Revival of the nuclear industry too costly

(USA) Fortunately, there are viable alternatives to nuclear power, including efficiency, wind, biomass and geothermal, which are not only more environmentally friendly and cheaper, but could be built much more quickly and at much lower risk to investors and taxpayers. And recent changes in the long-term outlook for U.S. natural gas supplies make nuclear power look even more uneconomical.

Nuclear Power: Too Costly to Revive Is nuclear power a solution we can afford? The short answer is no.

GreenTech Media Elliott Negin 01 21 10

“…..Even discounting nuclear power’s security and safety problems, the cost of construction could be the industry’s Achilles’ heel…….the industry has benefited from considerable federal and state government subsidies that mask the true cost of the technology, including staggering capital costs and the risk of catastrophic accidents, by shifting these burdens onto taxpayers and ratepayers. The industry is now seeking to shift even more costs and risks onto the public as part of pending climate and energy legislation. In 2005, Congress authorized $60 billion in loan guarantees for new energy technologies. Of that amount, the Department of Energy (DOE) allocated $18.5 billion for new nuclear plants. But the industry wants more — a lot more. The Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s lobbying arm, says it needs a “permanent financing platform” to provide the industry a minimum of $100 billion in additional loan guarantees on top of the billions it already has been allocated. Continue reading →

January 22, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, USA | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear spin | 1 Comment