Old dog, nuke tricks | Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist

Environment America says McCain’s nuclear expansion would be ‘an economic disaster’
BVGrist  by Kate Sheppard  14 Oct 2008

Environment America today released a new report looking at the environmental implications of John McCain’s plan to build 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030, and 100 over time. Their report concludes that McCain’s plan would be “an economic and environmental disaster.”

Environment America, which has endorsed Democrat Barack Obama in the presidential election, found that the 45 reactors would cost taxpayers $315 billion, because most of the funding would have to come from taxpayer-backed federal loans. They also found that expanding the nuclear industry would create less than a quarter of the 700,000 that McCain promised in the first presidential debate. And since the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s trade association, estimates that it takes about 10 years to bring a new nuclear power plant online, it would do little for short-term energy concerns. Nuclear power is also resource-intensive — 45 nuclear power plants would use between 200 billion to 350 billion gallons of water per year. And, of course, there are the outstanding concerns about safety, storage, and disposal…………………………..

Their report concludes that McCain’s nuclear plan “fails to take advantage of cleaner, cheaper alternatives” like wind and solar, which “can deliver more energy much sooner than building new nuclear power plants, and create more jobs at a lower cost to taxpayers — without the risks.”

Old dog, nuke tricks | Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist

Tags: nuclear

October 15, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment

Rio looks to rebuild confidence | smh.com.au

Rio looks to rebuild confidence
Sydney Morning Herald

Jamie Freed

October 15, 2008

RIO Tinto’s chief executive, Tom Albanese, will today attempt to shore up market confidence in the miner’s decision to reject a hostile bid from BHP Billiton amid a worsening outlook for key commodities.

After the release of Rio’s quarterly report this afternoon, he will also be required to address concerns his company will not meet its target of $US7 billion ($10.4 billion) of additional asset sales by the end of the year because of poor market conditions…………………………Rio’s uranium subsidiary, Energy Resources of Australia, yesterday lowered its annual production guidance from a previous range of 5400 to 5900 tonnes to a level “expected to approach” 5400 tonnes.

Rio looks to rebuild confidence | smh.com.au

Tags: nuclear, uranium

October 15, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment

Bloomberg.com: Australia & New Zealand

Paladin Says Crunch May Scupper Some Uranium Projects By Jesse RiseboroughOct. 15 (Bloomberg) — Paladin Energy Ltd., the Australian company producing uranium in Namibia, said the global credit crisis will delay or scupper planned industry projects, cutting supplies of the nuclear fuel.“The impact of the credit tightness on the supply side of the uranium business will probably cause the deferral or cancellation of some planned uranium projects,” Perth-based Paladin said today in a statement.The worst U.S. financial crisis since the Great Depression has made banks more reluctant to lend money, raising global borrowing costs. JPMorgan Chase & Co. last week cut its uranium price forecast through to 2010, citing the potential for the freeze to slow nuclear power project development.The credit crunch will also “reduce the money available for exploration companies, which will only exacerbate the supply- demand imbalance in the future,” Paladin said.
Paladin dropped 3 cents, or 13 percent to A$2.27 at 10:23 a.m. Sydney time on the Australian stock exchange. It’s dropped 67 percent this year.

Tags: nuclear, uranium

October 15, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment

newsobserver.com | Nuclear power: the negatives

Nuclear power: the negatives

The News & Observer Hugh Haskell  Oct 14, 2008

CARY – Proponents of nuclear power speak of a “nuclear renaissance.” The facts show that rather than a renaissance, we face a nuclear apocalypse, heralded by, instead of the traditional four horsemen, five horsemen: cost, proliferation, risk, waste, and water consumption. Consider them individually: Consider them individually:

COST. In spite of early claims that nuclear power would be “too cheap to meter,” nuclear power started out expensive, requiring large subsidies and loan guarantees from the government, and it has stayed that way. A preliminary estimate for two new 1,000 megawatt nuclear plants proposed by Progress Energy in Florida is $17 billion, and that cost is likely to grow as required revisions to Westinghouse’s AP-1000 advanced reactor design add years to the time before those reactors will be ready for use.

An industry estimate puts the cost of new nuclear power at 14c per kilowatt-hour, and rising — higher than all other sources of energy except solar, whose cost is falling.

Potential financiers of nuclear power remain leery — cost and potential safety problems make the risks of new nuclear power too high.

newsobserver.com | Nuclear power: the negatives

Tags: nuclear

October 15, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment