Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Scoop: Times Reports The Economic Disaster Of New Nukes
’The NYTimes finally reports the economic disaster of new nukes by Harvey Wasserman. In a devastating pair of financial reports that might be called "The Emperor Has No Pressure Vessel," the New York Times has blazed new light on the catastrophic economics of atomic power. The two Business Section specials cover the fiasco of new French construction at Okiluoto, Finland, and the virtual collapse of Atomic Energy of Canada. In a sane world they could comprise an epitaph for the "Peaceful Atom". But they come simultaneous with Republican demands for up to $700 billion or more in new reactor construction.’

December 2007:

EDF Energy, London's electricity company, has told the Government it is prepared to shoulder the cost of building a £10bn fleet of four nuclear power stations without the support of a penny of taxpayers' money.

[…]

In a private speech to City bankers this week, EDF's UK chief executive Vincent de Rivaz said using state-of-the-art European reactor technology as its business model for the project would make money for investors.

'There is no subsidy in the business case,' said de Rivaz. 'There is no line in the budget which is called 'taxpayers' money'. The nuclear option is based on sound economics.'

Wow! The nuclear option is based on sound economics, Mr de Rivaz? There is no subsidy in the business case? EDF can shoulder the cost of building four nuclear power stations without the support of a penny of taxpayers' money? This is fantastic news. We take back all of what we said about how the economics of nuclear power are a ridiculous joke. Sorry, what’s that? Oh, dear…

May 2009:

New nuclear power stations will not be built in Britain unless the government provides financial support for the industry, the head of the country’s biggest nuclear generator has warned.

Vincent de Rivaz, chief executive of the UK subsidiary of EDF, told the Financial Times that a “level playing field” had to be created that would allow the nuclear industry to compete with other low-emission electricity sources such as wind power.

Wow! You mean the nuclear option isn’t based on sound economics, Mr de Rivaz? There is a subsidy in the business case? EDF can’t shoulder the cost of building four nuclear power stations without the support of a penny of taxpayers' money? This is fantastic news. We were right all along - the economics of nuclear power are a ridiculous joke.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Russia Today: A summer without Plutonium-239
’On the last night of Spring 2009, Russia stopped producing Plutonium-239, the fuel used in nuclear weapons. The only thing that can bring the plutonium reactors back to life is cold weather. In the early hours of June 1, in the off-limits town of Zheleznogorsk in the Krasnoyarsk region of central Russia, the country’ last plutonium producing reactor was shut down, Rossiyskaya Gazeta reports. The reactor is located underground at a unique plant in the mountains some 50 kilomters from the city of Krasnoyarsk. With the shutting down of the reactor, Russia has fulfilled its obligations regarding Plutonium-239, agreed with the US who agreed equivalent shut-downs.’

There’s a nice little attempt at saving face on French nuclear company AREVA’s North American blog in response to an article in the New York Times.

The NYT piece expresses scepticism about AREVA’s ability to spearhead a nuclear ‘renaissance’ in the light of the farcical attempts to build prototype third-generation EPR nuclear reactors in Olkiluoto, Finland and Flamanville, France.

AREVA downplay the massive cost and schedule overruns, the safety and construction violations, and design shortcomings as ‘a learning curve’. If only Areva’s ability to build nuclear reactors was as powerful as its amazing skills of understatement and spin.

‘Before construction begins in earnest on the first EPR™ reactors in the United States,’ says the company’s blog, ‘AREVA will have completed several others internationally.’ In other words: don’t worry American investors, it’s the poor Europeans who are carrying the burden of our multiple botched attempts at getting EPR right.

The company’s optimism doesn’t stand up to a moment’s scrutiny. It’s boast that ‘today more than 30 new reactors are under consideration in the United States’ falls over when you see that the Japan Steel Works (JSW), the company that produces ‘around 80% of the world market for large forged components for nuclear plants, notably the largest reactor pressure vessel sections, steam generators and turbine shafts’, is capable of producing ‘only four reactor pressure vessels and associated components per year’. It’s hoping to triple its capacity by 2012 but it’s clear that JSW - which has a four-year backlog - represents a significant bottleneck for the nuclear ‘renaissance’ (the heavy-manufacturing facility at Châlon-St Marcel in France has a five-year backlog). The United States can consider 30 nuclear reactors all it likes but whether they can be built any time soon – in competition with nuclear ‘renaissances’ elsewhere - remains extremely doubtful.

The AREVA blog accuses the New York Times of ‘several inaccuracies and mischaracterizations’ without saying what they are or addressing them directly. Maybe they should attempt deal with concerns honestly and in detail if they want to avoid the suspicion that they are merely a propaganda machine.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

World Nuclear News: Regulator's OK for Olkiluoto 4
’Finland's nuclear safety and radiation regulator, Stuk, has found no reason in principle why another nuclear power reactor could not be built at the Olkiluoto site. Two boiling water reactors already operate at the site and a pressurized water reactor is under construction, while owner Teollisuuden Voima Oyj has submitted an application to government for a decision in principle to allow construction of a fourth unit.’

Do you remember this scene from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? Indy has gone to rescue his father Henry who is being held captive by the Nazis at the Castle of Brunwald. The rescue has not gone well and now Indy has also been captured. The Nazis want Henry’s Grail Diary which contains vital clues to the whereabouts of the Holy Grail and which Henry has mailed to Indy for safe-keeping. If the Nazis get their hands on the Grail, in the words of Henry, ‘the armies of darkness will march all over the face of the earth’…

SS OFFICER: I will take the book now.

INDY/HENRY: (simultaneously) What book?

SS OFFICER (to INDY): You have the Diary in your pocket.

HENRY laughs genuinely, believing himself to be laughing at the expense of the
SS OFFICER.

HENRY: You dolt! Do you think that my son would be that stupid that he would bring my Diary all the way back here?

At which point an awful thought strikes HENRY.

HENRY: You didn't, did you? You didn't bring it, did you?

INDY: Well, uh...

HENRY: You did!!

INDY: Look, can we discuss this later?

HENRY: I should have mailed it to the Marx Brothers.

It’s a great scene, isn’t it? Not sure what made us think of it. Anyway, in other news…

The [US] federal government mistakenly made public a 266-page report, its pages marked “highly confidential,” that gives detailed information about hundreds of the nation’s civilian nuclear sites and programs, including maps showing the precise locations of stockpiles of fuel for nuclear weapons.

Oh yes, that’s what made us think of it.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Reuters: Secret Canada nuclear papers left in TV studio
’OTTAWA, June 3 (Reuters) - Senior Canadian officials left a binder full of confidential nuclear documents in a television studio and made no attempt to retrieve them, the TV network involved said on Wednesday. The incident is likely to increase pressure on the minority Conservative government, already under fire for its handling of the economic crisis. The main opposition Liberal Party said on Tuesday it would decide next week whether to try to bring down the Conservatives in Parliament. The binder was found in a CTV television studio after a visit by Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt. CTV, which kept the binder for six days before breaking the news, said the documents showed the government would spend far more money on a troubled nuclear reactor than it had acknowledged.’

There’s more hype and spin on AREVA’s North America blog today as it tries to sell the idea that the company is on the frontline against nuclear proliferation.

As part of this commitment to remove weapons-grade material from stockpiles, AREVA has partnered with the Shaw Group to build the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. This facility when complete with convert the weapons-grade plutonium into MOX fuel for use in commercial nuclear power plants. This $4.9 billion project now under construction employs some 1,000 workers and is being built for DOE.

We’ll move swiftly over the fact that the construction at the Savannah River Site was recently issued with a ‘notice of violation’ for multiple failings in quality control evaluations, construction procedures and safety testing.

Instead we’ll focus on AREVA’s claim that MOX somehow helps in the battle against nuclear proliferation. In reality, MOX presents a greater proliferation risk than even conventional nuclear fuel. The plutonium required to create MOX could be stolen by terrorists and can be diverted to nuclear weapons programmes by countries. Once the MOX fuel is produced, the plutonium content is also easier to extract than from other varieties of nuclear fuel.

So, AREVA’s MOX plant may well remove ‘weapons-grade material from stockpiles’ but it certainly doesn’t remove the dangers.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

AHN: Pickering Nuclear Power Station Lacks Experienced Staff To Deal With Serious Accident, Emergencies
’Calgary, Alberta (AHN) - The Chalk River nuclear reactor shutdown has Canada take a second look at its nuclear facilities. An assessment made by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission of the country's seven nuclear plants for 2008 showed that the nation's oldest power reactor in Pickering may compromise public safety because of its shortage of experienced staff to handle disaster and emergency situations. Aside from the experienced manpower lack, the assessment report, which will be presented at a hearing next week, pointed to the outages which had occurred at the Ontario Power Generation plant in Pickering because of equipment malfunction and other problem areas.’

...maybe. But weird for sure. On Wednesday and Thursday this week, your eye might have caught something strange among the nuclear news. Let's see...

How often has it happened to you that you send an email to the wrong person, or say something nasty in the wrong Skype window, or even to upload some information on the internet when you shouldn't have? This is something likely to happen to any of us, at least to me.

Now, what are the possibilities of this happening to the federal government of the United States? Yes, mistake like this can happen anytime, we are all humans after all. But what is the probability of the US federal government uploading a 266-page 'highly confidential' report onto the internet? I'd say slightly less probable. Especially when the document gives ‘detailed information about hundreds of the nation's civilian nuclear sites and programs, including maps showing the precise locations of stockpiles of fuel for nuclear weapons’ and the US government leaves it online for two full days before withdrawing it. Ok. So big mistakes can happen even to professional experts and even when it might jeopardize the security of a whole nation... unless.... unless they just wanted to try their luck. Yes, that must be it.

Yesterday it was the turn of Canada to try its own luck and test the national media and public opinion: according to Reuters, some Canadian officials "left a binder full of confidential nuclear documents in a television studio". The funniest part is that they did not try to retrieve the documents. Not even after six days. Alright, it might be some political manoeuver, but still the message is pretty clear to me: Greenpeace is not the only one to want an open public debate on Nukes.

So who's next? Let's see what info we mistakenly receive tomorrow...

(This is a guest post by Anne-Laure Meladeck, GPI Climate & Energy Assistant for Greenpeace International)

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

China View: IAEA discovers traces of uranium in Syria
’CAIRO, June 6 (Xinhua) -- The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said on Friday that it has found traces of processed uranium in a second site in Syrian capital Damascus, Pan-Arab Al-Arabiya TV reported on Saturday. The IAEA is investigating a U.S. intelligence report which claimed that a secret DPRK-designed nuclear reactor that Syria has almost completed for the production of plutonium.’

Most of us like to think of the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) as a force for good, led by calm and reassuring figures such as Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, touring the world fighting nuclear proliferation.

That’s part of the story. The other, less well known, part of the story sees the IAEA as a global lobbyist for the nuclear industry…

… the IAEA's mission is to "accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world". Although best known for its work to restrict nuclear proliferation, the IAEA's main role has been to promote the interests of the nuclear power industry worldwide.

If this wasn’t disturbing enough for a so-called independent organisation that reports to the United Nations’ Security Council and General Assembly, things take a sinister turn when it comes to the health implications of nuclear power. It has used its position to ‘suppress the growing body of scientific information on the real health risks of nuclear radiation’…

For example, investigations into the health impacts of the Chernobyl nuclear accident in Ukraine on 26 April 1986 have been effectively taken over by IAEA and dissenting information has been suppressed. The health effects of the accident were the subject of two major conferences, in Geneva in 1995, and in Kiev in 2001. But the full proceedings of those conferences remain unpublished – despite claims to the contrary by a senior World Health Organisation spokesman reported in Le Monde Diplomatique.

When information of this nature is suppressed, one must be forgive for concluding the people doing the suppressing have something to hide; that, in this case, the IAEA has good reason to help hide the risks of nuclear energy to human health. Surely, if there were no concerns, the proceedings of these conferences would be in the public domain. So why aren’t they?

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Nuclear N-Former: Indian reactor shuts down for the third time in three weeks
’The Indian Point nuclear power plant is struggling to keep its reactors running. Plant operators shut down reactor Unit 3 again Sunday night to address more problems on its main boiler feedwater pumps. This is the third time the reactor has been forced offline in three weeks. Officials with Entergy Nuclear, the company that owns and operates Indian Point, said the hitches pose no threat to its workers or the public. "The plant is designed to shut down at the slightest hint that something may not be working optimally," said spokesman Jerry Nappi.’

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Today’s Zaman: Turkey's nuclear dreams face uncertain future
’Turkey's long-running dream of having a nuclear power plant is surrounded by uncertainty despite the fact that a recently concluded tender on the construction of the country's first nuclear power plant is about to be finalized. Energy and Natural Resources Minister Taner Yildiz said the final decision on the tender would be made in June, but it seems that incertitude about the matter will not be cleard up easily even if the tender is discussed at a Cabinet meeting. As only one company entered the tender and the price offered is considerably high, the Cabinet will not be able to make an easy decision. Moreover, the global economic crisis has taken its toll on funds that were to be allocated to the nuclear power plant contract.’

The transportation of the enormous (and we mean HUGE) components required to build nuclear power plants is really a metaphor for the nuclear industry as a whole: huge, lumbering, slow-moving, a logistical nightmare, and causing a massive inconvenience to all concerned.

Take the two steam generators being built in France by Areva for the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in America. Seventy feet long and weighing 510 tons each, the generators will sail across the Atlantic and up the Chesapeake Bay to Port Deposit. The 70-mile journey from Port Deposit to Three Mile Island will take 20 days as the 26-axle self-propelled flatbed trailers have a top speed of just three miles an hour.

‘A small army of 100 workers is expected to accompany the generators in a column about a mile long…[T]he trip will take the generators over 20 bridges that either will have to be braced to carry the 850-ton combined weight of each generator and transporter, or, in three cases, bypassed altogether… Eighteen traffic signals along the proposed travel route will have to be temporarily lowered, along with numerous utility wires, and trees will have to be cut, all to give the generators the vertical clearance they need to pass.’

See? It’s a metaphor. Will the nuclear industry, moving at a snail’s pace like these generators, get there in time? Are you, like the bridges of Lancaster County, braced for what a nuclear ‘renaissance’ will take? The environmental damage, the uncertainty, consultations and concerns bypassed altogether?

Or will the nuclear industry end up like the nuclear turbines that were destined for Canada’s Point Lepreau reactor a few months back? That’s sunk. Here’s hoping.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Whitehaven News: 'Rogue' radioactive material to be sent to France
’This is the batch of eight Mox fuel assemblies made at Sellafield and later found to be "falsified" in its specification data after being shipped out to customers in Japan. The faked pellets scandal led to loss of business confidence in BNFL and for a time Japan refused to strike any further deals with Sellafield. The fuel, a mixture of plutonium and uranium, was sent back to Sellafield - seven years ago. Now, after several years "evaluating the best options", agreement has been reached with the government that the "rogue" fuel batch, along with a another eight, will be shipped to France for treatment - but not until 2014/15.’

From top to bottom, the nuclear industry is built on uncertainty. If a representative of company building a nuclear reactor gives you a firm answer to the questions ‘how much will it cost?’ and ‘when will it be finished?’ they are lying to you. The only truthful answers to those questions are ‘I’ll tell you when it’s finished’ and ‘I’ll tell you when it’s finished’.

The latest example is this story about how…

…the U.S. Energy Department is negotiating with the Tennessee Valley Authority and at least one other potential client to use mixed oxide fuels from a $4.86 billion facility under construction at Savannah River Site.

It’s a story couched in so many ‘might’s and ‘potential’s as to be practically worthless. The mixed oxide (MOX) plant production plant at Savannah River is scheduled to open in 2016. Would you put money on the plant opening that year? Remember that the facility is being built by Areva of Olkiluoto and Flamanville infamy, and that the Savannah construction has already been issued with a ‘notice of violation’ for multiple failings in quality control evaluations, construction procedures and safety testing.

So we have the Tennessee Valley Authority which ‘might’ take MOX fuel for six existing reactors - and three reactors that ‘might’ be built some time in the future – from a production facility that ‘might’ be ready in 2016.

This is just another demonstration of the danger and deceit inherent in the nature of nuclear power. We have renewable technologies ready to go today that are cheaper, safer, quicker and easier to construct, and will make a significant impact on climate change. And yet governments around the world would rather rely on the ‘might’ of a nuclear industry which offers none of those promises.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Guardian: US nuclear industry tries to hijack Obama's climate change bill
’America's nuclear industry and its supporters in Congress have moved to hijack Barack Obama's agenda for greening the economy by producing a rival plan to build 100 new reactors in 20 years, and staking a claim for the money to come from a proposed clean energy development bank. Republicans in the House of Representatives produced a spoiler version of the Democrats' climate change bill this week, calling for a doubling of the number of nuclear reactors in the US by 2030. The 152-page Republican bill contains just one reference to climate change, and proposes easing controls for new nuclear plants. In the Senate, Republican leaders, including the former presidential candidate John McCain, also called this week for loan guarantees for building new reactors to rise from $18.5bn (£11.2bn) to $38bn. Other Republicans have called on the administration to underwrite the $122bn start-up costs of 19 nuclear reactors, whose applications are now under review by the department of energy. If Republican efforts in Congress for a nuclear energy bill and a clean energy bank fail, the US nuclear renaissance is likely to be restricted to new reactors already being built. Jim Riccio, Greenpeace nuclear analyst, said: "The renaissance is on hold or maybe dead on arrival."

In the Spiderman comics and movies, mild-mannered photographer famously gains arachnid superpowers after being bitten by a radioactive spider. We were wondering what superpowers you’d gain if you were stung by a radioactive wasp…

If workers cleaning up the nation's most contaminated nuclear site didn't have enough to worry about, now they've got to deal with radioactive wasp nests. Mud dauber wasps built the nests, which have been largely abandoned by their flighty owners, in holes at south-central Washington's Hanford nuclear reservation in 2003.

What do you think? An uncanny ability to spoil picnics?

The nuclear weapons tests that North Korea carried out two weeks ago, on May 25, reminded us once again that nuclear power technology remains the most dangerous technology mankind has ever created. With regional tensions rising, the ASEAN region, with nuclear ambitions of itself, is warned that treading the nuclear path is a dangerous way to go forward.

Currently four countries, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam, have serious plans to develop nuclear power, but Malaysia and Myanmar have also expressed interest. With the exception of the latter, there is no doubt that none of these countries' governments intend to use nuclear power for any other than peaceful purposes. But history has pointed out again and again that there is no guarantee for nuclear power to be restricted to peaceful uses. With the 1995 Bangkok Treaty the ASEAN declared itself Southeast Asia a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (SEANWFZ), but clear safeguards systems to enforce this are not yet in place. Besides, such treaties, are typically marked by double standards and serious loopholes, as with the case of the Non Proliferation Treaty.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

AFP: EPA to rebuild uranium-contaminated Navajo homes
’FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. (AP) - The federal government plans to spend up to $3 million a year to demolish and rebuild uranium-contaminated structures across the Navajo Nation, where Cold War-era mining of the radioactive substance left a legacy of disease and death. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and its Navajo counterpart are focusing on homes, sheds and other buildings within a half-mile to a mile from a significant mine or waste pile. They plan to assess 500 structures over five years and rebuild those that are too badly contaminated. "These families, with the resources they have, they would not be able to put up a new home for themselves," said Lillie Lane, a spokeswoman for the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection
Agency. "We don't know how radiation in the home affected these families, but in the end people will be living in safe homes." Between the 1940s and the 1980s, millions of tons of uranium ore were mined from the 27,000 square-mile reservation that spans Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. Many Navajos, unaware of the dangers of contamination, built their homes with chunks of uranium ore and mill tailings.’

It’s difficult to know whether to laugh at or use a long series of very rude words about this story from the UK’s Sizewell A nuclear reactor.

The reactor is currently being decommissioned. On Sunday January 7 2007 one of the contractors went to the site’s laundry room to wash some clothes. He noticed water leaking into the room. It was found that the water was leaking from the pond holding the site’s 5,000 highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel rods. A 15 feet-long crack in a pipe leading from the pond had leaked up to 40,000 gallons of radioactive water, some of it into the North Sea.

The site’s safety monitoring systems did not detect the drop in the water levels in the pond. A report by the UK’s Nuclear Installation Inspectorate estimated, had the leak not been found, the pond would have been drained in around ten hours exposing the fuel rods to the air.

This could have caused to the rods to catch fire sending radioactivity material into the atmosphere. The report say ‘that there was significant risk that operators and even members of the public could have been harmed if there had not been fortunate and appropriate intervention of a contractor who just happened to be in the right plant area when things went wrong.’

By sheer chance and luck, a potentially serious nuclear accident was avoided. Who knows what might have happened had that contractor not gone to wash his clothes this day? We imagine he certainly had to wash his underwear once he realised where the water he was standing in was coming from.

Can we believe the spin? Will Sizewell A’s operator’s excuses wash? The Nuclear Installation Inspectorate was financially under-resourced meaning it didn’t have the funds to prosecute the reactor’s operators. One thing’s for sure, nuclear power’s reputation certainly isn’t whiter than white.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Bloomberg: Gulf’s Push for Nuclear Experts May Delay U.K. Plans
June 15 (Bloomberg) -- U.K. utilities risk falling behind with plans to build nuclear power plants because Middle East nations may use higher salaries to lure skilled workers, reactor builder Westinghouse Electric Co. said. “These nations have no legacy program to use as a source for nuclear expertise,” said Adrian Bull, U.K. stakeholder relations manager at Westinghouse, a unit of Japan’s Toshiba Corp. “If you have literally nothing to go on, you have to be the Chelsea or Real Madrid and buy in the people from elsewhere.” Oil-producing nations including the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait plan nuclear plants to meet growing energy demand at home while exporting fuel abroad. The U.A.E. plans to select companies to develop an atomic power program by the end of this year and has a 2017 target date for completing its first reactor, the same year Electricite de France SA plans to start a new British nuclear plant.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

AFP: Funds to shut nuclear plants fall short
’VERNON, Vt. (AP) - The companies that own almost half the nation's nuclear reactors are not setting aside enough money to dismantle them, and many may sit idle for decades and pose safety and security risks as a result, an Associated Press investigation has found. The shortfalls are caused not by fluctuating appetites for nuclear power but by the stock market and other investments, which have suffered huge losses over the past year and devastated the plants' savings, and by the soaring costs of decommissioning. At 19 nuclear plants, owners have won approval to idle reactors for as long as 60 years, presumably enough time to allow investments to recover and eventually pay for dismantling the plants and removing radioactive material. But mothballing nuclear reactors or shutting them down inadequately presents the most severe of risks. Radioactive waste could leak from abandoned plants into ground water or released into the air, and spent nuclear fuel rods could be stolen by terrorists. During the past two years, estimates of dismantling costs have soared by more than $4.6 billion because rising energy and labor costs, while the investment funds that are supposed to pay for shutting plants down have lost $4.4 billion in the battered stock market.’

See those numbers ticking away? That’s how many days, hours, minutes and seconds late is the European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) being built at Olkiluoto in Finland. The reactor’s builders, French nuclear joker’s Areva, say it will be ready by 2012 – three years late – but so numerous are the errors and failings surrounding the construction, only a fool would bet money on it going online that year.

Over three years late and more than 50 percent over budget, who will pay the cost for Areva’s failings? Why, the taxpayer and Finnish electricity consumers, of course. Don’t they always?

The French nuclear industry isn’t only in trouble in Finland. A new report - Areva and EDF:Business prospects and risks in nuclear energy - by Steve Thomas, Professor of Energy Policy at London’s Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU), shows Areva and France’s other nuclear company, EDF, in financial dire straits.

Both companies are risking their credit ratings to by embarking on risky projects (like trying to sell the increasingly ridiculous EPR to the rest of the world) that can only increase their debts. We saw what a panic EDF is in when its UK CEO, Vincent de Rivaz, after boasting that new reactors in the UK would require no financial assistance from government, then performed a screeching u-turn and begged for subsidies.

Areva and EDF are looking to sell parts of their business in order to try and cover the gaping holes in their finances. Can they find buyers? Can they raise enough money? Can they erase long histories of incompetence, cover-up and financial mismanagement to launch a nuclear ‘renaissance’ that is clean, cheap, reliable, safe and delivered in a time frame to save us from catastrophic climate change?

All the evidence says a big fat ‘NO’. And the clock is ticking…

(More information at Greenpeace International and Greenpeace UK)

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

New Civil Engineer: EDF plays down concerns over Flamanville nuclear plant
French energy giant EDF this week insisted that construction of its flagship Flamanville 3 nuclear reactor in France was “on time and on budget” amid claims that the project was running late and that costs were increasing. EDF managing director of nuclear new build Humphrey Cadoux-Hudson said: “We are still on our construction target to date. These are very big and complex sites so you can never say that nothing is ever going to happen on such an enormous construction programme but overall we are inside what we were expecting.” The Flamanville plant on the north coast of France is EDF’s first attempt at building its European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) and the project is being closely monitored as the firm plans to build four identical plants in the UK. The EPR was designed jointly by EDF and energy firm and rival Areva. Construction of the world’s first EPR reactor by Areva at Olkiluoto in Finland is already running three years behind schedule due to a multitude of factors including quality control issues. Industry insiders believe Flamanville is facing similar problems which are pushing up costs.

It’s official: Indonesian State Minister of Research and Technology Kusmayanto Kadiman announced late last month that the tendering process for new nuclear power plants, expected to be completed by the end of the year, have been postponed indefinitely .

The process has lacked political support and with presidential elections due in July, the government has pulled the plug. Kusmayanto said, ‘It's impossible to decide now. For the fastest, it will possibly take at last six more years.’ This destroys plans to have a nuclear power plant operating in the 2016-2019 timeframe established by Indonesian Law No. 17/2007.

But that’s nuclear power for you - buried in uncertainties, mired in political uncertainties, and subject to massive timescales while the climate change clock is ticking.

Meanwhile, the sun is shining on the Indonesian solar energy industry. It’s providing jobs and improving lives right now.

Regular readers of Nuclear Reaction will by now be all too familiar with the ever-lengthening list of problems with Areva’s supposedly state-of-the-art, third-generation European Pressurized Reactor.

To recap, currently just two EPRs are being built in the world right now – one at Olkiluoto in Finland and one in Flamanville in France. Both have been beset by long-running construction problems, schedule and cost overruns, and all-round hilarious ineptitude and controversy.

The predecessor of the EPR, its parent if you like, was the Framatome N4 of which France has four. The N4 had problems of its own which sound all too familiar…

The early life of the N4 units was marked by a series of design-related problems. The reactors suffered delays in commissioning (from three to six years) and numerous shutdowns because of the novelty of their overall design, electronic control and components. The first of the N4 reactors, Chooz-B1 was connected to the grid in August 1996, Chooz-B2 in April 1997, Civaux-1 in December 1997 and Civaux-2 in December 1999.

In 1996, EDF officials estimated the two Chooz B units had cost already 23-billion French francs (3.5-billion euros) and the two Civaux units FF 21-billion.

Design-related problems? Delays in commissioning? Cracked welding? N4 and EPR could be identical twin brothers, not father and son. Has nothing been learned? Nothing at all? We’ve heard this story before. Areva are remaking their own disaster movie.

Nuclear News:
Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Space Daily: German minister rules out new nuclear power stations
Germany's economy minister on Friday ruled out building new nuclear power stations but said the life of some reactors might be extended and the development of alternative technologies stepped up. "We need limited extensions until we are able to work with sensible alternative technologies in an economical and environmentally friendly manner," Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg told the Sueddeutsche Zeitung daily in an interview. "That includes the possibility of equipping existing nuclear power stations with state-of-the-art technology in order to make them even safer and more efficient," the conservative minister said. "But I see no need to build new nuclear reactors."

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

OpEdNews: The Myth of Peaceful Nuclear Power
’President Barack Obama's declaration June 4 in his speech in Cairo that "any nation--including Iran--should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power" ignores a central issue. There is no "peaceful nuclear power." Nuclear weapons and nuclear power are two sides of the same coin. Physicist Amory Lovins and Attorney L. Hunter Lovins wrote in their seminal book, Energy/War: Breaking the Nuclear Link: "All nuclear fission technologies both use and produce fissionable materials that are or can be concentrated. Unavoidably latent in those technologies, therefore, is a potential for nuclear violence and coercion which may be exploited by governments, factions. "Little strategic material is needed to make a weapon of mass destruction. A Nagasaki-yield bomb can be made from a few kilograms of plutonium, a piece the size of a tennis ball. "A large power reactor," they note, "annually produces"hundreds of kilograms of plutonium." Civilian nuclear power technology, they conclude, provides the way to make nuclear weapons, furnishing the material and the trained personnel.’

Nuclear power harms Germany, in other words. Here are 22 Greenpeace Germany activists who yesterday climbed the dome of Unterweser, one of the seven oldest nuclear power plants in the country.

Copyright: © Fred Dott / Greenpeace

Documents from Germany’s Federal Criminal Police Office show that Unterweser and the six other reactors – with their thin reinforced concrete walls and low security measures - don’t have safety systems to protect them from plane crashes or terrorist attacks from the air.

Greenpeace is a strictly non-violent organisation. What if that had been a terrorist organisation on top of the reactor yesterday? These plants should be closed immediately.

(More information along with a video of the action is available on the Greenpeace Germany website.)

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Environment Analyst: Consultancy report raises questions about UK nuclear safety regulation
’Consulting engineers Large & Associates were commissioned by a small NGO, Shutdown Sizewell, to examine why the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) - which is also frequently referred to as the "nuclear directorate" of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) - chose not to prosecute Magnox Electric for an uncontrolled spillage of 180m³ (40,000 gallons) of radioactive pond water on 7 January 2007. About a quarter of the spillage was released untreated into the marine environment via the storm sewer system. John Large, whose report was released earlier this month, believes his findings raise questions about the effectiveness and clarity of UK nuclear safety legislation and about the resources available to the NII
should it face another nuclear incident that requires both a detailed investigation and the mounting of a legal case against a nuclear power operator. The NII refutes his claims.’

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

The Manufacturer: Mandelson sets out nuclear strategy
’Lord Mandelson has outlined his vision for the future of the British nuclear industry in one of his first addresses in his amended role as Secretary of State for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS). The creation of the Department for BIS represents the amalgamation of the Departments for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and Innovation, Universities and Skills. Mandelson headed the former since October last year and now takes up the reins at the joint office. Speaking at the UNITE Nuclear Supply Chain Conference, Mandelson praised the legacy of British manufacturing, yet warned that it must remain strong in its "capacity to compete and win in a global economy."’

On Wednesday evening, Vincent De Rivaz, Chief Executive of EDF Energy, was interviewed on the UK’s Sky News channel. It was the same day as the UK government announcing its latest nuclear power strategy.

The interview is worth watching because of the evasions and contradictions in what Mr De Rivaz said. Unfortunately they weren’t challenged by the interviewer so, in a short series, we're going to challenge them instead.

Answering the question about how his nuclear ‘renaissance’ will be funded (‘Will it happen with government subsidy?’), he said:

I’ve always said we don’t ask for taxpayers’ money. We don’t ask for government subsidy. I’ve always said that. I’m still saying that. I will continue to say that.

That’s pretty definite. And it’s a nice little piece of spin. Mr De Rivaz isn’t asking the British government to directly support EDF. No, he’s a little more subtle than that. What he actually asked in May this year was for the British government to fix the energy markets to make financial life easier for EDF…

New nuclear power stations will not be built in Britain unless the government provides financial support for the industry, the head of the country’s biggest nuclear generator has warned.

Vincent de Rivaz, chief executive of the UK subsidiary of EDF, told the Financial Times that a “level playing field” had to be created that would allow the nuclear industry to compete with other low-emission electricity sources such as wind power.

‘We believe nuclear is competitive,’ he said in the Sky News interview when he actually doesn’t believe anything of the kind. He believes it could be competitive but only with serious government intervention.

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

London Evening Standard: EDF Energy’s chief sees his pay rise after profits plunge
’Vincent de Rivaz, chief executive of gas and electricity giant EDF Energy, got a £200,000 pay rise last year at a time when it put up prices for customers and saw profits plunge. De Rivaz was paid £900,000 in 2008, accounts published today showed. In that period, pre-tax profit fell to £252 million from £305 million a year earlier as gas prices fluctuated wildly.’

On Wednesday evening, Vincent De Rivaz, Chief Executive of EDF Energy, was interviewed on the UK’s Sky News channel. It was the same day as the UK government announcing its latest nuclear power strategy.

The interview is worth watching because of the evasions and contradictions in what Mr De Rivaz said. Unfortunately they weren’t challenged by the interviewer so, in a short series, we're going to challenge them instead ( - part one is here).

Mr De Rivaz said, ‘I am very open to debate and discussions’ with the like of Greenpeace on the matter of nuclear power and climate change. Debate? What debate? How is this debate to conducted? Where will these discussions take place?

What about the debate at the European Commission’s European Nuclear Energy Forum (Enef) from which ‘Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and Sortir du Nucléaire, the only groups invited into the industry-dominated body, have walked out, accusing Enef of stifling critical voices, ignoring their concerns and riding roughshod over alternative scientific evidence’? EDF is part of that industry-dominated body. Where was Mr De Rivaz’s openness to debate and discussion at those meetings?

Dutch unlisted utility Delta said on Thursday it had started to apply to build a second nuclear power plant in the Netherlands, which it expects will be operational in 2018.

So the Greenpeace team went down to the Delta head office in Middelburg, while the plans for the plant were being presented to shareholders, and built Delta their very own (mock) nuclear waste dump…

© Greenpeace/Bas Beentjes

Where will all the waste from a second nuclear power plant go? We can safely assume Delta won’t want it on their doorstep. No, it will be dumped at COVRA, the Netherlands’ nuclear waste storage depository, where it will sit for the next 100 years while the nuclear industry hopes and prays that a solution to dangerous nuclear waste will present itself.

And where will all the electricity from the plant go? Right now, there’s no demand. The Dutch environment minister Jacqueline Cramer has her doubts…

She believes the Netherlands will produce more energy than it can use by 2012. 'Then you have to ask if you should be creating more capacity in the form of nuclear power stations.'

There’s no solution to the waste a second plant will produce. If Ms Cramer is right, the Netherlands doesn’t need the electricity. Wind power capacity has almost doubled in the country since 2005. Research suggests the Dutch electricity system is capable of coping with the supply of large-scale wind power in the future.

There’s no need for a new nuclear power station in the Netherlands. So why build one?

(More information is available in Dutch on the Greenpeace Netherlands website. Video of the action can be seen here.)

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Globe and Mail: Canada Reactor design puts safety of nuclear plants into question
’Canadian nuclear safety regulators say they have underestimated the seriousness of a design feature at the country's electricity-producing reactors that would cause them to experience dangerous power pulses during a major accident. If reactors are not shut down quickly, their ability to keep radioactivity from escaping would be put to the test, according to an internal commission document. The document says Canada's seven nuclear stations, which all use Candu technology, have a feature known as "positive reactivity feedback," in which their atomic chain reactions automatically speed up if the water pumped into the reactors to cool them leaks, one of the worst accidents possible at a nuclear station. If reactors aren't immediately shut down during this type of incident, positive reactivity leads to a quick snowballing in the pace of nuclear reactions, which in turn could cause potentially damaging overheating. The document was obtained by the anti-nuclear environmental group Greenpeace through a federal Access to Information Act request. Positive reactivity is "the Achilles heel of Candu," said spokesman Shawn-Patrick Stensil, who contended it amounts to a design flaw that puts the safety of the reactors into question.’

On Wednesday evening last week, Vincent De Rivaz, Chief Executive of EDF Energy, was interviewed on the UK’s Sky News channel. It was the same day as the UK government announcing its latest nuclear power strategy.

The interview is worth watching because of the evasions and contradictions in what Mr De Rivaz said that are common in nuclear power propaganda. Unfortunately they weren’t challenged by the interviewer so, in a short series, we're going to challenge them instead ( - part one is here, part two is here).

What about the highly dangerous waste produced by nuclear reactors? Here’s Mr De Rivaz’s entire response to the question, ‘there is the legacy of waste, isn’t there? That can be very dangerous for many years…’

The biggest challenge that we are facing all of us, we know it and we know it more and more, is climate change. We need to de-carbonise electricity and if we as a country to deliver what is our plan in 2050, 80% reduction of C02 emissions we need to de-carbonise electricity. So nuclear is part of the solution for sure.

Do you think he answered the question or singularly failed to address it? We know what we think. The biggest problem of nuclear power, it’s toxic, deadly legacy that will be with the human race for hundreds of thousands of years to come, is the waste it produces. And yet the CEO of EDF, lacked the courage to give a straight question on this vital issue with a straight answer.

According to writer H. Michael Sweeney there are 25 Rules of Disinformation. The number one rule? Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

How this works:

The accumulating costs above are based on the EUR 1.7 billion overrun announced by Areva/TVO plus an extra EUR 1.2 billion which will be needed to purchase electricity that has not been produced by Olkiluoto-3 since its projected start.

These costs will eventually be paid for by Nordic electricity consumers and French taxpayers, either through higher bills for customers or through taxes.

The financing of Areva’s EPR programme isn’t going well at all. It needs ‘between eight and 10 billion euros by 2012 to fund its investment programme’ and a desperate French government are putting parts of the company up for sale.

Related posts: EPR: Enfant Terrible of the French Nuclear Industry

Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Financial Times: French government forces Areva's 'iron lady' to bend
’Areva's board meets today to rubber stamp what was always inevitable - the sale of the nuclear group's transmission and distribution business and its stakes in a number of blue-chip companies. This is what Areva's main shareholder, the French government, has long wanted to fund the rising investment needs of its nuclear champion. This is what Jean-Cyril Spinetta, its new chairman - also the chairman of Air France-KLM - is going to recommend. He is also expected to confirm that the government, which, through different state or state-controlled institutions, owns more than 90 per cent of Areva, has agreed to open up the company's capital to new investors, although perhaps not the investors Anne Lauvergeon, Areva chief executive, would have wanted. Ms Lauvergeon, sometimes called France's "iron lady", has long campaigned for a market flotation to open up the group's capital, which is only traded through investment certificates. However, the government has always regarded Areva as a strategic national asset. It now wants to raise funds which are urgently needed not just for investments, but also to finance the â‚2bn ($2.8bn) Areva needs to buy out Siemens, its German engineering joint venture partner.’

On Wednesday evening last week, Vincent De Rivaz, Chief Executive of EDF Energy, was interviewed on the UK’s Sky News channel. It was the same day as the UK government announcing its latest nuclear power strategy.

The interview is worth watching because of the evasions and contradictions in what Mr De Rivaz said that are common in nuclear power propaganda. Unfortunately they weren’t challenged by the interviewer so, in a short series, we're going to challenge them instead ( - part one is here, part two is here, part three is here).

In the interview, Mr De Rivaz said ‘nuclear is a CO2-free energy’. Yet more spin. Mr De Rivaz seems to be conveniently forgetting the C02 emissions from uranium mining, enrichment and nuclear fuel production along with the emissions from manufacturing the concrete and steel needed to build nuclear reactors.

When asked about support from the major UK parties for nuclear power and ‘are you confident you’ve got it in the current government and from any possible future government’, Mr De Rivaz said emphatically: ‘Yes, I am… I am confident that the main opposition party is exactly on the same policy.’ Strange then that the energy policy document from the opposition Conservative Party makes no reference to future plans for nuclear power at all. Not a single one.

Mr De Rivaz also said that EDF’s nuclear power plants will take ‘less than 60 months’ to build which is a pretty wild boast in the current climate. Can we really expect EDF to buck a very large trend and actually get their reactors built on time and on budget? Stranger things have happened but the precedents are poor to say the least.