Running in reverse: the world’s ‘nuclear power renaissance’ via Ecologist

The global rebirth of nuclear power was meant to be well under way by now, writes Jim Green. But in fact, nuclear’s share of world power generation is on a steady long term decline, and new reactors are getting ever harder to build, and finance. The only real growth area is decommissioning, but that too has a problem: where’s the money to pay for it?

The UK’s planned Hinkley C nuclear plant is looking increasingly like a dead duck – or possibly parrot.

As the Financial Times reports today, Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee has abandoned plans to examine the ‘value of money’ Hinkley C offers taxpayers – because no deal has been reached and none is expected before the general election in May.

In other words, all that bullish talk about Hinkley C launching Britain’s ‘nuclear renaissance’ has melted away like a spring frost in the morning sun.

[…]

In the other three countries supposedly driving a nuclear renaissance – Russia, South Korea and India – growth is likely to be modest and slow.

Russia has 34 operating reactors and nine under construction. Just three reactors began operating in the past decade and the pattern of slow growth is likely to continue. As for Russia’s ambitious nuclear export program, Steve Kidd noted in October 2014 that it “is reasonable to suggest that it is highly unlikely that Russia will succeed in carrying out even half of the projects in which it claims to be closely involved”.

South Korea has 23 operating reactors, five under construction and eight planned. Earlier plans for rapid nuclear expansion in South Korea have been derailed by the Fukushima disaster, a major scandal over forged safety documents, and a hacking attack on Korea Hydro’s computer network.

India has 21 operating reactors, six under construction and 22 planned. But India’s nuclear program is in a “deep freeze” according to a November 2014 article in the Hindustan Times.

Likewise, India Todayreported on January 8: “The Indian nuclear programme is on the brink of distress. For the past four years, no major tender has gone through – a period that was, ironically, supposed to mark the beginning of an Indian nuclear renaissance in the aftermath of the landmark India-US civil nuclear deal.”

 

[…]

Greenpeace highlighted the problems associated with ageing reactors with the release of a detailed report last year, and emphasised the point by breaking into six ageing European nuclear plants on 5 March 2014.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) said in its World Energy Outlook 2014report: “A wave of retirements of ageing nuclear reactors is approaching: almost 200 of the 434 reactors operating at the end of 2013 are retired in the period to 2040, with the vast majority in the European Union, the United States, Russia and Japan.”

A growing problem – underfunded nuclear decommissioning

IEA chief economist Fatih Birol said: “Worldwide, we do not have much experience and I am afraid we are not well-prepared in terms of policies and funds which are devoted to decommissioning. A major concern for all of us is how we are going to deal with this massive surge in retirements in nuclear power plants.”

The World Energy Outlook 2014 report estimates the cost of decommissioning reactors to be more than US$100 billion up to 2040. The IEA’s head of power generation analysis, Marco Baroni, said that even excluding waste disposal costs, the final cost could be as much as twice as high as the $100 billion estimate, and that decommissioning costs per reactor can vary by a factor of four.

Baroni said the issue was not the decommissioning cost per reactor but “whether enough funds have been set aside to provide for it.” Evidence of inadequate decommissioning funds is mounting.

To give just one example, Entergy estimates a cost of US$1.24 billion to decommission Vermont Yankee, but the company’s decommissioning trust fund for the plant – US$ 670 million – is barely half that amount. As Michael Mariotte, President of the US Nuclear Information & Resource Service, noted in a recent article:

Read more at Running in reverse: the world’s ‘nuclear power renaissance’ 

 

Posted in *English | Tagged , , , , , | 7 Comments

経済同友会が柏崎刈羽原発を視察 (新潟県)via 日テレNEWS

首都圏の企業経営者で構成する「経済同友会」は29日、柏崎刈羽原発を視察し、津波などに対する安全対策などを確認した。経済同友会の長谷川閑史代表幹事は、「経済活動のため、適合審査をパスしたら原発を再稼働してほしい」と述べた。

柏崎刈羽原発を視察したのは、首都圏の企業経営者でつくる「経済同友会」のメンバー、14人だ。
一行はまず、7号機の原子炉建屋を訪れ、使用済み燃料プールなどを視察。福島第一原発の事故を受けて新たに設置された、水素を水に変えて爆発を防ぐ装置などを確認した。この後、一行は、原発で月1回行われる総合訓練を視察した。
視察には、東京電力の広瀬直己社長が同行している。経済同友会は、広瀬社長に対して、「経済活動のために再稼働に向けて頑張ってほしい」と伝えたという。

続きは経済同友会が柏崎刈羽原発を視察 (新潟県)

Posted in *日本語 | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Good News! US Corporations Won’t Have to Pay for Nuclear Disasters in India via Fair Blog

Online, the headline was “Obama, India’s Modi Cite Nuclear Investment Breakthrough” (1/25/15). And who doesn’t like a “breakthrough”?
The article itself had the same positive spin, beginning with its lead:
President Obama and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said Sunday they reached “a breakthrough understanding” in freeing up US investment in nuclear energy development in India, as Obama began a three-day visit to India.
Not only is it a “breakthrough understanding,” it’s also going to be “freeing up” investment. In these word choices, USA Today is saying it wants you to know that this is good news.
But what is the news? Here’s how the paper’s Mandakini Gahlot summarizes the agreement:
Picking up from a stalled 2008 civil nuclear agreement between the two countries, the deal would allow US firms to invest in energy in India. It also resolves a dispute over US insistence on tracking fissile material it supplies to the country and over Indian liability provisions that have discouraged US firms from capitalizing on the agreement.
[…]
But what is the news? Here’s how the paper’s Mandakini Gahlot summarizes the agreement:
Picking up from a stalled 2008 civil nuclear agreement between the two countries, the deal would allow US firms to invest in energy in India. It also resolves a dispute over US insistence on tracking fissile material it supplies to the country and over Indian liability provisions that have discouraged US firms from capitalizing on the agreement.

“Indian liability provisions”–what does that mean? The only further explanation USA Today gives is a paraphrase of the White House view that the agreement “resolves the US concerns on both tracking and liability.” In other words, it doesn’t explain much.
You get a much fuller picture from a story in the Mumbai-based newspaper Indian Express (1/26/15), which explains that the problem is with Indian law:
India’s Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, has a simple purpose: to make sure that victims of a nuclear accident can get quick compensation, without having to prove the plant operator was negligent, and irrespective of who was at fault…. Section 17b of CLiNDA says the plant operators…can claim compensation from their equipment suppliers if the accident resulted as a result of “equipment or material with patent or latent defects.” And Section 46 makes both suppliers and operators liable to be sued by accident victims.
This is in conflict with the international rules that the US nuclear industry has arranged for itself when marketing its products abroad:
In the US, the law allows victims to file damages claims against operators, suppliers and designers. However, when US firms started selling abroad, they pushed for the concept of legal channeling, which left only operators liable.
These corporations–who have the political backing of the US government–have succeeded in getting international conventions to agree that “no one other than operators can be held responsible” in the event of a nuclear catastrophe. The suppliers want assurances that these international conventions, and not Indian law, will be applied in the wake of such an event.
The “breakthrough” between Obama and Modi seems to be an agreement that the law will be “tweaked” to let US corporations off the hook in case of a devastating accident.

Read more.

Posted in *English | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Sweden’s SSM Says It Has Stopped Processing New Nuclear Plant Plans via Nuclear Street

A spokesman for Sweden’s nuclear power regulator Stralsakerhetsmyndigheten, known as SSM, said the agency had stopped processing plans for new nuclear power plants in the country to comply with statements from the new minority-run government, which took over after September’s elections.
Barsebacksverket NPP in SwedenState-run utility company Vattenfall also said it was putting plans for new nuclear power plants on hold.
[…]
Elections in September did not produce a clear winner, which allowed for a coalition of Social Democrats and Greens to form a new government. One goal of the new government is to phase out nuclear power in Sweden.
It may take years for Sweden to reach a formal energy policy it can commit to, but for now the measurable impact is derailment of a nuclear plant project for Ringhals, Sweden, that has been under review since its application was received in 2012.
Sveriges Radio reported that about 40 employees at Vattenfall, who had been working on the Ringhals plant, had been reassigned to other tasks.

Read more.

Posted in *English | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Heysham nuclear power plant: Reactor taken offline due to water leak via BBC

A reactor at a nuclear power plant in Lancashire has been taken offline due to a technical fault.

EDF Energy, operators of Heysham Power Station in Morecambe, said one of the two reactors at the Heysham 1 site was closed down on Tuesday.

A water leak had been discovered in a turbine at a non-nuclear part of the plant, a spokesman said.

He added that the plant was taken offline as a precaution but could not confirm when it would resume.

The Heysham plant was previously closed in August 2014 following a routine inspection which discovered a fault.

Continue reading at Heysham nuclear power plant: Reactor taken offline due to water leak 

Posted in *English | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Kazakhstan eyes construction of new nuclear plants via ConstructionWeekOnline

Kazakh energy minister Vladimir Shkolnik has said that the country is looking to build two new nuclear power plants to meet demand placed on its current network infrastructure.

The country’s only nuclear plant was shut down in 1999 and it now relies on importing power from neighbouring countries to supplement its own power generation capabilities.

The government has two sites in mind: One of the new plants would be built near the town of Kurchatov and is “likely to be Russian-made”, Shkolnik told local media following a parliamentary meeting. Fittingly, the town is named after Soviet nuclear physicist Igor Kurchatov and was once the town was once the centre of operations for the adjoining Semipalatinsk Test Site.

The second potential site is Balkash, and US firm Westinghouse’s design for a reactor there was “one of the most promising” Shkolnik said, without elaborating. It’s unclear which is preferred out of the two.

Continue reading at Kazakhstan eyes construction of new nuclear plants

Posted in *English | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

An end to nuclear power in Illinois? via WBEZ

Carol Browner, one of our guests on yesterday’s show, is the former EPA administrator under President Clinton, who also served in the Obama administration. Now she helps lead a group called Nuclear Matters, which is bullish on nuclear power. Today, we’re talking with David Kraft, director of the Chicago-based Nuclear Energy Information Service. Its mission is to end nuclear power altogether.

 

https://soundcloud.com/afternoonshiftwbez/an-end-to-nuclear-power-in-illinois

Posted in *English | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

“Polar-vortex resistant nuclear” not so “resistant” after all via Nuclear Energy Information Service

CHICAGO—Nuclear proponents like Exelon Corporation are quick to claim that nuclear power was “reliable energy” during last year’s “polar vortex” days compared to its fossil fuel rivals.

It seems that crowing may have been premature.

The Pilgrim-1 nuclear reactor near Plymouth, MA, was closed today by the heavy snow storm buffeting the Northeast.

The reactor had already been reduced to 20% output as a “precaution” prior to the storm’s arrival when transmission lines connecting the reactor to the power grid failed. This caused the reactor automatically shut down to protect itself. Pilgrim’s safety systems are now running on emergency diesel generators, which, industry-wide have a spotty reliability record. The reactor is not likely to be back on line for several days, according to plant personnel.

“We already knew that nuclear reactors were particularly vulnerable to drought and extreme hot weather events,” notes David Kraft, director of the Chicago-based Nuclear Energy Information Service, a safe-energy advocacy and nuclear power watchdog organization. (NOTE: see, “It’s the Water, Stupid!” on the NEIS website) “Pilgrim’s failure to be available during the snow emergency in New England proves nuclear power’s vulnerability during extreme winter weather as well.”

Pilgrim-1 is a 43 year-old 711 MWe GE boiling water reactor. It has a Mark-I containment, the same as the containments at Fukushima I-IV which melted down and blew up in 2011. Illinois has 4 such reactors: Quad Cities 1 & 2 near Cordova, IL, on the Mississippi River, and Dresden 2 and 3, 50 miles SW of Chicago near Morris, IL.

“The fact that they had already reduced output by 80% as a precaution shows that even the nuclear operators see how vulnerable nuclear reactors can be in a winter storm emergency. The fact that it will take several days to bring the reactor back on line shows that they won’t be available when needed. How ‘reliable’ is that?“ Kraft asks.

Exelon Corporation is seeking a $580 million bailout from Illinois ratepayers via legislative action to make up for a profit shortfall at five of its unprofitable Illinois reactors. In public statements and a report done by the Nuclear Energy Institute in October 2014, they pointed to the “reliability” of their nuclear reactors during last year’s polar vortex as alleged justification for the need to keep even unprofitable reactors operating, at ratepayer expense.

“Reality has a peculiar way of contradicting Exelon’s assertions with frightful regularity,” Kraft says. “Their reactors are vulnerable to power interruptions in extreme hot weather, and as Pilgrim-1 demonstrated today, in extreme cold weather. It’s a crap shoot filled with weather variables – not a healthy gamble to hitch an economy too for decades into the future – especially at ratepayer expense,” Kraft asserts.

“The Governor and the Legislature should not be conned into thinking they should open ratepayers wallets for $580 million simply on Exelon’s claims to reliability. With nuclear, what can go wrong eventually does, it seems,” Kraft points out.

Visit NEIS website.

Posted in *English | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on “Polar-vortex resistant nuclear” not so “resistant” after all via Nuclear Energy Information Service

福島第1原発事故 全漁連、「処理水」の海洋放出方針に抗議 via FNN News

全漁連(全国漁業協同組合連合会)は、福島第1原発事故で放射性物質に汚染された水を処理して海に放出する方針が示されたことに抗議し、要望書を提出した。

(略)

全漁連の岸会長と福島県漁連の野崎会長は、宮沢経産相と会談し、原子力規制委員会が21日、原発の廃炉を進めるため、放射性物質を除去する施設「ALPS(アルプス)」で処理し、規制基準を満たした処理水を海洋放出するなどとする方針を明文化したことについて、抗議した。

岸会長らが「安易な放出を行わない」とする国の方針を継続するよう要望書を手渡したのに対し、宮沢経産相は「方針を堅持する」と述べ、風評被害を取り除くよう、関係省庁で取り組む姿勢を示した。

Posted in *日本語 | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

German court to decide on nuclear exit complaints this year via Reuters

(Reuters) – Germany’s highest court aims to decide this year on complaints filed by the country’s biggest utilities against a decision to shut down its nuclear plants earlier than initially planned, a court spokesman said on Tuesday.

E.ON (EONGn.DE), RWE (RWEG.DE) and Vattenfall [VATN.UL] filed complaints with the Constitutional Court after the government imposed a stricter closure timetable in 2011 as a result of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan.

While not opposed to the closure plans in principle, the firms claim the move to accelerate the pace of shutdowns in the run-up to the 2022 deadline violated their property rights and resulted in billions of euros in damages and losses.

 

Continue reading at German court to decide on nuclear exit complaints this year

Posted in *English | Tagged , , | 1 Comment