|
|
China claims new nuclear technology
China's ambitions to lead the world in nuclear power were boosted today by reports that its scientists had mastered a key technique in the reprocessing of
spent uranium.
State media claimed the technology overcame a supply bottleneck and ensured China would have sufficient nuclear fuel for at least 3,000 years ...
Due to surging demand for energy and growing concerns about pollution, China's nuclear-power generating capacity is projected to increase up to tenfold in the
next 10 years.
By 2030 China could be on course to overtake the US as the world's leading atomic energy producer ...
The technology, developed and tested at the number 404 factory of the China National Nuclear Corporation, situated in the Gobi desert, enables recycling of
irradiated fuel, according to China Central Television.
How this differs from existing reprocessing methods in other countries is unclear, but the state broadcaster said that with this technique a kilo of uranium
could produce close to 60 times more power than was now possible in China.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, China now has 13 operating reactors and 26 more facilities under construction.
China National Nuclear Corporation said last year it planned to invest 800bn yuan (£78bn) in the industry by 2020.
China has already been replicating the technology of its foreign suppliers and is moving to design its own reactors and reprocessing plants.
The next step is construction and overseas sales.
Guardian 03 Jan 2011
China
Nuclear Power
'Plutonium' Comments
A Battle Over Uranium
The future of nuclear power in America is back on the table ... as global warming revives the search for energy sources that
produce less greenhouse gas.
But in this depressed corner of western Colorado ... the debate is both simpler and more complicated.
A proposal for a new mill to process uranium ore, which would lead to the opening of long-shuttered mines in Colorado and Utah, has brought global and local
concerns into collision ... in ways that suggest ... a bitter national debate to come ...
Ms. Ross, 51, said her father died of cancer that she attributes partly to radioactive dust exposure — and also to his smoking — but wholeheartedly supports
uranium’s return.
The roughly 300 new jobs that Energy Fuels officials project, mostly in reopened mines, would give the region an economic lease on life, she said.
Other veterans of uranium’s past are wary ...
Reed Hayes, 73, said he is still haunted by the night in July 1967, when he ... fell off a catwalk into a caustic vat of
refined uranium pellets, called yellowcake, and acid.
He quit a month later, but has suffered ever since, he said, with rashes on various parts of his body, including sometimes even inside his mouth.
“We were told that the uranium would never hurt us,” said Mr. Hayes, who has struggled for years to get compensation.
“But I’ve learned a whole lot about it — that it’s hurt a lot of people and killed a lot of people.” ...
NYT 26 Dec 2010
Energy Policy
Nuclear threatens destruction of Kalahari
Huhne drops Severn barrage to invest in wind power
Ambitious plans to harness the power of the Severn estuary to light up one in 20 of the UK's homes are to be abandoned as a result of the Government's attempt
to address the nation's deficit.
Chris Huhne, the Secretary of State for Energy, will tomorrow jettison the world's largest tidal energy project, rather than make the taxpayer foot an estimated
bill of £10bn to £30bn for the untested technology ...
Mr Huhne, a Liberal Democrat, will also give the go-ahead in principle to nuclear power stations on eight sites in England and Wales near existing reactors,
although the issue remains politically contentious for his party ...
Mr Huhne will stress the economic case for investing public funds instead in emerging technologies, such as CCS, that have the potential to be developed and
exported, particularly to rapidly developing economies such as China.
"If we are going to be incentivising things, there is only one Severn tidal stream," a source said.
"You can only do it once. There are not the export opportunities there are with carbon capture, solar or wind."
Mr Huhne also believes CCS in particular could be a "huge growth area".
UK research, which leads the world, includes a study into using the North Sea to store unwanted carbon emissions for some 200 years.
Publishing a series of National Policy Statements on energy, ministers hope to "give industry maximum certainty" and prevent sensible proposals
falling "victim to unnecessary hold-ups" ...
Independent 17 Oct 2010
CCS
Energy Policy
Is the coalition eco-friendly?
Tidal Power
Port cuts 'to cost 60,000 green jobs'
• Government drops £60m port upgrades for giant turbines
• Nuclear lobby secures clean-up costs in spending review ...
The Guardian has also learned that the nuclear industry has successfully lobbied the government to safeguard the huge budget to decommission the UK's old
reactors, handled by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. This year, about 60% of the NDA's budget – £1.7bn – came from taxpayers via the DECC, making up
about 40% of the ministry's entire spending.
In opposition, the Conservatives had wanted to cut about 25% of DECC's funding to the NDA. But after the election, industry executives outlined to ministers
the urgency of the clean-up of Britain's nuclear sites, particularly Sellafield in Cumbria.
One source said: "We succeeded in scaring David Cameron off."
The NDA, which is cutting its own operating budget, could even secure a slightly higher funding settlement than this year ...
A spokesman for RenewableUK said:
"Keeping the ports fund is essential for attracting manufacturing ahead of the latest round of offshore wind developments. The sector could lead the recovery,
and put the country in pole position in terms of technology, employment and cash benefits from renewable energy."
Overall, DECC is expected to escape relatively lightly from the spending review.
Funds for the £9bn clean-coal programme, which had been under threat, are understood to be have been secured, although the pilot projects may be delayed.
But the solar feed-in tariff and the renewable heat incentive, subsidising biomass plants and CHP boilers, are likely to be scaled back ...
Guardian 07 Oct 2010
CCS
Contesting Austerity
Energy Policy
Is the Coalition Eco-friendly?
Rebalancing the Economy
Exercising Britain's nuclear options
That's another fine mess you got us into, Maggie!
Britain faces a looming energy gap as coal power stations are turned off in 2015 to comply with European clean air legislation.
And the replacement of obsolete fossil fuel plants with zero-carbon renewable or nuclear generation is central to meeting targets to cut UK carbon emissions
by 34 per cent by 2020.
Mr Huhne's efforts to allay fears of delay followed a Confederation of British Industry report warning that £150bn of private sector investment in low-carbon
infrastructure – including nuclear – is being threatened by uncertainties in the planning regime ...
The biggest hurdle for new nuclear is that the power stations are hugely expensive, and the cost of power too unreliable to provide a sufficiently secure return.
It is therefore incumbent on the government to create a policy framework that will provide incentives for private sector investment ...
But the trickiest issue of all is the reform of the electricity market, and the vexed question of what constitutes a subsidy.
Nuclear is not the only industry with such a front-loaded cost model ...
"The design of our electricity market is almost uniquely ill-qualified for delivery of long-term kind of investment," said Dieter Helm ...
Independent 10 August 2010
Dieter Helm
Who will pay the bill for closing Britain's £200bn energy gap?
One fact is broadly agreed upon by all parties: in order to meet its climate change obligations and to ensure the lights do not go out, Britain has to spend
somewhere in the region of £200bn on new energy production facilities before 2020: on traditional coal and gas-fired power plants, on nuclear and on renewables.
The question is where the money is going to come from. It will not be the public sector – even if we were not headed into a period of extended austerity, the
Government would want the privately-owned energy industry to bear the lion's share of the cost of upgrading its infrastructure.
Nor will it be the energy companies – they simply do not have this sort of cash on their balance sheets.
That leaves two possibilities.
Either consumers will have to pay more, through higher bills, in order to provide the energy industry with the capital it needs, or investors will have to
come up with necessary cash, through rights issues and other types of fund-raising exercises at the companies in question.
As a leading member of the latter camp, Mr Woodford's message is that he is not prepared to cough up unless Ofgem extracts some money from the former camp too,
by taking a less aggressive line on the returns energy companies earn from customers ...
Independent 21 July 2010
Coal: Carbon Capture & Storage
Rebalancing the Economy
Britain's Nuclear Renaissance in Doubt
China 'leapfrogs US to become biggest energy user'
EDF ran secret lobbying campaign to reduce nuclear waste disposal levy
The nuclear industry is being offered what campaigners claim is a taxpayer subsidy on the disposal costs of waste from new reactors following a secret
lobbying campaign, the Guardian has learned.
The revelation will put further scrutiny on the new government's promise that there will be no subsidy for nuclear power. Liberal Democrat Chris Huhne, the
new energy and climate change secretary of state, admitted to the Guardian this week that the government already faces a £4bn funding black hole over existing
radioactive waste ...
Documents released under a freedom of information request reveal the extent of behind-the-scenes lobbying last year in Whitehall by EDF Energy ...
A spokesman from Greenpeace said: "These documents blow EDF's claim that they won't need any subsidies for new nuclear clean out of the water. They know full
well that the economics of nuclear don't stack up and that new reactors will only ever happen if the British taxpayer is forced yet again to carry the atomic
can." ...
An energy department spokesman said: "The allegation that outcomes of the consultation have been pre-agreed with industry have no foundation. The coalition
has committed that there will be no public subsidy for new nuclear."
Guardian 02 June 2010
Corporate State Britain
Nuclear industry presses sceptical Huhne over backing new reactors
Centrica and E.ON lobby Liberal Democrat energy secretary to commit government to £30bn nuclear newbuild programme ...
Huhne's party, the Liberal Democrats, said in their manifesto that they opposed new nuclear plants but the coalition agreement with the Conservatives involved
a new pledge to allow nuclear stations to be built with a proviso that they do not involve public subsidies.
Huhne has already followed this up with a commitment to make companies pay for all their clean-up costs after a nuclear accident.
Currently, the industry only pays the first £140m, with the government picking up the rest of the bill, which Huhne believes amounts to a public subsidy ...
The economics of nuclear power have already been hit by low gas prices and a weak pound, which makes it more expensive for UK-based companies such as Centrica
to import reactor parts.
The government has also promised to introduce a minimum carbon price to help make nuclear economic, which the Liberal Democrats support. But the industry will
want it to be at least €50 a tonne, compared with current prices of about €15.
Firms are also concerned that Whitehall cost-cutting could result in the programme to decommission existing reactors, which is funded by the Department of Energy
and Climate Change (DECC), being slashed ...
Guardian 19 May 2010
Huhne 'sceptical' on nuclear power
Google-funded hot rock 'water' drill could reduce cost of geothermal energy
UK on course to reap massive renewable energy harvest
Sheffield Forgemasters gets £80m state loan ...
... from the British government to build a massive steel press to supply components for the nuclear industry ...
The company will become only the second in the world with necessary nuclear accreditation able to make the largest forgingsrequired to make the critical
components required for the global civil nuclear industry ...
Lord Mandelson, who is visiting the company today, said: "This is not just help for one company. Today we're announcing a willingness to invest that will make
the UK a leading provider in the nuclear and the low carbon supply chain."
Currently the UK is able to supply around 50pc of the plant and equipment for a new nuclear programme in the UK but with investment this could increase to 70pc,
the Government said.
The Government also committed to co-fund the delivery of up to 1,000 apprenticeships a year in the nuclear energy sector.
Michael Macdonald of the Prospect union said:
"Not only is it great news for local job security, but workers at Sheffield Forgemasters will be making a vital
product to support new nuclear build in the UK, as well as the global market. This deal provides yet more evidence that new build will bring jobs into the
UK supply chain."
Telegraph 17 March 2010
Britain poised to lose jobs as £10bn nuclear power plant contract goes to US
Thousands of jobs that were to have been created in Britain to build the next generation of nuclear power plants could be heading overseas instead, after
Westinghouse, the nuclear company sold by the government three years ago to Toshiba, chose one of its largest shareholders as the lead contractor to build
reactors.
Westinghouse is expected to confirm this week that it has appointed US-based Shaw Group to head up its £10bn nuclear programme, passing over the favourite
for the contract, rival engineering group Fluor.
Industry sources said that Shaw is likely to source far more reactor components from overseas than Fluor, which has close relationships with British
manufacturers. The Unite union claimed that 10,000 new jobs in the UK would not be created as a result of Shaw being selected ...
Guardian 22 November 2009
Go-ahead for 10 nuclear stations
The government has approved 10 sites in England and Wales for new nuclear power stations, most of them in locations where there are already plants.
It has rejected only one proposed site - in Dungeness, Kent - as being unsuitable on environmental grounds.
A new planning commission will make decisions on the proposals "within a year" of receiving them ...
Ministers hope to fast-track the construction of the new plants so that some can be producing energy by as early as 2018.
Mr Miliband said the new Infrastructure Planning Commission would have to make a decision on each application within a year of receiving it, to avoid a
repeat of previous lengthy inquiries.
However, he insisted that people living close to the proposed sites would have plenty of opportunities to make their views known during the streamlined
planning process ...
Mr Miliband said nuclear was one of a "trinity" of future fuel options, alongside renewables and clean coal, which would help to secure the UK's energy
security and reduce its dependence on imported gas.
"We need all of them in the long term because of the challenge of the low-carbon future is so significant," he said.
Most people living close to power plants were "enthusiastic" about them and the developments would create 9,000 jobs ...
BBC NEWS 09 November 2009
10 new nuclear power stations named
Greenpeace
Ed Miliband paves way for most ambitious fleet of nuclear reactors in Europe
Nuclear power is safe, says Ed Miliband
Speaking on BBC Breakfast, he said that the economy and environment made the case for nuclear power overwhelming.
Mr Miliband added: “I do understand the anxieties that there are because there have been concerns about nuclear power.
“I think it is right that we go ahead with this. It has a good safety record. There is no evidence that people’s fears about nuclear are grounded,
in my view ... " ...
He dismissed concerns about a new planning body, which will be announced to Parliament later alongside the locations of the next generation of nuclear plants,
saying that local residents would be consulted more than ever before.
Greg Clark, the shadow energy secretary, said that the Government was rushing through nuclear stations without consulting Parliament or the public because it
had failed to act earlier to ensure that the lights did not go out when the current generation of nuclear stations came to an end.
He told Radio 4’s Today Programme: "It is a national emergency and it's been left far too late - we've known for the last 10 years that most of our nuclear
power fleet would come to the end of its planned life ... "
Robin Oakley, head of climate and energy campaigns at Greenpeace, said: "Nuclear is a dangerous and expensive irrelevance to tackling climate change and
providing real energy security.
"We don't need coal or nuclear, because proven green technologies such as wind and combined heat and power stations can secure Britain's energy needs, create
green jobs and slash our emissions."
Telegraph 09 November 2009
Britain's nuclear strategy threatens destruction of Kalahari
The hidden cost of Britain's new generation of nuclear power could be the destruction of the Kalahari desert in Namibia and millions of tonnes of extra
greenhouse gas emissions a year, the Observer has discovered.=
The desert, with its towering sand dunes and spectacular lunar-like landscapes, is at the centre of an international uranium rush led by Rössing Uranium, a
subsidiary of the British mining giant Rio Tinto, and the French state-owned company, Areva, which part-manages the nuclear complex at Sellafield and wants to
build others in Britain.
Rössing is expanding its existing giant mine – which already provides nearly 8% of the world's uranium – into the Namib-Naukluft national park. Areva has
leased hundreds of square kilometres of the desert near Trekkopje, where it plans to build one of the world's largest uranium mines.
At least 20 other mining companies from the UK, Canada, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea and elsewhere have also been given licences to explore thousands
of square kilometres of the national park and its surrounds, and six new mines, several of which would be in the park, are at the development stage. Namibia
has some of the planet's richest uranium deposits and expects to become the third largest uranium producer and largest exporter within five years.
The mines are all expected to be in open pits up to 200 metres below the desert sands. With their waste heaps, acid plants and giant slurry ponds, they will
extend over hundreds of square kilometres.
"Large areas of the desert will be inevitably devastated," says Bertchen Kohrs, director of the Namibian environment group Earthlife. "They will do immense
damage. We fear that there will be major contamination of the ground water supplies." ...
Observer 08 November 2009
Work begins on Niger uranium mine
Secret files reveal covert network run by nuclear police
The nuclear industry funds the special armed police force which guards its installations across the UK, and secret documents, seen by the Guardian, show
the 750-strong force is authorised to carry out covert intelligence operations against anti-nuclear protesters, one of its main targets.
The nuclear industry will pay £57m this year to finance the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) ...
Most of the nuclear force's officers are armed with high-powered guns and Tasers. The CNC has spent £1.4m on weapons and ammunition in the past three years.
They patrol outside nuclear plants, with their jurisdiction stretching to three miles beyond the perimeter of the installations. They have the same powers as
any other British police officer and can, for instance, arrest and stop and search people.
The body that regulates the CNC is also funded by the nuclear industry. Four of the eight members of the Civil Nuclear Police Authority are nominated by the
nuclear industry as its representatives. Those four are employed in the industry. The others – mainly former police officers – are deemed to be independent.
The force is expected to expand as the government presses ahead with plans for a new generation of nuclear plants, which are likely to attract protests.
Ben Ayliffe, head of Greenpeace's anti-nuclear campaign, said: "There are very obvious worries about an armed police force that is accountable to an industry
desperate to build nuclear reactors in the UK. This industry will probably be very keen for their police force to use all the powers available to them to
prevent peaceful protests against nuclear power." ...
Guardian 20 October 2009
Police State Britain
Our nuclear tragedy
For me, nuclear power is the lazy option. Stick up a few more reactors, don't say too much about costs per kilowatt hour (let alone costs for each tonne of
CO2 abated), dump the responsibility of dealing with the waste on future generations, and don't worry too much about the state of the grid or the impact on
renewable energy.
I can't deny that the alternative course of action (reducing total energy consumption by at least 40%, massively ramping up investments both in large-scale
renewables – including the Severn barrage – and small-scale microgeneration, making a proper go of Combined Heat and Power and "Energy From Waste" schemes,
and relying on combined-cycle gas turbines for base load generation) is the harder option in terms of the quality of leadership required.
But those still wavering about the balance of pros and cons should not underestimate the knock-on effects of any commitment to new nuclear.
It will undoubtedly slow investment in new renewables.
It will reassure politicians that they don't have to do the heavy lifting required to put energy efficiency at the heart of any strategy.
It will weaken efforts to move towards localised distributed energy solutions (why else do you think the industry and pro-nuclear civil servants fought so
hard against feed-in tariffs for so many years?), and it will "lock us in" to today's hugely inefficient generation and transmission system for the next 40
years or so ...
Guardian 20 October 2009
Crumbling stores, leaky plants and the dangers of old age
Even with billions of pounds a year being poured into clean-up operations, it is a toxic legacy going back to the cold war that continually threatens to
undermine the facelift given by the new private sector companies.
The companies, mainly from France and Germany, have joined the government to try to convince the public it is time for a nuclear renaissance, on both energy
security and climate change grounds.
In recent days the industry watchdog, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII), has admitted that the possibility of a serious accident at Britain's
biggest nuclear complex, Sellafield in Cumbria, is still "far too high", while questioning the safety designs of new reactors being submitted for approval.
The private sector managers who took over at Sellafield less than a year ago have been told in a letter that they should reduce the risks at the radioactive
storage pond dubbed "Dirty 30" and elsewhere as soon as possible.
The harsh assessment by the NII was revealed by one of its inspectors, Mark Foy, at a meeting of local stakeholders who live around the area of the plant.
"We are concerned that the risk of a major event caused by further degradation of legacy plants, or increased time at risk due to deferrals, is far too high,"
said Foy. "We have written to Sellafield Ltd to advise that every effort should be given to addressing and reducing the risks at the earliest possibility."
The warning comes months after the Observer revealed an internal NII report that detailed 1,767 leaks, breakdowns and other mishaps around the atomic
industry over the last seven years.
While most were small in nature they are nonetheless worrying and undermine the cheerful message from the Nuclear Industry Association that safety of UK
plants is "second to none" ...
Guardian 20 October 2009
Watchdog gives nuclear industry a clean bill of health
Landfill sites may be used to dump radioactive waste
The government is poised to allow nuclear power generators to use ordinary landfill sites for dumping "hundreds of thousands of tons" of waste in an
attempt to reduce the £73bn cost of decommissioning old reactors ...
... ministers are keen to encourage the power industry to build a new generation of reactors. Actions being considered by the Department of Energy and Climate
Change (DECC) and its Nuclear Decommissioning Authority include:
• Allowing the nuclear industry to use ordinary landfill sites for disposing of radio?active waste in a more extensive way.
• Allowing the main independent nuclear waste dump at Drigg in Cumbria to reduce its costs by scaling back the level of containment.
• Building a £1.5bn radioactive liquid-waste processing plant at Sellafield, Britain's biggest atomic site, despite a history of project cost overruns and
wider safety concerns there.
• Extending a blueprint for dealing with existing high-level waste to cover that created by future nuclear stations – an "unjustifiable" step, according to
the chair of the committee that created the blueprint.
Cumbria county council, regarded as the most pro-nuclear authority in the country, is among those trying to stop at least two landfill sites from being used
for dumping radioactive waste ...
Guardian 19 October 2009
£73bn to take nuclear plants out of service
Much of UK suitable for nuclear waste burial
Villagers offered £75m to accept nuclear waste
What is the best solution to dispose of Britain's nuclear waste?
Families face nuclear tax on power bills
Government officials have drawn up secret plans to tax electricity consumers to subsidise the construction of the UK's first new nuclear reactors for more
than 20 years, the Guardian has learned.
The planned levy on household bills would add £44 to an annual electricity bill of £500 and contradicts repeated promises by ministers that the nuclear
industry would no longer benefit from public subsidies. There is mounting pressure on the power industry to show it can keep the lights on, with fears growing
of an energy gap as ageing nuclear stations are retired and plans for new coal plants attract hostile protests.
Ministers have become concerned that power companies such as E.ON and EDF Energy are reluctant to commit themselves to building nuclear stations because
energy prices have fallen and they fear they will not be able to recoup the multi-billion pound cost of building new nuclear stations.
The government believes that only by artificially increasing the cost of electricity generated by coal and gas stations through an additional carbon levy on
household bills can nuclear become more competitive and encourage new reactors to be built.
One European utility executive told the Guardian: "New nuclear will not happen without sorting out the carbon price."
The Guardian understands that the Office of Nuclear Development (OND), set up by Lord Mandelson's business department, has promised nuclear companies that the
price of carbon under the EU emissions trading scheme – now about €13 per tonne – will not be allowed to fall below €30 per tonne, and ideally €40.
According to the energy consultancy firm EIC, the new carbon levy would add £44 to the £500 annual electricity bill paid by an average household ...
The executive director of Greenpeace UK, John Sauven, said: "Nuclear power has always been a byword for monumental taxpayer handouts. Now the likes of EDF
Energy are getting cold feet over the cost of new nuclear stations, it looks like the government is trying to sweeten the deal with public money. This is
despite saying categorically that any new reactors will have to survive without subsidy. Without huge financial support, nuclear power doesn't make economic
sense. Even the big utilities now admit this." ...
Guardian 19 October 2009
(Ex) Minister lands top job with French power firm
The Cabinet Minister behind a £12.5billion nuclear power deal with French-owned energy giant EDF is set to take a highly-paid job with the firm.
John Hutton’s proposed move comes just a year after the former Business Secretary gave the go-ahead for the firm to buy many of Britain’s existing and future
nuclear power plants.
It is bound to raise new questions about the so-called ‘revolving door’ which allows Ministers to quit and take up lucrative jobs with firms they helped while
in Government.
The energy deal saw EDF – which is controlled by the French government – take over British Energy and its eight UK nuclear power stations ... the world’s
largest energy firm, wants Mr Hutton, who resigned from the Cabinet in June, to take on a role advising the firm on ‘key strategic issues’ ...
Mail on Sunday 13 September 2009
Nuclear advocate John Hutton in talks to take EDF job
Defence Secretary John Hutton resigns
Defence Secretary John Hutton has announced that he is resigning from the Government today, Friday 5 June 2009.
Mr Hutton has issued the following statement:
"I have decided to resign from the Government. I will also be standing down as a Member of Parliament at the next general election.
"This is not the place to go into my reasons for leaving. But I can say that it has been one of the hardest decisions I have ever had to take.
"I was delighted to be appointed Secretary of State for Defence last October.
"I have always had the deepest admiration for our Armed Forces, and everything they do ... "
MoD 05 June 2009
New nuclear plants get go-ahead
Caborn takes nuclear job
Concern over Labour cash gifts from nuclear industry
Going Nuclear
"Nuclear Jack"
The powerful business of promoting a nuclear future
This must rank as one of the great PR triumphs of all time
How will UK Nuclear Energy be Funded?
UK Government ministers are telling the public that nuclear energy is essential to meet our low carbon electricity requirements over the coming years.
When ministers announced that nuclear energy was to be part of the UK’s energy future several years ago they also said that the taxpayer will not subsidise
new reactors ...
The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is currently working on a new Energy Bill that will create a financial incentive structure to pay for
new ‘clean coal’ technology.
It is likely that companies like EDF will be lobbying for nuclear to be included too.
DECC insisted in a Telegraph article this week that there is no plan to set a floor price for carbon, saying that carbon prices will rise when the supply of
permits is restricted next year.
A spokesman from DECC said: “The Government has been repeatedly clear that there will be no subsidy towards the building of new nuclear power stations and
their clean up. It is for energy companies to fund, build and develop these, not the taxpayer. That remains the case.”
The article included a statement by independent nuclear energy consultant John Large who estimates that supporting new nuclear power stations will cost
households “significantly more” that the £15 figure suggested as being needed to give renewables the financial boost it needs to stack up.
Other energy consultants say there is no doubt that there is a substantial price tag attached to nuclear. Whether funded through a government levy or through
increased electricity prices consumers will ultimately have to dig deep into their pockets ...
Wind Energy Planning 26 August 2009
Consumers to pay for new nuclear power plants
Ministers had pledged that they will not subsidise new nuclear plants.
However, energy companies have told the Government that without some form of financial support, it will not be economically viable for them to build the new
nuclear power plants ministers want to see constructed ...
While several energy companies have said they plan to build new nuclear plants, executives are becoming concerned that the plants will not be able to compete
with carbon-emitting stations burning coal or gas.
One option under discussion is to set a “floor price” for the carbon permit that coal and gas generators have to buy to cover their emissions. EDF, which is
planning to build four new UK reactors, is backing a floor price.
The move would increase the costs of gas- and coal-fired power stations, allowing nuclear plants to be more competitive.
Another option is for consumers to pay a new tariff that would be applied directly to their energy bills, similar to the “renewables obligation” that is
currently added to household bills to help fund new wave and wind power.
Ministers are currently preparing a new Energy Bill that will create another “obligation” on bills, to pay for new “clean coal” technology.
Sources in the energy industry confirmed there had been talks about lobbying for a nuclear levy to be added to the Bill ...
Telegraph 18 August 2009
Government names sites of new nuclear power stations
The 11 spots in England and Wales named this morning as the likely sites of new nuclear power stations all have historic links to the nuclear industry, it has
emerged.
Nine of the locations identified by the Government have previously been home to nuclear reactors, while the remaining two are close to the former Sellafield
reactor site in Cumbria.
The list consists of Dungeness in Kent; Sizewell in Suffolk; Hartlepool in Cleveland; Heysham in Lancashire; Wylfa Peninsula in Anglesey; Oldbury in
Gloucestershire; Hinkley Point in Somerset; Bradwell in Essex; and Sellafield, Braystones and Kirksanton in Cumbria.
The Government plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations to maintain Britain's ability to generate its own energy after existing nuclear and
coal-fired stations are shut down ...
The Times 15 April 2009
£1bn nuclear white elephant
A controversial nuclear recycling plant, approved by the Government despite warnings over its economic viability and reliance on unproven technology, has
racked up costs of more than £1bn and is still not working properly.
Backers of the plant at Sellafield, which promised to turn toxic waste into a useable fuel that could be sold worldwide, had claimed the plant would make a
profit of more than £200m in its lifetime, producing 120 tonnes of recycled fuel a year. But after an investigation by The Independent, the Government
admitted technical problems and a dearth in orders has meant it has produced just 6.3 tonnes of fuel since opening in 2001.
With construction and commissioning costs of more than £600m, the facility, known as the Mox plant because of the mixed oxides (Mox) fuel it is designed to
produce, has cost more than £1.2bn, confirming its status as the nuclear industry's most embarrassing white elephant and one of the greatest failures in
British industrial history, losing the taxpayer £90m a year. Green campaigners and opposition MPs are now calling for the plant to be closed immediately,
and a minister who fought its construction at the time has called for a public inquiry into how the plant was ever given the go-ahead ...
The Independent 07 April 2009
A staggering waste of taxpayers' money
Going Nuclear
The cost of decommissioning Britain's 19 ageing nuclear plants has jumped from £61bn to £73bn in two years and could land the
taxpayer with even higher bills in the future, a report by the National Audit Office reveals today ...
The report discloses that five sites that could be frontrunners for new power stations have suffered big cuts in their
decommissioning budgets in the last year.
They are Bradwell in Essex, which faced a 39% cut from £51.5m to £31.2m; Dungeness, Kent, which faced a 25% cut from £56m to £42m;
Hinckley Point in Somerset, a 21% cut from £45.8m to £36m; Berkeley in Gloucestershire, a 19% cut from £57m to £46m; and Sizewell A,
Suffolk, a 17% cut from £47m to £39m.
Work on a new £8m nuclear waste store at Hinckley Point was halted just after the base for the site had been prepared.
The suspension of work will cost another £400,000 in laying off workers, compensating the contractor and restarting the project later ...
The Guardian 30 January 2008
"Energy firms lured by incentives"
... a campaign by French nuclear operator, EDF, and others to win government help for an attractive financial framework which would
make nuclear cost-effective against other forms of power appeared to have borne fruit.
· The government is effectively making electricity generated by coal or gas more expensive by promising "greater certainty for investors" through unilateral action to underpin the price of carbon. Coal and gas power stations emit relatively large quantities of CO2 for which they will need costly permits while atomic power is virtually carbon free.
· The public purse could ultimately be used for all decommissioning of new plants and waste disposal. The current bill for
dismantling existing plants is estimated at over £70bn with an additional £20bn for the disposal of waste.
· Ministers are also looking at putting a ceiling on the price private firms will have to pay for dismantling reactors at the end
of their life, reducing companies' risks and making it cheaper for them to borrow.
Gdn 11 Jan 2008
No nuclear subsidies, say Tories
No subsidies for nuclear, says energy minister
The case does not stack up
Mr Hutton claimed that there will be no subsidies to the nuclear industry. But this is an empty promise. Even if public money is not needed to help them set up the plants, it will almost certainly be needed to dispose of the waste. Mr Hutton also neglected to mention that no other country has managed to run a nuclear industry without vast public expense.
All we are left with is the global warming case for going nuclear. And that simply does not stack up. Nuclear plants release less
carbon dioxide than coal or natural gas power facilities, but it has been estimated that 10 new reactors would cut the UK's carbon
emissions by just 4 per cent; and only then after 2025.
Meanwhile, the nuclear push threatens to divert investment from renewable energy technology such as wind and wave, as well as
decentralised power generation schemes. It will also distract official attention from the hugely neglected imperative of increasing
energy efficiency. Every pound invested in conservation saves seven times as much carbon dioxide as one spent on nuclear power.
...
The Independent 11 January 2008
Ministers promise new life for industry that was written off
The government said it would be up to energy companies to fund, develop and build nuclear power stations in the UK, "including meeting the full cost of
decommissioning and their full share of waste management costs" - seemingly handing over full responsibility to the private sector.
But the energy white paper published by Hutton conceded: "In extreme circumstances the government may be called upon to meet the costs of ensuring protection
of the public and the environment." ..
Guardian 11 January 2008
No nuclear subsidies, say Tories
No subsidies for nuclear, says energy minister
First new nuclear power plant 'will be completed before 2020'
The Government today gave the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power plants, provoking a sharply polarised response from the supporters and opponents
of nuclear energy.
Announcing the plans in Parliament, John Hutton, the Business Secretary, said ... that Britain needed nuclear energy to help it meet its two energy challenges,
of making sure Britain had secure and affordable supplies of power at a time of global instability, and of tackling climate change.
He suggested that it would not be costly for the taxpayer, stressing that it would be for the energy companies to fund, develop and build the new plants,
including meeting the full costs of decommissioning and "their full share" of waste management costs ...
Times 10 January 2008
Carving up the nuclear spoils
'Going Nuclear'
Atomic energy
Richard Caborn
Former sports minister, trade minister and chairman of the trade and industry select committee
Adviser to Amec
Ian McCartney
Former trade minister and Labour party chairman
Adviser to Fluor, paid £110,000 to £115,000 a year
Lord O’Neill
Former chairman of the trade and industry select committee
Adviser to the Washington Group
Chairman of the Nuclear Industry Association
Brian Wilson
Former energy minister
Non-executive director, Amec Nuclear Holdings
FT
17 November 2007
Labour's love-in with the nuclear industry still blossoming
Concern over Labour cash gifts from nuclear industry
The powerful business of promoting a nuclear future
This must rank as one of the great PR triumphs of all time
Nuclear industry pushes for early approval
of new plants by warning of bottlenecks
Government warned that energy plans could be thwarted by shortages of skills and components
The government's plans to build up to 10 nuclear power plants in Britain over the next decade could be thwarted by a shortage of
skilled project managers, industry executives have warned.
They have told ministers that the coming nuclear renaissance in Europe and in emerging economies such as Russia, China and India -
driven by the need to combat global warming and reduce energy imports - could also constrain the delivery of key reactor components
unless decisions are made swiftly and the planning process is speeded up.
The executives are even warning that the first new nuclear plants may not come on stream until towards the end of the next decade
because of the demand for project managers to deliver the 2012 Olympic Games and other big infrastructure projects.
At an energy summit at General Electric's research centre in Munich last week, Rod Christie, president of the US group's energy
operations in central and eastern Europe and Russia, said that Russia alone was planning to build 40 nuclear power stations.
...
The Guardian 01 October 2007
Scientists take on Brown over nuclear plans
A group of scientists and academics today condemns as undemocratic and possibly illegal the government's plans to force through a new generation of nuclear power stations to meet Britain's energy needs for the next 30 years.
They warn that questions about the risks from radiation, disposal of nuclear waste and vulnerability to a terrorist attack have not been addressed - even though the government was ordered last February to repeat a public consultation on energy supply, after its exercise was declared unlawful by a high court judge.
Today the nuclear consultation group, made up of 17 energy economists and several of the government's independent advisers on nuclear waste, condemned the methods used in the second attempt to gather public and expert opinion.
"We are profoundly concerned that the government's approach was designed to provide particular and limiting answers," said Paul Dorfman, a spokesman for the independent group, which includes professors of Oxford, Sussex, and Lancaster universities, and Rutgers in the US. "Those answers risk locking in UK energy to an inflexible and vulnerable pathway that will prove unsustainable," he added.
In an 87-page report, the group says: "Significant issues were not consulted on in any meaningful way or resolved in practice. It has left the government vulnerable to legal challenge and may lead to hostility and mistrust of any future energy decision," the paper warns.
...
The Guardian 04 January 2007
Civil servants have played a damaging role in skewing UK policy away from renewables
The government published its first energy white paper almost five years ago, when oil cost barely $30 a barrel.
The result of a consultation with more than 60 energy firms, it called for deep carbon emissions cuts by 2050, to be achieved
primarily by a massive programme of renewable and efficient energy mobilisation.
Nuclear energy barely survived the consultation. During the strategic review that preceded the white paper, I saw executives from
nuclear companies laughed out of contention in debates about the economics of energy supply.
But Department of Trade and Industry officials fought a rearguard action. Nuclear was granted a place on the back burner, to be
reviewed after five years. ...
Along the way the nuclearphiles have jumped the gun on their five-year review. Blair called for a second energy white paper, and
by July 2006 the draft already backed a new generation of nuclear power plants.
At that time, inspectors were reporting unexplained
cracks in six reactor cores in the existing generation. British Energy, it seemed, did not fully understand why the cracking had
occurred. The DTI authors of the new energy white paper and their champion in No 10 were undeterred.
Greenpeace challenged the legality of the second white paper process, and in February 2007 the high court ruled that the
government's review had been unlawful. Another consultation began.
In March the EU agreed a target of 20% renewables in the energy mix; 27 leaders signed up, Blair among them. The EC costed the
switch to renewables at €24bn to €31bn a year, assuming an oil price of $48 a barrel.
At $78 there would be no additional cost. Before the year was out, oil almost hit $100.
Global investment in renewables firms accelerated still faster in 2007. Meanwhile growing numbers of experts warned that oil and
gas were running out faster than expected. But in the UK, it was business as usual.
In August the Guardian revealed that ministers were being briefed by officials to the effect that the UK couldn't come close to a
20% target. In a development worthy of Yes Minister, options for avoiding the 20% commitment included counting nuclear energy as
renewable.
Gordon Brown is insisting that the 20% target stays. But how will he deliver it, when his government has some of the least
effective programmes for renewable energy in the industrialised world? How can he deliver surrounded by civil servants intent on
seeing a re-nuclearised Britain - almost at any cost?
Jeremy Leggett is chief executive of solarcentury and served on the government's Renewables Advisory Board from 2002-06
The Guardian 03 January 2007
Energy White paper 2007
Based on this conservative analysis of the economics of nuclear power,
the Government believes that nuclear power stations would yield economic
benefits to the UK in terms of reduced carbon emissions and security of
supply benefits under likely scenarios for gas and carbon prices.
As an
illustration, under central gas and nuclear cases, and with a future carbon
price of €36/tCO2, the net present value over 40 years of adding 10GW of
nuclear capacity would be of the order of £15 billion.
dti 2007
Nuclear energy is cheaper than gas, and needs no taxpayers' subsidy
the suggestion that nuclear power is somehow uneconomic, that its costs preclude it from serious consideration,
does not match the facts ...
The Guardian stated that "the most obvious objection is cost: nuclear power is expensive, especially when compared with gas".
However, most international studies show that nuclear can compete with gas - even before the carbon costs are taken into account.
It is also worth noting that most of these studies were completed before gas prices quadrupled.
Nuclear produces electricity at a predictable cost, so utilities are likely to use it to hedge against fossil-fuel costs and
carbon price volatility. The current strength of gas and coal prices simply enhances that economic case.
Experience in Finland and France has proven that the costs of building and operating a new generation of nuclear power stations
can be borne by the private sector.
Similarly, if the UK opts for nuclear new-build, there will be no call on the taxpayer's purse and no need for a subsidy from
government. ...
Guardian 23 May 2006
No subsidies for nuclear, says energy minister
The government will not provide subsidies, either directly or indirectly, to encourage Britain's energy companies to invest in a
new generation of nuclear power stations, energy minister Malcolm Wicks said yesterday.
The operators of any new nuclear plant would also have to pay a "full share" of the costs of disposing of radioactive waste, the
minister said, though he acknowledged the calculations involved were complex.
"There will be no subsidies, direct or indirect. We are not in the business of subsidising nuclear energy. No cheques will be
written, there will be no sweetheart deals," he told the House of Commons trade and industry select committee.
Mr Wicks noted the government's energy review had concluded nuclear could be an important part of Britain's future energy mix but
said the government would not try to tell the industry how many nuclear reactors should be built. "We are talking about liberalised
markets; about the private sector. It is not for government to say we should have x number of nuclear reactors."
...
The Guardian 11 October 2006
Foreigners will power UK's next nuclear age
If Britain is to build more nuclear power stations it will have to look abroad for expertise because it no longer has the
skills to build reactors, writes Russell Hotten
...
Yesterday, Areva, the French state-controlled group and the world's largest builder of nuclear power stations, effectively
threw its hat into the ring, saying that it could have a new series of reactors up and running by 2017.
...
So, as well as the political and regulatory hurdles of embarking on a nuclear-build programme, this lack of indigenous experience
could also be a problem. British experts in the nuclear field are a dwindling breed.
According to Prof Ian Fells, a leading expert on the industry: "The teams of engineers that built Sizewell B in 1995 are all retired
or dead. We do not have the skills to build nuclear power stations any more." ...
Nuclear Energy
The economics of nuclear energy are differentiated from its main competitors in electricity generation, natural gas and coal, by the fact that nuclear energy
typically has high construction costs and low variable operating costs.
As a result, the cost competitiveness of nuclear energy depends highly on initial construction costs and the cost of capital for nuclear power companies.
Drivers of the initial construction costs include investment in new technologies, especially for increased safety, and government regulations and permitting
requirements for grid connections, safety, and storage.
Cost of capital can be driven by a wide variety of factors (including the state of interest rates around the world, but typically, governmental regulation of
nuclear energy has heavily influenced the availability and pricing of capital for nuclear energy projects, including at one time heavy subsidies for nuclear
power and more recently, strong restrictions on nuclear energy development ...
wikinvest
Economics of Nuclear Power Generation
How will UK Nuclear Energy be Funded?
'No quick fix' from nuclear power
Nuclear energy
UK industry to foot nuclear waste bill
Energy Review 2003
The 2003 Review included this key para:
"While nuclear power is currently an important
source of carbon free electricity, the current
economics of nuclear power make it an
unattractive option for new generating
capacity and there are also important issues
for nuclear waste to be resolved.
"This white
paper does not contain proposals for building
new nuclear power stations. However, we
do not rule out the possibility that at some
point in the future new nuclear build might be
necessary if we are to meet our carbon
targets.
"Before any decision to proceed
with the building of new nuclear power
stations, there would need to be the fullest
public consultation and the publication
of a white paper setting out the
Government’s proposals."
BERR
Nuclear consultation: Public trust in Government
Brown's pollsters fixed second public consultation
New nuclear row as green groups pull out
PM's nuclear power consultation was a sham, court rules
|
|
