Total In Talks With Areva, Suez On Nuclear Power

French oil giant Total SA (TOT) confirmed Monday it's in talks with two other major French energy groups over possible projects in the nuclear energy sector.
Total has a stated objective to expand into the nuclear energy sector.
At a seminar for journalists, Philippe Boisseau, Total's director general for gas and new energies, said the company is looking to join up in the nuclear sector with the big French state-owned nuclear engineering group Areva (CEI.FR) and utilities group Suez (SZE.FR), without providing details of specific projects they may cooperate on.
Total is positioning itself in the nuclear market via its competence in managing large projects, Boisseau said.
It also has the capacity to assume long-term capital intensive projects, he added. He also cited the company's history of relations and partnerships with energy producing countries.
Boisseau noted that the nuclear industry will be required to make substantial investments in the next 30 years as most nuclear installations will need to be replaced.
Chief Executive Christophe de Margerie said later at the seminar that it's much too early to talk of Total becoming an operator of nuclear plants.
Outlining future investments, he said the company will spend $1 billion on reasearch and development is 2008, up 20% from 2007. It will spend $1.8 billion on exploration.
In France alone, around 75% of electricity is produced by nuclear power plants. The company is also looking to partner with Suez and Electricite de France (1024251.FR) in solar energy.

(Source: http://www.easybourse.com/)

Shutdowns and plunging profits cast doubt on nuclear future

British Energy, the nuclear power group, reported a sharp fall in profits yesterday - the same day a series of mishaps at its stations left more than 60% of its capacity out of action.

An unexpected shutdown at Hunterston on Scotland's west coast yesterday followed the closure of its Sizewell B station on Tuesday which left thousands of homes without power. The shutdown at the Ayrshire plant meant 10 of the company's 16 units were out of action.

The nuclear generator, which is to be sold off after the government announced plans for a new generation of nuclear stations, has been dogged by problems in the past year. It blamed other, ongoing problems at two power plants, Hartlepool and Heysham 1, for the fall in underlying profits from £1.22bn to £882m.

Bill Coley, chief executive, said the figures were disappointing but insisted the company was making progress on technical problems. "We have made good operational progress ... We are well positioned to manage our existing fleet to best advantage and look ahead to playing a pivotal role in the new build programme." Sizewell B was expected to be back in production in a few days, he said.

The problems come as a report today into the failings of the UK nuclear industry casts doubt on British Energy's prospects and is likely to alarm foreign power firms preparing to launch multibillion-pound bids for it. The study, published by Friends of the Earth and written by former Guardian journalist Paul Brown, claims the company could be forced to shut down some plants because the reprocessing facility at Sellafield is running out of storage space.

Although Coley said the company was not experiencing any problems with waste storage, the report claims the financial legacy of Sellafield and failures of British Energy make it too dangerous for the government to embark on a new generation of nuclear plants.

Many of the companies considering a bid, such as EDF of France, want to use the UK company's sites for constructing a new generation of plants. They insist they do not need financial help to do so. But Brown concludes: "The economics of new nuclear power stations for the UK do not add up. It is not possible to achieve what the government says it will do - build a new generation of nuclear power stations in England without public subsidy."

Ministers had made many promises over the past 50 years that nuclear would pay its own way, Brown says, only to see huge new liabilities develop. The government had underwritten all the debts of British Energy when it collapsed in 2001 so the company can never go bankrupt, a commitment that dwarfs that made to the nationalised bank Northern Rock.

"Employing more than 10,000 people, the Sellafield nuclear complex is in crisis. Its reprocessing works and plutonium fuel plant are all failing at a massive cost - annually already £100 each for every taxpayer in this country - and this is rising," he says.

John Large, a nuclear industry consultant, believes British Energy might solve its storage problems but agrees it will be impossible to sell off the company without "massaging" the finances and handing financial liabilities to the public purse.

The doubts were underlined yesterday by an admission from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority that the cost of cleaning up Britain's nuclear legacy would increase from the current estimate of £73bn. Director Jim Morse told the BBC: "I think it's a high probability that in the short term it will undoubtedly go up." The £73bn figure, published in January ,was an increase of £12bn on a 2003 estimate.

(Source: Guardian)

China's ambitious plan for more nuclear power

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/27/business/chinuke.php

By Emma Graham-Harrison ReutersPublished: May 27, 2008

BEIJING: Nuclear power companies in China aim to join automobile and electronics makers as export powerhouses, but big domestic expansion plans may not leave them the capacity to make an overseas push for more than a decade, analysts say.

A $1 billion deal signed last week with Russia to build and supply a uranium enrichment plant in China was another step toward civilian nuclear independence, less than two decades after China's first nuclear generator came on line.

The country sealed deals last year with Areva of France and Westinghouse for several third-generation reactors and the blueprints to allow them to develop domestic versions.

The nuclear power companies have mastered the construction of older models at a speed that is impressing Asian neighbors who cannot afford nuclear models sold by Western companies or are not allowed to buy them.

Countries like Vietnam and Indonesia are eager to build plants to convey a sense of modernity and to cut their fuel bills, and they see Beijing as the answer to financial and political problems.

"They know the Chinese have a lot of money and they're not necessarily as rigid as Western investors," said Bob Herrerra Lim, an analyst for Eurasia Group, a consulting firm based in the United States. "The Chinese could be the accelerator. They could say, 'We're willing to take a longer term look, because these countries have a strategic value to us.' And obviously there's a lot of policy behavior in many of their companies."

The timing could not be better for China, as the fight against climate change and the search for cheaper energy sources revives global interest in nuclear power.

"Their technology will improve, and worldwide demand is big," said Colette Lewiner, an analyst at Capgemini, adding that when demand starts to grow at a high pace again, "Areva, Westinghouse and other nuclear reactor suppliers cannot meet it on their own."

"I know it is serious," she said, because the Chinese had "told me they are looking for partners to export the technology."

But China is also ramping up its domestic nuclear expansion plans, aiming for a total of 60 gigawatts by 2020. Its current nuclear capacity is only 9 gigawatts, under 2 percent of its total installed power generation capacity.

Its own experts admit that they will have to devote most of the country's technical knowledge and a large portion of both listed and state-owned companies' capital to what will be the fastest nuclear build-out the world has ever seen.

China will need to start construction on about four new generators a year through 2015 to meet its ambitious target.

Beijing sees nuclear plants as a partial answer for its mounting pollution and energy security problems, although China's electricity use is growing so fast that even after the breakneck expansion nuclear will provide only about 5 percent of its power.

The speed of the expansion is tying China to the second-generation models that have faced teething troubles rather than the safer third-generation plants it has begun buying.

Ambitious managers at all the country's big five listed power companies want to join the sector, once the preserve of two state-owned firms.

One of the country's biggest electricity producers, Datang International Power Generation, has already invested in the Ningde Plan in southeastern Fujian Province, with the first reactor due to come on line in 2012.

Nuclear is attractive because it diversifies Datang's generating mix, adding a type of plant with a relatively predictable operating margin because fuel is such a small portion of costs.

Despite China's desire for a speedy expansion, its focus on developing domestic technology means companies like Westinghouse and Areva are unlikely to repeat deals for entire plants.

But they will be rewarded for handing over some of their secrets by a continuing stream of smaller deals for parts that Chinese companies cannot yet manufacture or cannot produce on a large scale.

"In the future, I see a two-way flow of business," Lewiner said. "There will not be so many sales of big third-generation plants, but equipment sales to China will be good."

"In the other direction," she added, "Western firms will be re-exporting from China nuclear equipment and sharing skills."

Another area where Areva looks set to pick up steady business in China is reprocessing nuclear waste.

"Fuel manufacturing and reprocessing of used fuel are areas where China needs Western technology, because they cannot do this on an industrial scale," she said.

The hidden costs of nuclear power

As one of Florida’s largest utilities prepared to unveil details about its nuclear plans last March, its executives showed a noticeable wariness about one detail in particular: the price.

At Progress Energy Florida’s new St. Petersburg headquarters, the top brass carefully husbanded their latest estimates. As the date of their public filing neared, the utility’s executives arranged meetings with newspaper editors throughout its territory. Bill Johnson, chairman, president and CEO of the Florida utility’s parent company, flew down from North Carolina for a meeting with Governor Charlie Crist.

Progress Energy’s extraordinary care acknowledged that the “nuclear renaissance” perched delicately on the public’s goodwill. An erosion of public support could shake the political support that new nuclear has lately enjoyed. Florida wouldn’t be the only casualty; 21 other new nuclear projects have been announced throughout the U.S.

When the price was unveiled, the reason behind Progress Energy’s caution became clear: the price for two reactors topped $14 billion – more than double the original estimates proffered by Progress Energy and other utilities throughout the country.

The nuclear industry defends its expansion despite the surging costs. Nuclear power is cheaper to operate than natural gas, won’t exacerbate carbon dioxide emissions like adding new coal, and provides around-the-clock power, unlike weather-dependent solar and wind.

“We talk with the wind people all the time. We talk to solar folks all the time. They have a role to play,” says Mitch Singer, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade group. “But there's no way that they can take the place of the base load power nuclear can provide. It's physics.”

But nuclear opponents worry that a massive investment in nuclear could come at the expense of renewables. They also worry that conservation efforts will obviate the need for a massive investment in nuclear, and consumers will be left holding the bag.

“Given the seriousness of global climate change, what’s required here is an honest look at the economics of power generation,” says Susan Glickman, a lobbyist for The Climate Group, a non-profit that pushes governments and businesses to take action on climate change. “We need to look first at the cost-effective options like energy efficiency, and balance that against the expense of nuclear.”

Throughout the U.S., plans have been announced for 33 new nuclear reactors; eighteen are slated for the Southeast, and as many as eight will be the same Westinghouse AP1000s that Progress Energy picked.

The new, higher estimates for nuclear – driven by the rising cost of labor, steel, cement and metals like copper – has the nuclear industry worried about giving the public sticker shock. Utilities around the nation will soon be asking state regulators for permission to spend billions on high-priced nuclear plants. When utility customers start seeing those enormous costs reflected in their monthly electric bill, politicians may start hearing from some very unhappy constituents.

As Progress Energy’s Johnson told a group of analysts in early April, “To do this, to build nuclear in this country, what we need to have is continuing regulatory and political support.”

The nuclear industry still suffers a credibility hangover from the huge cost overruns of the 1970s and 1980s, when nuclear power plants were taking 10 to 12 years to complete and costing up to $5-billion, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. Much of the rising cost owed itself to delays -- delays often exacerbated by wavering political and regulatory support.

Those interminable battles, combined with the disasters at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, led to a 30-year break in new nuclear plant orders. Despite the ballyhooed renaissance, the industry has girded itself against a repeat.

As if the words possess a talismanic power to make it so, the mavens of the nuclear renaissance have taken to repeating, with liturgical sameness, why this nuclear boom won’t be like the last. This time, the licensing has been streamlined. This time, the plants have been standardized.

The fact is no one really knows what the plants will cost because no utility has built one in nearly three decades. As Progress Energy noted in its public filing, its cost estimates remain non-binding. The price could go higher.

Progress Energy is one of few U.S. utilities that has offered a public estimate for new nuclear. Another is Florida Power Light, which estimates that it will spend $18 billion to $24 billion, depending on the technology it selects for its two reactors. Although other utilities have remained mum, Florida’s estimates appear in line with what other utilities can expect.

At those prices price – more than $6,300 per kilowatt – building nuclear costs three times more than building wind. So why would FPL Energy, parent of Florida Power & Light and one of the largest wind power producers in the world, invest in more than 2000-megawatts of nuclear? The reason is simple: weather.

“The biggest attribute, the biggest benefit of a nuclear plant, is that it's a baseload source of power,” says David Bradish, manager of energy information for the Nuclear Energy Institute. “It produces power all the time, all day.”

A cloud passing over a solar installation can substantially ding its output, as can a sudden drop in wind. The availability of power – known in utility jargon as “capacity factor” – dramatically alters the cost landscape. As Bradish put it, to get a wind farm to produce as much power in a year as a nuclear plant, you’d have to build 3,000 megawatts of wind to 1,000 megawatts of nuclear.

The utility’s use “levelized” costs that take capacity factor into account. By those estimates, fossil fuels like coal consistently number among the cheapest sources of power, according to the Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the U.S. Department of Energy.

By 2020, traditional pulverized coal will cost $59 per megawatt -- less than a quarter of the projected cost of solar photovoltaics. Of course, the estimates have a glaring weakness: they don't take into account the potential cost of carbon. Cap-and-trade programs, now in place in more than twenty states and favored by all three presidential candidates, could add considerable costs for high carbon fuels like coal, and make low-carbon alternatives more financially attractive.

But at $66 per megawatt projected for 2020, no other low-carbon power source will beat the price of nuclear.

(Source: Plenty Magazine)

British Energy races against time after worst power cuts in a decade

British Energy today vowed to get the Sizewell B nuclear power station working again within days after Britain suffered its worst blackouts in a decade.

Half a million people were hit by unscheduled power cuts on Tuesday after seven power stations, including Sizewell B in Suffolk, unexpectedly stopped working within hours of each other.

The blackouts forced hospital operations to be cancelled at High Wycombe after an emergency generator caught fire, and also cut the lights at the town's shopping centre. Thousands of homes were left without power in south London, while in the north east the problems reportedly left eight people trapped in a lift. Cheshire, Liverpool and Lincolnshire were also hit.

The other power stations which suffered power outages included the coal-fired Longannet plant in Fife, and sites in Kent, Nottinghamshire, South Humber and Deeside. The outages forced the price of wholesale electricity up 35% to a new record high of £95 a MW hour.

It is unclear why so many power stations shut down at the same time. Maintenance work is often scheduled for this time of year, as the typically mild weather means demand for power - for heating or air conditioning - is less.

The outages forced National Grid to issue its first Demand Control Imminent warning – the indication that the system could not cope - in three and a half years. Industry insiders have said that the extent of the disruption, with so many different sites going offline at the same time, has not been seen for at least 10 years.

According to David Porter, chief executive of the Association of Electricity Producers, the disruption was due to a "gigantic coincidence".

"It is still possible for something like this to happen in exceptional circumstances, and the fact that power stations are either young or old is neither here nor there," he said.

Speaking after British Energy reported that earlier power plant problems had eaten into its profits for the last financial year, chief executive Bill Coley pledged that the 1,180MW plant would be back online soon.

"It appears to be an instrument problem. There is no issue with the plant and it should return (to operation) very quickly," Coley said.

This is Sizewell B's first outage in three-and-a-half years. British Energy suffered boiler closure unit problems at two other sites last year - Hartlepool and Heysham 1 plants - which forced it to buy power on the open market to meet its contracts.

In its financial results for the 12 months to March 31, published this morning, British Energy blamed these problems for a drop in earnings before interest before tax, depreciation and amortisation, which fell to £882m from £1.2bn last year.

Two other plants also ran at below their previous full load capacity. Fuel prices for the company's coal-fired plant at Eggborough were sharply higher.

Coley said the company had made "good operational progress" despite its disappointing financial performance, and claimed that Sizewell B was operating to "world class standards".

"We are well positioned to manage our existing business to best advantage and look ahead to playing a pivotal role in the new build process," he added.

British Energy has been at the centre of intense bid speculation since the government gave the green light to the construction of new nuclear power plants.

The company is well placed because its existing sites are seen as the most likely locations for the next generation of nuclear reactors.

A number of companies have looked at British Energy's books and the company has said it is in discussions with a number of interested parties.

Though the generator has declined to name its potential partners, though they are thought to include France's state owned EDF and a combination of Spain's Iberdrola and the German utility RWE.

All three companies already have generating capacity in the UK as well as large supply businesses, so their acquisition of Britain's biggest independent generator would cause some concern among other independents.

The discussions are continuing, British Energy said today.

The company's shares fell over 2% today, losing 17p to 720p by 1.30pm.

(Source: Guardian.co.uk)

Role of Nuclear Power is Posing a Dilemma Reactors Are Feared, but Emit Little CO2

After part of a cooling tower collapsed last August at the only nuclear power plant in Vermont, the company that runs it blamed rotting wooden timbers that it had failed to inspect properly. The uproar that followed rekindled environmental groups' hopes of shutting down the aging site.

The proposed closure, albeit a long shot, has gained some support this year among Vermont politicians. The discussion here is bringing into sharp relief a conflict between two objectives long held by environmentalists: combating nuclear power and stopping global warming.

Nuclear plants supply nearly 20 percent of the electricity in the United States, and they do so without emitting the carbon dioxide that is the principal cause of global warming. The 36-year-old plant in Vermont, which feeds into the regional power grid, represents a third of the state's electrical generation.

Antinuclear advocates who are arguing for closure hope to replace the lost electricity with renewable generation from wind turbines, solar power and the combustion of plant material. Additionally, they cite the potential for cutting electrical demand by making homes and businesses more efficient.

Even so, some environmentalists have reluctantly acknowledged that no combination of renewable power and improved efficiency can replace the plant, called Vermont Yankee, at least in the near term. Instead, the state would probably have to tap the northeastern U.S. grid - which derives more than half its energy from fossil fuels - for extra power.

"We'll likely have to go to the market, and that will mean an increase in Vermont's electricity portfolio that comes from fossil fuels," said Andrew Perchlik, director of Renewable Energy Vermont, a group that promotes clean power, speaking about the prospect of the plant's closure. He faulted the state government and power companies for not focusing earlier on renewable energy, saying that if they had done so, "We wouldn't be in this predicament."

The Vermont debate comes as interest in nuclear power is increasing across the United States, driven by rising demand for power as well as emissions concerns.

Like other plants nationwide, Vermont Yankee is seeking a 20- year extension of its operating license from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the agency that oversees the country's reactors. A decision, which could allow the plant to keep operating until 2032, is expected this year. Several utilities, encouraged by the U.S. government, are considering building new nuclear reactors for the first time in three decades.

In Vermont, home to many people with a back-to-the-land viewpoint, surveys show that people want to move away from fuels like coal and oil that emit large amounts of carbon dioxide. They also support renewable energy.

But the same surveys show less consensus on nuclear power. At energy workshops last year, nearly two-thirds of the participants said Vermont utilities should stop buying power from the nuclear plant - unless fossil fuels and out-of-state nuclear power were the alternatives, in which case more than half would continue with Vermont Yankee.

Not counting dams, another low-emission energy source that many environmental groups oppose, renewable power makes up just 2.5 percent of the electricity generation in the United States. That figure is higher in Vermont, at 6 percent, but renewable sources are still a long way from supplying the bulk of the state's power.

Starting from these slim figures, many advocacy groups hope to achieve a nuclear-free mix supplied by local renewable sources. State researchers estimate that as much as 48 percent of Vermont's power could one day come from local renewables, including small hydropower projects.

"When you look at all the scenarios for climate change, nuclear is not a must-do," said James Moore, a clean-energy advocate for the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, a group that opposes the nuclear plant.

But utilities in Vermont, like their counterparts elsewhere in the country, argue that environmentalists are deluded if they believe a low-emission future can be achieved without nuclear power. They note the intermittent nature of power sources like windmills and solar panels, and say the United States needs more, not fewer, big power plants that emit no carbon dioxide.

"Vermont is in an enviable position right now," said Steve Costello, a spokesman for the largest utility in the state, Central Vermont Public Service. "We have arguably the cleanest power in the country from an air-emissions standpoint, and we have the lowest rates in the Northeast." His utility is willing to build more renewable sources, he said, but closing Vermont Yankee would make maintaining clean and low-cost power "much more difficult."

Even as some Vermonters argue for more renewable power, proposals to build it have hit snags. Vermont has only has one commercial wind farm, 11 turbines located along a mountain ridge. They have less than 1 percent of the capacity of Vermont Yankee, a relatively small nuclear plant.

Other proposed projects have been stalled by local opposition. One wind project would infringe on a bear habitat. Another won approval from state regulators, but a local group filed a court appeal to block it.

"Vermont is very protective of its environment regulation," Perchlik, of Renewable Energy Vermont, said. "It's not going to be done Texas-style, where you can get a permit in a month." He nonetheless hopes that wind turbines can provide 20 percent of Vermont's electricity by 2015.

Besides tapping into the northeastern grid, Vermont could import more power from Hydro-Quebec, a giant dam system in Canada that already accounts for a third of Vermont's electricity, but that would probably help push up prices. Solar power is also costly. Burning wood chips or other plant material is one option - Burlington already has such a plant - but a emit high levels of pollution.

The best bet for reducing the state's emissions may be energy efficiency, in which Vermont already excels. Since 2000, an outfit called Efficiency Vermont has urged homeowners and businesses to use energy-efficient light bulbs and appliances. State officials say they believe it has already cut power demand slightly this way.

Concerns about the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, in the town of Vernon, focus on the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, a nationwide problem, and on more localized concerns about safety.

Last August, Vermonters were shocked to see images of water gushing out of a huge pipe onto a heap of collapsed wooden beams. A portion of one of the plant's two cooling towers had fallen after decay weakened the wood. No radioactivity was released, but Entergy, the plant's operator, labored to explain how it could have missed such an obvious problem.

Rob Williams, an Entergy spokesman, said the event "certainly impacted reliability, but the safety was not at all impacted." Major repairs and improvements to both cooling towers have just been completed, he said, with crucial timbers replaced by fiberglass- reinforced plastic.

The Vermont Legislature has already voted to tighten plant oversight, and next year it is likely to take a vote on shutting down the plant, though whether the state would actually have the power to do that is unclear. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses and regulates all reactors, and some experts predict lawsuits if Vermont attempts a shutdown.

(Source: RedOrbit)

Belene nuclear power plant could cost double, physicist warns

The cost of building Belene nuclear power plant nuclear could be several billion euro higher than the four billion euro price tag originally announced by the Bulgarian Government, according to Georgi Kastchiev, the physicist who was in charge when the first four units of Kozloduy nuclear power plant were opened.

Kastchiev, speaking at a May 26 news conference, also alleged that consumers would have to front the additional 110 million euro a year cost through their electricity bills in order to serve the loan from BNP Paribas and pay associated charges, according to Bulgarian-language daily Dnevnik.

Kastchiev was also one of the chief scientists who oversaw the opening of the fifth unit. He holds a PhD in reactor physics from Vienna and Tokyo universities and now teaches at Vienna University's department of risk research.

Kastchiev claimed that construction of the new nuclear power plant would cost nine billion euro, while the value of electricity accrued from it would be nine eurocent a kWh. He said the price of four billion euro announced by the constructor, the Russian company Atomstroyexport, was unrealistic. He said that this figure failed to take into account a 16 per cent increase in steel prices and a 12 per cent increase in the price of concrete. It also excluded the cost of two turbo generators, fuel charges and the construction of power transmission lines.

Other experts have also claimed that Belene NPP would be uncompetitive as an electricity supplier in the marketplace at these prices after 2015.

The Bulgarian government’s justification for the construction was that electricity from Belene would be cheap and that construction costs would not increase. According to Kastchiev, however, NEC’s envisaged prices only include the costs of environmental assessment, terrain maintenance and the cost of employing the project’s architect-engineer and financial consultant. Kastchiev also claimed that the cost of repaying bank loans had been excluded from the equation as well as the cost of supplying raw nuclear fuel and returning the processed nuclear fuel to Russia.

According to the MP from the energy commission, Yordan Kostadinov, the higher price envisaged by Kasschiev was out of the question. He told Bulgarian National Radio that Kastchiev was “an exceptional specialist in the field of nuclear safety, but he has never been an economist and never addressed the problems of a nuclear power plant”. The National Electricity Company (NEC) said that Kastchiev needed to provide the evidence to support his statements.

Contacted by The Sofia Echo on May 27, Kastchiev said that it was not enough for the Government to repudiate his forecasts. He said that the Government had to reveal whether the supply of fuel and turbines had already been contracted and, if not, what the price would be. Kastchiev said these were still unknown quantities and he deduced that their respective costs had not been included in the announced future price of electricity from Belene nuclear power plant.

During his presentation, Kastchiev also said that the project had not been properly financed. He said that banks would charge a double-figure interest rate to lend money to such a high-risk project. NEC had already chosen BNP Paribas to structure the project’s finance and the French financial institution has agreed to extend a 250 million euro loan. However, according to Kastchiev, the bank can refuse to provide the funding if its shareholders are against it.

Kastchiev told The Sofia Echo that the government’s energy policy was creating the conditions for unfair competition and the European Commission has to be alarmed about that because it has strict rules concerning competitiveness.

(Source: Sofia Echo)

Scana to build 2 nuclear plants in South Carolina

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D90U7QU80.htm

Scana Corp.'s South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. said Tuesday it signed an agreement with Westinghouse Electric Co. LLC and the Shaw Group Inc. to design and build two nuclear power plants in South Carolina for about $9.8 billion.

The company said it will jointly own the plants with Santee Cooper, a state-owned electric and water utility. The two companies already jointly own and share operating costs and generating output of the existing nuclear plant in the area.

The company said under the agreement, it will be responsible for 55 percent of the cost and output of the new plants while Santee Cooper will have 45 percent.

South Carolina Electric & Gas will pay $5.4 billion of the total price for the new plants and Santee Cooper will pay about $4.4 billion, the company added.

Before the plants are built, the companies must receive a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The two companies submitted an application March 31. The review process takes about three to four years, the companies said.

South Carolina Electric & Gas estimated that the first plant could begin service in 2016 with the second plant following in 2019.

Scana shares rose 32 cents to $40.50 in after-hours trading. During the regular session, shares added 18 cents to close at $40.18.

Nuclear energy best option for Gulf states: experts

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080527/twl-gulf-energy-nuclear-3cd7efd.html

By Lydia Georgi AFP - Tuesday, May 27 11:46 amDUBAI (AFP) - Nuclear power rather than renewable sources like the wind or sun are the best option for oil-rich Gulf Arab states to meet growing energy demands, especially if produced collectively, say regional experts.

"Renewable energies are (playing) only a very small part in supplying even those who started (developing them) a long time ago," Saudi Electricity Company president Ali Saleh al-Barrack told a conference in the United Arab Emirates on Monday.

He said that while Saudi Arabia was conducting research into renewable energies, options such as wind and solar power were either limited or less attractive for technical reasons.

Given the high demand for power and the population growth in the Gulf region, "I think the only immediate solution is nuclear energy," which is the best option in economic and environmental terms, Barrack said.

He dismissed fears of environmental damage from nuclear energy as "driven by Hollywood-style fiction."

"The danger really is from what we are doing now, by adding more and more of this fossil and coal which is destroying the environment and (causing global) warming," he said.

Gulf Cooperation Council partners Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE decided in December 2006 to develop a joint nuclear technology programme for peaceful uses and have been in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The move by the pro-Western oil and gas producers came amid concerns over non-Arab Iran's nuclear drive, which has sparked a standoff with Western powers. Some of these, led notably by the United States, accuse Tehran of seeking to develop an atomic bomb, a charge Iran denies.

The UAE, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia have since concluded bilateral nuclear cooperation deals with the United States.

The UAE, which is in the midst of an economic boom, has also signed an agreement with France to receive help to develop civilian nuclear energy.

Saudi deputy electricity minister Saleh al-Awaji stressed that while Riyadh started studying medical and industrial applications of nuclear technology two decades ago, it was now barely in the process of examining the feasibility of using it to produce power.

"The issue is still at the stage of feasibility studies. The same goes for the GCC (as a bloc)," he told AFP.

The UAE announced last month that it would import enriched uranium for any reactor it builds, ruling out the controversial aspects of Iran's nuclear programme.

But Awaji said other Gulf states need not necessarily follow suit.

"This option (of producing nuclear energy) is still being studied. But if a decision is made to go ahead, each country would have its own circumstances in acquiring fuel sources ... within the regulations governing peaceful uses of nuclear energy," he said.

Saudi and Qatari speakers at the conference agreed that it would be more efficient for GCC countries to develop nuclear energy as a bloc.

"I think it's logical, but I don't think it's going to happen," commented Raja Kiwan, an analyst with energy advisers PFC Energy.

Since the GCC signalled an interest in developing civilian nuclear technology in 2006 "each country seems to be pursuing its own track" and talking to various suppliers, he told AFP.

If the current pace continues, the UAE will probably be the first to produce nuclear energy, Kiwan said.

Kiwan said the growth in energy demand in the region will result in a gas deficit in several countries and makes it inevitable that alternative sources of power will be sought.

"Nuclear is probably the most tested and the most applicable source of energy for the (level) of demand growth that this region is going to be seeing over the next 20-25 years," he said.

"Renewable is a fairly new phenomenon in the energy world and it is primarily being led by the private sector -- the big international oil companies that are becoming a little bit greener ... Renewable energy is a tiny fraction of global consumption."

Flamanville nuclear plant concrete work stopped after inspection finds anomalies

[The nuclear industry may have to hire in more experienced personnel as the new plants are built. After all, it has been many years since nuclear plants have been built in the West.]

http://www.iii.co.uk/shares/?type=news&articleid=6730566&action=article

PARIS (Thomson Financial) - Concrete pouring at the site of the future EPR nuclear reactor in Flamanville was stopped May 21 after an inspection found "anomalies", France's nuclear safety authority said. "The anomalies pose no safety problem, but they demonstrate an unacceptable lack of rigour at the construction site," said Thomas Houdre, head of the authority's Caen office, said at a press conference.

The authority, the ASN, requested that EDF stop new concrete work until internal controls are improved. greg.keller@thomsonreuters.com gk1/ajb