business and costs « nuclear-news

Costs of U.S. nuclear weapons – the facts

50 Facts About U.S. Nuclear Weapons, Pak Alert Press, March 12, 2010 The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project was completed in August 1998 and resulted in the book Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940 edited by Stephen I. Schwartz. These project pages should be considered historical.

This article goes on to list the projects and costs – from 1945 – 1998
No. 1. Cost of the Manhattan Project (through August 1945): $20,000,000,000
No. 50. Estimated 1998 spending on all U.S. nuclear weapons and weapons-related programs: $35,100,000,000

50 Facts About U.S. Nuclear Weapons « Pak Alert Press

March 13, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, USA | antinuclear, nuclear secrecy, nuclear weapons | Leave a comment

Even USA’s Right Wing is Worried About Nuclear Loan Guarantees!

The Heritage Foundation Position on Loan Guarantees , The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. 12 March 2010, The Heritage Foundation has not opposed limited loan guarantees (those already authorized under the Energy Policy Act of 2005). ….. Expanding government intervention into capital markets beyond current authorizations would simply distort long-term market integrity. At a minimum, they create taxpayer liabilities, give recipients preferential treatment, and distort capital markets. Continue reading →

March 13, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, USA | antinuclear, nuclear costs, reactor | Leave a comment

Uranium One’s losses due to low uranium prices

Uranium One announces $36.5m net loss for full year 2009 , 11 Mar 2010,(Reuters) “….– Uranium One Inc (UUU.TO: Quote) posted a net loss in 2009, hurt mainly by lower realized uranium prices, ….Earnings from mine operations fell 41.2 percent to $54.6 million. The company said average realized sales prices fell 30 percent in 2009.

Shares of the Vancouver, British Columbia-based miner closed at C$2.81 Wednesday on the Toronto Stock Exchange. (Reporting by Abhiram Nandakumar in Bangalore; Editing by Maju Samuel)

March 13, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, Canada | nuclear, uranium | Leave a comment

First Uranium rescued by shareholders, from financial disaster

First Uranium shareholders provide capital lifeline Winnepedg Free Press, By: THE CANADIAN PRESS 12 March 2010, TORONTO – First Uranium Corp. (TSX:FIU) is getting a much-needed infusion of capital from a major shareholder and a new chief executive.The Toronto-based gold and uranium company had warned last month that its financial condition had been “severely compromised” by problems getting government environmental approval for a future storage site in South Africa.

First Uranium shareholders provide capital lifeline – Winnipeg Free Press

March 13, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, Canada | nuclear costs | Leave a comment

Crummy outlook for uranium prices

Outlook for Uranium, Uncommon Wisdom, by Sean Brodrick on March 11, 2010, Gold is shining … oil is heating up … so what’s up with uranium? The once white-hot metal is certainly way off its highs. In fact, the spot price of uranium recently fell to U.S.$40.50…

.Both Macquarie and UBS forecast spot prices will average$47 per pound this year, down from an average of $52 per pound in 2009. In other words: uranium is not expected to join the recovery elsewhere in the commodity space anytime soon.

March 13, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, business and costs | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear spin, uranium | Leave a comment

Even the nuclear industry itself knows that its future is dodgy

SMi’s 3rd Annual Financing Nuclear Power Conference Will Connect Experts And Executives Nuclear Street, – By April Murelio 8 March 2010,”….. -According to the World Business Academy the availability and cost of financing for new nuclear plants will depend on:

• The level and certainty of government subsidies and incentives•

*The comparative cost and performance of renewable energy sources•

The timing of capital markets’ recovery from the credit crisis•

Estimated construction costs• The structure of the target electricity market (competitive market v. more traditional, regulated cost-of-service market)

• Assessments of plants’ lifetime capacity and performance

• Resolution of the long-term waste storage problem

• Public opinion about nuclear power…

March 8, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, business and costs | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear secrecy, nuclear spin, radiation, reactor | Leave a comment

Biggest uranium miner downgraded due to failing uranium price

Cameco downgraded on weak uranium price Financial Post March 03, 2010, by Eric Lam Saskatchewan Even Cameco Corp., the biggest player in the uranium industry, cannot escape recent weaknesses in the mineral’s spot price.
Fraser Phillips, analyst with RBC Capital Markets, has downgraded Cameco Continue reading →

March 4, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, Canada | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, uranium | Leave a comment

Poor longterm trend for uranium prices

things are not exactly looking too rosy for the industry, to say the least

A Death Cross For Global Uranium StocksFNArena News – March 02 2010 , By Rudi Filapek-Vandyck A recent sector report by Canadian stockbrokers Haywood Securities has revealed that price charts for many international uranium stocks carry the so-called “Cross of Death”. This is when a shorter term trendline moves below the longer term trendline and stays beneath it. Continue reading →

March 3, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, business and costs | cancer, nuclear, uranium | Leave a comment

Nuclear power- a very risky investment

What Thomas (Steve Thomas, Professor of Energy Studies at the University of Greenwich,) describes paints a very risky picture for nuclear investment.

The State of the Nuclear Industry in Canada and Abroad – Pt 1. Enviralment by: Aizen | March 2, 2010“…while the decision on whether to order new nuclear plants will be taken on a range of considerations, it is important idea of economics behind nuclear power so it can be properly gauged against other options…. Continue reading →

March 3, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, business and costs | Leave a comment

The hidden costs of nuclear power

We know about the ever-increasing costs of building a nuclear reactor. Everyone talks about these “central”, or middle costs. But what about the hidden costs at the “front end” and the “back” end of the nuclear fuel cycle? – our theme for March 2010

February 28, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, business and costs | antinuclear, cancer, energy efficiency, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear secrecy, nuclear spin, nuclear wastes, radiation, radioactive, uranium, wastes | Leave a comment

Failing Nuclear industry trying to save itself in reactor sales to China?

Here’s how the shell game could work. If the coal industry could sell outdated, pollution-spewing, coal-fired power plants to China, could the nuclear power industry do the same thing? Could they get rid of their unresolved and unfunded decommissioning headache with the same trick?

(USA) How Do You Say “Oh Crap!” in Chinese?, THE HUFFINGTON POST, Alexia Parks, February 22, 2010 China is picking up the worst of American technology along with its best. For example, to keep up with U.S. consumer demand, China has bought and imported the worst of our outdated, pollution-spewing, coal-fired power plants. American coal power plant owners made out like bandits in the sale and transfer of outdated technology. Under-regulated, their Chinese counterparts have made millions on their rapid manufacture of products for the U.S. market…………. Continue reading →

February 23, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, China | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear secrecy, nuclear spin, nuclear weapons | Leave a comment

How the nuclear lobby buys politicians and media

$600 Million Lipstick for a Dead Radioactive Pig THE HUFFINGTON POST, Harvey Wasserman February 22, 2010The mystery has been solved.Where is this “new reactor renaissance” coming from?There has been no deep, thoughtful re-making or re-evaluation of atomic technology. No solution to the nuke waste problem. No making reactors economically sound. No private insurance against radioactive disasters by terror or error. No grassroots citizens now desperate to live near fragile containment domes and outtake pipes spewing radioactive tritium at 27 US reactors.No, nothing about atomic energy has really changed.Except this: $645 million spent on lobbying and media manipulation. Continue reading →

February 23, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, spinbuster, USA | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear spin | Leave a comment

Public insurance essential for nuclear industry to survive

The Other Nuclear Power Subsidy – A Liability Cap, ThePopTort 19 Feb 2010 “…. loan guarantees aren’t the only potential subsidy from which this industry benefits. Since the 1950s, when it passed the Price Anderson Act, Congress put a cap on the liability of the nuclear industry in the event of a major accident. So if there’s anything like, say, the Chernobyl disaster (the 1986 accident in the Ukraine where the containment structure couldn’t hold an explosion causing lethal radiation to spill out killing thousands, harming hundreds of thousands and rendering hundreds of square miles uninhabitable), the industry won’t be responsible beyond a relatively small amount. Taxpayers will.

In other words, if the nuclear power industry were fully responsible for the health and safety risks of these plants, the industry wouldn’t exist……. Continue reading →

February 20, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, USA | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear wastes, radioactive, reactor, reactors | Leave a comment

Obama’s resuscitation of nuclear industry is bound to fail

Obama’s Nuclear Option – Amy Goodman Truthdig 16 Feb 2010
“……….Obama’s publicly financed resuscitation of the nuclear power industry in the U.S. is bound to fail, another taxpayer bailout waiting to happen.Opponents of the plan, which includes a tripling of existing nuclear plant construction-loan guarantees to $54.5 billion, span the ideological spectrum. Continue reading →

February 18, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, climate change, USA | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear wastes, radioactive, renewables | Leave a comment

Australia rules out nuclear power

To meet its climate goals, Australia shouldn’t rely on either nuclear power or fossil fuels, Hepburn said. Instead the country should aggressively conserve energy and use more renewable power.

Rudd Rules Out Introducing Nuclear Power in Australia BusinessWeek By Ben Sharples and Stuart BiggsFebruary 17, 2010, (Bloomberg) — Australia, which holds the world’s biggest known uranium resources, has ruled out introducing nuclear power to the country and instead will pursue other low- carbon energy options, including ‘clean’ coal. “Australia has multiple other energy sources and we will not be heading in the direction of civil nuclear power,” Prime Minister Kevin Rudd told reporters in Canberra today……….Australia, the world’s biggest coal producer, will explore technologies including CCS, in which the nation leads the world, Rudd said………… Continue reading →

February 18, 2010 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | antinuclear, AUSTRALIA, energy efficiency, nuclear, renewable energy, renewables | Leave a comment