there will be no room in this new world of flexible, decentralised generation for large, rigid nuclear reactors. “There are going to be increasingly frequent periods when we have too much power,” says Mr Burke. “But if you are the energy minister, how do you explain to people why you are having to switch off cheap renewables in order to use the much more expensive nuclear power which you have committed to pay for over the next 35 years?”
FT 4th Feb 2018, The UK’s Hinkley Point C has become a critical test of developers’ ability to compete with cheap gas and renewables. Across an expanse of scarred earth the size of 250 football pitches beside the Bristol Channel in south-west England, 3,000 workers are building what will be, by some estimates, the most expensive structure on the planet.
At a cost of almost £20bn, the Hinkley Point C power station in Somerset is the first nuclear plant to be built in the UK since the 1990s. Clusters of cranes and cement silos loom over a warren of earthworks crawling with excavators and
100-tonne dumper trucks. At the centre of the site, foundations are taking shape for two 1.6 gigawatt reactors intended to meet 7 per cent of UK electricity demand, with a target for completion by the end of 2025.
Hinkley is crucial to UK energy security as the country faces the closure of old coal and nuclear plants accounting for about 40 per cent of the country’s reliable electricity generating capacity by 2030. But it also has wider significance as a test of the industry’s ability to compete in a rapidly changing energy landscape. Nuclear power has been under threat
since the meltdown at the Fukushima plant in Japan in 2011 revived safety fears.
But the biggest threat is now economic as the spiralling cost of building new reactors collides with a world of cheap and plentiful gas and renewable power. The UK is now one of the few western countries committed to renewing its ageing reactors. More than 70 per cent of the 448 reactors around the world are in the OECD club of wealthy nations, and more than half of them are at least 30 years old.
Many will reach the end of their operational lives in the next two decades, yet the prospects of replacing
them are uncertain, at best, in countries such as the US, Japan and France, while others including Germany, Switzerland and South Korea are planning to phase out nuclear power altogether. The days of networks dominated by a few large, centralised power stations are drawing to a close, according to many analysts. In their place will come more dispersed sources of renewable generation. Battery storage and digital “smart grid” technology will help smooth out supply and demand, and increase efficiency.
Tom Burke, chairman of E3G, an environmental think-tank, says there will be no room in this new world of flexible, decentralised generation for large, rigid nuclear reactors. “There are going to be increasingly frequent periods when we have too much power,” says Mr Burke. “But if you are the energy minister, how do you explain to people why you are having to switch off cheap renewables in order to use the much more expensive nuclear power which you have committed to pay for over the next 35 years?”
Progress at Hinkley, therefore, is being watched as closely in Beijing as in Paris and London. A repeat of the delays at Olkiluoto and Flamanville could sign the death warrant for western reactor developers, while dealing a setback for
China’s international expansion. Mr Rossi is aware of the high stakes: “We need to make sure that Britain will be happy about the choice it made.” https://www.ft.com/content/8307c266-066b-11e8-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5
February 5, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, UK |
Leave a comment
JDD 3rd Feb 2018, Nuclear: the book that undermines the safety of French power plants. The JDD publishes preview extracts of Nuclear, immediate danger , a survey book that challenges the dogma of the safety and profitability of French power stations.
At the forefront of concerns: the alarming state of severaltanks, which contain the heart of the reactors. “That’s it, we are there atthe age of 40. By 2028, 48 reactors [out of 58 in service in France] – those of the level of 900 MW and a part of the reactors of 1,300 MW – will reach this canonical age.
Since the mid-2000s, because of its financial difficulties that prevent it from investing in new means of production, EDF is asking for, calling for, even imposing, that all of its nuclear power stations be allowed to operate at the same time. beyond the age of forty, and prolonged by twenty years. […]
[Among the elements that will] determine the extension or the stop of the vats: do they have defects, of
origin or appeared with the time, which compromise the safety?
This is one of the biggest secrets of the nuclear industry in France. […] According to EDF, 10 tanks in operation have cracks that date from their manufacture. […] Tricastin, with its reactor 1, is the worst central of the country.
This reactor combines all the problems: defects under coating, no margin at break, and exceeding the fragility forecast at forty years! Not to mention the risk of catastrophic flooding in the event of an earthquake, as noted in September 2017 by the Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN), which has automatically stopped the operation of the four reactors of the plant while waiting for EDF finally, work to reinforce the dike of the Donzère-Mondragon canal. The plant is below the canal, 6 m below the water.
Pierre-Franck Chevet, the president of the ASN, told us’ that in the event of a strong earthquake we could go to a situation, with four simultaneous reactors merging, which potentially looks like a Fukushima type accident. EDF has found the immediate stoppage of the plant to carry out this unjustified work, I find it justified. ” http://www.lejdd.fr/societe/nucleaire-le-livre-qui-met-a-mal-la-surete-des-centrales-francaises-3564173
February 5, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
France, safety |
Leave a comment
GDF Watch 2nd Feb 2018, A week on from the Environmental Court’s ruling, and it would seem nobody in Sweden is any the wiser about what happens next. The general view seems to be that this is a hiccup, and everything will eventually continue as planned.
But don’t expect that to happen anytime soon, and at least not until after this autumn’s national elections in Sweden. Anders Lillienau, who chaired the Court’s Hearings, is reported as saying that while they had significant concerns about the safety of the copper canisters, the Court did not otherwise see any barriers to the safety of the repository.
The Court has asked SKB, the organisation responsible for the repository, to provide further information on copper canisters to address their concerns. It is understood that SKB are preparing such information, and reportedly told a community meeting in Östhammar earlier this week that they intend to provide that information later this year.
Anders Lillenau has also made clear the ball is now in the Government’s court: “In the
end, it is still the case that the Government may make the overall assessment whether or not this will be allowed.” A Swedish Government spokesman, Magnus Blücher, explained that this was a complex issue and it was too soon to say what the Government might do, or when.
Back in Östhammar, the local referendum planned for 4 March has been postponed. The referendum was advisory, and any final decision on agreeing to host the repository has to be taken by the local council. A spokesman for Östhammar Municipality says that it is too soon to know when the referendum and council vote will now take place.
Local resident Åsa Lindstrand chairs a resident’s group opposed to the repository. She told the local newspaper that she was pleased but surprised by the Court’s decision, but feels little will change:
“Actually, nobody else in Sweden wants this nuclear fuel repository, so the rest of Sweden would probably be lucky if someone takes it. The municipality is so marinated by SKB that it is not easy to
say ‘no’. For us who live here, it’s more about noise and traffic than about the copper capsules, it’s happening before they get there at all.” Her sense of pyrhhic victory is shared by environmentalist Johan
Swahn, who added, “but only if the government stays passive and the copper canister issues raised by the Court become a matter solely for SKB.” His organisation, MKG, has raised concerns about the long-term
safety of copper canisters over many years.
While delighted that the Court accepted the case presented by leading corrosion scientists, he now wants
the Swedish Government to guarantee an open scientific re-evaluation of the issues relating to copper canister corrosion. http://www.gdfwatch.org.uk/2018/02/02/sweden-update/
February 5, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Switzerland, wastes |
Leave a comment
Le Parisien 3rd Feb 2018, [Machine Translation] EPR Flamanville: four questions on an industrial
disaster. Seven years late and a quote that has tripled in ten years: the
site of the EPR Flamanville Friday received the visit of Sébastien
Lecornu, Secretary of State Nicolas Hulot.
Started in April 2007, the EPR was to cost € 3.3 billion and enter service in 2012. Except that the site
has accumulated the setbacks, the highlight of which was in April 2015,
after the discovery by the ASN of a anomaly in the steel of the lid and
bottom of the reactor vessel. In June 2017, EDF obtained authorization from
the ASN to operate the tank, but confidence in EPR technology has been
eroded. The bill exploded: around € 11 billion.
http://www.leparisien.fr/economie/epr-de-flamanville-quatre-questions-sur-une-catastrophe-industrielle-03-02-2018-7538637.php
February 5, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, France, technology |
Leave a comment
Belgium’s neighbors fear a nuclear incident https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekeating/2018/02/04/belgiums-neighbors-fear-a-nuclear-incident/#2755aac36ca2 Dave Keating , I cover energy, environment and EU politics in Brussels , 4 Feb 18,
Last summer, when the Belgian government revealed that seventy new cracks had been discovered in the boiler of the country’s Tihange 2 nuclear reactor, towns near the country’s borders reacted with exasperation.
The power plant lies just 60km from the triple border where Belgium, Germany and The Netherlands meet, close to the Dutch town of Maastricht and the German town of Aachen.
These were not the first cracks to be discovered. Tihange is now more than four decades old, but it was built to only have a lifespan of 30 years. Already in 2014 an inspection found thousands of small ‘microcracks’ in the reactor. The neighboring German state of Northrhine-Westphalia became so alarmed that it ordered iodine tablets for German citizens in case of a Belgian nuclear accident.
Tihange isn’t the only plant of concern. The Doel 3 reactor, near the Belgian port city of Antwerp next to the Dutch border, also has cracks. These reactors have been subject to sudden shutdowns which have caused disruption to the Belgian electricity network. The country is 40 percent reliant on nuclear power for its electricity.
n neighboring Germany, nuclear power has remained very unpopular with the public since the 1970s. After the 2011 Fukishima nuclear disaster in Japan, German Chancellor Angela Merkel decided to phase out nuclear power in the country for safety reasons. But Germany is powerless to do anything about nuclear plants just across its borders, which pose the same safety risks to German citizens as domestic plants would.
NEVERTHELESS, GERMAN POLITICIANS HAVE harshly criticized what they see as Belgian inaction over the safety of its aging plants. And the concern is likely to grow louder following the broadcast of a documentary this week on German television alleging a series of near-accidents at the Tihange plant.
No cooperation
But despite the complaints from Dutch and German politicians, a report published this week found that they haven’t made much of an effort to work with their Belgian counterparts to resolve the problem. A Belgo-German cooperation group set up in 2016 has done little to change that situation, it found.
The report, published by the Dutch Safety Board, did not address the safety of the plants but instead the degree to which the three countries are working together on their maintenance and contingency plans in the event of a nuclear incident. It found that though cooperation has been set up on paper, “it probably will not run smoothly if a nuclear accident were to occur in reality.”
According to the report, preparations for an incident at the plants varies widely between the three countries. Some have iodine pills at the ready, others have evacuation instructions that differ from those that would be given to neighboring populations. In the event of an accident, the report warns, citizens would not know which set of instructions to follow.
The result, the report warns, could be “confusion and unrest” – particularly as linguistic and cultural differences are exasperated by an unfolding emergency situation.
For their part, the Belgian government insists that despite the cracks, the reactors are still perfectly safe and the temporary shutdowns have been simply due to an abundance of caution. Nevertheless, the country’s health ministry said in 2016 that it would provide iodine tablets to citizens around the plant, just in case.
While many Belgians share their neighbors’ alarm, others feel that they are being used as a political punching bag by neighboring politicians looking to score cheap points. While there is deep anti-nuclear feeling in Germany and The Netherlands, Belgium has a similarly positive attitude to the power source as its southern neighbor France.
In the mean time, people in this triple border region don’t know who to believe. But their attitudes tend to be set by which side of the border they reside in. In the event of a nuclear accident, however, the radiation would effect them all equally.
February 5, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
EUROPE, safety |
Leave a comment
Captain who saved White Sea from nuclear disaster dies at 67, Barents Observer When a training missile exploded in the silo, Captain Igor Grishkov immediately dived his enormous Typhoon submarine to flush away burning rocket fuel before the other nuclear weapon-tipped missiles were set on fire. By Thomas Nilsen, February 03, 2018
One of Russia’s most unknown heros, submarine captain Igor Grishkov, is dead 67 years old, the blog site Korabel reports. After retirement, he moved to Severodvinsk by the White Sea where he lived until his death this week.
Severodvinsk Mayor, Igor Skubenko, is quoted saying Captain Grishkov will remain forever in the history of Severodvinsk and his successful experience and struggle to rescue the submarine will be adopted by many other submarine commanders.
Failed coup in Moscow
What happened in the White Sea in September 1991 is little known to open public sources. Captain Igor Grishkov was sailing out the White Sea to the area where he was told to launch a ballistic test missile supposed to hit the designated target on the Chukotka Peninsula in the Far East of the Soviet Union.
Grishkov’s vessel, TK-17, was the fifth of the six giant Typhoon class submarines……..
The Typhoon submarines and the on board SS-N-20 nuclear missiles are designed to launch its nuclear weapons from submerged position. So also for this test on September 27, 1991.
10-9-8-7-6….. , then suddenly the missile exploded, blowing off the cover of the silo. Captain Grishkov ordered his men in the command centre of the submarine to blow the tanks with air and make an emergency surfacing. At surface, the crew could see a massive fireball over the deck.
All 20 nuclear missile-silos on the Typhoons are in front of the tower.
The fire came from the solid propellant of the exploded missile that had leaked inside the silo and all around the deck near the blown-to-pieces part of the silo-cover. Also the rubber-cover of the outer hull was on fire. Within seconds, Captain Grishkov reportedly understood the danger. What would happen if the fire spread and triggered overheating of the highly flammable propellant in the other 19 missiles. Those who were not on board for test shooting but aimed for real nuclear war.
Dive man, dive!
There was only one option; dive down again and hope the seawater would extinguish the fire. He warned his crew members in the missile compartment to be prepared for flooding. Diving a more than 30,000 tons heavy vessel just after emergency surfacing is not easy, its dangerous and its risky.
But the alternative was so much worse.
The commanders on bridge managed the task quickly and then surfaced again. The manoeuvre was successful and a real nuclear catastrophe in the White Sea was miraculously prevented……….
Back in port, the accident was kept secret to most people. Damage control was done, the burnt silo was cleaned and sealed off and the rubber on the outer hull was repaired. The silo in question was never used again, and TK-17 continued to sail with 19 missiles until she was laid up in 2004 and put in reserve.
Although the heroically saving of his crew and submarine, Captain Igor Grishkov was never awared with the medal “Hero of the Soviet Union” or today’s “Hero of Russia”. …….https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2018/02/captain-who-saved-white-sea-nuclear-disaster-dies-67
February 5, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
PERSONAL STORIES, Russia |
Leave a comment
SPRU 2nd Feb 2018, Blog by Dr Charlie Wilson (Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research).
UK homes account for just under a quarter of national greenhouse gas
emissions. Improving their efficiency not only reduces emissions, but also
improves health and wellbeing, and creates jobs.
The Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) recently retweeted the
headline findings of UKERC-CIED research published last year: up to 50% of
energy used in homes can be saved through energy efficient renovations and
other measures, contingent on supporting policies.
Are these supporting policies in place? The Green Deal was introduced with fanfare in 2013,
replacing obligations on utilities with a market-based approach for
informing homeowners about cost-effective efficiency measures and providing
‘pay-as-you-save’ loan financing.
Our research found that although the Green Deal did effectively raise the salience of energy efficient
renovations, it failed in other important ways:
First, it treated energy efficiency as special rather than as a ‘mundane’ feature of broader
home improvements.
Second, it emphasised financial aspects of renovation
decisions rather than tap into the underlying tensions in domestic life
which renovations could help resolve. A
And it was attractive to homeowners only once they had already decided to renovate, so didn’t help boost
renovation rates. Uptake rates of Green Deal finance were extremely low,
and confidence in the scheme plummeted. Less than 2 years after its
introduction, it was largely shelved. The Clean Growth Strategy published
last October includes measures for improving the efficiency of fuel-poor
and low-income homes, but offers little to the two thirds of owner-occupied
homes in the UK, nor the private rental sector (beyond an aspiration to
“develop a long-term trajectory” to improve energy performance). The
post-Green Deal policy vacuum persists.
http://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/sussexenergygroup/2018/02/02/energy-efficiency-policy/
February 5, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
ENERGY, UK |
Leave a comment
Slovak Spectator 1st Feb 2018, Uranium ore will not be mined in the Čermeľ-Jahodná locality in the Košice Region. This stems from the final ruling issued by the Supreme
Court, which decided not to extend a permit for a geological survey of
uranium ore at the site close to Košice, the TASR newswire reported. The
court has thus ended the legal proceedings and upheld a decision by the
Environment Ministry.
https://spectator.sme.sk/c/20751213/uranium-mining-near-kosice-definitely-rejected.html
February 5, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
EUROPE, Uranium |
Leave a comment
Buried In Trump’s Nuclear Report: A Russian Doomsday Weapon, NPR , February 2, 2018 GEOFF BRUMFIEL Today, the Trump administration released a report on the state of America’s nuclear weaponry. The assessment, known as a Nuclear Posture Review, mainly concerns U.S. nukes and missiles.
But buried in the plan is a mention of a mysterious Russian weapon called “Status-6.” On paper, at least, Status-6 appears to be a kind of doomsday device. The report refers to it as “a new intercontinental, nuclear-armed, nuclear-powered, undersea autonomous torpedo.”
“The radius of total or near-total destruction is the size of a pretty large metropolitan area, actually,” says Edward Geist, a Russia specialist at the RAND Corporation who has spent time looking at the weapon. “It’s difficult to imagine in normal terms.”……
Status-6 looks like a giant torpedo about a third the length of a big Russian submarine. According to the slide, it is nuclear-powered, meaning it can roam for months and even possibly years beneath the ocean without surfacing. Its payload is a nuclear warhead “many tens of megatons in yield,” Geist says.
That’s thousands of times more powerful than the bombs dropped at the end of World War II and more powerful than anything currently in the U.S. and Russian arsenals.
Status-6 would launch from beneath a Russian submarine. It would shoot at a depth too deep to be intercepted, and travel for thousands of miles. Upon reaching its target along the U.S. coastline, it would detonate, swallowing up whatever city happened to be nearby.
“The only possible U.S. targets are large port cities,” says Mark Schneider, a senior analyst with the National Institute for Public Policy wrote in an e-mail. “The detonation of Status-6 in any of them would essentially wipe out their population into the far suburbs.”
“The detonation would cause a very large amount of radioactive fallout,” adds Pavel Podvig, an arms control expert who runs a blog called Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces. Podvig believes the weapon could potentially bathe the entire Northeast Corridor in radioactive soot.
Status-6 would probably be used as a “third-strike” weapon of last resort. If Russia fell under attack from the U.S. and couldn’t retaliate with its missiles, it might trigger Status-6: A doomsday machine. Or at least a doomsday-ish machine.
Then again, the whole thing might be a fake.
“The drawing of this drone looks more like an enlarged drawing of a smaller torpedo,” says Podvig. In other words, it looks like the Russians may have just taken some torpedo clip-art, blown it up to terrifying size and then broadcast it on state television.
Why?
“It’s a way to get our attention,” says Geist.
Geist says that the “leak” of Status-6 was deliberate. Russia worries that U.S. missile defenses might be able to shoot down its missiles in a nuclear war. By showing a plan for Status-6, Russia is warning the U.S. that if it continues to build such defensive systems, then Russia will find another way to strike: one that can’t be intercepted.
“My read of the whole Status-6 slide leak is that the Russians were trying to send us a message,” Geist says.
Podvig agrees that the leak of Status-6 is probably just a warning shot. But the fact it appeared in the Pentagon’s newest report on nuclear weapons shows that some war planners are taking the idea seriously.
There may be some politics involved in that decision as well, says Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists. The Trump administration is pushing hard for upgrades to America’s nuclear arsenal. In his State of the Union address, the president called for making the arsenal “so strong and so powerful that it will deter any acts of aggression by any other nation or anyone else.”
Citing Status-6 helps to build the case that upgrades to American nukes are needed, Kristensen says.
For all the rhetoric around Status-6, Podvig and Geist both believe that the program isn’t completely made-up. Geist says a long-range underwater drone without a nuclear warhead would be a useful weapon……..https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2018/02/02/582087310/buried-in-trumps-nuclear-report-a-russian-doomsday-weapon
February 3, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Russia, USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Study casts doubts on feasibility of keeping nuclear plants going http://www.brusselstimes.com/business/technology/10206/study-casts-doubts-on-feasibility-of-keeping-nuclear-plants-going, Jason Bennett, 01 February 2018 A new study by the Energyville research centre casts doubts on the financial soundness of further extending the life of Belgium’s nuclear plants, ‘Le Soir’ and ‘De Standaard’ dailies reported on Thursday.
The study is, in fact, an updated version of a report done last year at the request of Febeliec, the Belgian federation of large electricity consumers. Greenpeace asked the research centre, which links the Catholic University of Leuven and the University of Hasselt, to modify two initial parameters: the price of gas, which is lower than expected, and the availability of nuclear reactors.
The nuclear plants are scheduled to close in 2025. In that case, the annual cost of Belgium’s electricity system will be 5.415 billion euros in 2030, three times more than the current cost. If the two most recent reactors are kept working until 2035, the cost would drop to 5.130 billion euros.
On the other hand, by 2040, the two scenarios would amount to roughly the same cost, about 7.19 billion euros, with just a difference of about two million euros between them.
According to Jan Vande Putte, an energy expert at Greenpeace, prolonging nuclear generation merely postpones the required investments in replacement capacity.
February 3, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, EUROPE |
Leave a comment
Xinhuanet 1st Feb 2018, China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGN), a major Chinese nuclear
power operator, said Wednesday that nuclear projects in Britain were
proceeding well. He Yu, chairman of the board of CGN, said since the deals
were inked in 2016 with French energy company EDF and the British
government, CGN has invested 1.7 billion British pounds in order to advance
the projects. CGN signed agreements in 2016 for Hinkley Point C (HPC), a
nuclear project in Somerset, and a suite of agreements relating to the
Sizewell C (SZC) in eastern England and Bradwell B projects (BRB) in Essex.
“A total of 15 Chinese suppliers and contractors have passed a preliminary
qualification assessment for the HPC project,” He said. “HPC, which is
Britain’s first new nuclear power station in a generation, is the largest
construction in Europe.”
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-02/01/c_136940068.htm
Reuters 31st Jan 2018, Notable Chinese investments in Britain include the Hinkley C nuclear power
station which is being built by China General Nuclear Power Corp and the
British arm of France’s EDF (EDF.PA), while British firms, such as Rolls
Royce (RR.L), have won large deals from Chinese firms to supply items like
plane engines. Both May and senior Chinese officials have restated their
commitment to the “golden era” in ties but a row over May’s decision
to delay approval for the Chinese-funded Hinkley nuclear plant in late 2016
chilled relations. However, Britain was the first Western country to sign
up to the China-backed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and it sent
Finance Minister Philip Hammond to a Beijing summit last year about
President Xi Jinping’s flagship ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ – a
trillion-dollar infrastructure-led push to build a modern Silk Road.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-britain/chinas-li-says-ties-with-britain-to-stay-unchanged-through-brexit-idUSKBN1FK023
February 3, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, China, marketing, politics international, UK |
Leave a comment
NDA 1st Feb 2018, Specialist scuba divers are plumbing new depths to haul radioactive waste
out of the nuclear fuel storage pond at Sizewell A. The team of American
underwater experts tackled their first UK ‘nuclear dive’ at Dungeness A
in 2016 where, wearing full protective suits and shielded from radiation by
the water, they were able to cut up empty fuel storage skips and retrieve
other pieces of submerged equipment.
The ponds were used to store thousands
of used nuclear fuel rods, held in metal skips, after they were discharged
from the reactors. After the last of the fuel was transported to Sellafield
for reprocessing, the skips and a range of redundant items, including
sludge, were left behind in the water.
Pond clean-out conventionally takes
place using remotely operated equipment to lift the whole radioactive skips
clear of the water, exposing them to the air, where they are carefully cut
up before decontamination, storage and eventual disposal. This process is
slow with potential radiation dose risks for workers. By doing the work
under water, the divers can cut up the skips more safely, access awkward
areas more easily, making the whole process safer, faster and more
productive.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/diving-into-innovation-at-sizewell
February 3, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
employment, UK, wastes |
Leave a comment
NDA 31st Jan 2018, Robots controlled by smart auto-navigation systems are doing battle in an
£8.5 million competition to find ways to tackle Sellafield radioactive
hotspots. Last year, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) and fellow
government agency Innovate UK launched a search for innovative technologies
that could be combined into a single seamless process for use in facilities
that will soon embark on a major decommissioning journey.
Working closely with Sellafield Ltd, who would use the technology, submissions to a
competitive process were invited from all industrial sectors. Five
promising ideas have now made it through to the final stages after being
whittled down from a shortlist of 15. The newly formed consortia are each
set to receive up to £1.5 million to build prototype demonstrators for
testing in a simulated radioactive environment.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/robots-compete-in-nuclear-decommissioning-challenge
February 3, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
UK, wastes |
Leave a comment
“Finland’s Pyhäjoki nuclear plant takes our pension money” While four million elderly Russians live below the poverty line, the country’s pension fund pays for Rosatom-backed nuclear plant in northern-Finland. «Deeply unfair,» says Oleg Bodrov from the closed town of Sosnovy Bor near St. Petersburg. Barents Observer By Thomas Nilsen, January 29, 2018
February 2, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, Finland, politics, Russia |
Leave a comment
NuClearNews No 104 New Nuclear –Dance Macabre
With the Japanese media reporting somewhat prematurely that the UK and Japanese Governments have agreed to provide the lion’s share of financing for two new reactors at Wylfa on the Island of Anglesey, and EDF Energy claiming it can build Sizewell C for at least 20% less than Hinkley Point C, one has to wonder if there is some sort of battle going on between EDF and Hitachi to get their hands on limited taxpayer funds.
But all either company seems to be getting from Government at the moment is warm words. In the meantime, as we shall see in a subsequent story, the Government has cut its projections for nuclear capacity in 2035 from 17GW to 14GW.
Two other EPRs are under construction at Taishan (China). (2) The latest commissioning delay at Taishan is the third in two years and will lead to a further deferral of 5 billion yuan (US$770 million) in annual revenues and potentially more cost overruns, according to ratings agency Moody’s. CGN said right at the end of December that generation at the two reactors had been delayed to 2018 and 2019, from the second half of 2017 and the first half of 2018 respectively. (3) CGN, which is building the plant in a joint-venture with EDF, admitted, in December, to ’partial defects’ in the welding of the three parts of the deaerator. But the state-owned company stressed that the component, which helps cool down the reactor, ’is not part of the nuclear safety system’.
But international consultant, Mycle Schneider, says the problem goes way deeper than that. It poses questions about lax quality control which could impact on nuclear safety. He says this goes beyond a lack of transparency and constitutes a major indictment of CGN. (4)
Sizewell C
EDF claims it can build a second nuclear power station to follow Hinkley Point C (HPC) for20% less. HPC is expected to cost it at least £19.6 billion, and as much as £20.3 billion if delays push the start date back from 2025 to 2027, (although EDF says it is confident HPC will come on linein 2025).
The majority French Government-owned company says it can cut the construction cost for Sizewell C (SZC) thanks to efficiencies from “copying and pasting” large elements of HPC. (1)
This is for a reactor type which has yet to be built successfully anywhere in the world, with projects in France, Finland and China all delayed. CGN, the Chinese company working in partnership with EDF in Britain and China, confirmed further delays at their Taishan project in January. (See Box 1)
EDF expects to be able to make savings at SZC by eliminating the majority of the £2 billion costs it spent on pre-construction work at HPC. It also expects to make billions more in savings by using contractors and equipment that have already gone through training and certification processes for use on nuclear sites. Cutting the cost of building to about £15 billion could help to reduce the subsidy contract price to nearer £70 per megawatt hour (MWh) (See Box 2).
The Company believes that significant further reductions could be made if the government were to agree a new financing model so that developers did not have to bear all the upfront construction cost. EDF, along with the rest of the industry and the House of Commons’ Public Accounts Committee, is urging ministers to look at alternative funding models that the National Audit Office said would have significantly reduced the eventual cost to consumers had they been used for HPC. These include the government taking a direct equity stake or adopting a regulated asset base model similar to that used for the Thames Tideway Tunnel, under which developers would receive income during construction. Without such a change, the project is unlikely to go ahead since EDF, which required a French state bailout to afford HPC, could not fund another plant in advance. (5)
The Guardian explained that the Thames Water approach for London’s £4.2bn super-sewer allows the project to be taken off the company’s balance sheet by creating a new company that other investors pour equity into. Pension funds are among the potential investors EDF is hoping to court. Unlike a consortium seeking a public stake for a separate nuclear power plant at Wylfa in Wales, Simone Rossi, EDF’s new chief executive said government finance was not a prerequisite. (6)
Rossi says he’s is in talks with major investment funds to support the project. He confirmed to The Daily Telegraph that early stage talks have already begun and a deal may be agreed before the end of the year. The pressure to drive nuclear subsidies lower follows a dramatic decline in costs for other low-carbon energy technologies such as wind and solar power. Offshore wind in particular has halved its costs in recent years with recent projects accepting deals of under £58/MWh to build turbines. (7)
Dr Dave Toke, reader in Energy Politics at Aberdeen University, said EDF’s ‘cheap nuclear’ plan will ruin taxpayers. If the plan involves getting taxpayers to pay for a large chunk of the ‘equity’ financing of the plant and getting the Government to guarantee the bulk of the rest of the costs, this could lead to the biggest black hole in the nation’s finances since the financial crash which would have a catastrophic effect on public finances and deprive the Exchequer of many billions £s that could otherwise be spent on public services. This will be the subsidy to top all subsidieshttp://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/NuClearNews_No104.pdf
February 2, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, UK |
Leave a comment
