Westinghouse keen to fleece UK tax-payers with Small Modular Nuclear Reactors
Westinghouse is engaging its UK stakeholders in its SMR offering to the country’s government, the company announced today. Mark Menzies, member of parliament for the Fylde constituency where the company’s Springfields site is located, said that he had already formally registered his support for Westinghouse’s proposal to produce SMRs for the UK market. He said that feedback from stakeholders would be essential for as the proposal, which could see SMR pressure vessels sourced and manufactured in the UK, to move forward. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-UK-think-tank-urges-nuclear-innovation-2804167.html
USA Federal regulators approve permit for new nuclear reactor in New Jersey
Permit for a new nuclear reactor in N.J. OK’d by feds, By Bill Gallo Jr. | For NJ.com 28 Apr 16, Federal regulators have OK’d a key permit that would be needed for the construction of a new nuclear reactor in New Jersey, officials said Thursday.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, following numerous reviews, found that PSEG Nuclear met all safety and environmental requirements needed for the Early Site Permit.
That permit is not a green light for the utility to build a new reactor at its generating site at Artificial Island along the Delaware River in Lower Alloways Creek Township.
The permit will be good for 20 years. It does not, however, mean that PSEG Nuclear is ready to put a shovel into the ground. Many federal, state and local approvals would still be needed.
“This is an important final step to have the ESP issued,” said Joe Delmar, spokesman for PSEG Nuclear. “It provides us with a 20-year window to pursue a construction and operating license.” PSEG Nuclear has said during the application process that it was not ready to build another plant, but wanted to be prepared…..
The decision for the permit does not have to go before the full NRC board of commissioners.
This is only the fifth Early Site Permit ever issued by the NRC, according to Sheehan. In 2007 the agency enacted the rule that allowed utility companies to bank approval for a new plant until they, the utility, decided to build……
PSEG Nuclear currently operates three reactors —€” Salem 1, Salem 2 and Hope Creek. The plants, three of the four nuclear rectors now operating in New Jersey, comprise the second-largest nuclear generating complex in the U.S. Only the Palo Verde plant in the Arizona desert generates more power.
All three of the PSEG Nuclear reactors have been granted 20-year licenses extensions.
The utility has chosen a site north of its Hope Creek reactor on Artificial Island as the site where a new plant could be constructed. If another plant is built the utility has already said it would build a second access road to the Island from the mainland.
Depending on the size of the reactor, a new plant could cost upwards of $15 billion, according to some estimates. Any new reactor would also require the construction of a cooling tower to cut down on the amount of water drawn for cooling purposes from the Delaware River.
Currently, PSEG Nuclear’s Hope Creek plant has a cooling tower, but its Salem 1 and Salem 2 units do not. Those two reactors, when operating at full power, draw in and return to the Delaware River approximately three billion gallons of water a day.
Environmentalists oppose any plans for a new reactor at the Island.
“It’s unnecessary, not needed and there are real safety issues we are concerned about,’ Jeff Tittel, executive director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, said Thursday.
He said the project would require the filling in of hundreds of acres of sensitive wetlands and because of its location where the Delaware River and Delaware Bay meet, any new plant would be vulnerable to storm surge and a rising sea level.
Tittel said the high cost of building a nuclear plant would likely be borne by ratepayers and there are cheaper sources of electricity. He pointed to renewable energy sources such as wind power are becoming less expensive as are gas-fired generating plants.
Aside from environmental and economic concerns, Tittel sees a safety threat……. Bill Gallo Jr. may be reached at bgallo@njadvancemedia.com. Follow Bill Gallo Jr. on Twitter @bgallojr. Find NJ.com on Facebook. http://www.nj.com/salem/index.ssf/2016/04/permit_for_a_new_nuclear_reactor_in_nj_okd_by_feds.html
Series of earthquakes is delaying Japan’s ‘nuclear revival’
Japan’s Worst Quake Since 2011 Seen Delaying Nuclear Starts http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-26/japan-s-worst-quake-since-fukushima-seen-delaying-nuclear-starts Stephen Stapczynski sstapczynski
-
Earthquakes on southern island of Kyushu kill 49 people
-
Japan lawyer group renews call for shutdown of Sendai reactors
A series of earthquakes, including amagnitude-7.3 tremor that struck about 119 kilometers (74 miles) from the Sendai nuclear facility on the southern island of Kyushu this month, destroyed hundreds of homes, snapped bridges and left at least 49 people dead. It has also revived an effort to halt the plants’ operations.
“Nuclear is under a magnifying glass now, so even the smallest problem can create big delays,” Michael Jones, a Singapore-based gas and power analyst at Wood Mackenzie Ltd. said in an e-mail. “Fukushima has changed everything, and earthquakes and volcanoes are only making things worse.”
