Antinuclear

UK Nuclear financing comes unstuck

‘It would be madness to give Sizewell C the final go-ahead while the questions of whether Hinkley C can be finished, and who pays, are not resolved.

It all seems a bit desperate.

All in all, despite attempts to talk it up at COP28, nuclear seem to be facing a real problem with finance, if nothing else, a problem not shared by renewables- they are mostly getting cheaper.

SMR’s look likely to be an expensive diversion.

February 17, 2024,  https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2024/02/uk-nuclear-financing-comes-unstuck.html

The Prime Minister Rishi Sunak says that nuclear power is the ‘perfect antidote to the energy challenges facing Britain’, but things seem to be going a bit amiss with nuclear finance. Basically, not many want to fund new nuclear projects any more, as costs and delays escalate along with political sensitivities. 

For example, China’s CGN has halted funding for UK’s part-built Hinkley Point C European Pressurised-water Reactor. CGN may yet restart payments, but, if not, its developer, the French company EDF, will have to fund the completion of the plant alone. 

 Some portrayed CGNs withdrawal from Hinkley as due to China being ‘miffed’ by its exclusion from the Sizewell project. The UK government had earlier taken over CGN’s initial stake in EDF proposed next project, Sizewell C, after concerns about over-reliance on Chinese funding. That would not have gone down well in China. But it was also claimed that CGN was upset by the large Hinkley overrun costs and delays. Well maybe that’s true too, but CGN was within its rights to exit.  It was contractually allowed to only meet any cost overruns on a voluntary basis. And it’s evidently decided not to. Though of course it will still own a share of any profits, if the project still goes ahead.

However, Hinkley prospects now looks even more uncertain, with EDF saying its start date could be delayed from 2027 to 2031 and it cost expand to £35bn or even more, with knock-on effects also likely for Sizewell C.  

So some plans seem to be coming adrift, with France and the UK potentially falling out over what happens next. France has already called on the UK to pay more for Hinkley. It could even be that it will pull out of financing Sizewell. Certainly, even if that is avoided, nuclear funding all looks a bit uncertain, with China out of it and EDF strapped for cash. 

Under the UK’s proposed RAB funding  system, consumers are set to be tapped to in effect provide some of the up-front  capital needed for Sizewell, thus talking on some the risk faced by this investment. But as Alison Downes of the Stop Sizewell C campaign group said: ‘It would be madness to give Sizewell C the final go-ahead while the questions of whether Hinkley C can be finished, and who pays, are not resolved. Sizewell C is bound to take longer and cost more, but this time it would be we consumers who would bear the risk and pay the price through the “nuclear tax” on our energy bills.’

However, new private investors are still being sought, and to keep the show on the road the UK government has provided an extra £1.3bn, bringing the proposed UK tax payers funding so far to £2.5 bn.

But will it still happen? As Utility week noted ‘The Sizewell C plant, which has yet to receive a final investment decision by the government, will not be fully commissioned until 2038’. And that could be rather optimistic. More like 2040! All of which could mean that future security of supply may also be uncertain. With Hinkley delayed, EDF now says it wants to keep its old AGR plants running (even) longer, despite their safety issues, to maintain output and its cash flow! It is also talking about running the (already existing) Sizewell B PWR an extra 20 years. 

It all seems a bit desperate. Prof. Rob Gross, director of UK Energy Research Centre, said the delays to Hinkley made increasing gas burn in the meantime ‘almost inevitable’. He added Wind or solar are unlikely to plug the gap because the UK is already ‘struggling to connect all the renewables schemes already in the pipeline for 2027/28’.  But surely we can do better than that – if we stop wasting money on nuclear dead ends and focus instead on linking up new renewables. 

For example, there are new grid technologies which can help green power network integration, including advanced composite-core conductors which, according to a US study, ‘can cost-effectively double transmission capacity within existing right-of-way (ROW), with limited additional permitting’. It claimed that ‘this strategy unlocks a high availability of increasingly economically-viable RE resources in close proximity to the existing network’, and it could upgrade the system very cost effectively. However, it’s not just a matter of better grid technology, or even less money. It also about reducing bureaucracy and getting rid of policy blocks, for example, in the UK context, in relation to on shore wind, which, despite pronouncements otherwise, is still in effect, being blocked. 

Cost over-runs and delays with nuclear projects are of course not just British issues. As Counterpunch noted, reactor construction delays and costs hikes are also common elsewhere. ‘The cost of EDF’s EPR reactor being built in France at Flamanville and still incomplete, has more than quadrupled to close to $15 billion. Another EPR, at Olkiluoto in Finland, went from $3.2 billion to more than $12 billion and launched 12 years late. On U.S. soil, two AP 1000 reactors at the Vogtle nuclear power plant site in Georgia, will likely come in at a total price tag of at least $35 billion, $20 billion more than originally estimated, with the second of the two reactors still not on line’.

All in all, despite attempts to talk it up at COP28, nuclear seem to be facing a real problem with finance, if nothing else, a problem not shared by renewables- they are mostly getting cheaper. The nuclear lobby’s last ditch hope is small modular reactors- still a very long shot, with none yet in existence. So far SMR’s look likely to be an expensive diversion. And too late to be much help meeting climate/energy targets. For example, the chair of the UK’s Environmental Audit Committee has said that ‘the first SMR is unlikely to be in operation by 2035, the date ministers have set for decarbonising the electricity supply. So, what role will SMRs have in an energy mix dominated by renewables and supplemented by existing and emerging large-scale nuclear?’ 

