nuclear-news

Nuclear power? – financially a failure

Following the Money
THE ENERGY GRID July 27, 2009  by James Hrynyshyn
“………………….Just about every time I give a presentation on climate change, someone in the audience will ask why I haven’t devoted much attention to the potential contribution of nuclear power. After all, it’s (almost) carbon neutral and it’s one of the only existing technologies that can produce baseload electricity (unlike PV solar and wind).

My response is always the same: Assuming we are willing to find a way to deal with the relatively modest waste and weapons proliferation issues, we still have to acknowledge that nuclear power generation is hideously expensive.Joe Romm’s posts are among the best at laying out just how expensive. The cost of a gigawatt of generating capacity for a new plant just keeps going up. From $4 billion, to $7 billion to $10 billion, depending on the technology involved. There’s a reason why no nuclear power plants have been ordered in 30 years and Three Mile Island isn’t an excuse anymore………………………..

Wind is now cheaper the nuclear, even though you have to build three times the capacity to account for the fact that the wind only blows strong enough a third of time. And baseload power can be supplied by concentrated solar-thermal plants, in which heat is stored in fluids for release at night. So why spend the extra money when competing technologies are less expensive?

A related problem is the ever-changing regulatory and economic context. In order to invest the huge upfront sums of money required by nuclear plants, utilities need to know what kind of world they’ll be operating in for decades to come. They simply don’t have that when it comes to nuclear power. Costs are always rising, and environmental restrictions are ever tightening.

Following the money : The Energy Grid

July 28, 2009 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | 1