Hinkley C

UK Prime Minister David Cameron has threatened to retaliate over Austria's plans to mount a legal challenge to the Hinkley Point nuclear project, according to a document written by Vienna's ambassador to London. Britain's concerns are highlighted in Mr Eichtinger's account of a meeting with Vijay Rangarajan, a senior official at the Foreign Office. According to the letter, the UK has said that it could retaliate in several ways, with officials working on a "systematic creation of countermeasures" against the country.¹

Austria confirmed that it would launch a legal challenge against the European Union's (EU) decision to allow billions of pounds of subsidies for Hinkley on 21st January.²

The UK could retaliate by mounting a legal challenge to Austria's electricity (source) labelling on the basis that this breaches common market rules. It could also apply pressure on Austria to shoulder a higher burden in EU "internal effort-sharing" in the bloc's transition to a low-carbon economy. Britain could also begin an investigation into whether Austria's suit violated the Euratom treaty on nuclear power.

Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace, criticised the government for bullying the Austrians for daring to question the "huge and wasteful energy project", which would raise bills for British consumers. Thankfully the Austrian Government has said it won't be intimidated by threats.³

A spokeswoman for Mr Cameron said he believed that Britain had the right to choose its own energy mix. The UK government said it had no reason to believe that Austria was preparing a legal case that had any merit.⁴ On the other hand Dr Dörte Fouquet, a lawyer for the Brussels-based law firm Becker Büttner, which specialises in energy and competition law, said she thought that Austria's chances of success were "pretty high."⁵ And as the Nuclear Free Local Authorities pointed out in letters to the Guardian and Independent, if Hinkley Point goes ahead, with a £17 billion state aid package between the UK Government and EDF Energy, it could see other EU states like the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia − all close to Austria − seek to replicate such contractual operations for their own new nuclear ambitions.

It is important to note in 2006 the then Chancellor Alasdair Darling said it will be up to the private sector to "initiate, fund, construct and operate" the nuclear plants. And the UK Coalition Agreement between the Tories and Liberal Democrats allowed the Government to promote the construction of new nuclear reactors provided they receive "no public subsidy".

Councillor Mark Hackett for the NFLA says the UK Government's churlish response is mainly due to it knowing that the writing is on the wall − Hinkley Point will be subject to another long delay, and this makes it ever less likely to be built. Austria should be commended for bringing us to our senses and forcing us to see the necessity of a quite different low carbon strategy; where renewables, energy efficiency and decentralised energy can become the norm.

Investment decision delayed

The Times reported on February 7 that an investment decision would be delayed until several months after the general election because the project's Chinese backers have demanded that the French government protect them if it goes bust.⁶ The Chinese were reported to have serious concerns about the EPR reactor design and are refusing to invest unless the French government promises to bail out Areva, if necessary, and cover their share of any cost overruns.

Complex negotiations involving British ministers, their opposite numbers in Paris, EDF Energy and the Chinese have been complicated still further by the legal challenge brought by Austria against Hinkley Point. Now EDF Energy is seeking assurances from the UK Government that if Austria wins the case and the project has to be abandoned halfway through, the company will receive compensation for the money invested up to that point.

At first, according to the Burnham-on-sea.com website, EDF Energy denied reports that an investment decision would be delayed until the Autumn. And the Stop Hinkley Campaign pointed out that if EDF Energy or the Chinese demanded any new financial guarantees these would require approval from the European Competition Commissioner.⁷

Just two days later, The Telegraph reported that EDF Energy appears to have abandoned its March 2015 deadline for making an investment decision and has warned that talks on the project may still take a "considerable" time. EDF described finalising agreement on Hinkley as a "major challenge" facing the company in 2015. EDF said that before it could take a decision it needed to sign deals with co-investors, gain European Commission and UK government approval of waste transfer contract arrangements, finalise a £10 billion loan guarantee from the Treasury and finalise a subsidy contract that was provisionally agreed with the UK Government in 2013.⁸

Earlier the Financial Times reported that several potential investors have backed away from the project despite the promise of a 35-year index-linked price guarantee backed by the UK taxpayer.⁹ The Kuwaitis, the Qataris, the Saudi Electric Company and even Hermes, the UK based investment fund, have all been mentioned as possible investors but none has signed up.

On top of all this Areva, the French, mainly State-owned company which would be the main equipment supplier, will have difficulty funding its expected 10% share of the project. Areva is struggling to survive the ongoing mess of the Olkiluoto nuclear plant in Finland, which is years behind schedule and billions over budget. Areva's losses in Finland are currently estimated at €3.9bn. The loss of Areva's share of Nuclear Management Partners Consortium's contract to decommission the Sellafield will not have helped.

Areva's share price has collapsed. It ended its market year with a decline of 52% as a result of financial difficulties caused by mismanagement, hazardous speculations and acquisitions, repeated technical fiascos (i.e. the EPRs in Finland and France), the regression of global nuclear market, and especially the cessation of the Japanese market since the Fukushima nuclear disaster.¹⁰

Chinese investment

Meanwhile, the government is refusing to say whether it has followed its own rules in allowing the Chinese to invest in Hinkley, citing questions of national security. Chinese involvement in UK energy schemes remains controversial, not least because of the historical links between its industry and the military. The National Security Council (NSC) is supposed to review critical projects. But ministers have consistently refused to say whether this has been the case. The BBC requested information, under Freedom of Information laws, about whether the NSC had discussed China's investment in Hinkley and if it had, whether it had been approved.

In a delayed response, the government confirmed the information was held by the Cabinet Office but refused to say whether the NSC had approved or even discussed China's expected 30−40% stake. Labour MP Dr Alan Whitehead, a member of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, said the government's refusal to say whether it had followed its own rules was "not acceptable".¹¹

Abridged from NuClear News, No.71, February 2015, www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo71.pdf

References:

1. FT, 11 Feb 2015, www.ft.com/cms/s/0/905342fa-b214-11e4-80af-00144feab7de.html
2. Guardian, 21 Jan 2015, www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/21/austria-to-launch-lawsuit-hi...
3. Bloomberg 12 Feb 2015 www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-12/austria-says-it-won-t-be-inti...
4. FT 11 Feb 2015 www.ft.com/cms/s/0/905342fa-b214-11e4-80af-00144feab7de.html
5. Guardian, 22 Jan 2015, www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/22/uk-nuclear-ambitions-dealt-f...
6. Times, 7 Feb 2015, www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/utilities/article4346816.ece
7. Burnham-on-sea.com, 10 Feb 2015, www.burnham-on-sea.com/news/2015/hinkley-point-delay-10-02-15.php
8. Telegraph, 12 Feb 2015, www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11407745/Hinkley-Point-n...
9. FT, 11 Jan 2015, http://blogs.ft.com/nick-butler/2015/01/11/new-nuclear-2015-is-the-criti...
10. Co-ordination Antinucleaire Sudest, 1 Jan 2015, http://coordination-antinucleaire-sudest.net/2012/index.php?post/2015/01...
11. BBC, 15 Jan 2015, www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30778427

The authorisation by the European Commission of massive subsidies for the UK's Hinkley Point C nuclear project is an enormous set-back for the country's development of a sustainable and clean energy future. Not only that, it may well stall the development of renewable energy and energy efficiency in large parts of Europe for the next decade.

