nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Banks won’t finance nuclear facilities – the $squillion liability

text-my-money-2Consumers Shoulder the Risks

According to Schneider, commercial banks no longer back reactor project financing, because it’s too risky. It is for this reason that the Asian Development Bank has never financed a nuclear facility.

“Without upfront customer financing no one in the U.S. will build a new reactor,” he said.

Nuclear Power Costs Billions More Than Promised  By Epoch Times | October 1, 2014“……..despite nuclear’s green reputation experts say it’s a bad deal.  It requires a comparatively tiny amount of uranium to generate electricity, so most of the cost consumers pay for nuclear power comes from building the reactor. But the construction of new facilities often proves much more expensive than promised.

 New reports find that at least three quarters of all nuclear reactor projects worldwide are officially delayed. According to Mycle Schneider, International consultant on nuclear policy, and lead author of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) 2014, construction delays can run projects billions over budget.

In a conference call on Sept. 19, Schneider pointed reporters to the European pressurized water reactors under construction in Finland and France. These projects are now estimated at $11 billion each, totaling about $7 billion over budget and over four times as much as the original estimates 10 years ago.

The 66 units under construction worldwide have a huge range in terms of delays. Eight units have been under construction for over 20 years, but others have a setback of only three years.

The longest delay is the Watts Bar project in Tennessee where construction began in 1972.The Tennessee Valley Authority currently predicts that the reactor will be online by December 2015 and cost as much as $4.5 billion—$2 billion more than projected in 2012.

Overly Optimistic

Schneider mentioned several reasons for the delays: poor time management, communication problems, quality control, and engineering obstacles that emerge during project development.

“All this adds up,” he said.

According to Peter Bradford—adjunct professor on Nuclear Power and public policy at Vermont Law School, former member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and former chair of the New York and Maine state utility regulatory commissions—time and budgetary discrepancies have always plagued the nuclear industry.

“This is an industry with a history of a terribly optimistic vender forecast

Construction delays and cost overruns are the primary reasons the United States stopped building new reactors in the 1980s. In the past, the industry blamed regulatory scrutiny for preventing timely builds, but a new licensing strategy has since taken the wrinkles out of this process.

“If anything the contribution of public policy has been to enable these projects,” Bradford said.

Consumers Shoulder the Risks

According to Schneider, commercial banks no longer back reactor project financing, because it’s too risky. It is for this reason that the Asian Development Bank has never financed a nuclear facility.

“Without upfront customer financing no one in the U.S. will build a new reactor,” he said.

In South Carolina and Georgia where new reactor construction is underway, the legislature arranged for electricity customers to be charged for the facilities before they even come into service. Bradford said that while such laws do produce lower final reactor costs, they shift the risk of a reactor project cancellation to consumers, who, unlike investors, don’t charge for bearing those risks.

Costly consequences can be seen in Florida, where Duke Energy scrapped their Levy County reactor project in Feb. 2014, after customers had paid over $1 billion for it under laws similar to those now in Georgia and South Carolina.

“There aren’t going to be any refunds of that money, even though the plants aren’t going to be built,” Bradford said. “If such risks were properly accounted for in Georgia and South Carolina, societal costs of those reactors would be even further above the budgeted price.”

Worldwide, about 250 reactor projects have been abandoned before completion. Over half have been in the United States. Two Bulgarian plants were under construction for 25 years until they were recently removed from the list of building projects. Another pair of reactors in Taiwan were abandoned after 10 years of construction.

In 2008 and 2009, the United States saw several proposals for new reactors, ushering in a so-called nuclear renaissance. Most of these have since been cancelled. Experts say more are likely to follow. http://m.theepochtimes.com/n3/990670-nuclear-power-costs-billions-more-than-promised/

Advertisement

October 6, 2014 - Posted by | 2 WORLD, business and costs

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: