair, neutral place to appeal.

 But instead of helping companies resolve legitimate disputes over seized assets, ISDS has increasingly become a way for rich investors to make money by speculating on lawsuits, winning huge awards and forcing taxpayers to foot the bill.

Here’s how it works: Wealthy financiers with idle cash have purchased companies that are well placed to bring an ISDS claim, seemingly for the sole purpose of using that claim to make a buck. Sometimes, they set up shell corporations to create the plaintiffs to bring ISDS cases. And some hedge funds and private equity firms bankroll ISDS cases as third parties — just like billionaire Peter Thiel bankrolled Hulk Hogan in his lawsuit against Gawker Media.

It’s the same playbook that hedge funds were following when they bought up Argentine, Puerto Rican and other U.S. housing debt for pennies on the dollar. As The Huffington Post reported in May, the financiers were betting they could use lawsuits and lobbying to influence the political system in favor of the creditors like them and reap huge rewards.

Indeed, the damage of ISDS goes far beyond the money that investors manage to extract from public coffers and extends to the corruption of a political system by investors who buy off scholars, economists and politicians in pursuit of whatever policy outcome leads to a payoff. And there’s nothing stopping plutocrats with agendas that go beyond profit-making from getting involved ― again the way Thiel did with Gawker. That alone changes the power dynamic: If you’re the government of Thailand, the billionaire you’re negotiating with has one extra threat at his disposal.

If these investors are able to cement ISDS as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the opportunities for hedge funds to do what they’ve already done to Argentina will be endless ― possibly even in cities and states under financial pressure in the U.S., like Detroit and Illinois.

So-called third-party funding of “international arbitration against foreign sovereigns” has been expanding quickly, according to Selvyn Seidel, a pioneer in the litigation finance industry and now CEO of the advisory firm Fulbrook Capital Management.

“You can get an award for billions of dollars when that award would never come out in domestic law,” said Gus van Harten, a professor at Osgoode Hall Law School at York University in Toronto. “It’s just a jackpot for speculators.”……….

Third-party funding shields corporations from the upfront costs of litigation, making it easier to sue. Since companies generally don’t have to disclose that they’ve received third-party funding for an ISDS case, and since international arbitration usually proceeds in comparative secrecy, pursuing a claim through ISDS can shield companies from the public criticism that accompanies challenging a law in regular courts. “You can actually ask for enormous amounts of money without anybody criticizing you,” said Verheecke of Corporate Europe Observatory.

With ISDS permitted under some 3,000 treaties, there are a huge number of opportunities to sue. And “unlike some other legal systems, the default remedy is a cash payment,” said Todd Tucker, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute with a decade of experience researching trade and investment policy. The awards are also uncapped, meaning they can be enormous. If a corporation sought damages on future profits in perpetuity and the arbitrators agreed, the sovereign would have no recourse. Dozens of cases have resulted in awards of over $100 million, according to a 2016 report from van Harten, the law professor.

Those possibilities have the ISDS claim-financing industry booming. Hedge funds, private equity firms and institutional investors are flocking to fund lawsuits as they would any other speculative asset, according to experts in the field. And the lack of transparency means that lawyers acting as arbitrators or advocates in one case could be unnamed investors in other cases, and nobody would ever know.

Defenders of ISDS argue that the outcome of any case is uncertain and that companies win only about one-quarter of the time. But that’s only the cases that have been publicly identified and it doesn’t include settlements, where the corporation can also extract a monetary award. If funding ISDS suits was really such a bad bet, the industry probably wouldn’t be expanding so quickly.

Fulbrook Capital Management’s primer on the litigation finance industry, updated this year, includes a section entitled “International, the name of the game.” It lists numerous big-city hubs for arbitration: London, New York, Paris, Toronto. About ISDS in particular, the primer reads, “Investment claims against Sovereigns are often subject to Treaty and, within the Treaty, subject to arbitration. This promotes investments. … While investors are known to shy away from financing claims in ‘third world’ courts, particularly claims against the host court’s sovereign, they view international arbitration in a far more favorable light.”

Between 2009 and 2015, rulings in 16 ISDS cases have noted the existence of third-party funding, according to a report from Jean-Christophe Honlet, a partner at the global law firm Dentons. But the scale of third-party funding for ISDS cases is probably significantly larger than that number suggests. The International Council for Commercial Arbitration suggests that at least 60 percent of ISDS cases “enquired about (but not necessarily sought or obtained) third-party funding before their cases were lodged.” Just this month, Canadian gold mining company Rusoro won a $1.2 billion claim against Venezuela that was “third-party funded,” according to Global Arbitration Review………..

Giving financiers the ability to extract taxpayer dollars from around the globe transfers wealth upwards. It’s another way the rich get richer by accessing tools unavailable to most citizens. That has massive follow-on effects for economic and political power worldwide, including right here in the U.S.

Now, upcoming trade agreements would dramatically expand this system. Public Citizen estimates that 9,000 new companies would gain ISDS rights to sue the United States under TPP alone. That’s 9,000 new opportunities for financiers to reach down into state and local coffers, in addition to the federal government, to grab cash. TPP would also expand the “minimum standard of treatment” clause, which sets up the most flexible type of ISDS claim, to cover financial services companies, meaning almost any change in the expected future profits of a bank could be challenged. “TPP was a win for the banks on ISDS,” said van Harten, the law professor……..

the easiest way to fix ISDS is to throw it out. Several countries, including India,Indonesia and Ecuador, have told their trade partners they’re considering terminating bilateral treaties because of ISDS. Some experts question whether the system is necessary even in the situations it was originally designed for……http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/isds-lawsuit-financing-tpp_us_57c48e40e4b09cd22d91f660

September 12, 2016 Posted by | 2 WORLD, Legal, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Clinton Asserts USA Will Not Allow North Korea To Have Deliverable Nuclear Weapon

Atomic-Bomb-SmUSA election 2016US Will Not Allow North Korea To Have Deliverable Nuclear Weapon: Clinton, News 18.com September 11, 2016 Washington: The US will not allow North Korea to have deliverable nuclear weapons, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said on Sunday.

“I absolutely believe that it has to be made very clear we will not allow North Korea to have a deliverable nuclear weapon, and we will approach this from a number of perspectives,” Clinton said.

 President Barack Obama had earlier said that the US will never accept Pyongyang as a “nuclear state”. Responding to a question, Clinton said she has had conversations in the past with the Chinese about North Korea…….

we have got to make it clear missile defense is going in as quickly and broadly as possible,” Clinton said.

“Our message to the North Koreans and everyone else listening, they will not be permitted to acquire a nuclear weapon that has a deliverable capacity on a ballistic missile. And we have got to start intensifying our discussions with the Chinese, because they can’t possibly want this big problem on their doorstep,” she said……..http://www.news18.com/news/world/us-will-not-allow-north-korea-to-have-deliverable-nuclear-weapon-clinton-1291551.html

September 12, 2016 Posted by | North Korea, USA, USA elections 2016, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Iran building nuclear plant, estimated cost $10 billion – Russia helping

Iran Starts Construction On Second Nuclear Plant With Russian Help  Radio Free Europe, September 10, 2016 Iran has begun building a second nuclear power plant with Russian help, Iranian and Russian media are reporting.

The project, known as Busherh-2, was officially launched on September 10 in the southern port city of Bushehr. The project will cost around $10 billion and produce 1,057 megawatts of electricity. The project is expected to be completed in 10 years.

It’s Iran’s first nuclear power project since the country reached a landmark nuclear deal with world powers in July 2015. It will be built by Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear power company.

Iran’s sole operational nuclear reactor — also built with Russian assistance in Bushehr — produces 1,000 megawatts. It went online in 2011, and the two countries have agreed to cooperate on future projects.

The Bushehr plant is not considered a proliferation risk because Russia supplies the fuel for the reactor and takes away spent fuel that could otherwise be used to make weapons-grade plutonium….http://www.rferl.org/content/iran-bushehr-2-nuclear-power-plant-russia/27978982.html

September 12, 2016 Posted by | Iran, politics | Leave a comment

Latest roundup on news on Britain’s planned Hinkley nuclear station

Bridget Woodman, Course Director, MSc Energy Policy, at the University of Exeter, says the Hinkley delay makes it possible to start debating the sorts of options being considered widely around the world, with measures to encourage more flexible, smaller-scale, renewable systems incorporating demand-side measures and new technologies such as storage. These are extraordinary times for energy policy in the UK.

After years of resigned acceptance that Hinkley would be built no matter how much of a basket case it was, even though few people argued that it makes sense, there is now a potential to have a real and considered debate about what sort of future electricity system we need. Now is the time to start considering the sorts of options being considered widely around the world, with measures to encourage more flexible, smaller-scale, renewable systems incorporating demand-side measures and new technologies such as storage. A system that is the absolute antithesis of what Hinkley Point C represents. Suddenly UK energy policy has become very exciting

text Hinkley cancelledflag-UKHinkley Notes NuClear News No. 888 September 16 The Downing Street review of the proposed Hinkley Point C nuclear power station is coming to an end – and a decision will have to be made soon, probably before the end of September. The latest wave of public relations activity from EDF, the company that hopes to build the plant, shows how nervous the company is about the outcome. Given the range of doubts about the costs, the construction risks, the reactor technology and the involvement of the Chinese, that nervousness is well justified. (1)

Here are the news highlights from the last month.

It’s about the security stupid! The Times says the review centres on the security threat posed by allowing a Chinese company to invest in critical infrastructure in the UK. But officials are also puzzling over cost and value for money. Continue reading →

September 10, 2016 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

USA Republicans opposing Obama’s Planned ratification of Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

atomic-bomb-lSenate GOP Protests Obama’s Planned Nuclear Test Ban Push Warning to the White House concerns the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, an international treaty prohibiting nuclear test explosions , WSJ, PAUL SONNE Sept. 8, 2016 The Obama administration’s pursuit of a possible United Nations Security Council resolution against nuclear weapons tests has riled a group of Republican lawmakers, who have warned President Barack Obama not to take action that would circumvent the U.S. Senate’s constitutional power to ratify treaties.

A group of 33 Republican senators sent a letter to Mr. Obama on Thursday threatening to withhold congressional funding for an existing international monitoring system for nuclear tests, if the administration signs up for any international obligations through the U.N. that the Senate has rejected previously.

“We urge you to respect your constitutional obligations and warn that if you do not, your efforts at the United Nations on this issue are likely to set back any supposed progress on achieving a testing ban,” the group of senators, including Marco Rubio (R., Fla.), John McCain(R., Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), wrote.

Their warning to the White House concerns the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, or the CTBT, an international treatyprohibiting nuclear test explosions. Former President Bill Clintonsigned the treaty in 1996, but the Senate declined to ratify it in a vote three years later.

The Obama administration, which favors U.S. ratification of the test ban treaty but hasn’t won backing for its ratification in the Senate, now is pursuing action in the United Nations to reaffirm the U.S.’s support for the treaty and keep its spirit alive—part of a final push by Mr. Obama to advance his nuclear disarmament agenda before leaving office. The U.S. independently has obeyed a national moratorium on nuclear testing since 1992……..

The White House and the State Department say the administration is proposing a U.N. Security Council resolution and separate statement from the council’s five permanent members, known as the P5. The resolution will call for an end to nuclear testing and strengthen the detection system the test ban treaty established to monitor nuclear explosions around the world, which functions even though the treaty hasn’t entered into force…….

Thomas Graham Jr., a former State Dept. arms negotiator and supporter of the CTBT’s ratification, said nations poised to develop nuclear arms agreed decades ago to stand down on the condition that countries with nuclear arsenals would cease testing and development. He said nuclear weapons states must strengthen their resolve against tests to avoid proliferation stemming from an erosion of trust among those nonnuclear states.

Former State and Defense Department officials also said the White House may see the U.N. Security Council action as an additional way to put pressure on North Korea and further engage China in the effort to stop Pyongyang’s advancing nuclear program.

The U.N. Security Council is meeting Sept. 22 on the sidelines of the General Assembly in a special session on the CTBT. U.N. Security Council diplomats said they expect the Obama-introduced resolution to pass unanimously………http://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-gop-protests-obamas-planned-nuclear-test-ban-push-1473360939

September 10, 2016 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Britain’s pro nuclear National Policy Statement on Energy is outdated and must be reviewed

In deciding when to review part of a national policy statement the Secretary of State must consider whether there has been a significant change in circumstances. If there has been a significant change in circumstances on which the policy regarding the need for new nuclear power stations was based; and if those changes were not anticipated at the time then the policy should be reviewed.

TASC concludes that the case for a review of EN-1 is unanswerable

text politicsflag-UKNational Policy Statement on Energy  NuClear News No 88 Sept 16 The government has a legal duty under section 6 of the 2008 Planning Act to review the National Policy Statement (NPS) on Energy, according to lawyers Leigh Day, because of dramatically changed circumstances over the last five years since the national policy statements enshrining the nuclear element were first published.

A report by Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) underlines the government’s duty to undertake a review and demonstrates why new nuclear has to be written out of the government’s energy policy.

The sections of the Overarching NPS on Energy (EN-1) which the TASC report says show the policy needs to be reviewed are section 3.5.1 to 3.5.11. Continue reading →

September 10, 2016 Posted by | ENERGY, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Majority in Wales want electricity from renewable energy sources, not from proposed Wylfa nuclear station

flag-UKWylfa  NucClear News No 88 September 16 A second consultation on the proposed nuclear power plant in Anglesey has been launched. Horizon Nuclear Power estimates Wylfa Newydd, which will include two reactors with a total capacity of 2,700MW, will take around nine years to build and have an operational life of 60 years. The consultation will run until 25th October. (1)

Nearly two-thirds of people in Wales want all of Wales’ electricity to come from renewable sources, a poll for the conservation organisation WWF has found. They also want the Welsh Government to invest more in improving the energy efficiency of homes. First Minister Carwyn Jones will publish his Programme for Government during the next few weeks and the focus is likely to be on how Wales adapts to Brexit. WWF is calling on the Government not to sideline investment in reducing emissions and tackling climate change. http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo88.pdf

September 10, 2016 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Energy chief says Hinkley Point is a deal out of date and too expensive

Money down holeflag-UKHinkley Point deal out of date and too expensive, says energy chief, Telegraph, UK,   Emily Gosden, energy editor 3 SEPTEMBER 2016  The head of energy giant ScottishPower has waded into the row over Hinkley Point, insisting that the controversial subsidy deal for EDF’s proposed nuclear plant should be renegotiated because it is too expensive.

Keith Anderson, the firm’s chief corporate officer, said the deal, provisionally agreed by the Government in 2013 following lengthy negotiations, no longer made sense in the light of lower gas and offshore wind costs.

“It looks like a contract that was written five years ago on a business case that was probably pulled together 10 years ago. It looks out of line with what’s going on in the market now,” he said.

In an interview with Telegraph, Mr Anderson praised Theresa May’s “brave” decision to review the £18bn project and urged her to look at it in its entirety, not just her apparent concerns over Chinese state nuclear firms’ involvement.Becoming the latest high-profile figure to criticise the deal, Mr Anderson said that it now looked “expensive” and that gas and offshore wind offered faster, easier and cheaper ways of keeping the lights on and decarbonising, respectively.

“I can’t understand why anybody feels we need to sign a contract of that size and over that time period, at that price,” he said.

ScottishPower is seeking government support to develop both offshore wind and gas-fired power stations.

Its East Anglia offshore wind farm project last year won a subsidy contract at nearly £120 per MWh for 15 years. However, costs are falling rapidly, with ministers setting a cap of £105 per MWh on future contracts and a target of £85. EDF has insisted the deal is good value……http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/03/hinkley-point-deal-out-of-date-and-too-expensive-says-energy-chi/

September 9, 2016 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear power procurement costs for South Africa could cost triple the estimate

burning-moneyflag-S.AfricaMPs told nuclear power could cost triple the estimate http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2016/09/08/MPs-told-nuclear-power-could-cost-triple-the-estimate JAN-JAN JOUBERT | 08 September, 2016 

Parliament was warned yesterday that the final bill for nuclear power procurement could be three times higher than projected because of unpredictable cost escalations and the expense of decommissioning nuclear power plants.

The parliamentary budget office briefed MPs yesterday morning on the cost and other considerations of the country’s electricity generation options.

The office’s research on the costs incurred by more than 400 projects worldwide found that nuclear power generation costs exceeded the original estimates by an average of 117%, compared with 70% for hydroelectric power, 13% for thermal, including coal, 8% for wind power and 1% for solar power.

The office agreed with DA MP Gordon Mackay when he said that decommissioning added 100% to nuclear power costs. The office said the outlay for nuclear power was 67% higher than for gas and 16% more than for coal.

Mackay took the budget office to task for a lack of clarity on:

  • The actual cost of the projected nuclear building programme, estimated at R600-million to R1.7-billion;
  • Infrastructure construction costs not factored into projections for gas as an energy resource;
  • No reference being made by the budget office to the energy preferences listed in the National Development Plan, which supposedly guided government policy;
  • The budget office had not reached any conclusion on the costs to consumers of the energy options;
  • The effect of each option on the country’s economic growth was not adequately estimated;
  • The huge decline in South African energy demand was not sufficiently explained; and
  • The decommissioning of the coal-fired power stations was not factored in.

Budget office head Mohammed Jahed said that Mackay’s objections fell outside the mandate given to his office by parliament’s appropriations committee but could be dealt with at a follow-up meeting.

September 9, 2016 Posted by | business and costs, politics, South Africa | Leave a comment

Canada’s federal election rules violated by nuclear company SNC-Lavalin

corruption-1flag-canadaSNC-Lavalin violated election rules with campaign donations, commissioner rules
CBC News  September 8, 2016  The federal elections commissioner says SNC-Lavalin has entered into a compliance agreement for making nearly $118,000 in contributions that violated the Canada Elections Act over a seven-year period.

Problematic contributions made between 2004 and 2011 The Canadian Press Sep 08, 2016 

The federal elections commissioner says SNC-Lavalin has entered into a compliance agreement for making nearly $118,000 in contributions that violated the Canada Elections Act over a seven-year period.

The commissioner says the contributions were made to the Liberals and Conservatives between March 9, 2004, and May 1, 2011.

In the past, CBC has reported on one instance of something similar, in which a number of SNC-Lavalin executives and their families donated $15,000 to the campaign of a conservative candidate in the 2011 election.

The commissioner’s report Thursday singles out almost $118,000 in contributions made to federal parties and subsequently reimbursed, including:

  • Liberal Party of Canada: $83,534.51;
  • Various registered riding associations of the Liberal Party of Canada: $13,552.13;
  • Contestants in the Liberal Party of Canada’s 2006 leadership race: $12,529.12;
  • Conservative Party of Canada: $3,137.73; and
  • Various registered riding associations and candidates of the Conservative Party of Canada: $5,050.00.
  • According to the compliance agreement, the commissioner says former senior executives with the Montreal-based engineering firm solicited employees to make political contributions and in some cases, those employees were reimbursed with false personal expenses, fictitious bonuses or other benefits……….http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/snc-lavalin-campaign-donations-1.3752869?cmp=rss

September 9, 2016 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

Deputy President South Africa says that there is no nuclear deal!

text politicsflag-S.AfricaSouth Africa: No Nuclear Deal Entered Into – Deputy President . All Afric a, 8 Sep 16 Cape Town — Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa says no nuclear deal has been entered into with any country. The Deputy President said this when responding to oral questions at the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) on Wednesday.

A Member of Parliament had asked, among other questions, whether government has entered into a nuclear deal with any country.

“Government has not entered into a nuclear deal with any country,” the Deputy President said.

The Deputy President said government remains committed to an open, fair and transparent procurement process.

Government wants to implement the programme at a scale and pace that the country can afford.

“A request for proposals for a nuclear new build programme of 9,600 MW will be released to the market during this financial year in line with the Cabinet decision taken on 9 December 2015.

“The Department of Energy is currently consulting with relevant stakeholders to finalise the documentation,” he said…….http://allafrica.com/stories/201609081107.html

September 9, 2016 Posted by | politics, South Africa | Leave a comment

South Africa’s parliamentary budget office warns on high cost of nuclear power

Money down holeflag-S.AfricaGovernment quibbles over true cost of nuclear – but it’s going to be very expensive http://mg.co.za/article/2016-09-08-government-quibbles-over-true-cost-of-nuclear-but-its-going-to-be-very-expensive   Phillip de Wet 08 Sep 2016 Any decision to proceed further with the nuclear build programme will only take place after the request for proposal process has been completed,” Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa told the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) in Parliament during a question session on Wednesday afternoon.

Almost simultaneously, Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson told Parliament’s other house, the National Assembly: “As far as I’m concerned, a request for proposal will be issued on September 30 for the procurement process in which we have Cabinet approval to test the market on the procurement of nuclear.”

Both insisted that there is, as yet, no firm commitment to buy a fleet of nuclear power stations, which it is estimated will cost more than R1-trillion, despite long-standing signals of an obstinate political will to do so.

 But even as these members of the executive were telling Parliament how the nuclear-build decision would unfold, a little-known parliamentary office was all but begging MPs not to let them.

“Within the range of conventional technologies considered, nuclear energy is the most expensive,” the parliamentary budget office said in a report it delivered to Parliament’s standing committee on appropriations, also on Wednesday.

Its 23-page report, Electricity Generation Technology Choice: Costs and Considerations, the office said “present the key factors that need to be considered by Members of Parliament concerned with public finances in considering technology choice”. The standing committee had requested the report.

Throughout its study, the office steered scrupulously clear of recommending or denigrating any type of electricity generation. Selection of technology is complicated, it explained, and needs to take into account everything from the carbon footprint to local industrialisation.

But nuclear fares very poorly, indeed, in the office’s analysis.

Nuclear is 16% more expensive than the most expensive type of coal electricity production, the office said, drawing on figures more current than any the department of energy has released and 67% more expensive than the most costly way of using natural gas to generate power.

Eskom, which was once excluded from the nuclear preparations, has recently claimed in a series of statements by its CEO, Brian Molefe, that nuclear generation is the cheapest way for South Africa to build additional base-load capacity.

The plans that supposedly underpin the plans to build new nuclear power stations are wildly out of date, the parliamentary budget office said. The official integrated resource plan (IRP) dates from 2010 and its 2013 update does not yet have official status — because, some have speculated, it provided an insufficiently rosy picture to justify a nuclear build.

“Using an out-of-date IRP will result in a sub-optimal mix of generation plants and higher electricity prices,” the office said, with graphs showing how electricity demand declined as prices soared and the economy stalled. Even the most pessimistic integrated resource plan projection had forecast fast-growing demand.

Overbuilding generation capacity based on mistaken assumptions can be costly, the office warned gently. And past experience shows that nuclear and hydropower projects are most prone to high cost overruns and delays — and are almost impossible to adjust once ground is broken.

“It may be prudent in situations of high uncertainty to avoid very large capital investments where the repayments of loans are certain but returns from the project are uncertain and possibly volatile,” it said.

“In pursuance of a suitable energy mix, government is determined that our investment in generation capacity should be evidence-based,” Ramaphosa told the NCOP.

September 9, 2016 Posted by | business and costs, politics, South Africa | Leave a comment

“astonishing and reckless” – South Africa’s Energy Minister’s statement on nuclear deal to commence soon

exclamation-SmNews that nuclear deal will start by end-September is ‘reckless’, DA says http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/energy/2016/09/08/news-that-nuclear-deal-will-start-by-end-september-is-reckless-da-says  BY LINDA ENSOR,   ENERGY Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson’s shock announcement that the first phase of the nuclear deal is to commence by the end of September was both “astonishing and reckless,” DA energy spokesperson Gordon Mackay said on Thursday.

The minister announced in the National Assembly on Wednesday that a request for proposals for the nuclear build programme would be issued on September 30. The government has decided to build nuclear plants that will generated 9,600MW.

“Not only is the proposed nuclear deal the subject of litigation in the Western Cape High Court, but the announcement will add yet further fuel to the fire that will see SA’s international credit rating go up in smoke,” Mackay said.

“Critically, the minister’s decision to commence with the first phase of the nuclear new build programme, despite the fact that not a single document with regard to the deal has ever been presented to Parliament, is a blatant abuse of power.”

Mackay said Joemat-Pettersson’s announcement came before October’s tabling of the medium-term budget statement by Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan, and represented a “blatant attempt to bully the Treasury into to coughing up the trillions of rand required to fund this unaffordable pet project of President Jacob Zuma”.

He said the DA would demand that all documentation relating to the nuclear deal be made available to Parliament’s energy committee and tabled in the National Assembly.

The DA was in possession of a parliamentary legal adviser opinion, which requires ministers to provide all necessary documentation to portfolio committees, irrespective of their so-called sensitivity.

September 9, 2016 Posted by | politics, South Africa | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »