nuclear-news

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

The future of nuclear: France’s nuclear dreams or nightmares?

The Macron Government has laid out ambitious plans for its capricious nuclear sector, but such optimism should not blind us to potential challenges.

Alfie Shaw, February 5, 2024, Power Technology

t last year’s COP28 climate conference in Dubai, French President Emmanuel Macron triumphantly declared that “nuclear energy is back”.  His celebratory remark was uttered after France led a group of 20 countries in signing a pledge to “triple nuclear energy capacity from 2020 by 2050”.

Since the summit, a range of announcements and promises have been made that appear to support France’s ‘nuclear renaissance’. In November, the European Parliament backed the development of small modular reactors (SMRs), a versatile technology that many consider to be the future of the industry. Two months later, Energy Transition Minister Agnes Pannier- Runacher said that France will need to build 14 new nuclear power plants rather than the six currently planned if the country is to meet its energy transition goals.

Is all this optimism warranted? France has long been a nuclear superpower but lost its position as the world’s second-largest producer of nuclear energy to China in 2022, with the US coming in first. It is worth considering whether Macron’s positivity is justified in the context of several issues that currently beset the country’s industry, including EDF’s unpredictable performance, lack of strong allies in the European Council, slow progress on SMR development and Russian interdependence.

EDF’s annus horribilis

Électricité de France (EDF) is the French multinational electric utility company that runs the country’s 56 reactors. Throughout 2022, many were forced offline for maintenance work, causing output to fall below 1990 levels, despite installed capacity being 5GW lower at this time.

Nuclear shutdowns are in themselves not a huge cause for concern. Older power plants need to be updated with the latest technologies and France was planning on widespread shutdowns for its ‘Grand Carénage’ refurbishment programme anyway. However, the nature of these specific stoppages was worrying.

In December 2021, the discovery of cracks in the emergency core cooling systems of four of the newest French reactors led to them being shut down. The four units, which each produce 1.5GW, did not generate a single kilowatt-hour throughout 2022. Other 1.3GW reactors also showed similar symptoms, and by mid-2022, 12 additional reactors were shut down due to the same problem. In its annual electricity review, Réseau de Transport d’Électricité  highlighted the crux of the issue, stating, “these outages, or outage extensions to carry out maintenance, tests and repairs where needed, primarily involved the newest reactors in the fleet (N4 and P4 designs), i.e. reactors that were not targeted for investment in the Grand Carénage refit programme”.

Although EDF’s nuclear output was 14.8% higher in 2023 than 2022 as reactors came back online, Macron will have to square his desire for new reactors with the ongoing threat of unplanned shutdowns at existing newer plants. Mycle Schneider, nuclear analyst and author of the annual World Nuclear Status Reports, commented on the ongoing unpredictability of EDF’s output, stating: “We have repeatedly seen that EDF was off by several gigawatts of nuclear capacity availability in predictions for the following week. If you look at availability on a certain day, and then go back one week, nuclear availability is several gigawatts different to the projection made a week previously.”

Seeking international allies……………………………………………….

SMRs – a false dawn?

The creation of the EU SMR Industrial Alliance in November accentuates the blocs’ commitment to modular technology in its nuclear drive. Naturally, France led the group of 11 countries signing the alliance.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IEAE) defines SMRs as advanced nuclear fission reactors that have a power generation capacity of up to 300MW per unit – around a third of the capacity of traditional reactors. The ‘small’ and ‘modular’ nature of their design means they can be sited at locations unsuited to larger nuclear power plants. Their diminutive size is also meant to save on construction time and cost.

Despite significant optimism around the technology, little progress has been made on the ground. The most advanced SMR project in the western world was forcibly abandoned in November 2023 due to excessive costs. US-based NuScale scrapped the development with a conglomerate of Utah municipalities after the cost estimate of the project increased to $9.3bn, bringing the cost per kilowatt to $20,000 for the plant, around twice the cost of the most expensive European pressurised water reactor.

Subsequently, there are no SMRs in commercial operation in the west. Placing the EU alliance in this context, Schneider said: “We are not talking commercial contracts. It is like this alliance [EU SMR Industrial Alliance], which is kind of nice. Everybody [the 11 signatories] puts a name under it, but it does not mean anything in industrial terms.”

Even in Russia, where SMR output has been achieved (although, not commercially), there have been construction issues. The reactor took more than 12.7 years to build, more than three-times the 3.7-year target. Schneider noted that this “was not really the demonstration of easy, quick feasibility” that SMRs are meant to be. China too has two operational SMRs, but no production or cost figures on the reactors are yet available.

Overcoming Russian interdependency

Russia is still the primary constructor and exporter of nuclear reactors, with the state company Rosatom, as of mid-2023, building 24 out of the 58 constructed around the world. While France has taken part in a host of EU sanctions placed on Russian energy exports designed to curb revenue for the Kremlin’s war on Ukraine, the measures have not included sanctions on the nuclear sector………………………………………………….

While France is looking to build an alliance with EU nations that still have strong links with the Russian nuclear sector, its own institutions are also interlinked. Framatome, an EDF subsidiary, originally planned to set up a joint venture with Rosatom subsidiary TVEL to manufacture VVER fuel elements in its Lingen plant in Germany. However, in spring 2023, it became clear that the German Government would likely oppose the deal, so the Franco-Russian company was set up in France, with TVEL owning 25% of it. Advanced Nuclear Fuels, a Framatome subsidiary that operates the Lingen plant, wants to extend the manufacturing plant with a dedicated VVER-fuel production line. The Lower Saxony Government is opposed to the project, but under the Atomic Law it does not have a veto right. This leaves the decision in the hands of the federal government, which as of January 2024, has not been taken. Schneider noted the irregularity of the Framatome-Rosatom partnership, considering Framatome could have worked with Westinghouse given the US company’s capability to manufacture VVER fuel. He added that although the reason for this decision is unclear and there is limited evidence to illustrate strong reasoning, “it is quite likely to do with technical difficulties” with the Westinghouse fuel.

As France looks to expand its nuclear industry, there will be challenges, both within its domestic industry and its international relations, that the country will have to address. France’s nuclear watchdog recently said there was “lack of rigour and performance” in EDFs supply chain monitoring and this will have to improve if output is to become stable. While Italy has signalled its desire to re-establish nuclear power, if plans remain unrealised, it is unlikely to be a reliable nuclear ally within the EU council – something which France desperately needs if it is to push through nuclear friendly legislation. SMRs could become a key source of nuclear energy if on-the-ground development begins in earnest, but so far progress has been limited to hopeful pledges. As long as it remains largely dependent on the tenuous, unpredictable Russian regime for its nuclear fuel generation, France’s nuclear plans will have an insecure foundation. If France is to materialise its abstract nuclear dreams into everyday energy production, it will need to address each of these issues pragmatically. https://www.power-technology.com/news/france-has-laid-out-ambitious-nuclear-plans-but-challenges-remain/?cf-view&cf-closed

February 7, 2024 Posted by | France, politics | Leave a comment

Half of Americans think Israel going ‘too far’ in Gaza.

https://www.rt.com/news/591733-israel-gaza-too-far-poll/  5 Feb 24

Democrats were almost twice as likely as Republicans to find Israel’s bombardment of the Palestinian enclave excessive

Half of Americans think Israel’s military response to the October 7 Hamas raid has “gone too far,” according to an AP-NORC poll published on Friday. The figure represents a ten-point increase since the pollster asked the same question in November. 

Less than a third (31%) of the 1,152 poll respondents said West Jerusalem’s military actions had “been about right,” while 15% said it had not gone far enough. Both figures represent a significant decrease from November, when 38% of those polled approved of the response, and 18% said it should go further.

Democrats were almost twice as likely as Republicans to say Israel had gone too far in its bombardment of Gaza – 62%, compared to 33%. 

However, more Democrats also said the campaign had not gone far enough compared to November’s polling (9% vs 7%). Over a third (37%) of respondents said the US was too supportive of Israel. However, the majority (61%) of those who answered the survey said Hamas held “a lot” of responsibility for the war compared to just 35% who said the same about the Israeli government. A third also thought the Iranian government was significantly responsible, but just one in ten thought Washington had played a major role.

Two-thirds (67%) disapproved of President Joe Biden’s handling of the conflict, with a growing portion of Democrats speaking out against their leader (53% compared to just 39% in December).

Despite Washington’s unqualified support for Israel’s military actions in Gaza, only a little over a third (35%) of those surveyed described the nation as “an ally that shares US interests and values.” A plurality (44%) instead viewed it as “a partner that the US should cooperate with, but doesn’t share its interests and values,” while another 9% called it “a rival that the US should compete with, but that it’s not in conflict with.” Just 7% described Israel as an adversary.

Israel has killed over 27,000 Palestinians in Gaza since the war began nearly four months ago, according to the enclave’s Health Ministry, leading South Africa to accuse it of genocide in a case filed with the International Court of Justice in December. The court has since ordered West Jerusalem to prevent genocide in the territory and preserve evidence of any crimes classifiable as such. 

Israel was also ordered to alleviate the humanitarian situation for Palestinians, most of whom are considered in danger of starvation or malnutrition. Over 85% of Gaza residents have been displaced by Israeli bombardment since October.

Instead of allowing more aid into the besieged territory, Israel accused the UN’s Palestinian refugee agency, UNRWA, of aiding and abetting Hamas. This led the US and over a dozen other countries to pull funding from the already-overstretched organization.

an si

February 7, 2024 Posted by | public opinion, USA | 1 Comment

Zelensky wants to fire his top general over peace talks – Seymour Hersh

 https://www.rt.com/russia/591705-zelensky-zaluzhny-peace-talks/ 4 Feb 24

A secret plan has been hatched in Washington to bring about the Ukrainian leader’s downfall, the veteran journalist claims

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky wants to fire his top general, Valery Zaluzhny, over secret talks he has held with the West to end the conflict with Russia, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has reported, citing his sources. He also suggested that some US officials want to help Zaluzhny in a “power struggle” with Zelensky.

Numerous reports have claimed that the president fell out with the general last autumn after Zaluzhny declared in an interview that Ukraine’s much-hyped counteroffensive against Russia had ground to a “stalemate” on the battlefield. The two are also believed to have had several other disagreements regarding military issues.

While Ukrainian officials have denied reports of Zaluzhny’s imminent dismissal, following a spate of reports in Western media, CNN reported on Wednesday that it could happen as early as this week.

In an article published on Hersh’s Substack on Friday, he offered a different version of why Zelensky was seeking to boot his top general.

The Ukrainian president’s desire to fire the commander, according to Hersh, stems from “his knowledge that Zaluzhny had continued to participate… in secret talks since last fall with American and other Western officials on how best to achieve a ceasefire and negotiate an end to the war with Russia.”

At the same time, according to the article, some members of the US military and intelligence community support Zaluzhny’s peacemaking overture and want reforms in the Ukrainian government.

Hersh noted that the concept outlined by a number of US officials insists that Ukraine must embark on financial reforms, root out corruption, and improve the economy and infrastructure. However, the journalist continued, citing one official, the real plan is “far more ambitious” as it “envisions sustained support for Zaluzhny and reforms that would lead to the end of the Zelensky regime.”

According to Hersh, for this reason, the talk of firing Zelensky left some proponents of the plan “dismayed.” One official, the journalist said, described the tensions between Zelensky and Zaluzhny as “an old-fashioned power struggle.” However, they continued that “we couldn’t have gotten airborne without a willing and courageous pilot,” referring to the general.

Hersh noted that this plan was developed without the involvement of the White House, which has publicly stated it will support Ukraine “as long as it takes.” However, an unnamed US official told the reporter that Russian President Vladimir Putin is also “looking for a way out” of the conflict.

Moscow has repeatedly said that it is ready for talks with Ukraine, provided it recognizes territorial reality on the ground. Putin also stated last year that for any engagement to occur, Zelensky should cancel his decree prohibiting negotiations with the current Russian leadership.

February 6, 2024 Posted by | politics, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Czech Republic / Government Seeks Binding Tenders For Four Nuclear Reactors From EDF And KHNP

By Kamen Kraev, 1 February 2024

Prague hopes to cut down new-build costs via a ‘package’ deal

The Czech government announced on Wednesday (31 January) that it will be seeking binding bids from two technology vendors, France’s EDF and South Korea’s KHNP, for the construction of up to four new reactor units at the existing Dukovany nuclear power station……. (Subscribers only) m https://www.nucnet.org/news/government-seeks-binding-tenders-for-four-nuclear-reactors-from-edf-and-khnp-2-4-2024

February 5, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

U.S. Congress about to weaken its oversight of weapons sales to foreign countries.

 this bill would mark a major reduction in Congress’s ability to stop dangerous or ill founded weapons transfers to foreign military forces.

It would mandate that the United States build up an even larger (taxpayer funded) military industry in order to meet the world’s weapons needs in a timely manner! It would help the arms industry divert more taxpayer funds into its coffers.

Congress poised to cede more foreign weapons oversight. Why?

New bill would speed up the delivery of deadly arms while scaling back the ability of elected representatives to monitor the implications

LORA LUMPEWILLIAM HARTUNG, FEB 02, 2024,  https://responsiblestatecraft.org/congress-weapons-sales/
At a time of record U.S. weapons sales and many wars, the House Foreign Affairs Committee has decided that Congress should provide less, rather than more oversight of the booming business.

Next week, the committee is marking up the Foreign Military Sales Technical, Industrial and Governmental Engagement for Readiness Act. But don’t be fooled by the mundane title — this bill would mark a major reduction in Congress’s ability to stop dangerous or ill founded weapons transfers to foreign military forces. In short, this proposed legislation would speed up the delivery of deadly weapons while scaling back the ability of our elected representatives to assess the security implications of such transfers.

Because arms shipments are such an important part of warmaking and therefore U.S. foreign policy, current law requires the executive branch to notify Congress of proposed weapons deals over a certain dollar threshold. Congress then has 15 or 30 days — depending on whether the country is a treaty ally or not — to review the transaction before the administration can proceed.

During that review period Congress can pass a joint resolution to block the sale. Doing so is extraordinarily difficult in such a short time, and has in fact never been done. The closest Congress came was in 2019 when both the Senate and the House passed a resolution prohibiting the transfer of precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, over concerns that they would use the bombs to further devastate Yemen.

President Trump vetoed the effort, and Congress could not override his veto, showing that the legislative branch needs more, rather than less ability to challenge weapons supply to foreign armies.

But if Congress is not even notified about a sale the administration is planning, there is absolutely no chance it can block the transfer. This arms industry-backed bill the House is marking up raises the dollar threshold for notice to Congress substantially – by 66%! – and would dramatically reduce the number of potential sales Congress is told about each year.

Even without the proposed threshold increase, we know that the volume of deals that fall below Congress’s radar can be significant. 

The State Department Inspector General documented that over a four-year period at the height of their brutal intervention in Yemen the administration provided more than $11 billion dollars in weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and UAE that fell below the congressional notification threshold. This included equipment that Congress had placed holds on due to concerns over the devastating impact on civilians. Congress was not aware of these transfers at the time they occurred.

So you might ask: What problem is Congress seeking to address with this bill? Why should Congress decide to receive less rather than more information about proposed deadly weapons transfers? Proponents suggest that raising the threshold simply keeps up with inflation and allows U.S. companies to remain competitive.

But U.S. weapons companies already dominate the global arms trade, so the idea that maintaining current levels of minimal congressional vetting will hurt their competitiveness doesn’t pass muster.

Others say that this notification process slows sales down. But the State Department is already approving 95% of government-negotiated Foreign Military Sales (FMS) cases within 48 hours and has seen record increases in both FMS and industry-direct arms sales over the last several years.

In addition to exempting more sales from its own oversight, with this bill Congress would require the secretary of state to take weapons from U.S. government stocks for delivery to foreign forces in cases where the production and delivery of the weapons is taking more than three years. It would achieve this through the use of “Drawdown Authority,” an emergency mechanism used at a very large scale to move weapons from U.S. stockpiles to Ukraine over the past two years.

Specifically, it would require the administration to take weapons from U.S. stockpiles if arms are not delivered within three years of when Congress is notified of a potential sale. This provision would establish an arbitrary time commitment that fails to reflect the many concerns that may arise in the intervening period — such as a change in government, the outbreak of war, or serious human rights violations or widespread civilian harm by the recipient government forces.

It would also prioritize foreign armies over that of the United States. What problem is this addressing? Answer: It would mandate that the United States build up an even larger (taxpayer funded) military industry in order to meet the world’s weapons needs in a timely manner! It would help the arms industry divert more taxpayer funds into its coffers.

In sum, if Congress were to pass this bill, it would have less knowledge of which weapons are being transferred to which countries, and less ability to ensure that transfers are consistent with U.S. law, policy, and interests. Trashing this bill should be Congress’s first step towards taking back more power to review and block foreign weapons deals, not less.

February 5, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Hinkley C – don’t say I didn’t warn you!

In 2016, I called for Hinkley C to be scrapped. Now its commissioning has been pushed back to the end of the decade and its costs have ballooned to as much as £48 billion in 2024 money. I was right.

MICHAEL LIEBREICH, JAN 25, 2024

“The case for Hinkley Point C has collapsed: It’s time to scrap it.” This was the title of an article I wrote for City AM in July 2016.

The story so far

For those who have forgotten those heady days, a quick recap. July 2016 was one month after the UK voted for Brexit. Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne (whose pet project was Hinkley C, aided by energy minister in the previous Coalition government and currently LibDem leader, Ed Davey) had resigned. Theresa May had just taken over as Prime Minister.

The project already had a ghastly history. In the early 2000s, the nuclear industry, with French champion Areva in the lead (later driven into bankruptcy by cost overruns at Flamanville and Olkiluoto and rescued by EDF in 2017), announced a “Nuclear Renaissance” and was lobbying for a new build programme in the UK to replace aging plants set for retirement. In the absence of evidence, they claimed new plants would produce power for £24 per MWh (£39/MWh in 2024 money, or $50/MWh).

The Labour Party, long dead set against nuclear power, were convinced. In January 2008, Prime Minister Gordon Brown declared, in the preface to a White Paper on nuclear power entitled “Meeting the Energy Challenge” that “nuclear should have a role to play in the generation of electricity, alongside other low carbon technologies.” The White Paper estimated the total cost of building a 1.6GW nuclear plant at £2.8 billion – which would translate into £5.6 billion for Hinkley C’s 3.2GW (£9.0 billion or $11.5 billion in 2024 money).

EDF’s UK CEO Vincent de Rivaz was cock-a-hoop, predicting that Brits would be cooking their turkeys with power from Hinkley C by Christmas 2017. But remember that figure – £9.0 billion for 3.2GW.

By October 2013, Osborne and Davey had agreed a Contract for Difference with EDF for electricity production at a strike price of £92.50/MWh in 2012 money (£132/MWh in today’s money or $169/MWh) – rising with inflation for 35 years, but dropping to £87.50 (£125/MWh in today’s money or $173/MWh) if a second EPR were to be built. That EPR is Sizewell C – of which more later.

At that point, Hinkley C was expected to cost £16 billion in 2015 money (£22 billion in 2024 money or $28 billion). It was due to come online in 2023 and continue cooking Christmas turkeys for 60 years.

Since then, on five separate occasions EDF has announced that costs have increased, and the commissioning date pushed back. The only delay which was not fully in the control of EDF and it suppliers in the nuclear and construction industries was Covid – which can be blamed for around a year of delay and a couple of billion of cost increase, but not more.

Last week – yet another delay and cost increase

……………………. Now, I know that supporters of the project and hard-core nuclear fans will be bursting blood vessels at this point, desperate to jump in an explain that most of the difference between £9 billion and nearly £50 billion is down to financing cost resulting from the use of the CfD mechanism, regulatory cost, delay in government decision-making and so on. But I’m going to say it: I don’t care……………………………

How big things (don’t) get done

It is not like cost over-runs in nuclear projects are a big secret. The world’s leading academic expert on project management is Danish Professor Bent Flyvbjerg, author of How Big Things Get Done, who joined me on Cleaning Up last year. Having build a huge database of projects of different sources, he can definitively show that nuclear plants are worse only than Olympic Games in terms of cost over-runs. On average they go 120% over the budget, with 58% of them going a whopping 204% over budget.

The common trope among nuclear fans is that it is only in the western world that nuclear new build is either problematic or exorbitantly expensive, and this is driven by excessive regulation.

While excessive delays in emerging nuclear powers are certainly less common, there is no transparency over how this is achieved. There are ample examples of problems: the use of fake certification documents, the sealing of deals for reactor sales by military inducements, cutting corners on safety, failure to maintain control of the fuel supply chain, failure to disclose problems and accidents; unexplained accidents on aging plants.

There is also no transparency over the real cost of their plants. Put simply, these are are whatever their leaders say they are: it is they who decide the cost of capital, state guarantees, whether safety standards meet or exceed international standards, whether safety standards are enforced, the environmental standards applied to the supply chain, the speed projects proceed through licencing, the need or not to provision for decommissioning costs, the diversion of costs to military, energy or industrial budgets, and so on.

Back to 2016

Now let’s get back to Hinkley C, and 2016. One of the first things Theresa May did when she took over from David Cameron was to ask her security advisors to review the wisdom of allowing state-owned China General Nuclear to invest £6 billion in the project. In the end May backed down and allowed the investment to go ahead, but that is the background to my piece: the project’s future was in doubt, and it was the last realistic chance to kill it before tens of billions of pounds had been invested. And this is what I wrote: The case for Hinkley Point C has collapsed: It’s time to scrap it.

………………………………………………………………. It is worth remembering that while construction costs are in the £42 to £48 billion range, the 35 years of electricity at £87.50 or £92.50/MW in 2012 money, adjusted for inflation will cost UK energy users a gargantuan £111 or £116 billion over the next 35 years. Could we use that money better? You bet.

Summary

So there you have it. 2016 was a missed opportunity, most likely the last opportunity to scrap the benighted project, one of the worst blunders in the history of public procurement and of the UK’s energy industry.

Does that mean we should scrap it now? It’s almost certainly too late. EDF has probably spent so much on the project, that the net present value of its revenues exceeds the remaining cost to bring the project to completion

What I do know is that the UK must resist the French government demands that it put its hand in the public pocket for yet more money to support the project. The whole point of the structure put in place, with its super-generous and inflation-protected CfD strike price, was that EDF was to bear the risk of cost over-runs. These will come back to bite UK energy users in the form of higher power costs from Sizewell C, should that project go ahead. If the UK taxpayers have to bear the cost of cost over-runs, let’s just nationalise and be done with any pretence that the market bears any risk from nuclear power projects.

I know many will say I am just being anti-nuclear.

No, I’m pro-nuclear……..

………………… to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, “if Hinkley C, Flamanville, Olkiluoto and Vogtle are the way the nuclear industry treats its projects, it does not deserve to have any”.  https://mliebreich.substack.com/p/hinkley-c-dont-say-i-didnt-warn-you

February 5, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Holtec to get $1.5 bln loan to re-open Michigan nuclear power plant -source

By Timothy Gardner, February 1, 2024

Jan 30 (Reuters) – Holtec International is set to get a $1.5 billion conditional loan in February from the U.S. Energy Department to help it restart the Palisades nuclear power plant in Michigan, a person with knowledge of the matter said on Tuesday.

The loan from the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office (LPO) is likely to be announced in late February, the person said, declining to be identified as the information was not yet public.

The energy technology firm said it was “optimistic” about the federal loan process, which would help the company re-open a closed U.S. nuclear power plant for the first time in history.

“We hope for a timely approval to bring the plant back to full power operation toward the end of 2025,” said Holtec spokesperson Nick Culp, declining to comment on the size or timing of the loan.

Florida-based Holtec bought Palisades in 2022 from Entergy (ETR.N), opens new tab to decommission the plant after it struggled to compete with natural gas-fired plants and renewable energy……………………………………

Bloomberg first, opens new tab reported that the administration was poised to loan the company $1.5 billion as soon as next month, citing sources………………….

The Biden administration earlier this month finalized $1.1 billion in credits to keep PG&E Corp’s (PCG.N), opens new tab Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in operation in California…………….more https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/holtec-get-15-bln-loan-re-open-michigan-nuclear-power-plant-source-2024-01-31/

February 4, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

How not to go nuclear: Hinkley and Sizewell

by DAVID HOWELL

David Howell: This is not just a matter of finding the cash to meet the
enormous budget overrun. The Chinese payments halt at Hinkley leaves a
growing gap. Love or hate them nowadays, they have already been edged out
of the Sizewell plan (they were actually paid £100m to leave), so the very
large Chinese contribution there will also have to be found from elsewhere.

But EDF has no more money, and the French think the British Government
should open its chequebook. HM Treasury thinks no such thing. So, to
repeat, who is going to fill the gap?

Copying Hinkley, and certainly copying its financial story, looks less attractive by the day. The British hope is that at Sizewell a new financial model, requiring consumers and
customers to pay extra for years in advance for their electricity, will
entice in investors, to replace the Chinese. One allegedly interested
“private investor” is said to be the not-so-private United Arab
Emirates government. But is that the kind of swap — the very non-aligned
UAE in place of the Chinese — that we need?

 The Article 29th Jan 2024

https://www.thearticle.com/how-not-to-go-nuclear-hinckley-and-sizewell

February 4, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Hinkley Point shambles shows why UK must scrap disastrous nuclear strategy. 

Energy spokesperson Mark Ruskell is accusing Tories and Labour of wasting billions of pounds on nuclear technology

The UK government must scrap its disastrous nuclear strategy in light of the shambolic saga of the Hinkley Point power station, says the Scottish Greens climate spokesperson, Mark Ruskell MSP.

The call follows revelations that the Hinkley Point project has been hit by yet another delay of up to four more years, and that it could cost an eye watering £46 billion.

This month the UK government announced plans for the biggest expansion on nuclear energy for 70 years.

Mr Ruskell said: “Hinkley Point C has been a shambolic money pit. It’s been hit by delay after delay and the costs are escalating at an alarming rate. Nobody can say with any confidence when it will go live or how much money will have been wasted on it.

“Yet, the UK government wants to throw even more time and money into an unsafe, unreliable and eye-wateringly expensive energy source that will leave a terrible legacy for future generations.

“The climate crisis is happening all around us. We don’t have time to waste on a disastrous nuclear strategy. Renewable energy is the cleanest, greenest and cheapest energy available, that is what all governments should be focusing on.

“That is what we are doing with Scottish Greens in government in Scotland. Yet the Tories and Labour are committed to wasting billions of pounds on nuclear technology.”

February 4, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Democrats press Blinken on arms sales to Israel without congressional approval

The Hill BY NICK ROBERTSON – 01/29/24

A bicameral coalition of nearly 20 Democrats urged the State Department on Monday to provide information on the Biden administration’s decisions to sell arms to Israel amid its ongoing war with Hamas without explicit congressional approval.

The letter, led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), increases pressure on the Biden White House from Democrats concerned with the U.S. role in the Gaza conflict, which has raged since Hamas’s attack in early October. 

The Biden administration has bypassed congressional notification on Israel arms sales twice, raising concerns among the lawmakers.

The members of Congress “shared the world’s horror” over the violence of Hamas militants but are also “deeply disturbed” over Israel’s “indiscriminate bombing” of Palestinians in Gaza, the letter says.

“It is essential for Congress to be able to conduct oversight of these arms transfers and determine whether they are consistent with humanitarian principles and U.S. law, and whether they advance or harm U.S. national security,” the letter reads.

“It is highly unusual for the president to bypass congressional oversight through an emergency declaration,” it continues. “In fact, since the [Arms Export Control Act] was passed into law, an emergency declaration authority has only been used 18 times in nearly 50 years.”

The lawmakers drew attention to the mass civilian casualties in the conflict, and the use of U.S. munitions in strikes that killed civilians. More than 25,000 Palestinians have been killed in the conflict, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.

“We are also troubled by the decision to provide equipment for 155mm shells, which over 30 U.S.-based civil society organizations warned poses ‘a grave risk to civilians’ and are ‘inherently indiscriminate’ when used in densely populated areas like Gaza,” the letter reads. 

Specifically, the letter demands Secretary of State Antony Blinken provide official explanations for why the administration chose to pursue emergency transfers of arms instead of the standard procedure of congressional notification. 

“Congress and the American public deserve thorough answers on how this policy was applied for these two emergency transfers,” the lawmakers continued. “Use of a national emergency waiver does not exempt the U.S. government from assessing whether arms sales are consistent with these policies.”

Warren and McGovern were joined on the letter by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Reps. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Maxine Waters (D-Fla.), and 11 other lawmakers……………..https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4435699-democrats-blinken-arms-sales-to-israel-congressional-approval/

February 4, 2024 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG) firmly contradicts Therese Coffey, MP on Bradwell as a nuclear site.

 Therese Coffey MP suggests Bradwell is a large brownfield site. In fact,
the site is occupied by the long closed Bradwell A power station now in the
process of decommissioning before being returned to greenfield land use.

Perhaps her most preposterous assertion is that ‘Bradwell has hosted
nuclear power and hopes to do so again in the future’. In fact, the
communities and Councils around the Blackwater estuary in Essex are
overwhelmingly against new nuclear development at Bradwell.

Many years ago, BANNG gathered 10,000 signatures face-to-face for a petition against new
nuclear development at Bradwell which was taken to Whitehall. Since then,
the Chinese developer, CGN, has withdrawn its proposals for a massive new
nuclear power station in the face of implacable hostility from the local
community.

‘Therese Coffey would do well to check her facts and look to
her own backyard and devote her campaigning against the destruction of the
Suffolk coast by the giant Sizewell C nuclear power station project, with
its long-term stores of radioactive wastes, rather than seek to impose
unwanted infrastructure on the precious marshlands of Essex.’

 BANNG 31st Jan 2023

Click to access PR_Banng_tells_MP_310124.pdf

February 4, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, politics, UK | Leave a comment

France limits its investment in Britain’s Sizewell C, as the global nuclear industry requires massive government subsidies

Why are nuclear power projects so challenging? Increasing nuclear energy
capacity is not easy. Projects across the globe have been fraught with
delays and budget overruns, with the Financial Times revealing last week
that France is pressing the UK to help fill budget shortfalls at the
Hinkley Point C project in England, being built by EDF.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) says nuclear projects starting between 2010 and 2020
are on average three years late, even as it forecasts nuclear power
generation will hit a record high next year and will need to more than
double by 2050. Technical issues, shortages of qualified staff,
supply-chain disruptions, strict regulation and voter pushback are the key
factors developers and governments are grappling with. In the US, Georgia
Power is scheduled to complete work within weeks on the second of two
gigantic new nuclear reactors that are at the vanguard of US plans to
rebuild its nuclear energy industry.

But the expansion of Plant Vogtle is
seven years late and has cost more than double the original price tag of
$14bn due to a series of construction problems, highlighting the complexity
of nuclear megaprojects. These complexities, high costs and long build
times — as well as strict regulation due to risks of nuclear accidents
— make nuclear power a daunting prospect for many investors.

As a result, the sector is heavily subsidised by governments. Many reactor suppliers for
large-scale projects are state-owned, working alongside the private sector
to build the full plant. But countries also have a limit on how much they
are willing to spend. EDF, now fully owned by the French state, will limit
its stake in its next planned UK plant, Sizewell C, to 20 per cent.

 FT 1st Feb 2024

https://www-ft-com.ezproxy.depaul.edu/content/6d371375-b7be-4228-a3d5-2ad74f91454a

February 3, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, France, politics | Leave a comment

Ford Government Issues Blank Cheque for Nuclear Power, Shows Reckless Disregard for Nuclear Waste Generation

North Bay – Today’s announcement to refurbish four reactors at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station is being heralded as a colossal failure in governance by groups concerned about the large volume of highly radioactive wastes that will be generated.

Rebuilding the four aging reactors to allow an additional 30 years of operation will cost the province’s ratepayers many billion dollars – the Minister refused to estimate the total cost – and will add to the growing stockpile of highly radioactive nuclear fuel waste and refurbishment wastes.

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), a consortium of nuclear utilities led by Ontario Power Generation, has been working on a plan to construct a deep geological repository for Canada’s reactor fuel wastes for over twenty years, but is still at the “concept” stage and has yet to secure a site for the proposed used fuel processing facility and the underground complex of tunnels where the waste would be placed. 

There was not a single word of acknowledgement that this refurbishment will generate large volumes of high-level radioactive waste which will require care and containment into the far, far future. The Mayor of Pickering professed that his municipality is a willing host for the refurbishment project, but there is no willing host for the wastes it will generate,” commented Brennain Lloyd, a spokesperson with the northern Ontario based environmental coalition Northwatch.

The NWMO is currently investigating two “candidate” sites for its proposed deep geological repository project, one in northwestern Ontario between Ignace and Dryden, and one in southwestern Ontario in the municipality of South Bruce.


The NWMO has not produced a detailed plan for its DGR and key parts of the project are still at the “concept” stage, but the NWMO’s plans to date have been premised on the current fleet of reactors without the refurbishment of the four reactors at Pickering.

“Refurbishing four reactors at Pickering has a large impact on the NWMO’s plan, and should send the NWMO back to square 1 in terms of informing the potential host regions about the NWMO project and its timeline and impacts. It significantly adds to the length of operations and the radiological burden that will be imposed upon those along the transportation route and in the area of the proposed facilities”, Lloyd added.

Over the 30-year operating period an additional half-million radioactive fuel bundles would be added to the inventory the NWMO has been estimating to be 5.5 million. That additional volume would mean an additional 2,265 truckloads of highly radioactive waste and add more than 900 days of operation to the used fuel packaging plant, which is expected to release radionuclides into the local environment.

Since 2021 the NWMO has been projecting that the last shipments of waste would leave Pickering in 2050, but the refurbishment would mean radioactive waste would still require interim on-site storage until at least 2105, pushing it past the 2088 date for final receipt of waste at the NWMO’s DGR site.

Residents along the transportation routes and in the vicinity of the two sites being investigated are concerned about the low levels of radiation that will emanate from  each of  the 2-3 truck shipments per day, the risk of transportation accidents, the radioactive releases from the processing facility and by ventilating  air from the underground facility unfiltered to the surface, and releases from the underground repository to ground and surface water. The NWMO has acknowledged in its own reports that the used fuel containers will fail over time.

February 3, 2024 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

Cracks appear in Labour-Green alliance over claims that Heysham power stations letter was ‘reckless’

Cracks have appeared in an alliance between Labour and the Greens after a
letter calling for the lives of Heysham Power Stations to be extended was
branded “reckless”. Lancaster City Council leader Phillip Black was also
accused of “operating outside the terms of a collaboration agreement”
between Labour and the Greens, who between them form the majority of the
council’s coalition cabinet.

Councillor Jack Lenox of the Greens also said
it was “completely inappropriate for Councillor Black to suggest that
pressure on the council’s budget should be a factor in extending the lives
of these nuclear power stations”. Councillor Black, from Labour, has
responded by accusing the Greens of “Machievellian nonsense” and making
“baseless accusations”.

Beyond Radio 30th Jan 2024

https://www.beyondradio.co.uk/news/local-news/cracks-appear-in-labour-green-alliance-over-claims-that-heysham-power-stations-letter-was-reckless

February 3, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

The Future of Pickering Nuclear Generating Station and Its Impacts on Ontario

News Networl Ledger ,By James Murray, January 30 2024

THUNDER BAY – POLITICS – The Ontario government has recently announced its support for Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG) plan to refurbish the “B” units (units 5-8) of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. ………………………………………………… Energy Minister Todd Smith emphasized the role of this refurbishment in attracting global business, noting that it would help Ontario compete for significant investments……………………………………………………..

Concerns and Challenges

However, this announcement has also raised concerns. Groups like Northwatch have criticized the plan for its potential environmental impact, particularly regarding the generation of highly radioactive waste. Brennain Lloyd, a spokesperson for Northwatch, expressed concerns about the absence of a long-term plan for managing this waste.

“Rebuilding the four aging reactors to allow an additional 30 years of operation will cost the province’s ratepayers many billion dollars – the Minister refused to estimate the total cost – and will add to the growing stockpile of highly radioactive nuclear fuel waste and refurbishment wastes,” states Northwatch.

“The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), a consortium of nuclear utilities led by Ontario Power Generation, has been working on a plan to construct a deep geological repository for Canada’s reactor fuel wastes for over twenty years, but is still at the “concept” stage and has yet to secure a site for the proposed used fuel processing facility and the underground complex of tunnels where the waste would be placed”.

“There was not a single word of acknowledgement that this refurbishment will generate large volumes of high-level radioactive waste which will require care and containment into the far, far future. The Mayor of Pickering professed that his municipality is a willing host for the refurbishment project, but there is no willing host for the wastes it will generate,” commented Brennain Lloyd, a spokesperson with the northern Ontario based environmental coalition Northwatch.

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is currently investigating potential sites for a deep geological repository to store Canada’s reactor fuel wastes. The additional waste from the refurbished Pickering reactors complicates this plan, potentially requiring a reassessment of the NWMO’s project and its impacts.

Residents along the transportation routes and near the proposed repository sites are worried about radiation exposure, transportation accidents, and environmental releases from the processing facility and underground storage.

Regulatory Oversight and Future Steps

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) will oversee the regulatory approval process for the refurbishment, ensuring a rigorous and transparent review. The project will only proceed if it aligns with the best interests of Ontario and its ratepayers.

…………….  The decision to move forward with this project will have long-lasting implications for the province, both in terms of its energy landscape and its environmental footprint.  https://www.netnewsledger.com/2024/01/30/the-future-of-pickering-nuclear-generating-station-and-its-impacts-on-ontario/

February 2, 2024 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »