Nuclear news – week to 19 February
Some bits of good news – Sea Otters Returned to a Degraded Coastline Ate Enough Crabs to Restore Balance and Cut Erosion by 90%.England set a biodiversity benchmark. Wind power awards and wildlife photography: Positive environmental stories from 2024.
TOP STORIES. Chris Hedges: Julian Assange’s Final Appeal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvdTG56UbdcAustralian PM Albanese and 85 Other MPs Vote to End Assange Incarceration.
Biodiversity: the first ever State of the World’s Migratory Species report released.
Nuclear Illusions Hinder Climate Efforts as Costs Keep Rising. Nuclear Delays, Cost Overruns Imperil UK’s Net-Zero Goals .
Surviving an Era of Pervasive Nuclear Instability.
***************************************
From the archives. The war-mongering of Israel and USA.
Climate.Collapse of Ocean Currents Could Cause Major Climate Problems.
Nuclear. The U.S. industry is pretty quiet, still licking its wounds oveer the NuScale small nuclear reactor fiasco. Not so -Britain. The UK is in a turmoil (actually over lots of things) – but especially over MONEY – and the obscene costs of its Great British Nuclear Policy – not going too well at all!
Noel’s notes: Israel, USA, the “West” can’t hide their atrocious guilt any more. Again – the power of the Zionist lobby. 11 year old boys and nukes in space.
************************************************************
AUSTRALIA. Australian Parliament votes in favour of bringing Julian Assange home. Dutton goes nuclear on government’s renewable plans. Australia’s nuclear future and the legal ramifications of ratifying the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Wind and solar are delivering an energy transition at record speed.
NUCLEAR ISSUES
| ECONOMICS. UK: Spending watchdog launches investigation into Sellafield nuclear waste site. The UK’s biggest nuclear waste dump faces an inquiry by the National Audit Office (NAO) over its soaring costs and safety record. UK Nuclear financing comes unstuck. Energy company Centrica boss says it could fund Suffolk nuclear plant Sizewell C. France: EDF’s setbacks weigh down the relaunch of nuclear power in Europe. France’s first 6 EPR2 nuclear reactors will cost much more than the planned 52 billion euros. Energy company Centrica boss says it could fund Suffolk nuclear plant Sizewell C. | ENVIRONMENT. AI, climate change, pandemics and nuclear warfare put humanity in ‘grave danger’, open letter warns. The Saltwater Threat: A Death Sentence for Freshwater Life as EDF plans to flood area, in service to Hinkley Nuclear Project . | HEALTH. Radiation. Breakthrough research unveils effects of ionizing radiation on cellul |
| POLITICS. UK: Britain must pay more for Hinkley, says France. UK government keen to take control of Anglesey site for Westinghouse to build Wylfa nuclear power station. Planned UK nuclear reactors unlikely to help hit green target, say MPs. Environmental Audit Committee urges UK Government to clarify nuclear SMR strategy UK’s Nuclear Strategy Faces Criticism: Uncertainty Looms for Small Modular Reactors. Nuclear Free Local Authorities call on nuclear industry to spend more on social action. Radiation Free Lakeland urges East Riding Councillors to Withdraw from GDF process. PM Trudeau dismisses Algonquin concerns over Chalk River nuclear waste dump. “Unbelievable” U.S. government bailouts fund zombie nuclear projects. | POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. Nuclear weapons and poison pills: Washington, Beijing warily circle AI talks. EU nuclear weapons ‘unrealistic,’ says German defense committee chair. Shameless Emmanuel Macron demands British taxpayers cough up more cash for nuclear power. | SAFETY. Congress takes aim at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Nuclear regulator raps EDF over safety flaws. Latest Fukushima leak exposes failures in nuclear crisis management. Safety panel urges Fukushima nuclear plant operator to better communicate with public. The Complexity of Nuclear Submarine Safeguards Impacts the Current Landscape. |
| SECRETS and LIES. South Korea’s nuclear mafia. | SPACE. EXPLORATION, WEAPONS. The ‘disturbing’ intel roiling the Hill is about Russian nukes in space. From Russia with nukes? Sifting facts from speculation about space weapon threat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xl0C6K2Nug – Long video – but worth it.SpaceX deorbiting 100 older Starlink satellites to ‘keep space safe and sustainable’. ‘Everyone needs to calm down’: experts assess Russian nuclear space threat. Is there really a nuclear weapon in space? | SPINBUSTER. The War on Gaza: Public Relations vs. Reality. Russian ‘nukes in space’ scare by Biden admin is nonsense. Exploding Alberta’s Myths about Small Nuclear Reactors. |
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.
, 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.
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/
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.
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 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.
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?
Nuclear news – week to 6th February
Some bits of good news . Heroes in pink: Lao midwives supporting rights and saving lives Zimbabwe launches cholera vaccination to curb the spread. Wild panda population nearly doubles as China steps up conservation efforts.
TOP STORIES.
- EDF’s Hinkley Point woes pile pressure on global nuclear push. also at https://nuclear-news.net/2024/02/04/2-a-edfs-hinkley-point-woes-pile-pressure-on-global-nuclear-push/
- Nuclear Waste: Changing Conditions May Affect Future Management of Contamination Deposited Abroad During U.S. Cold War Activities.
- The new space race Is Causing New Pollution Problems. also at https://nuclear-news.net/2024/02/03/1-a-the-new-space-race-is-causing-new-pollution-problems/
- AI chatbots tend to choose violence and nuclear strikes in wargames
Climate. Greta Thunberg’s public order charge dropped as judge criticises police action. Greta Thunberg was given ‘final warning’ before London arrest.
Nuclear. I’m still trying to stay off the Israel-Gaza topic. But it is all bringing us closer to nuclear war.
Noel’s notes. Goodbye Mastodon! The power of the Zionist lobby. Mastodon has closed me down again – this time for supporting United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). WHAT’S GOING ON? How very unfashionable! Scottish MP is worrying about health aspects of nuclear power, (instead of the finances!) What’s the connection between the UK Post Office scandal and Soviet Lt. Col. Stanislav Petrov?
*****************************************************************************
AUSTRALIA. Australian Conservation Foundation is seriously concerned about the AUKUS nuclear submarine project, its costs and consequences and the way this initiative is being advanced. Expect weapons-grade NIMBYism as leaders fight over where to store AUKUS nuclear waste. Australian Sailors Embed Aboard Submarine Tender for Nuclear Experience.
| CLIMATE. COP28 pledge to expand nuclear capacity is out of touch with reality. | CIVIL LIBERTIES. A Radically Different World Since Assange’s Indictment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egLJ3-jF1Uo | ECONOMICS. UK’s Nuclear “money pit” tops $59 billion. EDF, France’s state-owned nuclear company now in a fatal trap, as Hinkley Point C costs soar. Is this the World’s Most Expensive and Most Delayed Power Project? Are the French going cold on UK nuclear? France limits its investment in Britain’s Sizewell C, as the global nuclear industry requires massive government subsidies. Many challenges [? big problems] [? big problems] stand in the way of a ‘nuclear power renaissance’ Czech Republic / Government Seeks Binding Tenders For Four Nuclear Reactors From EDF And KHNP. |
| ENERGY. German energy companies reject nuclear energy proposals – citing high risks and toxic waste problem . Tripling nuclear energy by 2050 will take a miracle, and miracles don’t happen. | ENVIRONMENT. ‘Odd’ Hinkley Point C salt marsh plan has Somerset locals up in arms. | HEALTH. Man suffered most painful death imaginable after horror accident made him ‘cry blood’ and ‘skin melted’. Sellafield nuclear plant: Cancer fears raised by Scottish MP. |
| INDIGENOUS ISSUES. Tell it to the Chieftain: Nuclear power plants, and Is advanced nuclear a pipe dream? | LEGAL. Holtec International avoids criminal prosecution related to false documents, pays $5m fine. US Court Hears Case Alleging Biden Complicit in Israel’s Genocide in Gaza. The provisional measures of the International Court of Justice. What Happens Now That the ICJ Has Ordered Israel Not to Engage in Genocide? | MEDIA. Neck Deep in the Big Media Mudd |
| OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR . MP calls for vote on Holderness nuclear site which local petition brands ‘hazardous waste dumping ground’. It’s not a done deal and you are not alone’: anti-GDF campaigners pledge solidarity with South Holderness over nuclear waste dump plan. South Holderness nuclear waste plan not safe – residents. Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG) firmly contradicts Therese Coffey, MP on Bradwell as a nuclear site. Campaigners Warn Return of US Nukes to UK Would ‘Make Britain a Guaranteed Target’. | POLITICS. Nancy Pelosi’s attack on Gaza ceasefire advocates is a disgrace. Holtec to get $1.5 bln loan to re-open Michigan nuclear power plant -source, The Future of Pickering Nuclear Generating Station and Its Impacts on Ontario. Ford Government Issues Blank Cheque for Nuclear Power, Shows Reckless Disregard for Nuclear Waste Generation . How not to go nuclear: Hinkley and Sizewell. Hinkley C – don’t say I didn’t warn you!- (a pro-nuclear view!) UK govt awards Hitachi £33.6 m to design small nuclear reactors. UK govt designates British Nuclear Fuels Ltd as Great British Nuclear (…..whatever this means). Hinkley Point shambles shows why UK must scrap disastrous nuclear strategy. Cracks appear in Labour-Green alliance over claims that Heysham power stations letter was ‘reckless’. |
| POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. France seeks loan guarantees from UK over Hinkley Point C nuclear plant. The feckless four – hypocrisy of the nuclear weapons nations. French firm EDF shows its power over the UK govt – no judicial review now required over fish protection from Hinkley nuclear cooling system | SAFETY. Safety concerns persist at Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant . France’s ASN nuclear safety authority warns of fraud risk in nuclear industry.Britain plans ‘robocop’ force to protect nuclear sites with paint bombs. Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) Disappointed in Province’s Decision on Pickering Nuclear Plant. Residents ask for full examination of damage to nuclear plant caused by quake. Magnitude-4.8 earthquake jolts Tokyo and the Kanto region. | SECRETS and LIES. Military-Intelligence Corruption Information Center. As Ukraine begs for more weapons, corruption in its Defense Ministry is revealed. Chinese nuclear fuel engineer Li Guangchang caught in anti-corruption net targeting ‘high-risk’ areas. |
| SPACE. EXPLORATION, WEAPONS. Nuclear industry takes control of NASA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRZnSkC-nXg Nuclear power on the moon: NASA wraps up 1st phase of ambitious reactor project. | SPINBUSTER. Ontario counts nuclear power as “Green”. | TECHNOLOGY. Advanced nuclear power is costly and tech is still developing: Is a Pueblo plant realistic:? Will AI Warfare Usher in a Massive Expansion of the Surveillance State? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLBrP084X5Y Blade hub idea for old n-plant site. |
| WASTES. USA’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant to increase its space for nuclear trash. VINCI wins contract to dismantle nuclear reactors in Sweden. Strong opposition on plans to store nuclear waste in East Yorkshire | WAR and CONFLICT. US unleashes strikes across Middle East. The U.S. Quest for Nuclear Primacy | WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. US reportedly planning to station nuclear weapons in Britain for first time in 15 years. Documents unambiguously state ‘incoming nuclear mission’ to Britain. RAF Lakenheath: Plans progress to bring US nuclear weapons to Suffolk – a risky target? Britain will test fire Trident nuclear missile for the first time since 2016 as fears of World War Three grow.Russia has no plans to deploy nuclear arms beyond Belarus, says deputy minister. NATO chief says more war, more weapons, are the way to secure lasting peace in Ukraine. Democrats press Blinken on arms sales to Israel without congressional approval. U.S. Congress about to weaken its oversight of weapons sales to foreign countries. Could a Rogue Billionaire Make and Sell a Nuclear Weapon?. |
Australian Conservation Foundation is seriously concerned about the AUKUS nuclear submarine project, its costs and consequences and the way this initiative is being advanced.
Submission to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee – Inquiry into the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023
ACF and AUKUS
ACF holds serious concerns around the AUKUS nuclear submarine project, its costs and consequences and the way this initiative is being advanced…..
ACF’s focus in this submission is on the environmental ramifications of AUKUS in Australia. The submission starts from the premise a regulatory system of some kind related to AUKUS in Australia will be adopted by Federal Parliament. The submission identifies gaps in the regime and issues that require further consideration and provides practical recommendations for improvement
Summary
– ACF’s is deeply concerned with the Bill’s potential for approval to be granted for the storage in Australia of high-level radioactive waste from submarines operated by other countries.
– The safety of the Australian public should be the paramount concern here. The Bill’s proposed objects do not adequately reflect this. The objects need to be expanded.
– The current drafting does not provide for any meaningful community information, consultation or reporting. The principles of open government and accountability would suggest that the default position ought to be that information will be available but permit exceptions based on regulations or ministerial discretion.
– The current drafting permits abrogation of responsibility by Commonwealth entities. Non-government third parties (e.g. contractors) could be solely responsible for compliance with the relevant duties. This could include organisations based outside Australia. Given the nature of the risk, Commonwealth entities should be subject to ongoing responsibility, regardless of contractual arrangements.
– The Bill proposes a compliance regime which would make enforcement of the nuclear safety duty problematic. The use of “as far as reasonably practicable” is rare in the criminal offence context and should not be used in the context of nuclear safety.
– Licences ought only to be issued to entities that have demonstrated capability and record and reputation for meeting their regulatory obligations. A requirement that licences only be issued to entities that are a fit and proper person should be included.
Other issues addressed in this submission are:
– Consent considerations and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
– Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
– A Nuclear Industry by Stealth?
– Disregard of advice from ARPANSA’s Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council
– Clarification on Relationship of New Regulator with Existing Agencies
Summary of Recommendations
1. The Bill be amended to ensure that it only provides for the licencing of radioactive waste storage facilities for HLW from Australian submarines.
2. The Federal Government develop an open approach to future HLW management in Australia that is informed by the wider consideration of domestic ILW (intermediate-level waste) management.
3. That the objects of the Bill be redrafted to address protection of a range of people and the environment, and transparency of information and decision-making and accountability of the Government.
4. That the Bill be amended to improve transparency by requiring, subject to national security exceptions, public notification of applications and decisions, a public register of key applications and decisions and mandatory reporting requirements. The Committee should consider principles of open government and comparable regulatory regimes in developing its detailed recommendations to improve transparency.
5. That the Bill be amended to establish a clear-cut obligation to ensure nuclear safety and then provide a defence if the defendant can demonstrate that they exercised due diligence and took all reasonably practicable precautions.
6. That the Bill be amended to recognise and reflect the foundational management principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC).
7. That the Bill be amended to ensure the Commonwealth cannot contract out of liability in relation to compliance with the duties on licence holders created by the Bill. A mechanism should be included to ensure the Commonwealth bears responsibility in relation to nuclear safety for the actions of a contractor who holds a licence.
8. That the Bill be amended to ensure the definition of Commonwealth Contractor does not include sub-contractors to a Commonwealth sub-contractor.
9. That the Bill be amended such that the responsibility of each person in the supply chain or logistics chain is expressed, including in terms of the duties and incident reporting, in a manner similar to the National Heavy Vehicle Laws and Work Health and Safety Laws
10. That the Bill be amended to include a requirement that licences only be issued to entities that are a fit and proper persons similar to the Protection from Harmful Radiation Act 1990 (NSW) or Protection of the Environment (Operations) Act 1997 (NSW).
11. That the Committee request ARPANSA’s Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council give evidence and consider the divergence of the Bill from the Council’s 2022 advice to the ARPANSA CEO.
12. The Committee recommend the ARPANS Act exclusion be modified or removed.
13. The Committee take evidence from the Department on, and consider, the interaction between the new regulatory regime, ARPANSA and potentially relevant state and territory regulatory controls.
14. The Committee consider amendments to provide for a formal means of contact between ARPANSA and the new regulator. This could include a formal position with the new regulator of the requirement to consider ARPANSA guidance materials.
High-Level Radioactive Waste from Other Countries
The AUKUS initiative brings a profound elevation in the cost, complexity and challenges of radioactive waste management in Australia through the introduction of High-Level Waste (HLW)0F1. This material needs to be securely isolated from people and the wider environment for periods of up to 100,000 years.1F2
The AUKUS initiative brings a profound elevation in the cost, complexity and challenges of radioactive waste management in Australia through the introduction of High-Level Waste (HLW)0F1. This material needs to be securely isolated from people and the wider environment for periods of up to 100,000 years.1F2
Speaking on the ABC in March 2023 Defence Minister Marles stated:
We are making a commitment that we will dispose of the nuclear reactor. That is a significant commitment to make. This is going to require a facility to be built in order to do that disposal, obviously that facility will be remote from populations, and today we are announcing that that facility will be on Defence land, current or future.
Part of the AUKUS deal is that Australia must manage all radioactive waste generated by the submarines on Australian soil. Minister Richard Marles said this was a pre-condition for the whole program.
The ABC also reported that while the sole responsibility of the submarine nuclear waste disposal lies with Australia, the White House has promised the US and UK will help, quoting a White House representative:
The United Kingdom and the United States will assist Australia in developing this capability, leveraging Australia’s decades of safely and securely managing radioactive waste domestically.
At no point has a compelling case been made for why Australia should take responsibility for the management of this waste, especially in relation to waste arising from purchased secondhand US Virginia class submarines.
This lack of rationale was highlighted in an article by Kym Bergmann titled the Nightmare of Nuclear-powered Submarine Disposal in the July-August, 2023edition of the Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter (APDR):
Why Australia has committed to this expensive process, hazardous to human life is unknown. In summary form, we will need to put in place facilities for the following:
• To remove the fuel from the sub.
• To store the recently removed fuel in pools of water.
• To transfer the fuel from the pools to dry casks.
• To store the dry casks on an interim basis.
• To permanently dispose of the spent fuel deep underground.
• To permanently dispose of the rest of the reactor (excluding the fuel).
It is unknown whether the estimated project cost of $368 billion covers this. It is unknown where the facilities will be built. It is unknown whether the decommissioning of submarines
will occur at their east coast base. In addition, the U235 will have to be in a secure location and then guarded forever to prevent its theft for conversion into weapons.
APDR went on to ask:
One of the many mysteries around the AUKUS deal is why Australia has agreed to disposing of the Virginia class submarines here. Surely the logical thing would be to have an agreement where the US took them back at the end of their lives and decommissioned them using their well established procedures.
Who benefits from compelling Australia to develop our own waste disposal industry? Why not lease the used Virginia class subs rather than purchase them outright?
To this can be added the mystery of why agree to second hand submarines at all?………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
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
Are the French going cold on UK nuclear?
‘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.’
The French government, which was previously relaxed about EDF’s forays into UK nuclear, now wants its energy company to work on projects back home in France.
So far, Britain has put £2.5billion into the project in total and taxpayers are the biggest shareholders. Campaigners who vehemently oppose the project are alarmed by the recent comments from Paris, pointing out that if the French back off from Sizewell, taxpayers could be on the hook for huge extra amounts of cash via their bills.
By FRANCESCA WASHTELL , 28 January 2024, https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-13015713/Are-French-going-cold-UK-nuclear.html
Our nuclear industry is reawakening,’ energy secretary Claire Coutinho
declared in a Government strategy document published earlier this month. In
between invoking Winston Churchill’s enthusiasm for nuclear power and its
ability to help the UK reach net zero, Coutinho added that setting up new
plants would ensure our energy security ‘so we’re never dependent on the
likes of [Vladimir] Putin again’. Fighting talk. But in the space of a
fortnight, Coutinho’s gung-ho attitude has already been dented as a
diplomatic row brews over who should pay for the controversial power
stations.
French state-owned energy company EDF last week lit the blue
touchpaper with the revelation the UK’s flagship Hinkley Point C nuclear
plant in Somerset would be delayed until 2029 at the earliest. The cost, it
added, could spiral to as much as £46billion, from initial estimates of
£18billion.
Few in the industry will have been surprised, particularly as EDF has experienced delays on similar projects in Finland and France. But what was a shock were some incendiary remarks from the French government.
The Elysee Palace began pressing the UK to help plug a funding gap at Hinkley and for good measure cast doubt over its commitment to Sizewell C, the next nuclear power station in the pipeline.
A French Treasury official suggested the Government was trying to leave EDF in the lurch on Hinkley.
The official added that it cannot, at the same time, abandon the French firm to ‘figure it out alone’ on Hinkley and also expect it to plough money into Sizewell. It is, the official said, ‘a Franco- British matter,’ and not one for the French to resolve single-handedly.
This is a bad moment for two critical new nuclear plants – and our broader energy security – to be dragged into a cross-Channel tussle.
The French government, which was previously relaxed about EDF’s forays into UK nuclear, now wants its energy company to work on projects back home in France.
Well-placed UK sources deny the French claims that EDF has been left to shoulder the financing burden alone at Hinkley, or that it has been jettisoned by the British state.
They point to the fact EDF has all along had contractual obligations to shoulder the costs at this stage of the project. The early stages of developing Hinkley were undertaken by EDF along with China General Nuclear.
The Chinese firm has fulfilled its part of the bargain, leaving the onus on the French. ‘It’s all down to the French state,’ a senior industry source told The Mail on Sunday. ‘It’s tough, but they’ve not managed it at all well.’
A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesman said: ‘The Government plays no part in the financing or operation of Hinkley Point C. The financing of the project is a matter for EDF and its shareholders.’
As well as backing Hinkley, EDF several years ago began serious talks with the Government over Sizewell C in Suffolk. Each could power an estimated 6 million homes for 60 years, meaning the two projects are linchpins for meeting future energy demand.
The French group is due to take a 20 per cent stake in Sizewell. The Government has previously indicated it will take 20 per cent. It was hoped the rest would be funded through money from the private sector, such as pension funds and sovereign wealth funds.
So far, Britain has put £2.5billion into the project in total and taxpayers are the biggest shareholders. Campaigners who vehemently oppose the project are alarmed by the recent comments from Paris, pointing out that if the French back off from Sizewell, taxpayers could be on the hook for huge extra amounts of cash via their bills.
The new type of funding structure for Sizewell C means consumers will already face an added tax to help pay for the plant.
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.’
And another area of the industry is watching the fracas with mounting frustration.
Companies vying to build ‘mini’ stations known as small modular reactors (SMRs) hope this prompts the Government to commit instead to their projects, which are quicker to build and cheaper [?]
The firms include Rolls-Royce SMR, which has already received significant funding from the Government. New nuclear plants of whatever size will almost certainly be part of the UK’s energy mix in the years to come.
The sector had already been championed by Boris Johnson before soaring oil and gas prices in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine highlighted Britain’s dependence on overseas energy.
Any fisticuffs with France over Hinkley and Sizewell would strain the sector and could fatally damage the level of public. Industry figures are urging ministers to resist stumping up cash the French had agreed to pay.
One senior source said: ‘I hope the Government doesn’t lose its nerve, though there’s no sign of that at the moment. It would be a terrible precedent.’
.
Electricite de France (EDF) DF a total basket case, weighed down by its 50 Billion pound nuclear turkey at Hinkley point
Jonathon Porritt, https://www.jonathonporritt.com/edf-a-total-basket-case-weighed-down-by-its-50-billion-nuclear-turkey-at-hinkley-point/ 25 Jan 24
EdF’s bosses must be thanking their lucky stars that President Macron decided to take complete control of EdF back in 2022. Otherwise, its latest announcements about further delays and cost increases for its new reactors at Hinkley Point would have sent any remaining investors running for the hills.
The scale of those announcements is staggering:
- The price tag for Hinkley Point C has now been reset at £31-34 billion (in 2015 prices), twice the original £18 billion.
- In today’s money, that’s around £46 billion – with further delays and cost hikes (rising to at least £50 billion) all but inevitable.
- EdF’s shortfall in completing Hinkley Point has risen substantially, and could now be as high as £25 billion on its balance sheet.
- EdF has admitted that 2029 is now the earliest Hinkley Point will come online. Fat chance of that.
Which makes Hinkley Point C even more of a bust than EdF’s current worst reactor construction nightmare at Flamanville in France. And significantly worse than its plant at Olkiluoto in Finland, which it just managed to get over the line last year.
So, watch out for the fallout.
Hinkley Point C was meant to be coming online in 2027. All neutral commentators now reckon 2031 (EdF’s so-called ”unfavourable scenario”) is the earliest that will happen. That’s a further four-year delay before its low-carbon electrons (providing 7% of the UK’s electricity) will be available to help the UK meet its various decarbonisation targets.
Add to that the knock-on impact of this on the Government’s/Labour’s hopes for a Hinkley Point look-alike (really!) at Sizewell C. The sales pitch to investors for that has now become even trickier than it was before: “Just look at this beautiful £50 billion turkey: another one just like it could be all yours at a bargain-basement price of, say, £40 billion”.
Which leads to the following conclusions:
EdF is even more screwed than it was before, deeper in debt, with further delays for rolling out its look-alike plant at Sizewell C now inevitable.- The Tory Government is screwed, with no chance of Hinkley Point C (let alone Sizewell C) making any serious short-term contribution to its decarbonisation strategy.
- Labour is screwed – for exactly the same reasons.
- The UK’s Net Zero strategy by 2050 looks less and less viable. And that will soon be tested, again, in the courts.
- All this because of the nuclear obsessions of the UK’s entire political establishment – Labour just as much as the Tories.
Happily, there’s no need to panic: the case for the “renewables + efficiency + storage + smart grids” option just got a whole lot stronger, both economically and politically. We just need the donkeys in Whitehall to give up on their nuclear turkeys. Finally!
Nuclear hype in meltdown
The latest nuclear power ‘renaissance’ is going in reverse.
Dr Jim Green , 23rd January 2024, https://theecologist.org/2024/jan/23/nuclear-hype-meltdown
Nuclear power went backwards last year and shrunk to below 10 percent of global electricity generation despite all the hype about a new nuclear ‘renaissance’. Meanwhile, renewables enjoyed record growth for the 22nd consecutive year and now accounts for more than 30 percent.
The nuclear renaissance of the late-2000s was a bust due to the Fukushima disaster and catastrophic cost overruns with reactor projects. The latest renaissance is heading the same way – nowhere.
There were five reactor start-ups and five permanent closures in 2023 with a net loss of 1.7 gigawatts (GW) of capacity. There were just six reactor construction starts in 2023, five of them in China.
Hype
Due to the ageing of the reactor fleet, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) anticipates the closure of 10 reactors (10 GW) per year from 2018 to 2050.
Therefore the industry needs an annual average of 10 reactor construction starts, and 10 reactor startups (grid connections), just to maintain its current output. Over the past decade (2014-23), construction starts have averaged 6.1 per year and reactor startups have averaged 6.7.
The number of operable power reactors is 407 to 413 depending on the definition of operability, well down from the 2002 peak of 438.
Nuclear power’s share of global electricity generation has fallen to 9.2 percent, its lowest share in four decades and little more than half of its peak of 17.5 percent in 1996.
Over the two decades 2004-2023, there were 102 power reactor startups and 104 closures worldwide: 49 startups in China with no closures; and a net decline of 51 reactors in the rest of the world.
In China, there were five reactor construction starts in 2023 and just one reactor startup. Put another way, there was just one reactor construction start outside China in 2023. One. So much for the hype about a new nuclear ‘renaissance’.
Deployment
Small modular reactors (SMRs) are the subject of endless hype but there were no SMR construction starts or startups last year.
Indeed, the biggest SMR news in 2023 was NuScale Power’s decision to abandon its flagship project in Idaho despite securing astronomical subsidies amounting to around US$4 billion from the US Government. The company is far more likely to go bankrupt than to break ground on its first reactor.
The pro-nuclear Breakthrough Institute noted in a November 2023 article that efforts to commercialise a new generation of ‘advanced’ nuclear reactors “are simply not on track” and it warned nuclear advocates not to “whistle past this graveyard”.
The Institute said: “The NuScale announcement follows several other setbacks for advanced reactors. Last month, X-Energy, another promising SMR company, announced that it was canceling plans to go public. This week, it was forced to lay off about 100 staff.
“In early 2022, Oklo’s first license application was summarily rejected by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission before the agency had even commenced a technical review of Oklo’s Aurora reactor.
“Meanwhile, forthcoming new cost estimates from TerraPower and XEnergy as part of the Department of Energy’s Advanced Reactor Deployment Program are likely to reveal substantially higher cost estimates for the deployment of those new reactor technologies as well.”
Installed
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has just released its ‘Renewables 2023’ report and it makes for a striking contrast with the nuclear industry’s malaise.
Nuclear power suffered a net loss of 1.7 GW capacity in 2023, whereas renewable capacity additions amounted to a record 507 GW, almost 50 percent higher than 2022. This is the 22nd year in a row that renewable capacity additions set a new record, the IEA states.
Nuclear power accounts for a declining share of global electricity generation (currently 9.2 percent) whereas renewables have grown to 30.2 percent.
The IEA expects renewables to reach 42 percent by 2028 thanks to a projected 3,700 GW of new capacity over the next five years in the IEA’s ‘main case’.
The IEA states that the world is on course to add more renewable capacity in the next five years than has been installed since the first commercial renewable energy power plant was built more than 100 years ago.
Milestones
Solar and wind combined have already surpassed nuclear power generation and the IEA notes that several other milestones are in sight:
‒ In 2025, renewables surpass coal-fired electricity generation to become the largest source of electricity generation
‒ In 2025, wind surpasses nuclear electricity generation
‒ In 2026, solar PV surpasses nuclear electricity generation
‒ In 2028, renewable energy sources account for over 42 percent of global electricity generation, with the share of wind and solar PV doubling to 25 percent.
An estimated 96 percent of newly installed, utility-scale solar PV and onshore wind capacity had lower generation costs than new coal and natural gas plants in 2023, the IEA states.
Tripling
The IEA states in its ‘Renewables 2023’ report that: “Prior to the COP28 climate change conference in Dubai, the International Energy Agency (IEA) urged governments to support five pillars for action by 2030, among them the goal of tripling global renewable power capacity.
“Several of the IEA priorities were reflected in the Global Stocktake text agreed by the 198 governments at COP28, including the goals of tripling renewables and doubling the annual rate of energy efficiency improvements every year to 2030.
“Tripling global renewable capacity in the power sector from 2022 levels by 2030 would take it above 11 000 GW, in line with IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 (NZE) Scenario.”
It adds: “Under existing policies and market conditions, global renewable capacity is forecast to reach 7300 GW by 2028. This growth trajectory would see global capacity increase to 2.5 times its current level by 2030, falling short of the tripling goal.”
In the IEA’s ‘accelerated case’, 4,500 GW of new renewable capacity will be added over the next five years (compared to 3,700 GW in the ‘main case’), nearing the tripling goal. The goal of tripling renewables by 2030 is a stretch but it is not impossible. Conversely, the ‘pledge’ signed by just 22 nations at COP28 to triple nuclear power by 2050 is absurd.
Military-strategic
China’s nuclear program added only 1.2 GW capacity in 2023 while wind and solar combined added 278 GW. Michael Barnard noted in CleanTechnica that allowing for capacity factors, the nuclear additions amount to about seven terrawatt-hours (TWh) of new low carbon generation per year, while wind and solar between them will contribute about 427 TWh annually, over 60 times more than nuclear.
Barnard commented: “One of the things that western nuclear proponents claim is that governments have over-regulated nuclear compared to wind and solar, and China’s regulatory regime for nuclear is clearly not the USA’s or the UK’s.
“They claim that fears of radiation have created massive and unfair headwinds, and China has a very different balancing act on public health and public health perceptions than the west. They claim that environmentalists have stopped nuclear development in the west, and while there are vastly more protests in China than most westerners realise, governmental strategic programs are much less susceptible to public hostility.
“And finally, western nuclear proponents complain that NIMBYs block nuclear expansion, and public sentiment and NIMBYism is much less powerful in China with its Confucian, much more top down governance system.
“China’s central government has a 30-year track record of building massive infrastructure programs, so it’s not like it is missing any skills there. China has a nuclear weapons programme, so the alignment of commercial nuclear generation with military strategic aims is in hand too. China has a strong willingness to finance strategic infrastructure with long-running state debt, so there are no headwinds there either.
“Yet China can’t scale its nuclear program at all. It peaked in 2018 with seven reactors with a capacity of 8.2 GW. For the five years since then then it’s been averaging 2.3 GW of new nuclear capacity, and last year only added 1.2 GW…”
This Author
Dr Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group.
France presses UK to help fill multibillion-pound hole in nuclear projects
Call comes day after EDF flagged more delays of construction of power plant at Hinkley Point
Sarah White in Paris and Jim Pickard and Rachel Millard in London, 25 Jan 24, https://www.ft.com/content/3320c06e-7ce3-4a6b-ab22-4b8201a4cfca
The French government is pressing the UK to help plug a multibillion-pound hole in the budget of nuclear power projects being built in Britain by France’s electricity operator EDF. The call for a contribution from the UK is likely to cause tensions between Paris and London, a day after state-owned EDF admitted its construction of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset would suffer further costly delays, taking the bill to as much as £46bn. The UK has said it will not put cash into the project, which counts EDF as a majority shareholder, and is already backed by a government guarantee on its revenues once it is up and running.
But Paris is pushing for a “global solution” that would also encompass funding issues at another planned UK plant, Sizewell C, said a French economy ministry official and another person close to the talks. “It’s a Franco-British matter,” the French economy ministry official said. “The British government cannot at the same time say EDF has to figure it out alone on Hinkley Point and at the same time ask EDF to put money into Sizewell. We’re determined to find a global solution to see these projects through.”
Sizewell in Suffolk has a different financial set-up to Hinkley. The UK this week said it would inject another £800mn of state funds, bringing its total contribution to £2.5bn at the £20bn plant, where it is the top shareholder. Its partner EDF has no obligation to put more money in. French officials said discussions on various options had begun several months ago with British counterparts, although they acknowledged London had flagged budgetary constraints that would have to be taken into account. In the UK, a government official played down the talks, adding that on Hinkley Point: “Costs will be the responsibility of EDF.”
An EDF executive told the BBC on Wednesday that the French company picks up “the tab for the cost overruns”. EDF on Tuesday warned Hinkley Point would not now be completed until 2029 at the earliest, four years later than its original start date, while the two reactors could cost up to £46bn to build at today’s prices, compared with a £18bn budget in 2016.
Other factors might play into the discussions, however. Under Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Britain took the political initiative to eject Chinese group CGN as an investor in Sizewell — leaving that project in need of fresh private capital, but also prompting CGN to pull back from Hinkley, where it is a 33.5 per cent shareholder. The Chinese group has fulfilled its contracted payments on Hinkley but has no obligation to fund over-costs and stopped doing so a few months ago.
“The French don’t have many levers here but the CGN issue is a very real one,” a third person close to the talks said. Finding private investors to make up the Hinkley shortfall may be tough, several people close to the group said, although formulas such as state guarantees could be discussed. EDF is only just coming out of a period of financial turmoil, and has big investments to make at home, too, in the coming decades. It was fully renationalised last year
“Our goal here . . . is for what’s happening at Hinkley Point, with the delays and the issue with the Chinese partner’s decision, not to impact EDF’s financial trajectory excessively,” the French economy ministry official said. However, one UK nuclear industry figure said that EDF’s plight at Hinkley was the consequence of signing up to a deal with the UK government a decade ago, which at the time was criticised for being too generous to the French group. Under a so-called contract for difference signed with the state, construction costs are not covered but future electricity production is backed up by subsidies in case power prices fall below a certain threshold.
UK nuclear plant hit by new multiyear delay and could cost up to £46bn.
Britain’s flagship Hinkley Point C nuclear plant has been delayed until
2029 at the earliest, with the cost spiralling to as much as £46bn, in the
latest blow to a project at the heart of the country’s long-term energy
plans.
The surging bill and slipping schedule, announced on Tuesday by the
French state-owned operator and constructor EDF, will put pressure on the
UK government to provide extra financial support for the project.
EDF, which has also experienced long delays on recent parallel projects in
Finland and France that use the same reactor technology, blamed the latest
problems at Hinkley in Somerset on the complexity of installing
electromechanical systems and intricate piping. Hinkley was previously
delayed due to construction disruption during Covid pandemic.
Under EDF’s latest scenario, one of the two planned reactors at Hinkley Point C could
be ready in 2029, a two-year hold-up compared with the company’s previous
estimate of 2027. But it could be further delayed to 2031 in adverse
conditions, EDF said. It did not give an estimate for the second reactor.
EDF said the cost would now be between £31bn-£35bn based on 2015 prices,
depending on when Hinkley Point C was completed.
In today’s prices, the cost would balloon to as much as £46bn. The initial budget was £18bn, with a scheduled completion date of 2025. Alison Downes of Stop Sizewell C, a
campaign group opposed to the planned Suffolk nuclear plant, said EDF was
an “unmitigated disaster”. She added the UK government should cancel
Sizewell C, saying state funding for the project could be better spent on
“renewables, energy efficiency or, in this election year, schools and
hospitals”.
FT 23rd Jan 2024
https://www.ft.com/content/1157591c-d514-4520-aa17-158349203abd
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.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 