Arguably, ‘big nuclear’ is also unlikely to be favoured for new capacity in many places: potential financiers are more likely to stick with what already works well and is cheaper …At COP28, 22 countries, including the UK, talked about tripling nuclear by 2050. But over 117 committed to tripling renewables by 2030. Arguably a much more credible and useful target. 

February 19, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | energy, news, nuclear, nuclear-energy, nuclear-power | Leave a comment

Exploding Alberta’s Myths about Small Nuclear Reactors

Small nuclear reactors are unproven and years away from being in use. But the Alberta government is presenting them as a way to keep fossil fuels flowing. 

The untested technology is more about greenwashing than about cutting emissions.

Tim Rauf 15 Feb 2024, The Tyee

Alberta’s government is really excited about nuclear power.

More specifically, about novel and unproven small modular nuclear reactors. It hopes to use these to help lower the province’s carbon emissions while letting the energy industry continue operating as usual — an enticing prospect to the government given its intention to increase oil and gas production, while still having the energy sector get to net zero by 2050.

Small modular nuclear reactors produce less than one-third of the electricity of a traditional reactor.

The premise is that small reactors are easier to place and build, and cheaper.

Alberta hitched its horse to this wagon with Ontario, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan in 2022, taking part in a strategic plan for small modular reactor development and deployment. Alberta Innovates, the province’s research body, had a feasibility study conducted for it by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The study focused on using the reactors for greenhouse-gas-free steam emissions for oilsands projects, electricity generation in our deregulated market and providing an alternative to diesel when supplying power to remote communities.

More recently, Ontario Power Generation and Capital Power out of Edmonton entered into an agreement to assess SMRs for providing nuclear energy to Alberta’s grid. Nathan Neudorf, Alberta’s minister of affordability and utilities, was gleeful. “This partnership represents an exciting and important step forward in our efforts to decarbonize the grid while maintaining on-demand baseload power,” he said of the announcement.

All of this buzz makes it seem like SMRs are just over the horizon, an inevitability that will allow the province to evolve to have a cleaner, modern energy landscape.

But small modular reactors are nowhere near ready for deployment, and won’t be in Alberta for about a decade. That means for 10 years, they’ll provide no GHG-free steam to mitigate emissions.

“It’s still in the design phase,” Kennedy Halvorson said, speaking about the reactors. Halvorson is a conservation specialist with the Alberta Wilderness Association. The reactors are “so far off from being able to be used for us,” Halvorson added. “The earliest projections would be 2030. And we need to be reducing our emissions before 2030. So, we need to have solutions now, basically.”

With SMRs unable to stem the emissions tide for years, it’s confusing as to how they could make enough of a difference to get Alberta to net zero by 2050 (in line with United Nations emissions reduction targets to keep global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees).

Capital Power made similar projections………………………………………………………………………..

Construction itself is only one piece. Adding to that is the need to build a regulatory framework, which Alberta doesn’t have for nuclear…………………………………………………….

Ontario’s nuclear troubles

Listening to these public voices is prudent. We can look east to see what happens when the government and power utilities sidestep the process of getting explicit consent from communities that stand to be affected.

With its status as the nuclear activity hub in Canada, we can use Ontario as a litmus test of sorts and gauge Canada’s track record of care with nuclear. The report card isn’t great. There have been multiple cases of improper consultation with Indigenous Peoples on whose lands the waste, production or extraction sites are placed………………………………………………………………………..

Small reactors face a critical economic challenge

Adding to the timeline troubles are questions as to whether small reactors truly offer that much of an economic advantage, if any, compared with their larger counterparts.

In a previous article Ramana wrote, he pointed to the first reactors as an indication of the answer.

The first reactors started off small. Their size, though, coupled with the exorbitant price tag of nuclear development, meant they couldn’t compete with fossil fuels.

The only thing they could do to reduce the disadvantage was to build larger and larger reactors, Ramana said.

A large reactor that could produce five times as much electricity didn’t cost five times as much to build, he said, improving the return from the investment.

Economically the SMR can’t seem to compete with its larger sibling. Adding this to the delays abundant with nuclear, controversies around construction and communities, and the misalignment of timelines for meeting climate commitments, we need to ask why we’re seeing such a fervent enthusiasm for small modular reactors.

Greenwashing by any other name

The answer is likely a simple one: The Alberta government wants to keep the taps on. Their friends in the energy industry do too. Like carbon capture and sequestration before it, SMRs are the next way to stave off pesky talk of divestment and transition…………………………………………………………….

Deflecting and delaying isn’t the only greenwashing happening either, Halvorson argued. She noted there’s a special kind of tactic that comes with nuclear and other “clean” technology, where only carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas offsets are counted.

“When we reduce it all to just how much CO2 something emits, we’re not getting the full picture of environmental impacts,” Halvorson said. She pointed to water use in nuclear as an example.

“Most nuclear technologies require a massive input of water to work. And as we know, right now we’re in a drought in Alberta. Our water resources are so precious. We already have industries that are using way too much water as is, in a way that’s not allowing our environments and ecosystems to replenish their reserves, like their water resources,” she said.

Despite the cheerleading for nuclear Alberta, where small nuclear reactors will let us enjoy the fruits of fossil fuels (and even produce more) in a cleaner way, the bones don’t read that way. The argument that we can keep on drilling so long as we have that newest silver bullet hasn’t stood up to scrutiny before, and it doesn’t now.  https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2024/02/15/Exploding-Alberta-Myths-Small-Nuclear-Reactors/

February 19, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | energy, news, nuclear, nuclear-energy, nuclear-power | Leave a comment

First Small Nuclear Reactor (SMR) domino falls, potentially to start cascade

February 8, 2024,  https://beyondnuclear.org/first-smr-domino-falls-potentially-to-start-cascade/—

Same financial risks viewed as generic to entire reactor type

The nuclear industry is rattled by an Opinion piece appearing in the January 31, 2024 edition of the energy trade journal Utility Dive. The article, astutely entitled “The collapse of NuScale’s project should spell the end for small modular nuclear reactors,” is an extensively documented study of yet another nuclear folly. 

Its author, M.V. Ramana, the Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security and Professor at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, carefully focuses on the financial collapse of what was heralded to be the first units of a bow wave of mass produced small commercial power reactors to be constructed and operated in the United States.

NuScale Power Corp, the Portland, Oregon based company that started up in 2007, was supposed to be the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) poster child to mass produce the first US Small Modular Reactors (SMR)  owned and controlled by US nuclear giant and thermonuclear weapons manufacturer Fluor Corporation.    Instead, on November 9, 2023, NuScale was announced as just another financial causality in a growing tally of nuclear projects stymied by uncontrollable cost and a recurring pattern of delay after delay.  In this case, however, NuScale fell victim  even before its selected reactor design could be certified by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a viable license for the groundbreaking ceremony.

The NuScale pilot project’s initial goal was to license, construct and operate twelve contiguous units, (50 to 60-megawatts electric (MWe) each for a total up to  720 MWe of generating capacity per site), housed in a single reactor building with one control room. On the promise that this would be safer, cheaper and quicker to build and operate, the NuScale SMR is really just a redesign of a decades-old technology for the impossibly expensive and larger (800 to 1150 MWe per unit) commercial pressurized water reactors operating on license extensions today.

Yet, even with this extensive experience going back to the 1960’s, the redesign has not yielded to be any more reliable for estimating cost-of-completion, time-to-completion or affordable operation. In fact, with the industry’s abandonment of the design and construction of new reactors on “economies of scale,” the prospect for generating affordable electricity from  small “mirage” reactors has apparently only become more unattainable.

The NuScale pilot reactor construction site was awarded by the DOE on the federally owned Idaho National Laboratory (INL) near Idaho Falls. NuScale worked out a deal for its projected electricity customer base on a contract with the Utah Associated Municipal Power System (UAMPS), an electric cooperative of 50 cities in seven western states incentivized by a DOE federal government payout to would be customers of up to $1.4 billion over ten years.

But despite the federally promised awards to reduce nuclear power’s certain financial risks to customers, Ramana documents the NuScale and UAMPS struggle with first building its power purchase subscriptions from members who would shortly run for the designated “exit ramps” scheduled into the contract.

As these municipalities pulled out of the nuclear project because of financial concerns, UAMPS and NuScale renegotiated the project’s generating capacity down to six units each rated at 77 MWe for a total generating capacity of 462 MWe.

The reactor design’s safety, however, is still problematic and uncertified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and now demonstrated to be yet another expensive “house of cards.” Like the previous “nuclear renaissance” initiated by Congress and the nuclear industry in 2005, of the 34 “advanced” Generation III units put forward by industry, only one unit (Vogtle unit 3) is commercially operable today and another unit (Vogtle unit 4) still under construction. The initial $14 billion project in Georgia is now approaching as much as $40 billion to show for it.

In a follow-on article in the February 3, 2024 edition of DownToEarth, M.V. Ramana and Farrukh A. Chishtie are co-authors of “Tripling nuclear energy by 2050 will take a miracle, and miracles don’t happen” which identifies the same dangerous wild goose chase to expand nuclear power that is destined to fail climate change mitigation on the global scale.

Chishtie and Ramana expertly rebut the deluded notion as presented by the United States former Special Envoy on Climate Change John Kerry at the 28th Conference of Parties (COP28) in Dubai, UAE.  They cite “the hard economic realities of nuclear power” historically to date  as the principal reason nuclear power cannot be scaled up from what can only be termed a preposterous level by 2050.  That will be far too late by most accounts to abate an accelerating climate crisis.

“The evidence that nuclear energy cannot be scaled up quickly is overwhelming. It is time to abandon the idea that further expanding nuclear technology can help with mitigating climate change. Rather, we need to focus on expanding renewables and associated technologies while implementing stringent efficiency measures to rapidly effect an energy transition.

February 13, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | energy, news, nuclear, nuclear-energy, nuclear-power | Leave a comment

Rich men with the wrong answers – nuclear power has no future and yet they persist

None of these realities deter the pro-nuclear lobby, now led most shamefully by the International Atomic Energy Agency itself. Even as its chief, Rafael Grossi, wrings his hands over the immense dangers posed by Ukraine’s 15 reactors embroiled in a war, he and his agency are planning what it boasts is the “first-ever” Nuclear Energy Summit, to be held in late March in Brussels in partnership with the Belgian government.

By Linda Pentz Gunter February 11, 2024  https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/02/11/rich-men-with-the-wrong-answers/

Pro-nukers warned coal use would rise as reactors closed in Germany. The opposite happened.

Remember all those doomsayers from the pro-nuclear mythology unit who cast Germany’s Energiewende  — or green energy revolution — as a catastrophic failure? They claimed, totally erroneously or deliberately misleadingly, that the country’s choice to close all its nuclear power plants guaranteed an increase in fossil fuel use and especially coal.

Germany vehemently denied those false predictions since they clearly knew that the country’s renewables were more than able to replace nuclear and fossil fuels. And so it has come to pass.

Germany’s use of lignite, or brown coal, dropped to its lowest level in 60 years in 2023. Even more dramatically, its hard coal use is at the lowest level since 1955. All of this happened at the same time as Germany was closing its last three reactors.

Meanwhile, according to reporting by Clean Energy Wire (CLEW), and citing an analysis (in German) from the research institute, Fraunhofer ISE, renewables “contributed a record share of more than half of the country’s power consumption” in 2023.

“The country sourced nearly 60 percent (59.7%) of its net power production from renewables, which generated a total of 260 terawatt hours (TWh), an increase of 7.2 percent compared to 2022,” the report said.

The 2022 uptick of coal production in Germany was entirely driven by high gas prices and a shortfall of French nuclear power production. The French nuclear sector was so unreliable that 50% of its reactors were out of action in April 2022, and again in November 2022, just as winter electricity usage began to rise.

Consequently, France had to import electricity to keep the lights on and the heat running.

Far from eating crow, the pro-nuclear boosters like Ted Nordhaus, who co-founded the Breakthrough Institute (BTI), are still crowing about the benefits of nuclear power. Nordhaus couldn’t wait to take ownership of his latest scheme, apparently long in the plotting, to dismantle the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in order to eliminate the industry’s most burdensome (i.e. costly) hassle of having to worry about inconvenient things like reactor safety. Efforts to do just that are now underway in Congress.

“Through years of rigorous research and engagement with the NRC, BTI has pinpointed crucial opportunities to modernize the regulatory framework that will lay the foundation for streamlined and efficient nuclear reactor licensing,” boasts the company’s website.

Meanwhile, we learn that the struggling Vogtle 3 and 4 new reactor project in Georgia, already 20 billion dollars over budget and years late, is set once again to further gouge ratepayers for the mistakes and failures of Georgia Power. And across the pond that the UK twin EPR project will likely top $59 billion with a completion date originally set for 2017 now pushed back to “after 2029”.

None of these realities deter the pro-nuclear lobby, now led most shamefully by the International Atomic Energy Agency itself. Even as its chief, Rafael Grossi, wrings his hands over the immense dangers posed by Ukraine’s 15 reactors embroiled in a war, he and his agency are planning what it boasts is the “first-ever” Nuclear Energy Summit, to be held in late March in Brussels in partnership with the Belgian government.

The IAEA has now become possibly the world’s most aggressive marketer of nuclear power and is still crowing about what it sees as a triumph at COP28, a veritable nuclear coup d’etat. In reality, this encompassed a miserable 24 countries signing onto an absurd fantasy propaganda statement that the world can and must triple global nuclear capacity by 2025.

Is there any point to the COP anymore? (Was there ever?) It has become one big carbon footprint junket, taken over by the oil companies, and hijacked by the nuclear industry and the IAEA, while making pledges rarely kept. The next one, in Azerbaijan, is chaired by yet another oil executive and has precisely zero women on its 28-member organizing committee.

The COP28 triple nuclear declaration was followed by an outrageously presumptuous assertion, by former U.S. energy secretary, Ernest Moniz (with Armond Cohen) in a Boston Globe oped, that, quote, “The world wants to triple nuclear energy.” (The Globe published our reply on January 17.)

Are we tired yet of absurdly rich, mostly White men pronouncing what they have decided the world wants from the comfort of their ivory towers? We are one such elitist down now with the retirement of 80-year old multi-millionaire John Kerry as US climate envoy. As of January 2024, Kerry’s net worth was $250 million, but that’s after divesting himself from his shares in fossil fuel, nuclear power and nuclear weapons companies. 

Kerry has been replaced by, yes, drumroll, another old, rich, White man in the person of perennial White House advisor, John Podesta, founder of the Center for American Progress. Podesta, a stripling at 75, is a mere pauper compared to Kerry with a net worth of just $10 million-$13 million depending on sources, none of which are fully reliable.

Where Podesta might stand on nuclear power is a little murky, although one assumes he will tow the Biden/Kerry line and evangelize accordingly. He is on the record as considering nuclear power as a producer of hydrogen, telling Cipher in a September 2023 interview: “I think the questions around how to utilize existing nuclear and the production of hydrogen are definitely on the table.”

And then there’s Rishi Sunak, prime minister of the UK, who, together with his even richer wife, has a net worth of $670 million. Despite all the evidence of extreme costs, rising sea-levels and agonizingly slow timelines, on January 11, Sunak’s government announced its plan for the country’s “biggest expansion of nuclear power for 70 years to create jobs, reduce bills and strengthen Britain’s energy security.” 

Nuclear power of course can achieve none of these. The electricity even of the current new nuclear reactors nearing completion at Hinkley Point will be almost triple the price Britons are currently paying. Promised new jobs will evaporate along with the new reactor plans, as we have already seen elsewhere — the V.C Summer and NuScale projects being prime examples. 

To achieve so-called energy security and get off its reliance on imported Russian reactor fuel, Sunak’s government also announced it would invest $381 million to produce the fuel domestically.

This is all a colossal betrayal of working people and their needs, with money squandered on illusory, expensive and irrelevant nuclear projects whose only purpose is to sustain the UK’s nuclear arsenal, one that could destroy the world many times over. 

What Moniz, Kerry, Grossi, Sunak and other nuclear-promoting leaders need to understand is what the world actually wants, alongside peace, is fast, affordable and safer renewable energy, not another Chornobyl.

February 12, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | energy, news, nuclear, nuclear-energy, nuclear-power | Leave a comment

TODAY. Against all the evidence – nuclear industry propaganda blunders on – and the media regurgitates its nonsense!

It would be funny, if it were not so serious.

Promoting the nuclear industry is not just serious, but dangerous. The industry’s only real purpose is nuclear weapons.

Everybody knows that big nuclear reactors are a no-no. They’re astronomically expensive to build, and even more obscenely expensive to demolish and dispose of. (that latter cost to be paid by our great-grandchildren).

So what is needed now by this insane industry – is a fairy-tale window-dressing.  And hey presto! There are the non existent magical small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) .

Today – I see heaps of enthusiastic articles, especially from the UK. Wow! Westinghouse Electric Company doing a deal with Community Nuclear Power, privately funded, -  “The companies will work together to develop plans for the plants, with the aim of getting backing from the Government.” - to set up SMRs -  Business Wire,  Teesside Gazette,  Northern Echo, Proactive Investor, ………..

They don’t mention the spectacular failure of the USA’s one and only SMR business, as NuScale heads towards bankruptcy.

What else the mainstream media does not say about SMRs:

• Problems of massive cost blowouts and multi-year delays.
• Unproven technology: Even the simplest designs used today in submarines will not be available at scale until late next decade, if at all. Taking into account the learning curve of the nuclear industry, an average of 3,000 SMRs would have to be constructed in order to be financially viable.
• Ineffective climate solution: According to the latest IPCC report published in March 2023, nuclear power is one of the two least effective mitigation options (alongside Carbon Capture and Storage).
• Waste problem: Current SMR designs would create 2-30 times more radioactive waste in need of management and disposal than  conventional nuclear plants.

And there’s that other intriguing little problem. The proudly British company Rolls Royce has been counting on government backing to start off its SMR project. Now shock horror – an American company looks like winning this foolish SMR sack race. Bill Gates’ Terra Power, GE-Hitachi, Mitsubishi  – all these companies will be peeved, too. An international political fracas?

February 10, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | energy, news, nuclear, nuclear-energy, nuclear-power | Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

 FT 1st Feb 2024

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

February 3, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | energy, news, nuclear, nuclear-energy, nuclear-power | Leave a comment

TODAY. If you care about safety, you don’t get a job on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission!

Yes, the nuclear lobby ‘killed’ the job of Jeff Baran, because his prime concern is safety, rather than promoting the nuclear industry !

What really got me about this – is that Jeff Baran is actually a very pro nuclear person! He wants the new nuclear renaissance to thrive. wants the new advanced reactors to go ahead.

It’s just unfortunate that Jeff Baran shows a bit of concern for environmental justice, for indigenous communities impacted by nuclear matters, and, biggest mistake of all “he prioritises safety”.

Ya can’t have a nuclear regular with that attitude!

Now in the past, the nuclear industry was held back by dreadful people, now thoroughly discredited, of course.

Greg Jaczko, the former Chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, published an explosive new book: Confessions of a Rogue Nuclear Regulator.  In it, he gets honest with the American people about the dangers of nuclear technology, which he labels “failed,” “dangerous,” “not reliable.”  He particularly comes down against nuclear as having any part in mitigating the problems of climate change/global warming.

Allison Macfarlane, former chairman of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). “I encourage countries that are just embarking on nuclear power to make sure that they have a plan for disposal, before they turn on the reactor.”

‘Earthquakes are just one of many natural hazards nuclear plants must
be prepared for’, she said. ‘Others include tornadoes, flooding, drought
and tsunamis.’

she says ‘one of the reasons SMRs will cost more has to do with fuel costs’ with some designs requiring ‘high-assay low enriched uranium fuel (HALEU), in other words, fuel enriched in the isotope uranium-235 between 10-19.99%, just below the level of what is termed “highly enriched uranium,” suitable for nuclear bombs.  …………  an enrichment company wants assurance from reactor vendors to invest in developing HALEU production. But since commercial-scale SMRs are likely decades away, if they are at all viable, there is risk to doing so.’

At least we know where we are, people! If you had any idea that the USA government was in charge of nuclear safety, well you can put that idea to bed.

When Ted Norhaus and the Breakthrough Institute can finish off the job of a pro- nuclear regulator, because he has the temerity to prioritise safety, well, you really know that the nuclear lobby controls the USA government.

January 23, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | energy, news, nuclear, nuclear-energy, nuclear-power | Leave a comment

Top Nuclear Regulator Faces Tough Reconfirmation Battle In The Senate

Biden wants to keep Jeff Baran on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but the GOP and pro-nuclear activists say he’s holding back an atomic renaissance.

Huff Post, By Alexander C. Kaufman, Jun 27, 2023

When President Barack Obama first named Jeff Baran to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2014, the Democratic majority in the Senate confirmed the former congressional staffer in a 52-40 vote. When President Donald Trump renominated the Democrat for another five-year term in 2018, the GOP-led Senate approved Baran by a simple voice tally.

But President Joe Biden’s plan to give Baran a third stint on the federal body responsible for the world’s largest fleet of commercial reactors has already hit the rocks, as Republicans move to block a commissioner critics paint as an “obstructionist” with a record of voting for policies nuclear advocates say make it harder to keep existing plants open and more expensive, if not impossible, to deploy advanced next-generation atomic technologies.

Last Friday, the Senate went on break for the next two weeks, all but guaranteeing that Baran’s current term ends on June 30 without a decision on whether he will rejoin the five-member board, creating a vacancy that could cause gridlock on some decisions and mark a return to the partisan feuds of a decade ago…………

The White House and the Democrats who control the Senate hope to reinstate Baran in a vote next month, casting the regulator as a sober-minded professional with an ear to the woes of those living in polluted or impoverished communities. The battle highlights growing tensions over nuclear energy in the United States, the country that built the world’s first full-scale fission power plant nearly seven decades ago but all but ceased expanding atomic energy in the 30 years since the Cold War ended…………………………………………………………….

“His voting record shows he’s been a consistent obstructionist, a defender of a regulatory system that has basically presided over the long-term decline of the nuclear sector in the U.S.,” said Ted Nordhaus, executive director of the Breakthrough Institute, a California-based environmental think tank that advocates for nuclear energy. “There’s a broad view at a pretty bipartisan level that we need nuclear energy. If Democrats are serious about it, they have to stop putting a guy like Jeff Baran at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.”

The Breakthrough Institute was among five pro-nuclear groups that signed on to a June 12 letter urging the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works to reject the White House’s nomination of Baran for a third term.

The NRC declined HuffPost’s request to interview Baran…………………………………………………

The Case Against Baran

Baran came to power right as the last attempt at a “nuclear renaissance” fizzled…………………

As governments scrambled to keep operating reactors from going out of business, Baran voted last July to increase the frequency of federal safety inspections on existing nuclear plants, arguing that it would allow for “more focused inspections” that would “provide the staff flexibility to take a deeper dive into different areas of high safety importance” as the reactor fleet ages.

Baran also came out against measures that supporters of new reactor designs say would have helped tailor the regulatory process to the specific needs of novel technologies…………………

Baran issued the NRC’s sole vote against three recent proposals to make it easier to build an SMR at a former coal- or gas-fired plant, to tailor the size of the emergency preparedness zone to the size of the reactor, and to update the environmental permitting requirements for new reactors to account for the dramatic difference in water use between traditional and new designs…………..

While outnumbered by the other four commissioners, Baran’s hard-line view against easing regulations mirrors the Fukushima era in which he came to power, when Democrats Gregory Jaczko and Allison Macfarlane chaired the NRC and delivered on Reid’s efforts to block key nuclear projects. Nordhaus described Baran as a holdover from that period…………………..

The Case For Baran

Baran is not without his defenders among atomic energy advocates.

“It’s not as though he’s anti-nuclear,” said Jackie Toth, the Washington-based deputy director of the Good Energy Collective, a progressive pro-nuclear group headquartered in California. She noted that Baran’s critics often paint him as having the same views as Jaczko and Macfarlane. “To pool them together without looking at the full breadth of his record and what he’s done is unfair.”

“He prioritizes safety and not simply taking industry at its word,” Toth said. “It’s critical to have on the commission someone who understands both the need for increased nuclear capacity on our grid for climate, communities and energy security, but still wants to make sure the industry is putting its best foot forward.”

In particular, she said, Baran has been a crucial supporter of efforts to make it easier for poor and polluted communities — which, thanks to the U.S. history of racist legal and cultural norms, tend to be populated by Black, Latino or Native Americans — to participate in the public regulatory process. While she said she “did not have concerns regarding” the other commissioners’ dedication to environmental justice, Baran’s focus on the issue served to “complement” the other four regulators.

“We feel it’s an asset to have someone like him at the NRC who gets the climate imperative for new reactors but also upholds the agency’s mission to be a trusted regulator that prioritizes public health and safety,” Toth said.

‘Rolling The Dice’

But as Congress presses ahead with legislation to boost nuclear power, Baran’s opponents see him as a potential hurdle to implementing the laws.

In 2018, Congress passed the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, which directed the NRC to establish a novel regulatory framework for new technologies that takes into account the differences between advanced reactors and traditional ones. Baran consistently voted against adjusting the size of a new nuclear plant’s emergency planning zone to align with the size of the reactor, or insisted that the Federal Emergency Management Agency should decide even though the NRC is the regulator with the technical expertise to make the final call.

Over the past two years, Congress earmarked billions of dollars for new reactors in the landmark infrastructure laws Biden signed. And the same Senate committee that narrowly voted along party lines to confirm Baran’s renomination for another term overwhelmingly passed a new bill known as the ADVANCE Act to speed up deployment of new reactor technologies earlier this month………………………..

January 23, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | energy, news, nuclear, nuclear-energy, nuclear-power | Leave a comment

Big costs sink flagship nuclear project and they’ll sink future small modular reactor projects too 

 By Susan O’Donnell and M.V. Ramana, January 21, 2024,  https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/01/21/big-costs-sink-flagship-nuclear-project/

The major news in the world of nuclear energy last November was the collapse of the Carbon Free Power Project in the United States. The project was to build six NuScale small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). Given NuScale’s status as the flagship SMR design not just in the U.S. but even globally, the project’s cancellation should ring alarm bells in Canada. Yet SMRs are touted as a climate action strategy although it is becoming clearer by the day that they will delay a possible transition to net-zero energy and render it more expensive.

The NuScale project failed because there were not enough customers for its expensive electricity. Construction cost estimates for the project had been steadily rising—from USD 4.2 billion for 600 megawatts in 2018 to a staggering USD 9.3 billion (CAD 12.8 billion) for 462 megawatts. Using a combination of government subsidies, potentially up to USD 4.2 billion, and  an opaque calculation method, NuScale claimed that it would produce electricity at USD 89 per megawatt-hour. When standard U.S. government subsidies are included, electricity from wind and solar energy projects, including battery storage, could be as cheap as USD 12 to USD 31 per megawatt-hour.

A precursor to the failed NuScale project was mPower, which also received massive funding from the U.S. Department of Energy. Described by The New York Times as the leader in the SMR race, mPower could not find investors or customers. By 2017, the project was essentially dead. Likewise, a small reactor in South Korea proved to be “not practical or economic”.

Ignoring this dire economic reality, provincial governments planning for SMRs – Ontario, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Alberta – published a “strategic plan” seemingly designed to convince the federal government to open its funding floodgates. Offering no evidence about the costs of these technologies, the report asserts: “The power companies assessed that SMRs have the potential to be an economically competitive source of energy.”

For its part, the federal government has coughed up grants totalling more than $175 million to five different SMR projects in Ontario, New Brunswick, and Saskatchewan. The Canada Infrastructure Bank loaned $970 million to Ontario Power Generation to develop its Darlington New Nuclear project. And the Canada Energy Regulator’s 2023 Canada’s Energy Future report envisioned a big expansion of nuclear energy based on wishful thinking and unrealistic assumptions about SMRs.

Canada’s support is puzzling when considering other official statements about nuclear energy. In 2021, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said that nuclear power must compete with renewable energy in the market. The previous year, then Environment Minister and current Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson also emphasized competition with other sources of energy, concluding “the winner will be the one that can provide electrical energy at the lowest cost.” Given the evidence about high costs, nuclear power cannot compete with renewable energy, let alone provide electricity at the lowest cost.

Investing huge amounts of taxpayer money in technologies that are uncompetitive is bad enough, but an equally serious problem is wasting time. The primary justification for this government largesse is dealing with climate change. But the urgency of that crisis requires action now, not in two decades.

All the SMR designs planned in Canada’s provinces are still on the drawing board. The design furthest along in the regulatory process – the BWRX-300 slated for Ontario’s Darlington site – does not yet have a licence to begin construction. New Brunswick’s choices – a sodium cooled fast reactor and a molten salt reactor – are demonstrably problematic and will take longer to build.

Recently built nuclear plants have taken, on average, 9.8 years from start of construction to producing electricity. The requisite planning, regulatory evaluations of new designs, raising the necessary finances, and finding customers who want to pay higher electricity bills might add another decade.

SMR vendors have to raise not only the billions needed to build the reactor but also the funding to complete their designs. NuScale spent around USD 1.8 billion (CAD 2.5 billion), and the reactor was still left with many unresolved safety problems. ARC-100 and Moltex proponents in New Brunswick have each asked for at least $500 million to further develop their designs. Moltex has been unable to obtain the required funding to match the $50.5 million federal grant it received in 2021.

Adverse economics killed the flagship NuScale SMR project. There is no reason to believe the costs of SMR designs proposed in Canada will be any lower. Are government officials attentive enough to hear the clanging alarm bells?

Susan O’Donnell is adjunct research professor and primary investigator of the CEDAR project at St. Thomas University in Fredericton. M.V. Ramana is the Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security and professor at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia.

January 22, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | energy, news, nuclear, nuclear-energy, nuclear-power | Leave a comment

UK’s nuclear obsessions kill off its net zero strategy

The new Roadmap reads like an outing to a massive nuclear sweet shop. On top of Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C, we’ll have one more big one. And then we’ll have lots of Small Modular Reactors, all over the country. And we’ll have a new fuel processing plant. And a new Geological Disposal Facility – at some much more distance point. And so on and on. 24 fantastical Gigawatts to be designed and delivered by 2050.

Jonathon Porritt, 18 Jan 24

After 14 years of Tory mismanagement, the UK finds itself bereft of an energy strategy.

This was finally confirmed in the release last week of the Government’s new Nuclear Roadmap. At one level, it’s just the same old, same old, the latest in a very long line of PR-driven, more or less fantastical wishlists for new nuclear in the UK. But at another, it’s a total revelation.

For years, a small group of dedicated academics and campaigners have suggested that the UK Government’s Nuclear Energy Strategy is being driven more by the UK’s continuing commitment to an “independent” nuclear weapons capability than by any authoritative energy analysis. For an equal number of years, this was aggressively rebutted by one Energy Minister after another, both Tory and Labour.

The new Nuclear Roadmap dramatically changes all that. It sets to one side any pretence that the links between our civil nuclear programme and our military defence needs were anything other than small-scale – and of no material strategic significance. With quite startling transparency and clarity, the Roadmap not only reveals the full extent of those links, but positively celebrates that co-dependency as a massive plus in our ambition to achieve a Net Zero economy by 2050.

“Startling” is actually an understatement. Such a comprehensive volte-face is rare in policy-making circles. Every effort is usually made by Ministers to obscure the scale (let along the significance) of any such screeching handbrake turns. That is so not the case with the new Roadmap.

Courtesy of the latest forensic work done by Professors Andy Stirling and Phil Johnstone at Sussex University (who have been absolutely at the forefront of seeking to bring these links into the public domain over many years – often with mighty little support from mainstream environmental organisations, let alone “independent” commentators), chapter and verse of this volte-face can be laid bare. Just three o examples from the Roadmap:

• “Not only does this Roadmap set a clear path for the growth of nuclear fission…it acknowledges the crucial importance of the nuclear industry to our national security, both in terms of energy supply and the defence nuclear enterprise.”

• “Government will proactively look for opportunities to align delivery of the civil and nuclear defence enterprises, whilst maintaining the highest standards of non-proliferation.”

• “To address the commonalities across the civil and defence supply chains, and the potential risk to our respective nuclear programmes due to competing demand for the supply chain, the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) is working closely with the Ministry of Defence and the Defence Nuclear Sector.”

And there’s a whole lot more than that! As Andy Stirling has said: “Without any reflection on what this says about previous efforts to suppress discussion of this issue, the Government is now openly emphasising its significance.”

Indeed!

As usual, the UK’s ill-informed and unbelievably gullible mainstream media would appear to have missed the significance of this gobsmacking inflection point. So one can hardly expect them to have grasped its even more significant implications for UK energy strategy as a whole. In every single particular.

Let me briefly unpack some of those particulars:

1. Nuclear

The new Roadmap reads like an outing to a massive nuclear sweet shop. On top of Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C, we’ll have one more big one. And then we’ll have lots of Small Modular Reactors, all over the country. And we’ll have a new fuel processing plant. And a new Geological Disposal Facility – at some much more distance point. And so on and on. 24 fantastical Gigawatts to be designed and delivered by 2050.

The reality couldn’t be more different:

• We will indeed end up with Hinkley Point C – at a staggering of cost of somewhere between £26 billion and £30 billion, with consumers paying twice as much for its electricity as they will for offshore wind. And it will almost certainly not come online until the end of the decade, 15 years on from the time it was meant to be up and running.

• We may possibly get Sizewell C, though the Government cannot currently guarantee the required level of investment. So a Final Investment Decision is unlikely before the next Election. At which point, Starmer may come to his senses and kill off this absurd white elephant.

• We will never get a third big reactor. The economics are literally impossible to justify.

• We are unlikely to get more than a couple of hugely expensive Small Modular Reactors, at some indeterminate point in the future, even with a new “flexible approach” to planning and financial inducements. Even that may prove to be an illusion. As Professor Steve Thomas has written: “Advocates of Small Nuclear Reactors claim they are cheaper and easier to build, safer, generate less waste, and will create many jobs compared to existing large reactor designs. These claims are unproven, misleading, or just plain wrong. Worldwide, no commercial design of SMR has even received a firm order yet.”

• And we may or may not get life extensions for the last five power stations in the “legacy fleet” – subject to regulatory approval, which may not be all that easy given extensive cracking in their reactor cores.

In short, the Roadmap is just a massive diversion from reality. Entailing incalculable opportunity costs. And putting at risk our entire Net Zero by 2050 strategy.

Ministers know all that. But they don’t really care. Our nuclear weapons programme (including upgrading Trident) will be protected as a consequence of this, via an unceasing flow of public money into the civil nuclear cul-de-sac, at a time when our defence budget is already massively overstretched. So who cares about the missing 24GW?

2. Renewables

We’ll continue to see new investment into renewables here in the UK, despite (not because of) government policy, which has seriously messed up our offshore wind industry, maintained a de facto ban on onshore wind, couldn’t care less about solar, witters on vapidly about tidal without doing anything etc etc.

Meanwhile, on a global basis, renewables continue to boom. Here are a few facts – in contrast to over-excited sightings of nuclear unicorns:…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Why don’t people see this?

Why don’t our mainstream media offer any serious critique of what’s going on here?

Why don’t our opposition parties rip to shreds this tissue of preposterous illusions?

The reasons for this almost complete silence can be traced back to successive governments’ grim intent to hang onto our so-called “independent nuclear deterrent”. At literally any costs…………………………………………………………………….more https://www.jonathonporritt.com/uks-nuclear-obsessions-kill-off-its-net-zero-strategy/

January 20, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | energy, news, nuclear, nuclear-energy, nuclear-power | Leave a comment