WCA May 2010

Statue of Liberty Image from BigStockPhoto.com Photographer: Marty

to start shoveling a lot of money at nuclear, and nuclear is part of America’s plan to get less oil-dependent, then we need to build it ourselves.” Elsewhere in steel . . . Universal Stainless & Alloy Products Inc (Bridgeville, ❖ Pennsylvania) on 15 th February announced a base price increase of 5% on all stainless wire rod manufactured at its Dunkirk Specialty Steel facility, effective with all new orders as of 1 st March. Current material and energy surcharges will remain in effect. Chris Zimmer, vice president of sales and marketing, said the price adjustment was necessary to support continued reinvestment in equipment and facilities. The company manufactures and markets semi-finished and finished speciality steels, including stainless, tool steel, and other alloys.

Steel

Labour union complains that an Obama plan for two new nuclear reactors would create jobs for steel workers in Asia The 16 th February announcement by President Barack Obama that, after three decades, the United States will recommence building nuclear power plants produced immediate and strong objections, especially in the European press. The proposal, backed by initial loan guarantees of more than $8.3 billion, drew charges of domestic political motives (Germany’s Süddeutsche Zeitung ); disregard of alternative sources of energy (Austria’s Der Standard ); and contempt for the views of nuclear energy opponents all over the world (Spain’s Expansión ). The main adverse reaction on the home front came from the United Steelworkers (USW) and centred on the more mundane issue of jobs. According to Mr Obama, the pair of nuclear reactors to rise near Augusta, Georgia, will create thousands of construction jobs at the site and about 800 permanent jobs after commissioning. The union leadership does not dispute that the project promises employment opportunities, but claims that the main beneficiaries will be Asian steel workers. In a letter to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the USW international president, Leo W Gerard, expressed concern about “the potential foreign sourcing of components for these reactors,” which he said “limits our nation’s ability to address our unacceptably high unemployment rate.” Matthew L Wald and Keith Bradsher of the New York Times reported the assertion by Westinghouse, which designed the reactors’ central components, that the only steel mills certified for the work are in Japan and South Korea. These essential units include the reactor vessel itself and part of the giant heat exchangers called steam generators. Westinghouse is based in Pittsburgh but owned by the Japanese company Toshiba. (“Steelworkers Say Reactors Will Create Overseas Jobs,” 19 th February) The Times reporters pointed out that nuclear power is a global industry, with most reactor designs having been developed by foreign or foreign-owned companies and calling for components that are manufactured only overseas. They noted that the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the law under which the loan guarantees were obtained for the two new reactors, does not have a “Buy American” clause. But even the Tennessee Valley Authority, a federal agency required to exercise such a preference, was reportedly obliged to buy 20% of the components for its Watts Bar Unit 2 reactor from overseas because they were not available in the United States. The current Westinghouse reactor design includes a ❖ freestanding steel structure about 1 3 / 4 inches thick. This containment vessel is to be made of strips of steel 130-feet long and 13-feet wide, with 11 strips stacked on one another. American steel mills are not equipped to manufacture strips of 13-feet wide, Westinghouse told the Times . But according to a company spokesman, because Westinghouse would like to encourage US companies to compete for contracts it is considering altering the design to stipulate strips 11-feet wide stacked 13 high. Meanwhile, the United Steelworkers union is firmly of the ❖ opinion that American taxpayers should not bear the burden of loan guarantees that would create jobs abroad. Thomas M Conway, a USW vice president, asserted, “If we’re going

Energy

Ontario clinches a very good, if controversial, deal with Korea’s Samsung Group

“This kind of rhetoric ignores the fact that we’re living in 2010 – not 1960.” The observation, by energy and technology consultant Tyler Hamilton of the Toronto Star , was prompted by the grumbling of some Canadians over a deal recently concluded for the province of Ontario. Their “rhetoric” was directed at the government of the province for facilitating an ambitious plan by the Korean industrial giant Samsung to manufacture and deploy green energy gear there. Where the opposition sees a backroom deal with a foreign company that will lead to higher electricity prices, Mr Hamilton sees a winning strategy by which Ontario kept a $7 billion clean-energy project from going to the US instead of Canada. It did this by putting regulations and policies in place to attract that investment. (“Samsung Deal Keeps Jobs from Going South,” 28 th January) Samsung, which has committed to building four manufacturing plants and developing 2,500 megawatts of wind and solar projects in Ontario, affirms this view. The company and its consortium partners say they were attracted to the province by its new Green Energy Act and feed-in-tariff (FIT) programme, deemed by Samsung outstanding in North America. Feed-in tariffs refer to the premium rates paid by a utility to its customers for the excess power generated by their solar, wind, and other renewable energy systems. In view of the 16,000 green-collar jobs Samsung Group expects to bring to Ontario, Mr Hamilton believes that these and certain other sweeteners that figured in the negotiations are fully justified. Putting the ‘special treatment’ accorded Samsung in perspective, he noted that the company is getting roughly 4% more for its solar and wind power production than other participants in Ontario’s FIT programme, which already pays a generous amount to producers. It is expected that Samsung’s “economic adder,” which over 25 years has a net-present value of $437 million, will tack $1.60 more a year onto the average residential electricity bill. “That’s an increase of 0.15% on the power bill of a typical household [in the province],” Mr Hamilton wrote. Moreover, he observed, if Samsung and its consortium partners do not deliver as promised on manufacturing and jobs, they forfeit the adder.

24

Wire & Cable ASIA – May/June 2010