I have mentioned in previous blogs that the Chinese have made a major national commitment to nuclear power both for domestic consumption and for export of nuclear technology to other countries. I have also mentioned that investors are generally leery of nuclear power as a sound investment. Now these two facts have collided as Chinese nuclear companies are going public.

        CGN Power is the biggest state owned nuclear power company in China. It has almost ten gigawatts of generating capacity. CGN will probably be offering three billion dollars worth of shares on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in November. CGN Meiya Power, an affiliate of CGN Power raised two hundred and sixty two million dollars on the Hong Kong Exchange in September. Since raising that money, the shares in CGN Meiya Power have risen by twenty percent. China National Nuclear Power, another big state owned nuclear company is preparing for an initial public offering of stock. These companies will be joining a small group of companies which offer shares that are either mostly or entirely based on nuclear power. Exelon in the United States and EDF in France are two such companies.

         Other countries such as Germany are phasing out nuclear power and the global attitude toward nuclear power is cooling. China halted all new project approval following the nuclear disaster at Fukushima in March of 2011. However, rising demand for power and horrible pollution from coal power plants has renewed China’s commitment  nuclear power. The recent and pending IPOs of Chinese nuclear companies are expect to provide funds that will be required to triple Chinese nuclear power generation to about sixty gigawatts by 2020.

         While it could be assumed that the fact that the nuclear companies going public in China are state owned would make them a good investment, state ownership may have problems that make investment less attractive. The power generated by CGN Power is sold to state-run electrical grids under regulated tariff arrangements. For nuclear power plants that went production before 2013, the tariff arrangements were supposed to provide for a “reasonable” profit but the net profits of CGN Power have fallen since 2011. For plants that began operations in 2013 or after, there is supposed to be a “fixed tariff.” However, if the power from nearby coal power plants is cheaper than the nuclear generated electricity, then the tariff will be lowered to remain competitive. The odds are high that the cost of coal will be dropping and the tariff arrangement will have to lower nuclear electricity prices which will cut into profits and share prices for the nuclear power industry in China. China may also lower nuclear power prices to help heavy industries that are struggling.

        Assumptions of continuing economic growth in China suggest that there will by rising demand for electricity which should help the nuclear power companies. GCN Meiya shares are trading at a greater multiple of earning than either Exelon Shares or EDF shares. However, growth will have to be high in order for GCN Meiya to be able to deliver on its current popularity. GCN Meiya has a huge debt load and only ten percent of the IPO is allocated to paying off the debt.

       I think that China is far too optimistic about their ability to triple their nuclear generation without running into major problems such as slower growth or a major nuclear accident. A future major nuclear accident somewhere in the world is virtually certain and would heavily impact nuclear power in China. As I have said often, nuclear power is a bad investment.

The municipal assembly in Satsumasendai, Kagoshima Prefecture, voted Tuesday to approve the restart of the local nuclear power station, another step forward in the fraught process of reviving an industry left idled by the 2011 Fukushima catastrophe. japantimes.co.jp

TEPCO has hidden the truth about the Fukushima nuclear disaster and now drip feeds information so the public can get ready for the next piece of bad news, James Corbett, editor, The Corbett report, told RT’s In the Now show. rt.com

Rosatom said today that the Lepse nuclear service ship had been put into dry dock at the Nerpa Shipyard on the Kola Peninsula. world-nuclear-news.org

Industry giants Exelon Generation and GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy have signed a $300 million integrated outage service contract that covers the entire Exelon stable of boiling water nuclear energy facilities, the companies announced. nuclearstreet.com

 

          Sometime ago I posted an article about the use of depleted uranium in munitions that were used in Iraq during U.S. military action there. I was immediately attacked by a  troll who claimed that there was no evidence that the depleted uranium dust left behind was any threat to human health. We traded a few posts and he said derogatory things about the general accuracy of my blog. I invited him to point out any discrepancies that he found outside of our debate on depleted uranium and said that I would be glad to change anything that he could document as being false. Never heard back from him about that. When I researched him online, I found that he had connections to the U.S. Army and that he was famous for attacking anyone who dared to suggest that depleted uranium was dangerous. Defense contractors are making money from incorporating depleted uranium in munitions not to mention getting rid of low level radioactive waste. The Army has found that depleted uranium munitions are especially effective for some uses on the battlefield. There is definitely institutional resistance to public challenges on the subject of the dangers of depleted uranium dust that can be found in many places now in Iraq.

         This blog is a “Here we go again!” about depleted uranium munitions. It has been recently announced that the U.S. is sending depleted uranium munitions to the Middle East. An airplane called the A-10 Thunderbolt has 30mm Gatling guns which can be loaded with 30mm PGU-14B ammo that contains depleted uranium. This ammo is especially useful against armored vehicles such as tanks. These planes have been sent to the Middle East but have not yet been involved in attacks against Islamic State positions but they could easily be assigned such missions.

        In 2012, one hundred and fifty five United Nations members supported a resolution to ban the use of depleted uranium in munitions. Only the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Israel opposed the resolution. The United Nations First Committee is now hearing testimony from several countries including Iraq with regard to banning depleted uranium use and studying and removing depleted uranium dust from contaminated areas. A non-binding resolution will be voted on by the Committee this week requesting that nations that have used depleted uranium in munitions provide information about exactly where they were used. So far the U.S. has refused to release this information.

         The U.S. military says that it is trying to find alternatives to depleted uranium that would have the same power to penetrate armor, would be safe and would have public acceptance. They have been looking at tungsten but are concerned about possible dangers to public health.

          Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA) has pointed out that there has been an increase in childhood leukemia and birth defects in Iraq since the Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the U.S. He also raised the concern that depleted uranium has negatively impacted the health of soldiers who have served in Iraq. McDermott questions the further use of depleted uranium munitions until the U.S. government conducts thorough research into the health effects of depleted uranium dust.

         Depleted uranium is classed as a Group 1 Carcinogen by the World Health Organization and there is extensive documentation of health damaged caused by depleted uranium dust. The depleted uranium dust left after depleted uranium munitions are exploded is blown around by the wind, entering the soil and the water in the area. Contaminated pieces of scrap metal are used by people for cooking pots or toys for children.

        The U.S. military should immediately ban the use of depleted uranium in any munitions, research the effects of depleted uranium on human health and work to clean contaminated areas in Iraq.

 A-10 Thunderbolt:

According to preliminary results, water and air samples taken in the Pacific near the Kuril Islands and the Kamchatka Peninsula contained no hazardous radioactive isotopes.  en.itar-tass.com

Doctors in Japan being threatened for linking illnesses to Fukushima. enenews.com

Plant emergency declared at U.S. nuclear facility because uranium gas was released.  enenews.com

Three US states have launched a legal challenge to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) recently approved final rule on storage of used nuclear fuel after reactors have closed.  world-nuclear-news.org

 

 

 

 

          I understand why members of the nuclear industry are so adamant that nuclear power is the answer to our energy needs. They stand to make billions of dollars if more nuclear reactors are build. On the other hand, I am having trouble understanding why some prominent environmentalists agree that nuclear power is an important part of the future mix of energy sources. I know that nuclear power has smaller (but not zero) carbon emissions than fossil fuel sources which is attractive to environmentalists.

         I assume that the environmentalists have been talking to scientists and engineers who have assured them that nuclear power plants can safe and economical to operate. For the most part, I agree with this idea. There have been improvements in nuclear power reactor designs and tightening of regulations, especially since the Fukushima disaster in March of 2011. Considered strictly from the viewpoint of engineering design, regulations  and best practices for operation, nuclear power could be safe. The problem with that viewpoint is that there are many factors beyond reactor design and regulations that affect how safe it is to use nuclear power. Here are some other issues that must be considered when talking about how safe and economical nuclear power might be.

        Financial: There are a number of financial problems with nuclear power. Investors are not impressed with nuclear power. Seven years ago the U.S. Department of Energy allocated about twenty billion dollars to a loan pool for the construction of new reactors. In that time, they have only had a request for about eight billion in loans for the construction of two new nuclear power plants in Georgia. For years, the owners of new power reactors could sell electricity at a fixed price for up to twenty years, guaranteed by the buyers. With the turbulence in the current energy market, this type of guarantee is disappearing, making investment more risky. There are also issues with the mandatory decommissioning fund required by the NRS. Some reactor owners have not paid the required amount into the fund. Then there are issues with insurance, accident liability and so on.

        Environmental: Of course there have been many problems with the mining and processing of uranium and normal releases of radioactive gases from nuclear power plants can affect human health. And there is the problem of water supplies. Reactors require a lot of water to cool. Recently, due to climate change, bodies of water used for cooling have become too warm and reactors have had to be shut down. This problem will only get worse. And the environment can also cause problems such as floods, hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes which can threaten nuclear power plants. And, of course, there is the problem of what to do about all the accumulating nuclear waste from power plant operations without a permanent geological repository in the U.S.

       Political: There are far too many stories about the failure of the NRC to adequately regulate the nuclear power plants in the United States. And far too many stories of nuclear power plant operators failing to purchase new parts, failing to train staff adequately, failing to follow engineering designs correctly, failing to respond to and report problems, openly lying about reactor operations and problems, etc. Both the government and private companies have a bad record with respect to the treatment of whistleblowers. In the event of war, such as in Ukraine, nuclear power plants might be destroyed either deliberately or accidentally.

       This recount of problems with nuclear power is only a brief and partial list of some of the additional problems beyond engineering designs and regulations on the books that make nuclear power a very bad choice for the generation of electricity.

IAEA says Fukushima reactors “might still be active” long after meltdowns. enenews.com

Construction has been completed of a “beyond design” dome at Dominion’s North Anna nuclear power plant in Virginia. The dome – which will house emergency equipment and supplies – is the first of its kind in the USA. world-nuclear-new.org

Japan’s first reactor restart is moving to the end of the regulatory phase. Kyushu Electric Power Company has now submitted all the documentation to restart Sendai units 1 and 2 and a final decision lies with the Nuclear Regulation Authority.  world-nuclear-new.org

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said security issues at the Limerick nuclear power plant warranted increased oversight of the facility. nuclearstreet.com