nuclear-news

Nuclear: no answer to climate change, the economics rule it out

 Climate change is kicking in; science tells us we need to make drastic cuts starting now. If nukes are to ride to the rescue, we need a few on the horizon now.

But the new fleet of reactors has not been built and won’t be, because Wall Street won’t fund them. 

Why Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer to Global Warming, There is no “nuclear renaissance” and there won’t be: it just doesn’t
make sense economically. http://www.alternet.org environment/154854/why_nuclear_power_is_not_the answer_to_global_warming  AlterNet,  By Christian Parenti, 4 April 12,   Despite the triple meltdown at Fukushima—which has driven tens of thousands of Japanese from their homes, cast radioactive fallout across the U.S., and will likely cost

the Japanese economy ¥50 trillion, or $623 billion—many desperate Greens now embrace nukes. They include Stewart Brand and George Monbiot. What drives these men is panic—a very legitimate fear that wewill trigger self-fueling runaway climate change.

There is no “nuclear renaissance” and there won’t be: it just doesn’t make sense economically.  Part of this green embrace of the atom is a
macho performance of seriousness. Nuke hugging demonstrates a
technophilic resolve, manly determination to muscle through. The
semiotics of the green nuke huggers’ message is clear: “I am a man, an
adult, ready to do whatever it takes to fight climate change. I have
put aside childish utopianism and even endorsed this most dangerous,
capital intensive, and war-tainted of technologies: atom smashing.”

So far, so very brave.

However, back in the real world, nukes face nearly insurmountable
economichurdles. Never mind the issue of safety, economic
factors—capital costs, construction cost, availability and prices of
special metals and engineering expertise, and profitability—are the
real issue. Economics will determine the future of atomic power—or
rather, already have. And here is the takeaway: there will be no
nuclear future.

For more than a decade, the atomic power industry and many in
government have promised us a “nuclear renaissance.” A whole new fleet
of atomic power plants, new high-tech third and fourth generation
reactors, are supposed to be coming online.

Well, where is it? Climate change is kicking in; science tells us we need to make drastic cuts starting now. If nukes are to ride to the rescue, we need a few on the horizon now.
But the new fleet of reactors has not been built and won’t be, because Wall Street won’t fund them. The only way nukes get built is with real
or de facto socialism. The public sector has to pick up the tab,
either during construction or after the fact, when bankrupt utilities
get bailed out.
The first wave of nuclear reactor construction peaked after the Arab
oil embargo of 1973. The logic was geostrategic energy security, not
cost-efficient electrical production. Japan and France built the most.
Then came the Three Mile Island accident. Suddenly, the industry was
subject to a more rigorous safety regime. With that costs rose
precipitously, wiping out 90 percent of projected profits of theU.S.
nuke industry. Hundreds of planned plants in the United States were
canceled. In the United States and the United Kingdom, cost overruns
on nuclear plants helped bankrupt several utility companies.

In February 2002, the Bush administration tried to jump-start nuclear
construction with its “Nuclear Power 2010 Program,” a package of
subsidies and streamlined planning procedures. Obama has continued
this with more generous support for the nuclear industry. It was
expected that these incentives would lead to at least one “Generation
III+” unit being operational by 2010. That has not happened.
Work has finally begun on a two-reactor plant in Georgia. But already
there are conflicts between the utility, Southern Company, and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Moreover, this project is going forward
only because the utility, operating on a cost-plus basis, can pass on
to rate payers all of its expense overruns. This is because the
Southeast power market was the only U.S. region never deregulated.

In Western Europe, nuclear economics are also a mess. Only two
“Generation III+” reactors are under construction. The plant closest
to completion is the 1,600-megawatt European Pressurized Reactor (EPR)
at Olkiluoto 3 in Finland. It was scheduled to take four years and
cost about $5 billion. But now construction will take at least eight
years and is 68 percent over budget, at a projected final cost of $8.4
billion.

April 5, 2012 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | general