With the confusing consortium behind it, the UK’s Rolls Royce ”small” nuclear reactor project is running a huge risk
this is a huge risk of public money on a speculative design. By the time we know how much SMRs will cost and whether they are reliable or not, there will be up to 10 reactors being manufactured unless production lines are allowed to sit idle for years waiting until the design is proven enough for new orders to be placed. Realistically the first reactor won’t be complete before the mid-2030s at about the time the last fossil fuel will disappear from the generation mix, so it’s too little, too late and too expensive
What it turns out to amount to is an agreement to spend £400m over the next three years which may produce a design for a reactor which may get approved by the regulators and which may find investors willing to pay what will be at least £2billion to build each one
nuClear News November 21. Rolls Royce’s Small Modular Reactors On 9th November the Government announced that it would back the Rolls-Royce Small Modular Reactor with £210m in funding. Matched by private sector funding of over £250 million, this investment will take forward phase 2 of the Low-Cost Nuclear project to further develop SMR design and take it through the regulatory processes to assess suitability of potential deployment in the UK.
The Government claimed that SMRs have the potential to be less expensive to build than traditional nuclear power plants because of their smaller size, and because the modular nature of the components offers the potential for parts to be produced in dedicated factories and shipped by road to site – reducing construction time and cost. Rolls Royce SMR estimate that each Small Modular Reactor could be capable of powering 1 million homes – equivalent to a city the size of Leeds.
The £210 million grant follows £18 million invested in November 2019, which, according to the Government, has already delivered significant development of the initial design as part of Phase One of the project. (1)
The Rolls Royce SMR design is not exactly small. It was originally conceived as a 440 MW unit, but R-R has found a way of getting 470 MWe out of the core. Each of the proposed 16 reactors is expected to cost around £1.8 billion to £2.2bn and produce power at £40-60/MWh over 60 yrs. (2) Rolls Royce says it has a target cost of £1.8 billion once 5 reactors have been built. (3)
As well as the Government funding, Rolls-Royce has been backed by a consortium of private investors. The creation of the Rolls-Royce Small Modular Reactor (SMR) business was announced following a £195m cash injection from BNF Resources, and Exelon Generation to fund the plans over the next three years. (The Guardian suggests Rolls Royce will top this up with £50m of its own money, which gets us to £245m –not quite the ‘over £250m’ mentioned in the Government Press Release, but it’s not clear whether the £50m is extra money or part of the £195m). It is hoped the new company could create up to 40,000 jobs by 2050. The investment by Rolls-Royce Group, and the government will go towards developing Rolls-Royce’s SMR design and take it through regulatory processes to assess whether it is suitable to be deployed in the UK. It will also identify sites which will manufacture the reactors’ parts and most of the venture’s investment is expected to be focused in the north of the UK, where there is existing nuclear expertise. (4)
BNF Resources UK Limited appears to have been created in June and has two significant employees, Nicholas Fallows and Sean Benson. Benson says: “BNF has an established history of energy market investing and we are proud to be a part of Rolls-Royce SMR in this exciting opportunity. Following reviews of numerous proposals we found that this project, featuring a highly experienced team was the most realistic, affordable and scalable solution for provision of carbon-free baseload and alternative power requirements.” (5)
It appears that BNF Resources UK Limited is a subsidiary of BNF Capital Limited which was created in 2012 (same address) and is registered in Guernsey. These two people seem to have a history in Financial Investment. The Perrodo family, which made its fortune from the private oil company Perenco, is behind BNF Resources UK.
Confusingly there has been no mention of the Rolls Royce SMR Consortium which included Assystem, Atkins, BAM Nuttall, Laing O’Rourke, National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL), Jacobs, The Welding Institute (TWI) and Nuclear AMRC, as well as Rolls Royce. The consortium existed in July of this year when Cavendish signed up to work on the SMR. (6) Assystem has since said it will continue to lead on the design of key areas of power plant infrastructure including the turbine island, cooling water island and balance of plant systems, and is expecting to double the size of its SMR team in the next six months. (7) Similarly Nuclear AMRC has said it will work with Rolls-Royce to help prepare critical components for commercial production in the UK. The centre will also support the design of a new UK factory for large SMR components. (8)
Exelon is contributing under an agreement from a year ago to find international markets. (9)
This new funding will help Rolls-Royce start the SMRs on the Generic Design Assessment (GDA) process. (10) In May, the government declared the Generic Design Assessment (GDA) open to advanced nuclear technologies – including SMRs – for the first time. The process allows the nuclear regulators to assess the safety, security and environmental implications of new reactor designs. Rolls-Royce SMR has stated its intention to enter the GDA process shortly. (11) This could take about 5 years. (The GDA process took 5.75 years for the EPR, 7.5 years for the AP1000, 4.75 years for the ABWR, and process for the UK HPR1000 is continuing after 4 years. (12)) According to the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) the GDA on SMRs was expected to have started by now but there have been delays.
Each of the initial run of reactors is expected to have a generation capacity of 470MW, or enough to power the equivalent of 1.3m UK homes, and cost about £2bn on average, well below the price per MW sought by developers of large-scale nuclear reactors. The consortium hopes to build on an initial run of five SMRs, the first of which could go on line by 2031, to create a multibillion-pound stable of 16 SMRs around the country. (13)
This means that if delivered on budget and to engineering specifications, a single SMR would deliver roughly a seventh of the power of Hinkley for less than a twelfth of the price, while using less land. Each power station is said to be the size of two football pitches, (but this is open to question) and can also be used to create hydrogen by splitting water molecules. The company, primarily a jet engine maker, hopes the hydrogen SMRs could produce would accelerate a move to greener aviation.
Rolls-Royce will be seeking more investment for the project to help fund the building of actual SMRs. The government is currently passing legislation that will allow investors to back projects like SMRs using a regulated asset base (RAB) model, which allows them to recoup up-front costs. The government said this would “attract a wider range of private investment into these projects, reducing build costs, consumers’ energy bills and Britain’s reliance on overseas developers for finance.”
Professor MV Ramana, a nuclear policy expert at the University of British Columbia in Canada, cautioned that this would be a new market for Rolls. He said: “It’s the same technology, but the set of constraints that you will be dealing with in the electricity sector are very different from submarines.” He also said Rolls has some catching up to do against rivals pursuing the same goals. NuScale Power, based in Oregon, received US regulatory approval for its own reactor design last year and could have a plant working by 2026. (14)
Steve Thomas, Emeritus Professor of Energy Policy at Greenwich University said this is a huge risk of public money on a speculative design. By the time we know how much SMRs will cost and whether they are reliable or not, there will be up to 10 reactors being manufactured unless production lines are allowed to sit idle for years waiting until the design is proven enough for new orders to be placed. Realistically the first reactor won’t be complete before the mid-2030s at about the time the last fossil fuel will disappear from the generation mix, so it’s too little, too late and too expensive
Chair of the E3Gthink tank, Tom Burke, points out that this is the third or fourth time this programme has been announced in the past year. What it turns out to amount to is an agreement to spend £400m over the next three years which may produce a design for a reactor which may get approved by the regulators and which may find investors willing to pay what will be at least £2billion to build each one and which may be generating electricity which may be competitive with renewables just before the whole of our electricity system has to be decarbonised to meet the PM’s target. So, six things have to go right before we might see an SMR somewhere.
As expected, Moorside, Wylfa and Trawsfynydd have all been mentioned as potential sites for an SMR. Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen also wants Hartlepool to be on the list. (15) Dylan Morgan of PAWB (People Against Wylfa B) said: “We have an immediate crisis now. Nuclear power is slow, dangerous and extortionately expensive. It will do nothing to address the current energy crisis, neither will it be effective to counter climate change. The UK and Welsh governments should divert resources and support away from wasteful and outdated nuclear power projects towards developing renewable technologies that are much cheaper and can provide faster and more sustainable solutions to the energy crisis and the challenges of climate change.” (16) https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/nuClearNewsNo135.pdf
The environmental dimension of the use of nuclear weapons
The environmental dimension of the use of nuclear weapons, AT TOP https://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/commentary/the-environmental-dimension-of-the-use-of-nuclear-weapons/ European Leadership Network, Carlo Trezza |Former Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament, Former Chairman of the Missile Technology Control Regime, 12 Nov 21, In 2010, Jakob Kellenberger, the then President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, demonstrated extraordinary courage when he gathered all the accredited ambassadors in Geneva and made it clear that his organisation would not be able to ensure the required international standards of humanitarian assistance to civilian populations in the case of the use of nuclear weapons. In his words, “The mere assumption that atomic weapons may be used, for whatever reason, is enough to make illusory any attempt to protect non-combatants.”
That statement was made on the eve of the 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference in New York, and was instrumental to the adoption by that conference of the concept of the “catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons”, which nuclear-armed states had traditionally been reluctant to accept. One year earlier, with his historic speech in Prague (in which he promised to “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons”), President Obama had already prepared the ground for the inclusion of the “catastrophic consequences” principle in the final document of the New York conference. During three international conferences subsequently convened by Norway, Mexico and Austria, the “humanitarian catastrophic” nature of any use of atomic weapons was further confirmed. This concept should be reiterated during the upcoming NPT Review Conference, scheduled for January 2022.
As the world’s leaders gather to discuss how to tackle climate change, it is also necessary to add that the use of nuclear weapons would have dangerous consequences for the environment. The environmental impact of nuclear weapons has been amply evidenced by the over 2000 nuclear tests carried out in deserted and uninhabited areas, while the dangers of radiation have also been demonstrated by the major accidents at the civilian nuclear power plants of Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Today the environmental impact of a nuclear attack on inhabited centres and industrial areas can only be calculated through simulations. The deadly environmental effects of the
two bombs that annihilated Hiroshima and Nagasaki can hardly be considered a precedent since they would pale in comparison to what would happen if only part of the 13,000 nuclear devices currently possessed by the nuclear powers were to be detonated today. Studies on the environmental side of the nuclear coin have intensified in parallel with the growing nightmare of climate change and the increase of nuclear risks. While there are debates over the precise modelling (such as a controversy between scientists over whether an India-Pakistan nuclear exchange would be enough to cause a global nuclear winter), multiple studies raise alarming prospects that in the event of a nuclear conflict, there would be shocks akin to climate change, but on a much faster timescale and with an exponential impact.
Nonetheless, the international community and the nuclear-armed states have not yet drawn political conclusions from the anticipated environmental impacts of the use of nuclear weapons. This concept has so far only been mentioned in some official texts (the Partial Test Ban Treaty, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons), while the ENMOD (Environmental Modification Convention) Treaty adopted in 1978 is mostly focused on prohibiting the hostile use of environmental weather modification techniques but does not address the nuclear threat.
In his memorable statement on 11th November 2017 at the Vatican, Pope Francis expressed his “genuine concern” for the “catastrophic humanitarian and environmental effects of any employment of nuclear devices”. More recently, on 28th October of this year, an event chaired by World Future Council and Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament was dedicated to the Climate /Nuclear Disarmament Nexus. Climate protection and nuclear risk reduction were the core subjects debated during the meeting which was called in preparation for the UN Climate Change Conference (COP 26) and the incoming NPT RevCon.
This is the first step. A process similar to the 2010 humanitarian initiative should be launched during next year’s NPT conference, leading to the recognition of the “catastrophic environmental consequences of any use of nuclear weapons”. Hopefully, on the occasion of that conference, one or more international leaders will have the vision to promote this topic as Jakob Kellenberger did in 2010. The tragic consequences of climate change will be dramatically amplified if the Damocles sword of a nuclear disaster continues hanging over humanity.
The Risks of Nuclear Modernization
The Risks of Nuclear Modernization AntiWar.com, by Starté Butone November 12, 2021
The US military establishment seems set to start a new Cold War with China, Russia, and every other country it can paint as an enemy. As with the first Cold War, it will not be complete without an arms race. This is exactly what is happening right now with various programs being implemented by the US government. Currently, the US has not produced any new nuclear warheads since 1991, and the assembly lines at the Pantex plant (where almost all US nuclear weapons are assembled) have laid dormant for decades. This may soon change, however. Congress and the President have already approved research for the new B-21 bomber and Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, a new ICBM to replace the Minuteman III, as well as building new tactical nuclear warheads, the W93 and W76-2, a small number of which have already been created.
In addition, more components of nuclear modernization are included in this year’s National “Defense” Authorization Act (NDAA). These include the Columbia class of ballistic missile submarines to replace the Ohio class and the Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) air-launch cruise missile (ALCM). The modernization plan also includes upgrading existing W87-0 warheads (yield of 300 Kilotons of TNT) to their W87-1 variant (yield 475 KT), among other things.
There are 6 designs of nuclear weapons currently deployed in the US nuclear arsenal. These include the W76 (SLBM warhead, mostly 76-1 variant, yield 90 KT), W78 (ICBM warhead, yield 475 KT), W80 (ALCM warhead, yield 5-150 KT), B83 (Strategic bomber weapon, yield 1.2 MT), W87 (ICBM warhead, yield 300 KT), and W88 (SLBM warhead, yield 475 KT). W93 (in development, unknown yield and type) and most W76-2 (SLBM warhead, yield 5-7 KT) have not yet been deployed to delivery devices. The W76-2 is also created by re-purposing other W76s, thus not requiring new warheads to be manufactured. W76s make up the majority of the 1750 deployed nuclear weapons currently in the US arsenal. Up to 12 of them (limited to 8 by treaty) can be placed on Trident II Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs), of which there are 240 assigned to carry nuclear warheads………………………
the human costs of such weapons being produced make any financial costs infinitesimal by comparison. ICBMs are a particularly high risk, as they are not equipped with self-destruct systems (unlike virtually every other weapons system in the US military), due to them increasing rocket weight, thus decreasing payloads. This causes an accidental launch of these weapons to be irreversible. However, nuclear planners in the early Cold War period saw hundreds of millions of unintentional deaths as an acceptable risk for increasing missile payloads. This has not changed in the last 65 years, as educational and media coverage have desensitized the public to such existential threats. https://original.antiwar.com/butone/2021/11/11/the-risks-of-nuclear-modernization/
President Macron does not have the legal power to decide on new nuclear reactors – requires Parliamentary agreement
Emmanuel Macron does not have the legal power to decide on his own the order for new nuclear reactors, as he announced he wanted to do, Tuesday, November 9, denounces the former Minister of the Environment, former MEP and famous lawyer specializing in the ecology, Corinne Lepage.
The President of the Republic must first seize the Parliament in order to comply with the multiannual energy programming.
Ouest France 10th Nov 2021
Bitcoin could be nuclear power’s last hope of salvation?
Bitcoin miners look toward nuclear power for sustainable energy, COINTELEGRAPH, 12 Nov 21,
Several major players say that nuclear energy might be the best choice for Bitcoin miners. Major players in the Bitcoin (BTC) mining industry have their sights set on nuclear energy as pressure mounts to go green. [nuclear green? Wha aa t ?]
Nuclear energy could present a “tremendous opportunity” to introduce “enormous amounts of clean [nuclear clean? wha aa at?], carbon-free” energy to the baseload, Harry Sudock, vice president of Griid, said at the “Bitcoin & Beyond Virtual Summit” on Wednesday. Griid is an American company that procures low-cost, renewable energy to build vertically integrated Bitcoin mining facilities.
According to Sudock, past subsidy programs and discourse about renewable energy have largely focused on solar and wind power and neglected to consider the potential benefits of nuclear energy.
“The growth rate is largely focused around solar and wind right now, and that’s just the reality of the programs that have been rolled out over the last eight to 10 years. But what we’d love to see is an expansion of nuclear,” he said………..
Blockstream chief strategy officer Samson Mow is also a proponent of nuclear energy for Bitcoin mining. “The problem is, we’ve regressed as a society where we have kind of rejected nuclear power and have gone for other things like wind and solar, which are more costly more difficult to generate and don’t always function,” he said…………….
Bitcoin miners will go to the cheapest form of electricity that they can find,” [nuclear cheap? wha aa at?]
said Amanda Fabiano at the summit. Fabiano is the head of mining at digital asset invest management firm Galaxy Digital and a founding member of BMC. https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-miners-look-toward-nuclear-power-for-sustainable-energy
Russia sends nuclear-capable bombers on patrol over Belarus for second day amid migration crisis’
Russia sends nuclear-capable bombers on patrol over Belarus for second day amid migration crisis, ABC12 Nov 21, Russia sent two nuclear-capable strategic bombers on a training mission over Belarus for the second day in a row, in support for its ally amid a dispute over migration at EU borders with Poland and Lithuania . Key points:Russia backed Belarus as thousands of migrants try to enter the EU at its border Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko said the patrols were a necessary response to the migration crisis at the border Thousands of migrants are currently stranded at the Belarus/Poland border as they try to enter the EUTwo Russian Tu-160 strategic bombers practised bombing runs at the Ruzany firing range, about 60 kilometres east of Belarus’ border with Poland on Wednesday and Thursday. The Belarusian Defence Ministry said such Russian flights will now be conducted on a regular basis as part of joint training missions and that Belarusian fighter jets simulated an intercept. Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said he needed the bombers to help him navigate what has become a tense border stand-off, as thousands of migrants and refugees gather on the Belarusian side of the Poland border in the hope of crossing into Western Europe. …………….. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-12/russia-sends-nuclear-capable-bombers-on-patrol-over-belarus/100614600 |
Nuclear lobby infiltrating Casper College Wyoming, or maybe not?
CASPER COLLEGE HOSTING PRESENTATION ON WYOMING’S PENDING NATRIUM NUCLEAR REACTOR https://oilcity.news/wyoming/education/2021/11/11/casper-college-hosting-presentation-on-wyomings-pending-natrium-nuclear-reactor/
By Brendan LaChance on November 11, 2021 CASPER, Wyo. — Casper College will be hosting a presentation titled “Perceptions of Nuclear Progress” in December that will focus on the Natrium nuclear reactor that is expected to be built in Wyoming.
Dr. Glen Hansen, an adjunct engineering instructor at Casper College, will discuss the Natrium reactor during the presentation and discuss the science behind nuclear reactors. Hansen will also discuss safety issues related to nuclear plants.
“Hansen’s presentation will be followed by a discussion on the pros and cons of having the country’s very first Natrium power plant in Wyoming,” Casper College says. “The evening will conclude with a Q&A session moderated by Erich Frankland, political science instructor.”
When Governor Mark Gordon announced this June that Wyoming had been selected for the construction of a new “advanced” nuclear reactor, he said it would be “game-changing and monumental” for Wyoming.
The Natrium system, expected to be built at one of four sites in Wyoming, was co-developed by TerraPower, founded by Bill Gates and GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy.
Proponents tout the Natrium reactor as “advanced” technology with TerraPower claiming it can offer “improved reactor economics, greater fuel efficiency, enhanced safety and lower volumes of waste.”
The Union of Concerned Scientists, on the other hand, has expressed some hesitation in regard to the rosy picture TerraPower and other players in the field of new nuclear technology have been painting.
In a March 2021 report titled “‘Advanced’ Isn’t Always Better: Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors” the Union of Concerned Scientists points to a number of potential problems in regard to claims about new “advanced” nuclear technology.
The issue of whether the Natrium reactor would actually be an improvement on existing nuclear technology is explored further in this article.
Hansen’s presentation at Casper College is scheduled to take place at 7 p.m. Tuesday, December 7 in the Durham Auditorium. The presentation is being hosted by the Zeta Alpha Chapter of Phi Theta Kappa at Casper College, of which Hansen is an adviser.
Hansen previously managed the Computational Multiphysics Department at Sandia National Laboratories. Casper College adds that he also led development of computational nuclear engineering software at Idaho National Laboratory and was a deputy group leader X-Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
“For more information, contact Bowden at jbowden@caspercollege.edu or 307-268-2064 or Teresa Stricklin, PTK adviser and mathematics instructor, at tstricklin@caspercollege.edu or 307-268-2615,” Casper College said.
Vogtle nuclear project: is nuclear energy really right for Georgia?
GREEN GEORGIA: Is nuclear energy right for Georgia?, The Red and Black Carson BarrettNov 12, 2021
As a native Augustan, I have always been much more fond of the nearby hydroelectric Clarks Hill Dam than the equally nearby nuclear power plant, Plant Vogtle. The tragedies of similar plants such as those in Fukushima and Chernobyl scar my mind, resulting in an almost automatic repugnant disfavor of this clean-ish energy.
While these disasters are extremely rare and safety procedures have evolved to protect against them, nearly half of Americans hold an unfavorable view of nuclear energy, according to Morning Consult. Should we simply cast off these doubts as visceral, knee-jerk responses to deadly accidents? Or should we take a deeper look into the fears about nuclear energy and reconsider our path on its dependence?
First, it is worth looking at the status of current nuclear energy projects. On Oct. 22, Georgia Power announced even more delays on Plant Vogtle’s expansion of two new reactors. These reactors, which were due to be in operation by 2016 and 2017, have faced four delays in just the past six months. These delays have racked up the total project cost to $11.1 billion, significantly higher than the projected cost of $6.1 billion.
This may just seem like a financial issue for the state’s largest energy firm, but customers might have to cover some of the burdens. The Georgia Public Service Commission agreed to an addition of $2.1 billion into Georgia Power’s rate base, possibly affecting typical customers with an increase of $3.78 a month in bills after the first reactor is finished.
Plant Vogtle is expected to produce 17 million megawatt-hours of energy, which is enough to power 1.6 million average households. This seems to make the case that the plant is worth the investment. But even with these tremendous increases in the power grid, the cost of nuclear power often outweighs the production amount. Across the country, 34 of the total 61 power plants are losing money, totaling $2.9 billion in losses a year.
However, this is not stunting the expansion of Plant Vogtle. In fact, Georgia Power has profited off of the delayed construction of the plant. Customers have already footed a $2.3 billion bill for the new units, half of which has been straight profit for the company. By being late and over budget, Georgia Power stands to make $5 billion in extra profit.
Furthermore, nuclear energy presents waste management issues. While nuclear energy does not emit a handful of common pollutants, including carbon dioxide, extraction of raw uranium gives rise to an abundance of other problems. Required for nuclear power plants, uranium needs energy-intensive mining and milling. Twenty-eight tons of uranium — which will keep an average reactor going for about a year — requires the extraction of half a million tons of waste rock and over 100,000 tons of toxic mill tailings.
Additionally, the plant generates 159 tons of solid radioactive waste and 47,000 cubic feet of liquid waste. Around 30 tons of such waste generated is known as high-level waste and has no way of being safely disposed of. Instead, the waste is stored near the plant facility, emitting dangerous radiation and awaiting the development of a permanent disposal method.
Nuclear energy is not the future for a sustainable Georgia. The source is too costly, too time-consuming and not nearly as green as proponents wish you would think. While nuclear energy would reduce carbon emissions significantly, these other factors turn the tides against the energy source………….. https://www.redandblack.com/opinion/green-georgia-is-nuclear-energy-right-for-georgia/article_205e6716-436e-11ec-b25f-cbf1776c5f60.html
Developers will have an uphill battle to meet environmental protection requirements for Bradwell nuclear project.
Bradwell Action Network said “The planning inspectorate stated that
Maldon District Council had NOT behaved unreasonably in refusing permission
on ecological grounds. The inspector allowed these works to go ahead only
after the developer submitted further data and control measures, and due to
their temporary nature.
While we are disappointed that these destructive
works are set to proceed, we should take heart that this process (the
refusal and appeal) has shown that the developers will have an uphill
struggle meeting environmental protections as this project develops. The
Blackwater Estuary and our shoreline is a critical and sensitive area for
its flora and fauna. We will continue to do what we can to protect it from
the threat of the Bradwell B development.”
BAN 11th Nov 2021
The consortium wanting to develop UK’s min-nuclear plants will have to rely on tax-payer funding.
State support a fallback option for UK’s mini-nuclear plants rollout.
The head of the consortium, which is developing a £ 30 billion fleet of mini-nuclear power stations, has indicated that it will have to rely on UK taxpayers to help fund the construction of the first of the new designs if there is not enough investor interest. Kwasi Kwarteng, business secretary, confirmed on Tuesday that the government is committed to £ 210 million in state funding to a Rolls-Royce-led consortium developing a new generation of small modular reactors (SMRs) as part of a new push into nuclear power
to help achieve the UK’s net zero target.
The government has previously seen that it was prepared to approve up to £ 2 billion in state funding to help start the program, which envisages the construction of at least 16 SMR power stations. Consortium chief executive Tom Samson told the Financial
Times that he had held talks with the government on the possibility of “putting in part of the cost for the first three or four units and then using it as a way to exploit private capital”.
Samson declined to comment on the potential scope of any further government investment and stressed that while it is an option, the aim was to “move forward in line with the
technology that requires the least government funding”. He added: “It is our duty to bring this story to the [capital] markets.”. The first five SMR power stations would cost £ 2.2bn each, with the price of subsequent units dropping to £ 1.8bn, according to Rolls-Royce. The consortium is looking to build the plants at operational and mothballs nuclear power plants in Britain.
FT 10th Nov 2021
https://www.ft.com/content/869279aa-f771-4025-8719-c3b8bdf1f375
The consortium wanting to develop UK’s min-nuclear plants will have to rely on tax-payer funding.
President Macron boosts nuclear industry, but in reality, France’s prospects for new reactors are grim
“too expensive, too slow and too dangerous”.
“Announcing a nuclear revival and the construction of new reactors is totally disconnected from reality”
Macron boosts nuclear power plans to meet France’s net-zero ambitions, The Age, By Bevan Shields, November 10
”…………………in a shift, the French President on Tuesday night, Paris time (Wednesday morning AEDT) said the country would rededicate itself to atomic power.
“…………….we will for the first time in decades revive the construction of nuclear reactors in our country………….” Macron said.
He did not give details but the comments were seen as a reference to the expected green-lighting of as many as 14 next-generation nuclear plants proposed by grid operator RTE.
Macron made the announcement against the background of the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, where new forms of electricity generation have been identified as a key issue in the fight against climate change, and an energy crisis in Europe triggered by falling gas supplies and an unusually calm summer and autumn which has affected the output of wind turbines.
While confidence in nuclear took a hit in France following the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan, it is still a relatively uncontroversial technology compared to other countries such as Australia, where some Coalition MPs are pushing Prime Minister Scott Morrison to explore its feasibility.
Macron sought to tie the new nuclear push to French innovation and national pride – key themes for the President as he enters a tough presidential election campaign in 2022.
His position is in stark contrast to Germany, where nuclear power is on course to be phased out by next year.
The vast majority of France’s nuclear facilities were built in the 1970s and 1980s. A third reactor is being added to a plant in Flamanville, in the Normandy region, but the project which started in 2007 has been plagued by cost overruns and huge delays.
Greenpeace France energy transition campaigner Nicolas Nace condemned Macron’s latest announcement and pointed to the Flamanville project to claim nuclear power was “too expensive, too slow and too dangerous”.
“Announcing a nuclear revival and the construction of new reactors as the nuclear industry is totally disconnected from reality,” Nace said.
A new nuclear facility being constructed in Somerset, England, has also been hit by delays and cost blowouts.
An International Energy Agency analysis released earlier this month found global nuclear capacity would reach 582 gigawatts by 2040 – well below the 730 gigawatts needed to achieve net zero emissions.
“This gap widens even further after 2040, so long-term operation of the existing nuclear fleet and a near-doubling of the annual rate of capacity additions are required,” the report said.
“While some of this additional nuclear capacity will not come online until the late 2030s, policy decisions are required now to put nuclear back on track.”
About 20 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity need to be added each year between now and 2050 to achieve carbon neutrality – a rate of construction is comparable with the pre-Fukushima period. https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/macron-backs-nuclear-power-to-meet-france-s-net-zero-ambitions-20211110-p597kk.html
In Wales, strong opposition to UK plan for small nuclear reactors – too slow, dangerous, super costly compared to quick cheap renewables.
Nuclear set to return to Wylfa and Trawsfynydd as Rolls-Royce secures funding for mini-reactors. Nuclear power looks set to return to Wales after Rolls-Royce secured £450m for a venture to build mini nuclear reactors. Trawsfynydd and Wylfa are understood to be two of the sites being lined up for the multi-billion pound mini-power stations.The company hopes to build five by 2031, and then another eleven in the years that follow.
The UK Government have announced that they will match a £245m investment made by a consortium made up of Rolls-Royce, BNF Resources and the US generator Exelon Generation with £210 of their own. Rolls-Royce has previously said that there was a “pretty high probability” Trawsfynydd could house the first reactor by the early 2030s.
Plans for new nuclear reactors have however already attracted opposition in Wales. Anti-nuclear groups have already criticised the plans, saying that the emphasis should be placed on green renewable energy instead. Dylan Morgan of PAWB (People Against Wylfa B) said last month: “We have an immediate crisis now. Building huge reactors at a nuclear power station take at least 15 years. “Nuclear power is slow, dangerous and extortionately expensive.
It will do nothing to address the current energy crisis, neither will it be effective to counter climate change.
“The UK and Welsh governments should divert resources and support away from wasteful and outdated nuclear power projects towards developing renewable technologies that are much cheaper and can provide faster and more sustainable solutions to the energy crisis and the challenges of climate change.”
Nation Cymru 9th Nov 2021
https://nation.cymru/news/nuclear-set-to-return-to-wylfa-and-trawsfynydd-as-rolls-royce-secures-funding-for-mini-reactors/
Germany reaffirms its opposition to nuclear power being designated as ”sustainable”
Germany will work towards an exclusion of nuclear power from the EU taxonomy for sustainable investments, the country’s environment minister Svenja Schulze has affirmed. “We don’t want nuclear energy, we don’t think it’s sustainable and we don’t want the EU to support it,“ the acting minister from the Social Democrats (SPD) told newspapers of the Funke Mediengruppe in an article carried by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
Schulze added that the German government is not alone on this position, countering an initiative of several other EU member states under the leadership of France to give nuclear power a greater role in the EU’s plans for decarbonisation and the greening of the financial system.
Building nuclear plants would be much too expensive and time-consuming for effective climate action, with plants commissioned now only being ready for operation by 2045 due to lengthy searches for a location, licensing hurdles and expectable protests against it, she argued. Conservative (CSU) Bavarian state premier Markus Söder backed Schulze’s rejection to make the
technology a tool for climate action, arguing that Germany’s nuclear phase-out “is based on broad societal acceptance.”
Clean Energy Wire 8th Nov 2021
Europe’s dilemma over whether or not to include nuclear power in its sustainabble finance taxonomy
Greenwashing or viable solution? Europe has a big decision to make on nuclear power, CNBC, NOV 9 2021Silvia Amaro @SILVIA_AMARO
It is a long-standing dilemma that the European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, must resolve in the coming weeks.
Ultimately, its decision will have repercussions on its efforts to be a global leader in the area of climate change.
LONDON — The European Union must decide whether nuclear is a clean source of energy, but the decision is tough with countries divided about the right labelling.
Some EU members, notably France, which have big investments in nuclear and are wary of using gas from Russia see the energy resource as a viable option. Other nations, including Germany, believe it is time to move away from it and are worried about nuclear waste.
It is a long-standing dilemma that the European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, must resolve in the coming weeks. The commission is due to publish its sustainable finance taxonomy — rules that will help clarify to investors what the bloc sees as green investments — as an attempt to boost financing in these areas.
Ultimately, its decision will have repercussions on its efforts to be a global leader in the area of climate change……………….
Opponents to inclusion of nuclear power into the EU green taxonomy, led by Germany, argue that the technology is not suitable to achieve sustainability targets, including establishing a transition to a circular economy,” Henning Gloystein, director for energy, climate and resources at consultancy group Eurasia, told CNBC via email.
“The core problem for critics is that there is no solution for long-term storage of nuclear waste. All current solutions are temporary,” he added.
The inclusion of nuclear in the EU’s green taxonomy has also been criticized by activists.
The World Wide Fund for Nature has said that classifying nuclear as somewhat sustainable “would allow the greenwashing of billions of euros of financing for these activities, despite the high emissions from fossil gas and the radioactive waste produced by nuclear power.”
Green image at risk
More broadly, whatever the commission decides will also send a signal to other nations.
The European Commission praises itself for having the most concrete plan on how to cut greenhouse gas emissions — a plan that is still yet to be approved by lawmakers.
The institution has also lobbied other parts of the world, including China, to put forward concrete steps on how they intend to achieve carbon neutrality……….. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/09/cop26-europe-has-a-big-decision-to-make-on-nuclear-power.html
China and Saudi Arabia blocking progress towards a deal at COP26
China and Saudi Arabia are blocking progress towards a deal at Cop26 by
refusing to accept that they must be fully transparent about their
greenhouse gas emissions. Senior negotiators at the climate change
conference in Glasgow said that both countries had objected to proposed
reporting requirements aimed at resolving concerns that some nations
conceal the extent of their emissions.
The dispute is delaying progress on
other ingredients of a deal, including rules on establishing a global
market for carbon offsetting. China is understood to object because its
climate target is based on a reduction in emissions per unit of GDP,
meaning that full transparency would reveal data it wants to keep secret
about its economic growth.
Saudi Arabia’s emissions are strongly
influenced by its biggest company, the oil giant Saudi Aramco, and it is
thought to be concerned about revealing information about its performance.
China and Saudi Arabia are also objecting to proposed wording in the final
text that emphasises the need to limit warming to 1.5C, meaning the coal
and oil on which they depend would have to be phased out more quickly.
Times 9th Nov 2021
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chinese-and-saudis-thwart-moves-towards-climate-deal-5pr86frjv
1 This Month
19 November – Webinar – The Reality of Reprocessing
Time: 11:00 AM Pacific Time (US & Canada) / 2:00 PM Eastern / 7:00 PM UK / 8:00 PM CET
Register for the Zoom Event Here
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- November 2026 (84)
- October 2026 (302)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
-
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
