DOCSLIB.ORG

THE END IS NEAR for the PBMR the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THE END IS NEAR for the PBMR the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor AUGUST 20, 2010 | No. 714 THE END IS NEAR FOR THE PBMR The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor. Remember? It was globally heralded as the perfect nuclear reactor: small, safe and cheap. Dozens would be built in South Africa alone and in 1999 the THE END IS NEAR FOR THE company expected to sell 30 reactors annually from 2004 on. PBMR 1 Sometimes in the public opinion about the nuclear renaissance HAUNTED BY HISTORY: and new reactor types the PBMR was used if it was already in NUCLEAR NEW BUILD IN operation in South Africa or at least under construction. BRITAIN 2 (714.6071) WISE Amsterdam - Now, the government s last funding allocation in EU AGREEMENT ON ITER South African government announced it 2007, nor has it been able to acquire an COST OVERRUNS 5 is expected to close operations at PBMR anchor customer despite revising its (Pty) Ltd. finally 'within a few weeks' business model in 2008/09." The PLUTONIUM IN BREATHABLE FORM FOUND NEAR ROCKY (that is August). The company once company is operating on funds that were FLATS 5 planned to build up to 24 165-MW high- left over from the 2007 allocation and has temperature gas-cooled reactor modules downsized from about 800 staff to about RUSSIAN GREENS FIGHT for state-owned utility Eskom and export 25. Although the PBMR website doesn't PUTIN'S PLAN FOR the modular HTR worldwide, but hasn't show anything about the current FLOATING NPPs 6 built even the demonstration model. situation, it says there are "no career ANALYSIS TRIPLES U.S. opportunities at the moment." PLUTONIUM WASTE FIGURES 7 The government has invested an estimated South Africa Rand 9 billion The company was set up in 1999 as U.S. NUCLEAR (US$1.23 billion at current rates) in Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (Pty) Ltd. to “RENAISSANCE” HITS A PBMR Ltd. over the 11 years since it was develop and deploy German technology STUMBLING BLOCK CALLED founded as an Eskom subsidiary. PBMR it had acquired for small HTRs with REALITY 8 Ltd. is formally owned by Eskom, the coated pebble-shaped fuel elements. IN BRIEF 9 Industrial Development Corp. and Besides British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL), Westinghouse, but they have put no Exelon, the largest nuclear fleet operator equity in the company for several years. in the US, also made an early equity investment, and the company was In a July statement, the Department of broadly touted as the herald of a new Public Enterprises, which has nuclear age for the developing world responsibility for the PBMR company, based on small reactors that could be set said PBMR "has not been able to acquire up quickly under various site conditions. additional investment in the project since BNFLs stake was transferred to Offi cial planning in 1998 3-2007 2009 Start construction demonstration-phase 1999 2008/9 2013 Demonstration-reactor ready 2003 2012 2018 First orders *1 2004 2017 ? First electricity by fi rst reactor 2008 2021 ? *1 In 1998 it was expected that from 2004 on, annually 30 reactors would be ordered 1 Westinghouse when the latter was sold We hope that this will also mark the end to Toshiba. But the PBMR partners One of the critics, Stephen Thomas, of the South African government's love never agreed on a new equity structure professor of energy policy at the affair with nuclear energy and that and the company remained the property University of Greenwich in the UK, told taxpayer funds can now be spent on of the South African government. the Cape Times that it was clear at least clean, proven and reliable forms of six years ago that the PBMR project renewable energy". The Department of Public Enterprises was "going badly wrong. Yet the believes the R9-billion spent on the government continued to pour public Sources: Nucleonics Week, 29 July PBMR project has not been lost, as the money into it, indeed about 80 percent 2010 / Cape Times, 10 August 2010 skills developed "will contribute of all the money spent on the pebble Contact: WISE Amsterdam significantly in any future nuclear bed was spent in the past six years" programs and save the country huge amounts of money in the process". Tristen Taylor, of Earthlife Africa, said " HAUNTED BY HISTORY: NUCLEAR NEW BUILD IN BRITAIN Part I: Shaping the Deal In January 2008, Gordon Brown’s cabinet formally decided to permit private businesses to build new nuclear power stations in England and Wales, the Scottish executive having already refused permission. Politically, there was nothing surprising about the news. Key decisions had been made well before 2008. Tony Blair, as Prime Minster, had declared for new nuclear as early as July 2004, trailing the Bush administration by two years. Brown himself had come out decisively in favor of new nuclear to the Confederation of British Industries in November 2007 and also to the G8. (714.6072) East Midlands Campaign non-departmental body was created – for Nuclear Disarmament - the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency It seems likely that by January 2008, Institutionally a key turning point was the (NDA). The NDA took temporary charge after a particularly intense period of Energy Review, initiated by Blair in 2005 of 19 nuclear sites, including Sellafield, industry lobbying, a more specific and issued by the Department of Trade the first generation Magnox power agreement was reached with leading and Industry in 2006. The Review stations and Dounreay a failed energy companies. This included the revised the findings of the Department experimental fast-breeder reactor in the possible underpinning of the price of of the Environment’s Energy White north of Scotland. In 2003, the carbon, financially supporting Paper of 2003, which had been critical government also set up a Committee on decommissioning and waste storage, of nuclear economics and concerned Radioactive Waste Management and minimizing company liability in case about the waste issue. The 2006 (CoRWM) to make recommendations on of accidents. Also included was a plan Review argued that new nuclear had a the best way to manage high-level to offer local communities public role to play in the future ‘energy mix’ in waste. Its interim recommendations had compensation, bribing them that is, for the light of the imperatives of climate already argued for ‘deep geological hosting waste storage facilities - and change and energy security. It must, disposal’. also perhaps for accepting new nuclear however, be run by the private sector, power stations. The actual work of without subsidy, and with companies This review set the guidelines of decommissioning, managing the bearing the cost of decommissioning government policy right up to the Sellafield complex and existing waste and ‘their full share of long-term waste present: sites was to be undertaken by private management costs’. Government, * private enterprise (implying further consortia, who would bid to the NDA for however, would provide a framework: privatization) limited term contracts, three years in the planning procedures would be simplified * dependence on corporate decision- first instance. In some versions it would and speeded up and regulative and making and financial markets for be the NDA that would run the waste other issues extensively consulted upon. commencing nuclear new build (and facilities where companies could then even deciding its extent) lease space, a device that may The Review also noted ‘solutions’ to the * eagerness to ease the way of the eventually be used for the long- problems of inherited nuclear waste. In industry by changing planning laws and promised storage facility for high level April 2005 after a series of scandals at by other forms of support as long as wastes. the reprocessing and storage complex they could evade the label - ‘subsidy’ at Sellafield in West Cumbria and the Within this framework corporations and Although its supporters complained of near bankruptcy of the main nuclear government could negotiate the details, delays, around January 2008 events generator British Electric, a new public which, of course, were critical. were moving quickly. In May 2007 the 2 NUCLEAR MONITOR 714 government had issued its Planning enrichment plant in Cheshire. In May haunted by the ill-success of past civil White Paper, which after a rapid Electricité de France (EDF) made its nuclear enterprises and by their consultation, led to a new Planning Act first bid for British Energy’s power material, economic and ideological in November 2008. The Act created a stations and, importantly, its existing legacies. ‘Haunted’ is appropriate here, new procedure for major infrastructural sites. A deal was finally signed in for there is a constant effort to keep projects - like nuclear power stations September for £12.5 billion (US$ 19.5 these negative stories out of public and waste depositories – that billion or 15.1 billion euro), with EDF hearing and perhaps out of pro-nuclear centralized decision-making and limited planning four new reactors and selling consciousness. There is therefore a the scope of local planning objections. A off some sites and a 25% stake to persistent misfit between the optimistic parallel Act required providers of new Centrica, the parent company of British rhetoric and grand designs on one side nuclear plants to submit a definite Gas. This Anglo-French deal, with the and persistent ‘bad news’ on the other. technical and financial plan for French state-owned company clearly in Except in critical media, these stories decommissioning. In December 2007, dominance, was foreshadowed by the are often split off and labelled ‘legacy’ the Conservative Party had withdrawn signing of a grand ‘nuclear alliance’ (e.g. ‘legacy waste’) as though they its ‘only in the last resort’ qualifications between Gordon Brown and President have nothing to do with the present.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • D:\Governmental Organizations\State\Oregon\LEG\2021\Nuclear\Small Modular Reactors\SB 360\21-03-23
    The Oregon Conservancy Foundation 19140 SE Bakers Ferry Rd., Boring Oregon 97009-9158 P. O. Box 982, Clackamas, Oregon 97015 Email: [email protected] Phone: (503) 637- 6130 Before the Senate Committee on Energy and Environment Testimony of Lloyd K. Marbet Oregon Conservancy Foundation March 23, 2021 Mr. Chair, members of the Committee, and the public, my name is Lloyd K, Marbet and I am the Executive Director of the Oregon Conservancy Foundation (OCF). I am testifying in opposition to SB 360. In 2017 we gave testimony in opposition to SB 990, an early version of Senator Boquist’s reoccurring legislation. What is striking is how relevant this attached testimony still is four years later. (Attachment 1) I also attach a recent Deutsche Welle article that shows how nuclear power worsens the climate crisis, (Attachment 2) along with an Executive Summary of a RethinkX study showing how inaccurate cost estimates for conventional energy generating facilities, including nuclear, are being turned into overpriced stranded assets by the rapidly decreasing costs of solar, wind and battery storage. (Attachment 3) In its testimony, NuScale/Fluor, has given all the bells and whistles of its modular reactor design. Yet these reactor modules will produce the same kind of high level radioactive waste temporarily stored outdoors at the Trojan Nuclear Plant site, in Rainier, Oregon, at a storage facility licensed in 1999, and recently given a license extension to March 31, 2059. When will this waste be taken away, no one knows? Nuclear radiation is not restricted to boundaries of cities or counties. Even with the public relations of NuScale/Fluor representatives, the promises of safety and the so called imperviousness to a multitude of disasters – high level nuclear waste will reside at each NuScale reactor facility with the need for transport and permanent disposal.
    [Show full text]
  • The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2009 with Particular Emphasis on Economic Issues
    The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2009 With Particular Emphasis on Economic Issues By Mycle Schneider Independent Consultant, Mycle Schneider Consulting, Paris (France) Project Coordinator Steve Thomas Professor for Energy Policy, Greenwich University (UK) Antony Froggatt Independent Consultant, London (UK) Doug Koplow Director of Earth Track, Cambridge (USA) Modeling and Additional Graphic Design Julie Hazemann Director of EnerWebWatch, Paris (France) Paris, August 2009 Commissioned by German Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and Reactor Safety (Contract n° UM0901290) About the Authors Mycle Schneider is an independent international consultant on energy and nuclear policy based in Paris. He founded the Energy Information Agency WISE-Paris in 1983 and directed it until 2003. Since 1997 he has provided information and consulting services to the Belgian Energy Minister, the French and German Environment Ministries, the International Atomic Energy Agency, Greenpeace, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the Worldwide Fund for Nature, the European Commission, the European Parliament's Scientific and Technological Option Assessment Panel and its General Directorate for Research, the Oxford Research Group, and the French Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety. Since 2004 he has been in charge of the Environment and Energy Strategies lecture series for the International MSc in Project Management for Environmental and Energy Engineering Program at the French Ecole des Mines in Nantes. In 1997, along with Japan's Jinzaburo Takagi, he received the Right Livelihood Award, also known as the ―Alternative Nobel Prize‖. Antony Froggatt works as independent European energy consultant based in London. Since 1997 Antony has worked as a freelance researcher and writer on energy and nuclear policy issues in the EU and neighboring states.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear France Abroad History, Status and Prospects of French Nuclear Activities in Foreign Countries
    Mycle Schneider Consulting Independent Analysis on Energy and Nuclear Policy 45, allée des deux cèdres Tél: 01 69 83 23 79 91210 Draveil (Paris) Fax: 01 69 40 98 75 France e-mail: [email protected] Nuclear France Abroad History, Status and Prospects of French Nuclear Activities in Foreign Countries Mycle Schneider International Consultant on Energy and Nuclear Policy Paris, May 2009 This research was carried out with the support of The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (www.cigionline.org) V5 About the Author Mycle Schneider works as independent international energy nuclear policy consultant. Between 1983 and April 2003 Mycle Schneider was executive director of the energy information service WISE-Paris. Since 2000 he has been an advisor to the German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Reactor Safety. Since 2004 he has also been in charge of the Environment and Energy Strategies Lecture of the International Master of Science for Project Management for Environmental and Energy Engineering at the French Ecole des Mines in Nantes, France. In 2007 he was appointed as a member of the International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM), based at Princeton University, USA (www.fissilematerials.org). In 2006-2007 Mycle Schneider was part of a consultants’ consortium that assessed nuclear decommissioning and waste management funding issues on behalf of the European Commission. In 2005 he was appointed as nuclear security specialist to advise the UK Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM). Mycle Schneider has given evidence and held briefings at Parliaments in Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, UK and at the European Parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Exnovation: How the Nuclear Phaseout Drives Eco- Logical Modernization
    E-PAPER Nuclear Exnovation: How the Nuclear Phaseout drives Eco- logical Modernization BY ARNE JUNGJOHANN Published by Heinrich Böll Foundation, April 2020 1/ 17 Nuclear Exnovation By Arne Jungjohann Contents Introduction 3 Innovation without exnovation leads to unintended consequences 5 Comparing nuclear power in Germany and the United States 9 The specific innovation needs of nuclear decommissioning 11 Recommendations 15 Introduction With its 2050 vision for climate neutrality, the European Commission pursues a long-term strategy for a prosperous, modern, and competitive economy. The goal is to invest in technology, empower citizens, and align action in key areas such as industrial policy, finance, or research – while ensuring social fairness for a just transition.[1] For the road forward, the strategy identifies seven strategic areas, among them energy efficiency, the deployment of renewables, and a competitive industry and circular economy. The approach stresses the importance to develop and deploy new technologies. It focuses heavily on innovation. Yet achieving the goal of climate neutrality cannot be reached «only» by new technologies. New technologies alone do not necessarily replace old ones quickly enough. A strategy of ecological modernization will also require the phasing out of aging technologies, which are carbon-intensive or unsustainable.[2] Thus, innovation must go hand in hand with «exnovation» – effective substitution – for the energy transition to be successful. A key field in which exnovation will occur in Europe one way or the other is nuclear power. By 2050, all of Europe's 130 nuclear reactors currently in operation are likely to close as they reach a critical geriatric age.
    [Show full text]
  • The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2010-2011: Nuclear Power in a Post-Fukushima World
    THE WORLD NUCLEAR INDUSTRY STATUS REPORT 201 0–2011 Nuclear Power in a Post-Fukushima World 25 YEARS AFTER THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT Mycle Schneider Antony Froggatt Steve Thomas Mycle Schneider Consulting THE WORLD NUCLEAR INDUSTRY STATUS REPORT 2010–2011 Nuclear Power in a Post-Fukushima World 25 Years After the Chernobyl Accident By Mycle Schneider Independent Consultant, Mycle Schneider Consulting, Paris (France) Project Coordinator and Lead Author Antony Froggatt Independent Consultant, London, U.K. Steve Thomas Professor for Energy Policy, Greenwich University, U.K. Modeling and Graphic Design Julie Hazemann Director of EnerWebWatch, Paris, France Editing Lisa Mastny Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Paris, Berlin, Washington, April 2011 Commissioned by Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. with the support of the Greens-EFA in the European Parliament About the Authors Mycle Schneider is an independent international consultant on energy and nuclear policy based in Paris. He founded the Energy Information Agency WISE-Paris in 1983 and directed it until 2003. Since 1997, he has provided information and consulting services to the Belgian Energy Minister, the French and German Environment Ministries, USAID, the International Atomic Energy Agency, Greenpeace, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the Worldwide Fund for Nature, the European Commission, the European Parliament’s Scientific and Technological Option Assessment Panel and its General Directorate for Research, the Oxford Research Group, and the French Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety. Since 2004, Mycle has been in charge of the Environment and Energy Strategies lecture series for the International MSc in Project Management for Environmental and Energy Engineering Program at the French Ecole des Mines in Nantes.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FUTURE of NUCLEAR ENERGY to 2030 and ITS IMPLICATIONS for SAFETY, SECURITY and NONPROLIFERATION Part 1 – the Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030
    THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY TO 2030 AND IT’S IMPLICATIONS FOR SAFETY, SECURITY AND NON PROLIFERATION: PART 2 – THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY TO 2030 TO THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY 2 – PART AND NON PROLIFERATION: SECURITY FOR SAFETY, AND IT’S IMPLICATIONS 2030 TO THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY TO 2030 AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR SAFETY, SECURITY AND NONPROLIFERATION Part 1 – The Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030 57 Erb Street West TREVOR FINDLAY Waterloo, Ontario N2L 6C2, Canada tel +1 519 885 2444 fax +1 519 885 5450 www.cigionline.org CIGIONLINE.ORG Addressing International Governance Challenges The Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030 and its Implications for Safety, Security and Nonproliferation Part 1 – The Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030 Trevor Findlay CIGI’s Nuclear Energy Futures Project is conducted in partnership with the Canadian Centre for Treaty Compliance (CCTC) at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, Ottawa. The project is chaired by CIGI Distinguished Fellow Louise Fréchette and directed by CIGI Senior Fellow Trevor Findlay, director of CCTC. CIGI gratefully acknowledges the Government of Ontario’s contribution to this project. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Centre for International Governance Innovation, its Board of Directors and/or Board of Governors, or the Government of Ontario. Copyright © 2010 The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (www.cigionline.org). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution — Noncommercial — No Derivatives License.
    [Show full text]
  • THE WORLD NUCLEAR WASTE REPORT 2019 Focus Europe. PARTNERS & SPONSORS
    THE WORLD NUCLEAR WASTE REPORT 2019 Focus Europe. PARTNERS & SPONSORS Bürgerinitiative Umweltschutz Lüchow-Dannenberg This report would have not been possible without the generous support of a diverse group of friends and partners, in particular – listed in alphabetical order – the Altner-Combecher Stiftung, Bäuerliche Notgemeinschaft Trebel, Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz (BUND), Bürgerinitiative Umweltschutz Lüchow-Dannenberg e.V., Climate Core and Green/EFA MEPs Group in the European Parliament, Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung (HBS) and its offices in Berlin, Brussels, Paris, Prague, and Washington DC, KLAR! Schweiz, Annette und Wolf Römmig, and the Swiss Energy Foundation. Thank you all for making this possible! THE WORLD NUCLEAR WASTE REPORT — 2019 3 FOREWORD More than 40 years ago in my home region, the forest near the village of Gorleben was chosen as the location for the German National Nuclear Waste Disposal Center. The site, which is now at the country’s center but at the time was located directly on the border between East and West Germany, was meant to host all facilities for reprocessing, treatment, storage, and a deep geological repository. The company responsible (which has long since closed) intended to open the repository for spent fuel in the salt dome named Gorleben-Rambow in 1999. After Fukushima, the German government decided to phase out nuclear energy for the second time. The experience of the nuclear catastrophe in Japan in 2011 also set in motion the review of the plans for the repository at Gorleben. After around 40 years of debating and fighting over Gorleben, the German government and parliament decided in favor of a new participatory site selection process for the repos- itory for high-level nuclear waste.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Why Letter by Hansen Et Al Misses the Mark on Nuclear Power And
    Why Letter by Hansen et al Misses the Mark on Nuclear Power and Renewables On November 3, four climate and atmospheric scientists issued a letter to prominent US environmental organizations urging them to support extensive build-out of nuclear power to combat global warming. The scientistsi made a number of assertions in their letter that get to the heart of the nuclear power debate and the scalability of renewable power. With respect to nuclear power, their letter claims or implies the following: Economics of Nuclear power: • “Innovation and economies of scale can make new power plants even cheaper than existing plants;” “Advanced” Nuclear Designs: • “Advanced” nuclear designs can “reduce proliferation risk, solve the waste disposal issue, use fuel more efficiently;” Renewables, Energy Efficiency, and Distributed Power: • Renewables “cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap...power.” Reliability and Climate • Renewables “cannot scale up fast enough to deliver… reliable power.” • “…[O]pposition to nuclear power threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change;” • Nuclear power is “essential to any credible effort” to address climate change; • Nuclear power can “displace a large fraction of our carbon emissions;” Safety • Nuclear power can be safe; ii As bold as these statements are, they are misplaced. Rather than reflections of immutable truths, they affirm ignorance of nuclear power developments past and present. They affirm a fundamental misunderstanding of the potential for renewables and energy efficiency, the realities of nuclear economics, and electric grid operation. Indeed, the letter fell on deaf ears. No environmental organization took the bait. Instead, NRDC, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth (FOE), and Sierra Club decry nuclear power as too slow to build, costly, and dangerous.
    [Show full text]
  • “Advanced” Isn't Always Better
    SERIES TITLE OPTIONAL “Advanced” Isn’t Always Better Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors “Advanced” Isn’t Always Better Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors Edwin Lyman March 2021 © 2021 Union of Concerned Scientists All Rights Reserved Edwin Lyman is the director of nuclear power safety in the UCS Climate and Energy Program. The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet’s most pressing problems. Joining with people across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future. This report is available online (in PDF format) at www.ucsusa.org/resources/ advanced-isnt-always-better and https:// doi.org/10.47923/2021.14000 Designed by: David Gerratt, Acton, MA www.NonprofitDesign.com Cover photo: Argonne National Laboratory/Creative Commons (Flickr) Printed on recycled paper. ii union of concerned scientists [ contents ] vi Figures, Tables, and Boxes vii Acknowledgments executive summary 2 Key Questions for Assessing NLWR Technologies 2 Non-Light Water Reactor Technologies 4 Evaluation Criteria 5 Assessments of NLWR Types 8 Safely Commercializing NLWRs: Timelines and Costs 9 The Future of the LWR 9 Conclusions of the Assessment 11 Recommendations 12 Endnotes chapter 1 13 Nuclear Power: Present and Future 13 Slower Growth, Cost and Safety Concerns 14 Can Non-Light-Water Reactors
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Power in France Beyond the Myth
    Nuclear Power in France Beyond the Myth By Mycle Schneider International Consultant on Energy and Nuclear Policy Commissioned by the Greens-EFA Group in the European Parliament V5 Note: The present report is in part based on analysis commissioned by the Non-Proliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC), Washington DC, March 2008. This document can be downloaded for free from the website of the Greens-EFA Group in the European Parliament at: http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/258/[email protected] The report is also available in French and can be downloaded at: http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/259/[email protected] The author wishes to express his gratitude to Antony Froggatt and Mary B. Davis for their precious proof-reading and most valuable comments. About the Author Mycle Schneider works as independent international energy nuclear policy consultant. Between 1983 and April 2003 Mycle Schneider was executive director of the energy information service WISE-Paris. Since 2004 he is in charge of the Environment and Energy Strategies Lecture of the International Master of Science for Project Management for Environmental and Energy Engineering at the French Ecole des Mines in Nantes. In 2007 he has been appointed as a member of the International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM), based at Princeton University (www.fissilematerials.org). In 2006-2007 he was part of a consultant consortium that assessed nuclear decommissioning and waste management funding issues on behalf of the European Commission. In 2005 he has been appointed as nuclear security specialist to advise the UK Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM).
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise of Renewable Energy and Fall of Nuclear Power Competition of Low Carbon Technologies
    The Rise of Renewable Energy and Fall of Nuclear Power Competition of Low Carbon Technologies February 2019 REI – Renewable Energy Institute Renewable Energy Institute is a non-profit organization which aims to build a sustainable, rich society based on renewable energy. It was established in August 2011, in the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident, by its founder Mr. Masayoshi Son, Chairman & CEO of SoftBank Corp., with his own private resources. The Institute is engaged in activities such as; research-based analyses on renewable energy, policy recommendations, building a platform for discussions among stakeholders, and facilitating knowledge exchange and joint action with international and domestic partners. Authors Romain Zissler, Senior Researcher at Renewable Energy Institute Mika Ohbayashi, Director at Renewable Energy Institute (Part II, “Spent nuclear fuel,” 69-72 pp.) Editor Masaya Ishida, Manager, Renewable Energy Business Group at Renewable Energy Institute Acknowledgements The author of this report would like to thank individuals and representatives of organizations who have assisted him in the production of this report by providing materials and/or granting authorizations to use the content of their work. The quality of this report greatly benefits from their valuable contributions. Among these people are: Mycle Schneider and his team working on the World Nuclear Industry Status Report – an annual publication, and key reference tracking nuclear power developments across the world – who allowed Renewable Energy Institute to use some contents of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report including reproduction of illustrations. And Bloomberg NEF, the global authority on economic data on energy investments, who allowed Renewable Energy Institute to make use of Bloomberg NEF’s data.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Power As a System Good Organizational Models for Production Along the Value-Added Chain
    1883 Discussion Papers Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung 2020 Nuclear Power as a System Good Organizational Models for Production along the Value-Added Chain Ben Wealer and Christian von Hirschhausen Opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect views of the institute. IMPRESSUM © DIW Berlin, 2020 DIW Berlin German Institute for Economic Research Mohrenstr. 58 10117 Berlin Tel. +49 (30) 897 89-0 Fax +49 (30) 897 89-200 http://www.diw.de ISSN electronic edition 1619-4535 Papers can be downloaded free of charge from the DIW Berlin website: http://www.diw.de/discussionpapers Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin are indexed in RePEc and SSRN: http://ideas.repec.org/s/diw/diwwpp.html http://www.ssrn.com/link/DIW-Berlin-German-Inst-Econ-Res.html Nuclear Power as a System Good Organizational Models for Production Along the Value- Added Chain Ben Wealera,b* and Christian von Hirschhausena,b a Workgroup for Infrastructure Policy (WIP), Berlin Institute of Technology, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623 Berlin, Germany b German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin), Mohrenstraße 58, 10117 Berlin, Germany *corresponding author: [email protected]; [email protected] Abstract Due to its technical complexity, the co-production of electricity generation and nuclear weapons, and its high fixed costs, nuclear power is a particularly complex commodity, which poses unusual challenges for state economic (or industrial, defense, innovation etc.) policy. As in other sectors, the question arises here, too, of an adequate division of private and public responsibilities, in other words "competition and planning", taking into account knowledge aspects, incentive structures, transaction costs and a fair distribution of revenues and burdens.
    [Show full text]