Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Another Astonishing Holiday No New Nukes Victory
The atomic energy industry has suffered another astonishing defeat. Because of it, 2010 again left the "nuclear renaissance" in the Dark Age that defines the technology.
But an Armageddon-style battle looms when Congress returns next year.
The push to build new nuclear plants depends now, as always, on federal subsidies. Fifty-three years after the first commercial reactor opened at Shippingport, Pennsylvania, no private funders will step forward to pay for a "new generation" of nukes.
So the industry remains mired in unsolved waste problems, disturbing vulnerability to terror and error, uninsured liability in case of a major catastrophe, and unapproved new design proposals.
Two new reactor construction projects in Europe---one in Finland and the other at Flamanville, France---are sinking in gargantuan cost overruns and multi-year delays. To financiers and energy experts worldwide, it's a clear indicator the "rebirth" of this failed technology is a hopeless quagmire.
Meanwhile the 104 reactors currently licensed in the US are leaking radiation and are under escalating grassroots attack. Vermont's new governor, Peter Shumlin, is committed to shutting the Yankee plant there, and public demands to close New York's Indian Point and Oyster Creek, New Jersey, among others, have reached fever pitch.
Most importantly, advances in green technologies are leaving atomic power in the dust. Numerous new studies now show it is significantly cheaper to build new generating capacity with photovoltaics, wind and other renewable Solartopian sources than to go nuclear. That gap will only grow in the coming years.
But Barack Obama has proposed some $36 billion in new nuke loan guarantees to add to $18.5 billion set aside by the Bush Administration. Earlier this year he handed $8.33 billion of that to a Georgia utility that broke ground on two new nukes at the Vogtle site, where two old, trouble-plagued reactors still operate.
The nukes are being built in Georgia---along with two more in South Carolina---because ratepayers are being forced to foot the bill as construction proceeds. The company's returns are guaranteed even if the reactors never operate. Georgia has already suffered crippling rate hikes of $1 billion and more to pay for a construction project likely to wind up as little more than a moribund mausoleum.
Nonetheless, amidst a major economic crisis, the White House and its pro-nuke allies have been pushing hard to fund still more of these radioactive boondoggles.
As Congress wound down this fall, the Administration inserted $7 billion in new loan guarantees into the first Continuing Resolution meant to fund the government on an interim basis.
That CR was abandoned for a larger Ominbus Budget proposal, into which $8 billion for new nukes was stuck.
But grassroots activists from around the nation flooded Congress and White House with at least 15,000 calls and letters.
Amidst the chaos of the lame duck session, the Omnibus bill fell by the wayside. Yet another CR emerged, this one stripped of earmarks---including all money for new nuke guarantees.
Thus the industry was once again shut out. In the past decade it has spent more than $640 million lobbying for federal handouts.
But a vastly underfunded grassroots movement has held its own. In 2007 the industry tried to gouge out $50 billion in new guarantees, but was beaten back by a national campaign (www.nukefree.org) that continues to rage.
The industry will surely return with its money guns blazing. A far more conservative Congress will convene in January, and the industry will pour its usual unlimited steam of lucre into legislative coffers. The "renaissance" is nothing if not a cash cow for Congressional candidates and the White House.
But, says Michael Mariotte of the Nuclear Information & Resources Service, "Once again, taxpayers have been spared the expense of bailing out the wealthy, multinational nuclear power industry.
"But the nuclear lobbyists will be back next session, hat-in-hand, even while distributing campaign checks to their allies."
Nonetheless, he adds, the industry " may have missed its moment. It will become increasingly difficult for it to justify spending increases when all indications are that the new Congress will be focused on spending cuts."
So the battle will resume in January, with the industry again selling its "renaissance" as a done deal. But if the grassroots environmental movement can keep up the pressure, and the revolution in green power proceeds, nuclear power may just be done, period.
24 Comments so far
Show AllThe value of wholesale electrical power is based on natural gas prices. Gas prices have been low since the economic downturn accelerated two years ago, making it more difficult than ever for the private sector to justify financing and constructing new sources of wholesale power, nuclear and otherwise.
Depressed wholesale power prices are not expected to rise for several years, so the nuclear industry will be seeking even more corporate welfare in 2011 than previously anticipated.
In 2000, Germany committed to weaning itself not only off of fossil fuels but also nuclear power. They have built no new nukes since then and have aggressively pursued renewable energy (solar, wind, biomass, geothermal) to replace oil, coal and nuclear energy. They have idled 2 nuclear plants out of 19. Chancellor Merkel and the ruling coalition have recently stopped the closing of any more nuke power plants and will extend the life of the existing plants for 12 years or more. Belgium is phasing out nuclear power. Spain is also phasing out nuclear power in favor of renewable energy. Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Norway have no nuclear plants and have legally restricted their construction within their borders.
"In 2000, Germany committed to weaning itself not only off of fossil fuels but also nuclear power."
Outdated info.
That was 2000. In 2011, Germany is about to restart the Krümmel and Brunsbüttel nuclear power plants.
"They have idled 2 nuclear plants out of 19."
Restating outdated info. They are about to be restarted.
"Belgium is phasing out nuclear power."
Incorrect. As part of the Roadmap of the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI), Belgium is the site for new nuclear power research. The Belgian nuclear fission research infrastructure MYRRHA, in Mol, has research capacity on the reduction of radioactive nuclear waste. The detailed engineering design of the facility is scheduled to be completed in 2014.
"Spain is also phasing out nuclear power in favor of renewable energy."
Incorrect. In 2009, Westinghouse Electric Co. was awarded a five-year contract to provide engineering services to two nuclear power plants in Spain. Under terms of the contract, Westinghouse will provide nuclear steam supply station (NSSS) and balance-of-plant support; probabilistic risk assessment (Class 1 and 2); NSSS mechanical and instrumentation and control (I&C) components; diagnosis and engineering of motor-operated and air-operated valves; mechanical and fluid systems electrical, I&C, civil and stress analysis; and environmental and seismic qualification. Westinghouse also will deliver approximately 100 design change packages each year of the contract, which runs through July 1, 2015.
The Spanish government approved on December 23 2010, a 30% cut to solar power subsidies that could result in annual savings of €740m. The government does have compelling reasons for its decision. Spain is currently faced with a tariff deficit of over €15bn. In addition, solar power in Spain currently accounts for only 3% of power generation, but at the same time soaks up roughly half of the country’s subsidies for renewable energy.
"Austria,"
Correct. In December 1998, following a referendum where 50.5% of those who voted said no to nuclear power, the Austrian parliament voted unanimously a law that nuclear power would not be used to generate electricity. And that was a very slim margin. In time, the Austrian people will vote for nuclear power since their hydroelectric generation is maxed out. However, 15% of electricity imported from Germany and Czech Republic to Austria is nuclear.
"Denmark,"
Correct. And Denmark is between a rock and a hard place. With wind being most variable, Denmark exports power to Sweden a low price when winds are high and Denmark buys power from Sweden at high prices when winds are low. Why? Because during wind surges, power needs to be exported or the transmission lines burn out; not the case of nuclear or hydroelectric. 45% of Sweden's energy is nuclear and 40% is hydroelectric. Finland is going the nuclear route.
"Greece,"
Correct. And irrelevant. Then Greece is a very small economic power. Might as well talk about Burkina Faso.
"Ireland,"
Correct. But then the energy that Ireland imports from England is about 20% nuclear.
"Portugal"
Correct. And irrelevant. 40% is hydroelectric and 40% is wind. Portugal has a small population, like Norway.
"Norway"
Correct. About 99% of its electric needs are met by hydroelectric, so even solar is a non issue.
Meanwhile, Russia is building Turkey's first Nuclear Plant.
Saudi Arabia, Egypt have nuclear plants on the drawing board.
Italy plans to get 25% of its future electricity needs from eight new nuclear plants and has contracted with a French company for the construction of the first four. Great Britain envisages not only refurbishing eight aging reactors, but also building ten new ones.
France, which never succumbed to the anti-nuclear frenzy and already derives 80 percent of its electricity from 58 reactors.
China is building 3 new nuclear plants per year for the next 25 years.
Japan -who suffered Hiroshima and Nagasaki- is expanding its Nuclear Energy program (30% total energy use in 2005, 40% by 2010).
Brazil, along with its ethanol program and recent offshore oil finds, is pushing nuclear.
Ukraine, despite its Chernobyl legacy, plans eleven new reactors by 2030, while Russia, an exporter of nuclear technology, wants to double its electricity output from nuclear power by 2020. Ukraine is dismantling the old soviet-design plants and replacing them with Western-designs.
Poland, Finland, Lithuania, Bulgaria, and Romania are either planning or already building new nuclear plants.
The French, who get some 80% of their electricity from nuclear power, even import bomb-grade uranium from old Soviet nuclear weapons. They mix it with tailings from uranium mines and export the material to the United States. One of every 10 light bulbs in America is now being lit by a reprocessed former Soviet weapon.
The German exit-law has been much debated in Germany and also elsewhere, and perhaps the two 2007 incidents at the Vattenfall-owned (a.k.a. The Swedish State’s power company) reactors in AKW Krümmel and AKW Brunsbüttel, have weighed heavily on the debate. The two Vattenfall reactors had technical failures and highlighted corporate incompetence, and made opponents of nuclear power see their arguments gaining credence. The units have been offline for some time, Brunsbüttel having shut down in 2007 following a grid-facilitated trip, and Krümmel after a transformer fault following an earlier transformer fire also in 2007. Vattenfall had announced that AKW Krümmel and AKW Brunsbüttel were supposed to have restarted in 2009. Whoops, looks like they will be restarted in 2011, maybe.
The Krümmel and Brunsbüttel nuclear power plants were closed because of serious problems not as a part of the German scheduled exit plan. When and if these two plants have been repaired, then they would be reopened. The Germans have not abandoned the exit plan (away from nuclear power), they have just delayed it by 12 to 15 years. They certainly are not going to build new nukes. GERMANY CONTINUES TO WEAN ITSELF OFF OF FOSSIL FUELS AND NUCLEAR POWER, IT'S JUST GOING TO TAKE LONGER THAN EXPECTED.
(Nov. 29, 2010, SPIEGEL) Despite strong opposition, on November 26, 2010, the Bundestag (German Parliament) approved a bill amending the Atomic Energy Act to extend by an average of 12 years the lifespan of the country's 17 nuclear power plants. Opposition parties have declared that they will appeal to Germany's Federal Constitutional Court to rule on the amendment's constitutionality, outraged at the ruling coalition "not only for overturning a key part of their legacy but also because of the government's attempt to bypass the Bundesrat, the country's second legislative chamber representing the 16 German states, where the government does not enjoy a majority." (Siobhán Dowling, The World from Berlin: Extension of Nuclear Lifespans Is 'Pure Conservatism,' SPIEGEL ONLINE (Oct. 29, 2010), http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,7
26128,00.html.)
BERLIN, Jul 31, 2009 (IPS) - Seven German nuclear plants have failed to generate any electricity this month due to technical breakdowns. They have about half the production capacity of Germany's 17 nuclear reactors, but Germany did not suffer any power shortages.
The plants have between them a 9,000 megawatt (MW) capacity, but Germany generates more electricity than it consumes, and has been exporting some of the surplus to France, which is heavily dependent on nuclear power.
Early this month, three plants shut down automatically due to failures in their transformers. The other four have been out of service for months, and are undergoing expensive repairs.
The breakdowns come at a time when the planned phasing out of nuclear power is under attack. In 2002, the coalition government of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Greens decided that all nuclear reactors would be phased out by 2021.
At the same time, the government launched a massive investment programme in renewable energy, making Germany the leading country in Europe in use of the sun and wind as energy sources.
According to official figures, Germany generates 15 percent of the electricity it consumes from renewable sources. A law passed in 2008 sets a target of generating at least 30 percent of electricity through renewables by 2020.
Additionally, on Jul. 13, a group of large German companies announced a joint investment of 400 billion euros (560 billion dollars) in setting up solar thermal plants in the Sahara, to generate at least 15 percent of all electricity needed in Europe by the year 2020.
I'm still researching friedfish's other claims.
In 2010 Spain overtook the United States as the solar power world leader, with a massive power station plant called La Florida, near Alvarado, Badajoz. In 2009, more than 50% of the produced energy in Spain was generated by wind mills, and the highest total production record was reached with 11.546 eolic Megawatts. On particular windy days, wind power generation has surpassed all other electricity sources in Spain, including nuclear. On November 8, 2009 wind power production reached the highest percentage of electricity production, with wind farms covering 53% of the total demand. On November 9, 2010, the maximum power output was reached being 14,960 MW. From Reuters, May 2010:
NO RENAISSANCE SEEN
Although Spain is prepared to keep its nuclear plants, there is no sign it will join in a "nuclear renaissance" under way in other countries and build new reactors.
A government source noted that utilities were allowed to build nuclear power stations in Spain, subject to approval by the regulator, but had no plans to.
"Electricity generation has been liberalized in Spain since 1998, but so far not one utility has applied for a permit to build a nuclear plant," he said.
Nuclear power is unpopular in Spain and even if Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's Socialist government loses elections in 2012, as polls predict, the opposition Popular Party has not committed to building new plants.
Furthermore, national grid operator REE says Spain does not need more than the steady 20 percent of its electricity supply provided by nuclear plants.
REE Chairman Luis Atienza estimates expanding nuclear power would force too many of Spain's other, more flexible generating plants to halt when demand drops to overnight lows.
"We don't have the base demand to make building new nuclear plants viable," Atienza said in a recent lecture at the Nuclear Safety Council (CSN).
(Reporting by Martin Roberts)
YOU ARE INCORRECT FRIEDFISH, BELGIUM'S PHASE OUT LAW REMAINS IN EFFECT
From the World Nuclear Association web site:
"However, due to political factors in the governing coalition, the Belgian Senate approved the Federal Act of 31 January 2003, which prohibited the building of new nuclear power plants and limited the operating lives of existing ones to 40 years (to 2014-2025). This can be overridden by a recommendation from the electricity and gas regulator (Commission de Régulation de l'Électricité et du Gaz, CREG) if Belgium's security of supply is threatened.
In 2007, the Commission on Energy 2030 energy policy study set up by the government said that a fundamental review of energy policy was required and in particular that nuclear power should be utilised long-term in order to meet carbon dioxide (CO2) reduction commitments, enhance energy security and maintain economic stability. It also said that the 2003 phase-out decision should be reconsidered as it would double the price of electricity, deny Belgium a cheap way of meeting the country's CO2 emission reduction targets and increase import dependency. Instead, the operating lives of the seven nuclear units should be extended.
In October 2009, the government received a further report from a commissioned panel. This recommended a ten-year life extension for the three oldest nuclear power reactors to 2025 and a 20-year life extension for the other four. The government then agreed to postpone the phase-out by ten years, so that it does not begin before 2025. The Energy & Climate Change minister said that the delay in closure "would guarantee security of supply, limit the production of carbon dioxide and allow us to maintain prices that protect consumer purchasing power and the competitiveness of our companies".
However, a change of government in April 2010 occurred before the agreed proposals were passed by parliament and the
nuclear
phase-out
law remains
in
place.
Repeat: the
nuclear
phase-out
law remains
in
place.
I was looking at the Lithium Ion Battery in a new electric dual sport motorcycle.And the largest ingredient was food grade Sea salt.And I said to myself "self ,you could build this thing with Hemp and Sea water and a little Rare Earth"
I am optimistic about Solartopia Harvey. peace,Happy ,Merry etc.
"The nukes are being built in Georgia---along with two more in South Carolina---because ratepayers are being forced to foot the bill as construction proceeds. The company's returns are guaranteed even if the reactors never operate. Georgia has already suffered crippling rate hikes of $1 billion and more to pay for a construction project likely to wind up as little more than a moribund mausoleum."
A couple of major corrections about the situation in Georgia:
1. Ratepayers had to approve a ballot iniative before the funding plan was put into effect. It was hardly "forced" on the ratepayers. The rate addition is set to expire when the plants are fully financed.
2. The plan was implemented to be able to open the new facilities debt-free, thereby saving the interest payments and overall reducing the financing costs by more than 10% of the project cost.
3. Georgia's electrical rate hikes might be charactized as "crippling" though this seems a bit histrionic since Georgia's rates are still among the lowest in the nation.
Long distance cargo hauling by freight train should be contingent on getting some of their power supply from solar panel hoisted on its roof.
Same cpuld be designed on the Amtrack running in the summer and in the South.
Planes like satellite could be fitted with solar panels.
As are the cars could be with changes and modification.
Regarding the comment by "waltdimm" a few corrections to this supposed "correction" are in order:
1. Ratepayers absolutely had up-front funding for new reactors "forced" upon us. There was no "ballot initiative" that the citizens approved. In 2009 the Georgia General Assembly passed a law making it possible for Ga. Power to charge ratepayers a fee to pay up front for nukes. This was because Ga. Power hired 71 lobbyists to work the legislature like never before, and the law was fast-tracked through in an unprecedented fashion, in spite of enormous opposition. In getting the provision put into law, Georgia Power did an end-run around the regulatory body which should have been deciding all of this (which would have passed it anyway because they are bought by Ga. Power, too, but it was still an extraordinary move.)
What they passed was a provision by which 2+ billion dollars will be charged to ratepayers over the next several years. What's it for? 50% of it is profit straight to Ga. Power's shareholders; 25% of it is to pay the income tax on that profit; and the last 25% of it is supposed to pay down interest on the construction loans--the rationale being that then ratepayers would not ultimately be paying interest on interest--all for a reactor that is in its 17th design revision and still not off the drawing board.
2. These reactors will not be financed debt-free. Ga. Power is in line to borrow billions from the Feds (money the government doesn't actually have--that is not yet printed! and for loans backed by taxpayers all over the U.S. If Ga. Power defaults, we all pay.)
3. Implying that ratepayers ought to be happy about being gouged for this madness because our rates are "among the lowest in the nation" is absurd. The money is being thrown down an obsolete black hole and we have no choice in the matter because Ga. Power is a monopoly, regulated by men whose campaign coffers are full to the brim with money from the industry.
Furthermore, Ga. Power was just awarded a new rate increase which enables them to earn 11.15% profit, and which allows them to apply for more rate increases on a quick time-table without any set standards for review, during any of the next three years in which they anticipate their profits dipping below 10.25% that year. They will be allowed to earn up to 12.25% profit before any money is returned to the ratepayers, and then only 2/3 will be returned.
And we are, indeed, being FORCED to pay to line Ga. Power's pockets. And they "need" this extra profit simply because without polishing their financial picture in light of their commitment to build new reactors, they can't get the loans they want for the new nukes. That's because investor services have downgraded their credit since, as everyone knows, building new reactors is a financially disastrous enterprise. It always has been and still is.
The newly approved rate will cause an average bill to increase by around $11.00 per month-- on top of a $3.73 increase for the up-front payments for the new reactors--all of which means an average bill, next month, will increase by almost $15.00 per month. This is in a state in which unemployment is around 10% and people are already lining up around the block waiting for their one opportunity per year to get assistance with the payments they already can't make.
This also comes on top of recent approval for $108 million to be passed on to consumers--because of an unanticipated contract dispute with the reactor construction company, and on top of another hike for increased fuel costs this past year.
So, do you see the trend?-- more money, then more money, then more money taken from ratepayers and taxpayers and given to Ga. Power against our wills and against all reason--for reactors that aren't necessary and are an obsolete, backward-looking, toxic, dangerous means to generate electricity. But what Ga. Power has apparently figured out that they really are is a great way for Ga. Power to generate risk-free MONEY for themselves!
The first thought that comes to mind, Tigress, is how well did you research your vote for PSC commissioner? Did you campaign for your choice? Did you, unlike most citizens, even vote for one? That aside, some response.
1. There was a vote on a constitutional amendment to allow this to take place. It's just easier to shortcut the language rather than explain the vagaries of Georgia legislative procedure. The really extraordinary part was that a Regulated Monopoly actually tried to pay for capital expansions up front, at least in part. People who were paying attention (most were not)knew that this was to allow legislation to finance the plant expansion.
Only 17 design revisions? There were more changes than that to my house!
2. I suppose, as money is somewhat fungible, Ga. Power's debts might help pay for the nuke plants, however the company's money is rigidly separated between capital improvements and operating funds. (I once worked in a PSC-regulated industry, and could never begin to explain how complicated this is in 1000 words.) Federal loans to power companies is really a topic worthy of a thread all its own.
3. I didn't say that "ratepayers ought to be happy about being gouged". I only said that the characterization of "crippling" is a bit histrionic. To your later points, part of the reason that we continue to have nickel-and-dime rate increases is that the GA PSC has a very rigid standard and control over Ga. Power's finances. Since there is no competition to the state-charted monopolies, most public utilities in the USA are allowed (guaranteed) somewhere between 10% and 13.5% profit margin on operations. (I won't begin to address the wisdom of a particular profit margin today.) Return on Investment (ROI) for capital expenditures as likewise set at about the same level, over the life of the investment. Until lately, the Georgia PSC required the company to submit a complete accounting package for every change in profit levels. The new ruling lets GA power work within specific limits without micro-management by the PSC. We'll have to see how this works. I'm a little skeptical.
Are we "FORCED" to pay this? Yes, of course. Every state has chosen to charter the electrical utilities as a regulated monopoly enterprise. Can't really get away from that unless you are willing to competely drop off the grid. GA Power didn't figure that out. It is played the same way in 50 states across the nation, and many industrialized nations worldwide.
Finacially, electrical utilities cannot self-sustain in a competitive environment. The capital cost of infrastructure and delivery means cannot produce the type of return needed by most investors without public support. Nuclear plants are doubly doomed. The last several plants constructed (over 30 years ago now) were held up for years in regulatory and legislative limbo, sucking up money and producing no electricity. Without some assurance that the plant will open and produce saleable energy in a predictable timeframe, no commercial lender will support the project.
"The first thought that comes to mind, Tigress, is how well did you research your vote for PSC commissioner? Did you campaign for your choice? Did you, unlike most citizens, even vote for one?"
Well, you don't really think that I'd be paying such close attention to these matters and fail to thoroughly do the things you mention, do you?
Thank you Tigress for giving the truth and the facts as opposed to the lies, distortions and half truths of the pro nuke trolls who flock to Common Dreams to obfuscate and confuse. For all I know, maybe the pro nuke trolls are really just one person but who knows.
Tigress has performed a great service by debunking all the lies of the pro nuke lying liars.
What the hell has Social Security got to do with Israel or even the deficit? Nada, nothing. It's just silly prattle to imply such a connection. SS has its own funding stream through the wage tax, it contributes nothing to the deficit whatsoever, it has about $2.5 trillion in the trust fund which is earning interest every day. However, things could change with Obama's stupid tax holiday. Lowering the wage tax by 2 percentage points and then making up that $112 billion loss through the general fund is an immensely stupid idea if you value SS. Obviously Obama doesn't give a flying fig about SS. And the wage tax holiday adds to the deficit!!!