The UK Department of Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy has released figures while auctioning for offshore winds.&nbsp;

Two firms were willing to build offshore wind farms for a subsidy of 57.50 pounds per megawatt hour compared to the new nuclear plant that will be set up for 92.50 pounds per megawatt hour in 2022-23.&nbsp;The auction is&nbsp;awarded&nbsp;to the&nbsp;lowest bidder.&nbsp;

The figures are considered a milestone in the advancement of renewable energy.&nbsp;

A BBC report quoted Emma Pinchbeck, from the wind energy trade body Renewable UK showing her surprised reaction over the figures.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Offshore Wind just delivered the closest thing to an energy sector mic drop: offshore, onshore wind and solar are cheaper than gas &amp; nukes
&mdash; Emma Pinchbeck (@ELPinchbeck) <a href="https://twitter.com/ELPinchbeck/status/907126683425263616">September 11, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&quot;We still think nuclear can be part of the mix - but our industry has shown how to drive costs down, and now they need to do the same,&quot; she added.&nbsp;

The price of energy from offshore entity has reduced to half in the past five years.&nbsp;

According to Energy analysts, the UK government policy is responsible for lowering of this price. The policy has provided special incentives to upcoming industry and then pushing them to bid in an auction for their subsidies.&nbsp;

Though the massive reduction in the cost of the offshore wind is considered a huge boost to the renewable industry, the nuclear industry said that nuclear energy will still be needed.

It stated that wind power is irregular and therefore nuclear energy will be required.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Two firms were willing to build offshore wind farms for a subsidy of 57.50 pounds per megawatt hour compared to the new nuclear plant that will be set up for 92.50 pounds per megawatt hour in 2022-23

The UK Department of Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy has released figures while auctioning for offshore winds. Two firms were willing to build offshore wind farms for a subsidy of 57.50 pounds per megawatt hour compared to the new nuclear plant that will be set up for 92.50 pounds per megawatt hour in 2022-23. The auction is awarded to the lowest bidder. The figures are considered a milestone in the advancement of renewable energy. A BBC report quoted Emma Pinchbeck, from the wind energy trade body Renewable UK showing her surprised reaction over the figures. Offshore Wind just delivered the closest thing to an energy sector mic drop: offshore, onshore wind and solar are cheaper than gas & nukes — Emma Pinchbeck (@ELPinchbeck) September 11, 2017 × "We still think nuclear can be part of the mix - but our industry has shown how to drive costs down, and now they need to do the same," she added. The price of energy from offshore entity has reduced to half in the past five years. According to Energy analysts, the UK government policy is responsible for lowering of this price. The policy has provided special incentives to upcoming industry and then pushing them to bid in an auction for their subsidies. Though the massive reduction in the cost of the offshore wind is considered a huge boost to the renewable industry, the nuclear industry said that nuclear energy will still be needed. It stated that wind power is irregular and therefore nuclear energy will be required.

Offshore wind energy cheaper than nuclear power: UK report

Ukraine is still suffering from the trauma of the world&#39;s worst civil nuclear accident at Chernobyl but has nonetheless turned the hazardous fuel into the backbone of its energy portfolio.

The crisis-torn country now uses atomic power for more than half of its electricity needs as it struggles through a coal shortage sparked by a three-year war against Russian- backed insurgents in the separatist east.

And that figure shot up to nearly three-quarters of all power consumed during natural gas price disputes with its eastern arch foe and energy superpower Russia from 2014 to 2016.

Ukraine Wednesday marked 31 years since the disaster in which thousands died with the country extending the lifespan of its communist-era nuclear reactors and turning atomic power into a workhorse that will be around for generations to come.

The Chernobyl plant&#39;s fourth reactor in the north of former Soviet Ukraine exploded in 1986 after a safety test went horribly wrong at 1.23 am on April 26.

Some Ukrainians remain worried that a similar catastrophe could hit their country again.

&quot;The main risk in using nuclear energy in Ukraine is associated with reactors that have exhausted their lifespans,&quot; says Iryna Golovko of the National Ecological Centre of Ukraine&#39;s energy projects department.

&quot;Today six of Ukraine&#39;s 15 operating reactors have surpassed their designed service lives,&quot; she told AFP. &quot;And by 2020, there will be 12 of them.&quot;

Ukraine enjoys abundant coal reserves that happen to lie mostly in regions controlled by Russian insurgents.

Kiev spent nearly three years in the uncomfortable position of fighting the rebels while enriching them by buying their anthracite coal to keep its thermal power plants pumping.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko bowed to public pressure and banned all trade with the separatist east on March 15.

Energy Minister Igor Nasalyk said shortly after Poroshenko&#39;s decision that nuclear power&#39;s share of total electricity production had jumped to 62 from around 55 percent.

It had stood at 46 percent before Ukraine was riven by war and economic crises in 2013.

The government has since allowed regional power companies to impose blackouts in case of weather-related surges in demand.

Ukraine is also negotiating a coal purchase agreement with the United States that Kiev hopes could fulfil two-thirds of its annual needs.

But energy analyst Viktor Logatskiy of the Razumkov Centre research institute still thinks that the service lives of all 15 of Ukraine&#39;s existing reactors will be extended by 2030 as a long-term power source backup.&nbsp;

(AFP)

The crisis-torn country now uses atomic power for more than half of its electricity needs as it struggles through a coal shortage

Ukraine is still suffering from the trauma of the world's worst civil nuclear accident at Chernobyl but has nonetheless turned the hazardous fuel into the backbone of its energy portfolio. The crisis-torn country now uses atomic power for more than half of its electricity needs as it struggles through a coal shortage sparked by a three-year war against Russian- backed insurgents in the separatist east. And that figure shot up to nearly three-quarters of all power consumed during natural gas price disputes with its eastern arch foe and energy superpower Russia from 2014 to 2016. Ukraine Wednesday marked 31 years since the disaster in which thousands died with the country extending the lifespan of its communist-era nuclear reactors and turning atomic power into a workhorse that will be around for generations to come. The Chernobyl plant's fourth reactor in the north of former Soviet Ukraine exploded in 1986 after a safety test went horribly wrong at 1.23 am on April 26. Some Ukrainians remain worried that a similar catastrophe could hit their country again. "The main risk in using nuclear energy in Ukraine is associated with reactors that have exhausted their lifespans," says Iryna Golovko of the National Ecological Centre of Ukraine's energy projects department. "Today six of Ukraine's 15 operating reactors have surpassed their designed service lives," she told AFP. "And by 2020, there will be 12 of them." Ukraine enjoys abundant coal reserves that happen to lie mostly in regions controlled by Russian insurgents. Kiev spent nearly three years in the uncomfortable position of fighting the rebels while enriching them by buying their anthracite coal to keep its thermal power plants pumping. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko bowed to public pressure and banned all trade with the separatist east on March 15. Energy Minister Igor Nasalyk said shortly after Poroshenko's decision that nuclear power's share of total electricity production had jumped to 62 from around 55 percent. It had stood at 46 percent before Ukraine was riven by war and economic crises in 2013. The government has since allowed regional power companies to impose blackouts in case of weather-related surges in demand. Ukraine is also negotiating a coal purchase agreement with the United States that Kiev hopes could fulfil two-thirds of its annual needs. But energy analyst Viktor Logatskiy of the Razumkov Centre research institute still thinks that the service lives of all 15 of Ukraine's existing reactors will be extended by 2030 as a long-term power source backup. (AFP)

Coal shortage forces Ukraine to turn to nuclear power despite Chernobyl trauma

Switzerland&#39;s ageing nuclear reactors will keep running for the foreseeable future, after voters Sunday rejected a call to speed up the phaseout of the plants.

A full 54.2 percent of voters and an overwhelming majority of Switzerland&#39;s 26 cantons voted against an initiative which would have forced three of the country&#39;s five nuclear reactors to close next year, according to final results.

Just a few months after Japan&#39;s Fukushima nuclear plant was destroyed in the March 2011 tsunami disaster, Switzerland decided to gradually close its nuclear plants, but did not set a clear timeline.&nbsp;

The government&#39;s plan is to decommission five ageing reactors, which today produce around a third of the country&#39;s electricity, as they reach the end of their safe operational lifespan. But since all of Switzerland&#39;s nuclear plants have open-ended operating licences, there is no clear cut-off date determining when they should be shut down.

Pointing out that Switzerland already counts one of the oldest nuclear parks in the world and warning that allowing the reactors to run indefinitely posed a safety risk, the Green Party wanted the reactors to operate for no longer than 45 years.

The party gathered more than the 100,000 signatures needed to put any issue to a popular vote in Switzerland as part of the country&#39;s famous direct democratic system.

If the &quot;Nuclear Withdrawal Initiative&quot; had passed, it would have entailed the final closure next year of Beznau, which has been operating in the northern Swiss canton of Aargau, near the German border, for 47 years.

That plant, which has two reactors currently undergoing repairs, became the world&#39;s oldest functioning commercial nuclear plant after Britain&#39;s Oldsbury reactor closed in 2012.

The Muhlberg plant, which opened in Bern canton in 1972, would also have needed to close next year if the Greens had gotten their way, while Gosgen in Solothurn would have shut by 2024 and, finally, Leibstadt in Aargau by 2029.

Security of supply

The Swiss government supports gradually shutting down the plants, but it forcefully opposed the initiative. It insisted that much has been invested in keeping Switzerland&#39;s reactors safe, and cautioned that premature closures could &quot;undermine the security of supply&quot;.

The Swiss parliament has also opposed the initiative, along with all the right-leaning parties, while the Greens have the backing of the left-leaning factions. In the end, 20 of Switzerland&#39;s 26 cantons rejected the initiative, with the strongest opposition seen in the central canton of Schwyz, where more than 68 percent voted &quot;no&quot;.

Only a handful of mainly French-speaking cantons backed the initiative, with Basel-Town showing strongest support with more than 60 percent of voters there casting their ballot in favour, followed by Geneva, where nearly 59 percent voted &quot;yes&quot;.&nbsp;

Voter participation across Switzerland stood at around 44 percent, which is within the normal range for recent votes. The populist rightwing Swiss People&#39;s Party (SVP) voiced hope that the vote indicated the people shared its opposition to the government&#39;s entire energy strategy, including the gradual phaseout of nuclear power.

SVP has launched an initiative to be voted on next year to overturn the government&#39;s 2050 energy strategy, which aims to increase the reliance on hydraulic power as well as renewables like solar and wind in order to help replace its nuclear plants.

&quot;The logical consequence (of Sunday&#39;s vote) is &nbsp;now to accept the referendum against this ill-conceived strategy,&quot; SVP parliamentarian Celine Amaudruz told the ATS news agency.

While voicing disappointment at Sunday&#39;s result, the left-leaning parties meanwhile insisted that with a full 45.77 percent of voters eager for a speedy exit from nuclear power, the government should have plenty of support for its overall strategy.

And Socialist Party parliamentarian Roger Nordmann stressed that the battle to close the oldest plants would continue. &quot;We will in any case fight for the immediate closure of Beznau 1 and 2,&quot; he told the ATS news agency, insisting the two reactors &quot;are too dangerous&quot;.

(AFP)

If the "Nuclear Withdrawal Initiative" had passed, it would have entailed the final closure next year of the Beznau nuclear plant

Switzerland's ageing nuclear reactors will keep running for the foreseeable future, after voters Sunday rejected a call to speed up the phaseout of the plants. A full 54.2 percent of voters and an overwhelming majority of Switzerland's 26 cantons voted against an initiative which would have forced three of the country's five nuclear reactors to close next year, according to final results. Just a few months after Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant was destroyed in the March 2011 tsunami disaster, Switzerland decided to gradually close its nuclear plants, but did not set a clear timeline. The government's plan is to decommission five ageing reactors, which today produce around a third of the country's electricity, as they reach the end of their safe operational lifespan. But since all of Switzerland's nuclear plants have open-ended operating licences, there is no clear cut-off date determining when they should be shut down. Pointing out that Switzerland already counts one of the oldest nuclear parks in the world and warning that allowing the reactors to run indefinitely posed a safety risk, the Green Party wanted the reactors to operate for no longer than 45 years. The party gathered more than the 100,000 signatures needed to put any issue to a popular vote in Switzerland as part of the country's famous direct democratic system. If the "Nuclear Withdrawal Initiative" had passed, it would have entailed the final closure next year of Beznau, which has been operating in the northern Swiss canton of Aargau, near the German border, for 47 years. That plant, which has two reactors currently undergoing repairs, became the world's oldest functioning commercial nuclear plant after Britain's Oldsbury reactor closed in 2012. The Muhlberg plant, which opened in Bern canton in 1972, would also have needed to close next year if the Greens had gotten their way, while Gosgen in Solothurn would have shut by 2024 and, finally, Leibstadt in Aargau by 2029. Security of supply The Swiss government supports gradually shutting down the plants, but it forcefully opposed the initiative. It insisted that much has been invested in keeping Switzerland's reactors safe, and cautioned that premature closures could "undermine the security of supply". The Swiss parliament has also opposed the initiative, along with all the right-leaning parties, while the Greens have the backing of the left-leaning factions. In the end, 20 of Switzerland's 26 cantons rejected the initiative, with the strongest opposition seen in the central canton of Schwyz, where more than 68 percent voted "no". Only a handful of mainly French-speaking cantons backed the initiative, with Basel-Town showing strongest support with more than 60 percent of voters there casting their ballot in favour, followed by Geneva, where nearly 59 percent voted "yes". Voter participation across Switzerland stood at around 44 percent, which is within the normal range for recent votes. The populist rightwing Swiss People's Party (SVP) voiced hope that the vote indicated the people shared its opposition to the government's entire energy strategy, including the gradual phaseout of nuclear power. SVP has launched an initiative to be voted on next year to overturn the government's 2050 energy strategy, which aims to increase the reliance on hydraulic power as well as renewables like solar and wind in order to help replace its nuclear plants. "The logical consequence (of Sunday's vote) is now to accept the referendum against this ill-conceived strategy," SVP parliamentarian Celine Amaudruz told the ATS news agency. While voicing disappointment at Sunday's result, the left-leaning parties meanwhile insisted that with a full 45.77 percent of voters eager for a speedy exit from nuclear power, the government should have plenty of support for its overall strategy. And Socialist Party parliamentarian Roger Nordmann stressed that the battle to close the oldest plants would continue. "We will in any case fight for the immediate closure of Beznau 1 and 2," he told the ATS news agency, insisting the two reactors "are too dangerous". (AFP)

Switzerland voters reject speedy phase-out of nuclear reactors

Pakistan&#39;s top diplomat at the United Nations has said that the country had&nbsp;taken &quot;exemplary measures&quot; to establish nuclear safety and must thus be&nbsp;included in the 48-member Nuclear Suppliers Group. 
 
Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan&#39;s permanent representative to the UN, on Tuesday said&nbsp;that the country had implemented an export control regime and also&nbsp;participated in the Nuclear Security Summit process, the Dawn reported. 
 
Pakistan had also ratified the 2005 amendment to the Convention on Physical&nbsp;Protection of Nuclear Material and reinforced that it was keen on a bilateral&nbsp;arrangement on non-testing with India. 
 
The NSG is a group of nuclear suppliers that regulate global trade in nuclear&nbsp;technology. 
 
&quot;Pakistan is fulfilling its responsibility toward non-proliferation of nuclear&nbsp;weapons with utmost dedication,&quot; she was reported saying. 
 
&quot;We expect that a non-discriminatory, criteria-based approach is followed for&nbsp;extending NSG membership which strengthens the non-proliferation regime,&quot;&nbsp;she added. 
 
&quot;Differences in state capacities compounded challenges to addressing the&nbsp;proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,&quot; she said. 
 
Pakistan and India are the two non-NPT States aspiring for the membership of&nbsp;the elite group. 
 
(WION with inputs from agencies)

Pakistan and India are the two non-NPT States aspiring for the membership of?the elite group

Pakistan's top diplomat at the United Nations has said that the country had taken "exemplary measures" to establish nuclear safety and must thus be included in the 48-member Nuclear Suppliers Group. Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan's permanent representative to the UN, on Tuesday said that the country had implemented an export control regime and also participated in the Nuclear Security Summit process, the Dawn reported. Pakistan had also ratified the 2005 amendment to the Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and reinforced that it was keen on a bilateral arrangement on non-testing with India. The NSG is a group of nuclear suppliers that regulate global trade in nuclear technology. "Pakistan is fulfilling its responsibility toward non-proliferation of nuclear weapons with utmost dedication," she was reported saying. "We expect that a non-discriminatory, criteria-based approach is followed for extending NSG membership which strengthens the non-proliferation regime," she added. "Differences in state capacities compounded challenges to addressing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," she said. Pakistan and India are the two non-NPT States aspiring for the membership of the elite group. (WION with inputs from agencies)

Pakistan diplomat at UN pitches for inclusion in NSG

French energy giant EDF yesterday approved a contested plan to build Britain&#39;s first nuclear power station in decades but the British government said it would wait before taking a final decision. 
 
Britain&#39;s business and energy minister Greg Clark said the government would review the nuclear project, shortly after EDF&#39;s board backed a project which critics fear could bankrupt the French utility. 
 
&quot;The UK needs a reliable and secure energy supply and the government believes that nuclear energy is an important part of the mix,&quot; Clark said.&nbsp;&quot;The government will now consider carefully all the component parts of this project and make its decision in the early autumn.&quot; 
 
Before the deal can go ahead it must be approved by Prime Minister Theresa May. 
 
EDF&#39;s directors had been deeply divided over the planned construction of two nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in southwest England for $23.8 billion. 
 
&quot;At its meeting on 28 July 2016, EDF&#39;s board of directors made the final investment decision,&quot; the company said in a statement. 
 
Ten members of the board voted in favour of the deal, while seven voted against, a source told AFP. 
 
Upping the tension, one board member resigned just before the crunch meeting, saying he disagreed with the plan, reducing the board of directors to 17. 
 
Unions seek delay 
 
The Sizewell B nuclear power plant was the last to go online in Britain, starting generation in 1995. 
 
The plan to build the latest generation EPR reactors, signed in 2013, is to be carried out by EDF with Chinese partner CGN, but has hit several snags since.&nbsp;The reactors are due to go online from 2025. 
 
Weighing on its viability is the decision of French nuclear company Areva to drop out because of financial difficulties and the subsequent takeover of Areva&#39;s obligations by EDF at the behest of the French government, which owns 85 per cent of EDF. 
 
This pushed EDF, which was already struggling under a debt mountain of $41.4 billion at the end of last year, to go further into the red, leading some to question the group&#39;s ability to juggle all its liabilities, including the renovation of France&#39;s nuclear operations and the takeover of Areva&#39;s reactors amid falling energy prices. 
 
Unions fear for EDF&#39;s financial survival and have asked for a delay of at least three years of any decision on the British nuclear plans, even waging a court battle to stop the momentum. 
 
EDF chief financial officer Thomas Piquemal resigned in March over the threat the project represents to the company&#39;s finances, and CEO Jean-Bernard Levy has acknowledged that the company&#39;s &quot;financial trajectory is taut&quot;. 
 
EPR reactors, developed mostly by France&#39;s Areva, are the latest generation of nuclear reactors and among the most powerful in the world, and according to Areva, the safest.&nbsp;There are only two other ongoing EPR reactor projects in Europe, one in Normandy in France and the other in Finland, and both have been plagued by delays and cost overruns. 
 
&#39;Too big to fail&#39; 
 
The French government has been doggedly determined to get Hinkley Point approved as it sees the project as crucial for the long-term viability of France&#39;s nuclear industry, which employs 220,000 people. 
 
Previous British governments have also been in favour because the reactors will cover up to seven per cent of Britain&#39;s electricity needs while helping the government meet its CO2 emissions targets because of relatively low carbon emissions from nuclear energy.&nbsp;But British support is not unanimous, and criticism focuses on the growing difference between an electricity price guarantee for EDF, subsidised by the British taxpayer, and current falling energy prices. 
 
EDF would be guaranteed &pound;92.50 per megawatt hour produced by Hinkley Point over 35 years, giving it an estimated nine percent of return on its capital.&nbsp;But Britain&#39;s National Audit Office has warned that the potential cost of this subsidy had risen to &pound;29.7 billion from a 2013 estimate of &pound;6.1 billion because of the drop in energy prices. 
 
There have also been environmental concerns.&nbsp;Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said the power station was &quot;terrible value for money&quot;. 
 
The EDF decision &quot;just shows the Hinkley deal became too big to fail in the eyes of British and French politicians,&quot; he said. 
 
(AFP)

Britain's business and energy minister Greg Clark said the government would review the nuclear project and make its decision in early autumn

French energy giant EDF yesterday approved a contested plan to build Britain's first nuclear power station in decades but the British government said it would wait before taking a final decision. Britain's business and energy minister Greg Clark said the government would review the nuclear project, shortly after EDF's board backed a project which critics fear could bankrupt the French utility. "The UK needs a reliable and secure energy supply and the government believes that nuclear energy is an important part of the mix," Clark said. "The government will now consider carefully all the component parts of this project and make its decision in the early autumn." Before the deal can go ahead it must be approved by Prime Minister Theresa May. EDF's directors had been deeply divided over the planned construction of two nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in southwest England for $23.8 billion. "At its meeting on 28 July 2016, EDF's board of directors made the final investment decision," the company said in a statement. Ten members of the board voted in favour of the deal, while seven voted against, a source told AFP. Upping the tension, one board member resigned just before the crunch meeting, saying he disagreed with the plan, reducing the board of directors to 17. Unions seek delay The Sizewell B nuclear power plant was the last to go online in Britain, starting generation in 1995. The plan to build the latest generation EPR reactors, signed in 2013, is to be carried out by EDF with Chinese partner CGN, but has hit several snags since. The reactors are due to go online from 2025. Weighing on its viability is the decision of French nuclear company Areva to drop out because of financial difficulties and the subsequent takeover of Areva's obligations by EDF at the behest of the French government, which owns 85 per cent of EDF. This pushed EDF, which was already struggling under a debt mountain of $41.4 billion at the end of last year, to go further into the red, leading some to question the group's ability to juggle all its liabilities, including the renovation of France's nuclear operations and the takeover of Areva's reactors amid falling energy prices. Unions fear for EDF's financial survival and have asked for a delay of at least three years of any decision on the British nuclear plans, even waging a court battle to stop the momentum. EDF chief financial officer Thomas Piquemal resigned in March over the threat the project represents to the company's finances, and CEO Jean-Bernard Levy has acknowledged that the company's "financial trajectory is taut". EPR reactors, developed mostly by France's Areva, are the latest generation of nuclear reactors and among the most powerful in the world, and according to Areva, the safest. There are only two other ongoing EPR reactor projects in Europe, one in Normandy in France and the other in Finland, and both have been plagued by delays and cost overruns. 'Too big to fail' The French government has been doggedly determined to get Hinkley Point approved as it sees the project as crucial for the long-term viability of France's nuclear industry, which employs 220,000 people. Previous British governments have also been in favour because the reactors will cover up to seven per cent of Britain's electricity needs while helping the government meet its CO2 emissions targets because of relatively low carbon emissions from nuclear energy. But British support is not unanimous, and criticism focuses on the growing difference between an electricity price guarantee for EDF, subsidised by the British taxpayer, and current falling energy prices. EDF would be guaranteed £92.50 per megawatt hour produced by Hinkley Point over 35 years, giving it an estimated nine percent of return on its capital. But Britain's National Audit Office has warned that the potential cost of this subsidy had risen to £29.7 billion from a 2013 estimate of £6.1 billion because of the drop in energy prices. There have also been environmental concerns. Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said the power station was "terrible value for money". The EDF decision "just shows the Hinkley deal became too big to fail in the eyes of British and French politicians," he said. (AFP)

France's EDF gives green signal for nuclear plan, UK defers

nuclear-energy

Nuclear Energy, News on Nuclear Energy, stories on Nuclear Energy, articles on Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Energy stories at Wion, Nuclear Energy news, Nuclear Energy latest news