Transport Disruptions
Trains and highways were damaged in the Kyushu earthquake and if there is a nuclear accident from another earthquake or volcanic eruption, evacuations may be difficult, Datsugenpatsu Bengodan, a group of lawyers working to wean Japan off nuclear power said in an April 19 statement. The group said Kyushu Electric Power Co.’s Sendai No. 1 and 2 reactors, which were the first to restart under post-Fukushima safety rules last year, should be shut.
An e-mail to Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority outside of normal business hours wasn’t immediately answered.
“Given this is the largest earthquake in over a century in Kyushu that has caused significant damage to infrastructure, it could slow down the pace of restarts,” said Tom O’Sullivan, founder of Mathyos, a Tokyo-based energy consultant. “It may now be even more imperative that emergency evacuation procedures are thoroughly tested.”
A nuclear accident at Sendai would require the evacuation of about 5,000 people in the surrounding 5 kilometers and more than 200,000 would need to seek immediate shelter within a 5- to 30-kilometer radius, according to a local government simulation from 2014.
The NRA, Japan’s nuclear regulator, said on April 18 that it sees no need to shut the two Sendai reactors. A high court on April 6 upheld a ruling that the Sendai reactors can withstand seismic damage and don’t pose a risk to the surrounding area.
A local court issued an injunction in March preventing the operation of Kansai Electric Power Co.’s Takahama No. 3 and 4 reactors, questioning whether evacuation plans and tsunami prevention measures — which had been endorsed by the government — were robust enough.
The earthquake near Japan’s only operating reactors “may boost the nation’s anti-nuclear sentiment,” Joseph Jacobelli, an analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence, said in an April 22 note. “Technical and political obstacles mean even those units approved for restart are returning at a snail’s pace.”
Ukraine will have to move beyond nuclear power, but when?
Thirty years after Chernobyl, what chance of a post-nuclear Ukraine? Ecologist, Jan Haverkamp & Iryna Holovko 26th April 2016“………A move towards clean, renewable energy sources – such as wind, water, sun, biomass and geothermal – would seem a logical route, especially given the potential savings in health costs and increase in energy independence.
Here, in these countries most afflicted by Chernobyl, economic realities make this switch to a clean energy future inevitable: the old centralised energy economy is collapsing, slowly but surely, and an awareness movement is growing.
In Ukraine, future-oriented enterprises will choose independence from the politically and economically unstable conglomerates that dominate the country’s energy sector. The question is: are these companies getting the space they need to start Ukraine’s energy [r]evolution?
The [r]evolution is inevitable – but not when it happens
Clearly, Ukraine currently faces several fundamental choices for the future. These choices relate to political contexts and preferences, but none of them is as inevitable as the need for an energy [r]evolution.
We are not asking anyone to experiment with unknown technologies. The techniques for a clean energy future exist, and Ukraine has even built up experience with them. Technically, then, the next step is an evolution. But one that means a revolutionary departure from a highly unstable energy politics that rely on centralisation of access to gas, oil, coal and nuclear power, and the energy policy and planning paradigms associated with it.
Ukraine has significant potential for the development of renewable energy sources. Asresearch for The Solutions Project by Mark Jacobson and his team at Stanford University shows, Ukraine could cover its entire energy demand in 2050 with wind, solar and water and a 32% decrease in primary energy need.
However, the fact that Ukraine currently enjoys only 1 GW of installed capacity from renewable sources signals that energy policy is yet to undergo fundamental change, and the obstacles are many.
The staying power of old energy structures should not be underestimated. Ukraine’s electricity market is a political battlefield, and not only due to interference of oligarchs and dependency on Russia for coal, nuclear fuel and technology. The market is virtually completely regulated, and regulation has become a political tool…….
Twelve of these reactors were built in the 1980s, and are now in need for large safety upgrades if they are to be operated with a lifetime extension beyond 30 years.
Risky business: ageing nuclear plants starved of investment……..
The necessary safety upgrades (for life-time extension, but also in reaction to the Fukushima catastrophe – Ukraine participated in the EU post-Fukushima nuclear stress tests) are thus weakened or postponed, and there are even indications that there is a lack of money for operational costs.
At the same time, Ukraine’s nuclear fleet faces an increased security risk due to political instability. The risks for terrorist or insurgent attack on nuclear infrastructure are currently higher than in peace time, meaning further upgrades are necessary.
In addition, most of the upgrading work is dependent on Russian technological input. Delays in the implementation of upgrades are not only caused by lack of finance, but also by unforeseen technical complications and problems with tender procedures. On top of that, Energoatom is bleeding funds on an unrealistic nuclear new build programme in Khmelnytksy, western Ukraine.
The political position of Ukraine’s increasingly risky nuclear sector is strengthened by the rhetoric that only lifetime extension of the ‘independent’ ageing nuclear fleet can fill the gap left by lost coal resources in the east.
The nuclear sector’s dependency on Russia has been masked by swapping the tenders for upgrading and new builds from Russian companies to a Czech-based company Skoda JS (a deal that is part of anti-corruption investigations in Switzerland), which is actually Russian-owned, and by tests at the Yuzhnoukrainsk nuclear power station with the use of Westinghouse nuclear fuel (produced in Sweden), partly in reaction to delivery problems with Russian fuel in the last few years.
The fact that economic control over technology and a large proportion of fuel will always come from Russia remains off the table…… the awareness that a lot of the corruption in Ukraine is related to the centralised nature of the old energy carriers is growing, and we see an increasing amount of courageous small and medium investors seeing efficiency and renewables as chances for job and income creation…….. http://www.theecologist.org/essays/2987610/thirty_years_after_chernobyl_what_chance_of_a_postnuclear_ukraine.html
USA Dept of Energy – new funds for nuclear energy development
Department of Energy Announces New Awards for Advanced Nuclear Energy Development
April 26, 2016 WASHINGTON, D.C. – Building on the President’s all-of-the-above energy strategy, the Department of Energy today awarded more than $5 million to undergraduate and graduate students in pursuit of nuclear engineering degrees and other nuclear science and engineering programs relevant to nuclear energy. The awards include 57 undergraduate scholarships and 33 graduate-level fellowships for students at American colleges and universities…….
France’s tax-payers €3bn to save debt-ridden nuclear corporation EDF
State pays €3bn to bail out EDF http://www.connexionfrance.com/france-edf-electricity-areva-nuclear-investment-bail-out-view-article.html April 24, 2016THE GOVERNMENT has agreed to bail out struggling electricity company EDF to the tune of €3billion, months after it agreed a similar capital injection for nuclear energy giant Areva.
On Friday, EDF announced a €4billion capital investment programme, and the state – which owns an 85% stake in the company – has agreed to pay 75% of the cost.
The electricity giant has been fighting to bring its massive debts under control in the face of weak European electricity prices. It has also invested in several major projects, including a new British nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point.
The government said it would accept EDF shares as its dividend in 2016 and 2017, rather than cash. “The State reaffirms its confidence in the management of the company and all its employees for the success of EDF as part of a quality social dialogue,” argued the Ministries of Economy and Finance in a joint statement.
In return, EDF said it would aim to reduce its costs by €1billion in 2019 compared to 2015, and shave €2billion off its investment plans over the next three years. It had originally planned to make €700million in savings over three years. The group also plans to raise €10 billion by selling off gas, coal and oil interests.
USA Republicans now liking renewable energy – for financial, not climate, reasons
Republicans Are Warming Up to Renewable Energy , Bloomberg, Joe Ryan April 21, 2016
- Some Republicans embrace renewables as Paris accord signed
-
They argue that jobs and cost cuts make renewables attractive
-
“……..The leading Republican candidates for president, Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz, reject any role of humans in global warming, as do most party leaders. But a small and growing number of once-skeptical Republicans is embracing wind and solar. They see the clean energy sources delivering cheap electricity, bolstering America’s energy independence and fueling economic development in impoverished rural areas.
-
In turn, renewables are adding jobs in North Carolina, Georgia and Texas and other conservative states, creating a formidable clean-energy constituency in a party whose energy mantra was “drill, baby drill.”…..
- Past SupportSupport for clean energy is not new for all U.S. Republicans. Some conservative state lawmakers in Iowa, Texas and elsewhere have long promoted it. When he was governor of Texas, George W. Bush pushed through legislation requiring utilities to buy renewable power, leading to widespread development of wind farms.Republican enthusiasm is based largely on economics, not climate science, and does not necessarily translate into support for the Paris agreement or other efforts to curb greenhouse gases.
- Wind and solar farms are often built on farmland, which is typically flat, cheap and treeless. That has provided rental income for farmers and created a groundswell of construction jobs. Wind and solar companies employed nearly 300,000 people in the U.S. in 2015, roughly four times more than the coal industry. All of the top 10 wind-energy producing congressional districts are represented by Republicans, according to The American Wind Energy Association.“It gives us a real leg up on economic development,” said Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, a Republican whose state ranks third nationally in wind energy.A push for renewables, meanwhile, is bubbling up from within party ranks……..
-
Government Subsidies
Meanwhile, clean energy has become less reliant on the government subsidies that fueled its growth, making it a less problematic issue for Republicans.
The average long-term contract price for wind power paid by utilities has dropped 60 percent since 2009, falling in some instances below $20 per megawatt hour. Those prices, which include subsidies, are on par with off-peak power prices in some regions, BNEF analyst Nathan Serota said. The solar price drop has been even steeper, falling 65 percent with contracts as low as $37 per megawatt hour, Serota said.
A Texas Believer
Drew Darby, a Texas state Republican representative whose district encompasses nine counties at the edge of oil country, said the proliferation of cheap wind power since the state spent more than $7 billion on new transmission lines has made him a believer.
“Republicans all over the country ought to be paying attention to what Texas did,” Darby said in an interview……..http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-20/party-of-drill-baby-drill-slowly-warming-to-wind-solar-power
Michael Douglas wants presidential candidates to start talking about nuclear weapons.
Tribeca: Michael Douglas Calls for Presidential Candidates to Talk Nuclear Weapons http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tribeca-2016-michael-douglas-nuclear-887171 The actor is working on a doc about a San Fernando Valley family who grew up near a Boeing plant which had a nuclear accident in the 1950s. “[It] basically poisoned the whole neighborhood. The whole family has thyroid cancer,” says Douglas. 4/23/2016 by Ashley Lee
At a 2016 Tribeca Film Festival discussion before the immersive closing-night film the bomb, Douglas said the world is “on the advent of a new Cold War advancement in nuclear weapons — the U.S. is talking about a trillion dollars to spend, the Russians have their new missiles out,” he explained. “It’s just very difficult to believe. … Maybe, just maybe, we can look at a new generation to look at what I think is the most serious issue that we have on the planet right now.”
Even more so, “we’ve got elections coming up this year. Once we get through these primaries and once more attention is brought to just how this arms race is continuing now, there should be a huge discussion coming this fall,” said the actor and longtime advocate of nuclear non-proliferation. “It looks like it’s gonna be [Donald] Trump and Hillary Clinton, with diametrically different opinions on this important issue — one who wants to nuke ‘em, and somebody else.”
Command & Control director Robert Kenner added, “If Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, I think there will be more discussion on nuclear weapons because he is the best argument for abolition that we can make.”
As seen in action flicks like Pacific Rim and Independence Day, Hollywood tends to portray nuclear weapons onscreen as the ultimate and necessary arsenal, and Douglas said that won’t change anytime soon. “Not in Hollywood — we’re based on a business of balances, commerce with filmmaking. Commerce has to win out,” said the actor. “Any movie where the message gets ahead of the drama … unless you’re doing documentaries, you can’t get ahead of yourself. They’re not interested.”
Still, Douglas said he’s working on a documentary “about a young man living in the San Fernando Valley who grew up near a Boeing plant which had a nuclear accident in the 1950s and basically poisoned the whole neighborhood. The whole family has thyroid cancer.”
The panel — also featuring Command & Control author Eric Schlosser, Emma Belcher of the MacArthur Foundation and the bomb filmmaker Smriti Keshari — discussed that nuclear weapons and climate change are the two most important global issues, and because of the visual proof of climate change that’s emerged, the world has begun responding with urgency.
“The terrifying thing about the nuclear issue is … you’re really gonna have to wait for a dirty bomb. It’s gonna make 9/11, Paris, Brussels, everything a miniscule amount before the amount of people who are going to be killed [by a nuclear bomb],” said Douglas. “The only optimism I see, is of these two major issues, the two most important in the world, we can eliminate nuclear weapons. It’s really easy. … We as humans can do something about it — we actually can, it’s within our grasp.”
Douglas began his activism against nuclear weapons after making The China Syndrome, James Bridges’ 1979 film co-starring Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon about a cover-up of safety hazards at a nuclear power plant. To prepare for its finale, the shoot included consultations with General Electric quality assurance experts who “gave us a breakdown of the most logical accident that might happen at a power plant,” the actor and producer recalled. “That power plant was the ultimate villain — it’s a horror picture.
“Thirteen days after the movie came out, Three Mile Island happened in Pennsylvania,” said Douglas, as news outlets ran split-screen footage of the real-life tragedy and the film. “It was an epiphany for me, the closest thing to a religious experience I might have ever had.”
France gives €3bn bailout to EDF’s Hinkley nuclear plant
France gives €3bn lifeline to Hinkley nuclear plant, Sunday Times, Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor, 24 Apr 16, A decision on the proposed nuclear power station will not be taken until after an EDF shareholders’ meeeting Erance has thrown its support behind EDF, the French electricity company, and its plan to build the £18 billion nuclear power station at Hinkley Point, Somerset, by supplying a €3 billion lifeline.
