Nuclear News: New Greenpeace Chief Kumi Naidoo Calls for Sustainable, Nuclear-Free Power Supply
Today's big stories from the nuclear industry:
New Greenpeace Chief Calls for Sustainable, Nuclear-Free Power Supply
‘Kumi Naidoo was appointed executive director of the environmental campaign group Greenpeace International this month after two decades leading civil society groups in Africa and internationally. Mr. Naidoo, 44, who is from South Africa, takes over the role at a time when environmentalism increasingly enjoys mainstream status, although the agenda of groups like Greenpeace remains at odds with those of many governments in critical areas like nuclear power and biotechnology. Mr. Naidoo, who is based in Amsterdam, answered questions on energy and climate policy in an e-mail exchange with Green Inc. ‘Nuclear power is a dangerous distraction to real solutions.’
New EDF chief voices dissent
‘Henri Proglio, the incoming boss of EDF, has sparked a controversy just days before he takes over at France’s state-controlled nuclear operator by claiming the country’s showcase atomic industry is not working. Speaking to the French daily Les Echos, Mr Proglio, who takes over as executive chairman on Monday, said his ambition was to “have a French nuclear industry that works. That means that we have to rethink the whole industry”. He criticised the organisation of a highly sensitive bid by a French consortium including EDF for a multi-billon euro reactor contract in Abu Dhabi. He also suggested that the creation of French champion - the nuclear fuel and engineering group, Areva - “had been a “mistake”, and that EDF should have a stake in its reactor business. The comments have raised hackles in the presidential Elysée palace, particularly after a series of recent public setbacks in the French nuclear industry that have drawn international attention. President Nicolas Sarkozy was on Wednesday in Saudi Arabia, which is currently reviewing the possibility of building nuclear reactors. But people close to the subject said Mr Proglio was likely to receive a call in the coming days from his largest shareholder over his communication strategy.’
Who Will Dare to Invest in Nuclear Power?
‘Will there be a nuclear power renaissance in the United States, as a host of rosy-glassed prognosticators have predicted? Not as long as it remains such an abysmal investment opportunity, Matthew Wald writes in Technology Review’s November-December issue. Wald, a New York Times reporter, contends that nuclear has come a long way in reliability and efficiency but still carries some serious financial baggage. “As the possibility of an accident that panics or injures the neighbors has diminished,” he writes, “the likelihood has grown that even a properly functioning new reactor will be unable to pay for itself.” Wald cites three factors, all in flux, that make nuclear a huge financial risk. One is the sheer cost of building a new reactor, $4,000 per kilowatt of capacity using optimistic math, which is more than coal ($3,000) and far more than natural gas ($800). Another is the future competitive landscape in energy, and thus the price of electricity. And finally, no one is certain of the future price of fossil fuels, especially natural gas, which could change the whole equation. The upshot is that prospective builders want government help in the form of federal loan guarantees - help that is not currently forthcoming.’
New study: Nuclear power slow starter in race to reduce pollution
‘Nuclear power is a slow starter in the race to reduce pollution, according to a new report by Environment Illinois. "When it comes to global warming, time and money are of the essence and nuclear power will fail America on both accounts,” said Brian Granahan, Staff Attorney and Clean Energy Advocate with Environment Illinois. “With government dollars more precious than ever, nuclear power is a foolish investment that will set us back in the race against global warming.” Some key findings of the report include: - To avoid the most catastrophic impacts of global warming, America must cut power plant emissions roughly in half over the next 10 years. - Nuclear power is too slow to contribute to this effort. No new reactors are now under construction in the United States. Building a single reactor could take 10 years or longer. As a result, it is quite possible that nuclear power could deliver no progress in the critical next decade, despite spending billions on reactor construction. - Even if the nuclear industry somehow managed to build 100 new nuclear reactors by 2030, nuclear power could reduce total U.S. emissions of global warming pollution over the next 20 years by only 12 percent -- far too little, too late.’
EdF to help Polish utility go nuclear
‘Poland's largest power utility, Polska Grupa Energetyczna (PGE), has signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Electricité de France (EdF) which could see the two companies cooperating in the construction of the country's first nuclear power plant. The MoU provides for feasibility studies to be jointly conducted on the development of Areva EPR reactors in Poland and on the construction of the first EPR unit in Poland by 2020. PGE and EdF also agreed to discuss the possibility of industrial partnerships in the construction of EPR units in Poland. State-owned PGE said that the MoU with EdF contains no exclusivity clause between the two companies in the development of nuclear energy in Poland. The company said the MoU was signed following preliminary discussions between PGE and potential investment partners with experience in constructing and operating nuclear power plants.;
UK Nukes - The case against
THE Government has just announced that 10 sites around the UK can be
fast-tracked through the planning system for nuclear new build. Three of
them are along the Cumbrian coast, two of them on greenfield sites. This is
bad news for the fight against climate change. Even with changes in the
planning system it will still take far too long to deliver a new nuclear
power station. Promised building timescales slip badly. At Olkiuoto,
Finland, the plant promised to be built in four years will now take at least
twice that. There can be no new nuclear power stations operating in the UK
before 2015, and probably much later than that. Because carbon dioxide stays
in the atmosphere for about 100 years, cutting emissions quickly is
important. Delay means that much deeper cuts will have to be made later.
Thailand's EGAT signs agreement with China Guangdong Nuclear Power
‘The Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) has signed an agreement with a Chinese developer of nuclear power technology, paving the way for the country's first atomic power plant, says governor Sombat Sarntijaree. EGAT signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the Chinese state-owned China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group (CGNPC) and CLP Holding Co, under which they agreed to a knowledge and information exchange on nuclear power technology over the next three years. CGNPC has developed its own nuclear-power technology over the past decade including the CPR-1000 pressurized water reactor. France's Areva co-developed the Chinese technology, said Mr Sombat. EGAT has not decided whether it will use the Chinese technology, he told the Bangkok Post. EGAT is tasked with building two nuclear power generators, with a total capacity of 2000 MW, under the current national power development plan. The power plants should come online between 2020 and 2021.’
Nuclear fuel won't go abroad, Iranian says
‘Reporting from Tripoli, Libya - Iran's foreign minister vowed Wednesday that his nation wouldn't allow any of its enriched uranium supply out of the country, the most definitive statement so far on an international proposal to exchange the bulk of Iran's nuclear material for fuel rods fitted for a Tehran medical reactor. Manouchehr Mottaki told the semiofficial Iranian Students News Agency that the Islamic Republic does not trust Russia and France -- which under the plan would further refine and mold the low-enriched uranium -- to follow through on the deal. Iran would prefer to exchange its uranium for the fuel rods within its own borders. "We will definitely not send our [low]-enriched uranium out of the country," he said in the comments published by the agency. "That means a simultaneous fuel swap inside Iran could be possible." The latest comments were seen as either a dismissal of a U.S.- and United Nations-backed proposal to ease international tensions over Iran's nuclear program by lowering Tehran's supply below the threshold required to make a bomb, or an attempt by Iran to haggle over the deal.’
