The nuclear option [Areva]
The nuclear option – AREVA
appomattox’s posterous 2 July 09 “………………………………”Though Niger is the fourth-largest producer of uranium in the world, it sees almost none of the wealth. Because of a long-standing contract, the French consortium* pays only 5.5 percent of its revenue in taxes, and most of it goes to subsidize elites in the dusty capital of Niamey. Almost three-quarters of the people cannot read, and those who survive to the age of forty-five are living on statistically borrowed time. Niger was recently named the most deprived country on earth by the United Nations, ranked dead last among the world’s sovereign nations on a comprehensive scale called the Human Development Index, which charts life expectancy, education, and standard of living…””Uranium: War, Energy, and the Rock that Shaped the World,” by Tom Zoellne……………..…………..President Nicolas Sarkozy has been active in trumpeting his country’s know-how to win French companies new business abroad…Areva needs between eight and 10 billion euros by 2012 to fund its investment program, notably to develop its third-generation EPR nuclear reactor. It also needs an estimated two billion euros to buy out Siemens’ stake in Areva NP, its reactor subsidiary.” ………………….
…………..Areva needs between eight billion and 10 billion euros (11.2 billion and 14.0 billion dollars) by 2012 to fund its investment program, notably to develop its third-generation EPR nuclear reactor. The company also needs an estimated two billion euros to buy out Siemens’ stake in Areva NP, its reactor subsidiary.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i7L4s3lyWXxYV0rTTNpBou6r7Jeg
In other words, it appears Areva is in deep financial doings, and ownership of the company is being diluted from a state-run operation to privatization – a movement that seems to annoy the French government.While financial doings are deep (albeit perhaps not troublesome, depending on the availability of investors), the climate in Africa poses some problems:
“After a visit in late March from French President Nicholas Sarkozy to Niger, residents in the uranium-exporting desert country continue questioning whether AREVA, a company primarily owned by the French government, will honour its promise to protect communities from mining hazards.” On the other side of that coin, Areva faces problems with water shortages in its mining and milling processes.
The nuclear option [Areva]: Virginia Business – News – appomattox’s posterous
France imports UK electricity as plants shut
July 3, 2009 France imports UK electricity as plants shut TIMESONLINE
France is being forced to import electricity from Britain to cope with a summer heatwave that has helped to put a third of its nuclear power stations out of action.
With temperatures across much of France surging above 30C this week, EDF’s reactors are generating the lowest level of electricity in six years, forcing the state-owned utility to turn to Britain for additional capacity.
Fourteen of France’s 19 nuclear power stations are located inland and use river water rather than seawater for cooling. When water temperatures rise, EDF is forced to shut down the reactors to prevent their casings from exceeding 50C.
Heatwaves can crimp nuclear power output across Europe
Heatwaves can crimp power output across Europe LONDON, June 30 (Reuters) – Forecasts for warmer temperatures this week in parts of Europe raise the possibility of summer heat waves that can heavily strain the ability of the energy sector to keep supplies flowing.
— French temperatures have been at above 30 degrees Centigrade in some regions and are expected to remain at those levels until the end of the week. Forecasts show tempertures will dip by around 5 degrees next week.
— France, which relies on atomic power plants for 80 percent of its electricity, is especially vulnerable to heat waves. With 14 of its 19 nuclear plants located by rivers, rising temperatures over a longer period of time can trigger cooling problems due to local laws that prevent plants from discharging water in rivers above certain temperature levels.
— Lower output from reactors located near rivers because of cooling problems usually coincides with surging demand as people crank up air conditioners during the summer………………………
GERMANY
— Temperatures in Germany are running between 26 and 31 degrees Centigrade……………….- Some of the plants are on small rivers, which means the ability to draw cooling water from the rivers is reduced when water levels decline in heatwaves.
Heatwaves can crimp power output across Europe | Markets | Markets News | Reuters
GODZILLA II
GODZILLA II San Francisco Chronicle by Peter Coyote 28 June 09 “………………………………….it is not the production of electricity from nuclear plants which is so carbon intensive, but the building of them. The concrete alone, one of the most carbon-producing products on earth, the heating of water, the heavy equipment……………
……………..the coal and oil industries are buying into power companies. They want to own it all. They know that regulatory difficulties and expense and public fears will do plenty to slow down the nuclear build-up, leaving them plenty of time to sell their product………….
………..Atomic reactors are horrendously expensive. On a level playing field they, cannot possibly compete with even renewables. If they were so safe, why can they not get private liability insurance? The Price-Anderson Act turned their insurance over to the Federal Government (the tax-payer) and limits the sizes of claims that homeowners and citizens can receive. They cannot raise, private funding for new construction or, after a half-century, have they come one iota closer to a solution for their high-level waste problems. No one has figured out how to protect them from terrorist attacks, and in every staged mock raid, the “terrorists” have overwhelmed the nuclear power plant security……………………………..the health impacts of atomic reactors. They emit not only x-rays and gamma rays, but also particulate emissions involving alpha and beta particles. Why is it that after 50 years there is still no systematic monitoring regimen for actually tracking the human beings that live in areas downwind from atomic reactors. San Francisco’s own Dr. John Gofman, the first chief health researcher for the Atomic Energy Commission, concluded in the late 1960s that “normal” emissions from nuclear plants would kill thousands of Americans yearly, with no catastrophe required. “
Olkiluoto in Finland
EPR’s problems run in the nuclear family
Greenpeace 27 June 09 “…………………………….Areva’s supposedly state-of-the-art, third-generation European Pressurized Reactor.
To recap, currently just two EPRs are being built in the world right now – one at Olkiluoto in Finland and one in Flamanville in France. Both have been beset by long-running construction problems, schedule and cost overruns, and all-round hilarious ineptitude and controversy.
The predecessor of the EPR, its parent if you like, was the Framatome N4 of which France has four. The N4 had problems of its own which sound all too familiar………………..
Design-related problems? Delays in commissioning? Cracked welding? N4 and EPR could be identical twin brothers, not father and son. Has nothing been learned? Nothing at all? We’ve heard this story before. Areva are remaking their own disaster movie.
Renewable Energy Cheaper Than Nuclear Power
Renewable Energy Cheaper Than Nuclear Power Energy Matters 22 June 09 Nuclear power has been increasingly hailed by lobbyists as a source of clean, cheap and safe power; but cost blowouts in the construction and maintenance of new nuclear plants, along with their need for massive amounts of water and continuing radioactive waste storage issues, is again making renewable energy look to be the only really viable option to power our future.
According to a recent study by economist Dr. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School, the cost of electricity generated by new nuclear reactors would be (USD) 12-20 cents per kilowatt hour, whereas increased energy efficiency and renewable energy sourced power would cost around 6 cents per kilowatt hour.
This translates to USD $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors.
Projected construction and maintenance costs for nuclear plants have quadrupled since the start of the nuclear renaissance in 2000. The required massive subsidies from taxpayers and ratepayers would not change the real cost of nuclear reactors, they would just shift the risks to the public, according to the report.
Renewable Energy Cheaper Than Nuclear Power : Renewable Energy News
Nuclear renaissance hits trouble
Nuclear renaissance hits trouble
James Kanter The Age June 21, 2009 The cracks are showing in the latest atomic showpiece, writes James Kanter.AS THE world fights climate change by seeking cleaner sources of energy, governments would do well to consider this cautionary tale of a new-generation nuclear reactor site.The massive power plant under construction on the Finnish island of Olkiluoto was supposed to be the showpiece of a nuclear renaissance. The most powerful reactor built to date, its modular design was supposed to make it faster and cheaper to build. And it was supposed to be safer, too.But after four years of construction and thousands of defects and deficiencies, the reactor’s €3 billion price tag ($A5.2 billion) has climbed at least 50 per cent. And while it was meant to be finished this northern summer, Areva, the French company building it, is no longer willing to say when it will go online……………………….Areva has acknowledged that the cost of a new reactor today would be as much as €6 billion, double the price offered to the Finns. Areva announced a steep drop in earnings last year, which it blamed mostly on mounting losses from the project.
In addition, nuclear safety inspectors in France have found cracks in the concrete base and steel reinforcements in the wrong places at the site in Flamanville. They also warned the utility building the reactor that welders working on the steel container were not properly qualified.
On top of such problems come the recession, weaker energy demand, tight credit and uncertainty over future policies, said Caren Byrd, an executive director at the global utility and power group at Morgan Stanley in New York.
“The warning lights now are flashing more brightly than just a year ago about the cost of new nuclear,” she said.
Open your wallet: Electric rates already moving higher to finance new nuclear power
Open your wallet: Electric rates already moving higher to finance new nuclear powerBy: Washington Post Examiner MARK WILLIAMSAssociated Press 06/21/09 8:30 PM EDTCOLUMBUS, OHIO — A ghost from the nuclear industry’s early years has reappeared.It is not public apprehension about safety or disposal issues this time, but the staggering cost of building nuclear reactors.A wave of new reactors now in the works is intended to solve at least part of the nation’s energy problems as it attempts to shift away from fossil fuels. But cost is likely to plague every upcoming nuclear project.This month in Missouri the first of the next generation reactors was put on hold because of the $6 billion price tag.Whether or not AmerenUE’s Missouri reactor was a casualty of the current economic climate, the legal fight in several states shows how big the cost hurdle will be.Some states have altered laws so that consumers begin footing the bill now, even before construction begins. Missouri did not…………………………………………cost, critics say, is a too great and there are better ways to power homes.
“It is so phenomenally costly that it crowds out capital needed for energy efficiency and renewable energy,” said Mark Haim of Missourians for Safe Energy, a group that has been fighting Ameren’s plans.
Yet Republican lawmakers in Washington want more government funding for nuclear power……………………
The nuclear energy industry lobbied hard for $50 billion worth of federal loan guarantees, but that was stripped from the stimulus bill.
So states are revamping laws to help raise money………………………
Utilities say allowing them to charge consumers before reactors are built, rather than after, will save hundreds of millions in financing costs, which would also have to be paid by consumers.
In Georgia, customers of Georgia Power, a subsidiary of the Southern Co., will pay $1.30 extra a month beginning in 2011. However, to cover the cost of two new nuclear reactors that will cost $14 billion, consumers will be paying an extra $9.10 a month by 2017.
Because the utility is allowed to collect money before the plants are on line, rates will increase by 9 percent, compared with the 12 percent they would jump if rates were raised only after completion, the company said.
Funds to shut nuclear plants fall short
Funds to shut nuclear plants fall short B y DAVE GRAM and FRANK BASS – Google News 17 June 09 VERNON, Vt. (AP) — The companies that own almost half the nation’s nuclear reactors are not setting aside enough money to dismantle them, and many may sit idle for decades and pose safety and security risks as a result, an Associated Press investigation has found……………………………..
At 19 nuclear plants, owners have won approval to idle reactors for as long as 60 years, presumably enough time to allow investments to recover and eventually pay for dismantling the plants and removing radioactive material.
But mothballing reactors or shutting them down inadequately could pose dangerous health, environmental or security problems. In the worst cases, generally considered unlikely, risks include radioactive waste leaking from idled plants into groundwater, airborne releases or a terrorist attack.
During the past two years, estimates of dismantling costs have soared by more than $4.6 billion because rising energy and labor costs, while the investment funds that are supposed to pay for shutting plants down have lost $4.4 billion in the battered stock market…………………………..some analysts worry the utility companies that own nuclear plants might not even exist in six decades.”Our concern is that they’ll just walk away from it,” said Jim Riccio, a Greenpeace nuclear policy analyst. “It’s like a sitting time bomb………………………………….Plant operators appear to benefit from NRC rules that don’t require them to set aside money to store old nuclear fuel, demolish buildings, or return the plant sites to pristine states. Although some states require a full site restoration, the federal government does not.
The Associated Press: AP IMPACT: Funds to shut nuclear plants fall short
“New” Nuclear Reactors, Same Old Story
“New” Nuclear Reactors, Same Old Story Peak Energy 16 June 09 AMory Lovins has a look at various new forms of nuclear power being touted as the next big thing – “…………
…………on closer examination, the two kinds most often promoted—Integral Fast Reactors (IFRs) and thorium reactors4—reveal no economic, environmental, or security rationale,…………………………
Integrated Fast Reactors (IFRs) – ……………Fast reactors were first offered as a way to make more plutonium to augment and ultimately replace scarce uranium. Now that uranium and enrichment are known to get cheaper while reprocessing, cleanup, and nonproliferation get costlier—destroying the economic rationale—IFRs have been rebranded as a way to destroy the plutonium (and similar transuranic elements) in long-lived radioactive waste. Two or three redesigned IFRs could in principle fission the plutonium produced by each four LWRs without making more net plutonium. However, most LWRs will have retired before even one commercial-size IFR could be built; LWRs won’t be replaced with more LWRs because they’re grossly uncompetitive; and IFRs with their fuel cycle would cost even more and probably be less reliable………………………..
Thorium reactors………………..thorium can’t fuel a reactor by itself: rather, a uranium- or plutoniumfueled reactor can convert thorium-232 into fissionable (and plutonium-like, highly bomb-usable) uranium-233. Thorium’s proliferation,9 waste, safety, and cost problems differ only in detail from uranium’s…………
any new type of reactor would probably cost even more than today’s models: even if the nuclear part of a new plant were free, the rest—two-thirds of its capital cost—would still be grossly uncompetitive with any efficiency and most renewables, sending out a kilowatt-hour for ~9–13¢/kWh instead of new LWRs’ ~12–18+¢. In contrast, the average U.S. windfarm completed in 2007 sold its power (net of a 1¢/ kWh subsidy that’s a small fraction of nuclear subsidies) for 4.5¢/kWh. Add ~0.4¢ to make it dispatchable whether the wind is blowing or not and you get under a nickel delivered to the grid.Most other renewables also beat new thermal power plants too, cogeneration is often comparable or cheaper, and efficiency is cheaper than just running any nuclear- or fossil-fueled plant. Obviously these options would also easily beat proposed fusion reactors that are sometimes claimed to be comparable to today’s fission reactors in size and cost……………………….
Small reactors……………………….the whole nuclear business will complete its slow death of an incurable attack of market forces. Meanwhile, the rest of us shouldn’t be distracted from getting on with the winning investments that make sense, make money, and really do solve the energy, climate, and proliferation problems, led by business for profit.
Going Nuclear: Is France Really the Example to Follow?
* June 15, 2009, 2:20 PM ETGoing Nuclear: Is France Really the Example to Follow? The Wall Street Journal, by Keith johnson “…………………..
One of the biggest potential hurdles to the Republican Party’s newfound love of nuclear power is that in France, the government is nearly inseparable from its energy industry. The biggest power company, Electricite de France, is state-owned. Nuclear-engineering groups like Areva are extensions of government industrial policy.
That cozy relationship clears away many of the obstacles facing nuclear power—especially financing—
Going Nuclear: Is France Really the Example to Follow? – Environmental Capital – WSJ
Russia says bank problems delaying Iran nuclear plant
Russia says bank problems delaying Iran nuclear plant
Washington, 10 June (WashingtonTV)—In an interview with the Interfax news agency published on Wednesday, the head of Russia’s nuclear contractor, Atomstroiexport, said that the completion of Iran’s first nuclear power plant was being delayed by Russian banks refusing to work with Tehran.
The state-owned Atomostroiexport is building the nuclear power plant in the southwestern Iranian city of Bushehr, along the Persian Gulf. The project has experienced numerous delays, including some linked to disagreements over payment terms.
“The problems with financing exist because not all Russian banks are ready to work with Iran, and we have to find alternative options,” Atomstroiexport head, Dan Belenky, told Interfax, according to AFP.
http://televisionwashington.com/floater_article1.aspx?lang=en&t=2&id=11149
AECL worried about Ont. nuclear cost overruns
AECL worried about Ont. nuclear cost overrunsUpdated:
Tue Jun. 09 2009 8:56:31 PMctvtoronto.caAs Ontario comes close to deciding who it will pay $20 billion to build two new nuclear reactors, the Canadian bidder is already worried that it will face large cost overruns.The warnings are contained in the secret documents left by a former member of Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt’s staff at CTV’s Ottawa bureau recently.In the documents is a page dealing with the bid by Atomic Energy Canada Ltd. (AECL), which hopes to win the contract. On that page is the following statement: “… There is the risk there could be large cost overruns.”……..
….The last nuclear plant constructed in Ontario was the Darlington project, which went over-budget by about $15 billion when it was finally opened nearly 20 years ago. Ontario’s hydro customers are still playing off that debt.
Final Nail in Nukes’ Coffin?
Final Nail in Nukes’ Coffin? nj.com by Bill Wolfe June 06, 2009 Huge cost overruns, construction delays, and subsidies doom nuke renaissance – “Things have not gone as planned” In a devastating story, the New York Times Business page lands what could be a knockout blow to the nuclear industry’s attempt to revive nuclear power. Nuke industry PR has argued that new “safe” and “cost effective” engineering designs have solved the safety and economic issues, while the global warming crisis warrants a huge expansion. But the Times story destroys those myths, on purely economic grounds: In Finland, Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble Cost Overruns at Finland Reactor Hold Lessons – NYTimes.com
At the same time construction costs are escalating, the industry is seeking even more subsidies by taxpayers and electric rate-payers.
The Times story is a huge warning to the Obama energy planners and to State level public utility regulators and policy makers.
Would NJ Legislators and/or the BPU allow electric consumers to get stuck with footing the bill for a failed technology?……………………..
Any move by NJ BPU to allow rate increases to subsidize nuclear construction risks would be a political nightmare.
Finally, would private investors ignore “warning lights” and take on investment risks under current (and projected) market and regulatory conditions?……………………….
“On top of such problems come the recession, weaker energy demand, tight credit and uncertainty over future policies, said Caren Byrd, an executive director of the global utility and power group at Morgan Stanley in New York.
“The warning lights now are flashing more brightly than just a year ago about the cost of new nuclear,” she said.”
Surprising Green Energy Investment Trends Found Worldwide
Surprising Green Energy Investment Trends Found Worldwide ScienceDaily (June 7, 2009) — Some $155 billion was invested in 2008 in clean energy companies and projects worldwide, not including large hydro, a new report says……………….
The 2008 investment is more than a four-fold increase since 2004 according to Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment 2009, prepared for the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Sustainable Energy Finance Initiative by global information provider New Energy Finance.
Extremely difficult financial market conditions prevailed during 2008 as a result of the global economic crisis.
Nevertheless investment in clean energy topped 2007’s record investments by 5% in large part as a result of China, Brazil and other emerging economies.
-
Archives
- June 2026 (221)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
Heatwaves can crimp power output across Europe LONDON, June 30 (Reuters) – Forecasts for warmer temperatures this week in parts of Europe raise the possibility of summer heat waves that can heavily strain the ability of the energy sector to keep supplies flowing.
AECL worried about Ont. nuclear cost overrunsUpdated:
Final Nail in Nukes’ Coffin? nj.com by Bill Wolfe June 06, 2009 Huge cost overruns, construction delays, and subsidies doom nuke renaissance – “Things have not gone as planned” In a devastating story, the New York Times Business page lands what could be a knockout blow to the nuclear industry’s attempt to revive nuclear power. Nuke industry PR has argued that new “safe” and “cost effective” engineering designs have solved the safety and economic issues, while the global warming crisis warrants a huge expansion. But the Times story destroys those myths, on purely economic grounds: In Finland, Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble 





