Plans by South African utility Eskom to invest heavily in new nuclear generating capacity look uncertain. Political turmoil within the ruling African National Congress (ANC) and doubts about the utility's ability to secure international funding for the program have fuelled concerns that the country's energy woes are far from resolution.
In early 2007, Eskom's board approved a plan to boost electricity output to 80 GWe by 2025. This included the construction of 20 GWe of new nuclear capacity, which would see nuclear's contribution grow to 25% from the present 5%. The plan for the nuclear new-build program would kick-start with up to 4 GWe of pressurised water reactor (PWR) capacity, to be constructed from about 2010 with commissioning in 2016. Five sites in the Cape Province were under consideration, although the most likely initial site would be that of Koeberg, where South Africa's only nuclear power plant of some 1900 MWe has been in operation for the past 22 years.
Following the ANC decision that President Thabo Mbeki should step down on 21 September, a further eleven cabinet ministers and three deputy ministers have also resigned. Whilst the resignation of Mbeki had very little impact on market sentiment, bad planning and a lack of public information saw the business sector and the market react unfavourably to the announcement of the resignation of long-standing finance minister Trevor Manuel. Other high profile resignations included Deputy President Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, minister of science and technology Mosibudi Mangena, and public enterprise minister Alec Erwin.
Mbeki resigned after accusations that he interfered in the prosecution of ANC president Jacob Zuma on corruption charges. The ANC - which is rupturing on what is commonly believed to be tribal differences of long-standing between the Zulu supporters of Zuma and those supporters of the original Xhosa leadership of Mandela and now Mbeki - has chosen ANC deputy president Kgalema Motlanthe as South Africa's President until next year's general election.
The resignations of Mbeki and the government ministers have raised investor concerns over political stability in South Africa. Zuma has pledged that the ANC would ensure a smooth transition and economic policy continuation. However, process so far has only raised question of whether this is possible. The political turmoil comes at exactly the time Eskom indicated, after the last decision was postponed, that it would make its announcement on the preferred supplier of its nuclear new build - or 'Nuclear 1' plans. Eskom initially indicated it would make public its decision during the first half of 2008, but this was postponed until September. The company is now saying there will be a 'decision before the end of the year'.
Eskom has shortlisted Areva's EPR and Westinghouse's AP1000 reactors for Nuclear-1. Areva heads up the EPR Consortium which includes South African engineering group Aveng, French construction group Bouygues and Electricité de France (EdF), which has submitted a bid to supply two EPR units of 1650 MWe. Toshiba's Westinghouse is matching this with a bid of three 1134 MWe AP1000 units. The Westinghouse-led N-Powerment consortium includes the Shaw Group and the South African engineering and construction firm Murray & Roberts.
Areva and Westinghouse have also offered to build the full 20 GWe - with a further ten large EPR units or 17 AP1000 units by 2025. This would be coupled with wider assistance for the local nuclear industry, in Westinghouse's case including development of the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (Westinghouse is an investor in the PBMR company).
The question though on industry watchers' minds is whether Eskom, in the current climate, has the muscle or influence any longer to fund a nuclear expansion program. The utility has been downgraded by credit rating agency Moody's, with further downgrades also possible from Standard & Poor's and Fitch Ratings.
The current global economic crisis may also make foreign funding hard to come by. The country's National Treasury has committed to a mere 60 billion rand ($7 billion) over the next three years, leaving a very significant shortfall to reach Eskom's 343 billion rand ($42 billion) expansion plans.
(Source: World Nuclear News)
Showing posts with label Westighouse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Westighouse. Show all posts
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Nuclear and coal plants 'vital' to UK energy future
John Hutton, the Business Secretary, vowed yesterday to take on critics of new coal and nuclear power stations, arguing that their construction was vital to securing Britain's long-term energy needs.
Addressing the Labour Party Conference in Manchester, he said that an international battle for energy security was emerging as one of the most significant threats to both Britain's competitiveness and its sovereignty. He said that the country's growing reliance on imported gas from some of the world's most unstable regions was unacceptable and he called for a renaissance of nuclear power.
Mr Hutton, speaking before the expected announcement of a £12.4 billion takeover of British Energy by EDF tomorrow, said that he was
“determined to press all the buttons to get nuclear built in this country at the earliest opportunity ... And because energy security is a first thought, not an afterthought, I will not turn my back on another critical source of energy security for the UK - coal.”
He lambasted opponents of both fuels, including environmental campaigners and other political parties, which he said were “posturing” over energy policy. “Tories say ‘no' to new coal and send mixed messages on nuclear; Lib Dems say ‘no' to new coal and nuclear. No coal plus no nuclear equals no lights. No power. No future.”
The Business Secretary accepted that people had concerns about the contribution that new coal-fired power stations would make to climate change, but he argued that British emissions were capped by European Union legislation and that building new coal plants would make no difference overall.
“Additional emissions will have to be offset by reductions elsewhere,” he said, “so stopping the building of new coal-fired power stations would make no difference to the UK's total carbon emissions - but I think it would damage our energy security. So there is no sense in our turning our backs on coal. Let's keep cleaning it up, not ruling it out.”
Mr Hutton's remarks were condemned by John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace, who said that new coal-fired power stations could not be an option because of their huge contribution to climate change.
Mr Hutton's speech came as Westinghouse, the Japanese-owned nuclear reactor maker, published research claiming the British economy could receive a £30billion boost from the construction of new stations, including the creation of thousands of skilled engineering jobs.
David Powell, Westinghouse's UK vice-president, said that half of the total would come through the construction of new sites, a third from operating the plants and the rest from servicing.
The EDF takeover of British Energy will mean that the bulk of Britain's nuclear industry will pass into the hands of the French state-controlled utility giant. EDF has lifted its initial offer of 765p a share to 774p. It wants to use its acquisition of British Energy to oversee construction of four nuclear plants on existing UK sites.
(Source: Times Online)
Addressing the Labour Party Conference in Manchester, he said that an international battle for energy security was emerging as one of the most significant threats to both Britain's competitiveness and its sovereignty. He said that the country's growing reliance on imported gas from some of the world's most unstable regions was unacceptable and he called for a renaissance of nuclear power.
Mr Hutton, speaking before the expected announcement of a £12.4 billion takeover of British Energy by EDF tomorrow, said that he was
“determined to press all the buttons to get nuclear built in this country at the earliest opportunity ... And because energy security is a first thought, not an afterthought, I will not turn my back on another critical source of energy security for the UK - coal.”
He lambasted opponents of both fuels, including environmental campaigners and other political parties, which he said were “posturing” over energy policy. “Tories say ‘no' to new coal and send mixed messages on nuclear; Lib Dems say ‘no' to new coal and nuclear. No coal plus no nuclear equals no lights. No power. No future.”
The Business Secretary accepted that people had concerns about the contribution that new coal-fired power stations would make to climate change, but he argued that British emissions were capped by European Union legislation and that building new coal plants would make no difference overall.
“Additional emissions will have to be offset by reductions elsewhere,” he said, “so stopping the building of new coal-fired power stations would make no difference to the UK's total carbon emissions - but I think it would damage our energy security. So there is no sense in our turning our backs on coal. Let's keep cleaning it up, not ruling it out.”
Mr Hutton's remarks were condemned by John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace, who said that new coal-fired power stations could not be an option because of their huge contribution to climate change.
Mr Hutton's speech came as Westinghouse, the Japanese-owned nuclear reactor maker, published research claiming the British economy could receive a £30billion boost from the construction of new stations, including the creation of thousands of skilled engineering jobs.
David Powell, Westinghouse's UK vice-president, said that half of the total would come through the construction of new sites, a third from operating the plants and the rest from servicing.
The EDF takeover of British Energy will mean that the bulk of Britain's nuclear industry will pass into the hands of the French state-controlled utility giant. EDF has lifted its initial offer of 765p a share to 774p. It wants to use its acquisition of British Energy to oversee construction of four nuclear plants on existing UK sites.
(Source: Times Online)
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Reliance Power Plans Atomic Plants After Rules Change
Reliance Power Ltd., the energy company controlled by billionaire Anil Ambani, is in talks with General Electric Co. and Areva SA to build nuclear plants after India changes rules to allow companies to invest in atomic energy.
The utility plans to build nuclear stations at two sites, Chief Executive Officer Jayarama Chalasani said by telephone in Mumbai. Reliance Power is also in talks with Toshiba Corp.'s Westinghouse Electric Co. and Russia's Rosatom Corp., he said.
India may end a government monopoly on nuclear power generation after winning the backing of a 45-nation suppliers group this month to trade in atomic fuel and technology. Reliance joins state-run Nuclear Power Corp., GVK Power and Infrastructure Ltd. and GMR Energy Ltd., which said last week they are in talks with overseas companies to set up atomic plants.
``Private sector presence in India's nuclear business has a long way to go,'' said Girish Solanki, an analyst at Angel Broking Ltd. in Mumbai ``Entering the business may be a positive for Reliance and other private sector companies but it's too early to talk about the impact.'' He has a ``neutral'' rating on the stock.
Reliance Power shares climbed 3.7 rupees, or 2.4 percent, to 160.65 rupees at the close in Mumbai trading. The stock earlier today dropped 17.2 percent to the lowest since July 23, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. India's 30-share, benchmark Sensitive Index declined 0.1 percent.
Private Companies
The government may unveil a policy to allow private companies access to the nuclear market after national elections due by May, Rajendra Pachauri, an adviser to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on climate change, said Sept. 12. Pachauri also chairs a United Nations panel of climate scientists who shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.
The setting up of nuclear projects may be opened up to include private and other state-run companies, India's Planning Commission has said. The effect of allowing private companies may become visible after 2011, the panel said.
India, the world's second-fastest growing major economy, won a waiver of a ban on trade from the Nuclear Suppliers Group on Sept. 6 as part of a U.S.-backed deal. The South Asian nation plans to add 40,000 megawatts of nuclear power capacity by 2020, a third of the current total output, to beat shortages of as much as 17 percent during peak hours.
The NSG endorsement may give France's Areva and Russia's Rosatom a head start on Indian orders because U.S. companies need congressional approval to participate in supplying technology and fuel. U.S. President George W. Bush has submitted the agreement with India to Congress for final approval, seeking to win ratification before it adjourns on Sept. 26.
`Small Team'
Nuclear Power plans to start talks with General Electric and Areva this month while waiting for Congress to clear the deal, Chairman Shreyans Kumar Jain said Sept. 8. The state monopoly, which may buy $14 billion of equipment in 2009, operates 17 reactors that produce 4,120 megawatts of electricity.
Mumbai-based Reliance Power has hired 10 people, some of them former employees of Nuclear Power, Chalasani said.
``We've been preparing for the last two years,'' Chalasani said yesterday. ``There is a small team in place that is studying the market.'' As many as 200 people may be hired to manage its planned nuclear power business, he said.
Reliance Power wants land to be assigned for nuclear projects. The government should decide where the new plants should be located after conducting studies, Chalasani said.
Generation Capacity
The company, which raised $3 billion in India's biggest share sale, plans to spend $28 billion on building 28,200 megawatts of coal-fired and water-based electricity generation capacity in the next five years. Reliance currently generates 941 megawatts.
The generator may build 3,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity, according to Chalasani. The cost to build one megawatt of nuclear power may be as much as 80 million rupees and isn't included in the spending plans already announced, he said.
The utility is currently building two so-called ultra-mega power projects at Sasan in central India and Krishnapatnam in the south. Each coal-fired plant will be capable of generating 4,000 megawatts.
The company ``has a lot on its plate in terms of implementation,'' Angel Broking's Solanki said.
(Source: Bloomberg)
The utility plans to build nuclear stations at two sites, Chief Executive Officer Jayarama Chalasani said by telephone in Mumbai. Reliance Power is also in talks with Toshiba Corp.'s Westinghouse Electric Co. and Russia's Rosatom Corp., he said.
India may end a government monopoly on nuclear power generation after winning the backing of a 45-nation suppliers group this month to trade in atomic fuel and technology. Reliance joins state-run Nuclear Power Corp., GVK Power and Infrastructure Ltd. and GMR Energy Ltd., which said last week they are in talks with overseas companies to set up atomic plants.
``Private sector presence in India's nuclear business has a long way to go,'' said Girish Solanki, an analyst at Angel Broking Ltd. in Mumbai ``Entering the business may be a positive for Reliance and other private sector companies but it's too early to talk about the impact.'' He has a ``neutral'' rating on the stock.
Reliance Power shares climbed 3.7 rupees, or 2.4 percent, to 160.65 rupees at the close in Mumbai trading. The stock earlier today dropped 17.2 percent to the lowest since July 23, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. India's 30-share, benchmark Sensitive Index declined 0.1 percent.
Private Companies
The government may unveil a policy to allow private companies access to the nuclear market after national elections due by May, Rajendra Pachauri, an adviser to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on climate change, said Sept. 12. Pachauri also chairs a United Nations panel of climate scientists who shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.
The setting up of nuclear projects may be opened up to include private and other state-run companies, India's Planning Commission has said. The effect of allowing private companies may become visible after 2011, the panel said.
India, the world's second-fastest growing major economy, won a waiver of a ban on trade from the Nuclear Suppliers Group on Sept. 6 as part of a U.S.-backed deal. The South Asian nation plans to add 40,000 megawatts of nuclear power capacity by 2020, a third of the current total output, to beat shortages of as much as 17 percent during peak hours.
The NSG endorsement may give France's Areva and Russia's Rosatom a head start on Indian orders because U.S. companies need congressional approval to participate in supplying technology and fuel. U.S. President George W. Bush has submitted the agreement with India to Congress for final approval, seeking to win ratification before it adjourns on Sept. 26.
`Small Team'
Nuclear Power plans to start talks with General Electric and Areva this month while waiting for Congress to clear the deal, Chairman Shreyans Kumar Jain said Sept. 8. The state monopoly, which may buy $14 billion of equipment in 2009, operates 17 reactors that produce 4,120 megawatts of electricity.
Mumbai-based Reliance Power has hired 10 people, some of them former employees of Nuclear Power, Chalasani said.
``We've been preparing for the last two years,'' Chalasani said yesterday. ``There is a small team in place that is studying the market.'' As many as 200 people may be hired to manage its planned nuclear power business, he said.
Reliance Power wants land to be assigned for nuclear projects. The government should decide where the new plants should be located after conducting studies, Chalasani said.
Generation Capacity
The company, which raised $3 billion in India's biggest share sale, plans to spend $28 billion on building 28,200 megawatts of coal-fired and water-based electricity generation capacity in the next five years. Reliance currently generates 941 megawatts.
The generator may build 3,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity, according to Chalasani. The cost to build one megawatt of nuclear power may be as much as 80 million rupees and isn't included in the spending plans already announced, he said.
The utility is currently building two so-called ultra-mega power projects at Sasan in central India and Krishnapatnam in the south. Each coal-fired plant will be capable of generating 4,000 megawatts.
The company ``has a lot on its plate in terms of implementation,'' Angel Broking's Solanki said.
(Source: Bloomberg)
Monday, August 18, 2008
Westinghouse, Areva eye India nuclear plants-paper
India's Nuclear Power Corp has tentatively picked four suppliers, including U.S.-based Westinghouse Electric and France's Areva, for planned new projects, the Hindu Business Line reported on Monday.
Citing unidentified government sources, the newspaper said General Electric-Hitachi and Russia's atomic energy agency Rosatom had also been qualified by India's monopoly nuclear power generator for placement of orders.
The United States on Thursday proposed to waive restrictions on critical nuclear trade with India in a draft circulated among member nations of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).
The draft would lift a 34-year embargo on nuclear trade with India and would be discussed by the 45-nation NSG next week in Vienna.
If trade with global players open up, India hopes to double its target to 40,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity by 2020, the newspaper said.
India has 17 nuclear power plants with a capacity of 4,120 megawatts, while six units of 3,160 MW are under construction.
State-owned Nuclear Power Corp has identified four coastal sites to build nuclear park or reactor clusters housing up to eight reactors of 1,000 megawatts each, the newspaper said.
(Source: Reuters)
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Canada May Abandon Nuclear Agency If It Loses Bid, Globe Says
The Canadian government is preparing to end support for Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. if it loses a bid to build two nuclear reactors in Ontario, the Globe and Mail reported, citing unidentified people.
If the government-owned nuclear power developer loses the multibillion-dollar contract to either Areva SA of France or U.S.-based Westinghouse Electric Co., the federal government will blame the province of Ontario for the demise of the nuclear agency, the newspaper said today.
The result of the competition for the Ontario contract will be a critical factor in the federal government's decision on whether to sell the company or provide it with more funds to be globally competitive, the Globe said.
(Source: Bloomberg)
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Chinese Company Wants to Build Belarusian Nuclear Power Plant
China's Guangdong Nuclear Power Group has expressed its intention to participate in the construction of Belarus's first-ever nuclear power plant, Belarusian Deputy Energy Minster Mikhail Mikhadzyuk told reporters in Minsk on Monday [11 August].
"China has 20 years of experience in the construction and maintenance of nuclear power plants, and that is why we will consider this proposal of the Chinese side for possible cooperation in the development of a nuclear power industry in Belarus," Mikhadzyuk said.
He said that cooperation could have various forms, such as supplies of equipment and services. China also could provide loans to fund the project, he said.
The Belarusian government sent an invitation to submit bids to three companies, including Russia's Atomstroyeksport, the French- German Areva Group and US-Japanese Westinghouse Toshiba. The former two accepted the invitation, while the latter reportedly never replied by the deadline, 1 August, according to earlier reports.
The deputy minister said that Westinghouse Toshiba had replied, saying that Belarus should first sign an intergovernmental agreement with the United States on the peaceful use of nuclear power. "At the same time, they said that it would take a few years to conclude such an agreement," he said.
Rosatom that controls Atomstroiexport confirmed its readiness to build the plant under a turnkey contract and "study issues concerning the provision of funds for this project," Mikhadzyuk said.
Mikhadzyuk said that the Belarusian government was examining all proposals.
Talks with Areva were postponed to a later date, Belarusian officials said last week.
Belarus plans to start the construction of the nuclear power plant in 2009. The government is considering three possible locations for the plant: near the village of Kukshynava between Horki and Shklow, Mahilyow region; in the Astravets district, Hrodna region; and near the village of Chyrvonaya Palyana near Bykhaw, Mahilyow region.
The 2,000-MW plant is supposed to supply some 15 percent of the country's electricity needs. One of the two 1,000-MW reactors is to be put into operation in 2016 and the other one in 2018.
(Source: RedOrbit)
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Bharat Heavy to Triple Nuclear Investments After Pact
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., India's biggest power-equipment maker, plans to triple spending in nuclear components once overseas companies are allowed to supply technology and fuel under an agreement led by the U.S.
``If the nuclear deal comes through we are quite confident there will be a lot of orders in this area and we don't want to be left out,'' Chairman and Managing Director K. Ravi Kumar said in an interview at his office in New Delhi, where the company is based. ``We will invest depending on the volume.''
Bharat Heavy rose the most in five months in Mumbai on optimism the government's victory in a confidence vote last night will lead to the lifting of a ban on overseas supplies of nuclear technology. Areva SA, the world's biggest maker of reactors, and General Electric Co. may win orders when the accord between India and the U.S. is sealed, Nuclear Power Corp. of India has said.
``The orders could be divided and companies such as Areva, Siemens AG and ABB Ltd. will be involved,'' said Taina Erajuuri at Glitnir Asset Management in Helsinki, which manages $158 million in Indian assets, including Bharat Heavy. ``The government may prefer some local companies as well, like Bharat Heavy and Larsen & Toubro Ltd.''
Shares of state-controlled Bharat Heavy surged 11 percent to 1,773.35 rupees at close of trading in Mumbai. Larsen, India's biggest engineering company, rose 7.8 percent to 2,772.9 rupees.
Investment Plans
Bharat Heavy plans to spend 15 billion rupees ($351 million) in two years building plants to supply components for reactors of 1,600 megawatts capacity, Kumar said yesterday. Without the accord, Bharat Heavy will invest 5 billion rupees to build steam turbine generators and other components for 700 megawatt plants designed in India, he said.
The accord with the U.S. can generate more than $10 billion of orders for Indian companies, including Bharat Heavy and Larsen & Toubro Ltd., by 2012 if the planned projects are awarded, UBS AG analysts Suhas Harinarayanan and Pankaj Sharma wrote in a note to clients on July 10.
``We estimate Bharat Heavy's business potential at about 25- 30 percent of the contract size for the turbine generator sets and electrical equipment,'' the analysts said. They have a ``neutral'' rating on Bharat Heavy stock.
Joint Venture
Bharat Heavy will set up a 50-50 venture with state-run Nuclear Power Corp. that will supply components for nuclear plants with a capacity to generate 700 megawatts, 1,000 megawatts and 1,600 megawatts of power, Kumar said. The company will also seek overseas partners to provide technology for these plants, he said, declining to name the companies.
The company aims to expand its nuclear power-plant business because of wider profit margins, Kumar said. The gross profit margins for such plants would be as much as 30 percent, compared with about 22 percent for thermal power plants, Kumar said.
Bharat Heavy has provided 80 percent of the equipment used by Nuclear Power Corp.'s installed capacity of 4,120 megawatts. In April, Bharat Heavy agreed to set up a venture to make nuclear plants that will seek technology to make steam turbine generators of 700 megawatts or more.
Areva, GE
Areva, General Electric, Toshiba Corp.'s Westinghouse Electric Co. and Russia's atomic energy agency Rosatom are among four manufacturers of reactors that would share $14 billion of orders from India when the U.S. agreement is signed, Nuclear Power Corp. said in August.
NTPC Ltd., the nation's biggest utility, rose 5.5 rupees, or 3 percent, to 190.45 rupees. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. surged 10.6 percent to 1,016.7 rupees. Areva T&D India Ltd., a unit of Areva, gained 79.05 rupees, or 4.9 percent, to 1,686.45 rupees.
The agreement will allow India to generate as much as 40,000 megawatts of nuclear power by 2020, sufficient to light up four cities the size of New York, from 4,120 megawatts now. Electricity demand in Asia's third-biggest economy during peak hours widened to 17 percent in the last fisal year from 14 percent a year ago.
Singh was forced to seek a vote of confidence in the nation's lower house of parliament after his former communist allies withdrew support over the accord with the U.S. The Left parties have said the nuclear agreement will weaken India's ability to pursue an independent foreign policy.
Fuel Imports
The accord will allow India to import technology and fuel without joining the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. India last week presented a nuclear inspections agreement to the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency, which needs to approve the plan before the government in New Delhi can push forward with expansion of power production.
The IAEA's board will vote Aug. 1 in an extraordinary meeting on whether to endorse the plan, which will give inspectors access to 14 civilian atomic reactors. The inspections agreement is a key condition for a U.S.-Indian nuclear cooperation treaty.
Nuclear suppliers have been barred from providing India with atomic technologies since it tested a nuclear weapon in 1974 without being listed as an atomic weapons state in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
(Source: Bloomberg)
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
UKRAINE: Nuclear Power Seen As the Answer to Russia
Ukraine is embarking on a costly and inefficient path of nuclear development, hoping it will halt its energy dependence on Russia.
Critical voices are mounting over the feasibility and desirability of Kiev's 'Energy Strategy of Ukraine' released in March 2006 in the wake of a Russian-Ukrainian gas price war.
Ukraine then accused Russia of raising prices as punishment for Ukraine's pro-Western orientation, whereas Russia claimed it had no reason to keep subsidising gas for Ukraine.
Ukraine wants to replace gas with coal and nuclear energy, a plan that includes the construction of up to 22 new nuclear reactors by 2030.
Ukrainian environmental NGOs have criticised the government for not carrying out a broad public discussion before approving the plan.
"The strategy was written during the gas conflict, and the whole idea was to decrease dependency on Russian gas and completely stop using it," Olexi Pasyuk, energy expert at the National Ecological Centre of Ukraine told IPS.
"It's a very unrealistic plan in terms of cost. It was not thought in terms of economic efficiency but rather on how to fulfil energy needs," Pasyuk says. "Even Russia, which is going nuclear, does not plan to build as many reactors."
The plan would imply changing from gas to electricity in house heating, which would require enormous infrastructural investment in a country where every village has pipelines bringing gas.
"Even if it would work, Ukraine cannot have a full nuclear cycle. We have Uranium but you cannot simply use it since Russian technology is required for that," Pasyuk says. "This would still leave us dependent."
Ukraine has the largest volume of discovered Uranium in Europe, but the possibility of enriching it could be politically sensitive for other countries, as it would give it the capacity to build nuclear weapons.
Ukraine also lacks a solution to the issue of waste management, with much of it being sent to Russia for reprocessing. The plan also neglects ecological and energy efficiency questions.
Ukraine's economy is one of the most energy intensive in the world, and is three times more wasteful than the average level within the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, a group of 30 wealthy nations).
According to the plan Ukraine's energy efficiency by 2030 would be at the present level of neighbouring Poland.
But a positive note in the recent gas spat with Russia is that since the eastern neighbour began increasing prices for oil, gas and uranium for nuclear fuel, there have been attempts at increasing energy efficiency.
The Ukrainian cabinet is not to thank for that: financial incentives and legislative conditions for improved energy efficiency and for developing renewable energies are lacking, according a Bankwatch report released in May. Ukraine's energy strategy also contradicts the country's European ambitions, leaving it half-way from the EU (European Union) goal of bringing the share of renewables in overall energy consumption to 20 percent by 2020.
Pasyuk is hopeful the ministry will back down on its plans. "Informally it is admitting reviewing the strategy, but officially they still deny any problems with it," he told IPS.
Bankwatch has also accused the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) of playing along with Ukraine's pro-nuclear plans by investing in infrastructure which further develops the country's nuclear industry.
The EBRD has hardly provided support to developing renewable energies, in contradiction with its own country strategy for Ukraine, in which it recognised great potential for wind, small hydro and biomass energy production in the country of 48 million.
In a bid to diversify sources, Ukraine's power utility Energoatom recently signed a deal with the U.S. company Westinghouse to import nuclear fuel.
Critics claim that in comparison with Russian fuel Westinghouse's is more expensive, of lower quality, and not tailored for Soviet-designed reactors, increasing risks.
Finnish and Czech nuclear plants had to stop using Westinghouse fuel in the past due to its incompatibility with Soviet-designed reactors.
The Ukrainian public is not enthusiastic over nuclear power ever since in 1986 a reactor of the Chernobyl nuclear plant (in Ukraine area) exploded, causing the biggest civilian nuclear catastrophe ever. But in spite of the Chernobyl tragedy, the nuclear industry remained stable throughout the country's transition from a Soviet republic to an independent state in 1991.
Between 1990 and 1993 the Ukrainian parliament imposed a moratorium on the commissioning of any new nuclear reactors, but power shortages in the early 1990s made nuclear energy attractive again.
Roughly half of current domestic electricity production is of nuclear origin, with the percentage increasing periodically.
While technical problems keep forcing frequent shut-downs at Ukrainian power plants, proponents of nuclear energy say safety has been continuously improving. Last March the Security Service of Ukraine admitted it was stepping up security at nuclear facilities due to instances of negligence. (END/2008)
(Source: IPS News)
Critical voices are mounting over the feasibility and desirability of Kiev's 'Energy Strategy of Ukraine' released in March 2006 in the wake of a Russian-Ukrainian gas price war.
Ukraine then accused Russia of raising prices as punishment for Ukraine's pro-Western orientation, whereas Russia claimed it had no reason to keep subsidising gas for Ukraine.
Ukraine wants to replace gas with coal and nuclear energy, a plan that includes the construction of up to 22 new nuclear reactors by 2030.
Ukrainian environmental NGOs have criticised the government for not carrying out a broad public discussion before approving the plan.
"The strategy was written during the gas conflict, and the whole idea was to decrease dependency on Russian gas and completely stop using it," Olexi Pasyuk, energy expert at the National Ecological Centre of Ukraine told IPS.
"It's a very unrealistic plan in terms of cost. It was not thought in terms of economic efficiency but rather on how to fulfil energy needs," Pasyuk says. "Even Russia, which is going nuclear, does not plan to build as many reactors."
The plan would imply changing from gas to electricity in house heating, which would require enormous infrastructural investment in a country where every village has pipelines bringing gas.
"Even if it would work, Ukraine cannot have a full nuclear cycle. We have Uranium but you cannot simply use it since Russian technology is required for that," Pasyuk says. "This would still leave us dependent."
Ukraine has the largest volume of discovered Uranium in Europe, but the possibility of enriching it could be politically sensitive for other countries, as it would give it the capacity to build nuclear weapons.
Ukraine also lacks a solution to the issue of waste management, with much of it being sent to Russia for reprocessing. The plan also neglects ecological and energy efficiency questions.
Ukraine's economy is one of the most energy intensive in the world, and is three times more wasteful than the average level within the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, a group of 30 wealthy nations).
According to the plan Ukraine's energy efficiency by 2030 would be at the present level of neighbouring Poland.
But a positive note in the recent gas spat with Russia is that since the eastern neighbour began increasing prices for oil, gas and uranium for nuclear fuel, there have been attempts at increasing energy efficiency.
The Ukrainian cabinet is not to thank for that: financial incentives and legislative conditions for improved energy efficiency and for developing renewable energies are lacking, according a Bankwatch report released in May. Ukraine's energy strategy also contradicts the country's European ambitions, leaving it half-way from the EU (European Union) goal of bringing the share of renewables in overall energy consumption to 20 percent by 2020.
Pasyuk is hopeful the ministry will back down on its plans. "Informally it is admitting reviewing the strategy, but officially they still deny any problems with it," he told IPS.
Bankwatch has also accused the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) of playing along with Ukraine's pro-nuclear plans by investing in infrastructure which further develops the country's nuclear industry.
The EBRD has hardly provided support to developing renewable energies, in contradiction with its own country strategy for Ukraine, in which it recognised great potential for wind, small hydro and biomass energy production in the country of 48 million.
In a bid to diversify sources, Ukraine's power utility Energoatom recently signed a deal with the U.S. company Westinghouse to import nuclear fuel.
Critics claim that in comparison with Russian fuel Westinghouse's is more expensive, of lower quality, and not tailored for Soviet-designed reactors, increasing risks.
Finnish and Czech nuclear plants had to stop using Westinghouse fuel in the past due to its incompatibility with Soviet-designed reactors.
The Ukrainian public is not enthusiastic over nuclear power ever since in 1986 a reactor of the Chernobyl nuclear plant (in Ukraine area) exploded, causing the biggest civilian nuclear catastrophe ever. But in spite of the Chernobyl tragedy, the nuclear industry remained stable throughout the country's transition from a Soviet republic to an independent state in 1991.
Between 1990 and 1993 the Ukrainian parliament imposed a moratorium on the commissioning of any new nuclear reactors, but power shortages in the early 1990s made nuclear energy attractive again.
Roughly half of current domestic electricity production is of nuclear origin, with the percentage increasing periodically.
While technical problems keep forcing frequent shut-downs at Ukrainian power plants, proponents of nuclear energy say safety has been continuously improving. Last March the Security Service of Ukraine admitted it was stepping up security at nuclear facilities due to instances of negligence. (END/2008)
(Source: IPS News)
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Westinghouse strikes deal to build US nuclear power plants
Westinghouse Electric, a unit of the Japanese Toshiba Corp., said Tuesday it had struck a deal with Georgia Power to build two nuclear power plants in the southern United States, the first such projects in 30 years.
The announcement that two Westinghouse AP1000 power plants would be built at a site near Augusta, Georgia which already had two existing nuclear reactors, came days after the 29th anniversary of a major US nuclear accident at Three Mile Island.
Westinghouse chief executive Steve Tritch described the deal as evidence that the "nuclear renaissance has moved beyond the planning stage" and said it would "ensure that the United States will have the power it will need to support long-term economic growth."
The Shaw Group said the nuclear division of its Power Group and Westinghouse Electric Company had been awarded an engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contract by Georgia Power Company to build the reactors at the existing Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site near Augusta, Georgia.
The two reactors will have an electric generating capacity of 1,100 megawatts and are expected to be built by 2016 and 2017 respectively.
(Source: AFP)
Friday, April 4, 2008
Toshiba's US unit Westinghouse in talks on 4 nuclear power reactors
Japan's Toshiba Corp. said Thursday that its unit Westinghouse Electric Co. is in final talks with two power companies about building up to four next-generation nuclear reactors in the United States.
If Westinghouse gets the orders, they would be the first AP1000 models to be built in the U.S., said Toshiba spokesman Keisuke Oomori.
Toshiba has been in talks with Scana Corp. and Southern Co. to build up to two plants in South Carolina and two in Georgia, he said.
Toshiba shares rose on the news, climbing 5.6 percent in the Tokyo Stock Exchange's morning session to 777 yen.
Winning the orders would boost sentiment for the company and may create a view that the AP1000s will become a popular reactor in the nuclear power plant market, analysts said.
(Source: AP)
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Ukraine's nuclear authorities are playing with fire
Ukrainian politicians have made one more move aimed at easing their dependence on Russia's nuclear fuel supplies.
In late March, Ukraine's nuclear power company Energoatom signed a five-year contract with U.S.-based Westinghouse Electric Company to provide nuclear fuel to three Ukrainian reactors at the Yuzhnoukrainsky nuclear power plant in 2011-2015.
Last year, it held energetic talks with Canadian companies on the construction of CANDU (CANada Deuterium Uranium) reactors, the older relatives of the Chernobyl reactor, which exploded in 1986.
These two instances show Ukraine's desire to ease its dependence on Russia. Ukraine has 15 VVER water-moderated water-cooled reactors built during Soviet times, which use fuel imported from Russia. Westinghouse is to supply 630 fuel assemblies for the annual recharging of at least three VVER blocks.
Although diversification is a noble goal, the operation of nuclear power plants is highly complicated. Safety alone should encourage Ukraine to use nuclear fuel for which its nuclear power plants were designed, i.e. fuel made in Russia.
The Chernobyl tragedy should have been enough warning for Ukraine, but political ambitions have proven to be stronger than fear.
Khusein Chechenov, a member of the Russian parliamentary subcommittee on nuclear energy, said, "It was a political decision taken without due regard for economic or scientific considerations."
According to him, the contract is a mistake made deliberately to spite Moscow.
Westinghouse's fuel assemblies are 25% more expensive than those provided by Russia's TVEL Corporation and their quality is questionable. Ukraine acted impulsively, signing the contract with the U.S. company during negotiations on Russian fuel deliveries after 2010.
The contract includes quite a few reservations, such as Ukraine's right to terminate it if its regulators do not permit the use of American fuel, or if the assemblies malfunction.
(Source: RIA Novosti)
Monday, March 31, 2008
Westinghouse wins Ukraine fuel supply deal
US-based Westinghouse will supply nuclear fuel to three Russian-designed power reactors in Ukraine. The contract has inspired bitter comment from Russian observers.
 |
| South Ukraine |
In 2000, a financial award was granted by the US government as part of a US/Ukrainian initiative to reduce Ukraine's dependency on Russia for fuel. As well as nuclear fuel, the country also imports Russian oil, while gas supply and pricing has been a major issue in recent years. In 2005, the initiative led to six Westinghouse fuel assemblies were introduced to a South Ukraine reactor on an experimental basis; In 2009, 42 more will be added.
The new contract includes special terms to protect both the supplier and the buyer, national electricity utility Energoatom. Should Energoatom fail to gain regulatory approval for the use of Westinghouse fuel assemblies on a large scale, the American firm could terminate the contract with no penalty. On the other hand, if Westinghouse failed to meet technical standards, Energoatom could cancel.
In reaction to the announcement, Russia's Rosatom released a series of expert comments which roundly denounced the move. The various dignitaries agreed the contract was technically dubious and could be a negotiation tool during talks between Energoatom and TVEL for the remainder of nuclear fuel supplies. Furthermore they linked it to Ukraine's relationship with the European Union and its desire to join the Nato defence pact.
Chechenov Hussein, a member of the Russian Federation Commission on Natural Monopolies' subcommittee on atomic energy, said such contracts 'will bring Ukraine more harm than good.' He continued: 'I think this is a political decision not backed by economic and scientific considerations. The operation of a nuclear power plant involves the use of sophisticated, interconnected technology which can not introduce anything foreign.'(Source: World Nuclear News)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