Strong nuclear lobbies in countries like Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia are pinning their hopes for survival on the Hinkley project. The chance to funnel large sums from state coffers and consumers' pockets to these megalomaniac pet projects will cause frantic activity in those countries where old, centralised energy systems are still popular with politicians.

Plans for 19 new nuclear reactors in Europe are based in the east of the European Union. Excluding the 12 reactors planned in the UK, there are none so far in Western Europe. It's hard to believe that even multi-billion euro hand-outs could change the atmosphere in countries like Italy, Spain, Belgium, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland, who are all phasing out their nuclear fleets.

There is a small risk that this will lead to new operating nuclear reactors. Nuclear power has priced itself out of the market in Europe with massive construction costs (5000 € / kWe or more). It's simply impossible to find sufficient financial backing unless countries are willing to sell themselves out completely to Russia's Rosatom and Vladimir Putin's financial and energy moguls, as Hungary and Finland are currently doing.

More disturbing is the threat of the discussion about energy efficiency and clean (and cheaper) renewable energy sources being pushed into the margins again. Europe needs to start urgently harvesting its abundant reserves of clean energy and plans for new nuclear reactors stand in the way.

The one non-nuclear country in the midst of it all, Austria, has announced it will fight the Commission decision in the European Court. It stands a good chance, because this deal breaks too many EU rules. As my colleague, Greenpeace EU legal adviser Andrea Carta, says: "It's such a distortion of competition rules that the Commission has left itself exposed to legal challenges. There is absolutely no legal, moral or environmental justification in turning taxes into guaranteed profits for a nuclear power company whose only legacy will be a pile of radioactive waste."

Reprinted from: www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/the-euro...

The UK Government and French utility EDF have reached initial agreement on terms of a proposed contract for the Hinkley Point C (HPC) nuclear power station in Somerset, paving the way for the construction of the first new nuclear plant in the UK since Sizewell B began operation in 1995. Operation of the first of two 1.6 gigawatt (GW) HPC reactors is scheduled to commence in 2023. The government's October 21 announcement says HPC will "begin the process of replacing the existing fleet of nuclear stations, most of which are due to close in the 2020s."[1]

However the HPC project faces many hurdles and potential delays. The government said the agreement with EDF is not legally binding.[1] EDF said it will not give the go-ahead for construction until and unless the European Commission clears the government/EDF agreement under state aid rules designed to prevent the distortion of Europe's electricity market. EDF said it would make its final investment decision by July 2014, but the European Commission examination may take longer.

Stop Hinkley spokesperson Nikki Clark said the "announcement was much ado over nothing and despite all the fanfare and visits of the rich and famous to Hinkley, there is no legally binding agreement, nor will there be until the government get their plans past the European Commission which, according to various media outlets, would be summer 2014 at the earliest."[2]

Labour MP Alan Whitehead said "it's not much of a deal, more a kind of semi crayoned-in statement of intent and a very expensive one at that. ... At the moment there seem to be a lot more things that we don't know than things we do know about this deal." Whitehead notes that in 2009, EDF said it planned to start producing power at Hinkley C in 2017.[3] So with the current 2023 start-up date, the project is already six years behind schedule.

It may be that economics, along with the myriad implications of the Fukushima disaster, kill off the current HPC project just as Margaret Thatcher's plans for HPC were killed off by economics and Chernobyl.[4]

The government's October 21 announcement states that project partners would be required to start putting money into a fund from the first day of electricity generation to pay for decommissioning and waste management costs associated with HPC.[1] However it is silent on where the waste might be disposed of. Martin Forwood from Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment said: "The Government's fetish for nuclear power, which has seen Ministers scraping the world's barrel for investors to support its craving, is only matched by its determination to see the industry's nuclear wastes dumped in suspect geology in Cumbria."[5]

EPRs

EDF plans to build EPRs (European Pressurized Reactor) at Hinkley and Sizewell. No EPRs are operating − or have ever operated − anywhere in the world. The construction of two EPRs in China appears to be on schedule and largely untroubled [6] − though of course the Chinese state is not known for its transparency.

The other two EPR projects − one reactor each in Finland and France − have been disastrous. When the contract was signed in 2003 for a new EPR in Finland, completion was anticipated in 2009. Now, commercial operation is not anticipated until 2015 — six years behind schedule.[7] And utility TVO recently announced that it is "prepared for the possibility" that the plant may not start up until 2016 − seven years behind schedule.[8] The estimated cost has ballooned from 3 billion euros to 8 billion.[9] Project partners Areva and TVO have been engaged in extensive, ongoing litigation regarding cost overruns.[10]

EDF's Flamanville 3 EPR reactor in France is behind schedule — it was originally meant to enter service in 2012 but that date has been pushed back to 2016.[11] Its estimated cost has grown from 3.3 billion euros to 8.5 billion.[12]

The Daily Mail characterised the French EPR project as one "beset by financial mismanagement with rocketing costs, the deaths of workers, an appalling inability to meet construction deadlines, industrial chaos, and huge environmental concerns", and notes that "it continues to be plagued by delays, soaring costs, and litigation in both the criminal and civil courts." A report by France's nuclear safety authority in 2011 found 13 incidents of below-standard safety measures. In 2011, two former EDF employees were jailed for spying on anti-nuclear campaigners and the company was fined £1.2 million for the crime.[13] Italian utility Enel pulled out of the project last December.[14]

Chinese partners

The EDF Group has announced the intent of two Chinese companies, China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) and China General Nuclear Corporation (CGN), to invest in HPC as minority shareholders, following the signing earlier in October of a Memorandum of Understanding on nuclear energy cooperation between the UK and Chinese governments.[1]

EDF has been working as a partner with CGN and CNNC for 30 years, including a joint venture to build two EPRs in Taishan, China.[15]

According to Nuclear Energy Insider, EDF will have between a 45% and 50% stake in the project, CNNC and CGN will take 30-40% between them, Areva will take 10%, and EDF is discussing with interested companies about the remaining 15%.[16] The sovereign wealth funds of Kuwait or Qatar are rumoured to be in the running; in 2010 the Kuwait Investment Authority paid 600 million euros for a 4.8% stake in Areva.[17]

Of the four major partners − EDF, Areva, CNNC and CGN − three are 100% state-owned and one is 85% state-owned; two are French and two Chinese.[18]

No UK firms are involved after Centrica pulled out of the HPC project earlier this year. Centrica chief executive Sam Laidlaw said that since its initial investment the "anticipated project costs in new nuclear have increased" while the construction timetable "has extended by a number of years".[19] Other utilities have also given up on the UK nuclear program; for example German utilities E.on and RWE reneged on their promise to invest in new nuclear at Anglesey.[20]

Former Labour Party chancellor Alistair Darling said the government should look at publicly funding new nuclear plants: "It will be the next generation that pay for these very high wholesale prices of electricity and the point is, you need to ask yourself would it be better for the state to do it as opposed to what looks like quite an expensive deal?"[21]

Chinese investment in the UK nuclear program has generated some consternation. Consultant John Large said: "We can see that even with the French operatorship of UK nuclear power stations [through EDF] that there are differences in the regulatory regimes in France and the UK. But these problems would be much more profound with the Chinese, who like the Russians, are rooted in a government system without independent [safety] regulators."[22]

A GMB union leader said it was "almost Orwellian" to allow a country like China, which has been linked to allegations of corporate hacking, to be allowed access to highly sensitive energy infrastructure. A survey of 75 companies in major emerging economies by Transparency International found that Chinese companies were the least likely to publish financial information and vital details about corporate structure that allows them to be held to account.[22]

China's domestic nuclear power program certainly leaves much to be desired. He Zuoxiu, a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, said earlier this year that "to reduce costs, Chinese designs often cut back on safety".[24]

Li Yulun, a former vice-president of CNNC, said in October that Chinese "state leaders have put a high priority on [nuclear safety] but companies executing projects do not seem to have the same level of understanding." Li Yulun noted that Westinghouse has yet to receive approval from British authorities for a modified version of the AP1000 reactor design, while Chinese nuclear safety regulators approved it several years earlier.[25]

In August 2009, the Chinese government dismissed and arrested CNNC president Kang Rixin in a US$260 million corruption case involving allegations of bid-rigging in nuclear power plant construction.[26]

The first reactor designed and built entirely by the Chinese — in 1990 at Qinshan — had to be torn down and rebuilt because of faults in the foundation and the welding of the steel vessel that contained the reactor itself.[27]

In 2011, Chinese physicist He Zuoxiu warned that "we're seriously underprepared, especially on the safety front" for a rapid expansion of nuclear power. Qiang Wang and his colleagues from the Chinese Academy of Sciences noted in April 2011 that China "still lacks a fully independent nuclear safety regulatory agency."[27] They also noted that China's nuclear administrative systems are fragmented among multiple agencies; and China also lags behind the US, France, and Japan when it comes to staff and budget to oversee operational reactors.[28]

Cables released by WikiLeaks in 2011 highlight the secrecy of the bidding process for nuclear power plant contracts in China, the influence of government lobbying, and potential weaknesses in the management and regulatory oversight. Westinghouse representative Gavin Liu was quoted in a cable as saying: "The biggest potential bottleneck is human resources – coming up with enough trained personnel to build and operate all of these new plants, as well as regulate the industry."[29]

The UK government / EDF agreement has reinvigorated cross-channel rivalries. The Daily Mail explained "why we can't trust the French with Britain's nuclear future" and complained that "huge profits are expected to be milked from British consumers to go to the French."[13]

Economic jiggery-pokery

Most reports estimate a total construction cost of £16 billion for the two 1.6 GW reactors at Hinkley Point, while World Nuclear News gives a cost estimate of £14 billion.[30] The £16 billion estimate equates to £5 billion / GW (US$8.1 b / GW).

EDF (and its partners) will be guaranteed a minimum price − a 'strike price' − for the electricity generated by HPC. If wholesale market prices are below the strike price, the government makes up the difference; if market prices are higher, EDF will have to pay back to government. The government announcement nominates a strike price of £89.50 / megawatt-hour (MWh), fully indexed to the Consumer Price Index, or £92.50/MWh if EDF does not take a final investment decision on proposed new reactors at Sizewell, Suffolk.[1] Those figures are around twice the current wholesale price.

The government announcement flags various circumstances which would lead to upwards or downwards movement of the strike price. The guaranteed minimum price will apply for 35 years.[1]

Paul Dorfman from University College London's Energy Institute says the deal ties consumers into subsidising one energy source for a whole generation − potentially at a very high level. In contrast, renewable energy sources' shorter contracts mean the subsidy can be cut if the costs of building wind turbines or solar panels fall. Dorfman predicts that the cost of nuclear "will flatline or hike, while renewables will do nothing but go down".[31]

Dorfman said the government/EDF agreement "is essentially a subsidy of what we calculate to be £800 million to £1billion a year that the UK taxpayer and energy consumer will be putting into the deep pockets of Chinese and French corporations, which are essentially their governments."[32]

In addition to the strike price deal, the government has offered to provide a loan guarantee for HPC of up to £10 billion under a scheme whereby the government uses its balance sheet to provide guarantees for major infrastructure projects.[19]

Previous promises that nuclear power would not be subsidised have clearly been breached, notwithstanding disingenuous government claims that the strike price deal and the loan guarantee do not represent subsidies. A number of expert witnesses voiced scepticism at a recent hearing of the UK Environmental Audit Committee. "This is a huge public contribution towards yesterday's energy thinking," said Alan Simpson, a former Labour MP. "I just wonder what we are inhaling."[33]

The government has been indulging in creative accounting and jiggery-pokery. The October 21 announcement asserts that the HPC project "will ... reduce consumer bills over the long-term" [1] but on the same day turncoat LibDem minister Ed Davey said: "I can't guarantee that. There are huge uncertainties here. It would be absurd to say we can guarantee everything in the 2020s."[32]

Since the 2010 promise that there would be "no public subsidy" of new nuclear, ministers have bundled up nuclear with green energy sources to claim that there would be no "unfair" subsidies for nuclear compared to other green sources. That intellectual contortion will need to be unravelled in the coming months as Prime Minister Cameron plans to reduce green levies ... without reducing subsidies available to the nuclear program.

Government claims about job creation have been equally disingenuous. Nuclear critic Tom Burke said: "The Prime Minister proudly boasted that this would create 25,000 jobs. He forgot to mention that only 900 of them will be permanent and that most of the high value jobs will be abroad. He also forgot to mention that the cost per job is over £600,000. This compares rather badly with the 320,000 jobs that could be created spending the same amount on really delivering energy efficiency improvements for British energy consumers."[34]

The government/EDF agreement "is another disgraceful example of profit being privatised and risk being socialised," Burke said.

Greenpeace UK executive director John Sauven said: "Hinkley C fails every test – economic, consumer, and environmental. It will lock a generation of consumers into higher energy bills, via a strike price that's nearly double the current price of electricity, and it will distort energy policy by displacing newer, cleaner, technologies that are dropping dramatically in price."[35]

A Greenpeace briefing paper states that the HPC strike price is not only almost double the current market price for electricity, but also well over twice the Department of Energy and Climate Change's original cost estimate for nuclear power of £38/MWh.[36]

Antony Froggatt from the Chatham House think-tank noted that in 2006, EDF's submission to a government energy review said that EPR-produced electricity would cost £28.80 / MWh in 2013 values. "This more than threefold increase [to £92.50], over eight years, puts the cost of nuclear electricity at about double the current market rate – higher than that produced by both gas and coal-fired power stations, and more costly than many renewable energy options," Froggatt said.[37]

Even nuclear convert George Monbiot weighed in with sharp criticisms: "Seven years ago, I collected all the available cost estimates for nuclear power. ... 8.3 pence was so far beyond what anyone else forecast that I treated it as scarcely credible. It falls a penny short of the price now agreed by the British government. I still support nuclear power. But none of this means that we should accept nuclear power at any cost. And at Hinkley Point the cost is too high."[38]

Monbiot adds: "That's not the only respect in which the price is too high. A fundamental principle of all development is that we should know how the story ends. In this case no one has the faintest idea. Cumbria – the only local authority which seemed prepared to accept a dump for the nuclear waste from past and future schemes – rejected the proposal in January. No one should commission a mess without a plan for clearing it up."

Monbiot's solution is nothing if not quixotic − non-existent liquid thorium reactors and non-existent integral fast reactors.

References:
[1] Edward Davey and David Cameron, 21 October 2013, 'Initial agreement reached on new nuclear power station at Hinkley', https://www.gov.uk/government/news/initial-agreement-reached-on-new-nucl...
[2] Stop Hinkley, 22 Oct 2013, www.stophinkley.org/PressReleases/pr131022.htm
[3] Alan Whitehead, 24 Oct 2013, http://alansenergyblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/the-knowns-the-unknowns-...
[4] Allan Jeffery, 31 July 2013, 'The Hinkley nuclear power station will never be built', www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Hinkley-nuclear-power-station-built/story-19591...
[5] Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment, 21 Oct 2013, 'Nothing welcome about Government's new build deal', www.corecumbria.co.uk/newsapp/pressreleases/pressmain.asp?StrNewsID=326
[6] Francois de Beaupuy and Tara Patel, 25 Nov 2010, 'China Builds Nuclear Reactor for 40% Less Than Cost in France, Areva Says', www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-24/china-builds-french-designed-nuclear-r...
[7] WNN, www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Olkiluoto_3_delayed_beyond_2014-1707124.html
[8] WNN, 24 Oct 2013, 'Symbolic milestone for Finnish EPR', www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Symbolic_milestone_for_Finnish_EPR-2410134...
[9] http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20121213-703038.html
[10] WNN, 11 Feb 2013, 'TVO prepares for further Olkiluoto 3 delay', www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-TVO_prepares_for_further_Olkiluoto_3_delay...
[11] www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/5f849de4-dbf8-11e1-86f8-00144feab49a.html
[12] http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/12/04/enel-edf-idUKL5E8N4DIJ20121204
[13] Steve Bird, 26 Oct 2013, 'Deaths, chilling safety lapses, lawsuits, huge cost over-runs and delays: Why we can't trust the French with Britain's nuclear future', www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2477202/Deaths-chilling-safety-lapses-l...
[14] Reuters, 26 Feb 2013, www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/25/areva-nuclear-idUSL6N0BPK4820130225
[15] Aaron Larson, 23 Oct 2013, 'Agreement Sets Stage for Construction of New Nuclear Plant in UK', www.powermag.com/agreement-sets-stage-for-construction-of-new-nuclear-pl...
[16] K. Steiner-Dicks, 23 Oct 2013, 'Hinkley Point C strikes a price', http://analysis.nuclearenergyinsider.com/new-build/hinkley-point-c-strik...
[17] Reuters, 23 Oct 2013, http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/10/23/uk-edf-gulf-britain-idUKBRE99M0...
[18]Wales Online, 26 Oct 2013, www.walesonline.co.uk/news/news-opinion/rhodri-morgan-beware-price-promi...
[19] Tom Fitzpatrick, 8 Feb 2013, 'Treasury willing to back Hinkley nuclear plant with UK Guarantee', Construction News, www.cnplus.co.uk/sectors/energy/treasury-willing-to-back-hinkley-nuclear...
[20] Alex Brummer, 21 Oct 2013, 'Nuclear deal is a devastating indictment of the muddled approach of successive governments', www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2471115/Nuclear-deal-means-giving-overs...
[21] Construction News, 28 Oct 2013, http://www.cnplus.co.uk/8654752.article
[22] Terry Macalister and Jennifer Rankin, 18 Oct 2013, 'Nuclear expert raises concerns about Chinese role in UK's new nuclear plants', www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/17/nuclear-expert-warning-chine...
[24] He Zuoxiu, 19 March 2013, 'Chinese nuclear disaster "highly probable" by 2030', www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/5808-Chinese-nuclear-di
[25] South China Morning Post, 7 Oct 2013, 'China nuclear plant delay raises safety concern', www.scmp.com/business/china-business/article/1325973/china-nuclear-plant...
[26] Keith Bradsher, 15 Dec 2009, 'Nuclear Power Expansion in China Stirs Concerns', www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/business/global/16chinanuke.html?_r=2&
[27] David Biello, 16 Aug 2011, 'China's nuclear ambition powers on', www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2011/08/16/3293802.htm
[28] 'China needs improved administrative system for nuclear power safety', 22 June 2011, www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-06/acs-cni062211.php
[29] Jonathan Watts, 25 Aug 2011, 'WikiLeaks cables reveal fears over China's nuclear safety', www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/25/wikileaks-fears-china-nuclear...
[30]WNN, 28 June 2013, 'Loan guarantee for Hinkley Point C', www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Loan_guarantee_for_Hinkley_Point_C-280613S...
[31] 'An Overview of the New Nuclear Deal in the UK', 21 Oct 2013, www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/10/an-overview-of-the-new-nuclear-deal/
[32] Tamara Cohen, 21 Oct 2013, 'Nuclear plant may NOT cut bills, minister admits', www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2471071/Nuclear-plant-NOT-cut-bills-adm...
[33] Michael Klimes, 23 Oct 2013, 'Subsidy-Free Nuclear Deal Questioned by Environmental Audit Committee', www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/515440/20131021/caroline-flint-generation-dav...
[34] Tom Burke, 25 Oct 2013, http://tomburke.co.uk/2013/10/25/third-or-fourth-time-lucky/
[35] Business Green, 21 Oct 2013, www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2301810/government-hails-historic-nuclear-...
[36] Greenpeace, Hinkley Strike Price Briefing, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZLhBTXYpiiUMtB1e7gWQjtjVVhinLaE-ulBi...
[37] Guardian, 21 Oct 2013, www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/21/uk-nuclear-power-plant-contr...
[38] George Monbiot, 22 Oct 2013, 'The farce of the Hinkley C nuclear reactor will haunt Britain for decades', www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/21/farce-hinckley-nuclear-rea...

More information:

• Stop Hinkley: www.stophinkley.org
• UK government: www.gov.uk/government/news/hinkley-point-c
• EDF: http://hinkleypoint.edfenergyconsultation.info/

(Written by Nuclear Monitor editor Jim Green.)

Legal challenges against nuclear power projects in Slovakia and UK

Slovakia's nuclear watchdog violated the law when it issued a building permit for ENEL's 3.7 billion-euro nuclear reactor project, the Supreme Court has ruled. The Italian utility's local unit, Slovenske Elektrarne AS, began building two new reactors at the Mochovce nuclear power plant in 2009 after receiving a permit by the Office for Nuclear Supervision. The Supreme Court has directed the regulator to reopen the public consultation process.[1] The battle continues − the Slovak nuclear regulator UJD said it would order a new round of public consultation but that ENEL can continue with construction.

Greenpeace, along with Ireland's heritage group An Taisce (the National Trust for Ireland), have launched two independent legal challenges to the UK government plans for new nuclear power plants at Hinkley Point, Somerset. The reactor plan is being challenged on the basis of the EU's Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, which requires that affected EU members states are informed and consulted during the planning stage of infrastructure projects that "could have a significant impact on the environment". Irish people were not properly consulted on the proposals.[2]

In a separate case, Greenpeace is challenging the UK Government's decision to grant planning permission for the reactors because it hasn't found a site to store the new nuclear waste, following Cumbria's resounding rejection of a national nuclear waste site in the area.[2]

1] www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-21/enel-nuclear-building-permit-violated-...
[2] www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2006847/legal_challenges_to_new_...

---

Greenland uranium ban may be lifted

The ban on uranium mining in the Danish realm is expected to be lifted in the Greenlandic parliament in the coming months. The first reading of the new uranium bill will be on October 1, the second on October 24 and the third in Spring 2014. The decision will then have to be confirmed in the Danish parliament. The Greenlandic government decision will be preceded by publication of two reports – one scientific and independent and one political – on the consequences of lifting the ban. The scientific report has already been written, but the government has so far refused to make it public, a fact that has caused outrage among the opposition parties.

The Greenlandic Minister of Industry and Labour has also stated that a comprehensive public debate on uranium mining is unnecessary, before the ban is lifted, because the government was given a clear mandate to do so during the recent elections.

Abolishment of the uranium zero tolerance policy is not only a hot topic in Greenland, but also in Denmark. Even though the Danish government has given notice that it favours the bill, it could still be voted down in the Parliament. The Danish government is a minority government and even within the government itself there is opposition to lifting the ban.

Avataq, the Danish Ecological Council and NOAH FoE Denmark have weighed in on the debate and last month they published a feature article in Politiken, one of the biggest Danish dailies. The article has been translated into English:
www.ecocouncil.dk/en/releases/articles-pressreleases/chemicals-and-clima...
 
− Niels Hooge

---

Uranium smuggling arrest at JFK airport. Patrick Campbell of Sierra Leone was recently caught at Kennedy Airport with uranium hidden in his shoes and luggage. He was charged with plotting to sell 1,000 tons of uranium to an FBI agent posing as a broker for Iranian buyers. He had allegedly responded to an advertisement in May 2012 on the website Alibaba.com. Campbell claimed to represent a mining company in Sierra Leone that sold diamonds, gold and uranium, and is accused of seeking to arrange the export of uranium from Sierra Leone to the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas, packed in drums and disguised as the mineral chromite.

www.nypost.com/p/news/local/nuke_powder_terror_arrest_at_jfk_MvQxJcRf5oy...
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23825972

---

Plutonium and enriched uranium removed from nuclear test site in Kazakhstan. Working in top secret over a period of 17 years, Russian and US scientists collaborated to remove hundreds of pounds of plutonium and highly enriched uranium — enough to construct at least a dozen nuclear weapons — from a remote Soviet-era nuclear test site in Kazakhstan that had been overrun by impoverished metal scavengers, according to a report released in August by the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. The report sheds light on a mysterious US$150 million cleanup operation paid for in large part by the US, whose nuclear scientists feared that terrorists would discover the fissile material and use it to build a dirty bomb.

www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/world/asia/a-secret-race-for-abandoned-nuclea...

---

UK − Heysham shut down after electrical fault. Heysham 1 Power Station shut down both of its nuclear reactors after an electrical fault in a gas turbine generator. Firefighters were called to the plant on August 22. EDF Energy, which operates the plant, said it had been shut down as a precaution. In May, a reactor was shut down after smoke was seen coming from a turbine due to smouldering lagging on a turbine.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-23808744
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/08/27/uk-nuclear-idUKBRE97Q0LB20130827
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-22394359

---

Lithuania opposes new reactor in Belarus. The Lithuanian government has made known its deep concerns about Belarus's nuclear power project near Ostroverts, and is demanding work be halted until safety issues are addressed and international treaties are complied with. Two diplomatic notes have been sent to Belarus over the past month to protest earth-moving and other initial work for the plant. "We have many concerns about safety and information we've asked for hasn't been provided," Lithuanian Prime Minister Algirdas Butkevicius said. A UN committee said in April that Belarus wasn't abiding by the terms of the Espoo Convention on cross-border environmental issues.

www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2013/08/lithuania-express-concern-o...
ESPOO Convention: www.unece.org/env/eia/eia.html

Since Spring the EU Commission has been preparing a review for state aid rules, and in Summer a leaked draft caused a shock, mainly in German speaking media. The governments of Austria and Germany made clear they are opposed to state aid proposals, but only Austria handed over a statement of opposition. Denmark took a negative stance at the energy summit in May, and German Chancellor Merkel is clearly against it – at least in German media, at least before elections on September 22.

Under EU law state aid is forbidden, unless allowed according to a very complex system. One exemption from the ban on state aid is based on environmental protection in the EU Treaty. This made the so-called block exemption for renewables possible, when different national systems introduced the new technologies for producing energy using wind or sun as fuel into the market. The current plan for the new environmental and energy guidelines for 2014−2020 constitutes a major change by introducing a technology-neutral approach, based on carbon only and recognising nuclear alongside renewables as a viable solution to climate change. A change of those rules − which was pushed forward mainly by UK, Czech Republic and France − would have very practical implications.

The experience of past years has proved that nuclear power plants cannot be built without subsidies. This is now acknowledged by those states who called for the freest of all markets − in the UK this is nuclear power project Hinkley Point C and Temelin in the Czech Republic and all other potential plants which might be under consideration (Poland, Hungary).

The Czech nuclear power project Temelin 34 is directly depending on the possibility of direct subsidies. After years of hammering that nuclear is cheap and will be only market based and without any public subsidies, the strategy changed. For the past months the two-third state-owned utility CEZ is officially in negotiations to find a way the Czech government will guarantee fixed feed-in tariffs for the new units "at least for a while after operation started" as they like to add. In numbers this is 30 years, the model being copied from the UK, the strike price model, which is currently under negotiation between EdF and the UK government.

The current review of the guidelines for environmental and energy state aid is a precondition, because the EU Commission has to agree to this extreme form of state aid consisting of a guaranteed minimum feed-in price for nuclear for 30–40 years. Energy Commissioner Oettinger calling this idea "Soviet" says it all.

While the EU Commission is hiding behind the fact that the paper leaked is only a draft and up for discussion, a look at the draft itself shows that it is clearly pro subsidy of nuclear and obviously added the EURATOM Treaty (compared to earlier drafts) as an argument:

"Insofar as these Guidelines set out rules on state aid for nuclear, the assessment under the TFEU will take due account the objectives of the Euratom Treaty. …

6.2 Aid to nuclear energy:
(157) Pursuing the development of nuclear energy, in particular by facilitating investment in nuclear energy, is an objective covered under Article 2(c) of the Euratom Treaty and therefore the Commission does not question that such support measures are aimed at a common EU objective."

Timing and Action
GLOBAL 2000 / FoE Austria will start the following activities via the relaunched campaign site www.my-voice.eu in early September: A petition open for signatures by citizens emailed to all EU Commissioners, because it is them who decide and only them. Not only the networks usually involved, but a much broader involvement of political players is under preparation.

As soon as DG Competition starts the last consultation on this review – not earlier than September 22 because Germany obviously asked to have it postponed until after national elections – we will inform about the start and provide a statement people can send as a contribution against the EU plan of giving nuclear a lifeline via state funding. The www.my-voice.eu website will be regularly updated with press releases and key info. A new legal analysis on state aid for nuclear will be published in September and in November the phase-out nuclear power in Europe study. Though the new guidelines should be in force by 1 January 2014, most likely the decision will not be taken by the EU Commissioners until next year.

Oppose Nigeria's nuclear plans.
On September 15, President Goodluck Jonathan formally inaugurated Nigeria's Atomic Energy Commission and urged its members headed by Erepamo Osaisai to quickly evolve implementable plans and timelines for the delivery of atomic energy for peaceful purposes in the country. We recall that the Nigeria Atomic Energy Commission was established in 1976 to investigate the development of nuclear energy but little progress was made. It was reactivated in 2006 and President Jonathan appointed a new team this year.

Nigeria has the world's seventh-largest natural gas reserves, yet the nation is blighted by persistent electricity outages which force businesses and individuals who can afford them to rely on generators. Much of this vast gas reserves sit untouched under the ground or are flared into the sky. Despite being Africa's biggest crude oil exporter, decades of corruption and mismanagement mean Nigeria has never built the infrastructure to farm its huge oil and gas resources for much-needed domestic use.

Deficits in our existing institutions remain a defining albatross on the path to meaningful development. Cut to the bone, this scenario suggests that Nigeria currently lacks the indigenous capacity, supporting infrastructure, discipline and security wherewithal to build and manage an atomic power plant. It simply is another way of courting disaster - one we cannot manage.

Let us explore and exploit other safer, rational options. These include solar, gas, hydro, wind and coal options. Nigeria has these resources in stupendous quantities. A presidential directive requesting timelines for the generation of electricity through these options is far better than the timelines he recently demanded from the newly-inaugurated Atomic Energy Commission. Our scientist-president should think again.
Editorial Leadership newspaper (Nigeria), AllAfrica.com, 3 October, 2011

Belene construction agreement extended.
Russia's AtomStroyExport (ASE) and Bulgaria's National Electricity Company (NEK) have signed a supplement to their agreement on the construction of the Belene nuclear power plant, extending it until the end of March 2012. Under an earlier extension, the agreement - originally signed in 2006 - was extended until 30 September. According to ASE, the extension 'confirms the parties' interest in the continuation of the project.' NEK said that during the next six months, the two companies will continue their activities related to completing a market study, clarifying the financial model and studying the project finance proposal submitted by financial advisor HSBC. It added that the extra time will allow Bulgaria to conduct an analysis of the results and recommendations of stress tests being performed at nuclear power plants across the European Union. ASE said that work on the foundation pit for the first reactor at Belene has now been completed. It said that a concrete plant at the site has already been put into operation and that water treatment plants have been built.
World Nuclear News, 03 October 2011

UAE: Construction first unit will start mid-2012.
According to the Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (Enec), a government establishment created last year to oversee the ambitious nuclear construction project, said it would launch construction work for the infrastructure of four planned nuclear power plants in Barrakah in the western region in mid 2012 to pave the way for their operation in 2017. The UAE will award a contract in early 2012 for the supply of nuclear fuel to run its four nuclear reactors which the country is planning to construct as part of an ambitious nuclear power program.

Under the agreement to built 4 nuclear reactors, inked on December 27, the state-owned Korea Electric Power Corp (Kepco) and is partners in the consortium will design, build and run the reactors that will produce 5,600 MW of electricity. The contract to build the reactors is worth about US$20 billion (15bn euro).

The UAE has said the project is intended to diversify its energy supply sources and meet its rapid growing electricity demand, which is projected to surge to around 40,000 MW in 2020 from nearly 15,000 MW in 2009. The nuclear project will provide nearly 25 per cent of the UAE’s total energy needs of nearly 40,000 MW in 2020. Around seven per cent will be generated through renewable energy and the rest through conventional means.
Emirates 24/7, 25 September 2011

Pyhäjoki location for Finland's sixth reactor.
Fennovoima has chosen Pyhäjoki as the site for its nuclear power plant. Pyhäjoki municipality is located in North Ostrobothnia and the nuclear power plant will be constructed on Hanhikivi peninsula on the coast of Bothnian Bay. For the basis of the site selection, assessments were carried out during some four years. In the beginning of Fennovoima project in summer 2007, the company had almost 40 alternative sites. The number of alternatives was decreased gradually based on assessments and in December 2009 Fennovoima ended up having two alternatives, both located in Northern Finland: Pyhäjoki and Simo municipalities. In the final site decision, safety, technical feasibility, environmental matters, construction costs and schedule were the main factors examined as well as the ability of the site region to support a project that will bring thousands of people to work and use services there.

Fennovoima continues now the planning work together with the municipality, authorities and the plant suppliers and prepares applying for various licences and permits. For example, more detailed bedrock, environmental and water studies will be carried out on the Hanhikivi peninsula. Simultaneously, other preparations for the future phases of the project are carried out together with Pyhäjoki and Raahe region. First preparatory works on Hanhikivi will be started in the end of 2012 at earliest. The construction schedule will be elaborated after the plant supplier has been selected. Fennovoima sent bid invitations for Areva and Toshiba in July 2011 and the plant supplier will be chosen in 2012-2013.

Fennovoima has two owners: Voimaosakeyhtiö SF and E.ON Kärnkraft Finland. Voimaosakeyhtiö SF owns 66 percent of Fennovoima and nuclear expert E.ON Kärnkraft Finland 34 percent. Altogether Fennovoima has 70 shareholders. Voimaosakeyhtiö SF is owned by 69 finnish regional and local energy companies as well as companies in trade and industry.

Finland has 4 reactors in operation (two at Lovisa and two at Olkiluoto). The fifth (Olkiluoto-3) in under construction; over budget and over time.
Press release Fennovoima, 5 October 2011 / IAEA Reactor database.

Health effects radiation suppressed by tobacco companies.
Tobacco companies knew that cigarette smoke contained radioactive alpha particles for more than four decades and developed "deep and intimate" knowledge of these particles' cancer-causing potential; however, they deliberately kept their findings from the public. The study, published online in Nicotine & Tobacco Research, the peer-reviewed journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, adds to a growing body of research detailing the industry's knowledge of cigarette smoke radioactivity and its efforts to suppress that information. The UCLA researchers analysed  dozens of previously unexamined internal tobacco industry documents, made available in 1998 as the result of a legal settlement.

“The documents show that the industry was well aware of the presence of a radioactive substance in tobacco as early as 1959; furthermore, the industry was not only cognizant of the potential 'cancerous growth' in the lungs of regular smokers but also did quantitative radiobiological calculations to estimate the long-term lung radiation absorption dose of ionizing alpha particles emitted from cigarette smoke." The study’s first author, Hrayr S. Karagueuzian, a professor of cardiology who conducts research at UCLA's Cardiovascular Research Laboratory, said: ‘We show here that the industry used misleading statements to obfuscate the hazard of ionizing alpha particles to the lungs of smokers and, more importantly, banned any and all publication on tobacco smoke radioactivity.” 

The radioactive substance, which the UCLA study shows was first brought to the attention of the tobacco industry in 1959, was identified in 1964 as the isotope polonium-210, which emits carcinogenic alpha radiation. Polonium-210 can be found in all commercially available domestic and foreign cigarette brands, Karagueuzian said, and is absorbed by tobacco leaves through naturally occurring radon gas in the atmosphere and through high-phosphate chemical fertilizers used by tobacco growers. The substance is eventually inhaled by smokers into the lungs.
LA Examiner, 28 September 2011

Dounreay: Belgium waste to be returned.
Dounreay has announced the return of reprocessing wastes from the BR2 research reactor in Belgium. The BR2 reactor in Mol was a good customer for Dounreay over the years, receiving new enriched uranium fuel from the reprocessed spent fuel. It planned to send considerably more spent fuel to Dounreay but the reprocessing plant was closed by a leak and never reopened. Wastes have already been returned to France and Spain. One Dounreay reprocessing customer has requested the substitution of vitrified high-level wastes for the intermediate level wastes at Dounreay (a consultation on this was held in 2010). However, Belgium wants to take back the intermediate level waste, as required by the original contract with Dounreay. Dounreay also had contracts with Australia, Germany and for Italian-owned fuel from Denmark.

There are 153 tons of BR2 reprocessing wastes cemented into 500-liter drums and this will involve an estimated 21 shipments over four years, starting this autumn. The shipments will be from Scrabster and will probably involve the former roll-on/roll-off ferry, the Atlantic Osprey.
N-Base Briefing 689, October 2011

IAEA Inspector exposed to radiation.
On October 5, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that one of its nuclear inspectors had been exposed to radiation during a 4 October inspection of the Belgoprocess nuclear waste facility in Dessel, Belgium. The inspector, along with an inspector from Euratom and a Belgoprocess employee, apparently received a dose of radiation after a vial or flask of plutonium accidentally fell on the floor, according to releases from the company and the Belgian Federal Nuclear Control Agency (AFCN). Plutonium is dangerous if ingested, but the amount received by the inspectors was less than the legal limit, the AFCN says. No radiation has been released beyond the site.
Nature.com, 5 October 2011

Atucha II, Argentina's third nuclear power plant.
President Cristina Kirchner inaugurated Atucha II, Argentina's third nuclear power plant on September 28. The German-designed reactor is expected to be fully operational in six to eight months after engineers run a series of tests. Construction of the plant began in July 1981, but work soon stopped and did not resume until 2006, when then-president Nestor Kirchner (2003-2007), the current leader's late husband, ordered the plant to be completed.

Argentina's other nuclear plants are Atucha I (335 megawatts) and the Embalse plant (600 megawatts). Once Atucha II is online 10 percent of Argentina's electricity will be produced by nuclear power. Plans are on the drawing board for Atucha III plant as well as an overhaul of the Embalse plant to add 30 years to its operational life, said Planning Minister Julio de Vido. Embalse was connected to the grid in 1983. Atucha II is located on the banks of the Parana river in the town of Zarate, some 100 kilometers north of the capital Buenos Aires. It was built at a cost of more than 2.4 billion dollars.
AFP, 29 September 2011

Another USEC deadline for DOE loan guarantee.
On September 30, USEC, announced morning it will reduce its spending on the American Centrifuge Project (ACP) in Piketon by 30 percent over the next month. It will also send out notices to its 450 employees Ohio, Tennessee and Maryland that layoffs are possible if the company doesn’t receive a loan guarantee before October 31. USEC has invested approximately US$2 billion in the ACP but needs significant additional financing to complete the plant. In 2008, USEC applied for a US$2 billion loan guarantee from Department of Energy for construction of the ACP. USEC significantly demobilized construction and machine manufacturing activities in 2009 due to delays in obtaining financing through DOE’s Loan Guarantee Program. Since then, many 'final' deadlines were set by USEC (three in the past half year: June 30, Sept. 30 and now Oct, 31) to obtain the loan guarantee.

In a call with investors, USEC President and CEO John Welch said the company must see a loan guarantee during the next month or risk the end of the project. USEC expects October “to be a month of intense interaction with the DOE,” in hopes of securing the loan guarantee.

The company had faced a September 30 deadline with two investors — Toshiba America Nuclear Energy Corporation and Babcock & Wilcox Investment Company — to receive a US$2 billion loan guarantee. They agreed September 30 to extend that deadline to October 31. If USEC receives the loan guarantee, the companies have promised US$50 million to support the project.

In a statement, DOE Spokesman Damien LaVera said, “The Department of Energy has been working closely with USEC as the company has continued to test and validate its innovative technology, obtain private financing and meet other benchmarks that would be required for a successful loan guarantee application. We are strongly committed to developing effective, domestic nuclear enrichment capabilities and are looking at all options on a path forward.”

The ACP will utilize USEC’s AC100 centrifuge machine, which has been developed, engineered and assembled in the US. The AC100 design is a disciplined evolution of classified U.S. centrifuge technology originally developed by DOE. DOE invested already US$3 billion over 10 years to develop the centrifuge technology.
Dayton Daily News, 1 October 2011 /  ACP website: www.americancentrifuge.com

Taiwan: nuclear accident compensation increased.
On September 30, the Taiwanese Cabinet approved an amendment to the Nuclear Damage Compensation Act that imposes heavier compensation liability on nuclear power operators in the event of natural disasters such as an earthquake or a typhoon. Under the amendment, the maximum amount of compensation for losses caused by a nuclear accident was increased from NT$4.2 billion (US$138 million or 103 million euro) to NT$15 billion (US$5 mln or 3.7 mln euro) and the allowed period for compensation claims was extended from 10 to 30 years.

The amendment came after the Atomic Energy Council reviewed the act, which had not been amended since it was first enacted in 1997, in the wake of the nuclear accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Tien Chiu-chin said the amendment fell short of her expectations as she had suggested further lifting the ceiling on compensation liability.
Tapei Times, 30 September 2011

36 year old construction permit extended. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has extended the construction permit for the unfinished Bellefonte unit 1 in Alabama.
The construction permit was originally granted in 1974. It was suspended in 1988, when Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) decided to halt work on the project, but the NRC agreed in 2009 to reinstate the permit. With the reinstated permit due to expire on 1 October 2011, TVA lodged an application for an extension in October 2010. The NRC has now agreed to that extension, meaning that the construction permit will remain valid until 1 October 2020. (see more in Nuclear Monitor 732, 9 September 2011)
World Nuclear News, 03 October 2011

Swiss parliament, no new reactors.
On September 28, the Council of States has followed the government’s lead by voting not to replace the country’s five nuclear power stations  and boost renewable energy resources. Switzerland currently has five nuclear power plants that will gradually come off the power grid at the end of their 50 year (!) lifespan: the first one in 2019 and the last one in 2034. The Senate followed the House of Representatives in calling on the government to ban new nuclear plants but keep parliament "informed about innovations in the field."

The clear result of the September 28 vote - with a three to one majority - came after a parliamentary committee prepared a compromise formula, promoted by the centre-right Christian Democratic Party, which will give parliament another chance to have a say at a later stage. “Even if we were to ban nuclear power plants now our successors in parliament could still one day decide on building on new reactors,” a Christian Democratic Senator, Filippo Lombardi from Ticino, said on behalf of the committee. Discussions on nuclear power are due to continue in the new parliament which is due to convene for the first time in December following general elections next month.

The Social Democrats, the Greens as well as the Christian Democratic Party hailed the Senate decision as an important step towards a new energy policy amid calls for further measures to switch to more renewable energy sources.

The government called for a withdrawal from nuclear energy in May – a proposal backed by the House of Representatives a month later.
Swissinfo.ch 28 September 2011

Hinkley Blockaded: No New Nuclear Power!
More than 300 people (even up to 400, according to a BBC-report), successfully sealed off the main entrance to Hinkley Point nuclear power station in Somerset for nine hours on 3 October in opposition to EDF Energy's plans to build two new mega-reactors on the site. EDF said of 500 employees at the plant, only essential staff had been called in and had arrived by bus at dawn.

Blockaders were joined by a theatrical troupe who enacted a nuclear disaster scenario, while Seize the Day provided a musical backdrop to the event. 206 helium balloons were released to represent the number of days since the Fukushima meltdown. The balloons will be tracked, to show which areas of the West Country would be worst affected by a nuclear disaster at Hinkley.
Indymedia.uk; www.stopnewnuclear.org.uk; BBC, 3 October 2011