President Hollande’s administration has agreed to put in the money towards a proposed €4 billion (£3 billion) cash-raising the company is proposing by issuing new shares. EDF said last night that the confirmation of the fundraising made it possible for the company to proceed with investments including Hinkley Point C by putting it on a “solid financial footing”……http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/union-threats-force-edf-to-delay-hinkley-decision-0zf56xjms
£18bn Hinkley Point nuclear power station plan headed for a’grinding halt’?
£18bn Hinkley Point nuclear power station plan could be ‘coming to a grinding halt’ Controversial power station is a key part of the Government’s plan to ‘make sure the lights stay on’, Independent John Lichfield, Ian Johnston 22 April 2016 London“The French electricity giant EDF has thrown the British government’s energy strategy into disarray by reportedly delaying – possibly until next year – a decision on whether it will build a new £18bn nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset.
Jean-Bernard Lévy, the head of EDF, has bowed to pressure from unions and senior company engineers and agreed to seek a fresh opinion from the company’s union-management consultative council, the respected French newspaper Le Figaro reported.EDF said it could not immediately confirm the report. Sources in the company told the French newspaper that the consultation process would take several months and that no decision on whether to go ahead with its involvement in Hinkley Point – expected to supply eight per cent of British slectricity by 2025 – would be made before next year.
Environmental campaign group Greenpeace claimed the delay could be “a sign that the entire project is coming to a grinding halt”, adding that the UK should back renewable energy “as a more reliable alternative” to nuclear power.
“The firm has been under enormous pressure from both the British and French governments to announce early next month a definite commitment to build, and largely finance, the two new generation nuclear reactors at Hinkley. The French economy minister Emmanuel Macron told the Andrew Marr Show on BBC TV that their agreement was now certain.
However senior engineers and unions at the largely state-owned French company fear the project could destroy the struggling business. They have demanded a delay of at least two years to allow uncertainties about the experimental high-pressure water reactors planned for Hinkley to be resolved……..
Although China has agreed to invest £6.2bn in Hinkley Point, EDF has failed to find other backers, leaving it responsible for two thirds of the cost. Problems with the bulding of similar high-pressure water reactors in Finland and Normandy have led EDF unions and senior executives to recommed a three-year delay – until a new generation of technology become available.
But Paris and London are reported to have applied intense pressure on EDF to go ahead immediately.The British government would face huge embarrassment if Hinkley Point, intended as the first of three new mega power stations, was abandoned or postponed.
In October last year, China agreed, amid much fanfare in London and Beijing, to invest £6.2bn in the project…….John Sauven, director of Greenpeace, which has campaigned against the reactor, told The Independent: “Delays to EDF making a decision about whether to invest in Hinkley are nothing new. So much so that it’s been 14 months since it was first said that the decision would be coming imminently.
But this latest delay from EDF is different.”President Hollande, the French Economy Minister and EDF’s chief executive have all very publicly promised the UK government a final decision before the 12 May. Backtracking on this pledge now is symbolic of the utter mess that EDF is in.
“But even if they could agree a finance package, it could be declared illegal state aid by the European Commission. This may now be the sign that the entire project is coming to a grinding halt and the UK government urgently needs to back renewable energy as a more reliable alternative.”……http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/18bn-hinkley-point-nuclear-power-station-plan-could-be-coming-to-a-grinding-halt-a6997131.html
‘New Nuclear” lobby working to weaken powers of USA’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
Edwin Lyman, senior scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Global Security Program, said the timing of the legislation is “premature.” Lyman told Congress to consider that the legislation might pose an unfair burden on taxpayers and put Americans at increased risk.
The legislation would also eliminate language that requires NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel to hold a hearing on new applications.
“That’s inherently dangerous technology that needs tough questions to be asked about it,” said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). “I don’t think the public is going to be happy if they’re told ‘no hearings’ on this dangerous technology.”
Advanced reactor bill raises ‘red flags‘ Hannah Hess, E&E reporter E&E Daily: Friday, April 22, 2016
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s head of operations yesterday tried to sell lawmakers on a strategy to license the latest nuclear technology.
But Victor McCree had to contend with lawmakers who have their own plan to lay the groundwork for advanced reactors, and it goes beyond the administration’s comfort zone……
Eight days ago, EPW Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) teamed up with Whitehouse and Sens. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to introduce legislation to reform the licensing process and restructure how NRC is funded.
But a hearing of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee revealed concerns about safety and security, including NRC’s own fears that the legislation could handcuff regulators (E&E Daily, April 14).
The bill would change NRC to develop “technology-inclusive regulatory framework” — defined as using methods of evaluation that are flexible and predictable, such as risk-informed and performance-based techniques.
Critics warn that lawmakers didn’t properly explain those terms, which could lead to less rigorous standards for the approval of novel nuclear power technologies.
The legislation would also eliminate language that requires NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel to hold a hearing on new applications.
“That’s inherently dangerous technology that needs tough questions to be asked about it,” said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). “I don’t think the public is going to be happy if they’re told ‘no hearings’ on this dangerous technology.”
NRC concerns
McCree, who assumed NRC’s top career post last fall, cautioned that the bipartisan legislation would require “significant time and resources” over several years in areas where the agency’s internal planning process was well underway.
Current performance metrics allow fluidity at NRC to “account for emerging safety or security issues, changes in licensee plans and the like,” McCree said. “As written, the proposed requirements would limit the NRC’s flexibility in this area.”
At the Obama administration’s request, NRC earmarked $5 million for work on advancing small modular reactor (SMR) licensing practices in its fiscal 2017 budget proposal. Both House and Senate proposed spending bills include language to address this issue.
McCree said NRC staff expect to complete the first draft of their own strategy for licensing non-light-water reactor technologies soon and will discuss it in a public meeting in June.
NRC is also in the process of a downsizing measure, popular on Capitol Hill, that aims to streamline the agency.
Testifying on behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure Council, where he now is chairman of a task force on advanced reactors, Merrifield encouraged the committee to press for further staffing cuts below NRC’s Project Aim 2020. ….NRC’s budget for fiscal 2017 would cut an equivalent of 90 full-time employees, surpassing the Project Aim goal, for a total reduction of roughly 280 full-time workers since fiscal 2014 …….
One thing senators and the nuclear industry agree on is that the commission’s current licensing process, with a design and certification that can cost billions of dollars and stretch for up to a decade, is one of the biggest obstacles for SMRs and advanced reactor designs that use coolants other than water.
“You have a situation in which it is very hard to get early investment in these new technologies,” Crapo said.
Ashley Finan, policy director of the Nuclear Innovation Alliance, one of four industry witnesses who testified in support of the Senate legislation, presented charts showing the big money and time hurdles the private sector sees with the current NRC process.
“The investors and innovators have made it very clear that their most immediate and pressing concern is regulatory uncertainty,” Finan said……
Because advanced nuclear reactor companies rely primarily on investors, the bill seeks to change the model……
The Nuclear Infrastructure Council wants language added that would provide early stage engagement with no or limited cost to the developer, with an “appropriate cost share,” perhaps 50-50, for later stages of the licensing process.
“Fewer resources are not good for the agency in protecting against a terrorist attack,” said an animated Markey, demanding any of the witnesses to refute his claim.
Bill ‘premature’
Edwin Lyman, senior scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Global Security Program, said the timing of the legislation is “premature.”
Lyman told Congress to consider that the legislation might pose an unfair burden on taxpayers and put Americans at increased risk.
The history of the failed Next Generation Nuclear Plant project, a prototype of a modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor, is an illustrative example, he said.
Mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the project was suspended after the Energy Department decided in 2011 not to proceed into the detailed design and license application phases. DOE’s decision cited the reluctance of vendors, owners and operators, and customers to commit to substantial upfront cost sharing.
“The main problem is the cost and difficulty of obtaining the necessary analyses and experimental data to satisfy regulatory requirements and ensure that new reactors can operate safely,” Lyman said. “This is a fundamental issue we think Congress needs to address through oversight of the budget for nuclear energy [research and development].”….. http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060036081
Washington Post and New York Times in the arms of the nuclear lobby?
Trampling Science to Boost Nuclear Power, FAIR, By Jim Naureckas 20 Apr 16, When the Washington Post and New York Times are making the same corporate-friendly point, it’s safe to assume that some PR agency somewhere is earning its substantial fees.
In this case, the subject is the need for nuclear power—and, for the Post editorial board (4/18/16), for fracking as well. Standing in the way of this in the Post’s version is favorite target Bernie Sanders, while the Times business columnist Eduardo Porter (4/19/16) blames the “scientific phobias and taboos” of “progressive environmentalists.”
“While campaigning in New York, Mr. Sanders has played up his opposition to nuclear power,” the Post editorialists wrote, citing his contention that the Indian River nuclear plant, 25 miles from Manhattan, is a “catastrophe waiting to happen.” Sanders’ “criticism came as little surprise,” the Post declared; “he had already promised to phase out nuclear power nationwide by steadily retiring existing reactors.”
“If we are serious about global warming, we will ignore Mr. Sanders’ sloganeering,” the paper urged. “Nuclear accounts for about a fifth of the country’s electricity, and it is practically emissions-free.”
In reality, nuclear power is not emissions-free; the process of mining and enriching uranium fuel, along with constructing nuclear plants, operating backup generators during reactor downtime, disposal of nuclear waste and eventual decommissioning of plants all contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. According to an analysis published by the journal Nature (9/24/08), nuclear power does produce 14 times less in greenhouse gas emissions than coal, and seven times less than natural gas—but twice as much as solar cells and seven times as much as onshore wind farms. For halting climate change, in other words, there are more serious options than nuclear.
The Post went on:
Shutting down that much clean electricity generation would put the country into a deep emissions hole. Mr. Sanders argues that he will invest heavily in renewables. Yet every dollar spent to replace one carbon-free source with another is a dollar that could have been spent replacing dangerous and dirty coal plants. Under Mr. Sanders’ vision, either the country would fail to maximize emissions cuts, or it would waste huge amounts of money unnecessarily replacing nuclear plants.
Sanders actually favors “a moratorium on nuclear power plant license renewals in the United States”—in other words, as the Post had earlier described it more accurately, “phas[ing] out nuclear power nationwide by steadily retiring existing reactors.” So it’s not a question of using money to replace a nuclear plant that could have gone to replacing a coal plant; the nuclear plants need to be replaced with something when they reach the end of their useful lives.
And if you put that money into renewables rather than into a new nuclear plant, you can reduce emissions more quickly. The investment bank Lazard analyzes the “levelized cost of energy”—the cost of building and operating an electrical plant per unit of electricity produced. In its latest report (11/15), the bank found that nuclear’s LCOE ranged from $97 to $136 per megawatt-hour, while wind costs between $32 and $77; utility-scale photovoltaic solar was priced between $50 to $70. Note that these costs for nuclear do not include the decommissioning of obsolete plants, which can add $1 billion–$4 billion to the lifetime cost, nor the cost of accidents like the Fukushima meltdown, which is expected to cost Japan some $300 billion (Renewable Energy World,4/28/16).
The Post concluded that the best bet would be to put a tax on carbon, then “let the market find the fastest and most efficient road to slowing the warming of the planet.” The irony is that if you had a truly market-driven energy system, there’d be no need for a moratorium on nuclear licenses; if you didn’t have thePrice-Anderson Act capping industry liability for nuclear accidents—requiring it to pay less than 2 cents on the dollar of the projected costs—it’s unlikely that another plant would ever be built………
The Times column offered some pre-emptive criticism of its own analysis: “Highlighting the left’s biases may seem like a pointless effort to apportion equal blame along ideological lines.” It’s not pointless at all, though: It’s a great way to sell pro-corporate policies under the guise of objective truth.
Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org. He can be followed on Twitter:@JNaureckas. http://fair.org/home/trampling-science-to-boost-nuclear-power/
France’s nuclear corporation EDF warned on legal action over the Hinkley nuclear project debacle
Pressure rises on EDF board over Hinkley Point nuclear plant, FT.com, 19 Apr 16, Michael Stothard in Paris A group of managers at French utility EDF have sent a letter to its board of directors warning they could all face legal action if the company pushes ahead with its contentious Hinkley Point C nuclear project in the UK.
The letter, dated April 19 and seen by the Financial Times, said that if a board decision in favour of Hinkley Point led to the “destruction of the value” at EDF its directors could be held personally responsible……….
French president François Hollande is also meeting ministers at the Élysée Palace on Wednesday to discuss financing options for Hinkley Point. The French state has an 85 per cent stake in EDF.
The letter by the group of EDF managers highlights the internal battle that has raged within the company over Hinkley Point, with chief financial officer Thomas Piquemal resigning last month because of concerns that the UK project could threaten the company’s future…….
Two other nuclear projects in France and Finland using the same reactor technology proposed for Hinkley Point are both severely delayed and billions over budget…….. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d6d16bd0-0628-11e6-9b51-0fb5e65703ce.html#axzz46IzsG72i
EDF’s minority shareholders want French govt to be forced to buy them out.
EDF staff investors demands France buys out minorities in nuclear dispute
Staff shareholder group says state abuses majority
* Minorities say EDF used as government policy tool
* EAS fears Hinkley Point will crimp future dividends (Adds detail on dividend, EDF no comment)
Reuters By Geert De Clercq PARIS, April 19 An EDF employee shareholders group has asked the AMF market regulator to force the French state to buy out the utility’s minority shareholders, in a dispute over its plans to build nuclear plants in Britain.
In a letter to the AMF, seen by Reuters on Tuesday, EDF Actionnariat Salarie (EAS) asks the market regulator to consider requiring the state to launch a so-called public withdrawal bid.
EAS alleges that the government is abusing its position as a majority shareholder by forcing EDF to go ahead with building nuclear plants in Britain, which EAS says is too risky for EDF and will prevent it from paying dividends in coming years……..
HINKLEY POINT CONSEQUENCES
EAS argues that in pushing EDF’s 18 billion pound (22.8 billion euros) project to build two reactors at Hinkley Point, in Britain, the government defends the interests of the country’s nuclear industry rather than those of EDF, at the expense of its minority shareholders…….
Hinkley Point is crucial for the survival of reactor builder Areva and France’s many smaller nuclear companies, in an industry that employs about 200,000 people. With three quarters of its power generated by nuclear, France needs no more reactors, and export prospects are limited after the 2011 Fukushima disaster.
“While the state only owns 85 percent of EDF’s capital, it behaves as if it is the sole proprietor and uses the company as a lever for its industrial policy,” EAS said.
It also said the UK project will prevent EDF from paying a dividend for at least seven years……..
On Wednesday, the government will discuss EDF’s finances ahead of an EDF board meeting on Friday. Sources close to the company said the board will review financing options but will not decide on Hinkley Point. (1 euro = 0.7906 pounds) (Editing by Alexander Smith) http://www.reuters.com/article/edf-nuclear-shareholders-idUSL5N17M5CN
UK energy secretary admits energy supply would be OK even if Hinkley nuclear cancelled or delayed
Minister admits lights would stay on even if Hinkley nuclear plant is delayed Guardian, Damian Carrington, 19 Apr 16 UK energy secretary admits for the first time that any delays or cancellations to new nuclear reactors would not compromise national energy supply. The UK’s energy secretary has admitted for the first time that the lights would stay on if new nuclear reactors at Hinkley were cancelled or delayed.
Amber Rudd has previously said that “energy security has to be the number one priority” and that new gas and nuclear power would be “central to our energy-secure future”.
But in a letter released on Tuesday in reply to MPs on the energy and climate change select committee, which asked what contingency plans were in place if Hinkley is delayed or cancelled, she said: “While we have every confidence the deal will go ahead, we have arrangements in place to ensure that any potential delay or cancellation to the project does not pose a risk to security of supply for the UK. I am clear that keeping the lights on is non-negotiable.”
She also said that delays to the troubled plant could risk the UK missing its targets to cut carbon emissions, and that alternatives could cost more but would not represent a “significant increase” in cost in the short term.
The final decision by French-state owned company EDF to go ahead with Hinkley has been repeatedly delayed and the billion of pounds of state subsidies and the feasibility of the giant project have been widely criticised. Last week one of the UK’s major investors, Legal and General, called Hinkley “a total waste of money”………
A report from the government’s National Infrastructure Commission in March found that “smart power – principally built around three innovations, interconnection, storage, and demand flexibility – could save consumers up to £8bn a year by 2030, help the UK meet its 2050 carbon targets, and secure the UK’s energy supply for generations.”
Angus MacNeil, chair of the energy and climate change committee, said: “[Rudd’s] letter shows the government has had to finally concede the need for a Plan B on Hinkley, although the detail is sketchy. New capacity must be brought online in a way that is compatible with our decarbonisation targets. That means limiting the role of fossil fuels and maximising the use of smarter low carbon options to meet demand.”……..
ohn Sauven, Greenpeace’s UK director said: “There is absolutely no reason that the UK could not meet our decarbonisation targets if the government dropped Hinkley and gave renewable energy businesses a fraction of political and financial support that nuclear and fossil fuel companies enjoy.” http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/19/minister-admits-lights-would-stay-on-even-if-hinkley-nuclear-plant-is-delayed
1 This Month
22 June – Virtual Event –Climate Change: New Data, New Debate
Monday, June 22, 2026 2:30 p.m. – 3:15 p.m. CT
YouTube. Register here
Protect Sazan Island from the Trump family! https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/protect_sazan_island_from_the_trump_family_loc/?bqFCVab&v=174511&cl=22707147157&_checksum=5e9dde668860e8231c33699735e16a1fbf22ab2cb01da50c999fe8732b9775ef&utm_source=email&utm_medium=blast_email&utm_campaign=174511
25 June- THE PUKE ON NUKES
Thursday, June 25, 2026
7pm Central Time (8pm ET, 6pm MT, 5pm PT) UTC – 5
From NRC & DOE Deregulation to Techno-Fascist Billionaires Going Nuclear, Plus a Few Songs from Atomic Cabaret REGISTER
26 June – Radiation Trainwreck at the NRC / Join the Protect Better Campaign – https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/4ZlZ5_qLSHGiLSCg8FF6Bg#/registration
Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State
PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees”
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- June 2026 (193)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 