Ukraine steps up preparations for new nuclear reactors (NO this is not a joke!)
WNN 23 January 2023
The Cabinet of Ministers in Ukraine has given the go-ahead to begin work on project documentation for the construction of two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at the Khmelnitsky nuclear power plant.
Ukraine’s Minister of Energy, Herman Halushchenko, said the decision was a key moment for the country.
He said: “The Cabinet of Ministers decided that we are starting to develop technical documentation for a new type of reactors that have never been built in Ukraine. In other words, we have ended the era of the creation of nuclear energy based on Soviet technology.”
According to the country’s energy’s ministry, the target date to complete construction and start-up of the two power units at Khmelnitsky is 2030-2032, subject to the impact of the current war. It estimates the cost of each unit at about USD5 billion. Then cabinet decision means that a technical and economic feasibility study and other project documentation can be taken forward……………………………………….
In June last year, Energoatom agreed to increase from five to nine the number of Westinghouse AP1000 reactors to be built in the country, which will include unit 5 and unit 6 at Khmelnitsky, plus a switch to supply all of the country’s nuclear fuel………………………….more https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Ukraine-begins-preparations-for-first-AP1000-react
French government moves to fully nationalise the nuclear industry
The French state acquired enough EDF shares on the market to start
squeeze-out proceedings as it fully nationalises the nuclear energy giant,
the finance ministry said on Friday.
The government now holds 92.71% of
voting rights in EDF, the ministry said, marking the successful end of the
full takeover proceedings, launched by President Emmanuel Macron’s
government last summer, which cost Paris some $10 million.
Debt-laden EDF, Europe’s biggest nuclear power operator, runs France’s nuclear reactor
fleet, some hydropower plants and other production sites and supplies
millions of households with electricity. Its de-listing from the Paris
stock market will be the end of an era for the utility which was partially
privatised in 2005, when a chunk of its share capital was floated at 33
euros ($35.82) a share.
Reuters 20th Jan 2023
Nuclear Regulatory Commission certifies NuScam’s design for small nuclear reactor, despite predictions on uneconomic costs
1st small modular nuclear reactor certified for use in US
AP News, By JENNIFER McDERMOTT, January 21, 2023
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has certified the design for what will be the United States’ first small modular nuclear reactor.
The rule that certifies the design was published Thursday in the Federal Register. It means that companies seeking to build and operate a nuclear power plant can pick the design for a 50-megawatt, advanced light-water small modular nuclear reactor by Oregon-based NuScale Power and apply to the NRC for a license.
It’s the final determination that the design is acceptable for use, so it can’t be legally challenged during the licensing process when someone applies to build and operate a nuclear power plant, NRC spokesperson Scott Burnell said Friday. The rule becomes effective in late February………
It’s the seventh nuclear reactor design cleared for use in the United States. The rest are for traditional, large, light-water reactors………….. The first small modular reactor design application package included over 2 million pages of supporting materials………..
However, David Schlissel at the Ohio-based Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis expressed concerns about the costs. Schlissel, who has studied the history of the nuclear power industry and the finances of the NuScale project, expects they will continue to go up, which could limit how many NuScale reactors are built. He said he thinks they’re not competitive in price with renewables and battery storage.
………… The U.S. Energy Department said it provided more than $600 million since 2014 to support the design, licensing and siting of NuScale’s VOYGR small modular reactor power plant and other domestic small reactor concepts. ……………………………..
Jeremy in nuclear wonderland
Tim Ambler, Adam Smith Institute 20 Jan 23
MPs on the Commons’ science and technology select committee heard yesterday that the establishment of Great British Nuclear has been delayed due to friction between the business department and the Treasury over the budget for new projects. Given we know that all of the UK’s eight nuclear power plants are due to shut by 2028, apart from Sizewell B, which is closing in 2035, the need for new nuclear power is imperative.[really?] Especially when five of these are still providing about 13% of the UK’s electricity.
A new one (Hinkley Point C) is under construction but “reports surfaced this week suggesting that the nuclear power station in Somerset will not be operational until 2036, 11 years after its original 2025 completion date.” The other new one (Sizewell C) is a replica of Hinkley Point C and has been under consideration for 12 years and the government hopes to make a final decision by 2025. Being a replica should make Sizewell C easier and cheaper to build but, unfortunately Hinkley Point C has technical problems and duplicating Sizewell B would have been a better bet.
Britain’s chaotic approach to nuclear energy can all be laid at the door of HM Treasury. Prime Minister Johnson recognised the need to action and, in March 2022, grabbed a target of 24GW for nuclear out of the air which, he claimed, would be 25% of electricity demand – a not unreasonable baseload given the volatility of renewables. Unfortunately, then-Chancellor Sunak forgot to mention that electricity met only 20% of our energy demands and would have to supply nearly 100% by 2050. So 25% of demand needs more like 56GW than 24GW and, furthermore, someone seems now to have cunningly inserted “up to” before the 24GW.
Johnson also announced that a new organisation would take charge of delivering this nuclear programme pronto, Great British Nuclear (GBN). Apparently GBN has a shopping list of what it needs to get going but the public are not allowed to see it. HM Treasury is concerned that GBN wants to spend money.
So the current plans are to decide (maybe) to add two more Sizewell Bs or Cs in the next Parliament, i.e. by 2030, and hope they are up and running by 2050. So we’ll have four operational 2.3GW plants by 2050, i.e. 13.2 GW – well they only said “up to”. Note that the plans only encompass when decisions might be made – not when the plants might be generating electricity………..
The Treasury nuclear wonderland has two stand-out features: delaying the commissioning of nuclear generators, ostensibly to save taxes, as discussed above, and ensuring users pay twice as much as the French or Americans to restrain our enthusiasm for buying electricity at all. It does that in three ways. The first is fixing the way wholesale electricity prices are set so that everyone pays the most expensive tender price to the National Grid rather than (as other auctions work) the lowest.
Then it adds the “Green Levy” alongside other taxes so that today’s consumers pay for the electricity used by the next generation of consumers. Never mind renewables being cheaper, today’s consumers have to pay a premium for it.
The third way today’s consumers are hit with future costs is the “Regulated Asset Base” (RAB) model HM Treasury will use to finance Sizewell C and all future nuclear power plants. This is the successor to the Private Finance Initiative which financed £12 billion of English hospital building at a cost to the taxpayer, by the time the idea was dropped in 2018, of £79 billion in repayments. Only it is worse. The idea, like the Green Levy, is that today’s electricity user pays for tomorrow’s consumption inflated by City profits. Someone seems to have conceived the idea that if we all pay a lot more for our electricity today, it won’t hurt when the zero carbon costs hit us in 2050.
The bottom line of all this is that the Treasury’s ducking and diving is hugely damaging for today’s and future electricity users and preventing any sane nuclear policy being implemented. https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/jeremy-in-nuclear-wonderland
“Great British Nuclear “- it’s high time that they came clean on what this will cost.
Bowen is right to think Britain’s nuclear plans will require “substantial” taxpayer support.
It’s high time the government spelt out how much financial fuel it’s willing to burn.
Maybe Great British Nuclear will prove as successful as Great British
Railways: another government invention still stuck in the sidings while the
strike-bound network grinds to a halt.
But at least Simon Bowen is after an
improvement on that. Who he? The industry adviser picked by ministers to
make their nuclear nirvana a reality. He’s setting up GBN, the “flagship
body” to corral the construction of up to 24 gigawatts of new capacity by
2050: a shopping list, he says, that will involve at least three more
mega-nukes on top of Hinkley Point C, plus a litter of small modular
reactors.
As he told MPs on the science committee, the new body will be the
“glue within the industry to drive the nuclear programme”. Always
assuming it gets set up, of course — because you can already sense
Bowen’s frustration with the government.
In a post-Ukraine war push for
energy security, it was Boris Johnson who declared that Britain should
“go nuclear and go large”, not that he spelt out the eye-popping costs
to the taxpayer. But Bowen’s report into how the new body should work,
complete with 25 recommendations, has since been passed from Liz Truss to
Rishi Sunak and deemed top secret.
To boot, from the latest PM he sees no
“overarching strategy” on what’s needed for energy security: the
“quantum of nuclear” or other technologies. That’s crucial because
“the investment required in nuclear is substantial”, he says, with the
same stuff underpinning successful international projects: “A substantial
amount of government leadership and fiscal support, not just in terms of
financing but who bears the risk.”
No private financier can see how
Sizewell gets built without the government injecting £5 billion-plus equity
and insulating investors from most construction risk. Build three big nukes
and you treble that problem before taking on small modular reactors — an
untried technology to which Rolls-Royce’s new boss, Tufan Erginbilgic,
seems disinclined to bring blue-sky finance. Add it up and Bowen is right
to think Britain’s nuclear plans will require “substantial” taxpayer
support. It’s high time the government spelt out how much financial fuel
it’s willing to burn.
Times 19th Jan 2023
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/great-british-nuclear-puts-treasury-on-alert-jjt987rlr
Slovenia’s nuclear power plant gets permit for a 20 year operating extension
nsion
Krško nuclear power plant has obtained an environmental permit for its
lifetime extension from 40 to 60 years. The only NPP in Slovenia will be so
able to operate until 2043.
European Nuclear Society 17th Jan 2023
France’s new law on nuclear energy will be a gift to the nuclear lobby.
The new nuclear law, under debate in the Senate, is a gift offered to the atom lobby. And the majority on the right could further strengthen it. The public debate on the creation of new EPR2 nuclear reactors is not yet over and the government already wants to speed up their construction.
OnTuesday, January 17, his bill for an “ambitious and sustainable” nuclear revival will be presented to the Senate. The text proposes various technical measures to simplify the development of EPR2s . But above all, it sends a political signal: the government is in working order to advance its cause. Even if it means radically changing the deadlines for administrative authorizations, the legal procedures and the frameworks of environmental democracy.
When presenting her bill to the Economic Affairs Committee , Agnès Pannier-Runacher first began by apologizing. “I’m sorry, it’s a horribly technical text… But the modalities for reviving nuclear power
will go through unattractive considerations , ” she continued. For her, the current difficulties of nuclear power – its slowness and its high cost – would be, above all, linked to bureaucratic and normative heavinesses that it would be a question of doing away with.
“It’s important that the cost of this new program be competitive, which is much easier said than done ,” she
said. Renewable energies have an exit cost of 60 to 80 euros (MWh) and this is the price level that should be had for nuclear power.
Reporterre 17th Jan 2023 https://reporterre.net/Tapis-rouge-pour-le-nucleaire-au-Senat
Mini nuclear reactor firm snubs Britain for the French: Newcleo blames political chaos for decision to build prototype across Channel
Britain’s nuclear power ambitions suffered another setback as a UK company
chose France to build its prototype reactor. Newcleo blamed political
upheaval in Westminster for its decision. The mini-nuclear power station
company said it waited in vain for ministers to give the green light over
where to site the project – leaving it no option but to take the work over
the Channel.
The move will cost hundreds of potential UK jobs and casts
further doubt on the country’s nuclear future. Speaking at the World
Economic Forum in Davos, Newcleo chief executive Stefano Buono told the
Mail: ‘Changing government three times has not helped. ‘We were
expecting a decision before, but I understand that when the government
changes, it’s very difficult to take decisions.’ Britain is scrambling to
replace its fleet of six large nuclear plants, five of which are due for
closure by 2028 and one, Sizewell B, in 2035.
Hopes for the mini-nuclear sector were raised by Boris Johnson’s plans for a government-backed body
called Great British Nuclear (GBN) to support the development of new sites.
Speaking in the Commons yesterday, the former prime minister urged the
Government ‘to exploit this country’s technological lead and build a
fleet of small modular nuclear reactors as part of our Great British
Nuclear programme’. Business Secretary Grant Shapps said GBN would be up
and running shortly and said small modular reactors would play ‘an
important part’ in boosting nuclear power supplies. The Government wants 25
per cent of power to come from nuclear by 2050. Last year it supplied 15.5
per cent. Privately-owned Newcleo, which is about to launch a £900million
funding round, is one of a number of companies planning to build
mini-nuclear power stations around the UK.
Daily Mail 17th Jan 2023
A bit of panic in the UK small nuclear reactor lobby?
‘No regrets?”
Quite a lot of people have regrets about the introduction of nuclear power.
And that’s even when the reactor types have been tested.
The new gee-whiz nuclear reactors haven’t even been tested.
Pipeline of ‘no-regrets’ new nuclear schemes needs ‘expediting’
New Civil Engineer16 JAN, 2023 BY ROB HORGAN
A pipeline of “no-regrets” new nuclear schemes must be fast-tracked if the UK is to meet its net zero carbon emission targets, according to an independent [how independent?] review set up to assess the UK’s decarbonisation plans.
It is one of 129 recommendations made by former energy minister Chris Skidmore in his government-ordered net zero review titled Mission Zero.
The report calls for the formation of Great British Nuclear (GBN) to be “expedited in early 2023” so that a “clear roadmap” of future schemes can be developed this year to tackle “rising power demand”.
The government first announced its intention to set up GBN to develop a project pipeline in its British Energy Security Strategy published in April last year.
Skidmore concludes that speeding up the formation of GBN will address industry concerns about a “lack of clarity on the pathway” to achieving the UK government’s ambition for nuclear energy to provide a quarter of power consumed within the country. (Nuclear energy currently supplies 15% of the UK’s power needs.)
The review concludes: “Building new nuclear is a no-regrets option, despite high upfront costs and long construction times”……………….
- YOU ARE HERE:LATEST
Pipeline of ‘no-regrets’ new nuclear schemes needs ‘expediting’
16 JAN, 2023 BY ROB HORGAN
A pipeline of “no-regrets” new nuclear schemes must be fast-tracked if the UK is to meet its net zero carbon emission targets, according to an independent review set up to assess the UK’s decarbonisation plans.
It is one of 129 recommendations made by former energy minister Chris Skidmore in his government-ordered net zero review titled Mission Zero.
The report calls for the formation of Great British Nuclear (GBN) to be “expedited in early 2023” so that a “clear roadmap” of future schemes can be developed this year to tackle “rising power demand”.
The government first announced its intention to set up GBN to develop a project pipeline in its British Energy Security Strategy published in April last year.
Skidmore concludes that speeding up the formation of GBN will address industry concerns about a “lack of clarity on the pathway” to achieving the UK government’s ambition for nuclear energy to provide a quarter of power consumed within the country. (Nuclear energy currently supplies 15% of the UK’s power needs.)
The review concludes: “Building new nuclear is a no-regrets option, despite high upfront costs and long construction times.
“In view of rising power demand, nuclear energy can provide reliable baseload power which is not weather dependent and can provide other services to power networks.”
It adds: “To achieve affordability and efficiency, the Government needs to commit to funding a fleet of projects. Recognising the start times for new build nuclear, a clear roadmap for nuclear deployment up to 2035 is required.”
The government is currently committed to building Sizewell C, while construction of Hinkley Point C continues to gather pace. Ambitions to develop a fleet of small nuclear reactors has also been widely supported by government in the past few years.
Skidmore’s review concludes that as well as delivering a pipeline of projects, the government must act to remove barriers to its nuclear ambitions.
It identifies “the main barrier for new nuclear projects is the need for stable, long-term policy and funding commitments given the long timeframes involved in the building of nuclear plants”.
It also points out that “rapid expansion of nuclear power could lead to some bottlenecks in supply chains and skills pools”.
However, the report stresses that “understanding the timings of different projects” would allow “any supply chain and skills pinch points [to] be identified early, allowing for coordinated action to prevent bottlenecks”.
The review also concludes that streamlining planning and consenting decisions would “ensure nuclear projects are not unnecessarily delayed”. Likewise, Skidmore’s review calls for the lengthy protocols required for innovations like SMRs to be accelerated.
National Infrastructure Commission chair Sir John Armitt supports Skidmore’s calls for clarity and accelerated action.
He said: “Chris Skidmore’s clarity in his call for accelerated action is as compelling as it is commendable, nailing the argument that inaction now will cost us all in the long run.
“Given the economic opportunities offered by leading the pack internationally, securing policy and funding stability over the coming years is paramount.”
Nuclear energy recommendations made in Skidmore’s net zero review:
- Expedite the set-up of Great British Nuclear in early 2023, ensuring required funding and skills are in place.
- Government and GBN to set out clear roadmap in 2023, including interim targets to reach 2050 ambition, and government to ensure funding is in place. As part of the roadmap, government should assess the possibility to increase the current ambitions, supporting the development of supply chain to service a fleet of projects.
- Roadmap to set out clear pathways for different nuclear technologies (including small modular reactors) and the selection process. This should consider how to use programmatic approach to deliver further cost reductions in a competitive environment.
- Government to deliver on siting strategy by 2024
Not all American politicians want to adore Zelensky
House Republican Introduces Resolution to Place Bust of Zelensky in the Capitol
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and other conservative GOP members blasted the ideaby Dave DeCamp Posted onCategoriesNewsTagsUkraine
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) introduced a bill this week that would place a bust of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the House wing of the US Capitol building, an idea that was strongly criticized by more conservative GOP members.
The resolution reads: “Resolved, That the House of Representatives directs the Fine Arts Board to obtain a bust of the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, for display in a suitable, permanent location in the House of Representatives wing of the United States Capitol.”
On Twitter, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) posted a picture of the resolution and wrote: “Absolutely NOT! We serve AMERICA NOT UKRAINE!”
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) wrote on Twitter that he wanted to believe the resolution was “satire” and linked to an article from the conservative advocacy group FreedomWorks giving five reasons to oppose the bust.
The five reasons FreedomWorks listed are:
- Ukraine is NOT the 51st US State
- The US doesn’t own the conflict or is obligated to continue funding it
- Further payments would encourage US taxpayer-funded reconstruction of Ukraine
- Ukraine is corrupt and this conflict is not about “defending democracy”
- Zero oversight of taxpayer aid to Ukraine
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) also ripped the resolution on Twitter. “There is now a House resolution that seeks to put a display of Zelenskyy’s head in the US Capitol. Was the $100+ billion to Ukraine not enough?” he wrote.
While Zelensky mostly received a hero’s welcome when he visited Washington DC and was given many rounds of applause when addressing Congress, only 86 out of 213 House Republicans attended his speech, although some of the absences could be explained by the lawmakers getting a head start on Christmas travel.
For now, GOP leadership is incredibly supportive of arming Ukraine and is critical of President Biden for not sending longer-range and more advanced weapons. But there is opposition to the policy among a small but notable number of Republicans, and that opposition will likely grow as the war drags on.
Some Republicans are against arming Ukraine because they think the US should be flooding Taiwan with weapons instead, a policy that could provoke a similar crisis in the Asia Pacific. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) in December wrote a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken urging the Biden administration to prioritize arming Taiwan over Ukraine.
Trump suggested dropping a nuclear bomb on North Korea and blaming it on someone else in 2017, book claims.
Yahoo News , Alia Shoaib, Sun, January 15, 2023
- As president, Donald Trump suggested nuking North Korea and blaming someone else, a new book extract says.
- Trump was also reportedly “baffled and annoyed” that he would need congressional approval for a pre-emptive strike.
- It is alleged that Trump made the comments in 2017 around the time he was issuing public threats to North Korea.
In his first year in office, Donald Trump suggested striking North Korea with a nuclear weapon and blaming it on someone else, according to a new section of a book obtained by NBC News.
In this article:
- As president, Donald Trump suggested nuking North Korea and blaming someone else, a new book extract says.
- Trump was also reportedly “baffled and annoyed” that he would need congressional approval for a pre-emptive strike.
- It is alleged that Trump made the comments in 2017 around the time he was issuing public threats to North Korea.
In his first year in office, Donald Trump suggested striking North Korea with a nuclear weapon and blaming it on someone else, according to a new section of a book obtained by NBC News.
The revelation was made in a new afterword to the book “Donald Trump v. The United States” by New York Times Washington correspondent Michael Schmidt, due to be released on Tuesday.
Trump made the alleged comments behind closed doors in 2017 when he publicly warned North Korea that it would “be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen” if it continued to make threats.
The then-president also routinely took to Twitter to taunt North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un, who he had nicknamed “Rocket Man.”
The book suggests that John Kelly, who had started as Trump’s White House Chief of Staff in July 2017, was alarmed by the president’s attitude towards the East Asian nation…………………………………….
Read the original article on Business Insider https://news.yahoo.com/trump-suggested-dropping-nuclear-bomb-103150916.html
Uncertainty over government funding for Rolls Royce’s small nuclear reactors
Concerns have been raised that the rollout of small modular reactors
(SMRs) in the UK could be delayed due to funding challenges. According to
The Times, a funding deal for the first fleet of mini nuclear reactors is
not expected to materialise for at least another 12 months, with a row
ongoing in government over the cost of Britain’s wider nuclear ambitions.
Going forward, SMRs, alongside large-scale nuclear plants, are seen as a
crucial tool in the country’s battle against the energy crisis and drive
towards net zero.
The government established a new body called Great British Nuclear (GBN) in conjunction with the release of its energy
security strategy with the aim of facilitating the growth of nuclear power on the grid.
However, Whitehall sources have now revealed that there
remains uncertainty over the government’s SMR investment plans. Rolls-Royce
has called for ministers to enter funding talks and start placing orders.
The firm is planning on building SMR power stations and recently announced
three shortlisted locations for its proposed factory and four potential
sites for the SMR plants themselves.
New Civil Engineer 9th Jan 2023 https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/fears-over-potential-delay-to-small-nuclear-reactor-rollout-09-01-2023/
A plan to build a fleet of mini nuclear reactors across the UK could be
delayed by at least another 12 months amid a row in the government over the
cost of Britain’s nuclear power ambitions. The Sunday Times cited sources
stating that there was still a large degree of uncertainty over the scale
of state investment in small modular reactors (SMRs).
Energy Live News 9th Jan 2023
New delay for Hinkley Point C nuclear power – could start operating in 2036.
Hinkley C ‘on schedule’ despite new delay claim after new agreement.
SUGGESTIONS that completion of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station
could be delayed by 11 years have been dismissed by the company which is
building it. A number of delays have already hit Europe’s largest
construction site and currently Hinkley is not set to start generating
electricity until June, 2027, two years behind its original schedule. Now,
French company EDF has struck a new deal with the Government which would
allow it to start operating as late as 2036.
West Somerset Free Press 8th Jan 2023
https://www.wsfp.co.uk/news/hinkley-c-on-schedule-despite-new-delay-claim-after-new-agreement-586884
California PUC launches rulemaking to consider extension of Diablo Canyon nuclear plant
Kavya Balaraman, Jan. 13, 2023
Dive Brief:
- California regulators on Thursday voted to open a rulemaking to consider extending the operations of the 2.2-GW Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, the last operational nuclear facility in the state.
- The rulemaking stems from legislation approved last September, which among other things required the California Public Utilities Commission to issue a decision by the end of this year establishing new retirement dates for the two units of the nuclear plant.
- The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, which is owned and operated by Pacific Gas & Electric, is currently licensed to operate until 2024 and 2025 for each of its two units respectively. In 2018, state regulators approved a plan to retire the facility once these licenses expire.
Dive Insight:………………………..
Under SB 846, Diablo Canyon Unit 1 could be kept running through Oct. 31, 2029, and Unit 2 until Oct. 31, 2030.
In November, PG&E applied to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to keep the plant running until 2030.
Under the umbrella of its new rulemaking, the CPUC could either authorize extending operations at the plant through 2029 and 2030, or establish earlier retirement dates.
…………………………. California stakeholders remain split on the state’s reversal on the future of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant.
“The rush to keep Diablo Canyon running beyond 2025 is not only dangerous, but will set back California’s drive to make solar and wind the prevailing sources of electricity in the state,” Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, said in an emailed statement. …………………. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/california-puc-diablo-canyon-nuclear-extension/640351/
Bangladesh puts energy hopes in first nuclear power plant, despite delay, and climate concerns
Global disruption to gas supplies has led to electricity outages in Bangladesh this year, while progress on the Rooppur nuclear power plant has been plagued by construction delays.
Ecobusiness 11 Jan 23 ………………………………………. construction delays, cost concerns and public fears about nuclear safety are clouding the outlook for the new plant.
Bangladesh’s power generation capacity currently exceeds demand – but the fuel needed to run existing plants partly relies on imports, including a quarter of natural gas used, with prices rocketing this year after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
………………………. treating nuclear as a renewable or green energy source remains controversial worldwide, as the spent fuel left after power production is not fully recyclable and nuclear waste is hazardous.
Nuclear dropped to below 10 per cent of global power generation in 2021, although the recent energy crisis driven by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has seen some reawakening of interest.
The goal of developing a nuclear power plant in Bangladesh dates back to the 1960s, but plans adopted by successive governments over the decades were not implemented due to a lack of funding and skilled engineers……………………………………………
Bangladesh’s vulnerability to climate change impacts is another consideration, as the plant is located in a zone that is prone to extreme weather effects like flooding.
Islam – also a professor at the University of Dhaka – said no public information was available on if and how the design of the nuclear plant takes climate-related risks into account…………………………. https://www.eco-business.com/news/bangladesh-puts-energy-hopes-in-first-nuclear-power-plant-despite-delay/
1 This Month
26 April – Chernobyl: Inside the Meltdown airs on National Geographic on Sunday 26th April from 4pm
29 April – Nuclear Expert Webinar #1 – Radiation Impacts on Families with Mary Olson and Cindy Folkers
- 12:15 PM MT – 1:45 PM MT
- Location: Virtual – REGISTER TODAY
4 May -West Suburban Peace Coalition to discuss Iran war at May Educational Forum
Monday, May 4, 7:00 – 8:00 PM Central Standard Time
Title: : How Trump’s Narrative Tries to Shape the Reality of the War on Iran.
Contact Walt Zlotow, zlotow@hotmail.com 630 442 3045 for further information
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
Pine Ridge Uranium is the real threat, not Tehran- Tell Burgum: Stop the Extraction.
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (288)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 