2009 July 31 « nuclear-news

Nuclear plans hurting power companies’ credit ratings

FACING SOUTH 31 July 09
Power companies pursuing construction of new nuclear plants may find it harder to get credit — meaning ratepayers could end up shouldering a greater financial burden for the costly and environmentally harmful projects.

Moody’s Investors Service, a leading independent credit rating firm, recently released a report that says it’s considering taking a “more negative view” of debt obligations issued by companies seeking to build new nuclear plants.

Titled “New Nuclear Generation: Ratings Pressure Increasing,” the report raises concerns that investing in new nuclear plants involves significant risks and huge capital costs at a time when national energy policy is uncertain. Yet companies investing in new nuclear projects — cost estimates for which are hovering in the $6 billion range — haven’t adjusted their finances accordingly, according to Moody’s:

‘Few, if any, of the issuers aspiring to build new nuclear power have meaningfully strengthened their balance sheets, and for several companies, key financial credit ratios have actually declined. Moreover, recent broad market turmoil calls into question whether new liquidity is even available to support such capital-intensive projects.’…………………………
The financing problems have already caused some companies to back away from nuclear projects. Earlier this month, AmerenUE announced that it was suspending plans to build a new reactor at its Callaway plant in Missouri. A factor was that state’s ban of “Construction Work in Progress,” a financing scheme that allows a nuclear utility to recover the construction costs of a reactor from ratepayers before the reactor is up and running.

ISS – Nuclear plans hurting power companies’ credit ratings

July 31, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 1, business and costs, USA | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs | Leave a comment

Nuclear startup costs high, safety low

TENNESSEAN.com 31 July 09 By John McFadden, Ph.D.

”….does nuclear power offer a safe, affordable domestic solution?
Unfortunately, the facts suggest otherwise. The industry is dependent on subsidies and is not economically viable. Nuclear waste is problematic at best.

The technology is not safe despite billions of tax dollars spent on research to try to make it safe.The claims from nuclear energy’s proponents have always been too good to be true. “Too cheap to meter” was the first. Inaccurate power projections led to TVA’s first nuclear plant construction program in the 1970s and ’80s, leaving more than $25 billion in debt, which Tennessee Valley residents are still paying.

Current estimated cost for one new 1,200-megawatt reactor is $7.5 billion. From 1950 to 1999, federal subsidies totaled around $145 billion. Cleanups of radioactive federal Superfund’ sites are expensive, difficult and proceeding slowly. The fact is that they may never be cleaned up.

Many of those who believe in and trust free-market economics are pushing for increased nuclear power, citing France as a model of nuclear power success, but the French utility is government-owned.

The market is unwilling to fund construction or provide insurance without federal subsidies — too much risk! Nuclear power is not economically viable, and has no plan for long-term storage for waste.On-site storage of the radioactive waste is currently the default plan, and it is more of a problem than most recognize.

Startup costs high, safety low | tennessean.com | The Tennessean

July 31, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 1, 2 WORLD, business and costs | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs | Leave a comment

California’s nuclear reactor “reliable”?

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS)…………… Reliability Questioned
Examiner.com by Shirley Vaine July 30, 2009
“…………the latest completed performance review by The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on March 4, 2009, for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS)……………

the NRC was concerned that “the continuing performance problems are not being effectively addressed,…………..“

……………No one knows how long the reactor will be down even if the replacement goes perfect. Southern California could have an “unknown timetable” of a dismantled reactor …………….

The good news is that California has control over reliability and economics of our power generation, and these issues are not pre-empted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We already endured an “energy crisis” in 2000. Let’s plan not to have another one.

An earthquake shut down Japan’s new nuclear reactors in 2007 and they are still down today, costing the company to buy power elsewhere to meet demand and costing the country billions of yen.

Not only is nuclear power financially unpredictable, the safety risk is an intrical part of that harmful fuel. Additional losses would also come from tourist avoiding visiting this potential health hazard area……”

SONGS Reliability Questioned

July 31, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 1, business and costs, USA | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear wastes | Leave a comment

Nuclear Disarmament More Urgent Than Ever

Nuclear Disarmament More Urgent Than Ever
IPS by By Mikhail Gorbachev 31 July 09 “………………. Nothing fundamentally new has been achieved in the area of nuclear disarmament in the past decade and a half. Twenty years after the end of the Cold War, the arsenals of the nuclear powers still contain thousands of weapons, and the world is facing the very real possibility of a new arms race………………..

The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) has not entered into force. The quantities of nuclear weapons held by Russia and the United States still far exceed the arsenals of all other nuclear powers combined, thus making it more difficult to bring them into the process of nuclear disarmament.

The nuclear non-proliferation regime is in jeopardy. While the two major nuclear powers bear the greatest responsibility for this state of affairs, it was the U.S. that abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty), has failed to ratify the CTBT, and refused to conclude with Russia a legally binding, verifiable treaty on strategic offensive arms.

Only recently have we seen indications that the major nuclear powers understand the current state of affairs is untenable…………………………….
The use and the threat of force, which, of course, are illegal under the UN Charter, were reasserted as a “normal” mode of solving problems. Official documents rationalized doctrines of pre-emptive strike and the need for U.S. military superiority.

Humanity must be wary of a new arms race. Priority is still being given to financing of military programmes, and “defence” budgets far exceeding reasonable security requirements keep growing, as does the weapons trade. U.S. military expenditures are almost as high as those of the rest of the world combined.

Disregard for international law and for peaceful ways of settling disputes, for the United Nations and its Security Council, is being proclaimed as a kind of policy………………….

……. If the holders of the largest stocks of nuclear weapons embark upon real reductions, others will no longer be able to sit it out and conceal their arsenals from international control. This is an issue that we must raise now if we are to have the kind of trust without which common security cannot be achieved.