nuclear-news

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

For Diablo Canyon nuclear plant – the end is near?

End may be nearing for Diablo Canyon nuclear plant SF Chronicle, By David R. Baker, : November 9, 2017 California’s last nuclear power plant — Diablo Canyon — may be one step closer to closing, despite a vocal campaign to save it.

The California Public Utilities Commission on Wednesday issued a proposed decision that would approve plans by Diablo Canyon’s owner, Pacific Gas and Electric Co., to shut it down when the plant’s operating licenses expire, in 2024 and 2025.

 A majority of the commission’s five voting members must approve the plan for it to take effect. A vote could come as early as Dec. 14.

Diablo Canyon, which sits on a coastal bluff near San Luis Obispo, has been the focus of protests since long before it started operations in 1985. A maze of earthquake faults, all of them discovered after construction began, nearly surrounds the plant.

PG&E had been weighing whether to extend the plant’s federal operating licenses for another 20 years. But as it studied California’s fast-changing electricity market, which is adding renewable power at a rapid clip, the company concluded that Diablo Canyon would soon become uneconomical to run……. http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/End-may-be-nearing-for-Diablo-Canyon-nuclear-plant-12342441.php

November 9, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Energy economics: there is no way that the nuclear lobby can stop wind power becoming ever cheaper

Cost of wind keeps dropping, and there’s little coal, nuclear can do to stop it, An annual look at the costs of generating power. Ars Technica MEGAN GEUSS – Though a lot has changed since 2016, not much has changed for energy economics in the US. The cost of wind generation continues to fall, solar costs are falling, too, and the cost of coal-power energy has seen no movement, while the cost of building and maintaining nuclear plants has gone up. And none of those conclusions reflect subsidies and tax credits applied by the federal government.

The conclusions come from Lazard (PDF), an asset management company that publishes cost estimates for various types of electricity-generation assets each year. Lazard’s numbers reflect the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE), which averages the estimated costs of construction, maintenance, and fuel for electricity-generating assets over the number of megawatt-hours that each asset is expected to produce over its lifetime. In other words, the LCOE is the lifetime cost of a turbine divided by the amount of energy that turbine will produce over its lifetime. LCOE is a good way of comparing electricity generation sources that vary dramatically in cost to build and cost to maintain.

The result, tracked over years, is one way of gauging how the US energy mix is changing and could change in the coming year. Though the new presidential administration was expected (and still is expected) to be a boon to coal and nuclear energy, those efforts are still mired in the political process. And even if they succeed, thwarting the cost advantages of wind and solar energy while propping up coal and nuclear power will require not-inconsiderable amounts of intervention from the US government.

According to Lazard, in the last year, the cost of onshore wind has fallen six percent and the cost of utility-scale solar has fallen six percent, too. Those cost reductions are slower than reductions in previous years, but the cost of coal-fired generation remained stagnant in 2017…….. The cost of building and maintaining nuclear plants has actually increased in the last six years as well. Lazar wrote that “the estimated levelized cost of energy for nuclear generation increased [approximately] 35 percent versus prior estimates, reflecting increased capital costs at various nuclear facilities currently in development.” Facilities like the

incomplete Vogtle and Summer nuclear plants made headlines this year due to their financial troubles in the wake of the bankruptcy of nuclear reactor designer Westinghouse……. Storage is still nascent though. “Industry participants expect costs to decrease significantly over the next five years, driven by scale and related cost savings, improved standardization, and technological improvements,” Lazard writes, adding that increased demand could also spur some of that decrease in costs. Still, “the majority of future cost declines are expected to occur as a result of manufacturing and engineering improvements in batteries,” Lazard asserts. Those improvements may be significant, too, as Lazard reports that capital costs associated with installing lithium-ion batteries “are expected to decline as much as 36 percent over the next five years,” according to industry watchers that the firm spoke to https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/11/economics-working-against-coal-as-cost-of-wind-solar-power-drops/..

November 9, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, renewable, USA | Leave a comment

$10.6 Billion Per Year: estimated cost of Rick Perry’s Coal And Nuclear Subsidy

Rick Perry’s Coal And Nuclear Subsidy Could Cost The U.S. Economy $10.6 Billion Per Year, Forbes, Silvio Marcacci, 6 Nov 17, The U.S. Department of Energy’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) directing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to subsidize coal and nuclear generation is opposed by nearly every side of America’s electricity industry – from market operators and conservative analysts to a bipartisan group of former FERC commissioners – except for those who would directly benefit from it.

Reasons for opposing the NOPR range from potentially destroying wholesale power markets, to free trade principles, or insufficient review time, but beyond Rick Perry suggesting the proposal’s price was equal to “the cost of freedom,” DOE hasn’t quantified the NOPR’s economic impact or which plants it would subsidize.

New research from Energy Innovation (EI) and the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) finds DOE’s NOPR could cost up to $10.6 billion annually, and would be paid by U.S. businesses and residents . This subsidy would flow to roughly 10 companies and 90 power plants, and harm cheaper generation from natural gas and renewables.

Wrecking U.S. power markets won’t improve grid resilience

DOE’s NOPR is the latest Trump Administration attempt to prop up older, inefficient coal and nuclear generation that utilities find increasingly uneconomic to operate against cleaner, cheaper generation and efficiency resources…..https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2017/11/06/rick-perrys-coal-and-nuclear-subsidy-could-cost-10-billion-per-year-is-america-great-again-yet/#30790c3530db

November 8, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear lobby not winning hearts and minds, so a propaganda drive is needed

Public Outreach Is Needed to Gain Support for the Nuclear Power Industry Power Magazine, 11/06/2017  Gary J. Duarte “……….Nuclear proponents must spread the message of the energy source’s value: rebrand, redirect, recycle, and renew……

the benefits of nuclear power far outweigh the perceived problems. Engagement with the public is necessary in order to offset political obstruction. Educated grassroots constituents can raise their voices against political correctness, and point out the sound science and engineering behind nuclear technology…….
Media distribution of information must provide equal time and print to inform both sides of complex issues……..
Aside from the country’s need for a nuclear waste storage garage, new technologies are on the horizon too. Tomorrow’s nuclear players should be utilizing grassroots education to advance their causes. The public needs to be made more aware of small modular reactors (SMRs), lead-cooled fast reactors, and molten salt reactors. The best way to improve public knowledge of these new technologies is through outreach.
In recent years, the U.S. Nuclear Energy Foundation (USNEF) has been one of the loudest nuclear advocacy voices. The group is working to become the go-to source for nuclear technology information. A paradigm shift is necessary, and USNEF is involved in multiple programs to address this through grassroots education.

USNEF provides local presentations, industry presentations, American Nuclear Society workshops, Advanced Reactor Technical Summits, Yucca Educational Symposiums (YES), open invitation tours to the Idaho National Laboratory, print collaterals, and TV and YouTube videos available via website download. The foundation is promoting the same advanced reactor designs and SMRs that the industry is currently pitching to government legislatures, agencies, and others.

The bottom line is that rebranding, redirecting, recycling, and renewing “Atoms for Peace” involves understanding the value and importance of grassroots education, and engaging with the general public to promote the nuclear industry’s benefits.

—Gary J. Duarte is director of the U.S. Nuclear Energy Foundation

November 8, 2017 Posted by | spinbuster, USA | Leave a comment

Trump says that he and South Korea’ President will “figure it all out” – about North Korea’s nuclear ambitions

Trump vows to ‘figure out’ North Korea nuclear crisis with Moon SBS News, 7 Nov 17,  US President Donald Trump arrived in Seoul on Tuesday vowing to ‘figure it all out’ with his South Korean counterpart Moon Jae-In, despite the two allies’ differences on how to deal with the nuclear-armed North.

As tensions over Pyongyang’s weapons programme have soared, the US president has traded personal insults and threats of war with North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un, but the South’s capital and its 10 million inhabitants would be on the front line of any conflict.

On Twitter Trump described Moon as “a fine gentleman”, adding: “We will figure it all out!”

The tone was in marked contrast to a previous Trump tweet in which he accused Moon — who has backed engagement with the North to bring it to the negotiating table — of “appeasement”.

Trump arrived from Japan, where he secured Tokyo’s full support for Washington’s stance that “all options are on the table” regarding Pyongyang, and declaring its nuclear ambitions “a threat to the civilised world and international peace and stability”……..

while Trump has threatened Pyongyang with “fire and fury”, Moon is mindful that much of Seoul is within range of the North’s artillery and in an address to parliament last week demanded: “There should be no military action on the peninsula without our prior consent.” http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/11/07/trump-vows-figure-out-north-korea-nuclear-crisis-moon

November 8, 2017 Posted by | politics international, South Korea, USA | Leave a comment

USA lawmakers intend to comply with Iran nuclear deal

U.S. lawmakers aim to comply with Iran nuclear deal: EU http://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-asia-japan/trump-says-japan-would-shoot-north-korean-missiles-out-of-sky-if-it-bought-u-s-weaponry-idUSKBN1D602F, Reuters Staff,  Reporting By Arshad Mohammed; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Richard Chang, WASHINGTON (Reuters) 7 Nov 17,  – U.S. lawmakers signaled they plan to ensure the United States complies with the 2015 Iran nuclear deal despite U.S. President Donald Trump’s misgivings about the pact, the European Union’s foreign policy chief said on Tuesday.

“I got clear indications that the intention is to keep the United States compliant with the agreement,” EU Foreign Policy chief Federica Mogherini told reporters at a news conference in Washington.

Trump on Oct. 13 dealt a blow to the pact by refusing to certify that Tehran was complying with the accord even though international inspectors say it was.

Under the deal, Iran agreed to curb its nuclear program in return for relief from economic sanctions.

Trump’s decision has thrown into doubt the future of the pact negotiated by Iran, the EU and six major powers – Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States. Congress has until mid-December to decide whether to reimpose sanctions lifted under the deal, something few diplomats expect.

Mogherini, one of the negotiators of the agreement, sought to avoid publicly becoming embroiled in the debate among U.S. lawmakers about what kind of legislation, if any, to pass regarding the nuclear deal even as she stressed the EU’s desire to see the United States stick with it.

“I made clear any outcome of any process – that is an internal process and as such has to be respected – has to be, at the end of the day, compliant with the deal,” she said. She added that she had voiced her willingness to help U.S. lawmakers “find solutions that are compatible” with U.S. compliance under the agreement.

November 8, 2017 Posted by | Iran, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Costly task to clean up New York’s highly radioactive thorium contaminated site

Trump’s E.P.A. Pledges to Clean Up NYC’s ‘Most Radioactive Site’ – But Funding Is in Question WNYC News, Nov 6, 2017, By Sarah Stein Kerr and Annie Nova

The Trump administration is taking on its first Superfund cleanup in New York City – that is, assuming it has the money.

Last month, a $40 million plan to remediate a radioactive site in Queens where highly toxic materials were once poured into city sewers was unveiled by local officials of the Environmental Protection Agency. Known as Wolff-Alport for the chemical firm that was once located there, the site sits on an industrial stretch in the Ridgewood neighborhood of Queens. About three-quarters of an acre in size, the site currently houses a deli, an auto-shop and four other businesses. The E.P.A. counts a public school, a bar and some 300 residences within the site’s immediate vicinity.

Wolff-Alport, the newest of the city’s three designated Superfunds, was added to the E.P.A.’s Superfund priority list in 2014. The move came after surveys identified radioactivity throughout the property, including below public sidewalks and streets and in nearby sewers.

Going after such sites has been declared a priority for new E.P.A. administrator Scott Pruitt, a former attorney general of Oklahoma whose views on the environment make him one of the President’s most controversial appointees. Before assuming the post, Pruitt sued the agency repeatedly and still maintains that climate change is not the result of human activity.

But if he’s a climate change doubter, Pruitt has proclaimed himself a Superfund believer. In a memo this summer, Pruitt wrote: “My goal as Administrator is to restore the Superfund program to its rightful place at the center of the agency’s core mission.”

Judith Enck, former regional E.P.A. administrator for New York who pushed to get Wolff-Alport on the Superfund list, said she remains skeptical of Pruitt’s public declarations in support of cleaning up these hazardous waste sites.

“You can’t be the E.P.A. administrator and not stand for anything,” Enck said. “So he’s latched on to Superfunds. But at the same time, he’s cutting the budget, so it kind of rings hollow.”

President Donald J. Trump has proposed cutting $327 million – or around a third – of the nation’s annual Superfund budget. At the same time, Pruitt is also seeking to end the E.P.A.’s financial support to the Department of Justice, which holds the polluters of these hazardous waste sites accountable.

Regardless, spokeswoman for the E.P.A Tayler Covington, said that the agency is committed to cleaning up Wolff-Alport.

“There are no plans to change any of the cleanups for the three New York City Superfund sites,” said Covington. “We are in the budgetary process and final funding levels will not be settled until Congress acts.”

But experts on the Superfund program contend that even the current funding levels are still well below what is needed to clean up the nation’s many contaminated sites.

The E.P.A. announced the cleanup plan for Wolff-Alport in late September. The site’s remediation calls for all tenants to be permanently relocated, all buildings to be demolished and sewers to be replaced. The contaminated soil will be transported to a waste landfill.

All told, the cleanup will cost $39.9 million. But exactly where those funds will come from remains a question.

The E.P.A. maintains an account for each Superfund site in which money allocated for the cleanup is held. The Wolff-Alport-designated bank account currently holds just a little over $650,000, Thomas Mongelli, E.P.A. project manager of the site, told WNYC.

Usually, it’s the original polluters who are responsible for picking up the tab for cleanups. At Newtown Creek, a heavily polluted waterway that borders Brooklyn and Queens, six potentially responsible polluters have been identified. The Gowanus Canal in southern Brooklyn has more than 30 known polluters. Wolff-Alport, on the other hand, is considered in E.P.A. terminology an “orphan,” which means that the original polluter is defunct and can’t be relied upon for payment.

“There is a good chance that most of this money is going to need to come from the federal Superfund program and federal Superfund is running on fumes,” Enck said.

Beginning in the 1980s, a tax on Superfund polluters amassed funds for cleanup in a trust account. But that provision expired around 1995, and the account has since languished. Although there are no official estimates of the cost to clean up all of the country’s polluted sites, Kate Probst, author of a report to Congress, “Superfund’s Future: What Will It Cost?,” said the $280 million account balance is woefully insufficient.

Although annual congressional appropriations for Superfunds were meant to compensate for the trust account’s decline, these appropriations have also steadily dwindled. Federal contributions for Superfund cleanup have fallen from $2.1 billion in 1999, to an annual budget of $1.2 billion by 2013, according to the Office of Government Accountability.

This shortfall has stunted the cleanup work at the nation’s most contaminated sites,   Probst said. “If they had more money, they probably would have cleaned up more sites, or gotten construction completed on more sites. We know the number of cleanups are slowing,” she said, adding that she expects there will be more disruptions due to the funding shortages. “That is the tip of the iceberg,” Probst said.

City officials are also worried that the feds may be low-balling the costs of cleaning up Wolff-Alport. In an August letter to the E.P.A., Haley Stein, a lawyer with the  city’s law department, stated that the city “believes that E.P.A. significantly underestimates the cost and feasibility of implementing its preferred alternative.”

City officials declined to detail the reasons for their skepticism.

At an E.P.A. meeting about the site in Queens this summer, a handful of residents also expressed concerns about the Trump administration’s plan to cut the Superfund budget and how that would affect Wolff-Alport’s cleanup.

Walter Mugdan, acting deputy regional administrator for E.P.A. region 2, was frank in his response.

“Do I know how this site will rank against others? I don’t,” Mugdan told residents, according to a transcript of the meeting. “But I do know radioactive materials are [a] serious concern and what we do know is that people are actually being exposed.”

Indeed, The New Yorker, citing government findings, dubbed Wolff-Alport, “The most radioactive place in New York City,” in a 2014 video story, which recounts the site’s fascinating history.

In the 1920s,  business partners Harry Wolff and Max Alport founded the Wolff-Alport Chemical Company. At the factory, workers processed monazite sand to extract rare earth metals – a highly toxic procedure. By the 1940s, the Atomic Energy Commission, the successor of the Manhattan Project, started buying radioactive thorium from the site. In the 1950s, the factory shuttered.

Norman Kleiman, director of the Eye Radiation and Environmental Research Laboratory at Columbia University, said the E.P.A. had an obligation to clean up the site. Radiation there is “well above the average terrestrial exposure even in New York City,” Kleinman told WNYC.

“People are especially concerned about exposure,” Kleinman added, “and from a public policy and public health point of view, it’s important to allay fear.”

He said risks to passersby and casual visitors to the site are likely minimal, however. “We get radiation from the sun, from the stars, so we live and are bathed in a radioactive world,”Kleinman said.

But for those who labor at the site everyday, the risks associated with Wolff-Alport’s radiation are higher…….http://www.wnyc.org/story/trumps-ep-pledges-clean-nycs-most-radioactive-site-funding-question/

November 8, 2017 Posted by | environment, thorium, USA | Leave a comment

Georgia Power knew for years about nuclear contractor’s flaws that doomed S.C. project

Georgia Power knew for years about nuclear contractor’s flaws that doomed S.C. project http://www.postandcourier.com/business/georgia-power-knew-for-years-about-nuclear-contractor-s-flaws/article_550d04cc-c302-11e7-9332-3fa0cc0bdb47.html, By Andrew Brown abrown@postandcourier.com

    Nov 6, 2017 COLUMBIA — Georgia Power has known for years about an internal 2011 report that warned Westinghouse officials that the Pennsylvania-based company wasn’t prepared to finish two nuclear projects in Georgia and South Carolina, company officials said Monday.

The document itself was drafted by a Westinghouse engineer in Pittsburgh, and was first described in a story by The Post and Courier in September.

The revelation during a Monday hearing with Georgia regulators could raise serious questions about the two unfinished Westinghouse reactors at Plant Vogtle near Augusta as a coalition of utilities push forward with the project that is estimated to cost $25 billion.

The disclosure comes more than three months after a sister project in South Carolina was canceled in late July, a decision partly shaped by Westinghouse’s inexperience in managing large construction projects. The company was the main contractor on both nuclear projects.

The internal Westinghouse document outlined how the company didn’t have the staff, structure or experience needed to manage the engineering and construction work required to build its new AP1000 reactors, which were scheduled to be used in South Carolina and Georgia.

It suggested the projects in Georgia and South Carolina were “at risk” and warned Westinghouse officials that the decision to disregard state engineering laws could lead to lawsuits. And it predicted the company would lose hundreds of millions of dollars in its quest to develop and build a new generation of nuclear power plants.

That critical analysis was reportedly shared with Westinghouse’s former chairman in 2011. But until Monday, there was no evidence that the document was seen in past years by anyone outside of Westinghouse’s staff and leadership.

That changed with the Monday testimony of officials with Georgia Power, one of the primary owners of two partially-built reactors at Plant Vogtle.

Attorneys for Georgia Power, a subsidiary of Atlanta-based Southern Co., obtained the document through litigation with Westinghouse in 2014, according to the testimony. That’s roughly three years before Westinghouse filed for bankruptcy and the future of the projects in Georgia and South Carolina were thrown into doubt.

Georgia regulators wanted to know Monday why the utility didn’t disclose that document to the state’s five-member Public Service Commission when they received it.

David McKinney, vice president of nuclear development for Southern Co., said Georgia Power didn’t share that information with state officials because it obtained the document through a lawsuit and couldn’t share it without Westinghouse’s permission.

“This was one of thousands of documents that were exchanged,” McKinney said.

 During the lengthy hearing, Georgia Power and the other utilities partnering on the Vogtle Plant said they planned to continue construction on the unfinished reactors next to the Savannah River.

“We are committed. We are moving forward,” Georgia Power CEO Paul Bowers said.

It remains to be seen whether the Georgia utility commission will approve plans for finishing the reactors. Like the abandoned reactors at V.C. Summer Nuclear Station in South Carolina, the nuclear power plants in Georgia have been plagued by design problems and construction delays, though construction is ongoing under a new construction management team.

Georgia’s utility regulators questioned whether Georgia Power can meet the latest schedule, which calls for the reactors to be finished by 2022.

“We’re supposed to believe after the budget busting and schedule changes in past years that this is going to be a schedule we can work with?” said Stan Wise, the chairman of the Georgia utility commission.

The fate of the Georgia reactors is expected to become more clear early next year.

“This is probably one of the most serious issues that this commission has faced,” Wise said.

 Reach Andrew Brown at 843-708-1830 or follow him on Twitter @andy_ed_brown.

November 8, 2017 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

Cost of decommissioning Pilgrim nuclear power station – $25 million a year

$25 million a year decommissioning fee proposed for Pilgrim nuclear plant  Andy Metzger, State House News Service, Nov 6, 2017 BOSTON — Without sufficient funds for safely decommissioning the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, the state could be left holding the proverbial (glowing) bag once the plant ceases operations, environmental activists warned lawmakers Monday, asking them to impose a $25 million annual fee on the station if it misses deadlines.

The plant is set to close in a year and a half and its owner, Entergy, said the timetable for completing the decommissioning five years after closing is unrealistic.

“Physically it’s impossible to decommission in five years,” Tom Joyce, a lobbyist for Entergy, told the Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy. The fuel that was delivered to the power plant on the Plymouth coast about six months ago is “very hot and being used now to fuel the reactor and produce electricity, which will stay in the pool and can’t be touched for five years,” Joyce said.

Pilgrim went into operation in 1972, and it has been a source of major safety concern for residents of the South Shore and Cape Cod, especially after the meltdown in Fukushima, Japan, demonstrated the devastation that can follow a nuclear disaster……..

The plant, which is rated one notch above the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s ranking of unacceptable, is set to close at the end of May 2019, and federal regulators will oversee the decommissioning process.

Pilgrim has a fund to pay for decommissioning that Joyce said stands at around $1 billion and anti-Pilgrim activists said was recently priced at about $960 million. Activists say that amount won’t be enough to cover the cost of safely securing the spent fuel and other decommissioning responsibilities.

Decommissioning Vermont Yankee, a smaller plant, had an estimated cost of $1.23 billion, according to Claire Miller, a community organizer for Toxics Action Center.

“If there’s not enough money the reactor could be mothballed for 60 years, and during that time obviously the workforce would be reduced to a skeleton [crew], offsite emergency planning would be eliminated, and offsite environmental monitoring eliminated or reduced,” Miller told the committee. “If Entergy … skips town, we are left holding the bag, along with lots of radioactive waste.”

Legislation filed by Plymouth Republicans Sen. Vinny deMacedo and Rep. Mathew Muratore would establish a Nuclear Power Station Post-Closure Trust Fund financed with $25 million annual payments by any nuclear plant that is not completely decommissioned five years after it stops making electricity. Pilgrim is the only remaining nuclear plant in Massachusetts.

“This is a detriment to our community,” deMacedo told the committee about the soon-to-be shuttered plant…… http://plymouth.wickedlocal.com/news/20171106/25-million-year-decommissioning-fee-proposed-for-pilgrim-nuclear-plant

November 8, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, decommission reactor, USA | Leave a comment

Not much support for USA Dept of Energy plan to prop up failing nuclear and coal industries

DOE Plan to Prop Up Coal and Nuclear Gets Little Support, NRDC, November 07, 2017 Miles Farmer 

The clock is ticking for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the agency in charge of national electricity markets, to make a decision on a rushed proposal from the Trump-run Department of Energy (DOE) to massively subsidize underperforming coal and nuclear power plants, costing consumers billions. Today marks the close of the very short public comment period on the bailout, which has generated an overwhelmingly negative reaction.

Groups across the energy industry are responding to one another’s initial comments submitted two weeks ago in response to DOE’s proposal to FERC, which plans to make its decision by Dec. 11 (our initial comments are discussed here). NRDC is joining with Earthjustice, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club and others in these “reply” comments (a link will be posted here after they are filed). As our comments emphasize, while a handful of interested parties linked to the coal and nuclear industries supported the proposal, none successfully countered its fundamental flaw: it orders customers to pay coal and nuclear plants extra money simply because they can keep 90 days’ worth of energy supply onsite (a requirement designed precisely because it benefits coal and nuclear), notbecause they are necessary to provide reliable or “resilient” grid service.

DOE’s proposal is a distraction

As my colleague Jennifer Chen laid out in a separate set of initial comments from NRDC (discussed here), a real process to investigate resilience would entail defining the term in a way that distinguishes it from reliability already accounted for by market rules, establishing metrics to measure it, and allowing resources to compete to deliver it in a technology-neutral manner.

The data indicates that resilience primarily depends on power delivery infrastructure like substations and power lines, so bailing out coal and nuclear units is the wrong approach. ……..

The best next steps? Just say no

Ultimately, DOE’s proposal is nothing more than an illegal plan to advance an expensive and ineffective solution to solve a non-existent crisis. Consumers, grid operators, and major sectors of the energy industry have overwhelmingly rejected the DOE’s blatant attempt to prop up uncompetitive coal and nuclear power. The proposed rule’s few supporters have failed to provide any evidence that FERC should move forward with this ill-considered scheme.

FERC should simply reject this proposal and other ideas that are fundamentally based on a desire to save expensive coal and nuclear generators rather than to better serve customers.https://www.nrdc.org/experts/miles-farmer/doe-plan-prop-coal-and-nuclear-gets-little-support

November 8, 2017 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Bipartisan U.S. Congress and Senate members speak out against invading North Korea

Veterans in Congress speak out against invading North Korea, Jerick Sablan, jpsablan@guampdn.com Pacific Daily News. ChT Nov. 6, 2017 Veterans in Congress are concerned about the possibility of a ground invasion of North Korea, which they said could kill millions of people. They have asked President Trump to tone down his rhetoric.

“It could kill millions of South Koreans and put troops and civilians in Guam and Japan at risk,” they stated Monday.

California Rep. Ted Lieu, D-California, along with 15 fellow veterans from the House and Senate, issued the  bipartisan joint statement.

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Del. Gregorio Sablan is one of the congressmen who joined in the statement.

The statement comes after a letter from the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a report from the Congressional Research Service on the military action against North Korea. …….

Veterans in Congress are concerned about the possibility of a ground invasion of North Korea, which they said could kill millions of people. They have asked President Trump to tone down his rhetoric.

“It could kill millions of South Koreans and put troops and civilians in Guam and Japan at risk,” they stated Monday.

California Rep. Ted Lieu, D-California, along with 15 fellow veterans from the House and Senate, issued the  bipartisan joint statement.

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Del. Gregorio Sablan is one of the congressmen who joined in the statement.

The statement comes after a letter from the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a report from the Congressional Research Service on the military action against North Korea. http://www.guampdn.com/story/news/2017/11/06/veterans-congress-speak-out-against-invading-north-korea/834674001/

November 6, 2017 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Invasion is ‘only way’ to destroy Kim Jong-un’s military threat, Pentagon official says

North Korea: Invasion is ‘only way’ to destroy Kim Jong-un’s military threat, Pentagon official says   http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-06/north-korea-pentagon-joint-chiefs-invasion-only-way-to-disarm/9121092  A ground invasion of North Korea is “the only way” to locate and destroy with complete certainty Kim Jong-un’s nuclear weapons program, the Pentagon Joint Chiefs of Staff have said.

Key points:

  • US officials requested a detailed assessment of the consequences of a North Korean war
  • The assessment says an invasion is the only way to disarm North Korea with certainty
  • The statement says millions could die in days and that chemical weapons may be used
  • The Joint Chief of Staffs directly advise the US President on military matters

In a letter to the Pentagon, two House Democrats had asked about casualty assessments in a possible conflict with North Korea, and Rear Admiral Michael J Dumont of the Joint Staff responded on behalf of the Defence Department.

“It is our intent to have a full public accounting of the potential cost of war, so the American people understand the commitment we would be making as a nation if we were to pursue military action,” the representatives’ letter said.

“We have not heard detailed analysis of expected US or allied force casualties, expected civilian casualties, what plans exist for the aftermath of a strike — including continuity of the South Korean Government.”

In his response, Mr Dumont noted that the United States’ military and intelligence agencies are evaluating North Korea’s ability to target heavily populated areas of South Korea with long-range artillery, rockets and ballistic missiles.

“A classified briefing would be the best place to discuss in detail the capability of the US and its allies,” Mr Dumont’s letter said.

“[And] to discuss capabilities to counter North Korea’s ability to respond with a nuclear weapon and eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons located in deeply buried, underground facilities.”

In his response, Mr Dumont highlighted that Seoul, the South Korean capital with a population of 25 million, was just 55 kilometres from the demilitarised zone(DMZ) that separates the two Koreas.   The amount of casualties would differ depending on the advance warning and the ability of US and South Korea forces to counter these attacks.

Mr Dumont also highlighted the possibility that chemical and biological weapons might be used by the North in case of a conflict.

In the US military the Joint Chiefs of Staff directly advise the President on military matters.

Responding in a joint statement, 15 Democratic officials and one Republican — all military veterans — called Mr Dumont’s assessment that a ground invasion would be required to destroy the North’s nuclear arsenal “chilling” and “deeply disturbing”.

“The Joint Chiefs of Staff has now confirmed that the only way to destroy North Korea’s nuclear arsenal is through a ground invasion,” the joint statement said. That is deeply disturbing and could result in hundreds of thousands, or even millions of deaths in just the first few days of fighting.

“Their assessment underscores what we’ve known all along: there are no good military options for North Korea.”

They also noted that the Trump administration “has failed to articulate any plans to prevent the military conflict from expanding beyond the Korean Peninsula and to manage what happens after the conflict is over”.

“With that in mind, the thought of sending troops into harm’s way and expending resources on another potentially unwinnable war is chilling,” they said.

“The President needs to stop making provocative statements that hinder diplomatic options and put American troops further at risk.”

Speaking to CNN overnight, Senator Dianne Feinstein, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, called the assessment “bleak”, but added that she was pleased that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was accompanying President Donald Trump during his trip to Asia, where North Korea is the main issue on the agenda.

“I think if he will stay the course and use diplomacy the way diplomacy can be used, then it might be possible to work something out,” Ms Feinstein said.

“The worst alternative is a war which could become nuclear.”

November 6, 2017 Posted by | North Korea, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Estimating the full cost of a nuclear weapons buildup

Yesterday is tomorrow: estimating the full cost of a nuclear buildup, https://thebulletin.org/yesterday-tomorrow-estimating-full-cost-nuclear-buildup11264?platform=hootsuite, ROBERT ALVAREZ, 3 Nov 17

Figure 1

An analysis of the annual costs for nuclear warhead services and systems from fiscal years 2003 2018 (in 2017 dollars) shows that over the past 15 years, the United States has spent nearly $33 billion a year on a dwindling nuclear stockpile. Even though the U.S. Nuclear weapons stockpile has shrunk by 60 percent since 2003, the annual per-warhead cost has increased by about 422 percent. (See figure 2.)

Figure 2

These estimated costs for environmental cleanup are likely on the lower end of the eventual tab, because the Energy Department’s large infrastructure of abandoned facilities has been ignored for decades. Abandoned and antiquated structures constitute a fast-growing overhead expense for the weapons complex, which must pay for building collapses, flooding, and fires, and for preventive work that, for example, keeps roofs on vacant buildings from falling in. In 2015, the Energy Department inspector general warned that, “delays in the cleanup and disposition of contaminated excess facilities expose the department, its employees and the public to ever-increasing levels of risk [and] lead to escalating disposition costs.”

For instance, the Y-12 nuclear weapons site Oak Ridge,Tenn., has abandoned contaminated structures, mostly built in the 1940’s, that inhabit a footprint 2.5 times larger than the Pentagon building. In December 2016, the cost to get rid of 2,349 Energy Department abandoned facilities over the next 10 years was roughly estimated at $32 billion.The Energy Department reports that among those buildings are 203 unattended “high risk” facilities, estimated to cost $11.6 billion to deal with. And sometimes the risk becomes reality, the most recent example being the collapse of the PUREX Tunnel at the Hanford Site in Washington State; the tunnel holds an enormous amount of radioactive waste, and its collapse forced workers to seek cover at at the Hanford site. The Energy Department estimates that another 1,000 abandoned facilities will be added to the list of those needing cleanup over the coming decade. Disposition costs for the large amounts of hazardous wastes in the abandoned structures are not included in the department’s 2016 estimate and are likely to add several billion dollars more to the ultimate bill.

To be sure, these legacy costs are not specifically related to nuclear modernization. But so long as the United States continues to support and, perhaps, rebuild a large nuclear weapons complex, the costs of the complex as a whole will continue—and continue to increase. Decisions on modernization need to take these legacy costs into account because they will inevitably affect the amount of money available to the US defense effort, and, very importantly, to the protection of the health and safety of workers in the weapons complex, and the American public.

November 6, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Bill Gates and China get together on new nuclear technology

China calls for stronger co-op with US in next-generation nuclear technology
The announcement came from Chinese premier Li Keqiang ahead of US President Donald Trump’s visit to China. Trump is scheduled to hold talks with President Xi Jinping.  Hindustan Times Nov 05, 2017 Press Trust of India, Beijing 

China wants joint cooperation with the US in developing next-generation nuclear power technology,  Chinese premier Li Keqiang said, ahead of President Donald Trump’s visit to Beijing this week.Trump will be in China from Wednesday to Friday. He would hold talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

In his meeting on Friday with Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft and chairman of TerraPower, Li has called for closer China-US cooperation in developing the next-generation nuclear power technology.

Speaking highly of the China-US partnership in this field, Li said companies of the two countries have set up a joint venture with each holding half of shares and agreeing to share the intellectual property rights, state-run Xinhua news agency reported.

TerraPower, LLC signed a joint venture agreement with China National Nuclear Corporation to form the Global Innovation Nuclear Energy Technology Limited. The two companies plan to work together to complete the Travelling Wave Reactor (TWR) design and commercialise the TWR technology……. http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/china-calls-for-stronger-co-op-with-us-in-next-generation-nuclear-technology/story-KAjCtq9Wz5rYOdOH5zBi0I.html

November 6, 2017 Posted by | business and costs, China, USA | Leave a comment

Trump says he’s prepared to meet Kim Jog-un

Pentagon: only ground invasion can destroy North Korean nuclear program Feinstein says she is ‘very pleased’ Tillerson is with Trump in Asia President says he is prepared to meet Kim Jong-un, Guardian, Martin Pengelly, 6 Nov 17, After a top Pentagon official said the only way to destroy North Korea’s nuclear weapons program would be through a ground invasion, a senior Senate Democrat urged the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, to “stay the course” and achieve a diplomatic solution to the crisis, in spite of President Donald Trump’s unpredictable behaviour and threats of military action.

November 6, 2017 Posted by | politics international, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »