nuclear-news

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

Costly delays in fixing nuclear plant

nuclear-costsPoint Lepreau refurbishment 9 months late
September 2, 2009  ATCBC News

The troubled $1.4-billion refurbishment of the Point Lepreau nuclear reactor is suffering another setback, pushing the massive project nine months behind schedule, CBC News has learned.

Sources inside NB Power say the refurbishment of the reactor is being stalled because of problems with the installation of the plant’s new calandria tubes…………

Point Lepreau is the first Candu-6 reactor to undergo a complete gutting and rebuild. It was intended to be a showcase for AECL to display its ability to revive the 1980s-era reactors.

When the refurbishment project started, it was supposed to last 18 months and have the reactor back on line in October 2010

However, crews at Point Lepreau struggled to deconstruct the old reactor, finally finishing that stage in late July, almost eight months behind schedule.

NB Power has acknowledged delays at Point Lepreau will cost $20 million a month.

Point Lepreau refurbishment 9 months late

September 3, 2009 Posted by | 1, business and costs, Canada | , , , | Leave a comment

Finland’s nuclear plant: more delays, cost overruns

More Delays at Finnish Nuclear Plant
The New York Times. September 2, 2009, By James Kanter
AREVA a French nuclear construction company, said this week that its project to build the world’s most powerful reactor remained mired in delays and was over-budget by 2.3 billion euros, or about $3.3 billion.

The price tag of the plant in Olkiluoto, Finland — the first of a fleet of so-called evolutionary power reactors that Areva foresees building in coming years — was about $4.3 billion in 2003 and costs have steadily increased.

The reactor was meant to have gone online early this summer but Areva no longer is committing to any dates for its completion. Patrice Lambert de Diesbach, an energy analyst with CM-CIC Securities in Paris, said the latest developments were “bad news” for Areva and “should be sanctioned by the market.”

The problems faced by Areva are important a time when the nuclear power industry is promising to build safer and more reliable reactors than during the last building boom in the 1960s and early 1970s. …………………………

So far there are few signs of a breakthrough in Finland.

Areva said this week that it would not begin work on the final stages of the reactor until the Finnish utility agreed to a new set of proposals and modifications.

More Delays at Finnish Nuclear Plant – Green Inc. Blog – NYTimes.com

September 3, 2009 Posted by | 1, business and costs, Finland | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Paladin loss, as uranium price slips

Money Sept 2 09
…….- Paladin’s loss was greater than the broker expected, given greater ramp-up and exploration costs. With cashflow tight Paladin has been forced to draw down on its debt facility although first half FY10 inventory sales mean it’s just a bridging deal.

Paladin’s realised uranium price was also lower than expected given a higher level of spot over contract sales. As the U price continues to drift and the Kayakelera ramp-up remains slow, the broker sees no positive catalysts. Hold retained on slightly lower earnings forecasts.

FN Arena Broker Call Headlines – 2 Sep 2009

September 3, 2009 Posted by | 1, 2 WORLD, business and costs | , , , , | Leave a comment

AREVA going to court over Finland nuclear reactor runaway costs

areva-medusa1Areva’s half-year results yesterday night brought  new information about the Olkiluoto-3 EPR nuclear fiasco:

– The cost-overrun is now estimated at 2.3 billion EUR, while the original price offered to decision makers back in 2002 was 2.5 billion, and price contracted in 2005 was 3.2 billion EUR. The estimated final cost at the moment thus reached 5.5 billion EUR! (And there is still long way to go, with construction only half-way through!)

– Areva is taking its Finnish customer, TVO, to arbitrary court to claim those additional costs from them, although it was a fixed price, turn-key contract (a good lesson for future Areva customers about its habits).

– Areva now even threats to suspend construction works until TVO agrees to modified contracts.
Their original press package that inludes recorded audio and detailed presentation (58 slides) can be found here:
http://www.areva.com/servlet/finance-en.html

September 2, 2009 Posted by | business and costs, Finland | , , , , , | Leave a comment

South Africa’s nuclear company Eskom makes huge loss

Corporate Toughest of times for Eskom
World Nuclear News28 August 2009
Eskom, South Africa’s state-owned utility, has reported a record annual loss and has warned of a funding gap for an expansion program needed to prevent a repeat of the blackouts the country experienced in 2008.

The company, which supplies about 95% of South Africa’s electricity and more than 60% of Africa’s, reported a loss of 9.7 billion rand ($1.25 billion) for the year ended 31 March. In the previous year, Eskom made a loss of 210 million rand ($27 million)………….

World Nuclear News

September 2, 2009 Posted by | 1, business and costs, South Africa | , , , , | Leave a comment

Bulgaria: right wing opposition to nuclear plant

Bulgaria Right-Wingers Call for Halt of Nuclear Plant Plan
novinite.com  September 1, 2009,

Bulgaria’s biggest right-wing party has reiterated its calls on the new government to give up the planned Belene project as it is still undecided whether to scrap or push ahead the construction of the multi-billion nuclear power plant.

“The price tag of the nuclear power plant at the Danube river town will stand at no less than EUR 10 B,” Martin Dimitrov, leader of the Union of Democratic Forces (UDF), said at a press conference on Tuesday.

According to him Belene nuclear power plant will not benefit local consumers, which makes it completely useless.

“Freezing the project is no solution to the problem,” Dimitrov added.

UDF leadership has repeatedly warned that the construction of the plant will translate into a BGN 1300 tax burden for each Bulgarian taxpayer, electricity hikes for decades on end, outdated and dubious Russian nuke units…………….

…………According to reports and non-governmental organizations RWE AG’s plan to expand in Bulgaria’s nuclear market is on the brink of collapse because financing for the project couldn’t be obtained.

Bulgaria: Bulgaria Right-Wingers Call for Halt of Nuclear Plant Plan – Novinite.com – Sofia News Agency

September 2, 2009 Posted by | 1, business and costs, EUROPE | , , | Leave a comment

Financial crisis hurts some Eastern Europe nuclear plans

Financial crisis hurts some Eastern Europe nuclear plans

By Anna Mudeva

SOFIA (Reuters) 1 Sept 09

– Domestic political squabbles, funding woes and other hurdles threaten a number of nuclear power plant projects in central and southeast Europe

…………..Analysts say the global economic crisis has made banks reluctant to provide loans for nuclear plants, which cost around 3 billion euros ($4.30 billion) per 1,000 megawatt reactor, for a pay-off that takes decades.

Equipment suppliers and engineering companies are also unwilling to give fixed price tags during volatile times, which makes planning and calculation of costs difficult.

September 2, 2009 Posted by | 1, business and costs, EUROPE | , , | Leave a comment

Nuclear energy on a downward trend: no renaissance in sight

graph-downwardStudy shows: Nuclear energy on downward trend worldwide
Federal Ministry for Nuclear safety Germany,
28 August 09

Minister Gabriel:
There is no renaissance of nuclear energyThe share of nuclear energy in worldwide energy consumption is marginal and has been declining for several years. This is revealed in a study by independent experts of the energy and nuclear sector which was published by the Federal Environment Ministry today. As Federal Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said:

 “The renaissance of nuclear energy, much trumpeted by its supporters, is not taking place. The only thing frequently revived is the announcement. The study shows: the number of old nuclear power plants which are decommissioned worldwide is greater than the number of new ones taking up operation. Available resources, engineering performance and funds are not even enough to stop the downward trend, let alone increase the number of reactors. All the facts are in favour of phasing out this technology while at the same time expanding the use of renewable energies and energy efficiency, as this is a promising option for the future.”

The authors of the study, headed by Mycle Schneider, Paris, collected crucial quantitative and qualitative facts on nuclear power plants which are in operation, being built or planned today and assess the economic viability of old and new nuclear power plants.

At the time of going to press, 1 August 2009, there were only 435 reactors in operation worldwide, which is nine less than in 2002. Nuclear energy accounts for only about 5.5 % of worldwide commercial primary energy consumption and only around 2 % of worldwide final energy consumption – and consumption has been steadily declining for years.

The authors also found out that the number of nuclear power plants will decrease worldwide over the next decades. Between 2015 and 2025 the capacity of nuclear power plants is expected to sink compared to today’s output……………….

Current and planned building projects of the nuclear industry are becoming increasingly expensive. The EPR, for example, the flagship of the world’s largest manufacturer of reactors, AREVA NP, which is currently in construction in Olkiluoto in Finland, has so far exceeded planned costs by at least 55 %.

BMU – English – Current Press Releases – Press Release No. 278/09 as of 27.08.2009: Study shows: Nuclear energy on downward trend worldwide

August 31, 2009 Posted by | 1, 2 WORLD, business and costs | , , , , | Leave a comment

Nuclear industry declining world-wide

Nuclear decline set to continue, says report
Nuclear Engineering 27 August 2009
Nuclear will continue to decline according to a new report. At this point there is no obvious sign that the international nuclear industry could turn the decline into a promising future, it says. Continue reading →

August 28, 2009 Posted by | 1, 2 WORLD, business and costs | , , , , | Leave a comment

Nuclear energy a fading dream

Energy dream fades in New Brunswick

  By Megan O’Toole, Canwest News ServiceAugust 27, 2009

“……………The $1.4-billion refurbishment of New Brunswick’s Point Lepreau nuclear generating station, home to the first Candu 6 reactor in the world, was undertaken with the mantra “on time and on budget” as its driving force. But unforeseen delays and cost overruns have since plagued to the project–already half a year behind schedule–with ratepayers on the hook for replacement power costs. Continue reading →

August 28, 2009 Posted by | 1, business and costs, Canada | , , | Leave a comment

Uranium price “flat”

Flat outlook for uranium spot prices

Australian Mining 26 August 2009 | by Michael Mills

Equity research company Resource Capital Research (RCR) said it is not expecting any significant changes to uranium spot prices in the near term.

The uranium spot price is currently trading at US$47.50 per pound, down 8% from the US$52 three months ago.

At the end of December 2008, the prices were US$52.50 per pound.

…………. The long term contract uranium price is US$65.00 per pound, which is down from US$70 per pound price at December 2008.

http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/Article/Flat-outlook-for-uranium-spot-prices/495758.aspx

August 27, 2009 Posted by | business and costs | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Malaysia: Nuclear Energy Costly and Unsafe

Costly and unsafe – opinion from Malaysia
August 16, 2009
The threat of another Chernobyl and the question of where to dump the waste are key arguments against nuclear power.AS mankind begins to come to terms with the fact that oil will run out in the not-too-distant future, nuclear power advocates trumpet a solution that is “clean, efficient, safe and, in some cases, environmentally friendly.

………………..Elizabeth Wong, the Selangor Exco for Tourism, Consumer Affairs and the Environment, says nuclear energy is not a safe option for the future.

“Contrary to the claims of the nuclear industry and the federal government, nuclear energy is neither safe nor inexpensive. It is also not a solution to climate change. Nuclear power usage has environmental, health, and security risks that make it an undesirable substitute for fossil fuels.

Costly and unsafe

August 17, 2009 Posted by | 1, ASIA, business and costs | , , , | Leave a comment

Nuclear costs spell the dying of this industry?

Nuclear power’s new debate: cost

Issues of safety and waste make way for a focus on funding.

By Mark Clayton |  Staff Writer for The Christian Science Monitor/ August 13, 2009

“…………a new wave of concern is rising – not over traditional anxieties such as radioactive waste or weapons proliferation – but about the mammoth financial cost of nuclear power and who will bear it.

The big hurdle for Calvert Cliffs III and at least 21 other nuclear power reactors now in the US development pipeline is all about money – finding the billions in loans to build them. And the key to getting those loans is winning federal guarantees to back them.

Today, the US has 104 nuclear reactors, providing about 20 percent of the nation’s power. No new nuclear plants have been ordered in the US since 1978. This is not because of protestors, but because of a lack of investor funding and Wall Street remembering the ghosts of nuclear power’s past – massive construction cost overruns, utility defaults, and bankruptcies. Yet these no longer seem to haunt the nuclear industry or its supporters.

……………….“Despite industry efforts to frame nuclear energy as the cheapest option, the reality is that nuclear power’s very survival has required large and continuous government support,” writes Doug Koplow, president of the Boston energy consulting company Earth Track, in a recent analysis of public subsidies for nuclear power. Mr. Koplow tracks $178 billion in public subsidies for nuclear energy for the period from 1947 to 1999. Others have reached similar figures.

ALTOGETHER, NUCLEAR-INDUSTRY BAILOUTS in the 1970s and ’80s cost taxpayers and ratepayers in excess of $300 billion in 2006 dollars, according to three independent studies cited in a new nuclear-cost study by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

New guarantees in coming years could also leave US taxpayers picking up the tab if nuclear utilities defaulted on their loans. In 2008, the Government Accountability Office said the average risk of default on Department of Energy guarantees was about 50 percent. The Congressional Budget Office projected that default rates would be very high – well above 50 percent.”

On that basis, the potential risk exposure to US taxpayers from federally guaranteed nuclear loans would be $360 billion to $1.6 trillion, depending on the number of power reactors built, the Union of Concerned Scientists’ study found.

http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/08/13/nuclear-power%E2%80%99s-new-debate-cost/

August 14, 2009 Posted by | business and costs, USA | , , | Leave a comment

TVA reduces plans for Alabama nuclear plant to 1 reactor, instead of the 4 originally planned

TVA reduces plans for Alabama nuclear plant to one reactor instead of the 4 originally planned
by Duncan Mansfield NOXVILLE, Tenn. 7 August 09 — The Tennessee Valley Authority, faced with falling electric sales and rising costs from cleaning up a massive coal ash spill in Tennessee, on Friday trimmed plans for a potential four-unit nuclear plant in northeast Alabama to one reactor.

The nation’s largest public utility, which two years ago had positioned itself as a leader in this country’s so-called “nuclear renaissance,” said it would prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement to consider a single reactor for its unfinished Bellefonte site near Scottsboro, Ala.

That single unit might be one of the two advanced Westinghouse AP1000 reactors for which TVA has already applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a combined construction and operating license. Or it might be one of the two incomplete reactors that have been mothballed at the site since 1988……………

….TVA had plans in the 1960s and 1970s for as many as 17 reactors, but scrapped most of them because of cost and lack of power demand.

TVA reduces plans for Alabama nuclear plant to 1 reactor, instead of the 4 originally planned

August 8, 2009 Posted by | 1, business and costs, USA | , , , , | Leave a comment

Nuclear power is dangerous and too expensive to build

delaware online Frieda Berryhill, 6 August 09 “……….First, companies will not build nuclear power plants without the protection of the Price-Anderson Act which provides taxpayer compensation in case of an accident since no company in the world will insure them.

Price-Anderson, however, only provides $500 million when the latest government report, states that depending on the severity of the accident, damages could run in the billions. Second, after 50 years of operation there is still the waste problem. Energy Secretary Steven Chu appeared before the House lawmakers on June 3 and declared the planned Yucca Mountain repository “dead.”……………..

since 2005, cost estimates for building a new nuclear reactor have more then tripled. Nuclear energy, once declared to be “too cheap to meter,” is now too expensive to pursue.

Nuclear power is dangerous and too expensive to build | Delawareonline.com | The News Journal

August 6, 2009 Posted by | business and costs, USA | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »