Business As Usual and Nuclear Power
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Download a Copy
Cover image: Courtesey of EDF Energy — www.edfenergy.com/energy CONTENTS... 1 AT A GLANCE... 2 A BRIEF HISTORY OF NUCLEAR ENERGY... 4 BENEFITS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY... 5 WHAT THE PUBLIC THINK... 6 HOW NUCLEAR CREATES ENERGY... 7 HOW A REACTOR WORKS... 8 THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE... 9 MANAGING WASTE... 10 RADIATION EXPLAINED... 12 NUCLEAR AROUND THE WORLD... 14 UK NUCLEAR SITES... 16 NUCLEAR NEW BUILD... 17 NEW BUILD IN NUMBERS... 18 LOOKING TO THE FUTURE... 19 DECOMMISSIONING... 20 CAREERS IN NUCLEAR... 21 FUTHER INFORMATION... AT A GLANCE... Nuclear is a major part of our energy mix. Today it accounts for 21% of electricity generated in the UK and has been providing secure low carbon electricity for over 60 years. Low carbon energy, including There are 15 nuclear power and renewables, nuclear power account for almost 51% of the reactors operating UK’s generation electricity mix across eight sites in the UK In 2016 nuclear energy avoided 22.7 million metric tonnes of CO2 emissions in the UK BEIS,Digest of UK Energy Statistics 2018 That’s equivalent to taking around a third of all cars in the UK off the road Civil nuclear contributes over £6 billion to the jobs in the UK civil nuclear sector UK economy as much as aerospace manufacturing 12,159 Women in civil nuclear 1,981 People on apprenticeships Three quarters of the public 914 believe nuclear should be part People on graduate schemes of the clean energy mix Jobs Map figures generated from participating NIA members 1 This simple timeline charts some of the key people, events and legislation A BRIEF HISTORY OF NUCLEAR ENERGY.. -
The MOL Group Mitsui O.S.K
Annual Report 2003 52 Mitsui O.S.K. Lines The MOL Group Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd. As of March 31, 2003 ■ Consolidated Subsidiaries ● Subsidiaries Accounted for by the Equity Method ▲ Affiliated Companies Accounted for by the Equity Method Registered MOL’s Paid-in Capital Office Ownership (%)* (Thousands) Overseas Ship Operation/ ■ BGT related 11 companies Shipping Chartering ■ International Energy Transport Co., Ltd. Japan 56.23 ¥1,224,000 ■ International Marine Transport Co., Ltd. Japan 65.56 ¥500,000 ■ Mitsui O.S.K. Kinkai, Ltd. Japan 99.04 ¥660,000 ■ MCGC International Ltd. Bahamas 80.10 US$1 ■ Mitsui Kinkai Kisen Co., Ltd. Japan 74.83 ¥350,000 ■ Shipowner companies (170 companies) in Panama, Liberia, Cyprus, Malta, Hong Kong, Singapore ■ Tokyo Marine Co., Ltd. Japan 71.74 ¥617,500 ■ Tokyo Marine Asia Pte. Ltd. Singapore 100.00 S$500 ■ Unix Line Pte. Ltd. Singapore 100.00 S$500 ▲ Act Maritime Co., Ltd. Japan 49.00 ¥90,000 ▲ Aramo Shipping (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. Singapore 50.00 US$17,047 ▲ Arun LNG Transport, Inc. Japan 35.00 ¥400,000 ▲ Asahi Tanker Co., Ltd. Japan 24.75 ¥400,272 ▲ Badak LNG Transport, Inc. Japan 25.00 ¥400,000 ▲ Belo Maritime Transport S.A. Panama 50.00 US$2 ▲ Daiichi Chuo Kisen Kaisha Japan 20.97 ¥13,258,410 ▲ Faship Maritime Carriers Inc. Panama 50.00 US$1,200 ▲ Gearbulk Holding Ltd. Bermuda 40.00 US$260,000 ▲ Global Alliance K B.V. Netherlands 25.00 DGL8,000 ▲ Golden Sea Carrier Inc. Liberia 50.00 US$2,420 ▲ Interasia Lines, Ltd. Japan 43.81 ¥400,000 ▲ Jasmin Shipping (Tokyo) Corporation Japan 50.00 ¥10,000 ▲ Liquimarine Gandria Chartering Co., Ltd. -
Replacing Property Taxes on Utility Generation with Revenues from a Carbon-Based Tax: a Minnesota Tax Shift Opportunity I
Memo: To: Michael Noble, ME3 From: John Bailey, David Morris, ILSR (Tel: 612-379-3815) Date: 11/15/98 Re: Replacing Property Taxes on Utility Generation With Revenues from a Carbon-Based Tax: A Minnesota Tax Shift Opportunity I. Introduction Electric utilities in Minnesota pay four types of taxes: income tax, franchise fee (or gross receipts tax), sales tax, property tax.1 The total amount paid in each category is shown in Table 1. In 1995, the total came to $375 million. Table 1. Electric Utility Tax Paid in Minnesota in 1995 Property Tax MN Sales Tax MN Income Tax Franchise Fee Total NSP $152,078,365 $65,076,000 $31,709,000 $25,505,000 $274,368,365 Minnesota Power $34,706,493 $5,963,664 $3,843,817 $700,000 $45,213,974 Otter Tail $7,152,715 $4,197,450 $1,370,067 $233,643 $12,953,875 Interstate $3,670,381 $1,935,124 $573,770 $569,969 $6,749,244 Anoka Elec. Coop $3,179,055 $4,658,862 $0 $534,379 $8,372,296 Dakota Elec. Assoc. $4,742,500 $4,487,719 $0 $144,025 $9,374,244 Cooperative Power $7,095,000 $0 $0 $0 $7,095,000 United Power Assoc. $10,827,954 $0 $5,000 $0 $10,832,954 Total $223,452,463 $86,318,819 $37,501,654 $27,687,016 $374,959,952 Source: Minnesota Department of Public Service, 1996 Energy Policy and Conservation Report, December 1996 Recently, Minnesota has re-examined the utility tax structure in light of the restructuring of electricity occurring throughout the country. -
Case No COMP/M.7579 - ROYAL DUTCH SHELL / KEELE OY / AVIATION FUEL SERVICES NORWAY
EN Case No COMP/M.7579 - ROYAL DUTCH SHELL / KEELE OY / AVIATION FUEL SERVICES NORWAY Only the English text is available and authentic. REGULATION (EC) No 139/2004 MERGER PROCEDURE Article 6(1)(b) NON-OPPOSITION Date: 19/06/2015 In electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32015M7579 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 19.6.2015 C(2015) 4285 final In the published version of this decision, some information has been omitted pursuant to Article PUBLIC VERSION 17(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 concerning non-disclosure of business secrets and other confidential information. The omissions are shown thus […]. Where possible the information omitted has been replaced by ranges of figures or a MERGER PROCEDURE general description. To the notifying parties Dear Sir/Madam, Subject: Case M.7579 - ROYAL DUTCH SHELL / KEELE OY / AVIATION FUEL SERVICES NORWAY Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 139/20041 and Article 57 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area2 (1) On 12th May 2015, the European Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 by which Shell Exploration and Production Holding B.V. ("SEPH", the Netherlands), ultimately controlled by Royal Dutch Shell plc ("RDS", England), and St1 Group Oy and St1 Nordic Oy (collectively, "St1", Finland) both controlled by Keele Oy, will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Aviation Fuelling Services Norway AS ("AFSN" or "JV", Norway), currently a 100% subsidiary of SEPH, by way of purchase of 1 OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. -
Nuclear Power Reactors in California
Nuclear Power Reactors in California As of mid-2012, California had one operating nuclear power plant, the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant near San Luis Obispo. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) owns the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, which consists of two units. Unit 1 is a 1,073 megawatt (MW) Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) which began commercial operation in May 1985, while Unit 2 is a 1,087 MW PWR, which began commercial operation in March 1986. Diablo Canyon's operation license expires in 2024 and 2025 respectively. California currently hosts three commercial nuclear power facilities in various stages of decommissioning.1 Under all NRC operating licenses, once a nuclear plant ceases reactor operations, it must be decommissioned. Decommissioning is defined by federal regulation (10 CFR 50.2) as the safe removal of a facility from service along with the reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits termination of the NRC operating license. In preparation for a plant’s eventual decommissioning, all nuclear plant owners must maintain trust funds while the plants are in operation to ensure sufficient amounts will be available to decommission their facilities and manage the spent nuclear fuel.2 Spent fuel can either be reprocessed to recover usable uranium and plutonium, or it can be managed as a waste for long-term ultimate disposal. Since fuel re-processing is not commercially available in the United States, spent fuel is typically being held in temporary storage at reactor sites until a permanent long-term waste disposal option becomes available.3 In 1976, the state of California placed a moratorium on the construction and licensing of new nuclear fission reactors until the federal government implements a solution to radioactive waste disposal. -
1884 1973∼1985 1995 1945∼1970 1984 2016 Mid 2000S~2015
MOL’s History: “Spirit of Challenge and Innovation” 1984 Launched the SENSHU MARU, an LNG Carrier Demand, mainly from electric power companies, increased for imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), an energy source with a low environmental burden. Requiring transport at minus 162 degrees Celsius, LNG is technically challenging to transport. MOL rose to the challenge, entering the LNG transport field in 1983. Since then, MOL’s fleet of LNG carriers has expanded to a world-leading 92 (including outstanding orders) as of March 31, 2017. 2016 World’s first large ethane carrier ETHANE Throughout its more than 130 years of history, MOL has grown into one of the world’s largest full-line CRYSTAL completed marine transport groups by anticipating the needs of its customers and the demands of the future, while overcoming various challenges along the way. What has supported us has been our “spirit of challenge and 2012 Photo: MODEC, Inc. The world’s first hybrid car carrier, innovation.” Going forward, we will nurture this spirit and maintain course into the next 130 years. the EMERALD ACE, is launched. 2013 Japan’s first participation in FSRU project 2010 The first participation in 1989 FPSO Navix Line is established by the merger of 1973~1985 Japan Line and Yamashita-Shinnihon 1884 Competitiveness of Japanese Flagged Vessels Challenged Steamship. The Birth of Osaka Shosen Kaisha by the Yen’s Sharp Appreciation Following the Plaza (OSK Line) Accord and Floating Exchange Rates The founding of MOL can be traced back to Osaka Shosen In 1973, Japan switched from a fixed exchange rate system where one U.S. -
Toward a Sustainable Electric Utility Sector
The Distributed Utility Concept: Toward a Sustainable Electric Utility Sector Steven Letendre, John Byrne, and Young-Doo Wang, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy, University of Delaware The U.S. electric utility sector is entering an uncertain period as pressure mounts to cut costs and minimize environmental impacts. Many analysts believe that exposing the industry to competition is the key to reducing costs. Most restructuring proposals acknowledge the need to maintain environmental quality and suggest mechanisms for assuring continued support for end-use efficiency and renewable energy in a deregulated electric utility industry. Two of the most prominent ideas are non-bypassable line charges and portfolio standards. This paper suggests another option based on the distributed utility (DU) concept in which net metering and a form of performance-based ratemaking allow distributed generation, storage, and DSM to play an important role in a new competitive electric utility sector. A DU option directly incorporates these resources into the electric system by explicitly acknowledging their value in deferring distribution equipment upgrades. INTRODUCTION electric utility industry. In our view, the DU option has been neglected in the current debate. The electric utility sector in the U.S. is on the verge of A DU strategy involves a fundamental shift in the way fundamental change as regulators, policymakers, and indus- electricity is delivered, with a move away from large-scale try officials seek a strategy for introducing competition into central generation to distributed small-scale generation and the industry. The move toward competition is driven by the storage, and targeted demand-side management. To date, belief that significant efficiency gains could be realized by the DU concept has mainly been analyzed in terms of its exposing the industry to market forces. -
Westminster Energy, Environment & Transport Forum Policy Conference
Westminster Energy, Environment & Transport Forum policy conference Next steps for developing the UK nuclear sector - regulation and finance, delivering new builds, and priorities for innovation, collaboration and skills Timing: Morning, Tuesday, 20th October 2020 ***Taking Place Online*** Draft agenda subject to change 8.30 Registration 9.00 Chair’s opening remarks Lord Ravensdale 9.05 The future for regulating the UK nuclear sector and ensuring regulation is agile, fit for purpose, and harmonised with international standards Mike Finnerty, Deputy Chief Nuclear Inspector and New Reactors Director, Office for Nuclear Regulation Questions and comments from the floor 9.35 Break 9.40 Case study: designing a stable funding and development model for nuclear projects in the UK, and latest progress on the Hinkley Point C project Humphrey Cadoux-Hudson, Managing Director, Nuclear Development, EDF Energy 9.55 Priorities for progressing nuclear new builds and establishing project reliability, stability, and reduced investment risk Alan Raymant, Chief Executive, Bradwell B Project, CGN Patrick Robinson, Partner, Burges Salmon Vanja Munerati, Transaction Director, Business and Investor Advisory, Arup Professor Lenny Koh, Director, Centre for Energy, Environment and Sustainability, University of Sheffield, and Head of Communication, Partnership and Internationalization, The University of Sheffield Energy Institute Questions and comments from the floor with Humphrey Cadoux-Hudson, Managing Director, Nuclear Development, EDF Energy 10.55 Chair’s closing -
Integrated Annual Report
MOL GROUP INTEGRATED ANNUAL REPORT 2019 Introduction 2 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 MOL GROUP INTEGRATED REPORTING ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN CEO AND THE GROUP CEO ................................................................................................................................................ 4 MATERIALITY ASSESSMENTS .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF 2019 BUSINESS OPERATIONS.…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….6 OVERVIEW OF THE MACROECONOMIC AND INDUSTRY ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................................................................... 7 INTEGRATED CORPORATE RISK MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 9 FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONAL REVIEW OF 2019 .......................................................................................................................................................................11 KEY ACHIEVEMENTS AND SUMMARY OF 2019 -
IAEA Nuclear Energy Series Managing the Financial Risk Associated with Financing of New Nuclear Power Plant Projects No
IAEA Nuclear Energy Series Managing the Financial Risk Associated with the Financing of New Nuclear Power Plant Projects Power Managing the Financial Risk Associated with Financing of New Nuclear No. NG-T-4.6 Basic Managing the Principles Financial Risk Associated with Objectives the Financing of New Nuclear Power Guides Plant Projects Technical Reports @ IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES PUBLICATIONS STRUCTURE OF THE IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES Under the terms of Articles III.A and VIII.C of its Statute, the IAEA is authorized to foster the exchange of scientific and technical information on the peaceful uses of atomic energy. The publications in the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series provide information in the areas of nuclear power, nuclear fuel cycle, radioactive waste management and decommissioning, and on general issues that are relevant to all of the above mentioned areas. The structure of the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series comprises three levels: 1 — Basic Principles and Objectives; 2 — Guides; and 3 — Technical Reports. The Nuclear Energy Basic Principles publication describes the rationale and vision for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Nuclear Energy Series Objectives publications explain the expectations to be met in various areas at different stages of implementation. Nuclear Energy Series Guides provide high level guidance on how to achieve the objectives related to the various topics and areas involving the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Nuclear Energy Series Technical Reports provide additional, more detailed information on activities related to the various areas dealt with in the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series. The IAEA Nuclear Energy Series publications are coded as follows: NG — general; NP — nuclear power; NF — nuclear fuel; NW — radioactive waste management and decommissioning. -
Reforming the Electricity Market
HOUSE OF LORDS Select Committee on Economic Affairs 2nd Report of Session 2016–17 The Price of Power: Reforming the Electricity Market Ordered to be printed 8 February 2017 and published 24 February 2017 Published by the Authority of the House of Lords HL Paper 113 Select Committee on Economic Affairs The Economic Affairs Committee was appointed by the House of Lords in this session “to consider economic affairs”. Membership The Members of the Select Committee on Economic Affairs are: Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Lord Layard Lord Burns Lord Livermore Lord Darling of Roulanish Lord Sharkey Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Lord Tugendhat Lord Hollick (Chairman) Lord Turnbull Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Baroness Wheatcroft Lord Lamont of Lerwick Declaration of interests See Appendix 1. A full list of Members’ interests can be found in the Register of Lords’ Interests: http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-interests/register-of-lords- interests Publications All publications of the Committee are available at: http://www.parliament.uk/hleconomicaffairs Parliament Live Live coverage of debates and public sessions of the Committee’s meetings are available at: http://www.parliamentlive.tv Further information Further information about the House of Lords and its Committees, including guidance to witnesses, details of current inquiries and forthcoming meetings is available at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/lords Committee staff The staff who worked on this inquiry were Ayeesha Waller (Clerk), Ben McNamee (Policy Analyst), Oswin Taylor (Committee Assistant) and Dr Aaron Goater and Dr Jonathan Wentworth of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. Contact details All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Economic Affairs Committee, Committee Office, House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW. -
Nuclear Pull-Outs, Rumours, Threats
Nuclear Pull-outs, Rumours, Threats Briefing (3rd Edition): November 2013 Date Utility/Company Country Pull-out, rumour or threat Early 2009 Entergy US Suspends applications for Grand Gulf (Mississippi) and River Bend (Louisiana) April 2009 Ameren UE US Cancels plans to build Callaway 2 (Missouri) December 2009 Unistar Nuclear US Suspends application for Nine Mile Point 3 (New York) October 2010 Constellation Energy US Pulls out of joint venture with EDF to build Calvert Cliffs 3 (Maryland) March 2011 Commerzbank Germany Pulls out of Jaitapur nuclear project in Maharashtra, India May 2011 Swiss Government Switzerland The Swiss Government announces plans to phas- out nuclear power by 2034. May 2011 German Government Germany German Government announces plans to phase- out nuclear power by 2022. June 2011 Italian Government Italy More than 94% of voters in a referendum opposed the government’s plans to resume nuclear power generation. August 2011 Tennessee Valley US Suspends plans for 2 reactors at Bellefonte Authority (Alabama) September 2011 Siemens Germany Quits nuclear industry September 2011 SSE Scotland Pulls out of UK NuGen consortium September 2011 Shaw US Announces sale of 20% share in Westinghouse November 2011 Belgian Government Belgium Belgium's main political parties have agreed on a plan to shut down the country's two nuclear power stations by 2025, with the oldest reactors closing by 2015. January 2012 Progress Energy US Expects to pull-out from planned Levy 1 and 2 reactors (Florida) March 2012 E.ON Germany Announces pull-out from UK Horizon March 2012 RWE nPower Germany Announces pull-out from UK Horizon April 2012 Centrica UK Threatens pull-out from UK Hinkley consortium without UK Gov’t assurances on future price of nuclear electricity.