Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Westinghouse expects contracts for 12 Chinese nuclear reactors
http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/newyork/westinghouse-expects-contracts-for-12-chinese-21987641
Westinghouse expects it and its suppliers will get contracts in the near future related to construction of a dozen nuclear reactors in China, company CEO Danny Roderick said Thursday.
China may build as many as 200 new nuclear units in the coming 15 years, and a 25-30% market share for Westinghouse is "realistic," Roderick said on the sidelines of a Nuclear Energy Institute event in New York.
Unlike the initial contracts under which Chinese companies are building four 1,150-MW Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at two sites -- Sanmen and Haiyang -- future agreements will not be turnkey contracts, Roderick said.
Westinghouse agreed to transfer the AP1000 technology to China as part of the deal to sell the four units, and China is seeking to export 1,400-MW versions of the AP1000.
Toshiba to take small chunk of Westinghouse for new business
http://powersource.post-gazette.com/powersource/companies-powersource/2014/12/06/Toshiba-to-take-small-chunk-of-Westinghouse-for-new-business/stories/201412060052
Toshiba Corp., the Tokyo-based parent of Westinghouse Electric Co. announced it will take a small chunk of the Cranberry-based nuclear firm and combine it with two other business segments to form a new company headquartered in North Carolina.
Toshiba America Energy Systems Corp. will start operating April 1, and will supply steam and turbine generators for thermal and nuclear power systems and renewable energy systems.
Besides Westinghouse, the two other companies contributing services to the new entity are Toshiba America Nuclear Energy Corp., which has a steam turbine and generator business for nuclear power systems, and Toshiba International Corp., which operates a thermal and hydropower segment.
Sheila Holt, a spokeswoman for Westinghouse, said fewer than five employees will be transferred from Cranberry as a result of the deal.
The departing service segment concerns less than 1 percent of Westinghouse’s revenue, she said, and revolves around the cleaning and inspection of turbine generators.
Major engineering work for steam and turbine generators will remain in house, she said.
“I look to [Toshiba America Energy Systems], in cooperation with [Westinghouse Electric Co.] to promote and expand our business in North America,” Shigenori Shiga, corporate executive vice president of Toshiba Corp. said in a statement.
Tripartite agreement on third Turkish plant
Westinghouse Electric Company, China's State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation (SNPTC) and Turkish power company Elektrik Üretim AS (EÜAS) have signed an agreement to begin exclusive negotiations to develop and construct a four-unit nuclear power plant in Turkey.
Westinghouse and SNPTC have a long history of close collaboration on AP1000-based nuclear reactor technology. In addition to the first four AP1000 units under construction at Sanmen and Haiyang in China, China's own CAP1400 reactor has evolved from the Westinghouse design.
With Chinese intellectual property rights and backed by full fuel cycle capability, the CAP1400 is central to Chinese policy aims to become an exporter of nuclear technology. A site at Shidaowan in Shandong province is being prepared for the start of construction of the first CAP1400.
Meanwhile, in addition to the four Chinese units, AP1000s are under construction at Vogtle and VC Summer in the USA. The reactor is also being considered for construction at Moorside in the UK and at Kozloduy in Bulgaria.
Work is expected to start next year on Turkey's first nuclear power plant, four VVER-1200 units to be built at Akkuyu. Rosatom will build, own and operate the plant as part of a long-term power purchase agreement. A second plant of four Atmea 1 reactors, designed by Areva and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, is pencilled in for construction at Sinop.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Tripartite-agreement-on-third-Turkish-plant-2411147.html
The Chinese nuclear regulator has approved the preliminary safety analysis report of the CAP1400 reactor design following a 17-month review.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-CAP1400-preliminary-safety-review-approved-0909145.html
China produces first AP1000 vessel
The manufacture of the reactor pressure vessel in China for Sanmen 2 has been completed - the first AP1000 vessel to be domestically produced.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-China-produces-first-AP1000-vessel-1106144.html
The completed vessel, manufactured by China First Heavy Industries (CFHI) under the supervision of Westinghouse, successfully passed a pressure test on 8 June.
The vessels for the first units at Sanmen and Haiyang were produced in South Korea by Doosan Heavy Industries & Construction using some forgings fabricated by CFHI. The Chinese company produced the first forging for the component in July 2007 under the supervision of China's National Nuclear Safety Administration and supported by several companies involved in the Sanmen plant project, including State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation (SNPTC), Westinghouse and Doosan. Together, the companies had strict control of quality during the manufacturing process. The vessel for Haiyang 2 will be supplied by Shanghai Electric Group.
Vietnamese officials have chosen Rosatom's AES-2006 design for the country's first nuclear power plant at Ninh Thuan, increasing the planned capacity of the four unit plant by about 800 MWe. A second plant should follow based on a partnership with Japan.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Vietnam-upgrades-reactor-choice-2111141.html
The choice of Russian technology for Ninh Thuan 1 at Phuoc Dinh has now been made, and Atomproekt based in Saint Petersburg will supply its version of the AES-2006 plant for at least the first two units. This design produces 1200 MWe for transmission over the grid and its replacement of the VVER-1000 units previously planned would add about 800 MWe to Ninh Thuan's future generating capacity across four units.
The reactors are to be built over 2017-23 as a turnkey project. Russia's Ministry of Finance is prepared to finance at least 85% of this first plant, to supply the nuclear fuel and take back the used fuel for the life of the plant. These details were explained to delegates at the Atomex Asia conference organised by Rosatom on 19-20 November in Ho Chi Minh City.
The Ninh Thuan 2 plant at Vinh Hai, on Cam Ranh Bay about 20 kilometres northeast of Phouc Dinh, is to be developed under a partnership with Japan and consideration of possible technology options is ongoing.
South Korea announces four more nuclear reactors to be built
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/11/21/uk-nuclear-southkorea-idUKKCN0J50LY20141121
South Korea said on Friday it will start to construct two new nuclear power plants in 2017 at the earliest and another two by 2022, making a total of 11 new nuclear plants planned by 2024.
The Office for Prime Minister's Secretariat and energy ministry said the government agreed with the county of Uljin to add Shin Hanul No.3 and No.4 nuclear plants by 2022.
Another statement from the government offices said the county of Yeongdeok had agreed to have two plants by 2012.
As compensation for the nuclear power plants, the government via reactor operator Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power Co Ltd will provide a total of 1.5 trillion Korean won (1.35 billion US dollar) to Yeongdeok for 60 years, and 280 billion won to Uljin to improve the services like roads, schools and hospitals in the remote communities, the statements noted.
Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power, is fully owned by state-run Korea Electric Power Corp.
Romania picks China's CGN to build two nuclear power units
Romania's state-owned power producer Nuclearelectrica has picked China General Nuclear Power Holding Corp (CGN) to partner with it to build two reactors, together costing an estimated 6 billion euros ($7.7 billion), at its site on the river Danube.
In a statement on Friday, Nuclearelectrica said the selection was based on CGN's expertise in similar projects and its financial resources. CGN had been the only prospective investor to file an offer by a Sept. 8 deadline.
Nuclearelectrica had initially planned to build the two reactors in partnership with six European energy firms, but those companies withdrew one by one in 2010-2013 under the impact of Europe's debt crisis.
The European Commission would need to sign off on any state aid that is provided for the construction programme.
Nuclearelectrica already has two 706 megawatt reactors, accounting for roughly a fifth of Romania's power production. They use technology from Canada's Candu Energy, owned by SNC-Lavalin Group Inc, as would the two planned reactors. (1 US dollar = 0.7817 euro)
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL6N0SC33Z20141017
Siemens is said to be preparing an offer of more than $6.5 billion for Dresser-Rand Group to upset a competing merger plan by Sulzer AG.
Germany's Siemens (SIEGn.DE) is considering a bid for compressor and turbine maker Dresser-Rand (DRC.N) that could potentially derail a merger between Dresser-Rand and Swiss pump maker Sulzer (SUN.S), according to several media reports on Friday.
The Financial Times and Bloomberg reported that Siemens' supervisory board may vote on whether to table a bid at a meeting next week, with Bloomberg citing an offer of more than $85 a share. Siemens declined to comment.
Dresser-Rand shares closed on Thursday at $73 and were indicated up 13.4 percent at $82.5 in premarket trade.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/19/us-dresserrand-siemens-idUSKBN0HE0XD20140919
Japanese regulator approves restart of first nuclear reactors
Japan's nuclear regulator gave the go-ahead on Wednesday for the restart of a nuclear power station, the first step to reopening an industry that was mothballed after the Fukushima disaster and which may involve the definitive closure of a dozen old plants.
Japanese media have said the restart of the Sendai plant, about 1,000 km (600 miles) southwest of Tokyo, may not come until next year.
Utilities that want to extend the operating life of old reactors must submit detailed safety applications by July 2015, explaining how those facilities could be updated to meet the tough new safety standards.
The government may ask the operators of 12 reactors that began operations before 1980 to decide by the end of the year whether to decommission them, media have reported.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/09/10/japan-nuclear-idINKBN0H507S20140910
GE has new reactor ready to certify
After nine years before federal regulators, General Electric has "the world's most technologically advanced reactor" ready for certification.
That description of the ESBWR, or economic simplified boiling water reactor, is from GE Hitachi chief executive Caroline Reda, who points out Nuclear Regulatory Commission certification paves "the way for the reactor's construction in the U.S."
The NRC is reviewing two license applications referencing the ESBWR design. Detroit Edison is seeking a license for Fermi Unit 3 in Monroe County, Mich., and Dominion Virginia Power is seeking a license for North Anna Unit 3 in Louisa County, Va.
In April 2013, GE Hitachi agreed to guide Dominion through the process of applying for a combined operating license for a reactor engineered for the utility's site a few miles from the epicenter of the earthquake that shook the East Coast three years ago.
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20140823/ARTICLES/140829851/-1/news300
Dynegy to Almost Double Capacity With $6.25 Billion Buy
Dynegy Inc. (DYN) agreed to buy $6.25 billion of power plants from Duke Energy Corp. (DUK) and private-equity firm Energy Capital Partners, almost doubling its generating capacity less than a year after emerging from bankruptcy protection.
The sale includes $2.8 billion for 11 Duke natural gas, coal and oil power plants in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Illinois as well as its retail sales business, Houston-based Dynegy said in a statement today. In a separate transaction, Dynegy is spending $3.45 billion for Energy Capital plants in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Ohio.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-22/dynegy-to-buy-duke-s-midwest-generation-business-correct-.html
Builders' schedule could delay completion of South Carolina nukes
Scana in a few months will ask the South Carolina Public Service Commission for permission to change the schedule for completing two planned nuclear units at the V.C. Summer nuclear station in Fairfield County, South Carolina, and to raise the cap on the project's cost, the company said during a conference call Monday.
Scana said the Westinghouse/CB&I consortium that is building the two nuclear units have proposed a revised schedule that would delay completion of the units by a year or more from what Scana's South Carolina Electric & Gas subsidiary and Santee Cooper had been expecting.
In a statement, Scana said "preliminary information received from the consortium in August indicat[ed] that the substantial completion of Unit 2" --the first of the two planned 1,117-MW units -- "is expected to occur in late 2018 or the first half of 2019, and that the substantial completion of Unit 3 may be approximately 12 months later."
SCE&G and Santee Cooper had been expecting that Unit 2 will start commercial operation in late 2017 or early 2018, and that Unit 3 will come online in late 2018 or early 2019.
SCE&G owns 55% of the two planned units and Santee Cooper owns the remaining 45%. The utilities agreed in January that SCE&G will increase its stake to 60% over the next few years. Byrne said during the conference call that any schedule delay will not affect that deal.
http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/boston/builders-schedule-could-delay-completion-of-south-21056135
County of 95 Sees Opportunity in Toxic Waste
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/us/a-texas-county-sees-opportunity-in-toxic-waste.html?_r=0
Loving County is big, dry and stretches for miles, and is the perfect place, local officials say, to store high-level radioactive waste.
Officials here hope to entice the federal government — with $28 billion to spend on the disposal of high-level radioactive waste — into considering the possibility.
Japan's nuclear restart may be delayed until 2015
The long-awaited restart of Japan's nuclear power plants is facing yet another setback and may be delayed until 2015, Japanese media said on Wednesday, piling pressure on struggling utilities to push for fresh price hikes.
Kyushu Electric Power's two-reactor Sendai plant, located about 1,000 km (600 miles) southwest of Tokyo, is likely to be the first nuclear plant to be allowed to restart under tough new safety regulations after the 2011 Fukushima crisis.
The Sendai plant cleared the Nuclear Regulation Authority's (NRA) initial safety hurdle last month, but the utility was supposed to hand in additional, detailed paperwork on specific safety features at the site and how they planned to construct them.
http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL2N0QC03U20140806
The Sendai Nuclear Power Plant (Sendai NPP) is a nuclear power plant located in the city of Satsumasendai in the Kagoshima Prefecture. It is owned and operated by the Kyushu Electric Power Company.
The plant is on a site of 1.45 km2 (358 acres), employs 277 workers, and indirectly employs 790.
The reactors are of the 3-loop M type pressurized water reactor, built by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sendai_Nuclear_Power_Plant
CB&I and China National Nuclear Corporation to Collaborate on Nuclear Power Plant Development
http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20140716-906104.html
CB&I (NYSE:CBI) today announced it has signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) to facilitate enhanced cooperation and collaboration between CNNC and CB&I in the development of nuclear power plants. The areas of cooperation include operation and maintenance support services for CNNC's operating nuclear power plants in China; engineering, procurement, and construction management (EPCM) of the AP1000(R) nuclear power plants planned and owned by CNNC in China; international nuclear power market development; and nuclear power training programs and management personnel exchange in the U.S. and China.
CB&I now has cooperative agreements in place with two of the three state-owned corporations empowered by the State Council of the People's Republic of China to own and operate nuclear power plants in China. In 2013, CB&I announced an agreement with China Power Investment Corporation (CPI) to form a joint venture company to build nuclear power plants in China.
China plans to increase its nuclear power generation capacity to 58 GWe by 2020 and currently has 28 nuclear power units under construction. CB&I is providing EPCM for four AP1000 nuclear power units under construction in China, including two units at CNNC's site in Sanmen, Zhejiang province.
"This new commitment with CNNC will provide CB&I with the opportunity to expand and diversify the services offered in China while the international deployment of CNNC's indigenous nuclear power technologies will offer expanded growth in the international nuclear power marketplace," said Philip K. Asherman, CB&I's President and Chief Executive Officer.
Xi Jinping Gives the Nod To China’s Expansion of Nuclear Energy
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-06-17/xi-jinping-gives-nod-to-china-s-expansion-of-nuclear-energy
China’s rapid urbanization is not only gulping up cement, but also water and energy. On Friday, China’s President Xi Jinping told a government meeting that development of nuclear energy should be accelerated. “By adopting top international standards and ensuring safety, China should lose no time in constructing nuclear power projects in eastern coastal regions,” Xi said, as state-run Xinhua newswire reported.
At the end of 2013, China’s 17 operational nuclear power plants were generating about 2 percent of the country’s total energy, according to Xinhua. But Ye Qizhen, an expert in nuclear energy at the Chinese Academy of Engineering, told the newswire that China should aim to get 10 percent of total energy from nuclear power.
While China suspended approving new nuclear plants in the immediate aftermath of the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan, China’s State Energy Commission announced plans in April to deploy an additional 8.6 gigawatts of nuclear power capacity, reported China Daily.
One of China’s nuclear power “moonshots” is a large research program in Shanghai to develop nuclear energy from thorium, as opposed to uranium. The effort is led by the politically powerful Jiang Mianheng, son of former leader Jiang Zemin. In 2012, Jiang told the Thorium Energy Conference: “China is the second largest economy in the world, [but] China is still in the stage of urbanization … which gives rise to huge demand for materials.”
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China--Nuclear-Power/
Nuclear Power in China
(Updated July 2014)
Mainland China has 20 nuclear power reactors in operation, 28 under construction, and more about to start construction.
Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give more than a three-fold increase in nuclear capacity to at least 58 GWe by 2020, then some 150 GWe by 2030, and much more by 2050.
The impetus for increasing nuclear power share in China is increasingly due to air pollution from coal-fired plants.
China’s policy is for closed fuel cycle.
China has become largely self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle, but is making full use of western technology while adapting and improving it.
China’s policy is to ‘go global’ with exporting nuclear technology including heavy components in the supply chain.
Uranium Seen Rebounding as Japan Readies Nuclear Restarts
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-07-15/uranium-prices-seen-rebounding-on-japan-nuclear-reactor-restarts
Uranium may rebound from the lowest prices in nine years as Japan moves closer to restarting the first of its idled nuclear reactors, signaling a potential increase in consumption of the atomic fuel.
Japan’s nuclear regulator vouched for the safety of two facilities in the country’s south, setting in motion the possible return of atomic power. A resumption of plants may boost uranium prices that slid after the 2011 disaster in Fukushima, said Cantor Fitzgerald LP, a New York-based broker.
Uranium has fallen about 60 percent since the meltdown at Tokyo Electric Power Co. (9501)’s Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant in March 2011 led to the closing of Japan’s nuclear reactors, reducing demand as supply swelled. The restart will make the nation less reliant on imports of fossil fuels such as liquefied natural gas and boost uranium producers from Australia to Kazakhstan, some of whom canceled projects and closed mines as prices declined.
GE reorganizes after acquisition of Alstom's energy assets
Mark Hutchinson, General Electric's president and CEO for greater China, has been appointed to integrate French firm Alstom's energy business. Rachel Duan, president and CEO of GE Healthcare China, will succeed Hutchinson. Hutchinson's "deep knowledge of GE and experience in global markets make him the right person for this important role," said John Rice, vice chairman, president and CEO of GE Global Growth and Operations
http://online.wsj.com/articles/ge-taps-china-ceo-to-run-alstoms-energy-business-1404397568?mod=dist_smartbrief
French government planned to purchase a 20 percent stake in Alstom SA (ALO), the French manufacturer at the heart of a takeover battle between Fairfield, Connecticut-based General Electric Co. (GE) and Siemens AG of Munich, Montebourg told a press conference hours before kick-off on June 20. GE would gain energy assets from Alstom for $17 billion, while a competing group led by Siemens walked away empty-handed.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-24/immelt-s-alstom-push-crowned-by-promise-under-chandelier.html
German engineering company Siemens and its Japanese peer Mitsubishi Heavy plan to make a joint offer for large chunks of Alstom’s energy business on Monday, entering a bidding war with General Electric for one of France’s industrial jewels, according to people familiar with the companies’ plans.
As part of the offer, Mitsubishi aims to buy up to 10% of Alstom from Bouygues, which currently holds 29.3% of the company, two of the people said.
French public investment bank BPI France would buy another portion of the Bouygues stake, potentially alongside the French government, these people said.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/siemens-mitsubishi-heavy-prepare-joint-bid-for-alstom-energy-assets-1402848646?mod=djemalertDEALS
France Asserts It Has Authority to Block Mergers
The French government has formally given itself the power to block foreign takeovers on strategic grounds as it seeks to sway the outcome of a battle between General Electric and Siemens for Alstom, one of France’s industrial crown jewels.
The new authority, promulgated late Wednesday as an update to a 2005 law, in effect requires that a foreign investor planning a significant push into any of six areas deemed to be of strategic concern — energy, transportation, water, health, electronic communications or defense — first obtain the economy minister’s approval.
The new authority, promulgated late Wednesday as an update to a 2005 law, in effect requires that a foreign investor planning a significant push into any of six areas deemed to be of strategic concern — energy, transportation, water, health, electronic communications or defense — first obtain the economy minister’s approval.
The law will allow the government “to ensure that its legitimate objectives are fully taken into account by foreign investors,” Arnaud Montebourg, the economy minister. Mr. Montebourg has said that he does not have a preference for G.E. or Siemens but that any deal for Alstom must safeguard jobs and technology, keep some decision-making in France as a matter of “economic sovereignty” and maintain control over Alstom’s nuclear power operations. He noted Thursday that he had written a letter last week to Jeffrey R. Immelt, G.E.’s chairman and chief executive, to say, “We’re open to an alliance, not a breakup of Alstom or a loss of a control.”
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/france-asserts-it-has-authority-to-block-mergers/
France's Alstom ready to accept $17B deal with GE
French engineering firm Alstom SA said Wednesday it was ready to accept General Electric Co.'s (GE) bid to buy its energy business, but bent to its government's order to put any deal on hold for review.
Alstom has tasked a committee of independent board members with examining a deal that CEO Patrick Kron negotiated over the last month with GE, which has offered 12.35 billion euros ($17 billion) for Alstom's power turbines business.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/frances-alstom-ready-to-accept-17b-deal-with-ge/
Exelon Dropped 5% after Agrees to Purchase Pepco Holdings for $6.8 Billion
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-30/exelon-said-to-agree-to-acquire-pepco-for-more-than-5-4-billion.html
Exelon Corp. (EXC), the largest U.S. nuclear operator, agreed to buy Pepco Holdings Inc. for $6.8 billion in cash in this year’s biggest utility acquisition in North America.
The deal values Pepco, operator of the utility that serves the Washington metro area, at $27.25 a share, according to a joint statement today. That represents a 20 percent premium over Pepco’s closing price yesterday.
B&W scales back its small nuclear reactor project
Babcock & Wilcox said Monday it will scale back its mPower small modular nuclear reactor program after being unable to attract needed investors or contracts.
Announced in 2009, small modular reactor technology had been the company’s largest research and development project. SMRs would produce less than power than traditional reactors but could be built in factories and would feature an underground containment system.
mPower and the Department of Energy signed a five-year agreement in April 2013 that would bring in up to $226 million in federal funding to help develop and license the technology. The cost-share agreement followed a bid from a team comprised of B&W and the Tennessee Valley Authority.
B&W said it notified the Department of Energy of the scaled-back spending last week and will work with DOE and other parties over the next month or one two to decide what to do with the project.
mPower recorded an $87 million operating loss in 2013, B&W said in a March proxy statement.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/04/14/4841485/bw-scales-back-its-small-nuclear.html
First Haiyang AP1000 takes shape
The final module - the containment water tank - has been installed at the first of two AP1000 units under construction at Haiyang in China's Shandong province.
In September 2007, Westinghouse and its partners the Shaw Group received authorization to construct four AP1000 units China: two at Sanmen in Zhejiang province and two more at Haiyang in Shandong province.
The construction of the Haiyang AP1000s is being managed by Shandong Nuclear Power Company, in collaboration with State Nuclear Power Technology Corp (SNPTC) and China Nuclear Energy Construction Corp. SNPTC has a major role in the transfer of knowledge and technology from the plant supplier, Westinghouse.
Sanmen unit 1 is expected to be the first AP1000 to begin operating. The unit is scheduled to begin generating electricity in 2014. Haiyang 1 is also slated for commercial operation by the end of this year. All four Chinese AP1000s are scheduled to be in operation by 2016. Third and fourth units are planned at both Sanmen and Haiyang.
Four AP1000s are also currently under construction in the USA: Vogtle 3 and its sister unit Vogtle 4 in Georgia, and Summer units 2 and 3 in South Carolina. All of these units are currently scheduled to start operation between late 2017 and 2019.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-First-Haiyang-AP1000-takes-shape-1103144.html
China’s Nuclear Ambitions
Before Fukushima, the hysteria that often surrounds nuclear power did not seem to exist in mainstream China. Questions about safety were met with a stern insistence that China needed more electricity from cleaner sources. Nuclear was just one of the many options Beijing was pursuing.
China was bullish on electricity demand and its plans for nuclear expansion. Back in 2009, officials and energy experts were predicting nuclear capacity would reach 70 GW by 2020 from just 9.1 GW, with a further 30 GW under construction by the end of this decade.
New approvals signal Beijing’s commitment to nuclear power. This year alone China is expected to add 13.95GW of new nuclear capacity, according to estimates on the World Nuclear Association’s website, almost doubling the country’s total capacity. Other estimates put capacity additions at a slower but still impressive 8.6GW this year. By 2020, China’s total capacity should reach 58GW, with that almost tripling by 2030 to 150GW.
China’s nuclear ambitions aren’t limited to its borders or state financing. Beijing is hoping to expand its influence in countries that did not abandon the energy source after Fukushima. It seems likely that Beijing is trying to capitalize on the absence of other major players in the last few years to promote its own technology. Beijing wants to export the CAP 1400, which stands for China Advanced Passive – a third generation technology based off Westinghouse’s AP 1000 reactors – to expand China’s presence in countries like Brazil, Russia and South Africa. And China’s state-owned nuclear companies are looking at opportunities in more developed markets as well. China General Nuclear Corporation and China National Nuclear Corporation are buying into the Hinkley Point nuclear power project in Somerset, England. Beijing is also looking to buy into uranium mines in other countries.
In the massive build-up planned for 2020 and beyond, two of China’s largest nuclear companies are looking to go public on the Hong Kong exchange. The move will open the companies up to further scrutiny, both at home and abroad; similar to the process China’s state-owned oil companies went through. But don’t expect an IPO to usher in greater transparency from Beijing – that will have to come from domestic pressure.
http://breakingenergy.com/2014/03/11/going-big-at-home-and-abroad-chinas-nuclear-ambitions/
Exelon warns state it may close 3 nukes
#msg-32756346 CHK DYN CPN PCG EXC KEP IVAN BCON CPST SNG AEP FPL PWE EPD EP
#msg-62517969 NRG,SO,SCG,DUK,PGN,AES,DPL,EXC
In recent weeks, Exelon privately has said its large Byron nuclear plant in northwest Illinois is at risk along with the Quad Cities station in western Illinois and the downstate Clinton plant, which already had been identified as hardship cases, according to sources who've heard the company pitches.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20140301/ISSUE01/303019987/exelon-warns-state-it-may-close-3-nukes#
UTILITY: AEP CPN CPST D EXC IVAN KEP PCG
TVA to close 8 coal-powered units in Ala. and Ky.
The Tennessee Valley Authority's board has voted to close six coal-powered units in Alabama and replace two others in Kentucky with a natural gas plant.
"This is a personal nightmare for me," said Peter Mahurin, a board member from Bowling Green, Ky. "But I must support what I believe to be in the best interest of TVA's customers."
Increasingly stringent environmental regulations and flat power demand have made it necessary to rethink how the nation's largest public utility generates power, CEO Bill Johnson said at the Thursday board meeting in Oxford, Miss.
In fiscal year 2013, coal accounted for 38 percent of TVA's portfolio while natural gas made up 8 percent. Johnson said he would like to see those numbers closer to 20 percent each over the next decade.
http://news.yahoo.com/tva-close-8-coal-powered-units-ala-ky-183741388--finance.html
USU...only 5 million share OS...
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=USU+Key+Statistics
How do Russia and the US measure up on SMRs?
Recent developments have focused attention on small modular reactor activity in the US. But Russia is pressing ahead with developments of its own.
As previously reported in Nuclear Energy Insider, the mPower America Team, made up of the Babcock & Wilcox Company, the Tennessee Valley Authority and Bechtel, is powering ahead with SMR commercialisation plans after winning US Department of Energy funding.
Meanwhile other American SMR developers, including Westinghouse, NuScale Power, Gen4 Energy and SMR LLC, are pressing forward with ambitious programmes of their own.
At stake, not only an important domestic market, but also the potential for exports to emerging nuclear customers in regions such as the Middle East and North Africa. But US manufacturers are not alone in the race to make SMRs a commercial reality.
Formidable competitor
Russia represents a formidable competitor, with a range of innovative SMR designs in the making. The KLT-40S, for example, is a 35MWe barge-mounted pressurised water reactor (PWR) already under construction.
Using a modified naval propulsion reactor design, the concept could be used for applications ranging from powering coastal towns to desalinating water.
A similar but larger design, also based on naval propulsion systems and for use on barges, is the VBER-300 PWR, delivering 300MWe.
Other SMRs under development include the VK-300, a 250MWe boiling water reactor; the ABV-6M, an 8.6MWe pressurised light water reactor; and the SVBR-100, which is a 101MWe lead-bismuth variant.
And last October the World Nuclear Association (WNA) reported on a USD$805m experimental lead-cooled nuclear reactor being built at the enticingly named Siberian Chemical Combine (SCC), in Tomsk.
“If successful, the small BREST-300 unit could be the first of a new wave of Russian fast reactors,” said the WNA.
“The BREST design is seen as a successor to the BN series and the 300MWe unit at the SCC could be the forerunner to a 1,200MWe version for wide deployment as a commercial power generation unit.”
Of all these variants, the KLT-40S is by far the most advanced, with some sources stating that up to seven barges could be deployed by 2015, in locations around the Arctic. The BREST concept, meanwhile, is expected to be designed by 2014 and built before 2020.
BREST, which stands for Bystry Reaktor so Svintsovym Teplonositelem or 'Fast Reactor with Lead Coolant', is seen as the front-running design for a new generation of SMRs that can be scaled up to around 1GW and deployed across the country in the 2030s, according to analysts.
It is clearly apparent the Russians are well aware of the potential market for SMRs. As World Nuclear Association analyst Jeremy Gordon puts it: “Reactors of that size are the missing link. Any other fuel you name, you can scale up all the way, but we don’t start until about 900MW.”
How do Russian designs measure up?
But how do the Russian designs measure up to those being developed in the US? One advantage of the American models is that they are based on tried-and-tested PWR technology, which makes them a safe bet for markets with previous nuclear experience.
Russian lead-cooled reactors such as the BREST design, meanwhile, involve new technology and hence represent more of a risk. “It’s that bit more racy,” says one insider.
On the other hand, buyers of Soviet reactors know the technology is backed by Russia’s entire nuclear industry, and not just a single vendor within it, which will be a powerful draw for would-be customers comfortable with the political implications of trading with Russia.
Regarding the US offering, John Goosen, vice president of Westinghouse Innovation and SMR Development, is keen to emphasise the quality aspects of ‘made in America’ products.
“While we will refrain from commenting on competitors’ designs, both foreign and US, we will say that US SMR designs will undergo the rigorous licensing process put in place by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” he says.
“Following an extensive safety review, agency approval of the designs will be formalised via a specific design certification rulemaking. This process allows the public to review and comment on the designs up front, before anyone builds a plant of this design.”
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approves designs for 15 years, he adds, and once a design certification application has been submitted the NRC takes up to around 60 months to complete the review and rulemaking. It all adds up to a pretty diligent process.
In addition, Goosen points out: “Our SMR programme is backed up by Westinghouse’s 50-plus years of nuclear design and operating plant experience, and more than 6,000 reactor years of safe, commercial operations as well as a 14,000-person nuclear workforce.
“We also have more than 15 years of advanced small reactor design experience.
“Our regulatory knowledge and expertise from this experience and previously with the certification process for three advanced light water reactor designs and a licensed fuel design offer a high degree of certainty for future licensing of the SMR design.”
In the coming years when SMRs are developed and approved by the relevant regulatory authorities in respective nations, such as the US and Russia, the rest of the nuclear industry will have their own set of priorities and choices when it comes to technology, price and regulatory vigour. Only then, will the market be able to determine who has the lead on SMR commercialisation, deployment and global market dominance.
http://analysis.nuclearenergyinsider.com/small-modular-reactors/how-do-russia-and-us-measure-smrs
Q: What does the winning of this award mean in practical terms?
A: Having the additional funding from DOE will allow the mPower America Team to remain on an aggressive schedule for potential deployment by 2022 by providing an opportunity for reimbursement of some of TVA’s costs, up to 50% cost share by DOE.
This enables us to move a little faster than we would without the cost share. The FOA will provide funds in the form of reimbursement of qualified costs for the development and licensing of the B&W mPower reactor.
Q: Will mPower America be expanding its personnel/operations, and if so, how?
A: Currently the mPower America team has hundreds of engineers, technicians and operators in the U.S. working on all aspects of the project. As we continue to work aggressively toward deployment, particularly once we enter the manufacturing and construction stage, we expect a significant number of jobs to be created across TVA, B&W and supplier facilities.
TVA also has added a small number of staff since selection in November. Knowing that the project has been reviewed and selected by DOE is an important step and signal to individuals making career decisions and TVA making investment decisions.
Q: What are the next steps in the process now that funding is in sight?
A: B&W and DOE are in the process of negotiating a Cooperative Agreement which will determine how much funding will be allocated to the mPower America Team. We anticipate this agreement will be signed in March 2013 and be in place for up to five years.
Q: How do you see the supply chain for SMRs developing in future?
A: Generation mPower is in the early stages of scoping out the supply chain for the mPower Plant. B&W will be providing the actual mPower reactor vessel/steam generator component, while other components will be supplied by strategic partners. Some noncritical components will be competitively bid.
Q: Will this be an all-American program or do you anticipate international collaboration?
A: We expect it to be predominantly American. B&W has an established North American supply chain for the current nuclear manufacturing operations and we expect that to continue and be somewhat expanded.
A: What is the time-frame for licensing SMRs at Clinch River and what will the reactors installed there be used for?
A: TVA anticipates submitting a license application to the NRC for up to four mPower SMRs at the Clinch River Site in the 2nd quarter of 2015. Depending upon the review time and given certain assumptions regarding long-lead procurements, site preparation and construction, it is possible that these initial SMR units will be operational in 2022.
Should TVA decide to deploy SMRs, these initial units should help TVA and the Department of Energy meet its clean energy goals and power requirements.
http://analysis.nuclearenergyinsider.com/small-modular-reactors/dan-stout-tva-technology-innovation
The Tennessee Valley Authority will pay Babcock & Wilcox, a nuclear equipment company, to complete extensive design work and apply for permission to build a new kind of nuclear plant, a “small modular reactor,” at a site in Oak Ridge, Tenn., the T.V.A. and the company announced on Wednesday.
The two entities did not disclose the value of the contract, which will be paid in part by the Energy Department under a program to encourage nuclear innovation. The announcement is a step forward in a program that advocates hope will develop a new class of nuclear plants that can be mostly built in a factory, shipped by rail or barge, deployed quickly, and sold around the world, especially in places where the power grid could not handle a big plant.
“This technology is very different,” said Joe Hoagland, a senior vice president of the T.V.A. “It has built-in safety features and security features, so you can site it at places you wouldn’t site a large reactor.”
Because the reactors are relatively small, the idea is that in an emergency they can be cooled with the natural circulation of water and heat, rather than by systems that require pumps and valves and that could be disabled by power failures or human errors. The goal for Babcock & Wilcox is a reactor that can be operated by a relatively small control room crew, perhaps two operators, and meet security requirements with fewer guards.
Christofer M. Mowry, president of Babcock & Wilcox mPower, said that existing big reactors relied on a “force on force concept,” with armed guards prepared to repel armed intruders, while the mPower concept was “force on concrete,” with a reactor that is under a concrete slab. “That’s a lot easier to defend,” he said.
The reactor is intended as a direct challenge to natural gas generators, and it is intended to share two characteristics that make gas attractive.
First, the builders say they can be built quickly and be added onto later, so there is less risk of building too much capacity or running short. Second, they are meant to do something that is difficult for existing nuclear plants but easy for gas: change power output rapidly.
Grid operators are increasingly challenged by having to integrate large amounts of power from wind farms and solar installations, which can experience surges or drops in output. Planners are looking for supply partners for those variable generators.
B&W will prepare an application to build four reactors, and the plan is to build two at the site once planned for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor. Licensing can be completed under existing Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules, according to Mr. Mowry, who spoke at a Platts Nuclear Energy conference in Washington.
He said his company wanted to have the first of two units in service at Oak Ridge by 2022, an aggressive schedule that he said was “eight years and change.”
The Energy Department could match costs up to 50 percent, depending in part on how much Congress allocates. Mr. Mowry, using a standard electric industry yardstick, said the intended cost was $5,000 per kilowatt of capacity, about $900 million a unit.
No one has built reactors of that size in the United States since the 1960s, but the concept of reviving small reactors has been around in one form or another for 20 years. Four giant reactors intended to be “passively safe” are under construction but few seem likely to follow soon. Two years after the Fukushima accident, in an era of low natural gas prices, the small reactor concept is the most popular one in the field.
The company has been lining up suppliers and completing design details. But small is a relative term — the vessel is 13 feet in diameter and 83 feet high. The idea is for a 180-megawatt reactor, which is about one-sixth the size of new conventional reactors, but about the size of some old coal units now being retired. Reactors would be built in pairs or perhaps larger numbers, adding units as demand grows.
Marc Chupka, an economist and consultant at the Brattle Group who specializes in electricity, said, “one of the impediments to new nuclear is the sheer scale of the financial commitment.” Building a small reactor is an attempt to sidestep that problem, but “it’s still going to boil down to money and the relative cost of these things,” which is unknown at present since no one has built one yet.
A variety of companies have done design work on such reactors. B&W appears to be in the lead at the moment because it has the Energy Department and the T.V.A. in its camp.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/business/tva-and-babcock-wilcox-in-nuclear-reactor-deal.html?_r=0
Seoul hints at possible failure of bid for Turkey's nuclear reactor project
South Korea may have failed to grab Turkey's nuclear power plant project, which could instead go to China or Japan, a government official said Friday.
The official from the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy said the country was still waiting for an official report from Ankara, but noted the country's bid may have already proven unsuccessful.
"From what we have heard directly (from Turkey) and from remarks of Turkey's energy minister in recent interviews, it appears Turkey is now considering bids from China and Japan," the official said, asking not to be identified.
"The Turkish government has agreed to notify us as well once it signs an agreement with any specific country. We are still waiting to hear from them," the official said.
The deal, if awarded to South Korea, will mark the second overseas order for South Korean reactors following its 2009 deal with the United Arab Emirates.
Turkey had long demanded Seoul to finance the construction of its new reactors and recover the cost from selling electricity from the reactors.
Seoul has been reluctant to do so while the Chinese and Japanese bidders are said to have agreed to such terms.
"We have to make sure the project will be in our national interest and that is why we have to also consider if winning the project could actually lead to our loss," a ministry official said, also speaking on the condition of anonymity.
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/business/2013/04/05/24/0501000000AEN20130405004800320F.HTML
Chicago Bridge & Iron to Buy Shaw Group for $3 Billion
The engineering company Chicago Bridge & Iron agreed on Monday to buy a rival, the Shaw Group, for $3 billion.
Under the terms of the acquisition, Chicago Bridge & Iron is offering $46 a share in cash and stock for Shaw, which specializes in power generation and government services sectors. The deal represents a 72 percent premium on Shaw’s closing price on Friday.
Chicago Bridge & Iron, based near Houston, said the acquisition would expand its engineering operations in the energy sector, as global demand for fossil fuels continues at pace.
“This is a highly compelling transaction that will create significant value for our shareholders,” Philip K. Asherman, Chicago Bridge & Iron’s chief executive, said in a statement. “By adding them into the CB&I family, we will become fully diversified across the entire energy sector.”
The company said it would finance the acquisition of Shaw through existing cash reserves and debt financing provided by Bank of America and Credit Agricole.
The deal is expected to close during the first quarter of 2013.
Bank of America Merrill Lynch and the law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz advised Chicago Bridge & Iron, while Morgan Stanley and the law firms Vinson & Elkins and Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrère & Denègre advised Shaw.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/chicago-bridge-iron-to-buy-shaw-group-for-3-billion/?ref=shawgroupinc
Ameren, Westinghouse to pursue nuclear funds
Westinghouse Electric Co. and Ameren Missouri confirmed on Monday that they will pursue up to $226 million federal funding for a small-scale nuclear reactor in central Missouri.
The companies sought a similar grant last year. But the U.S. Department of Energy instead chose to fund a consortium led by Babcock & Wilcox, a company known for making nuclear reactors for ships and submarines.
The Energy Department last month requested additional proposals for small modular reactors that could begin producing electricity by 2025. Any funding award requires a dollar-for-dollar match from recipients.
Westinghouse on Monday said it sent a letter of intent to the Energy Department. Applications are due July 1, and the government expects to select a single grant recipient in September.
At least one other company,
NuScale Power, based in Portland, Ore., and majority-owned by engineering and contracting giant Fluor Corp., has also signaled intent to compete for the funds.
Warren Wood, Ameren Missouri’s vice president of regulatory and legislative affairs, said the Westinghouse-Ameren application was runner-up during the initial round of funding and should compete well again this time.
“The Westinghouse SMR design, we think, is the most advanced and the most likely to be license-able in a short period of time,” he said.
The 225-megawatt Westinghouse small modular reactor is based on the company’s full-size AP1000 reactor that has already been certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and is being built in the United States and China.
Ameren and Westinghouse plan to pursue design certification of the smaller reactor and then seek a combined construction and operating license for a plant that would be located next to the utility’s Callaway Energy Center.
St. Louis-based Ameren said there’s no guarantee it will build a second reactor at Callaway, even with federal help. But the small reactors are seen as an option to replace aging coal-fired plants.
The smaller reactors, generally less than a third the size of today’s plants, have been touted by President Barack Obama and the nuclear industry as sources of around-the-clock power that would be easier for utilities to finance and deploy and safer to operate.
Because the plants would be built in modules at a central factory and shipped worldwide, they’re seen as a potential new source of manufacturing jobs — a lure that has drawn support from Missouri politicians.
But opponents of nuclear power question whether promised benefits can be achieved, especially because none of the smaller reactors have been built yet and there’s no guarantee they’ll be economically competitive against relatively inexpensive natural gas.
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ameren-westinghouse-to-pursue-nuclear-funds/article_ee6c9f34-3f65-5288-8e5d-a80acd05050f.html
China Wants Nuclear Reactors, and Lots of Them
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-02-21/china-wants-nuclear-reactors-and-lots-of-them
This should work out well... Russian agreements ending, Japan "healing", PKN closing... Uranium set to revalue much higher...
Exelon Open to Closing Oyster Creek Reactor Pre-2019
Exelon Corp. (EXC), the largest U.S. nuclear plant operator, would consider closing its Oyster Creek station before the plant’s planned 2019 decommissioning, Chief Executive Officer Christopher Crane said.
Exelon would accelerate plans to close Oyster Creek in Forked River, New Jersey, if it faced unexpected new capital costs at a time when depressed power prices and cheap renewable energy are squeezing nuclear generation margins, Crane said in an interview yesterday.
Exelon already has deferred plans to boost capacity at its LaSalle nuclear station in northern Illinois and Limerick plant in Pennsylvania, saving $1.2 billion in the near-term, the chief executive said.
The Chicago-based company also plans to refuel its Clinton nuclear plant annually instead of every two years in a bid to boost profitability at the hardest-hit plant in Exelon’s 17- reactor system, he said.
“That’s a core expense to the company, but hopefully we can keep the plant open longer as we navigate through this issue,” Crane said.
Exelon hasn’t yet considered decommissioning the 1,043- megawatt Clinton, Illinois, station, which is among the youngest in its portfolio, he said. The plant’s economics have been hurt by a glut of cheap wind energy in Illinois.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-14/exelon-open-to-closing-oyster-creek-reactor-pre-2019.html
Exelon's Oyster Creek nuclear plant in New Jersey will undergo a special post-hurricane safety inspection from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Superstorm Sandy prompted Exelon to declare an alert when water rose to six feet above mean sea level at the facility. The NRC said there were no safety impacts on the plant. "This special inspection will focus on those areas to gain a better understanding of how the water level information was monitored and communicated during the event," said Bill Dean, NRC Region I administrator.
http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/ElectricPower/8911161
Toshiba to Buy Shaw's Westinghouse Stake for $1.6 Billion
Toshiba Corp. (6502.TO) said Wednesday it will buy out Shaw Group Inc.'s (SHAW) 20% stake in nuclear power-plant company Westinghouse Electric Co. for about Y125 billion ($1.6 billion).
In a statement, Toshiba said it will tap into cash in hand and loans to buy Shaw's entire stake in Westinghouse, adding that it will consider finding a new investment partner in Westinghouse while maintaining its majority stake. Toshiba said several potential partners have expressed interest in acquiring a Westinghouse stake.
In October 2006, Toshiba paid about $4.2 billion for 77% of Westinghouse. Shaw agreed to buy one-fifth of Westinghouse, issuing $1.08 billion of bonds in a private placement to do so.
Shaw was one of four minority partners originally recruited to join the 2006 deal, and was supposed to take a 5% stake, while Toshiba took 51%. After two of the investors backed out of the deal, Toshiba and Shaw increased their stakes. As part of its agreement, Shaw had the option to sell all or part of its 20% stake to Toshiba before the maturity of the bonds in January 2013.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/10/09/toshiba-to-buy-shaw-westinghouse-stake-for-16-billion/
US industry skeptical of Japan's call to phase out nukes
The Nuclear Energy Institute believes there is reason to be skeptical that Japan will carry out plans to phase out nuclear power by the 2030s.
"Today's intentions may not be tomorrow's realities," Nuclear Energy Institute spokesman Steve Kerekes said Sept. 14. Earlier that day, a panel convened by Japan's Cabinet, the country's executive branch, called for phasing out nuclear power by sometime in the 2030s, The Associated Press reported. According to the World Nuclear Association, before the meltdown at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant, nuclear energy accounted for about 30% of Japan's total electricity production.
But Kerekes said other countries have announced plans to get rid of their nuclear reactors and then failed to follow through. "Sweden, back in 1980, indicated they'd have reactors offline by 2010," he said. The World Nuclear Association reports that Sweden still gets about 40% of its electricity from 10 operating reactors. The country's Parliament voted to repeal the planned phase-out in June 2010.
One obvious difference between Sweden and Japan is that the Scandinavian country has not experienced a problem with a nuclear plant nearly as severe as the Fukushima disaster. The tragedy of that experience has strongly turned the Japanese people off nuclear energy. And, according to the head of a U.S. antinuclear group, the Japanese government's plans are actually conservative.
"When you have the public solidly against a nuclear program, it just becomes too difficult politically to try to keep something like this going," Nuclear Information and Resource Service Executive Director Michael Mariotte said Sept. 14. "The government bowed to some pressure from some of the nuclear interests. In reality, the timeline [for phase-out] is going to be a lot shorter."
Japan is not the first nation to react to Fukushima by promising to get rid of nuclear power. Germany and Switzerland have both said in the past year they aim to phase out their plants. "You have major industrial economies that are now over the next decade going to be leading the way in clean energy," Mariotte said. "America is going to be falling behind."
The U.S. response to Fukushima has been much less drastic than these other countries, with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission declaring not long after the incident that it believed the country's plants are fundamentally safe. A series of new regulations based on "lessons learned" from what happened in Japan has been proposed, but it does not include some of the costliest measures recommended by some observers, such as a speedier movement of spent nuclear fuel to dry casks.
During the summer, nuclear plants across the country began a series of "walkdowns," or in-depth inspections, to begin assessing how the plants could hold up during a severe earthquake or flood, one of the main new recommendations from regulators. The industry also is spending about $600,000 to $1 million per plant on new emergency equipment.
http://www.snl.com/Interactivex/article.aspx?CdId=A-15822530-12596
Obama's Choice to Lead Nuclear Agency Delights Senate Democratic Leader
In a bow to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., the White House said on Thursday that President Obama plans to nominate Allison Macfarlane, an associate professor of environmental science and policy at George Mason University, to head the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The announcement came just three days after Gregory Jaczko, a former aide to Reid, revealed that he would step down as NRC chairman as soon as a replacement is named by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Jaczko has been at the center of a growing controversy since late last year when the other four NRC commissioners challenged his management style.
Macfarlane is a well-known critic of the now-defunct nuclear-waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada that Reid fought vigorously to shut down after more than a decade of studies and construction. She also served on the Obama administration’s blue-ribbon panel that issued a report in January on finding solutions for storing the nation’s spent nuclear fuel.
Reid, who unsuccessfully tried to get Macfarlane a seat on the NRC in 2007, immediately issued a statement of support for her nomination as Jaczko’s successor.
“I am confident that like her predecessor, Dr. Allison Macfarlane will make preserving the safety and security of American citizens her top priority as chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” Reid said. “Dr. Macfarlane’s education and experience, in particular her service on the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, make her eminently qualified to lead the NRC for the foreseeable future. The nuclear industry has a perfect opportunity to demonstrate a commitment to safety by supporting Dr. Macfarlane’s nomination.”
Democrats are relieved by the speedy appointment, especially after Jaczko suggested on Wednesday that he would be willing to remain on the NRC until his current term expires on June 30, 2013.
“I am thankful that the president moved quickly to nominate a new Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairman to replace Chairman Jaczko,” said Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del. “As only the second woman to ever be nominated as chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Dr. Allison Macfarlane's expertise, experience, and past leadership on nuclear issues should make her a good candidate for this important position.”
While Reid and other Democrats may be happy about the choice, Macfarlane may face a tough battle for a Senate confirmation, given her critical work on Yucca Mountain, including a book raising questions about the facility’s safety.
“I think there's a lot to be said for … Macfarlane, but it would be a nightmare confirmation battle," said James Acton, a senior associate in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Still, the Senate is currently weighing the renomination of another woman already on the commission, Republican Kristine Svinicki, who has ignited a political fight in the upper chamber. Reid and Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., have openly criticized Svinicki, raising concerns among Republicans about her future at the agency.
Boxer has held off on announcing a hearing for Svinicki’s nomination, but some senators—including Reid—say they could expect a one-two punch with the two nominees. Boxer confirmed on Thursday that will be the case. "I plan to have a hearing on both of them," she told National Journal.
“I believe the best interests of the public would be served by moving the nominations of Dr. Macfarlane and Ms. Svinicki together before Ms. Svinicki’s term expires at the end of June, to ensure that we have a fully functioning NRC,” Reid said in his statement.
“My hope and what I will be pushing for is quick action. Kristine Svinicki, her term is up end of the end of June,” Senate Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, told National Journal earlier on Thursday. “I’m hopeful that we can use this as an opportunity to do what we do around here, which is pairing.
“Let’s get Svinicki in and let’s get whoever this individual may be,” Murkowski added, “let's get them moving through the process, in their hearings, and have the commission at full capacity.”
Still, some Republicans said they would not support Reid’s floor plan to nominate both Macfarlane as NRC chairwoman and Svnicki to another term as commissioner at the same time.
“I think that might be an unfair bargain,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told reporters shortly after the White House announced the nomination. “But I’m not surprised Senator Reid suggested it.”
When asked if the plan could attract GOP support, McCain laughed and said, “Not right away.”
Some senators also seemed generally unaware of who Macfarlane is at all. Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Bernie Sanders, ID-Vt., both didn’t know who she was when asked about her.
Asked about Reid’s plan to bring the nominations to the floor simultaneously, Feinstein replied: “If the leader wants to do that, it’ll get done. It might be a good pairing. I don’t know because I don’t know this person.”
The nuclear industry on Thursday also indicated its support for a joint confirmation.
“We urge the Senate to confirm both Commissioner Svinicki and professor Macfarlane expeditiously,” said Marvin Fertel, president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s main lobbying arm.
Macfarlane, who earned a doctorate in geology from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1992, has held fellowships at the Bunting Institute at Radcliffe College, the Center for International Security and Arms Control at Stanford University, and the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University. She also was an associate professor of international affairs and earth and atmospheric science at Georgia Tech University.
Macfarlane joined the faculty at George Mason in 2006, the same year that MIT Press published her book, Uncertainty Underground: Yucca Mountain and the Nation’s High-Level Nuclear Waste, raising questions about the safety of storing high-level nuclear waste in the planned repository. Obama pulled the plug on the facility in his first year in office.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/obama-s-choice-to-lead-nuclear-agency-delights-senate-democratic-leader-20120524
Rank. Reactor, nearby city, state: Chance each year of core damage from an earthquake, showing NRC estimates based on 2008 USGS data. Old estimate from 1989 data. Change in risk.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1. Indian Point 3, Buchanan, N.Y.: 1 in 10,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 17,241. Change in risk: 72 percent.
2. Pilgrim 1, Plymouth, Mass.: 1 in 14,493 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 125,000. Change in risk: 763 percent.
3. Limerick 1, Limerick, Pa.: 1 in 18,868 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Change in risk: 141 percent.
3. Limerick 2, Limerick, Pa.: 1 in 18,868 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Change in risk: 141 percent.
5. Sequoyah 1, Soddy-Daisy, Tenn.: 1 in 19,608 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 102,041. Change in risk: 420 percent.
5. Sequoyah 2, Soddy-Daisy, Tenn.: 1 in 19,608 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 102,041. Change in risk: 420 percent.
7. Beaver Valley 1, Shippingport, Pa.: 1 in 20,833 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 76,923. Change in risk: 269 percent.
8. Saint Lucie 1, Jensen Beach, Fla.: 1 in 21,739 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
8. Saint Lucie 2, Jensen Beach, Fla.: 1 in 21,739 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
10. North Anna 1, Louisa, Va.: 1 in 22,727 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 31,250. Change in risk: 38 percent.
10. North Anna 2, Louisa, Va.: 1 in 22,727 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 31,250. Change in risk: 38 percent.
12. Oconee 1, Seneca, S.C.: 1 in 23,256 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 100,000. Change in risk: 330 percent.
12. Oconee 2, Seneca, S.C.: 1 in 23,256 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 100,000. Change in risk: 330 percent.
12. Oconee 3, Seneca, S.C.: 1 in 23,256 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 100,000. Change in risk: 330 percent.
15. Diablo Canyon 1, Avila Beach, Calif.: 1 in 23,810 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
15. Diablo Canyon 2, Avila Beach, Calif.: 1 in 23,810 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
17. Three Mile Island 1, Middletown, Pa.: 1 in 25,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Change in risk: 82 percent.
18. Palo Verde 1, Wintersburg, Ariz.: 1 in 26,316 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
18. Palo Verde 2, Wintersburg, Ariz.: 1 in 26,316 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
18. Palo Verde 3, Wintersburg, Ariz.: 1 in 26,316 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
18. Summer, Jenkensville, S.C.: 1 in 26,316 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 138,889. Change in risk: 428 percent.
22. Catawba 1, York, S.C.: 1 in 27,027 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 33,333. Change in risk: 23 percent.
22. Catawba 2, York, S.C.: 1 in 27,027 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 33,333. Change in risk: 23 percent.
24. Watts Bar 1, Spring City, Tenn.: 1 in 27,778 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 178,571. Change in risk: 543 percent.
25. Indian Point 2, Buchanan, N.Y.: 1 in 30,303 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 71,429. Change in risk: 136 percent.
26. Duane Arnold, Palo, Iowa: 1 in 31,250 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
27. McGuire 1, Huntersville, N.C.: 1 in 32,258 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 35,714. Change in risk: 11 percent.
27. McGuire 2, Huntersville, N.C.: 1 in 32,258 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 35,714. Change in risk: 11 percent.
29. Farley 1, Columbia, Ala.: 1 in 35,714 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 263,158. Change in risk: 637 percent.
29. Farley 2, Columbia, Ala.: 1 in 35,714 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 263,158. Change in risk: 637 percent.
31. Quad Cities 1, Cordova, Ill.: 1 in 37,037 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 71,429. Change in risk: 93 percent.
31. Quad Cities 2, Cordova, Ill.: 1 in 37,037 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 71,429. Change in risk: 93 percent.
33. River Bend 1, St. Francisville, La.: 1 in 40,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 370,370. Change in risk: 826 percent.
34. Peach Bottom 2, Delta, Pa.: 1 in 41,667 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 120,482. Change in risk: 189 percent.
34. Peach Bottom 3, Delta, Pa.: 1 in 41,667 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 120,482. Change in risk: 189 percent.
36. Crystal River 3, Crystal River, Fla.: 1 in 45,455 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 192,308. Change in risk: 323 percent.
36. Seabrook 1, Seabrook, N.H.: 1 in 45,455 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 114,943. Change in risk: 153 percent.
36. Beaver Valley 2, Shippingport, Pa.: 1 in 45,455 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 188,679. Change in risk: 315 percent.
39. Perry 1, Perry, Ohio: 1 in 47,619 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,176,471. Change in risk: 2371 percent.
39. Columbia 1, Richland, Wash.: 1 in 47,619 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
41. Waterford 3, Killona, La.: 1 in 50,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 833,333. Change in risk: 1567 percent.
42. Dresden 2, Morris, Ill.: 1 in 52,632 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 434,783. Change in risk: 726 percent.
42. Dresden 3, Morris, Ill.: 1 in 52,632 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 434,783. Change in risk: 726 percent.
42. Monticello, Monticello, Minn.: 1 in 52,632 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 38,462. Change in risk: -27 percent.
45. Wolf Creek 1, Burlington, Kansas: 1 in 55,556 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 400,000. Change in risk: 620 percent.
46. San Onofre 2, San Clemente, Calif.: 1 in 58,824 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
46. San Onofre 3, San Clemente, Calif.: 1 in 58,824 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
48. Millstone 3, Waterford, Conn.: 1 in 66,667 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 100,000. Change in risk: 50 percent.
48. Brunswick 1, Southport, N.C.: 1 in 66,667 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 263,158. Change in risk: 295 percent.
48. Brunswick 2, Southport, N.C.: 1 in 66,667 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 263,158. Change in risk: 295 percent.
48. Robinson 2, Hartsville, S.C.: 1 in 66,667 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 370,370. Change in risk: 456 percent.
52. Oyster Creek, Forked River, N.J.: 1 in 71,429 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 126,582. Change in risk: 77 percent.
53. Fort Calhoun, Fort Calhoun, Neb.: 1 in 76,923 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
53. Ginna, Ontario, N.Y.: 1 in 76,923 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 238,095. Change in risk: 210 percent.
53. Susquehanna 1, Salem Township, Pa.: 1 in 76,923 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 416,667. Change in risk: 442 percent.
53. Susquehanna 2, Salem Township, Pa.: 1 in 76,923 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 416,667. Change in risk: 442 percent.
57. Calvert Cliffs 2, Lusby, Md.: 1 in 83,333 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 116,279. Change in risk: 40 percent.
57. D.C. Cook 1, Bridgman, Mich.: 1 in 83,333 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
57. D.C. Cook 2, Bridgman, Mich.: 1 in 83,333 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
57. Grand Gulf 1, Port Gibson, Miss.: 1 in 83,333 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 106,383. Change in risk: 28 percent.
57. Kewaunee, Kewaunee, Wis.: 1 in 83,333 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 71,429. Change in risk: -14 percent.
62. Millstone 2, Waterford, Conn.: 1 in 90,909 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 156,250. Change in risk: 72 percent.
62. Salem 1, Hancocks Bridge, N.J.: 1 in 90,909 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 172,414. Change in risk: 90 percent.
62. Salem 2, Hancocks Bridge, N.J.: 1 in 90,909 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 172,414. Change in risk: 90 percent.
62. Point Beach 1, Two Rivers, Wis.: 1 in 90,909 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 76,923. Change in risk: -15 percent.
62. Point Beach 2, Two Rivers, Wis.: 1 in 90,909 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 76,923. Change in risk: -15 percent.
67. Turkey Point 3, Homestead, Fla.: 1 in 100,000 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
67. Turkey Point 4, Homestead, Fla.: 1 in 100,000 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
67. Calvert Cliffs 1, Lusby, Md.: 1 in 100,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 142,857. Change in risk: 43 percent.
70. Vermont Yankee, Vernon, Vt.: 1 in 123,457 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 434,783. Change in risk: 252 percent.
71. Braidwood 1, Braceville, Ill.: 1 in 136,986 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,785,714. Change in risk: 1204 percent.
71. Braidwood 2, Braceville, Ill.: 1 in 136,986 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,785,714. Change in risk: 1204 percent.
73. Vogtle 1, Waynesboro, Ga.: 1 in 140,845 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 384,615. Change in risk: 173 percent.
73. Vogtle 2, Waynesboro, Ga.: 1 in 140,845 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 384,615. Change in risk: 173 percent.
75. Cooper, Brownville, Neb.: 1 in 142,857 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
76. Davis-Besse, Oak Harbor, Ohio: 1 in 149,254 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 625,000. Change in risk: 319 percent.
77. Palisades, Covert, Mich.: 1 in 156,250 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
78. South Texas 1, Bay City, Texas: 1 in 158,730 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,298,701. Change in risk: 718 percent.
78. South Texas 2, Bay City, Texas: 1 in 158,730 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,298,701. Change in risk: 718 percent.
80. FitzPatrick, Scriba, N.Y.: 1 in 163,934 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 833,333. Change in risk: 408 percent.
81. Byron 1, Byron, Ill.: 1 in 172,414 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,470,588. Change in risk: 753 percent.
81. Byron 2, Byron, Ill.: 1 in 172,414 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,470,588. Change in risk: 753 percent.
83. Surry 1, Surry, Va.: 1 in 175,439 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 123,457. Change in risk: -30 percent.
83. Surry 2, Surry, Va.: 1 in 175,439 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 123,457. Change in risk: -30 percent.
85. Nine Mile Point 2, Scriba, N.Y.: 1 in 178,571 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,000,000. Change in risk: 460 percent.
86. Browns Ferry 2, Athens, Ala.: 1 in 185,185 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 625,000. Change in risk: 238 percent.
86. Browns Ferry 3, Athens, Ala.: 1 in 185,185 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 625,000. Change in risk: 238 percent.
88. Nine Mile Point 1, Scriba, N.Y.: 1 in 238,095 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,724,138. Change in risk: 624 percent.
88. Fermi 2, Monroe, Mich.: 1 in 238,095 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 625,000. Change in risk: 163 percent.
90. Arkansas Nuclear 1, London, Ark.: 1 in 243,902 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,063,830. Change in risk: 336 percent.
90. Arkansas Nuclear 2, London, Ark.: 1 in 243,902 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,063,830. Change in risk: 336 percent.
92. Comanche Peak 1, Glen Rose, Texas: 1 in 250,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 833,333. Change in risk: 233 percent.
92. Comanche Peak 2, Glen Rose, Texas: 1 in 250,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 833,333. Change in risk: 233 percent.
94. Browns Ferry 1, Athens, Ala.: 1 in 270,270 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,000,000. Change in risk: 270 percent.
95. Prairie Island 1, Welch, Minn.: 1 in 333,333 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 714,286. Change in risk: 114 percent.
95. Prairie Island 2, Welch, Minn.: 1 in 333,333 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 714,286. Change in risk: 114 percent.
97. La Salle 1, Marseilles, Ill.: 1 in 357,143 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,851,852. Change in risk: 419 percent.
97. La Salle 2, Marseilles, Ill.: 1 in 357,143 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,851,852. Change in risk: 419 percent.
97. Hope Creek 1, Hancocks Bridge, N.J.: 1 in 357,143 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 909,091. Change in risk: 155 percent.
100. Clinton, Clinton, Ill.: 1 in 400,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 370,370. Change in risk: -7 percent.
101. Shearon Harris 1, New Hill, N.C.: 1 in 434,783 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 277,778. Change in risk: -36 percent.
102. Hatch 1, Baxley, Ga.: 1 in 454,545 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,351,351. Change in risk: 197 percent.
102. Hatch 2, Baxley, Ga.: 1 in 454,545 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,351,351. Change in risk: 197 percent.
104. Callaway, Fulton, Mo.: 1 in 500,000 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42103936/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/t/what-are-odds-us-nuke-plants-ranked-quake-risk
Nuclear agency chief Jaczko to step down
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chairman Gregory Jaczko announced his resignation on Monday after three tumultuous years as head of the agency.
Jaczko oversaw the approval of the first new nuclear power reactors in decades but faced intense criticism over his management style.
The White House said President Obama plans to nominate a new chairman soon, and that Jaczko plans to continue leading the agency until his successor is named.
The resignation sets up what could be a tough election-year fight over the next NRC chief at a time when the agency’s politics have been in the limelight.
A physicist and former staffer for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Jaczko, a Democrat, clashed with his colleagues on the commission and became a top target of Republicans in Congress.
The four other NRC commissioners, two Democrats and two Republicans, wrote a letter to the White House last year alleging that Jaczko was causing “serious damage” to the agency that could harm the body’s ability to protect health and safety.
The letter was released publicly shortly after an NRC inspector general report exposed major tensions within the agency. The report quoted anonymous NRC staffers who alleged that Jaczko created a tense atmosphere at the agency and, in some instances, berated employees.
The NRC’s inspector general is set to soon release a second report examining the allegations against Jaczko. A spokesman for the NRC said the chairman’s resignation had nothing to do with the pending report.
Jaczko has been a divisive figure in Washington. Democrats have praised his tenure, casting him as a strong proponent of nuclear safety who refuses to bend to the will of industry. Republicans, furious over the administration’s decision to abandon the long-delayed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste depository, have pounced on criticism of Jaczko’s leadership.
Earlier this year, the NRC green-lighted the construction and operation of the first new U.S. nuclear reactors in decades, a major victory for the nuclear power industry, which has struggled to secure regulatory approvals since the 1979 Three Mile Island disaster.
But Jaczko, breaking with the NRC’s other commissioners, opposed the license approvals, arguing that the plant operators should commit to implementing the regulatory reforms imposed in the aftermath of the disaster at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi power plant.
Jaczko helmed the agency in the months after the March 2011 disaster, an event that caused U.S. regulators to rethink existing safety regulations. The chairman outlined an aggressive five-year timeline for implementing a slew of new nuclear safety regulations recommended by a federal task force formed by Obama.
Jaczko’s resignation comes amid a partisan battle over the re-nomination of Commissioner Kristine Svinicki, a Republican, to a second term at the agency. Obama officially re-nominated Svinicki earlier this month.
While Republicans strongly support the nomination, Democrats, including Reid and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), have criticized Svinicki.
Jaczko and Svinicki have clashed publicly in recent years. She joined her colleagues in raising concerns about Jaczko’s management style to the White House, and initially voiced skepticism about Jaczko’s timeline for implementing new post-Fukushima safety rules.
Svinicki has also alleged that Jaczko berated female employees at the agency, claims that were initially revealed in last year’s inspector general report.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) accused Jaczko of creating a “hostile work environment for women” at the NRC in a statement Monday, and urged the Senate to quickly reconfirm Svinicki as a commissioner.
Jaczko has stood behind his record at the commission and strongly denied allegations that he targeted women at the agency.
“After an incredibly productive three years as chairman, I have decided this is the appropriate time to continue my efforts to ensure public safety in a different forum,” Jaczko said in a statement Monday. “This is the right time to pass along the public-safety torch to a new chairman who will keep a strong focus on carrying out the vital mission of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.”
The White House praised Jaczko’s “service and efforts to further the mission of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission — to license and regulate the nation’s use of nuclear materials.”
“A strong and effective NRC is crucial to protecting public health and safety, promoting defense and security, and protecting the environment, and we intend to nominate a new chairman soon,” White House spokesman Clark Stevens said in a statement.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a critic of Jaczko, cheered his decision to step aside.
“With his resignation today, the NRC can focus on its mission of safety without the distractions of Jaczko's inappropriate behavior,” said Inhofe, the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
But Reid praised the work of the outgoing NRC chief.
“He dedicated his tenure to improving the safety of nuclear energy, and his leadership during the Fukushima nuclear crisis protected millions of Americans. His work toward a safe and effective nuclear energy policy has left Nevada and the nation more secure,” he said in a statement.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/228555-embattled-nuclear-regulatory-commission-chairman-jaczko-resigns
U.S. plans funding for small reactors
The White House announced plans to share the cost with the private sector to develop and license small modular nuclear reactors.
The Obama administration said it was offering $450 million in a cost-sharing plan meant to support engineering, design, certification and licensing for small modular reactors.
U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the funding would help strengthen his country's competitive edge in the clean energy sector.
"Through the funding for small modular nuclear reactors announced today, the Energy Department and private industry are working to position America as the leader in advanced nuclear energy technology and manufacturing," he said in a statement.
Small modular reactors are about 30 percent the size of conventional nuclear plants and Chu's department said they're expected to offer "a host" of safety benefits.
SMRs under the proposal would be 50 percent funded by the private sector. The budget for the program is subject to congressional appropriations.
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2012/03/23/US-plans-funding-for-small-reactors/UPI-85531332499155/
Maryland regulators approve Exelon’s $7.9 billion takeover of Constellation Energy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/maryland-regulators-approve-exelons-79-billion-takeover-of-constellation-energy/2012/02/17/gIQABARDKR_story.html
Maryland regulators approved Exelon Corp.’s proposed $7.9 billion takeover of Constellation Energy Group on Friday, saying they had determined the deal would be in the public interest if the companies stick to commitments including renewable energy construction, customer credits and assistance to low-income residents.
The decision follows months of wrangling between state officials and executives for the companies. Gov. Martin O’Malley initially opposed the merger and relented after the Constellation and Exelon increased commitments that also include construction of a new headquarters in downtown Baltimore. However, the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel, which represents utility customers, continued to oppose the takeover, saying the companies have not demonstrated the takeover will not harm customers of Baltimore Gas and Electric, a Constellation subsidiary regulated by the commission.
NRC approves Constellation-Exelon deal
Exelon Corp.'s proposed takeover of Constellation Energy Group Inc. crossed another hurdle Thursday when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the $7.9 billion deal.
Constellation's nuclear division, the Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, is licensed to operate five reactors and two spent fuel installations. The staffs at the plants, including management, will remain essentially unchanged when Exelon takes over, the NRC said. The agency also said public health and safety would not be adversely affected.
Constellation's nuclear division operates two reactors at Calvert Cliffs in southern Maryland, two at the Nine Mile Point plant in New York and one at the R.E. Ginna plant, also in New York. The NRC said its staff determined that Exelon, which already operates its own fleet of nuclear power plants, meets the agency's financial and technical requirements.
Maryland regulators are expected to announce on Friday whether they have approved the deal, which also must be approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The deal has already been approved by the Justice Department, shareholders of both companies, and New York and Texas regulators. Regulatory approval was needed in Texas because both companies own plants in the state, and Constellation markets power and gas there.
If the deal goes through, Exelon would indirectly own 50.01 percent of CENG, which is jointly owned by Constellation Energy Group and EDF, Inc., a subsidiary of Electricité de France SA. EDF had initially opposed the deal, but dropped its opposition in January, saying it had reached agreement with Exelon over the independence of CENG.
Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley's administration had also opposed the deal initially, saying it was not in the public's interest, but O'Malley relented after the companies increased commitments to renewable energy and assistance to low-income residents.
However, Maryland's consumer advocate said in a filing earlier this month that it still opposed to the merger despite that settlement. The Maryland Office of People's Counsel said in a filing with the Maryland Public Service Commission that the two companies have not demonstrated the merger will not harm customers of Baltimore Gas and Electric, a Constellation subsidiary that is regulated by the commission.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/46416589
Iran announces nuclear advances but offers new talks
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-irantre81e0rf-20120215,0,4847276.story
Iran proclaimed advances in nuclear know-how, including new centrifuges able to enrich uranium much faster, a move that may heighten its confrontation with the West over suspicions it is seeking the means to make atomic bombs.
Tehran's determination to pursue a nuclear program showed no sign of wavering despite Western sanctions that are inflicting increasing damage on its oil-based economy.
"The era of bullying nations has passed. The arrogant powers cannot monopolize nuclear technology. They tried to prevent us by issuing sanctions and resolutions but failed," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a television broadcast on Wednesday.
"Our nuclear path will continue."
But Iran's Arabic-language Al Alam television said the government had handed a letter to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton expressing readiness to "hold new talks over its nuclear program in a constructive way."
An Ashton spokeswoman confirmed receipt of the letter, saying she was evaluating it and would consult the United States, Russia, China and other partners among the big powers.
Iran has long refused to negotiate curbs on its nuclear program, saying it is intended purely for civilian uses, including producing electricity for booming domestic demand.
The United States and Israel have not ruled out military action against Iran if diplomacy and sanctions fail.
Washington played down Iran's announcement, saying the advances were neither new nor very impressive. "We frankly don't see a lot new here. This is not big news. In fact it seems to have been hyped," a State Department spokeswoman said.
IRAN DENIES BANNING OIL EXPORTS TO EU
Iran's Oil Ministry denied a state media report that it had cut off oil exports to six EU states. "We deny this report ... If such a decision is made, it will be announced by Iran's Supreme National Security Council," a ministry spokesman said.
Iran's English language Press TV had said Tehran had halted oil deliveries to France, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Netherlands and Spain -- its biggest EU customers -- in retaliation for an EU ban on Iranian crude due to take effect in July.
The Islamic Republic is the world's No. 5 oil exporter, with 2.6 million barrels going abroad daily, about a fifth of it to EU countries.
Western sanctions are spreading to block Iran's oil exports and central bank financing of trade, and Tehran has resorted to barter to import staples like rice, cooking oil and tea, commodities traders say.
The Obama administration is putting pressure on the European Union and SWIFT, the global organization that facilitates most of the world's cross-border payments, to expel Iranian banks from its network, a new step in the push to deprive Iran of funds, a U.S. official said on Wednesday.
Expelling Iranian banks from the Belgium-based Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication would cut off one of Iran's few remaining avenues to do business abroad.
European banking regulators may meet SWIFT's board on Thursday to discuss the issue, two sources familiar with the matter said. SWIFT has said previously it is working to resolve the issue but is just a messaging system for its 10,000 users.
The most recent talks between world powers and Iran failed in January 2011 because of Tehran's unwillingness to discuss transparent limits on enrichment, as demanded by several U.N. Security Council resolutions passed since 2006.
The nuclear achievements proclaimed by Tehran involved a new line of uranium enrichment centrifuges and the loading of its first domestically produced batch of fuel into a research reactor that is expected to run out of imported stocks soon.
China to Saudi Arabia – The Nuclear Silk Road?
http://analysis.nuclearenergyinsider.com/new-build/china-saudi-arabia-%E2%80%93-nuclear-silk-road?utm_source=http%3a%2f%2fuk.nuclearenergyinsider.com%2ffc_nei_decomlz%2f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NEI+e-brief+1502&utm_term=China+to+Saudi+Arabia+%e2%80%93+The+Nuclear+Silk+Road&utm_content=142275
Saudi government sources have said that they plan to spend more in excess of US$100bn on 16 nuclear reactors that they hope to have operational by 2030. The aim is that the reactors would meet growing domestic energy needs.
China will certainly be hoping that its newly developed reactor, the Chinese version of the Westinghouse Electric AP1000, the CAP1400, will appeal to the Saudis. Some analysts, such as Bill Dodson at China-based energy consultancy Strategic Analysis, sees Saudi Arabia as a unlikely location for the re-engineered Chinese AP1000.
The reactor is still in a testing phase, a process some consider rushed even with the delays caused by the Fukushima issue in Japan last year.
It was assumed that the CAP1400 and Chinese nuclear technology would be more suited to either countries with less financial clout, but nuclear ambitions (such as perhaps Vietnam or Malaysia) or those with political issues that would make it more problematic for European or American firms to deal with - primarily Pakistan, where China is active in Islamabad's nuclear programme.
Nuclear Reactor Approved in U.S. for First Time Since 1978
But no nuclear renaissance appears to be imminent, despite the go-ahead to build and operate two new reactors in Georgia
Years of shifting and smoothing Georgia red clay paid off today, as the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) voted to allow construction of two new nuclear reactors (pdf) at the Plant Vogtle nuclear power station near Augusta. Atlanta–based utility giant Southern Co. will soon have permission to complete construction and operate two AP1000 type nuclear reactors designed by Westinghouse.
But what were initially lauded as the first reactors of a nuclear renaissance when proposed are more likely to be the exceptions that prove the rule of no new nuclear construction in the U.S. Only this twin set of reactors in Georgia, another pair in South Carolina and the completion of an old reactor in Tennessee are likely to be built in the U.S. for at least the next decade. "We won't build large numbers of new nuclear plants in the U.S. in the near term," says Marvin Fertel, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a lobbying group for the nuclear industry.
The problem is twofold: electricity demand in the U.S. is not growing and natural gas, which can be burned to generate electricity, is cheap. As a result, utilities are building more natural gas–burning turbines rather than more expensive nuclear power plants.
"Today, you ought to build gas," Fertel admits. But "you don't want to build only gas."
That may become even truer as old coal-fired power plants are forced to retire by new pollution rules and/or natural gas prices rebound. Given the long lead times required to gain permits and actually build a nuclear power plant, however, five new reactors may be as many as the U.S. will see erected during this decade. "If they are built, I suspect all of them are post-2020," says Fertel of other reactor applications awaiting NRC review.
In fact, the only reason utilities in Georgia and South Carolina are building the new reactors is because the governments in those states have allowed them to pre-charge customers for their cost. Southern Co. is already charging customers $3.73 per month for the reactors' construction, expected to cost roughly $14 billion, and may receive a more than $8-billion loan guarantee from the federal government. In the absence of a national government policy that puts a premium on electricity generation that results in fewer emissions of greenhouse gases, there is little incentive to build nuclear power plants in the U.S. "If we get back to the carbon discussion, that will have an effect on new plants that are built," argues Bill Johnson, CEO of Progress Energy, one of the utilities filing for a construction license but with no plans to actually build a nuclear power plant in the near future. "Nuclear can't compete today.
Other than the Watts Bar unit No. 2 in Tennessee, which will simply be the completion of a reactor that started construction in the 1970s, the four new plants will all employ a novel design—the AP1000. They will be the first to employ so-called passive safety features, or technology that kicks in with or without human intervention. In the case of the AP1000 that means cooling water sits above the reactor core and, in the event of a meltdown like the ones at Fukushima Daiichi, will flow via gravity into the core to cool it with the automatic opening of a heat-sensitive valve.
A global revival of interest in nuclear power technology remains underway, despite the April 2011 meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi in Japan. China is already building four AP1000s and more than 20 other reactors currently—and many other countries are considering new plant construction, from the Czech Republic to India.
But in the U.S., even just to maintain the current fleet of 104 reactors, which provide 20 percent of the nation's electricity supply, would require building as many replacement reactors by 2030. In fact, nuclear power production may shrink in the U.S. before it grows. Aging reactors, even with life extensions of another two decades, will begin to drop off the grid in coming years. "Twenty years is the blink of an eye for 100 gigawatts. The time is now to begin to deploy new nuclear," says David Christian, CEO of Virginia-based utility Dominion Generation, although his company has no plans to do so before the end of the decade. "We're in danger of missing that window."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=first-new-nuclear-reactor-in-us-since-1978-approved
No Quick Fixes for Areva
Anne Lauvergeon's long fight for survival as chief executive of Areva, the engineering group that is one of France's two state-controlled nuclear champions alongside utility Electricite de France, has been no exception. President Nicolas Sarkozy's decision not to reappoint her may end the infighting tarnishing France's nuclear credentials, but it won't remove wider uncertainty clouding Areva's outlook.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303823104576391393734534256.html?
Followers
|
5
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
318
|
Created
|
08/15/07
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
The Nuclear Energy ETF seeks to replicate as closely as possible, before fees and expenses, the price and yield performance of the DAXglobal® Nuclear Energy Index.
The DAXglobal® Nuclear Energy Index is a modified market capitalization-weighted index intended to track the movements of securities of companies engaged in the nuclear energy industry that are traded on leading global exchanges.
|
Uranium links from LinksMine - InfoMine's Library of Mining Web Sites Site Listings
Associations
Exploration
Investment Uranium Will Rebound with Economy - (The Energy Report) Interview with Barbara Thomae, Senior Mining Analyst Mines
Publications
Please boardmark us if this i-Message is helpful... Thanks in advance!!! |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |