nuclear-news

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

White House to support new nuclear power plants in the U.S.

CNBC, MAY 29 2024

The White House on Wednesday plans to announce new measures to support the development of new U.S. nuclear power plants, a large potential source of carbon-free electricity the government says is needed to combat climate change.

The suite of actions, which weren’t previously reported, are aimed at helping the nuclear power industry combat rising security costs and competition from cheaper plants powered by natural gas, wind and solar……………………………………..

Critics worry about the buildup of radioactive waste stored at plants around the country and warn of the potential risks to human health and nature, especially with any accidents or malfunctions. Biden signed a law earlier this month banning the use of enriched uranium from Russia, the world’s top supplier.

At a White House event on Wednesday focused on nuclear energy deployment, the Biden administration will announce a new group that will seek to identify ways to mitigate cost and schedule overruns in plant construction.

It also said the Army will soon solicit feedback on deploying advanced reactors to provide energy for certain facilities in the United States. Small modular reactors and microreactors can provide energy that is more resilient to physical and cyber attacks, natural disasters and other challenges, the White House said.

The Department of Energy also released a paper outlining the expected increased safety of advanced reactors. And a new tool will help developers figure out how to cut capital costs for new nuclear reactors.

The youngest U.S. nuclear power reactors, at the Vogtle plant in Georgia, were years behind schedule and billions over budget when they entered commercial operation in 2023 and 2024. No new U.S. nuclear plants are currently being built……………………………….. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/29/white-house-to-support-new-nuclear-power-plants-in-the-us.html

May 31, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA | 1 Comment

Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) set to expire soon, while many nuclear test victims await justice .

The defense spending bill for 2024 was signed into law on Dec. 22 by Biden, but the RECA expansion was cut from the final bill before it landed on his desk. 

Without an extension, RECA is set to expire in June, and the deadline for claims to be postmarked is June 10, 2024, according to the DOJ.

  ‘Time is running out’ 

 by beyondnuclearinternational by Shondiin Silversmith, Arizona Mirror

Navajo Nation urges Congress to act on RECA expansion bill

Kathleen Tsosie remembers seeing her dad come home every evening with his clothes covered in dirt. As a little girl, she never questioned why, and she was often more excited to see if he had any leftover food in his lunchbox.

“We used to go through his lunch and eat whatever he didn’t eat,” Tsosie said, recalling when she was around 4 years old. “And he always had cold water that came back from the mountain.”

Tsosie’s father, grandfather, and uncles all worked as uranium miners on the Navajo Nation near Cove, Arizona, from the 1940s to the 1960s. The dirt Tsosie’s father was caked in when he arrived home came from the mines, and the cold water he brought back was from the nearby springs. 

Tsosie grew up in Cove, a remote community located at the foothills of the Chuska mountain range in northeastern Arizona. There are 56 abandoned mines located in the Cove area, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

In the late 1960s, Tsosie said her grandfather started getting sick. She remembers herding sheep with him and how he would often rest under a tree, asking her to push on his chest because it hurt. 

Tsosie said she was about 7 years old when her uncles took her grandfather to the hospital. At the time, she didn’t know why he was sick, but later on, she learned he had cancer. Her grandfather died in October 1967.

Over a decade later, Tsosie’s father also started getting sick. She remembers when he came to visit her in Wyoming; she was rubbing his shoulders when she felt a lump. She told him to get it checked out because he complained about how painful it was. 

Her father was diagnosed with cancer in 1984 and went through treatments, but died in April 1985. 

“When my dad passed away, everybody knew it was from the mine,” Tsosie said. He was just the latest on a long list of Navajo men from her community who worked in the uranium mines and ended up getting sick and passing away. 

Because of that history, Tsosie became an advocate for issues related to downwinders and uranium mine workers from the Navajo Nation, including the continuation of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. 

The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA, provides a program that compensates individuals who become ill because of exposure to radiation from the United States’ development and testing of nuclear weapons. 

RECA was initially set to expire in 2022, but President Joe Biden signed a measure extending the program for two more years. Now, it’s set to expire in less than a month…………………………………………………………………………………

In July 2023, the U.S. Senate voted to expand and extend the RECA program, and it was attached as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, which funds the Department of Defense.

It could have extended health care coverage and compensation to more uranium industry workers and “downwinders” exposed to radiation in several new regions — Colorado, Missouri, New Mexico, Idaho, Montana, and Guam — and expanded coverage to new parts of Arizona, Nevada and Utah.

The defense spending bill for 2024 was signed into law on Dec. 22 by Biden, but the RECA expansion was cut from the final bill before it landed on his desk. 

When she heard that the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act amendments failed to pass, Tsosie said it really impacted her, and she cried because so many people deserve that funding.

“I know what it feels like. I know what it feels like to suffer,” she said.

Without an extension, RECA is set to expire in June, and the deadline for claims to be postmarked is June 10, 2024, according to the DOJ.

The sunset of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act is approaching fast, and leaders from the Navajo Nation are urging Congress to act on the expansion bill that has been waiting for the U.S. House of Representatives to take it up for more than two months. 

“Time is running out,” Justin Ahasteen, the executive director of the Navajo Nation Washington Office, said in a press release. 

“Every day without these amendments means another day without justice for our people,” he added. “We urge Congress to stand on the right side of history and pass these crucial amendments.”

Republican Sen. Josh Hawley from Missouri introduced S. 3853 – The Radiation Exposure Compensation Reauthorization Act, which funds RECA past its June sunset date for another six years. 

The bill passed through the U.S. Senate with a bipartisan 69-30 vote on March 7.  But since being sent to the House on March 11, the bill hasn’t moved. 

The RECA expansion bill would include more communities downwind of nuclear test sites in the United States and Guam. It would extend eligibility for uranium workers to include those who worked after 1971. Communities harmed by radioactive waste from the tests could apply for the program, and expansion would also boost compensation payments to account for inflation.

“The Navajo Nation calls for immediate passage of S. 3853,” Ahasteen said in a press release. “This is to ensure that justice is no longer delayed for the Navajo people and other affected communities.”

Ahasteen told the Arizona Mirror in an interview that congressional leaders holding the bill back due to the program’s expense is not a good enough reason not to pass it. 

“They keep referencing the cost and saying it’s too expensive,” he said. But, he explained, the RECA expansion is only a sliver of U.S. spending on foreign aid or nuclear development. 

And it shouldn’t even be a matter of cost, Ahasteen said, because people have given their lives and their health in the interest of national security.

“The bill has been paid with the lives and the health of the American workers who were exposed unjustly to radiation because the federal government kept it from them and they lied about the dangers,” he said. 

From 1945 to 1992, the U.S. conducted a total of 1,030 nuclear tests, according to the Arms Control Association.

Many were conducted at the Nevada Test Site, with 928 nuclear tests conducted at the site between 1951 and 1992, according to the Nevada National Security Site. About 100 of those were atmospheric tests, and the rest were underground detonations.

According to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, atmospheric tests involved unrestrained releases of radioactive materials directly into the environment, causing the largest collective dose of radiation thus far from man-made radiation sources………………………………………………………………………

The legacy of uranium mining has impacted the Navajo Nation for decades, from abandoned mines to contaminated waste disposal. 

From 1944 to 1986, nearly 30 million tons of uranium ore were extracted from Navajo lands, according to the EPA, and hundreds of Navajo people worked in the mines, often living and raising families in close proximity to the mines and mills. 

Ahasteen said those numbers show exactly how large the uranium operations were on the Navajo Nation and the impact it would have on the Navajo people. 

“There are photos on record to show Navajo people being exploited, not given any proper protective equipment, but (the federal government) knew about the dangers of radiation since the ’40s,” Ahasteen said. “They were given a shovel and a hard hat, and they were told: Go to work. You’ll earn lots of money. You’ll have a nice life, and we did that, but it didn’t work so well for us.”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

WHAT YOU CAN STILL DO BEFORE JUNE 7TH

Urge your U.S. Representative to push for a House floor vote on, and to vote in favor of, extending/expanding RECA, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. And urge House Speaker Mike Johnson to allow the vote on the House floor, on the Hawley version of RECA (the most expansive). There is likely enough support to pass the bill. Johnson’s phone is: 202-225-4000.

Shondiin Silversmith is an award-winning Native journalist based on the Navajo Nation. Silversmith has covered Indigenous communities for more than 10 years, and covers Arizona’s 22 federally recognized sovereign tribal nations, as well as national and international Indigenous issues. This article was first published by the Arizona Mirror,  https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/05/26/time-is-running-out-2/

May 30, 2024 Posted by | health, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Damning scientific report condemns the Australian Opposition’s push for nuclear power

Coalition’s brave nuke world a much harder sell after new CSIRO report

Graham Readfearn, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/may/26/coalitions-brave-nuke-world-a-much-harder-sell-after-new-csiro-report?CMP=soc_568

The agency’s GenCost analysis says a first nuclear plant for Australia would deliver power ‘no sooner than 2040’ and could cost more than $17bn

The Coalition’s pitch on nuclear energy for Australia has had two recurring themes: the electricity will be cheap and it could be deployed within a decade.

CSIRO’s latest GenCost report – a document that analyses the costs of a range of electricity generation technologies – contradicts both of these points. It makes the Coalition’s job of selling nuclear power plants to Australians ever more challenging.

For the first time, the national science agency has calculated the potential costs of large-scale nuclear electricity in a country that banned the generation technology more than a quarter of a century ago.

Even using a set of generous assumptions, the CSIRO says a first nuclear plant would deliver power “no sooner than 2040” and could cost more than $17bn.

It is likely to spark an attack on the credibility of the report from nuclear advocates and those opposed to the rollout of renewable energy. Opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has already attacked the report.

In the meantime, Australia waits for the Coalition to say what kind of reactors it would deploy, where it would put them and how much it thinks they would cost.

Now that CSIRO has released its report, here’s what we know about the viability of a nuclear industry in Australia.

What’s new on nuclear costs?

CSIRO’s GenCost report says a 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant would cost about $8.6bn to build, but that comes with some large caveats. The main one is that this was the theoretical cost of a reactor in an Australia that already had an established and continuous program of building reactors.

The $8.6bn is based on costs in South Korea, which does have a continuous reactor building program and is one country the least beset by cost blowouts.

To make the cost more relevant, CSIRO compared the Australian and South Korean costs of building modern coal plants. Costs were more than double in Australia.

But CSIRO warns the first nuclear plants in Australia would be subject to a “first of a kind” premium that could easily double the $8.6bn build cost.

In the UK, a country that has been building reactors intermittently, costs for its under-construction Hinkley C reactor (more than three times the size of a theoretical 1,000MW reactor in Australia) started at $34bn and could now be as high as $89bn.

In the United States, the country’s largest nuclear plant has just turned on its final unit seven years behind schedule and at double the initial cost. There are no more nuclear plants under construction in the country.

What about the cost of the electricity?

CSIRO also offers cost estimates for the electricity produced by large-scale reactors, but those too assume a continuous nuclear building program in Australia.

Electricity from large-scale reactors would cost between $141 per megawatt hour and $233/MWh if they were running in 2030, according to GenCost.

Combining solar and wind would provide power at between $73 and $128/MWh – figures that include the costs of integrating renewables, such as building transmission lines and energy storage.

What about those small modular reactors?

The Coalition has also advocated for so-called “small modular reactors” which are not commercially available and, CSIRO says, are unlikely to be available to build in Australia until 2040.

One United States SMR project lauded by the Coalition collapsed in late 2023 because the cost of the power was too high.

That project, CSIRO says, was significant because its design had nuclear commission approval and was “the only recent estimate from a real project that was preparing to raise finance for the construction stage. As such, its costs are considered more reliable than theoretical projects.”

GenCost reports that power from a theoretical SMR in 2030 would cost between $230 and $382/MWh – much higher than solar and wind or large-scale nuclear.

How quickly could Australia build a nuclear plant?

Nuclear advocates tend to point to low nuclear power costs in countries that have long-established nuclear industries.

Australia has no expertise in building nuclear power, no infrastructure, no regulatory agency, no nuclear workforce and a public that is yet to have a serious proposition put in front of it.

Australia’s electricity grid is fast evolving from one dominated by large coal-fired power plants to one engineered for and dominated by solar, wind, batteries and pumped hydro with gas-fired power working as a rarely used backup.

This creates a major problem for the Coalition, because CSIRO estimates “if a decision to pursue nuclear in Australia were made in 2025, with political support for the required legislative changes, then the first full operation would be no sooner than 2040.”

Tony Wood, head of the Grattan Institute’s energy program, says: “By 2040, the coal-fired power stations will be in their graves. What do you do in the meantime?”

“You could keep the coal running, but that would become very expensive,” he says, pointing to the ageing coal fleet that is increasingly beset by outages.

Wood says the GenCost report is only a part of the story when it comes to understanding nuclear.

The Coalition, he says, would need to explain how much it would cost to build an electricity system to accommodate nuclear.

Could you just drop nuclear into the grid?

The biggest piece of generation kit on Australia’s electricity grid is a single 750 megawatt coal-fired unit at Kogan Creek in Queensland. Other power stations are larger but they are made up of a series of smaller units.

But the smallest of the “large-scale” nuclear reactors are about 1,000MW and most are 1,400MW.

Electricity system engineers have to build-in contingency plans if large units either trip or have to be pulled offline for maintenance. That contingency costs money.

In Australia’s current electricity system, the GenCost report says larger nuclear plants would probably “require the deployment of more generation units in reserve than the existing system consisting of units of 750MW or less.”

But by the time a theoretical nuclear plant could be deployed, most if not all the larger coal-fired units will be gone.

Who might build Australian nukes?

Some energy experts have questioned whether any company would be willing to take up a contract to build a reactor in Australia when there are existing nuclear nations looking to expand their fleets.

Right now, nuclear reactors are banned federally and in several states.

The GenCost report also points to another potential cost-raiser for nuclear – a lack of political bipartisanship.

The report says: “Without bipartisan support, given the historical context of nuclear power in Australia, investors may have to consider the risk that development expenses become stranded by future governments.”

May 30, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics | Leave a comment

“Crisis of radioactive waste mismanagement in the Ottawa River watershed”

Hill Times letter: “Crisis of radioactive waste mismanagement in the Ottawa River watershed,” Chief Lance Haymond and Dr. Gordon Edwards Monday May 20, 2024

We are writing to alert Hill Times readers to what we see as a crisis of radioactive waste mismanagement in the Ottawa River watershed. Components of the crisis include:

A giant, above-ground landfill for one million tonnes of radioactive waste at Chalk River Laboratories, less than one kilometre from the Ottawa River. According to the licensed inventory for the facility, more than half of the radionuclides are long-lived with half-lives exceeding the design life of the facility by thousands of years. Experts say the waste is “intermediate level,” and should be stored underground. There are concerns the facility will leak radioactive contaminants during operation, and break down due to erosion after a few hundred years.

There is a proposal to entomb “in situ” a defunct nuclear reactor less than 400 meters from the Ottawa River at Rolphton, Ont. In our view, the proposal flouts international safety standards that say entombment should not be used except in emergencies. 

A multinational private-sector consortium is transporting all federal radioactive wastes, including high-level irradiated fuel waste, to Chalk River. These imports are occurring, despite an explicit request by the City of Ottawa in 2021 for cessation of radioactive waste imports to the Ottawa Valley which is seismically-active, and a poor location for long-term storage of radioactive waste. 

All of the above is taking place despite the opposition of the Algonquin People on whose unceded territory the Chalk River Laboratories and defunct Rolphton reactor are located. This contravenes Canada’s United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

In our view, this crisis is a direct result of Canada’s inadequate nuclear governance regime under which almost all aspects of nuclear governance are entrusted to one agency, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which is widely perceived to be captured by the nuclear industry, and to promote the projects it is supposed to regulate. Other concerns include conflicts of interest, lack of checks and balances, and an inadequate nuclear waste policy.

Despite repeated resolutions of concern by the Assembly of First Nations and more than 140 downstream municipalities—including Ottawa, Gatineau, and Montreal—the current government appears unwilling or unable to take meaningful action to address this crisis. We are therefore appealing to the International Atomic Energy Agency and requesting a meeting with its peer review team that is scheduled to visit Canada next month. 

Chief Lance Haymond, Kebaowek First Nation

Gordon Edwards, PhD, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility

May 29, 2024 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

The announcement of Wylfa as the favoured site for a new nuclear plant is nothing more than blatant electioneering

27 May 2024, Dylan Morgan, People Against Wylfa B (Pawb)  https://nation.cymru/opinion/the-announcement-of-wylfa-as-the-favoured-site-for-a-new-nuclear-plant-is-nothing-more-than-blatant-electioneering/

The morning of May 22 certainly had a feeling of April Fool’s Day about it with the announcement by the energy minister, Claire Coutihno that Wylfa is in the government’s view, a favoured site for building large nuclear reactors.

In case you haven’t been following the planned renaissance of nuclear power in the British State over the past 20 years, Wylfa was included by Tony Blair’s government as one of eight possible new build nuclear sites in 2006.

It is well documented how the German consortium of REW and E.ON set up Horizon Nuclear Power in 2007 with a view to build new reactors at Wylfa.

Following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 and how that strengthened already strong anti-nuclear views in Germany, the consortium were lucky some months after announcing they would not proceed with Wylfa B in March 2012, to sell Horizon at a profit for £750 million to Hitachi in October 2012.

Hitachi then spent another £1.25 billion on the Wylfa B project until January 2019, before deciding to suspend any more investment.

The project was finally scrapped completely in September 2020.

So Wylfa has been in the government plans for the past 20 years. To pretend that this was somehow a new step was nonsense.

It was nothing more than blatant electioneering on behalf of Virginia Crosbie in her attempt to keep Ynys Môn in the Conservative fold.

Planning Inspectorate

Under Hitachi’s ownership, Horizon presented a full planning application for new nuclear reactors at Wylfa to the Planning Inspectorate who are responsible for evaluating all major infrastructure planning applications.

Independent inspectors were appointed to scrutinise the proposals at public sessions in October 2018 and early spring 2019 and in private group discussions among the inspectors.

Their final report was not published until Hitachi had announced a suspension of investment in the project. Their conclusions were striking to say the least.

“Expert planning officers felt that the proposals failed to meet some of the United Nations’ biological diversity standards and also listed concerns over the project’s impact on the local economy, housing stock and the Welsh language.

“The planning inspectors’ report said there was a lack of scientific evidence put forward by developers to demonstrate that the Arctic and Sandwich tern (seabird) populations around the Cemlyn Bay area would not be disturbed by construction.

There were fears that these birds would abandon the Bay as a result. It also raised wider concerns over the general impact on Cemlyn Bay, the Cae Gwyn site of special scientific interest and Tre’r Gof…

“… it found the influx up to 7500 workers during construction “could even with the proposed mitigation, adversely affect tourism, the local economy, health and wellbeing and Welsh language and culture”.

“It concluded: “Having regard to all the matters referred in this report, the ExA’s conclusion is that, on balance, the matters weighing against the proposed development outweigh the matters weighing in favour of it. The ExA therefore finds the case for development is not made and it recommends accordingly.”

‘Drop in the ocean’

It was reported in Jeremy Hunt’s final budget this spring that the government were going to pay Hitachi £160 million for the Horizon sites at Wylfa and Olbury, a loss of around £600 million for Hitachi.

Even if this payment is made, it is still only a drop in the ocean in the wider context of the cost of nuclear power stations.

When construction started on the only new nuclear project in England at Hinkley Point C in Somerset in 2015 led by the French nuclear developer EdF, the original cost estimate was £18 billion.

That sum has now rocketed to £46 billion with 2031 as the nearest possible completion date. EdF then want to turn their attention to Sizewell C to replicate the work carried out at Hinkley.

If the Hinkley project is completed by sometime in the 2030’s and work is started on Sizewell, that follow-up nuclear build would take another 15 to 20 years taking us to around 2050.

Nuclear skills

Nuclear industry insiders have publicly admitted that the British State only has enough nuclear skills to build one nuclear development in a given period. Indeed, Simon Bowen, the Chairman of Great British Nuclear stated clearly in that body’s blog on 9 September, 2023 that there is a “lack of skills to meet the coming nuclear challenge”.

In another interview on January 29, 2024 to World Nuclear News he underlines what we have always argued, that the civil and military nuclear sectors are intrinsically linked:“…unless we share skills and we find mechanisms for sharing skills across the nuclear sector, both in defence and civil and across the boundaries, then it is going to be very, very difficult to succeed”

Nuclear power is dangerous, dirty, outdated, a huge threat to environmental and human health as the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters have shown, and extortionately expensive.

It goes totally against the flow of smart money investment in electricity generating projects world wide.

Net loss

The International Energy Agency Annual Report for 2023 published early this year showed another net loss of nuclear power generation leaving it with a 9.2% share of electricity generation worldwide.

For the same year, electricity from the various renewable technologies had increased to 30.2% of the global market. That figure is anticipated to increase to 42% by 2028.

That is just four years away and is a remarkable figure. At that rate of growth, within another decade, renewables can realistically expect to supply over 50% of global electricity.

The world is waking up despite the big oil and nuclear corporations desperately trying to hang on and be relevant.

Future generations will not forgive us if we plough huge amounts of money as taxpayers and through a nuclear tax on our electricity bills into new nuclear reactors in the next twenty years, thereby adding to the huge headache of the legacy radioactive waste of the past 60 to 70 years stored at the decaying Sellafield complex.

All hot radioactive waste produced from high burn up uranium which will be used at Hinkley Point and any other possible new nuclear reactors, will have to be stored on site for at least 150 years.

These are the brutal facts of nuclear power and politicians from all parties contesting the General Election should be challenged, especially if they blindly support nuclear technology which is limping towards irrelevance and oblivion.

May 28, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Uncertainty in UK. Will a Labour government really tread that troubled nuclear power path?

Although technically wedded to the pursuance of new nuclear, whether
Labour in office continues to tread a nuclear path is far from certain.

Labour ministers would face a plethora of competing financial demands from
the onset of their new term in government. In its last period in office
(1997 to 2010), Labour built no new nuclear power plants; consequently, the
civil Nuclear Roadmap may eventually prove to be as washed out as Rishi
Sunak’s rain sodden jacket.

Announcement day was eventful from the onset.
Nuclear Minister Andrew Bowie had been scheduled to meet representatives
from anti-nuclear NGOs in-person at the London offices of his Department of
Energy Security and Net Zero. Others were due to join the Minister online.
Although the meeting had been arranged weeks in advance, Mr Bowie decided
instead to cut and run; there were rumours that Mr Bowie had decided to
make a last-minute trip to Wylfa in North Wales, but, as these have so far
been unsubstantiated, perhaps he was just clearing his desk?

Claire Coutinho in her last act as Energy Secretary had just announced the
non-news that the Wylfa site has been earmarked as the government’s
preferred location for the third gigawatt nuclear power plant. This has
been patently obvious to anyone observing developments in the nuclear
industry for some time. Mr Sunak, and before him Boris Johnson, have
positively gushed over the ‘virtues’ of developing this site over any
others and the recent acquisition of the site with Oldbury for £160
million by Great British Nuclear from former owners Horizon earlier this
year made this choice a certainty.

If built, and remember previous plans
have come to naught, the Wylfa B plant would be similar in size to those in
construction at Hinkley Point C in Somerset and announced for Sizewell C in
Suffolk. Both are being built by French state-owned electricity generator,
EDF, equipped with two European Pressurised Reactors (EPRs) with 3.2
Gigawatt generating capacity.

 NFLA 26th May 2024

Latest news and information

May 27, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

UK Nuclear Plant Sizewell Continues Fundraising Before Election

  • Banks offered to lend as much as £12.5 billion for Sizewell C

By Will Mathis, May 24, 2024

The developer of the UK’s Sizewell C nuclear power plant is pushing ahead to complete
financing for the project this year even as a looming election risks
complicating the timeline.

A group of banks offered to lend as much as
£12.5 billion ($15.9 billion) to help finance the plant in eastern
England, according to a person familiar with the matter. They include HSBC
Holdings Plc, NatWest Group Plc and Banco Santander SA, the person said.

Debt will play a role in a multibillion-pound funding effort that also
includes an ongoing effort to raise equity from private investors.

“The two main political parties are committed to Sizewell C and we are carrying
on with the capital raise, preparing for a final investment decision and
mobilizing teams on our site,” a spokesperson for Sizewell said,
declining to comment on the debt specifically.

HSBC and Santander declined to comment. NatWest didn’t immediately comment.

The government had vowed
to reach a final investment decision on the proposed 3.2-gigawatt Sizewell
C station in the current parliament, a process that was on track to
complete this summer. That means the final stage of the fund-raising
process could be among Labour leader Keir Starmer’s first acts if he
becomes prime minister. “Sizewell needs to move forward at pace,”
Starmer said during a visit to another nuclear plant last year. “New
nuclear has to be part of that mix.”

 Bloomberg 23rd May 2024

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-23/uk-nuclear-plant-sizewell-continues-fundraising-before-election

May 27, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear-free councils hit out at ‘mad delusion’ of new reactor

By Alan Hendry – alan.hendry@hnmedia.co.uk, 25 May 2024

Calls for a nuclear revival in Scotland – including the possibility of a new Dounreay reactor – have been dismissed as “folly” and a “mad delusion”.

Scottish Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLAs), a grouping of councils opposed to civil nuclear power, insisted that renewables “represent the only way forward to achieve a sustainable, net-zero future”.

The secretary of state for Scotland, Alister Jack, confirmed last week that he had asked the UK energy minister to plan for a new nuclear site north of the border as part of a nationwide strategy.

Dounreay had been put forward among the possible locations for a small modular reactor (SMR), a series of 10 power stations that engineering giant Rolls-Royce was planning to build by 2035.

Jamie Stone, the Liberal Democrat MP for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, was quick to press the case for Dounreay to be considered. After a conversation with the Scottish secretary, Mr Stone claimed there was “all to play for”.

Ross-shire Journal 25th May 2024

https://www.ross-shirejournal.co.uk/news/nuclear-free-councils-hit-out-at-mad-delusion-of-new-react-351494/

May 27, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, politics, UK | Leave a comment

SNPs Stephen Flynn claims Labour ‘will divert £20bn of Scotland’s oil cash’ to build nuclear power plants in England

John Ferguson, Sunday Mail political editor, 25 May 24

SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn has accused Labour of planning to divert £20billion of tax receipts from Scotland’s oil wealth to build nuclear power plants in England……………………………………………………………………… https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/snps-stephen-flynn-claims-labour-32893362

May 27, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Taxpayer contribution to Sizewell C nuclear plant could double

24 May, 2022 By Rob Hakimian  https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/taxpayer-contribution-to-sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-could-double-24-05-2022/

Construction of the Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk could cost taxpayers more than double what the government has suggested, according to new research

Construction of Sizewell C has not yet been confirmed, with the planning decision having recently been pushed back to July.

However, with the UK set to lose all of its functional advanced gas-cooling reactor (AGR) nuclear plants by 2028, the government is keen to push through plans for new plants as it has made nuclear energy a crux point of its net zero strategy and energy security strategy. It has already committed £100M to Sizewell C and, crucially, agreed to use the regulated asset base (RAB) funding model to pay for it.

The RAB model, which has previously been used to fund Tideway and Heathrow Terminal 5, allows investors to recoup some of their money during the construction phase of the project through taxation. The taxpayer pays for the plant through monthly surcharge on their taxes before they reap the rewards. The government says that, while the taxpayer will have to pay the surcharge during construction, they will save £10 a month through this method once the plant is operational.

However, if a project suffers delays and cost increases, this means the risk falls on the shoulders of the taxpayer. As seen by continual delays and cost hikes on Hinkley Point C, nuclear plants are particularly susceptible.

In its own analysis of using the RAB model to fund Sizewell C, the government has said that over the course of the plant’s 13-17 years construction it will add an average surcharge of £1 per month to household bills. However, the University of Greenwich School of Business says that the government’s calculations are based on 2021 prices and do not account for inflation over the course of the next two decades as the plant is built.

Taking into account inflation, based on the Treasury’s target level of 2%, Greenwich Business School has determined that the cost could be up to £2.12 per month on average over the course of the construction time. However, this is a relatively conservative estimate, as inflation could be much greater than 2% over the course of the next 20 years.

The government’s calculation is based on the median expectations for the construction of Sizewell C, i.e. that it will take 15 years (midway between the projected 13-17 years) and cost £35bn (midway between the estimated £26.3bn and £43.8bn).

Greenwich Business School has also looked at the best and worse case scenarios, adding 2% inflation. If the construction were to only last 13 years and cost £26.3bn, the taxpayer would fork out an additional £148.20 over the course (an average of 95p per month). If it is to last 17 years and cost £43.8bn, the taxpayer will pay an additional £431.90 over the duration (an average of £2.12 per month).

This figure could be even higher if the project runs beyond 17 years, costs over £43.8bn and/or inflation rises by more than 2%, all of which are distinct possibilities.

The RAB model, which has previously been used to fund Tideway and Heathrow Terminal 5, allows investors to recoup some of their money during the construction phase of the project through taxation. The taxpayer pays for the plant through monthly surcharge on their taxes before they reap the rewards. The government says that, while the taxpayer will have to pay the surcharge during construction, they will save £10 a month through this method once the plant is operational.

This figure could be even higher if the project runs beyond 17 years, costs over £43.8bn and/or inflation rises by more than 2%, all of which are distinct possibilities.

Both the government’s and Greenwhich Business School’s calculations are based on illustrative figures. More accurate figures will be known once planning has been granted and investment partners found.

This presents another issue, as there are no clear investors champing at the bit. While the government is bullish about nuclear’s potential green benefits, many potential investors are uncertain of its environmental, social and governance (ESG) credentials. Aviva Investors has even called out the government for not providing enough detail for a proper assessment on nuclear’s ESG potential.

University of Greenwich emeritus professor of energy policy Stephen Thomas told NCE: “There are differences between Tideway and Sizewell C. One is scale: Tideway is said to be a huge project, but the cost is not much more than a 10th of what Sizewell C will be, so it will be a big strain on that market.

Taxpayer contribution to Sizewell C nuclear plant could double

24 May, 2022 By Rob Hakimian

Construction of the Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk could cost taxpayers more than double what the government has suggested, according to new research.

Construction of Sizewell C has not yet been confirmed, with the planning decision having recently been pushed back to July.

However, with the UK set to lose all of its functional advanced gas-cooling reactor (AGR) nuclear plants by 2028, the government is keen to push through plans for new plants as it has made nuclear energy a crux point of its net zero strategy and energy security strategy. It has already committed £100M to Sizewell C and, crucially, agreed to use the regulated asset base (RAB) funding model to pay for it.

The RAB model, which has previously been used to fund Tideway and Heathrow Terminal 5, allows investors to recoup some of their money during the construction phase of the project through taxation. The taxpayer pays for the plant through monthly surcharge on their taxes before they reap the rewards. The government says that, while the taxpayer will have to pay the surcharge during construction, they will save £10 a month through this method once the plant is operational.

However, if a project suffers delays and cost increases, this means the risk falls on the shoulders of the taxpayer. As seen by continual delays and cost hikes on Hinkley Point C, nuclear plants are particularly susceptible.

In its own analysis of using the RAB model to fund Sizewell C, the government has said that over the course of the plant’s 13-17 years construction it will add an average surcharge of £1 per month to household bills. However, the University of Greenwich School of Business says that the government’s calculations are based on 2021 prices and do not account for inflation over the course of the next two decades as the plant is built.

Taking into account inflation, based on the Treasury’s target level of 2%, Greenwich Business School has determined that the cost could be up to £2.12 per month on average over the course of the construction time. However, this is a relatively conservative estimate, as inflation could be much greater than 2% over the course of the next 20 years.

The government’s calculation is based on the median expectations for the construction of Sizewell C, i.e. that it will take 15 years (midway between the projected 13-17 years) and cost £35bn (midway between the estimated £26.3bn and £43.8bn).

Greenwich Business School has also looked at the best and worse case scenarios, adding 2% inflation. If the construction were to only last 13 years and cost £26.3bn, the taxpayer would fork out an additional £148.20 over the course (an average of 95p per month). If it is to last 17 years and cost £43.8bn, the taxpayer will pay an additional £431.90 over the duration (an average of £2.12 per month).

This figure could be even higher if the project runs beyond 17 years, costs over £43.8bn and/or inflation rises by more than 2%, all of which are distinct possibilities.

Both the government’s and Greenwhich Business School’s calculations are based on illustrative figures. More accurate figures will be known once planning has been granted and investment partners found.

This presents another issue, as there are no clear investors champing at the bit. While the government is bullish about nuclear’s potential green benefits, many potential investors are uncertain of its environmental, social and governance (ESG) credentials. Aviva Investors has even called out the government for not providing enough detail for a proper assessment on nuclear’s ESG potential.

University of Greenwich emeritus professor of energy policy Stephen Thomas told NCE: “There are differences between Tideway and Sizewell C. One is scale: Tideway is said to be a huge project, but the cost is not much more than a 10th of what Sizewell C will be, so it will be a big strain on that market.

“The second difference is that there is output to sell from Sizewell C. Thames Tideway gets its money by being there and providing a service; if it’s there and it’s not utterly failed then that’s it. Sizewell C has kilowatt hours to sell, and there are risks in that because you don’t know how reliable the plant is going to be, you don’t know what the running costs are going to be, you don’t know what the fuel costs are going to be. So there are risks involved in that.

“The RAB is a bit of an illusion, because the kilowatt hour costs that they will quote are based on whatever it costs to ensure investors make their agreed return, no matter how high the price. It will ignore the surcharge paid during the construction phase, which is a huge subsidy by consumers. It is a blank cheque signed by consumers. It’s a dreadful model.”

A Sizewell C spokesperson said: “The RAB model is a proven financing arrangement which has already been used to raise funds for more than £160bn of infrastructure. Applied to Sizewell C, it will bring the cost of finance down and deliver significant savings to consumers.”

A government spokesperson said: “We firmly stand by our assessment that a large-scale project funded under our Nuclear Act would add at most a few pounds a year to typical household energy bills during the early stages of construction, and on average about £1 a month during the full construction phase of the project.”

May 26, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Joe Biden’s Deceptive Declarations on Gaza are contradicted by his actions

Ralph Nader 24 May 24,

As the keynote speaker at Morehouse College in Atlanta last week, Joe Biden listened to the class Valedictorian’s call for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. The President nodded and applauded with others in the assembly. In contrast, he had just approved another billion dollars in killer weapons for the genocidal Netanyahu regime to blow up what’s left of the Death Camps in Gaza. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe,” declared his wife, Dr. Jill Biden months ago.

Countless times Joe Biden has publicly urged Netanyahu to allow the waiting trucks carrying – food, water, and medicine – blocked at the Egyptian and Israeli borders to deliver this humanitarian aid. But Biden declined to demand sanctions and an end to the Israeli military blocking hundreds of trucks, paid for by the U.S., into Gaza to help the dying population. He could have draped American flags over these trucks and dared the Israeli state terrorists to stop them. Biden showed lethal weakness from an unused position of great presidential power. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe,” implored his wife Dr. Jill Biden as thousands of children are being killed who could have been saved.
Biden asked early on that Netanyahu comply with international law. His government commits daily overt numerous war crimes targeting civilians, homes, schools, markets, hospitals and health clinics, ambulances, fleeing refugees, and even Mosques and Churches. The Israeli regime also violates the international law that requires the conquerors to protect the civilian population. Biden, Blinken and Austin have refused to condemn such “crimes against humanity,” halt arms shipments and thereby obey five federal laws prohibiting the U.S. from sending weapons to countries that are violating human rights or being used for offensive purposes.
When Biden took his oath of office, he swore to uphold the laws of the land. That oath requires action. His State Department, in a required compliance report this month to Congress, disgracefully punted. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe,” beseeched Dr. Jill Biden.
From the beginning, Biden has backed a two-state solution publicly and in private conversations with Netanyahu. These words support a peaceful settlement. Yet whether under Obama as vice president for eight years or since 2021, as president, Biden has not connected to any action advancing the two-state proposal. Worse, he has never called out Netanyahu, with consequences, for bragging year after year to his Likud Party that he has been supporting the Hamas regime and helping to fund it because Hamas, like Netanyahu, opposes a two-state solution.
Biden is still rejecting the recognition of a Palestinian state by 143 of the 193 member states of the United Nations. This week Spain, Norway and Ireland said they would recognize a Palestinian state. Biden bizarrely insists statehood be negotiated with Israel. He knows, of course, how many Israeli colonies (so-called settlements) exist in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel rejects outright any such Free Palestine. Weak Joe Biden is okay with that brutal occupation. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe,” says Dr. Jill Biden.
Joe Biden is always condemning anti-semitism against Jews, while he spends billions of dollars weaponizing Netanyahu’s violent anti-semitism against Arab semites in Palestine. This “other” anti-semitism has been violently inflicted, with very racist epithets, on defenseless, subjugated Palestinian families for over fifty-five years. The violence includes U.S. fighter planes bombing, ground troops smashing homes, and refugee camps, blowing up homes, imprisoning and torturing thousands of men, women and children, without charges, and hundreds of dictates, checkpoints, and other maddening harassments. (See the New York Times Magazine Sunday, May 19, 2024 piece “The Unpunished: How Extremists Took Over Israel”). Biden and Netanyahu are arm-in-arm anti-semites against Arabs. (See the “Anti-Semitism Against Arab and Jewish Americans” speech by Jim Zogby and DebatingTaboos.org).
Throughout his fifty-year political career, Biden has never said that “Palestinians have a right to defend themselves.” Only the overwhelmingly more powerful, occupying Israelis have this right, as he has repeated hundreds of times. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe,” advises Dr. Jill Biden.
Biden has expressed doubt about the Hamas Health Ministry’s fatality count in Gaza – itself a huge undercount. (See my column March 5, 2024 column:  Stop the Worsening UNDERCOUNT of Palestinian Casualties in Gaza). His actions enabling the Israeli annihilations (“over the top” he once blurted) are moving the real fatality toll, especially with the Rafah invasion and starvation, to the fastest rate ever recorded in 21st century conflicts, according to experts. This includes the bloody, accelerating deaths of babies and children.
It’s the ongoing massacre of these little innocents – in their mother’s or father’s arms or in crumbling hospitals that led Dr. Jill Biden to admonish: “Stop it, stop it now, Joe.”

Still, Joe Biden conveys weakness to Netanyahu, to Netanyahu’s Congress and its omnipresent “Israel-can-do-no-wrong” lobby. Being weak on such a high visibility and protested genocide in Gaza is bad for your re-election, Joe. Even though Der Führer Donald is worse. Look at the latest polls in the swing states! A true leader doesn’t zig and zag when innocent people are being killed. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe.”

May 26, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

UK Election! And no Final Investment Decision made on Sizewell nuclear project

 https://mailchi.mp/stopsizewellc/election?e=c3c4307b44 24 May 24

Last night’s announcement of a snap election has convinced us that the government’s commitment to reach a Final Investment Decision (FID) on Sizewell C within the current parliament is essentially impossible to fulfil. We explain why below, and why Sizewell C’s future is dependent on the election outcome.

We are already making plans to set up actions that will enable you to contact parliamentary candidates about Sizewell C – certainly in Suffolk but hopefully countrywide – and planning an energy hustings in East Suffolk with our allies. Meanwhile we have sent the following comment and briefing to the media.

“The impossibility of a Final Investment Decision on Sizewell C being made before the election lets the Conservatives off the hook for signing away another HS2. It also presents a likely Labour government, looking to drive down bills and reach net zero by 2030, an opportunity to focus on more cost effective renewable projects. We are going to do everything in our power to ensure that this election signals the death knell for slow, expensive, risky Sizewell C.”

  • Stop Sizewell C understands that the capital raise is still ongoing, and final bids have yet to be submitted, reportedly due by the end of June. A likely change in government may increase the risks perceived by investors and influence or even deter bids. The capital raise will be subject to a Value for Money (VfM) assessment. If, as reported, investors are seeking high returns, the VfM – and therefore the capital raise – is likely to fail.
  • In this event, Ministers would have to decide whether to take a FID with the taxpayer as Sizewell C’s majority stakeholder. An additional VfM assessment will be required as well as multiple internal procedural steps and approvals.

  • While Labour’s stated position is in favour of Sizewell C, the implications of having to make a FID requiring billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and which would additionally push much of the risk onto household bills via use of the RAB funding model, in addition to the impossibility of Sizewell C contributing to the goal of net zero by 2030, may give pause. Rising costs and inflation make the current government’s estimate of a Sizewell C RAB costing consumers on average £1 month improbable.
    A new government would be expected to conduct a Spending Review ahead of an autumn budget, which seems likely to also lead to a pause before any decision about a Sizewell C FID was made. 

  • Sizewell C Chair Rob Holden acknowledged the risk associated with a change in government telling the The Times recently “Clearly there has to be a risk there. There is with any big decision on this.” In the same interview Rob Holden also highlighted that further widening of the gap between Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C would reduce any replication “benefits”.
    Even in the very unlikely event a FID could be fast-tracked, pre-election guidance states that Ministers should “observe discretion” in making big announcements. This must be especially pertinent if a large commitment of taxpayers’ money was necessary for a Sizewell C FID. Having sucked up £2.5bn in taxpayers’ money already, which we understand is all committed, it’s possible yet more funds will be allocated to keep the project going over this period of uncertainty.

May 26, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Sizewell C nuclear: Uncertainty surrounds final investment decision as parliamentary session shortened

New Civil Engineer 24 MAY, 2024 BY TOM PASHBY

The final investment decision (FID) for Sizewell C has been thrown into limbo by the early dissolution of parliament, with prime minister Rishi Sunak having called an election for 4 July.

Conservative politicians were caught off guard by the announcement, made at around 5pm on 22 May. This means Parliament will dissolve on Thursday 30 May.

Earlier in the day of the General Election announcement, the energy secretary Claire Coutinho issued a written statement about the proposed nuclear power station at Wylfa in north Wales where she also commented on the in-development Suffolk nuclear station, saying: “We intend to take a final investment decision on Sizewell C before the end of this Parliament.”

It can be assumed that Coutinho was unaware that the end date of the current parliament was due to be brought forward by the calling of the general election.

Nuclear minister Andrew Bowie also said earlier this month that an FID would be announced by end of this Parliament.

With Parliament now to dissolve next Thursday, the period known as ‘wash-up’ is underway where the government tries to pass a selection of remaining pieces of legislation.

The government has to date invested £2.5bn in the project in numerous tranches but intends to find private investors to cover the majority.

The government commenced the search for investment partners in the circa £20bn project last September. It said it is seeking companies with “substantial experience in the delivery of major infrastructure projects” and added “ministers will be looking for private investors who can add value to the project and will only accept private investment if it provides value for money, while bolstering energy security”.

Potential investors were required to register their interest by early October 2023 but there has been little news in the more than half a year since.

The shortening of the current parliamentary period means there is now uncertainty about whether the government will have time to make an FID.

A government source confirmed to NCE that progress continues towards FID.

The source said the government would continue to fund the project in the pre-election period using investment funds which had already been made available and said operations at the site would be business as usual in the lead-up to polling day.

If the current government does not make an FID for Sizewell C, it will fall to the next government due to be elected on 4 July to do so. If there is a hung Parliament, there may be a further delay to the formation of a new government.

A Sizewell C spokesperson said: “We are continuing to engage with investors and prepare for FID and we are moving ahead as planned on our construction site.”

However, campaign group Stop Sizewell C believes it is now impossible for a FID to be made before the General Election.


A spokesperson for the group said that this “lets the Conservatives off the hook for signing away another HS2”.

They continued: “It also presents a likely Labour government, looking to drive down bills and reach net zero by 2030, an opportunity to focus on more cost effective renewable projects.

“We are going to do everything in our power to ensure that this election signals the death knell for slow, expensive, risky Sizewell C.”

The money invested in the Sizewell C project will look to be recouped through a regulated asset base (RAB) model for funding, which would see the investors money returned through a surcharge on consumer energy bills…………………….  https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/sizewell-c-uncertainty-surrounds-final-investment-decision-as-parliamentary-session-shortened-24-05-2024/

May 25, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Australia can learn from the American experience with nuclear power

Amory B Lovins, May 21, 2024,  https://reneweconomy.com.au/australia-can-learn-from-the-american-experience-with-nuclear-power/#google_vignette

During my current visit to Australia I’ve been surprised to see nuclear power promoted by the federal Coalition and by certain media.

Rather than fact-check the questionable claims of nuclear proponents, let me here outline the recent experience with nuclear power in my home country, the United States, and then discuss how that experience could inform the energy debate in Australia.

Nuclear power in the US is in decline. A dozen reactors have been shut down over the past decade — 41 in all. The decline will continue because US reactors average 42 years old, beyond their original design life. Of 259 US power reactors ordered since 1955, 94 are still in service; by 2017, only 28 remained competitive and hadn’t suffered at least one outage of at least a year. That’s an 11 percent success rate.

Only two nuclear power construction projects have commenced this century, and Australians should take careful note of those projects’ failure despite massive government support.

The V.C. Summer project in South Carolina, comprising two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, began construction for an estimated US$11.5bn total in 2013. It was abandoned in 2017 after costs rose to US$25bn, wasting US$9bn. Westinghouse soon filed for bankruptcy protection.

In addition to a $US9 billion hole in the ground, the V.C. Summer fiasco gave rise to the ‘nukegate’ scandal, a web of corruption that has already seen some culprits jailed with others likely to follow.

The other US reactor construction project was the Vogtle project in Georgia, also comprising two AP1000 reactors. It was recently completed but many years behind schedule and at extravagant cost, echoing similar experience in Finland, France, and the UK. 

Westinghouse said in 2006 that it could build an AP1000 reactor for as little as US$1.4 billion. The Vogtle project’s final cost was over 10 times greater at US$17.5 billion per reactor. That money that would have been far better spent on renewables and energy efficiency programs. Buying nuclear power instead displaced less fossil fuel per year and per dollar, worsening climate change.

Small modular reactors

The failure of large reactor construction projects has led the industry to pivot to so-called small modular reactors (SMRs). But SMRs don’t exist, unless you count two demonstration plants in Russia and China. SMRs are unlikely to improve the safety, security or waste problems of large reactors, and SMRs’ economics are even more unattractive than large reactors’.

NuScale Power, leading America’s most advanced SMR project, recently abandoned its flagship project in Idaho due to soaring costs despite about US$4bn in US government subsidies. With no other credible customers, the firm seems more likely to go bankrupt than to build any SMRs.

NuScale’s most recent cost estimate was an astronomical US$9.3 billion for a 462 megawatt (MW) plant with six 77-MW reactors. That’s US$20,100 per kilowatt (kW). Compare the actual 2023 market prices per kW found by leading US investment firm Lazard: US$700-1400 for utility scale solar PV and US$1025-1700 for onshore wind. 

Nuclear’s higher capital cost per kW far outweighs its greater output per kW, leaving it several-fold out of the money before counting its substantial operating costs. And including grid integration costs would actually widen nuclear’s disadvantage because its outages tend to be bigger, longer, sharper, and less predictable than solar and wind power’s variations, requiring more and costlier backup.

Other companies hoping to develop SMRs or so-called ‘advanced’ reactors are faring no better. Indeed a pro-nuclear lobby group noted late last year that efforts to commercialize a new generation of ‘advanced’ nuclear reactors “are simply not on track” and it warned nuclear enthusiasts not to “whistle past this graveyard”.

Coal-to-nuclear

The Coalition’s energy spokesperson Ted O’Brien claims that “evidence keeps mounting that a coal-to-nuclear strategy is good for host communities, and especially workers as zero-emissions nuclear plants offer more jobs and higher paying ones.”

No evidence from the US supports Mr. O’Brien’s views. Several hundred coal power plants have closed in the US since 2010 but zero have been replaced with nuclear reactors.

Mr. O’Brien has promoted Terrapower’s plan to replace coal with nuclear in Wyoming but the company is at the early stages of a licensing process and it is unclear whether finance can be secured or whether the adventurous new technology can ever get built and compete on the grid despite about US$2bn of government subsidy.

In 2009, applications for 31 new reactors were pending in the US. Nothing eventuated other than the abandoned South Carolina project and the recently completed Georgia project. No reactors — large or small — are currently under construction in the US. For the time being at least, we’re being spared the economic and climate costs of further disastrous nuclear projects.

Lessons for Australia

What lessons can Australia learn from the US experience?

Industry claims should be treated with skepticism. Early cost estimates for the Vogtle project were out by a factor of 10. Westinghouse’s claim that it could build an AP1000 reactor in “approximately 36 months” also proved to be wildly inaccurate: the Vogtle reactors took 10 and 11 years to build; closer to 20 years if you include the planning and licensing process.

Proponents claiming that Australia could have reactors operating by the mid-2030s are sadly mistaken. Most or all of Australia’s remaining coal power plants will have closed long before nuclear reactors could take their place in the energy market.

It’s vital that Australians consider the fact that you would be starting a nuclear power industry with none of the United States’ 70-plus years’ experience – despite which 42 reactor projects were abandoned, 41 built but closed, and scores now operate only thanks to government rescues. It would be folly to imagine that Australia can do better.

The point was made sharply by NSW Chief Scientist Hugh Durrant-Whyte in a 2020 report prepared for the NSW Cabinet. A former Chief Scientific Adviser at the UK Ministry of Defence, Dr Durrant-Whyte said: “The hard reality is Australia has no skills or experience in nuclear power plant building, operation or maintenance – let alone in managing the fuel cycle. Realistically, Australia will be starting from scratch in developing skills in the whole nuclear power supply chain.”

Likewise, former Australian Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel states: “Any call to go directly from coal to nuclear is effectively a call to delay decarbonisation of our electricity system by 20 years.”

I’m pleased to learn that the Australian government aims to double renewable supply to the National Energy Market to reach 82 percent by 2030. It’s especially impressive to witness the world-class renewable energy revolution in South Australia, where renewables provide 74 percent of electricity on average and the state government aims to reach 100 percent net renewables as soon as 2027.

Nuclear power is a minor distraction, adding each year at best only as much electricity supply as renewables add every few days. It has no business case or operational need anywhere. Especially it has no place in Australia’s energy future. No one who understands energy markets would claim otherwise.

Amory Lovins has been an energy advisor to major firms and governments in 70+ countries for 50+ years; has authored 31 books and about 900 papers; is an integrative designer of superefficient buildings, factories, and vehicles; and has won many of the world’s top energy and environmental awards. He is Adjunct Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University.

May 24, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics | Leave a comment

Project Veritas: White House aide admits Biden fears ‘huge Jewish influence’

The US president won’t risk angering the lobby in Washington, a security adviser told Project Veritas

Wed, 22 May 2024  https://www.rt.com/news/598009-biden-condemn-israel-veritas/

US President Joe Biden is under pressure from the Democratic Party’s progressive wing to more forcefully condemn Israel’s actions in Gaza, but will not do so unless he wins a second term in office, a National Security Council official has told Project Veritas. 

Biden’s position on Israel is the result of careful “political calculations,” National Security Council policy adviser Sterlin Waters told an undercover reporter for Project Veritas, a conservative outlet known for its hidden-camera sting operations.

On one hand, Biden and his top aides need to tell Israel that “you’re not going to continue to lie, and bomb, and kill all these kids without facing serious consequences” to placate progressive voters, Waters explained in a video published by the outlet on Tuesday. However, If Biden did this, Waters continued, he would anger the “huge, powerful Jewish influence in Republican and Democrat politics” and face a smear campaign that would cost him this November’s presidential election.

“If Biden won again he could be much more forthright about saying ‘No’,” Waters stated. “[But] that is a second-term decision.”

At present, Biden’s stance on Israel seemingly changes day to day, with the US president telling a crowd of college students on Sunday that he supports “an immediate ceasefire to stop the fighting” in Gaza, and telling reporters on Monday that “we stand with Israel to take out [Hamas leader Yahya] Sinwar and the rest of the butchers of Hamas.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu maintains that Israel can only destroy Hamas by invading Rafah, a city in southern Gaza where more than a million displaced Palestinians are currently sheltering.

Earlier this month, Biden threatened to halt the supply of weapons to Israel if Netanyahu were to order a ground invasion of Rafah, a decision that Waters said was “a political risk.”

However, while the White House froze a shipment of bombs to Israel in late April, Biden approved a different, billion-dollar arms sale – including tank ammunition and mortar rounds – to the Jewish state days after pledging to withhold future deliveries.

Israel has pounded Rafah with airstrikes for the last two weeks, in addition to launching limited ground operations in the eastern neighborhoods of the city. Netanyahu has dismissed Biden’s threat to cut off military aid, proclaiming that Israel “will fight with our fingernails” if necessary. 

Despite Netanyahu’s bluster, the prime minister’s war cabinet has shelved plans for a major offensive in Rafah and opted for a more limited approach that will minimize civilian casualties, the Washington Post reported on Monday. Israeli sources who spoke to the Post said that this approach was chosen in order to avoid angering the US.

One day before Waters’ interview was published, a US State Department official told Politico that Secretary of State Antony Blinken had ordered staffers to stop leaking details to media of confidential discussions related to the Israel-Hamas conflict.

May 24, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »