|
Editorial
– 4th MOX Consultation Response.
The UK Government’s Department of Environment, Transport
and the Regions and the Department of Health have launched the
4th public consultation exercise into whether or not
the newly built Sellafield MOX Plant should receive authorization
to begin operation.
Both nuclear
reprocessing plants at Sellafield and the ageing Wylfa nuclear
power plant on Angelsey remain shut down for safety reasons. But
BNFL is trying to make a comeback. They want Government permission
to start a new commercial-scale plutonium fuel (MOX) plant at
Sellafield. Help add to BNFL's woes by responding to the consultation.”Safe
Energy” opposes plutonium fuel (MOX) because:* MOX
is a "direct use" nuclear-weapons material that increases
the threat of nuclear proliferation wherever it is stored or transported
around the world
* using MOX in nuclear reactors is even more dangerous than using
ordinary nuclear fuel
* starting the MOX plant at Sellafield would produce new discharges
and plutonium-contaminated wastes which remain dangerous for thousands
of years.
* making MOX could be a first step to building new plutonium burning
reactors in the UK. Since BNFL's falsification of safety data
on its first shipment of MOX to Japan last year, evidence has
grown that there is no market for MOX worldwide. This means that
the taxpayer will pay the bill for cleaning up the wastes if the
new MOX plant is started up.
The Government received 361 responses to the 3rd consultation
exercise in 1999. So we need to top that to have any hope of preventing
this plant opening. Most of the responses were critical of the
Government's provisional view. In particular, an economic assessment
carried out by Mike Sadnicki, Fred Barker and Gordon MacKerron
for Friends of the Earth, concluded that the costs of operating
SMP would exceed the benefits. Since then the Government’s consultants, PA
Consulting reasserted the validity of the economic case. Sadnicki et al responded. They concluded,
yet again that the balance of argument is against economic justification
and that Ministers should have very limited confidence in the
economic case for operation.
You
can see the consultation documents at:-
http://www.environment.detr.gov.uk/consult/mox/sellafield/index.htm
DETR & DoH say they welcome comments on what BNFL
has said in its economic case, and MOX Market Review, including
comments from abroad. Comments should
reach them no later than 23 May.
You can send comments by post, fax or e-mail,
whichever you prefer to:-
Claire Herdman
Radioactive Substances Division
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
4/F6 Ashdown House
123 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6DE
fax: 020 7944 6340 e-mail: mox_consultation@detr.gsi.gov.uk
The issue is whether the manufacture by British Nuclear
Fuels plc (BNFL) of Mixed Oxide, plutonium, or MOX fuel is justified,
taking account of whether the benefits would outweigh the detriments.
As a result of the falsification of quality control data
in the MOX Demonstration Facility – and the resultant decline
in customer confidence, BNFL is now even less likely to generate
sufficient income to cover future costs than it was in July 1999,
let alone provide unquestionable economic advantage. As a result
of the events at the end of 1999, and the beginning of 2000, Ministers
decided that the economic case for SMP should be reviewed.
At the end of the 2000 BNFL informed the Government
that it was submitting a fresh business case to support the operation
of SMP, and a "commercial in confidence" version was
supplied in January 2001. BNFL provided a "public domain"
version in March 2001. It also provided an updated MOX market
review in March. The Government launched the 4th public
consultation exercise on SMP on 28th March 2001.
By constructing the MOX plant before seeking authorization,
the process of economically justifying the plant has become farcical.
BNFL is not even expected to cover the capital costs of the plant
– these costs are now considered to be ‘sunk’ – in other words
they will have been spent whether the plant is authorized or not.
For the 1999 Consultation exercise Ministers required BNFL to
provide “assurance that they can acquire sufficient business
to cover at least the plant’s commissioning, operating and decommissioning
costs”. Yet BNFL uses the fact that failure to authorize
the plant will require the capital costs to be written off as
part of its justification case.
“A decision
to deny approval for SMP would also require BNFL to write off
over £460M…”
Bearing in mind that BNFL and the Government appear to
be determined to ignore ‘sunk costs’ the key parameters which
will determine whether or not the benefits of authorizing SMP
will outweigh the disbenefits will be:-
(a)
The size of the ‘market’
for MOX,
(b)
SMP operational costs,
and
(c)
MOX fuel prices.
In
1999 BNFL estimated that in order to cover the future costs (commissioning,
operation and decommissioning) it would need to secure only 30-40%
of Japanese, German and Swiss sales within its ‘Reference Case’.
This has now been revised upwards to 40 – 50% of the Reference
Case.
In
1999, only 6.7% of the Reference Case had been secured as firm
contracts. In addition 11% of the Reference Case was covered by
‘letters of intent and reserved capacity’. By January 2001, the
proportion of the Reference Case contracted had risen slightly
to 9.6%. The proportion covered by letters of intent had also
risen slightly to 12.6%, taking the current proportion of the
Reference Case secured as either contracts or letters of intent
to 22.2%.
BNFL’s latest MOX Market Review examines the size of the MOX market in its
three main customer countries: Japan, Germany and Switzerland.
Japan
Assuming THORP reprocesses all the Japanese, German and
Swiss spent nuclear waste fuel for which it currently has contracts,
Japan will have 26.7 tonnes of plutonium at Sellafield, Germany
13.6 tonnes and Switzerland 4.2 tonnes. Converting this 44.6 tonnes
of plutonium into MOX is BNFL’s Reference Case. [With current
contracts standing at about 9.6% of the Reference Case, this represents
around 4.3 tonnes.] Japan, therefore, represents just over 60%
of BNFL’s Reference Case. If BNFL received contracts for all Swiss
and German plutonium, but no Japanese contracts, it would just
fail to reach the 40-50%
It rather boldly states that:-
“…Japan continues to represent a significant and robust market for BNFL’s
MOX fabrication services”.
It
continues by quoting from the Japanese Atomic Energy Commission’s
Long Term Plan that:
“Electric utilities plan to gradually increase the number of light water
reactor plants using MOX fuel to a total of from 16 to 18 by the
year 2010.”
As evidence
for this BNFL states that the first Japanese reactor planned to
be loaded with MOX, the Tokyo Electric Power Company’s (TEPCO’s)
Fukushima I-3 reactor site, now has all the necessary approvals
to load MOX. Whilst BNFL accepts that there may be some difficulties
with local political and public acceptance of MOX loading
“…a delay of several months or even around a year does not alter the conclusion
that SMP is economically justified”.
It
goes on to talk about the reactor intended to be second in line
for MOX loading and states simply that:-
“A second consignment of MOX fuel is currently en route to their Kashiwazaki-Kariwa
3 reactor”.
“…BNFL retains a high degree of confidence in securing a significant tranche
of MOX fabrication business from its existing Japanese reprocessing
customers”.
TEPCO announced on 29th March that it would not
load MOX fuel at Fukushima during the next scheduled outage. The
company said it had been unable to gain the understanding of the
local citizens. Governor Eisaku Sato of Fukushima has made it
clear since February that he wishes to take his time to deliberate
the pluthermal program and energy policy issues within the prefecture.
In an exclusive interview with the Asahi Newspaper on 28 March,
Governor Sato is quoted as saying, “a majority of the prefectural
citizens are against the (pluthermal) program.” He added, “the
examination (of energy policy) will take at least one year.
During that time there is no way I will allow the beginning
of the program.” The Governor said, “we will consider whether
a once-through cycle is possible.”
In his most concrete statement yet about the future of
the pluthermal program, Sato stated, “(the pluthermal freeze)
could last two or three years if we reach a conclusion that a
once-through cycle is better.”
In the meantime, Niigata Prefecture, which was scheduled to
be the second prefecture to load MOX fuel after Fukushima, continues
to object to being first. A
shipment of 28 MOX fuel assemblies arrived at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa
Nuclear Power Plant on 24th March.
However, the morning after residents of Kariwa-mura who
are opposed to the pluthermal program officially submitted a request
to Mayor Shinada to call for a referendum on the implementation
of MOX into the Unit 3 reactor.
The mayor must now comment on the request and send it to
the village assembly for debate within 20 days.
TEPCO’s hopes of loading MOX into
the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa reactor in Niigata soon are very slim.
The company has announced that it will not load the MOX on 17th
April as expected. The company says it will continue to make efforts to obtain
understanding from local residents and will decide whether to
use the MOX fuel by June.
In response to Tokyo Electric’s decision,
a Kyushu Electric executive stated in an article in the Nishi-Nippon
Shimbun that “it is difficult to think we will go before Tokyo
Electric.” His comments suggest that it is highly unlikely
that the company will follow through with its plans to begin MOX
fuel use in the Genkai Reactor by the originally planned 2004
implementation date.
In January, the Financial Times claimed
that, the then Energy Minister, Helen Liddell, had secured a statement
of intent from Japan, indicating that the Sellafield MOX Plant
could expect Japanese utilities to sign contracts for MOX.
However, Teruo Komatsu,
Manager, Energy Public Relations, Kansai Electric Power (KEPCO),
the recipient of the original flawed fuel from BNFL, insists
that KEPCO is not in any talks with BNFL about future contracts.
He told Aileen Mioko Smith of the Kyoto based, Green Action on
23rd January, that:-
"Absolutely nothing is proceeding on any contract negotiations
… The letter of intent stated that there has been no change in
plans concerning the use of MOX fuel [and] that it was appropriate
that SMP be opened in the near future. However, this was
only a generalization. It did not signify intent to sign
contracts. Nothing in the letter promised the signing of
contracts … There are absolutely no documents that exist that
state that we will promise that we will have fuel fabricated by
BNFL."
At a Press Briefing on 27th
February and at a subsequent briefing with media present on 2nd
April, KEPCO confirmed that it is conducting absolutely no negotiations
with BNFL concerning SMP MOX contracts. They also were clear
to state that there were no plans at present to do so. They also
confirmed that the letter described by the FT as a “statement
of intent” secured by Helen Liddell letter was not a commitment
by Japanese electric utilities whatsoever.
KEPCO also stated that, whilst the Overseas Reprocessing Committee
of Japanese utilities (ORC) may have said that it is desirable
for SMP to open, a prerequisite for using MOX in Japan is the
acceptance of Japanese citizens.
BNFL’s assertion that a delay of
one year in loading MOX into Japanese reactors does not undermine
its economic case is clearly wrong. The Fukushima re-examination
of energy policy, as the Governor states, might well come to the conclusion that a “once
through cycle” (ie. An end to reprocessing and the use of MOX)
is preferable to using MOX.
Germany
BNFL claims
that the recent German nuclear phase-out agreement between the
German Government and the nuclear utilities has clarified the
situation. The agreement allows the continuation of spent nuclear
waste fuel from Germany to Sellafield until June 2005.
German utilities are required to demonstrate a management
route for their separated plutonium in order to comply with the
German atomic law. This does not necessarily mean that they have
to purchase MOX. This highlights yet another failure of BNFL’s
economic case. It has failed to make any comparisons between MOX
and alternative options for the management of plutonium.
The German
Government is reported to be contributing $100m to the weapons
plutonium disposition programmes in Russia – but only for the
immobilization of plutonium as waste, not for converting it to
MOX fuel.
The suspension of work in the
U.S. on plutonium immobilization was also reported as being “unlikely
to sit well with the German government, which favours immobilization
as the best method of disposing of the excess weapons plutonium.
BNFL’s confidence in the market
opportunities in Germany may, therefore, be misplaced. As German
nuclear utilities have only waste management, decommissioning
and clean up work to look forward to, they no longer have a vested
interest in promoting the plutonium cycle. The evidence seems
to suggest that the current German Government is likely to push
utilities towards immobilization rather than MOX use. Whichever
nuclear company in Europe or elsewhere is able to offer a plutonium
immobilization service first, may find that it is still able to
scoop the bulk of business available from German utilities.
Switzerland
BNFL
claims it already has MOX fuel supply contracts with three out
of its four existing Swiss baseload reprocessing customers. With
only 4.2 tonnes of plutonium due to arise at Sellafield after
all Swiss spent fuel currently contracted has been reprocessed,
Switzerland represents only about 9.7% of the Reference Case,
and is therefore very minor.
Of
the 5 nuclear reactors in Switzerland, only three are expected
to load MOX. The other two, Leibstadt and Muehleberg are BWRs,
in which it is more difficult to use MOX. Goesgen has until now
bought. MOX exclusively from BNFL’s competitor, Belgonucleaire.
Goesgen is also known to have used MOX derived from plutonium,
which originated in either Leibstadt or Muehleberg. The other
two reactors Beznau I and II, have bought some MOX from BNFL and
some from Belgonucleaire.
BNFL
expresses concern about losing Swiss contracts if there is further
regulatory delay:-
“A contract with one Swiss customer has been amended to account for the
shortfall in capacity at Sellafield . A small quantity of fuel
will now be made by BNFL’s competitor in France. This does not
impact significantly on the overall economic case but demonstrates
the need for an early decision on SMP licensing”.
NOK is the
company that has recent switched a small order from BNFL to Belgonucleaire.
“ Furthermore, the customer has reserved capacity with BNFL’s competitor
in France as insurance against ongoing regulatory delays to SMP
in case existing contractual commitments cannot be fulfilled in
SMP”.
NOK is, therefore,
only one out of four of BNFL’s Swiss customers. Its two reactors
are small 380MW reactors. The four Swiss customers together represent
only about 9.7% of BNFL Reference Case or 4.4 tonnes of plutonium.
NOK, must own no more than about 1 – 2 tonnes of
plutonium, or no more than about 4.5% of the Reference
Case at the most. Despite the small size of these Swiss contracts
BNFL insist that:-
“…it
is vital that an early decision on SMP is achieved to avoid jeopardising
the Swiss contracts further”.
BNFL Chief Executive, Norman Askew
warned the Financial Times that BNFL’s Swiss customers would have
to buy Mox from a foreign competitor unless approval to start
production at the plant was granted in the next three months.
Members
of the Sort Out Sellafield campaign group, which includes MP Jack
Cunningham, have gone even further. The campaigners urged Energy
Minister, Peter Hain, "to grant BNFL a licence to run
the Cumbrian plant by July, otherwise it could lead to 800 job
losses and the loss of future contracts".
This is clearly pure hyperbole. The
tiny NOK contract or indeed any of the Swiss contracts should
not be used as an excuse for rushing a decision, which, if taken
now, would be a gamble that the market situation for MOX might
improve after the forthcoming year’s delay in loading MOX at Fukushima.
Sweden
Sweden has only around 1.4 tonnes
of plutonium at Sellafield.
“In Sweden,
BNFL anticipates supplying MOX fuel from SMP subject to a decision
by the Swedish Government on the granting of a MOX licence to
the reactor concerned”.
The
reactors concerned are at Oskarshamn, operated by OKG. This
company has 833 kilograms of plutonium at Sellafield. However,
this contract is by no means certain. Sweden continues to look
for alternatives to MOX according to the country’s environment
minister, who will not predict when a decision will be made. Environment
Minister Kjell Larsson said
“ We have a serious problem. We
have plutonium and we have to do something with it, but it’s not
so easy.”
Immediately following the MOX
data falsification scandal, Larsson said he did not want Sweden
dealing with BNFL and he has stuck to that position.
“… I am not especially happy about
manufacturing MOX at Sellafield,”
Larsson has not said what alternatives
are being considered. But one possibility is to fabricate the
MOX in Belgium or France instead of the U.K.
Cost Assumptions.
It is reasonable to assume that
the costs of uranium commissioning have been higher than expected.
Uranium commissioning was sanctioned by Ministers in June 1999.
This was expected to take less than 12 months, yet, as of April
2001, there has yet to be any confirmation that uranium commissioning
has been completed.
Future Reprocessing Contracts
BNFL claims that failure to
authorize SMP will jeopardize its chances of securing new reprocessing
contracts.
“Failure
to obtain approval for SMP is likely to severely damage BNFL’s
ability to secure further reprocessing and consequential MOX business
and hence valuable export earnings for the UK”.
The chances of BNFL securing
more reprocessing contracts must be slim. There is, however, a
question mark over whether in fact they should be seeking more
contracts.
In June 2000 at the Annual meeting
of the Ospar Convention for the protection of the marine environment
of the north-east Atlantic, a resolution was agreed by 13 of the
15 signatory states. The UK and France abstained. Ospar Decision
2000/1 calls for:-
“The current authorizations
for discharges or releases of radioactive substances from nuclear
reprocessing facilities [to] be reviewed as a matter of priority
by their competent national authorities with a view to inter alia:
implementing the non-reprocessing option (for example dry storage)
for spent nuclear fuel management at appropriate facilities …”
Germany and Switzerland were
amongst those countries ageing to this resolution.
The UK, however, by abstaining,
is not bound by this decision. It did, however, agree to a 1998
decision which was to:-
“By the year 2000 … work towards
achieving further substantial reductions or elimination of discharges,
emissions and losses of radioactive substances; [and] by the year
2020 … ensure that discharges, emissions and losses of radioactive
substances are reduced to levels where the additional concentrations
in the marine environment above historic levels, resulting from
such discharges, emissions and losses, are close to zero”.
The UK will not be living up
to the commitments made to OSPAR if the life of the THORP reprocessing
plant is extended.
MOX and Nuclear Proliferation.
The Environment Agency outlines its approach to justification
in its 1998 “Explanatory Memorandum for a Further Public Consultation
on the Application by BNFL for the Commissioning and Operation
of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Plant at its Sellafield Site in Cumbria”.
It states that all practices which give rose to radioactive waste
should be justified, ie. The benefits must outweigh the detriments
to society:-
“Detriments
are wider than the radiological detriment and include non-proliferation
and transport”
In its October 1998 decision document for the plutonium
commissioning of SMP, the Environment Agency states that:-
“In reaching
its proposed decision, the Agency has not taken any view on the
wider policy issues of plutonium management strategy. The Agency
is concerned about these wider policy issues and considers that
major developments at Sellafield are national and international
matters and that, given the significant political and economic
issues, relevant government departments should be involved in
considering the Agency’s proposed decision.”
The Agency goes on to warn that:-
“It would
be a relatively straightforward matter to undertake chemical separation
of plutonium from MOX fuel”.
The DTI claims that recovering plutonium from a MOX fuel
rod:-
“…would require
highly specialized plant, equipment and skills, and a considerable
degree of nuclear sophistication in order to ensure radiological
and criticality safety”.
Responding to this, Professor Frank Von Hippel, former
Assistant Director for National Security in the White House Office
of Science and Technology Policy points out that such an operation
could be carried out in a glove box with a filtered vent with
quantities of plutonium too small to result in a criticality accident.
A glove box is not an exotic piece of equipment – it can be homemade.
Information about the threshold at which plutonium in solution
could produce a criticality is widely and publicly available.
Clearly, there are disagreements amongst the experts
about the ease with which MOX fuel elements could be used to manufacture
a nuclear bomb. The DTI Safeguards Office in response to Von Hippel’s
remarks said:-
“…whilst
it would be technically feasible to recover plutonium from MOX
fuel and use this to make a nuclear weapon, the steps involved
would be non-trivial, requiring specialized skills and equipment
to ensure radiological and criticality safety”.
Authorising the Sellafield MOX plant to open could lead
to a massive increase in the number of shipments of MOX fuel around
the world. With a country like the United Kingdom beginning down
the plutonium fuel cycle road, it is bound to encourage others
to do the same, particularly Russia. Such a major step ought to
be open to much wider public scrutiny.
The DTI is the Government Department responsible for
ensuring that plutonium is safeguarded in the UK. However, the
DTI is the sponsoring department of BNFL. The DTI Safeguards Office
points out
“Decisions
regarding non-proliferation issues take into account input from
a number of sources – amongst others from DTI (including the Safeguards
Office), the Ministry of Defence, and the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office”.
Given that the Environment Agency has been unable to
assess the contribution to the detriment to society caused by
the proliferation risk involved in authorizing SMP, a Government
sponsored proliferation threat analysis should be published for
public scrutiny and peer review.
2.
MOX NEWS
March 28 2001 BNFL pressures government
over Sellafield review By Matthew Jones FINANCIAL TIMES
British Nuclear Fuels, the UK atomic services
group, said on Wednesday it would start losing customers for its
£460m ($653m)Sellafield Mox Plant in Cumbria unless the government
gave it approval for final commissioning by July.
Norman Askew, BNFL chief executive, said the group
had secured contracts for 22 per cent of the plant's capacity
and was confident that it could make money. [Actually they only
have contracts for 9.6%; you need to add ‘letters of intent’ to
bring the total to 22%]
However, he warned that the group's Swiss customers
would have to buy Mox from a foreign competitor unless approval
to start production at the plant was granted in the next three
months.
"I am not surprised that the government feels
it is right to have another public consultation but it would be
better if we could have a decision on a quicker timescale,"
said Mr Askew.
The future of the plant has been a source of tension
between Mr Meacher and ministers at the Department of Trade and
Industry, who have made efforts to restore BNFL's reputation with
foreign customers after the data falsification scandal.
DTI insiders argue that it is difficult for BNFL
to make a firm economic case for the plant because customers are
reluctant to commit to firm contracts until the plant has been
given the go-ahead. The DETR has countered that the plant needs
to pass a test of justification under European law.
BNFL claims about 1,800 jobs are dependent
on the Mox plant and failure to secure authorisation would also
cast doubt on the future of Thorp, the group's thermal oxide reprocessing
plant.
Earlier the FT in
“Review of nuclear plant to be held By Robert Shrimsley and Matthew
Jones (March 22 2001) said the authorisation is crucial to BNFL
winning vital fuel supply contracts from Japan. Those orders were
put in jeopardy last year after a scandal in which it was revealed
that BNFL had falsified safety records on fuel shipments to Japan.
BNFL has been working hard to secure new business ever
since. Until authorisation is granted, new contracts are unlikely to be
forthcoming. But Mr Meacher has been insisting on new orders before
approving the plant. Last month, local government officials in
Japan, BNFL's largest potential market for Mox, signalled a further
delay on contracts. The governor of Fukushima prefecture, which
was expected to be the first Japanese region to allow the use
of Mox fuel, called for a re-think on nuclear energy policy and
caution in using the fuel.
In January, BNFL
submitted a re-appraisal of the viability of the plant three years
after an independent economic review commissioned by the government
found it should go ahead.
The future of the
plant has been a source of tension between Mr Meacher and ministers
at the department of trade and industry. On Thursday, Stephen
Byers, trade and industry secretary, said he hoped an announcement
would be made "in the very near future". About 1,800
jobs are dependent on the Mox plant. Failure to secure authorisation
would also cast doubt on the future of Thorp, the group's thermal
oxide reprocessing plant.
MEACHER ANNOUNCES FURTHER CONSULTATION – BUT PROCEDURE
IS SUSPECT
(See DETR press release 28 March 2001).
Michael Meacher said "BNFL have now submitted
a revised economic case and it is right to give people a further
opportunity to comment.” But in a departure from accepted procedure,
he also announced that “Independent consultants are …being appointed
as a parallel procedure to evaluate the economic case put forward
by BNFL. The consultation will last 8 weeks and consultants will
report in around 10 weeks. The consultees will not therefore see
the consultants' report, but the consultants will take account
of the responses to the consultation exercise in reporting back
to the Departments”.
This appears to signal that Meacher has been pushed into speeding
up the consultation process. Consultees can normally expect to
see copies of any analysis submitted to the Government by consultants.
Greenpeace International Release.
TOKYO ELECTRIC AND BELGONUCLEAIRE REFUSAL TO RELEASE
PLUTONIUM DATA, "INEXPLICABLE" AND CRITICIZED BY COURT,
AS PLAINTIFFS INJUNCTION CLAIM TURNED DOWN
March 23rd
Tokyo/Fukushima
City…The Fukushima District Court announced today that plaintiffs
attempt to secure an injunction preventing Tokyo Electric
Power Company from loading plutonium Mixed Oxide fuel MOX),
into one of its nuclear reactor's, had been rejected. However,
the court also criticized as "inexplicable"
Tokyo Electric's attitude in not forcing the producers of the
MOX fuel, Belgonucleaire, to release quality control
data, demanded by the plaintiffs and requested by the court.
Throughout
the first half of 2000 the nuclear companies refused to release
data on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.
The plaintiffs, including members of Greenpeace, filed their case
in August 1999, submitting various statistical and
scientific papers as evidence. Over the next seven months Tokyo
Electric provided
little substantial evidence to counter the plaintiff group's claims.
Belgonucleaire, part of the Cogema dominated MOX group, COMMOX,
refused the court access to data which would, the plaintiffs
claim, would have shown manipulation of quality control data,
such as MOX pellet measurement size. The court itself
requested on several occasions the release of quality control
data, again without success. The case rested on the
plaintiffs proving conclusively falsification, which could only
be done comprehensively with the release of the data.
The court has said in its decision that with refusal to release
data it was not possible to conclusively prove falsification
and therefore the court could not make a judgement.
The Fukushima court in its decision today, stated
that claims by Belgonucleaire that pellet diameter data was
commercially confidential "was not credible". The plaintiffs
had cited the fact that British Nuclear
Fuels falsified
large numbers of pellet diameter data for MOX fuel produced for
Japan and delivered in 1999. The BNFL MOX is to be
shipped back to the UK. Because of doubts over the Fukushima MOX
fuel it has remained unused since 1999, and is stored at the Fukushima
nuclear power plant.
"The outcome of this case while not ideal, in no way let's
Tokyo Electric and Belgonucleaire/Cogema off the hook.
Clearly the court have been frustrated by the refusal of the nuclear
companies to release vital safety data. But its not
really inexplicable why they refuse - they know if they do we
will prove falsification as in 1999. Tokyo Electric,
and Cogema/Belgonucleaire know that to proceed with the loading
of MOX fuel which they have not proven as safe to use,
is to consciously conduct a dangerous plutonium experiment
on the people of Japan. The way forward for MOX use in Japan does
not exist," Kazue Suzuki of Greenpeace Japan and
one of the plaintiffs in the court case.
The falsification case against Tokyo Electric, Belgonucleaire
and Cogema came after an earlier scandal nvolving MOX
fuel manufactured by British Nuclear Fuels, BNFL. The company
admitted falsification of MOX
that was still in the UK, but denied that similar falsification
had occurred on earlier batch of MOX fuel then on board
the Pacific Pintail transport ship nearing Japan. BNFL had little
choice but to release substantial quality control data
before the vessel unloaded its cargo in Fukui Prefecture in western
Japan.
Immediately analyzed by three citizens groups, Greenpeace, Green
Action and Mihama-no Kai, it was bvious that falsification
of data had taken place. Only after three months of denials from
BNFL, the owners of the fuel Kansai Electric, and British
and Japanese government ministries, as well as a court challenge
by Green Action and Mihama-no-kai did BNFL admit falsification.
The decision by the court today was made only hours before another
cargo of plutonium MOX fuel is due to arrive in Niigata
Prefecture in west-central Japan. This shipment, consisting of
28 assemblies of MOX, also manufactured by Belgonucleaire/Cogema,
has also come under suspicion of falsification, and its
shipment and loading has been opposed by local and regional politicians
and citizens. As with the 1999 BNFL falsified MOX, the plutonium
cargo is on board the Pacific Pintail, escorted by the Pacific
Teal.
Both are armed
and are currently sitting off the coast of Japan, and are due
to dock early Saturday morning.
"Japan's plutonium program was in serious
crisis before today's decision. It still is. MOX fuel that costs
tens of millions dollars to manufacture and transport
to Japan, and at great threat to the environment and international
security is not safe to use in any Japanese reactor. The problem
for the nuclear industry is that MOX fuel is not and
cannot be manufactured to a high standard. Belgonucleaire, Cogema
and Tokyo Electric know this and that is why they refused
to release data on their production standards and quality control.
While the court has found their position inexplicable, the people
of Fukushima and the rest of Japan see it is totally unacceptable
- that means no MOX use," said Shaun Burnie of Greenpeace
International.
For further
information:
www.greenpeace.org/nuclear
Energy
Daily(Washington DCUSA) March 22, 2001 Disposal Facility By GEORGE
LOBSENZ
The National Nuclear Security Administration will scrap
fiscal year 2002 funding for a planned plutonium vitrification
facility in what could signal a major change in U.S. nuclear nonproliferation
policy. NNSA, a semi-autonomous agency within the Energy Department
that runs the U.S. nuclear weapons complex, said it would not
proceed next year with the design of the so-called immobilization
facility, which previously was seen as a key part of DOE's dual-track
program to dispose of surplus weapons plutonium.
NNSA indicated the decision was dictated by budget constraints,
and suggested the immobilization facility was being delayed, not
killed. It also said it is proceeding with the other track of
the plutonium disposal program, which calls for converting surplus
plutonium into mixed oxide, or MOX, fuel for commercial reactors.
"NNSA and DOE are in the midst of the budget cycle
for the new administration," NNSA said in a statement. "The
administration is looking at the budget and programs for the next
fiscal year and wants to assure the most effective use of monies
available. In this particular program we are continuing with the
MOX facility design and construction—but are opting to look at
other aspects, such as the immobilization facility, in possible
future budget cycles."
NNSA officials had no other details on budget considerations,
but other sources have said the agency is facing significant cuts
in its nonproliferation programs. However, some sources said the
budget cuts could provide a pretext for killing the immobilization
program and using existing DOE facilities to dispose of the plutonium
materials that are supposed to be vitrified. That would represent
a major departure from DOE's plutonium disposal program, as decided
upon by the department several years ago following an exhaustive
programmatic review. It also would deviate from the terms of a
U.S.-Russian agreement under which both countries agreed to use
both MOX fuel and immobilization to get rid of 50 tons of surplus
plutonium each.
The immobilization facility, to be built at DOE's Savannah
River Site in South Carolina, is supposed to prepare for disposal
17 metric tons of plutonium contained in scrap materials left
over from past nuclear weapons production. The materials are to
be vitrified into a glassified waste form, poured into cans and
then placed inside large canisters of high-level radioactive waste
for underground disposal. The vitrification process is aimed at
immobilizing the waste in a highly radioactive package so the
plutonium cannot leak into the environment or be recovered for
weapons use. The scrap material is considered unsuitable for conversion
into MOX fuel because the plutonium would have to undergo expensive
purification processes. In addition, Clinton administration officials
said immobilization was needed so the United States could have
a dual-track plutonium disposal strategy that assured there would
be a viable disposal method if one method or the other were to
run into technical problems.
Immobilization also has had strong support from antinuclear
groups who are opposed to MOX fuel because it would make commercial
use of weapons-usable plutonium, raising proliferation concerns.
Not surprisingly, those groups expressed alarm at NNSA's funding
decision.
"We are quite disturbed that they appear to be
defunding the immobilization program," said Tom Clements,
an official with the Nuclear Control Institute. "It's prudent
to keep this track open and operative."
However, immobilization has been viewed with suspicion
by some DOE officials who say existing nuclear reprocessing canyons
at Savannah River could be used to dispose of plutonium residues
without the expense and uncertainty of building the immobilization
facility.
Using the canyons could purify plutonium sufficiently
for it to be used in MOX fuel—and it would please South Carolina's
politically powerful congressional delegation, which wants to
keep the aging canyons running to maintain jobs. Using the canyons
also could reduce the cost and complexity of the MOX effort, which
is running into difficulty in developing plutonium purification
processes.
NRC considers plan to convert plutonium to reactor
fuel Reuters USA: April 4, 2001
by Scott DiSavino
NEW YORK - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
said it was considering an application for construction of a mixed
oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility at the Department of Energy's
Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina. The MOX facility
would convert surplus weapons-grade plutonium, supplied by the
Department of Energy, into fuel for use in commercial nuclear
reactors. Such use would render the plutonium essentially inaccessible
and unattractive for weapons use. Commercial nuclear power plants
in the United States currently use uranium as fuel; the mixed
oxide fuel would be a combination of uranium and plutonium.
The agency said in a statement
late Monday it will offer an opportunity for a hearing to persons
whose interests may be affected by this facility. The Department
of Energy announced plans to construct a MOX fuel plant through
a contract with the consortium of construction company Duke Engineering
& Services, a unit of energy giant Duke Energy Corp. of Raleigh,
N.C., French nuclear measurement company COGEMA Inc., and construction
company Stone & Webster. The consortium is known as DCS.
DCS submitted an environmental report on the MOX facility last
December, and requested authorization to construct the facility
in February. Before deciding whether to authorize construction,
the NRC will prepare an environmental impact statement and will
conduct a technical evaluation of the application to determine
whether it meets NRC requirements. The NRC said it will publish
soon in the Federal Register a notice for a hearing on the construction
of the MOX facility.
Nuclear Fuel 2nd April (TEPCO POSTPONES
LOADING MOX FUEL) said:-
Tepco’s decision to postpone the MOX loading at Fukushima
has thrown Japan’s MOX program into further confusion, as politicians
near other power plants that were supposed to follow Fukushima
I-3 in loading the newfuel objected to being first by default.
Governor Eisaku Sato of Fukushima prefecture told the Asahi newspaper
on March 28 that an ongoing examination of energy policy will
take at least a year, and “during that time there is no way I
will allow the beginning of the (MOX) program.” The policy examination
will consider “whether a once-through cycle is possible,” he said.
The decision came on the heels of a March 24 ruling
by the Fukushima District Court which dismissed a request by civic
groups for an injunction against loading of the MOX fuel, which
has been stored at the power plant for more than 18 months. The
opponents had charged that Tepco had failed to provide proof that
quality control by fabricator Belgonucleaire was reliable enough
to guarantee the MOX was free of defects. Tepco has declined to
ask Belgonucleaire to make public more data, despite repeated
requests from the court to do so.
The Fukushima court, though criticized the Belgian
manufacturer’s attitude. It also faulted Tepco for not trying
hard enough to get Belgonucleaire “to reconsider its obstinate
position and make the company’s random sampling inspection data
public,” saying Tepco had not taken “necessary sufficient action”
to provide the public with information relevant to nuclear plant
safety. Plaintiffs in the case, which include Greenpeace and the
local group Green Action, expressed disappointment with the ruling
but said they were still happy because the court supported their
viewpoint on data disclosure.
3. Phoenix News
Oral Questions to the Secretary
of State for Trade and Industry in the House of Commons, 22 March
2001
Nuclear Power
2. Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde): If
he will make a statement on the role of the nuclear industry in
helping to meet Britain's future electricity generation requirements.
[153629]
The Secretary of State for Trade
and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): The nuclear industry's role
will depend on its cost compared with that of other generation
options and on securing public confidence in respect of issues
such as safety and the environment. The generators have said that
they have no current plans for new nuclear power stations.
Mr. Jack: The Secretary of State
will be aware of the commitment to the industry of nuclear workers
in my constituency and their awareness of the industry's contribution
to meeting our Kyoto target and giving us security of energy supply.
In light of recent press reports of the wish of British Energy
and BNFL to investigate further investment in nuclear energy,
will he say what is the Government's strategic vision for the
industry? Will he support both companies' endeavours to renew
our rapidly ageing stock of nuclear power stations?
Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman
refers to the press reports about comments allegedly made by British
Energy and BNFL. Both companies have denied that they have any
proposals at present to begin a new generation of nuclear power
stations. Springfields, the facility in his constituency, is a
major employer, and he is rightly concerned about the implications
of the decline of Magnox in the next few years and its impact
on his constituents.
It will be another five years
or so before the Magnox fuel demands at Springfields will be in
decline, so we have time to work out together the new role that
Springfields can play. I believe that it can remain a vibrant
manufacturing facility, employing many people. I want to work
with the right hon. Gentleman and BNFL to make sure that the expertise
and talent at Springfields can be used in future, perhaps in a
slightly different way. There is huge potential at that facility,
and we have time to map out a way to ensure that it can be used
to the full.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud): Does
my right hon. Friend agree that the nuclear industry's importance
lies in the people in that industry, and that without clear and
coherent policies we shall not attract into the industry the younger
people we need not only to develop new generation potential, but
to manage safety issues, which must always be uppermost in our
mind?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right.
We have to ensure that public confidence in nuclear is retained,
so we need to explain the benefits that can be derived from nuclear
as well as the safety measures that are in place. Nuclear accounts
for 23 per cent. of electricity production; even given the projected
decline, in 10 years it will still account for 18 per cent. of
electricity generation in the UK. Therefore, nuclear will have
a strong role to play well into the foreseeable future. We need
to communicate to the young and talented people who want to know
whether there is a future for the industry the clear statement
that yes, there is. We want diversity of generation and nuclear
electricity will continue to play a significant role in achieving
that.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells):
We heard in answer to the previous question that the Government
are way behind on their target for renewable energy. Will the
Secretary of State now confirm that even if the Government were
to meet their renewable energy target of 5 per cent. and then
10 per cent., CO 2 emissions would start to increase in the medium
term because of the decommissioning of nuclear power stations?
How can the Government claim to have a rational climate change
policy when, according to their own figures, emissions will start
to rise again? Is it not true that the Government have no coherent
policy, save for a hope that that future will never arise? Does
that have something to do with the fact that the junior Minister
responsible for nuclear power is a member of CND, which opposes
the civil use of nuclear power? Will the Secretary of State override
his junior Minister and CND and conduct a review of nuclear power
and the environment policy; or is the Government's entire climate
change programme yet another sham, condemned by their own figures
in their own document?
Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman
knows that our energy policy has not changed as a result of the
appointment of my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness
in Europe. Our policy remains as it has been for the past few
years: an energy policy based on diversity and on sustained and
secure energy production. The right hon. Gentleman appears to
argue that the Government should embark on a new generation of
nuclear build, but he must be aware that the two UK companies
working in that sector--BNFL and British Energy--have both clearly
stated that they have no plans to begin a new generation of nuclear
build. Therefore, it would fall on the Government to support such
a programme. The last nuclear plant built--Sizewell B, which was
commissioned and completed in 1994--cost £2 billion at 1994 prices.
Is he making a commitment on behalf of the Conservatives to fund
a new generation of nuclear build? The figures are clear: we project
a 5 per cent. reduction in nuclear by 2010 and a 10 per cent.
renewables contribution. We shall benefit from the climate change
programme to which we are committed. In government, he did absolutely
nothing about it.
Mr. Martin O'Neill (Ochil): Would
my right hon. Friend care to tell us when he thinks the MOX--mixed
oxide--facility at BNFL's Sellafield plant will be given permission?
I realise that the responsibility is held jointly with the Department
of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but the matter
appears to have been lying on Ministers' desks for some time.
Given that some of the problems that BNFL has encountered in recent
years have been addressed and that the nuclear installations inspectorate
is giving positive signals about the improvement in performance,
when is the MOX facility likely to be licensed?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend raises
an important point. The nuclear installations inspectorate has
said some positive things about the steps that have been taken
at Sellafield in the light of the difficulties that were experienced
a few months ago. He is right that my Department and the DETR
are jointly responsible. Within government, we are discussing
closely the progress that we can make. I hope that shortly there
will be a proposal from my right hon. Friend the Minister for
the Environment that will allow us to make some speedy progress.
NuclearFuel-April 2, in
its story about the launch of the MOX consultation reports that:-
BNFL is known to be interested
in building a new advanced reactor to handle large amounts of
MOX fuel. By burning plutonium in this way it could generate income
from electricity sales while being seen to be proactively tackling
one of the biggest public concerns in the U.K. The U.K.’s civilian
separated-plutonium stockpile has now passed the 60-metric-ton
mark, a fourth of the world’s inventory.
BNFL’s told the journal that “The
abandonment of U.K. MOX
fuel manufacturing capability, moreover, would likely lead to
a reclassification of the separated plutonium stockpile as “waste.
Instead of the energy-rich material being considered “energy in
the bank,” it would become a liability requiring significant additional
provision of several hundreds of millions of pounds for immobilization
and disposal.
BNFL chief executive, Norman Askew, told
the Barrow Evening Mail (30th March 2001) that "We must always keep in mind that looking to the future, SMP is able to
play a significant role in the reduction of the UK's plutonium
stockpile by converting it into a valuable source of energy."
A RETURN TO NUCLEAR
MADNESS? - The Psychotic Attempt to Bring Back Atomic Energy By
Harvey Wasserman From COLUMBUS ALIVE.
The California's
deregulatory meltdown will likely cost its ratepayers some $60
billion, for which they will get virtually nothing in return.
The 1996 law that threw the state into chaos was written by the
utilities now claiming bankruptcy. It has allowed them to launder
more than $20 billion to their parent companies, with no accountability.
Though they spent $40 million to defeat a 1998 state-wide
green-sponsored referendum that would have repealed this madness,
the power companies and their media minions continue to blame
the public and the environmental movement for the mess. Another
$20-40 billion has been stolen by Enron, Reliant and other gas
companies close to George Bush, who manipulated power supplies
while federal regulatory agencies and California's Democratic
Governor Gray Davis did nothing. The economic and ecological shock
waves of this tragedy will reverberate for decades. But for pure psychotic fantasy, none can exceed
its use as a pretext to build more nuclear power plants.
For weeks now the
corporate media has filled with "too cheap to meter"
bombast. Pompous talk show bloviators have spun reactors
as an "overlooked" oasis of energy. Most recently, the right-wing WEEKLY STANDARD
has carried a massive, profoundly inaccurate tome on the alleged
need for a nuclear revival. But lets look at some practical realities.
To begin with, the
crisis in California was actually CAUSED by atomic power. The
deregulatory impulse first came from big industrial users and
gas companies who meant to undercut the state's utilities, which
couldn't compete because of their huge reactor investments.
The utilities countered
by whining to a bought state legislature that their reactors required
a bail out. So deregulation
came with $28.5 billion in "stranded costs" tagged on
for those bum nukes. Thus far more than $20 billion has been taken
from ratepayers and bagged off to parent corporations. And now,
those nukes have suddenly become "economic" in the eyes
of the same media that supported their being bailed out.
But that very media somehow missed the February 3 fire
that knocked out San Onofre Unit Three, near Los Angeles, causing
untold millions in damage. A
full report is due one of these days from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, from which we may or may not learn what actually happened.
We do know that in an instant, fully a quarter of the state's
reactor capacity disappeared, bringing down the capacity to power
more than a million homes. As we saw at Three Mile Island and
Chernobyl, no other technology can do so much damage so instantaneously.
The green community
bitterly opposed reactors at both San Onofre and Diablo Canyon,
demanding the billions spent there be used instead for solar power,
wind, efficiency and conservation.
Had their advice been followed, California would now be
energy self-sufficient.
Indeed, as early
as 1952, the Truman Administration's Paley Commission asked the
US to build itself a solar future, predicting 15 million sun-heated
homes by 1975. But Dwight Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace"
program intervened the next year.
More than a trillion dollars has since been squandered
on atomic power, for which we now receive a paltry 20% of our
electricity.
In the late 1970s
the safe energy movement again pushed for massive investments
in renewables and efficiency.
This time the Reagan Administration sent a booming wind
and solar industry packing to Denmark, Germany, Japan and Israel.
At 2.5 cents/kilowatt-hour,
wind is now the cheapest and fastest-to-build form of new electric
power generation, with capacity growing worldwide at 25%/year. In 2000 Germany alone installed some 1300 megawatts,
more than what's generated by any single US nuke.
Between the Rockies
and the Mississippi, as well as offshore and in hundreds of eastern
locations, the US has more than enough wind potential to generate
its entire electrical supply more cheaply and more quickly than
any other source. Photovoltaic cells, which convert sunlight
directly to electricity, are more expensive.
But with a large-scale industrial infrastructure, they
offer the secure promise of clean energy independence.
And increased efficiency---we still waste half of what
we burn---can save energy far more cheaply than we can generate
it with any new source. But in the face of all that, the hugely
financed nuclear power industry persists. So lets look at some
practical realities. Building
any new nuke anywhere in the United States would take a minimum
of five years. Even with
a site approved tomorrow, and zero public opposition, the physical
act of getting a new reactor on line could in fact take up to
a decade.
In the interim,
wind power will even further outstrip atomic power. Photovoltaics
will also pull way ahead. Strangely, much of the nuclear hype
has been on a new technology called "Pebble Bed Reactors." The rhetoric is familiar: inherently
safe, too cheap to meter, no environmental impact. But no such operating reactors exist today.
There was one pebble bed prototype in Germany.
It's now shut. Another may be built in South Africa, but
that will take five years. The much-vaunted "breeder"
technology, meant to produce more fuel than it used, is a certified
failure, with dead reactors in France, Germany and Japan standing
as mute (but radioactive) testimony.
Meanwhile, some
500 less exotic "light water" reactors have been built
worldwide since the 1950s. By
downplaying the technology on which it's relied for a half-century
in favor of an untested new design, what is the industry trying
to tell us?
Right now it's boasting
about alleged low operating costs and high efficiencies. But with utility deregulation has come the
abandonment of nuclear safety standards.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission exists only as a rubber
stamp for license extensions on decaying nukes that cry out for
retirement. With official approval, staff and maintenance
are being slashed. Today's reactor industry is a runaway train,
flying down a steep incline with no brakes, setting speed records
along the way, but headed for a predictable end.
Yet even without
factoring in unknown future costs for radioactive waste management,
health impacts and the inevitable meltdowns, increased efficiency
and conservation are cheaper.
So is wind power. And photovoltaics will join them long before
the first "new generation" reactor can come on line,
no matter which breed of this failed technology gets the nod.
A combination of
these renewables and efficiencies would allow communities and
individual homes and businesses to control their own power supply,
independent of the oil, gas and utility companies.
Which is the real reason for this nuclear diversion, just
as it was fifty years ago.
Harvey Wasserman
is author of THE LAST ENERGY WAR:
THE BATTLE OVER UTILITY
DEREGULATION (Seven
Stories Press: 1-800-596-7437);
he is senior advisor to Greenpeace USA and the Nuclear Information
& Resource Service.
MAIL ON SUNDAY March 18, 2001 BRITISH ENERGY FACES US
GREEN LOBBY FURY BY GREAME BEATON
A coalition of green activists is targeting British
Energy over the operation of its jointly-owned nuclear plants
in America. The coalition, which includes actress Whoopi Goldberg
and the American Humane Society, is threatening action in US courts
over the alleged killing of fish and turtles in water intakes
at the plants. 'We might not have the clout to close these reactors,
but at the very least we hope to force them to adopt some measures
to protect the marine environment,' said Michael Mariotte of the
Nuclear Information and Resource Service in Washington DC. The
latest drive against AmerGen, which British Energy owns in partnership
with the US company Exelon, comes after thousands of fish were
killed near one of its nuclear plants on Clinton Lake, Illinois.
Fishermen believe the problem was caused either by tons of cold
or hot water flooding into the lake from the reactor or from the
fish being caught up in a water intake. AmerGen said the cause
of the deaths had not been determined and it was co-operating
with an investigation by the Environmental Protection Agency and
the state's Department of Natural Resources.
S.Africa awards
contract for nuclear power plant March 22, (Reuters)
South Africa on
Thursday awarded a UK-German-South African consortium a contract
to design a plant to provide fuel
for the country's Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) project.
NUKEM Nuklear GmbH of Germany, British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) and
local firm Engineering management Services will design a fuel
fabrication plant to produce the graphite spheres or "pebbles"
used in the PBMR reactors, PBMR said in a statement.
"This should
greatly reduce the risk of having sufficient qualified fuel available
when our demonstration plant
starts operations in 2005," said PBMR Chief Executive
Dave Nicholls. PMBR no details on the value of the contract.
The project to develop
a commercial PBMR is being led by a consortium involving South
African electricity utility
Eskom, the Industrial Development Corp , BNFL and U.S. Exelon
Corp (EXC).
PBMR is a design for a new generation mini-nuclear
reactor with a capacity of 110 megawatts against the 1,000 or
so megawatt capacity of most modern nuclear power stations. In
the PBMR helium is used as a coolant and the energy transfer medium
is used to a closed gas turbine and generator system. The feasibility
study into the fuel fabrication facility is expected to be complete
later this year. The PBMR concept is based on prototype reactors
that operated in the U.S.
and Germany between the late 1960s and 1980s.
4. Russian Reprocessing.
Russian Journal 13th April Russia's newly
appointed nuclear minister spoke in support of a widely-criticized
plan to import spent nuclear fuel for reprocessing that helped
cost the job of his predecessor, according to an interview published
Friday. "It will showcase Russia's technological potential
and pave the way for new projects," Alexander Rumyantsev,
who was appointed nuclear minister late last month, told the daily
Izvestia.
He also said a law permitting the imports of nuclear waste is
essential for Russia's efforts to exports nuclear fuel. "If
we want to sell this product to other countries, we must have
a law that allows us to take back spent fuel rods." The plan
foresees importing about 20,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel over
20 years to Russia in special, armoured train cars for reprocessing
and long-term storage.
Rumyantsev's predecessor, Yevgeny Adamov, strongly advocated the
project, saying that Russia stands to earn $20 billion. He promised
to spend $7 billion of the proceeds to clean up radiation spills
in Russia and upgrade safety at existing reactors. But environmentalists
and other critics of the plan warned that it would turn Russia
into an international dumping ground for nuclear waste, and accused
Adamov of pursuing his
own business interests in the deal. Adamov has denied the allegations.
Critics also said that there would be no money left to clean up
the environment after funds are spent to build and maintain storage
facilities. Parliament approved the bill in the first of three
readings last December, but abruptly cancelled the second reading
last month amid the controversy. Several days later, President
Vladimir Putin fired Adamov as part of his sweeping Cabinet reshuffle.
Rumyantsev said that the financial aspect of the plan needs more
work. He also sought to allay critics' concerns that the ministry
earnings from the deal could be misspent, saying that special
panels would "track down every single dollar" of the
proceeds. Rumyantsev had served as head of the Kurchatov Institute,
Russia's leading n uclear research center.
In its March 22
Press Release Greenpeace said that the last minute decision by
the Russian Duma to delay law changes to allow radioactive waste
imports to Russia was a sign of growing political opposition to
the proposal, Greenpeace said today.
Spokeperson Tobias
Muenchmeyer said "More and more Duma members are finally
realising how irresponsible and dangerous it would be, to open
Russia's gates for thousands of tonnes of deadly radioactive waste.
"
Last week of the
head of Russian's Upper House of parliament, the Federation Council,
Yegor Stroyev said
he is categorically against the radioactive waste import law.
"Only the mafia could be interested in laws that actually
open the way to imports of nuclear wastes and turning Russia into
a nuclear dump," Stroyev told repoters last Wednesday. "The
idea of importing nuclear wastes to Russia is insane."
Also today a Supreme
court hearing began on a Greenpeace legal challenge to the Russian
Central Electoral Committee, seeking to validate over 300,000
signatures calling for a national referendum against the import
of radioactive waste to Russia. In November last year Russia's
Central Election Committee declared 600,000 signatures invalid
of the 2.5 million collected by Greenpeace and other environmentalists.
This lowered the total below the 2 million threshold required,
under Russian law, for carrying out a national referendum.
"This is not
only about ecology, this is also about democracy," said Muenchmeyer.
"There are 2.5 million people who want to use their constitutional
right to vote for a referendum, but some governmental agencies
appear intent on denying them this right."
The legislation
to allow the importation of radioactive waste, being promoted
by Russia's cash-strapped Atomic Ministry (Minatom), is designed
to allow Russia to become the world's nuclear waste dump. Minatom
believes that over the next decade it could import up to 20,000
tons of spent nuclear fuel from countries including Japan, Switzerland,
Germany, Spain, Taiwan, South Korea, China - in contracts worth
up to $21 billion.
One of the likely
sites to receive foreign nuclear waste is the nuclear complex
at Mayak in the Urals. It is the world's largest nuclear complex
and one of the most radioactively contaminated sites in the world.
According to a statement in 1998 by G.J. Dicus, a commissioner
for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission :"As a result of
early operational practices and some accidents at Mayak, workers
at the plant and populations around the site were exposed to unusually
large amounts of radiation and radioactive materials. In many
cases, the doses were comparable to those received by survivors
of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings."
"The fairy
tales about nuclear cleanup by Minatom are nothing but public
relations for their crude attempt to get Western money for an
expansion of the Russian nuclear industry, whose disregard for
safety and the environment is starkly demonstrated by the nuclear
nightmare of Mayak and Krasnoyarsk," said Muenchmeyer.
www.greenpeace.org/~nuclear/waste/russianwaste.html
5. Waste Transports to Sellafield
Sellafield
shipment hit by farm disease BBc On-Line 4 April, 2001
The Netherlands has stopped a
shipment of used nuclear fuel to Sellafield because of the demands
put on the country's resources by foot-and-mouth. So many Dutch
officers have been pressed into the fight against the disease
that not enough could be spared to escort the consignment. The
Netherlands now has 15 confirmed outbreaks and thousands of its
police officers are patrolling the country's roads to stop the
disease spreading.
More than 400 officers would be
needed to escort the fuel from Dodewaard nuclear power plant,
50 miles south-east of Amsterdam, to Sellafield in Cumbria. In
December, Dutch riot police dispersed environmental activists
protesting at a shipment of nuclear waste to the plant. The country's
prime minister Wim Kok has described the foot-and-mouth outbreak
in The Netherlands as a "disaster situation of national importance."
The Dutch authorities have also
pressed the army into stopping the disease from spreading beyond
the Netherlands borders' into adjoining countries. Reprocessing
nuclear fuel is one of Sellafield's biggest activities. On arrival,
the fuel is put into large storage ponds before being dissolved
in acid after a cooling down period. The useful chemicals are then reclaimed and
the radioactive waste is stored. It is a controversial process
and several countries including Japan, Germany and Switzerland
have stopped sending used material there. A BNFL spokesman said
the cancellation of the shipment was understandable in the circumstances.
"Quite rightly they now have other things on their minds",
he added. A second shipment
from the Borssele plant in The Netherlands to Cogema's La Hague
reprocessing facility in France has also been delayed.
[NB. This would have been the
fourth shipment of spent fuel from the Netherlands to Sellafield
since shipments re-started just before Christmas].
Germany to dump nuclear waste on UK (Greenpeace Statement
12th April 01)
Spent nuclear waste fuel shipments from German
nuclear power plants to the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant
in Cumbria are about to resume.This will be the first time waste has been transported
from Germany to Sellafield since shipments were stopped in 1998.
Three casks of nuclear waste are rumoured to be due to leave the
Neckarwestheim nuclear power plant on 23rd April. They will
travel by sea to Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria and then be
taken by train to the reprocessing plant at Sellafield. The German
Government has also approved the transport of 6 casks from Biblis
B to Sellafield.
This will only be the beginning. Up to nearly 1,000
tonnes of German nuclear waste - about 200 flasks - are due
to be delivered to Sellafield over the next four years - before
July 2005. The reprocessing plant at Sellafield is one of the
largest sources of radioactive emissions into the environment
in the whole of Europe. "With every gram of nuclear waste
that leaves Germany for Sellafield," says Greenpeace nuclear
campaigner, Pete Roche "the Irish Sea becomes a bit more
heavily radioactively contaminated."
"The public must feel they've been taken for
a ride," says Roche "the German government says
it is opposed to reprocessing, and wants to see an end to discharges
of radioactive waste into the Irish Sea from Sellafield, yet
now here they are giving two fingers to the Irish and Scandinavian
countries that suffer from the pollution, as well as the British
public."
"Green environment
minister Mr Trittin has given his consent for
German nuclear companies to dump their radioactive waste at Sellafield, rather
than storing it themselves - perfectly feasible alternative" says
Roche. "Trittin is helping the German nuclear industry
perpetrate one of the greatest environmental crimes
of our time."
6.
BNFL Mistakes - update
22 March 2001
BNFL has been criticised
for discharging cooling water from its Mox demonstration facility
at Sellafield into the River Ehen without consent. During a review
of the facility, following the data falsification scandal, it
emerged that BNFL has never been given permission to discharge
cooling water and steam condensate. BNFL built the demonstration
facility to prove to the government it is capable of operating
its full-scale MOX plant.
BNFL told the Environment
Agency that it had "overlooked" the discharge consent
and was told to apply for it immediately. A BNFL spokesman said:
"There have been zero environmental implications because
all we are talking about is cooling water that has never come
into any contact with radioactive materials.
Meanwhile two Sellafield
workers were contaminated with radiation during an incident in
the Magnox reprocessing plant at Sellafield in March. They were
transferring contaminated radioactive material from a sealed glove
box when a seal failed. BNFL said that both workers received "minor"
skin contamination. The company said the radiation was successfully
removed afterwards but that one of the workers "may have
received an exposure equivalent to about one fifth of the annual
dose limit." (Whitehaven News)
28th March
Norway has urged Britain to close its Sellafield nuclear
reprocessing plant following reports that radioactive pollution
along Norwegian shores has increased. "We are putting pressure
on British authorities to put an end to emissions from Sellafield,"
Environment Minister Siri Bjerke told Reuters. "The Sellafield
plant should be shut down." The Norwegian Radiation
Protection Authority said it found the concentration of the radioactive
substance technetium-99 in Norwegian seaweed had risen from 100 to
600 becquerels per kilogram dry weight since 1996.
Norway's Labour
government now fears that the country's fishing industry will
be hit by the increases in the emissions of technetium-99 from
Sellafield. Bjerke said she brought up the high levels of radioactive
emissions from Sellafield in a meeting with British Environment
Minister Michael Meacher in February. "And Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg
will also address the issue when he meets with (Prime Minister)
Tony Blair this summer," Bjerke said. "Norway depends
on a clean ocean and a productive coast, and the government finds
it unacceptable when nuclear waste problems are leading to pollution
of Norwegian coastal and ocean areas," she said. Bjerke said
current emission levels did not represent any immediate health
risk or threat to the environment, but that the long-term consequences
remained unknown. "Therefore it is of vital importance to
use the precautionary principle," she said. Bjerke said she
was optimistic that British authorities would eventually bow to
the pressure to shut Sellafield. "Although our demands to
British authorities have so far not resulted in any concrete advances,
it is obvious that reprocessing of used reactor fuel is faced
with an uphill struggle, politically as well as commercially,"
Bjerke said. Norway says that traces of technetium-99 from Sellafield
have turned up in marine life along its coasts ranging from seaweed
to lobsters. (Reuters & ENS)
Check out the Irish Government's submission to the Environment
Agency of England and Wales with regard to technetium-99 discharges
from Sellafield.
http://www.irlgov.ie/tec/energy/questionT-99.htm
April 4, 2001
BNFL has pleaded guilty to unauthorised
discharge of radioactive waste, from two of its power stations.
The firm admitted six offences, at Bridgwater Magistrates Court,
in Somerset, all contrary to the Radioactive Substances Act 1933.
Two of the offences related to unauthorised discharges of low
level waste from Bradwell power station, Essex, in 1999 and from
the Hinkley Point A plant, in Somerset, in 1999. The other charges
involved failing to maintain its systems in good state of repair
and failing to inform the Environment Agency of unauthorised discharges.
The case was brought by the Environment Agency. Magistrates committed
the case to Taunton Crown Court for sentencing. No date was set.
(Ananova)
6th
April CORE Briefing BNFL Convicted Again.
Pleading guitly
to three offences under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, sections
6-8 and 9-11, (each carrying a maximum penalty of £20,000) BNFL
plc and BNFL Instruments were convicted and fined a total of £12,000
by Magistrates at Whitehaven on Thursday 5th April.
The court ordered that costs of £10,010 must also be paid. BNFL legal team’s request to be allowed one
week to pay was granted by the court.
Magistrates
heard that the prosecution, brought
by the Environment Agency, related
to the illegal holding and use of unregistered sealed radioactive
sources, with one offence committed by BNFL Instruments
and two offences committed by the parent company BNFL plc. BNFL Instruments, now part of the parent company,
was a wholly owned subsidiary company at the time of the offence. It was established in 1995 for the production
and sale of specialised instrumentation for radioactive tests
and measurements.
Describing
Sellafield’s stock of
sealed sources as the largest inventory in the UK,
the prosecution said the non registration of the sources represented
‘ a loss of control, for the Agency,
which could have significant effects on health and safety
issues’. One sealed source had been discovered in the uncleared locker of
a manager who had died several years earlier.
Following
a routine audit in April 2000 by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy
Authority (UKAEA) of its Windscale site at Sellafield,
the Agency was advised by UKAEA that BNFL Instruments,
who were tenants of a UKAEA storage building B 14.1,
were holding ‘mobile’ sources that may not have been registered.
An investigation by the Agency found that a number of the
sources had been routinely transported between BNFL and UKAEA
plant at Sellafield since 1985 and had not been registered.
Following
the investigation, the second offence came to light involving
the parent company itself. BNFL
plc had advised the Agency that there might also be registration
problems with other sealed sources held and used by them. The
Agency subsequently found that, between January 1997 and December
2000 a number of sources had been transported to and used at the
Windscale site and also at the company’s Drigg Low Level Waste site. These had not been registered as mobile sources.
The third
offence, committed between August 1993 and September 2000 related
to the holding and use of radioactive sources at BNFL’s shipping
terminal at Ramsden Dock, Barrow in Furness.
Some sources had been used on BNFL’s ships and were later
stored on the terminal. All sources should have been registered.
Fining the
Companies £4000 on each of the three offences,
and concluding that the Companies had failed to meet the
high standards expected of them by the workforce and public, the
Magistrates imposed the lesser (than maximum) fines because guilty
pleas had been submitted by both parties who had given significant
cooperation to the Agency.
In October
last year, BNFL was convicted in the same court for three breaches
of the 1999 Ionising Regulations. Prosecuted by the Health &
Safety Executive’s Nuclear Installations Executive (NII) for failing
to account for, keep records of, and carry out routine tests on
a number of sealed sources at Sellafield, the Company was fined
a total of £10,000. An additional fine of £14,000 was imposed
for failing to comply with an Improvement Notice served by the
NII and relating to the sealed sources (CORE Briefing 17/00).
The Newcastle Journal
[Apr 6 2001Radioactive Material Found in Dead BNFL Worker's Desk]
adds that one radioactive source was found in the desk drawer
of an employee who had died.
7. Wylfa News
Greenpeace Release
NEW REPORT ALERTS ASSEMBLY MEMBERS TO DANGERS OF RE-OPENING WYLFA
NUCLEAR POWER STATION 14th March, 2001.
Welsh Assembly Members
today heard the results of a Greenpeace funded report into the
dangers of allowing the ageing Wylfa nuclear power station on
Anglesey to reopen [1].
Speakers at the
launch, held at the National Assembly, included report author,
independent nuclear engineer John Large, Assembly Members Mick
Bates (Liberal Democrats) and John Griffiths (Labour) and Dylan
Morgan from PAWB (People Against Wylfa B/Pobol Atal Wylfa B).
Wylfa nuclear power
station is currently closed following the discovery of defects
in welds in the pressure vessel containing the nuclear reactor. Plant operators British Nuclear Fuels Ltd [2],
are planning to reopen the reactors without repairing the welds. Instead, they want to fit ‘restraints’ which
would limit rather than prevent radioactive discharges in the
event of an accident.
In his presentation
Mr Large highlighted the potential catastrophic consequences of
defective welds inside the nuclear plant and the ageing and deterioration
of other vital reactor components.
He also highlighted
ongoing deterioration of the reactor system as the inevitable
result of ageing, including:
·
the cracking of plates around
pipework from the reactor boilers;
·
the corrosion of steel components
inside the reactor, in particular the “core restraint garter”
which surrounds the core of the nuclear reactor;
·
corrosion or loss of volume in
the graphite core of the reactor.
At the launch Mr
Large argued that the inevitable deterioration of these components
mean it is increasingly difficult to predict what might happen
in an accident. He stated that the ‘worst case scenario’ accident
for Wylfa is in fact far more serious than has previously been
admitted by the NII.
He concluded that
if Wylfa is allowed to re-open, a failure of the welds and the
weakened reactor components could combine to result in uncontrolled,
large-scale releases of radioactivity.
Mr Large also criticised
regulation of nuclear safety regime by the Nuclear Installations
Inspectorate (NII) as secretive and lacking in rigour.
Greenpeace is launching
the report at the National Assembly because of the interest that
the Assembly has in issues of nuclear safety. A nuclear accident
could have a serious impact on the environment, economy and the
health of people in Wales. Officials for the Minister for the Environment
have regular, formal meetings with the NII, but information on
the discussions is not publicly available [3].
The report launch
is part of a campaign to keep the reactors closed which is supported
by other Campaign Organisations in Wales [4].
The campaign is demanding that the National Assembly ensures
that all information on nuclear safety is made public, and that
the Minister for the Environment should ask the NII to keep the
reactors closed.
Report author John
Large said,
“I am very surprised
to learn that the NII are allowing BNFL to proceed with what I
can only describe as an expedient bodge job.
The NII are allowing BNFL to fit an external restraint
system which does not address the fundamental problem of cracks
in welds of a safety critical component of the reactor system.
If any one of these safety systems should fail, the resulting
intrusion of tonnes of superheated steam into the reactor will
considerably test the core restraint system.
It has been known that these systems are subject to ageing
and strength degradation since the reactors were commissioned
in 1971”.
He continued, “Like
the NII, I consider there to be a great deal of uncertainty about
the state of the reactors, but unlike them, I would not consider
allowing it to restart”.
Assembly Member
Mick Bates said,
“The Assembly must
play a greater role in nuclear safety especially in view of our
commitments to sustainable development, which means an increasing
focus on renewable energy.”
Dylan Morgan of
PAWB (People Opposed to Wylfa B) said,
“There is deep distrust
in Wales of nuclear safety at Wylfa. Our recent campaigning has
shown widespread public support for an end to this nuclear threat.
Wylfa should be shut for good”.
Greenpeace Campaigner
Bridget Woodman said,
“BNFL wants to play
Russian Roulette with human health and the environment. Wylfa’s
ageing reactors should be shut down now, not patched up and run
until a major nuclear accident occurs. The National Assembly -
and the Minister for Environment in particular - should demand
to know why the NII is letting BNFL proceed with its dangerous
re-start plan”.
ENDS/EDITOR’S NOTES:
The full report
into safety at Wylfa is available online - visit www.greenpeace.org.uk/magnox.htm
·
For more information call 0207
865 8255 or 07801 212993.
[1] Review of Ageing Processes and their Influence
on the Safety and Performance of Wylfa Nuclear Power Station,
John Large, Large and Associates.
[2] Who own and operate the station through
their Magnox Electric subsidiary
[3] On 8 march 2001, Sue Essex, Minister for
Environment, stated that “My officials have regular and frequent
contact with both [the NII and the HSE].
The most recent formal meeting was held at the National
Assembly on 21st November 2000 and covered briefing
on the current situation at Wylfa”.
[4] The campaign is supported by PAWB (People
Against Wylfa B/Pobol Atal Wylfa B), a group based on Anglesey,
WANA (Welsh Anti-Nuclear Alliance) and CND Cymru.
8. Dounreay News.
Delay on nuclear waste decision under fire THE SCOTSMAN 7th
April
ANTI-nuclear protesters last night accused
the government of delaying a decision on how to deal with a stockpile
of more than 20 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel at Dounreay until
after the election. It is a year since the Department of Trade
and Industry (DTI) launched a two-month consultation exercise.
A decision was expected last September. The DTI said yesterday
it has still to decide. However, it is believed it will be put
off until after the general election, at least two months away.
Lorraine Mann, convener of Scotland Against Nuclear Dumping, believes
the delay means the government wants reprocessing to re-start
at the Caithness plant but is reluctant to announce the move in
the run-up to the election. She said: "At the time everyone
was outraged about how quickly they were trying to push this consultation
through. We were told this was so urgent and that they had to
take a decision by September." The DTI launched its consultation
paper last April to obtain views on the management of 24.7 tonnes
of fuel from the prototype fast reactor which was shut down in
1994. It includes 3.6 tonnes of commercial fuel and 14.3 kg of
fuel accepted by the government from Georgia in 1998.
9. Renewables News
Mar 20, 2001 Canada NewsWire Ontario
Power Generation (OPG) and British Energy (Canada) Ltd. (BE) today
announced a 50/50 joint venture, Huron Wind, to develop a wind
energy facility near Kincardine, Ontario. Huron Wind intends to
have wind generators in service in early 2002. While the total
output of the wind farm has not been determined, there will be
at least 10 MW installed at this stage. British Energy (Canada)
and OPG will be responsible for day-to-day operation of the facility
and for marketing the output produced by Huron Wind. "We
expect that Ontario electricity customers will be asking for 'green
power' as part of their energy mix when the competitive electricity
market opens.
This wind farm will provide a
nice balance to our green power portfolio," said Graham Brown,
Ontario Power Generation's Chief Operating Officer. "The
intermittent nature of wind energy means that consumers can not
yet fully count on wind power like they can on hydro, fossil and
nuclear facilities, but this project will make a significant addition
to OPG's existing green power portfolio."
OPG currently has 138 MW of green
power made up of small, run-of-river hydro-electric plants, bio-gas
from landfill, wind energy and some small solar powered sites.
The company has a commitment to increase this amount to 500 MW
by 2005. Robin Jeffrey, BE's Chairman Designate and Executive
Director North America said, "British Energy sees Canada
as a platform for growth and is delighted to be making another
investment in Ontario's electricity sector. Huron Wind will provide
an important source of emission-free power for Ontario consumers,
backed by the reliability of conventional production sources."
"Huron Wind is seen to be
the starting point in a potential portfolio of joint projects
between British Energy (Canada) and OPG. We will pursue further
opportunities to develop renewable energy resources as Ontario's
energy marketplace continues to move towards deregulation to provide
consumers with competitively priced sources of energy," said
Jeffrey. Community interest and support for the wind farm is evident.
Kincardine Mayor Larry Kraemer praised the project, and said,
"Canada's commercial nuclear power industry began here more
than 40 years ago and has a valued connection with this community;
efficiently producing clean electricity, without smog emissions.
It's exciting to now welcome commercial wind power to the community
as it begins to make its mark as a clean generation source with
a bright future."
The project, to be located on
land near the Bruce A and B nuclear generating facility on Lake
Huron, will be subject to Ministry of Environment processes. The
proposed wind farm will build on experience gained from a 600
kW wind turbine that has been in operation since 1995 on the proposed
site. This site has proven to be one of the most promising in
Ontario, with conditions that would allow the wind farm to operate
at about a 30 per cent capacity factor. Ted Arnott (MPP: Waterloo-Wellington),
Parliamentary Assistant to Environment Minister Elizabeth Witmer,
was on hand. He commented on the important role wind farms could
play in Ontario's ongoing effort to reduce harmful emissions.
"We strongly support initiatives of this kind and hope to
see more in the future," said Arnott. Growing interest in
wind energy has been helping to lower costs while improving wind
energy's competitiveness, particularly as it complements conventional
energy sources. Support for the new wind farm was evident with
representatives from government, community and industry on hand
for today's announcement. Jim Salmon, Past-President and Board
Member of the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CANWEA) pointed
out that installations of utility-scale wind generation are gradually
accelerating in Canada with sites in Quebec, Alberta, the Yukon,
and Ontario. "We estimate there will be 500 MW of wind generation
installed in Canada by the end of 2002 and 10,000 MW by 2010,
so naturally we are delighted to see Ontario join the Canadian
wind farm club.
Congratulations to Ontario Power
Generation and British Energy (Canada) for participating in wind
power's growth. Facilities such as this one confirm wind's cost
competitiveness and stand as proof that wind generation has a
significant role to play in supplying clean energy to Ontario
and Canada's consumers," said Salmon. Ontario Power Generation
is an Ontario-based company whose principal business is the generation
and sale of electricity to customers in Ontario and to interconnected
markets. OPG's goal is to be a premier North American energy company,
focused on low-cost power generation and wholesale energy sales,
while operating in a safe, open and
environmentally responsible manner.
British Energy is the UK's largest electricity generating company.
British Energy (Canada) Ltd. is the majority partner in Bruce
Power LP, the company that has signed an agreement to lease the
Bruce Nuclear Generating Facility from Ontario Power Generation.
The Bruce Power transaction represents a $3.2 billion investment
and is expected to reach financial closure in 2001, subject to
regulatory approval. British Energy also recently announced it
had formed a new joint venture to develop offshore wind generation
in the UK with Renewable Energy Systems Ltd.
David Ross, Author,
Power from the Waves" (OUP, 1995) writes that the top civil
servant in the field of renewable energy has for the first time
admitted in public that the Department of Trade and Industry was
wrong to abandon wave energy seven years ago.
John Doddrell, Director
of the Sustainable Energy Policy Unit at the DTI, told the Science
and Technology Select Committee:
"The deciding factor to discontinue at that time was
economic. It did not look promising. The decision was taken in
the light of the best independent advice available. With the benefit
of hindsight, that decision to end the programme was a mistake.
A new programme was announced in 1999."
That was when John
Battle was Energy Minister; he was then moved out of the DTI and
Helen Liddell succeeded him and the programme has marked time.
She and the DTI declared that wave energy was for
"the longer term (after 2010)" and "with
longer term potential if pursued."
That was the voice of the civil service machine which had
been opposing wave energy ever since it was first backed by Government
money in 1976. The energy establishment said repeatedly that it
would be too expensive and too difficult. Some of us disagreed
-- without the benefit of hindsight.
The target of "after
2010" still officially exists as Government policy. A policy document was distributed at the Select
Committee meeting which said that wave energy "could make
a significant contribution post-2010."
This means that the waves could not contribute to the Kyoto
target of increasing the contribution of renewables to 10 per
cent of our energy and reducing by 20 per cent the
amount of carbon dioxide we deposit in the atmosphere by 2010. It cannot be an accident that the year 2010
has been chosen by the DTI. It
means that inside that department it has been decided that wave
energy can be written off as irrelevant to meeting our Kyoto target.
The new Energy Minister,
Peter Hain, was sitting beside Doddrell as he spoke. Hain has
been in the past a strong supporter of renewables and a vocal
opponent of nuclear power. But
as recent happenings have shown, not least in the case of Hain
himself at the Welsh and Foreign Offices, office can change people's
minds. What is now needed
is a clear policy and the formal abandonment by the DTI of its
last-ditch attempt to insist that we will not have to wait until
what they call "post-2010" for the waves to make a serious
contribution.
Hain said: "Mr. Blair has announced another £100
million for renewables, some of which will come the way of wave
energy. The DTI is supporting seven wave energy projects
with a contribution of £1.27 million." These are assumed to be research projects, mainly through ETSU.
Hain said that the signal he wished to give out was that they
had a friend in the DTI and anything they had would be looked
at sympathetically.
There can be no
doubt that more money will now be coming the way of wave energy.
But those who have witnessed the last 25 years of resistance to
the development of wave power by those who support gas, oil and
nuclear power will be aware that the new policy has been announced
on the eve of a general election, when environmentalists are restless.
Why did Labour wait four years before getting to this point?
Will we, after the election, be told that, because of the
cost of the foot and mouth crisis and the financial situation,
all government spending plans have had to be revised.
One way to counter
this suspicion would be for the government to abandon formally
its own policy of saying wave energy is only for the period "post-2010,
if pursued" and make it plain that it will provide sufficient
funding to enable full-scale wave power stations to be built in
the open sea well before then.
Herald on Sunday The winds
of change. Apr 8 2001
President Bush may not believe it ... but the future
is in renewable energy. And as the Climate Change Levy bites,
Scottish firms are anxious to cash in on the government's demand
for better green credentials.
LAST week was not a good one for President Bush. There was the
trouble with the Chinese over the US spy plane. And there was
also the fallout from the previous week over his stance over global
warming. He turned his back on the 1997 Kyoto Treaty on reducing
greenhouse gas emissions - and left the rest of the world feeling
decidedly green.
The US, the world's largest
producer of carbon dioxide and other emissions at the root of
global warming, was a supporter of Kyoto during Bill Clinton's
term of office. Now with a change of president, the White House
insists the cost of slashing emissions, principally from coal-burning
power plants and motor vehicles, is too great a burden on the
economy.
But as pressure mounts
on the Bush administration to reconsider the wider consequences
of weather extremes, what now for the UK - and for Scotland? Despite
Dubya's double take on the environment, we are still set to accelerate
the use of renewable energy resources for electricity generation.
It's a wind of change
in which Scotland, and green energy developers, generators and
suppliers in Scotland, are expected to play a leading role and
reap significant economic advantage.
Three days ago, Crown
Estates, the agency responsibile for the sea bed around the UK,
announced 18 new sites for development of off-shore wind farms,
one of them in the Solway Firth between Kirkcudbright in Dumfriesshire
and Maryport in Cumbria.
Compared to England,
proportionately fewer sites in Scotland are currently suitable
for offshore developments of this kind due to unfavourably steep
angles of shelve from the coastline. However, changes in market
conditions, with a downward effect on the price of the electricity
extracted, could have a positive impact.
As Scotland is Europe's
windiest country, it's clear that larger scale on-shore wind power
in less sensitive areas has the potential to spearhead renewable
energy use in the future, with research and development ongoing
for wave-power; smaller, inland hydro-powerand solar-power, as
well as through converted waste product and specially developed
crops (biomass).
Scotland wants an increase
in the use of electricity from renewables to 18% by 2010, up from
the current level of 11%. The Climate Change Levy, which came
into force last week as part of the Scottish Executive's Climate
Change Programme, will drive this. It applies to sales of electricity,
coal, natural gas and liquified petroleum gas to the business
and public sectors, and includes a system of 100% first-year capital
allowances for energy-saving investments. Companies making qualifying
investments will be able to deduct the full costs in arriving
at their corporation tax or income tax bills.
Companies such as Scottish
Power, the UK's largest developer of wind energy, already with
10 on-shore wind farms across the UK including the largest on
the Mull of Kintyre, can barely disguise their interest under
the new framework. Its new chief executive, Ian Russell, has made
a strong commitment to growing output to 500 megawatts by 2010.
Its current wind-power output is 100MW.
Putting this into a US
perspective, where Scottish Power owns and runs PacifiCorp in
six west coast states, its new Stateline windfarm, on the Washington-Oregon
border, opens later this year, producing 300MW. The size and scale
in the US is massive and involved 450 rotating windmills, each
with a turbine creating 0.6MW.
But Scotland is catching
up. Fred Dinning, Scottish Power's corporate environment director,
explains: "Scotland has tremendous potential for renewable
energy in general. Wind is a very significant resource.
"Under the Scottish
Renewables Obligation, suppliers will be obliged to supply a certain
percentage of their electricity from renewable sources. Because
it would be difficult for somebody like London Electricity, for
example, to supply from its area, then the system will allow electricity
generators to trade their electricity using Renewable Obligation
Certificates (ROC). These will be tradable up and down the country
- that's where it becomes very technical. It would be our intention
to become a net exporter; we see major opportunities."
Power generators will
receive Levy Exemption Certificates (LECs) that can be traded
by wind farm operators in three ways. They will make levy-exempt
electricity for sale in an open market, they can pass on their
LECs via supply contracts to get a commercial or industrial customer
exemption to the Climate Change Levy. And ROCs will be tradable
in an open electricity market. Electricity supply businesses don't
have to meet their renewables obligation. If they don't - they
must buy themselves out in the marketplace at 3p per kilowatt-hour.
According to Dinning
the probable value of the electricity is 1p to 2p per kilowatt-hour.
The value of an ROC would be up to 3p, the value of the LEC 0.43p.
Together, the value of the LEC and the ROC is more than the electricity.
A calculation to assess
the viability of one technology against another under the new
Renewables Obligation guidelines would be electricity selling
price per kilowatt-hour plus the value of the LEC. Simply put,
a technology that can be built, owned and operated within the
total wins the day. One that can't, doesn't.
On-shore wind is a winner
under these terms. Offshore isn't too far behind but wave, solar
and biomass are currently less favoured - though this is changing
as technology is increasing the efficiency.
Dinning adds: "It's
our belief the capital grants available will enable a number of
off-shore wind projects to come forward. These cause a drop in
price such that it will fall within an appropriate band."
A bidding process for these grants starts in October, with companies
now preparing bids.
Currently, the manufacture
and assembly of wind turbines takes place overseas. Demonstration
of a clear market might alter that. Already there has been speculation
that a manufacturing facility is being created on the Mull of
Kintyre.
While Scottish Power's
wind portfolio target is 500 megawatts, the maximum demand in
Scotland is around 6000MW. Its investment is around £100 million,
but it may commit several hundred million pounds over the next
four or five years as the opportunity for larger wind farms -
100 turbines - opens up.
Recently, a £78m two-year
deal was signed between ScottishPower and west of Scotland local
authorities, which will become the UK's biggest consumers of green
electricity
The Authorities' Buying
Organisation (ABC), Scotland's largest public sector purchasing
agency, has contracted to take 112 Gigawatthours of energy a year
- equal to the output of two average-sized wind farms - in the
single biggest purchase of green energy in the UK and the second
largest in Europe.
The green energy will
be generated mainly at Scottish Power's wind farms and small hydro
plants. ABC will be saving around £450,000 on its exposure to
the Climate Change Levy. As well as cutting emissions of carbon
dioxide, the deal will secure the lowest electricity bills since
1995.
This market for renewable
energy will also create job opportunities - up to 1000 in Scotland
- in component manufacture, infrastructure development and, perhaps,
manufacture of the wind turbines themselves. Dinning says that
for 600 MW of installed capacity, the investment is £400m.
Scottish and Southern
Energy, based in Perth, is the largest generator of renewables
in the UK and last year its hydro generation was responsible for
about 40% of the market.
"In recent years,
through a £20m year refurbishment programme for the larger hydros
in Scotland, we have been the largest investor in renewables.
The refurbishment of the larger hydros, many of which are around
50 years old, has generally added between 5 and 10% to their efficiency,"
said spokesman Bob Major.
However, as electricity
prices have fallen steadily, refurbishment has become uneconomic
particularly for hydros between 10 and 50 megawatts which account
for about 70% of production. Added to this, it would appear that
hydro over 10MW will not be Climate Change Levy exempt nor receive
support under the Renewable Obligation (Scotland) plans. Wind
generation will however receive these supports. The hydro refurbishment
programme has ceased.
The setting of the Renewable
Obligation at 3p makes the economics of wind generation more attractive,
SSE confirmed to the Sunday Herald that it has issued its first
tender for wind turbines for an as-yet unnamed site in the west
of Scotland of around 12 megawatts and is looking at other potential
sites.
But there are challenges
for all. There are sure to be environmental concerns to be answered.
On a more practical front, the electricity from renewables sites
has to be connected to the network - and that could be a major
hurdle in Scotland's bid to be the renewable energy powerhouse
of the UK.
The Scottish electricity
network is strong in the central belt but in areas such as the
Galloway hills, and the north west the same can't be said. To
release the large amounts of renewable energy from those areas
the network will need upgrading.
The issue here is, who
pays? Deep reinforcement of the network could be regarded as a
benefit to the country. In any event, the network operator or
developer would need to pass on any costs involved.
To date, nobody has wind
of a definitive answer.
Scots Companies could feel Renewable Energy's
Positive Charge. Herald on Sunday 8th April
The rush towards renewable energy - with
wind power as the dominant technology - will be a major opportunity
for Scottish engineering companies in a UK market estimated to
be worth £5bn over the next 10 years.
The Industrial and Power Association ...
identified the potential for equipment orders and other product
and service supplies to the renewables sector early this year.
Opportunities range from production of technical componentry and
plant for wind turbines to the development of infrastructure such
as roads and buildings and the purchase of consumables like workwear
and lubricants.
IPA Chief Executive Charles Shields said
"We were keen to ensure Scottish companies were fully briefed
on the prospects for business in supplying to future wind power
projects, particularly in Scotland. We approached the Scottish
enterprise network with a project proposal which SE agreed to
fund in order to maximise impact"
In order to scope the scale and type of
opportunities available in detail, the Glasgow office of leading
international wind power consultancy Garrad Hassan was appointed
by SE's Energy Group to push forward a three-stage plan.
The first element was to identify potentially
suitable suppliers of goods and services based in Scotland. They
would then be briefed in detail on wind power market considerations,
including technical issues. Facilitating introduction of briefed
suppliers to wind power customers - principally manufacturers
and developers - was the final element.
A database of 145 interested suppliers has
been developed and is capable of expansion as the wind power market
grows. It's difficult to accurately measure the full value of
the market in Scotland alone but creation of the infrastructure
at a wind farm can account for around a third of the capital value.
Volume manufacture of turbines is conducted
in other European countries. The new market conditions pave the
way for a turbine manufacturing or assembly operation to be established
here, though. Specualtion has existed for some time over the possibility
of an overseas manufacturer setting-up on the Mull of Kintyre.
If turbine manufacturing materialises, it's unclear as to whether
this type of investment decision would lead to other manufacturers
creating a Scottish presence, with consequent economic benefits.
Any such investment would play a part in
anchoring the chief added value elements of the tower structures
in Scotland and further improve supply opportunities. In the meantime,
the tendency for these manufacturers and assemblers to source
their components on an EU-wide basis presents an obvious potential
income stream for Scotland's respected engineering sector. That
could create a foothold for these companies in markets outside
Scotland and the UK.
As part of the IPA/SE project, a series
of seminars was designed to take interested suppliers through
the wind power learning curve. It is a very cross-discipline technology
with elements as diverse as mechanical, electronic and electrical,
structural and aerodynamics.
EU TO WASTE 1.23 BILLION EURO FOR NUCLEAR
RESEARCH 12 April 2001
Brussels - Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth today attacked
the new proposal for a European Council decision on the 6th Framework
programme 2000-2006 "of the European Atomic Energy Community
(Euratom) for research". The document proposes EUR 1.23 billion
funding for nuclear projects: EUR
330 million for the Joint Research Centre's Euratom activities,
EUR 150 million for the treatment and storage of nuclear waste,
EUR 50 million for other Euratom activities, and EUR 700 million
for nuclear fusion.
Since 1991 no new nuclear reactor has
been ordered in any EU country. Seven of the EU's 15 member states
are non-nuclear, another 4 (Germany, Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands)
are in the process of phasing-out nuclear power. Tobias Muenchmeyer,
Greenpeace nuclear expert: "EU countries are getting
out of nuclear power. There is no need for more research in a
technology which is dying out. EURO 530 million for nuclear power
research is plainly a subsidy to Europe's increasingly desperate
nuclear industry and blocks the pathway towards sustainable energy
solutions."
Another EUR 700 million is earmarked for
"controlled thermonuclear fusion". Even the Euratom
Scientific and Technical Committee (STC) admitted in a report
last year that, "fusion is an energy option which has the
potential to play a key role in a long-term perspective (>50
years) ...".
Patricia Lorenz, energy campaigner at
Friends of the Earth Europe: "The commercial use of nuclear
fusion is pure fantasy. Already 25 years ago the same people had
predicted that in 50 years fusion would be a viable energy resource,
but it seems like we are always 50 years away from fusion becoming
economic. The European Council has to stop this waste of millions
of taxpayers money."
At EUR 1.23 billion, the proposed budget
for 2002-2006 is about the same as the budget for the years 1998-2002
which, at EUR 1.26 billion was the largest EU nuclear research
budget ever. Currently the European Commission is also considering
a proposal to raise the ceiling for Euratom loans for Eastern
European nuclear projects by another EUR 2 billion. Also the budgets
for the Euratom Supply Agency as well as for the Euratom Safeguards
Directorate are constantly growing. "The new budget proposal
for nuclear research comes at a time when the cash-strapped nuclear
industry is trying to squeeze out billions from the EU budget
from all possible sides by referring to the most anachronistic
Euratom treaty. The Euratom treaty is from another age and needs
to be abandoned immediately.", said Patricia Lorenz.
THAT'S ALL FOLKS
|