nuclear-news

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

Florida trying to undo nuclear plant financing

Florida trying to undo nuclear plant financing  Georgia lawmakers weigh similar bill this week 

AJC February 23, 2009By MARGARET NEWKIRK The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Monday, February 23, 2009 As Georgia lawmakers push forward with a nuclear financing bill this week, their counterparts in Florida are scrambling to undo a similar measure approved three years ago. In the past two weeks, Florida Republicans, including the state Senate president pro tem, drafted two bills aimed at a 2006 law requiring power customers to pay early for new nuclear reactors………………..

SB 31 would let the utility begin collecting $1.6 billion in project financing charges six years earlier, when construction begins.

The charges include about $600,000 in debt interest and $1 billion in “return on equity” — roughly, profit — for Georgia Power shareholders.

February 24, 2009 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

The Pebble Bed Modular Nuclear Reactor – a black hole for public funds

No Amount of Redesign Will Save the PBMR

Earthlife Africa Tristen Taylor
18th of Feb. 2009nuclear-costs1

With the PBMR Company seeking to redesign the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor
(PBMR) to focus more on heat applications, it is imperative to note that
disadvantages of continuing with the PBMR remain.

The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor has become a black hole for public funds. The
costs involved in the PBMR saga are illustrative of the financial risks
inherent in nuclear power in general.

In 1999, the PMBR (165MW capacity) construction costs were budgeted at R2
billion. By 2005, these construction costs had risen by a factor of seven,
to R14 billion without a single PBMR being constructed. These costs do not
include the decommissioning costs, which will be considerable.

Based upon the 2008 Environmental Impact Assessment for the PBMR
Demonstration Reactor and the decommissioning costs for of the predecessor
to the PBMR-the German AVR-the costs to decommission a single PBMR range
from R1.5 billion to R70 billion. It is nearly impossible, due to the
lifespan of the reactor and the variable rates of contamination, to be more
exact than this. Hence, the decommissioning costs of the PBMR are uncertain
and could incur a heavy burden on future generations, absorbing funds for
vital social programmes.

An additional expense will be the waste storage costs, which are impossible
to calculate due to the long-term nature of storing waste; for example,
uranium-235 has a half-life of 704 million years, plutonium-239 a half-life
of 24,110 years, and caesium a half-life of 30.2 years. These kinds of
timeframes defy economic planning, and, given our pressing social needs,
should not be entertained.

The costs for the PBMR are not efficient in terms of power generation. For
example, Eskom is seeking finance of R5 billion to build a concentrated
solar plant (100MW) in the Northern Cape; R14 billion for 165MW or R5
billion for 100MW capacity, economic sense favours the solar plant. This
also excludes the costs associated with the security apparatus necessary for
the PMBR.

Nuclear materials and equipment need to be protected and highly regulated,
due to the threat of contamination and theft. The consequences of
radioactive material in the hands on malicious organisations could have
profoundly negative consequences and has to be avoided at all costs. While
currently unquantifiable at this stage, these security costs will be passed
onto the state and are unique to nuclear power. Other forms of energy
generation (including heat generation) do not require these increased
security costs.

No matter how much the PBMR Company and the Department of Minerals and
Energy seek to spin the matter, the PBMR has been a waste of vital public
funds and will continue to be so until abandoned.

February 20, 2009 Posted by | business and costs, South Africa | Leave a comment

Georgia Power nuclear plan called ‘lousy’

Georgia Nuclear Power Plan Called “Lousy”Creative loafing 16 Feb 09 In 1974, Georgia Power broke ground on nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle near Augusta, embarking on a nuclear odyssey that would nearly bankrupt the company.Almost 15 years later — and after several delays and environmental hurdles— the project’s construction costs ballooned from $680 million to a staggering $8.4 billion.

And it wasn’t until then that Georgia Power could begin to recoup the cost from ratepayers.
Now, as the state’s largest utility moves forward on two new reactors at Plant Vogtle estimated at $6.4 billion, the first in nearly 30 years, the company wants to cover its assets — and it’s enlisted the assistance of a phalanx of lobbyists and a controversial legislative plan of attack.

Introduced by state Sen. Don Balfour, R-Snellville, Senate Bill 31 would allow Georgia Power to begin charging customers — you and me — in advance for two new proposed nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle. The bill passed the state Senate last week and now moves to the House.

Georgia Power nuclear plan called ‘lousy’ | Fresh Loaf

February 19, 2009 Posted by | business and costs, NORTH AMERICA | Leave a comment

Victory! $50 Billion for Toxic Nuclear Pork Cut from Stimulus Bill

Victory! $50 Billion for Toxic Nuclear Pork Cut from Stimulus Bill
Beyond Nuclear 13 Feb 09
Congressional negotiators in the House of Representatives and the Senate agreed late Wednesday evening (February 11) on a $789 billion stimulus bill but killed an attempt to squander $50 billion on new nuclear reactors. The agreement, made in the conference committee, axed a proposal from Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah) to include $50 billion in pork barrel federal loan guarantees for the nuclear industry. The Congressional Budget Office stated earlier this year that nuclear utilities would default on more than 50% of the loans, leaving taxpayers and ratepayers to foot the bill.”This is a big victory for common sense and the American taxpayer,” said Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear who helped lead the campaign on Capitol Hill to cut the $50 billion for nuclear power. “This toxic nuclear pork had no place in a bill designed to put Americans back to work and and salvage our economy. Our legislators are to be applauded for getting their priorities right and saying no to yet another blatant attempt to prop up an industry that has never stood on its own financial feet.”The nuclear industry has received an estimated $500 billion in public subsidies over the past half century,” Kamps continued. “This monumental waste of money had to end. The nuclear industry cannot solve the climate crisis and fattening the nuclear calf has deprived real energy solutions like renewable energy and energy efficiency programs of essential support for decades.”

Beyond Nuclear

February 13, 2009 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Bad Reactors – Mariah Blake

Bad ReactorsRethinking your opposition to nuclear power? Rethink again.Washington Monthly Feb 09 By Mariah Blake – “…………………..These complications have already erased the cost savings nuclear power was supposed to deliver compared to other energy sources, such as natural gas. What’s more, the reactor won’t be completed before 2012, when the Kyoto treaty expires. To meet its targets, between now and then Finland will have to buy hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of credits through the European Union’s emissions trading scheme. In the meantime, because the country expected the reactor to deliver a bounty of energy and didn’t pursue other options, it’s facing a severe electricity shortage and will have to import even more from abroad, which will drive up power bills. Elfi, a consortium of Finnish heavy industries, has calculated that the project delays will create $4 billion in indirect costs for electricity users………………………………….s Finland’s experience shows, the reality may be far messier than the industry lets on: a growing body of evidence suggests that new nuclear construction projects are prone to the same setbacks as those undertaken a generation ago, when lengthy delays and multibillion-dollar cost overruns were commonplace. This raises serious questions about the potential of nuclear power as a front-line solution in the battle against climate change.

Bad Reactors – Mariah Blake

February 13, 2009 Posted by | 2 WORLD, business and costs | Leave a comment

Austin won’t sign off on nuclear plant expansion – Austin Business Journal:

 Austin won’t sign off on nuclear plant expansion
Austin Business Journal  February 12, 2009  “The Austin City Council voted on Feb. 12 against participation in the proposed expansion of a South Texas nuclear plant………………………

Worley Parsons, a consultant the city hired to evaluate NRG’s proposal, concluded that an Austin investment in the proposed project could have the city paying $2 billion or more over at least the next seven years.

That sum would require a significant sum of debt relative to Austin Energy’s size, the analysis said, that could in turn result in a downgrade of its credit rating and lead to higher future borrowing costs.”

Austin won’t sign off on nuclear plant expansion – Austin Business Journal:

February 13, 2009 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

EDF profits plunge in 2008 as nuclear expansion continues

EDF profits plunge in 2008 as nuclear expansion continues

Business News

Feb 12, 2009, Paris – State-owned French energy supplier EDF saw its profits fall by nearly 40 per cent in 2008 as it continued to expand its nuclear energy division abroad, the company said on Thursday……………………. Investors were no doubt put off by the plunge in profits and bid EDF shares down by 9.11 per cent, to 32.31 euros, in late morning trading on the Paris Bourse.

EDF profits plunge in 2008 as nuclear expansion continues

February 13, 2009 Posted by | business and costs, France | Leave a comment

Centrica faces investor revolt on British Energy

rom The Times February 11, 2009Centrica faces investor revolt on British EnergyShareholders voice anger at the utility’s proposed £3.1bn nuclear deal and call on it to buy gas assets instead

Centrica is facing a shareholder rebellion over its plan to spend £3.1billion buying a stake in Britain’s nuclear industry.

A leading institutional shareholder in Centrica, the owner of British Gas, is urging the company to scrap its plan to acquire 25 per cent of British Energy from EDF of France and use the money to buy more gas assets instead.

The investor, which asked not to be named, is the latest in a growing chorus of City objectors to the deal.


Tags: , , ,

February 11, 2009 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Salmond: “nuclear will take billions from renewables”

Salmond: “nuclear will take billions from renewables New Energy Focus 09-02-09

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has claimed that the UK government’s commitment to nuclear power will rob the renewables industry of billions of pounds’ worth of investment.

Mr Salmond, whose SNP minority government is opposed to nuclear, was speaking to the Scottish Parliament during First Minister’s question time on Thursday, where he warned that nuclear power and renewable technologies could not share resources.

“Anything you invest -and it will be billions – in nuclear power is billions taken away from clean technology and in renewable technology,” he said.

He went on to emphasise Scotland’s “great prospects” in the renewables sector, which he described as the government’s “top priority”.

“I do not believe that the case for nuclear power is made,” he added. “Nuclear power is not the answer to tackling climate change or security of supply”.

New Energy Focus – Salmond: “nuclear will take billions from renewables”

Tags: , , ,

February 10, 2009 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

The state of Uranium

The state of Uranium The Financial Times Alphaville   Feb 06  Gregor Macdonald “…………………Now spot uranium prices have fallen to the $50 level. Alas, the uranium supercycle proved all too cyclical………………………………..

The global recession meanwhile is presenting a rather obvious problem to any new price advance. Power generation in both the OECD and in Asia is currently being served with much cheaper coal and natural gas. With industrial demand for power down notably in China and the US it’s become opportune for a number of nuclear generators to go offline for maintenance.

In addition, construction costs for new plants have skyrocketed. Some recent studies have also suggested the energy return on investment for new nuclear, after construction time and materials, may actually take years. In this regard nuclear power has been somewhat hurt………………


Tags: ,

February 7, 2009 Posted by | business and costs | Leave a comment

Rebound of nuclear plants raising worries over waste

Rebound of nuclear plants raising worries over waste International Herald Tribune (New York times with Reuters) by James Kanter and Matthew Wald


January 30, 2009 As France presses ahead with building more next-generation nuclear reactors, new evidence emerged Friday to suggest that industry and governments may be unprepared to handle the increasingly toxic waste that will result.Highlighting the importance of the technology in France, both as its main source of electricity and as a major export industry, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France announced late Thursday that Électricité de France, Europe’s biggest power producer, was awarded the contract to develop a second atomic reactor using next-generation technology……………………………an anti-nuclear group said that information it gleaned from industry reports – publicly available but which have received little attention so far – show that waste from the EPR will be more radioactive by a factor of seven because more uranium is burned up. That will make it more expensive to handle and store safely, according to Greenpeace, which provided the details on Friday to the International Herald Tribune.

“Despite the French government’s global marketing of the EPR as cheap and safe, the evidence proves otherwise,” said Rianne Teule, an international nuclear campaigner for Greenpeace who is based in Amsterdam.

The next wave of reactors “poses an ever-increasing burden on people’s budgets and danger to their health, now and far into the future,” Teule said……………………..here are no EPRs in operation anywhere in the world, but the first is under construction at Olkiluoto, an island in the West of Finland, and the second in Flamanville, in northern France.

Teule said the evidence about the radioactivity of the waste was drawn from a report by Posiva, a waste disposal company owned by Finnish nuclear operators, and from the Swiss organization Nagra, which oversees management of nuclear waste.

Teule said the waste would pose greater dangers to workers from higher radiation doses during transfer and storage than current waste. She also said the waste would need to be stored for longer in areas above ground, where it is potentially exposed to terrorists.

Those factors, among others, would increase the overall cost of nuclear energy – costs that Teule said were not properly accounted for by industry and governments.

There are no long-term facilities for disposing or burying high-level nuclear waste anywhere in the world,…………………………….Hans Riotte, the head of the Radiological Protection and Radioactive Waste Management Division at the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency in Paris, said waste from the EPR, although smaller in volume, would be more radioactive than existing forms of high-level waste because it would be denser……………………….ny reports about the cost, or safety, of its EPR model still are a sensitive matter for the company, which is competing to become the designer of reactors for the next generation of nuclear plants in the United States and elsewhere………………………………

Problems at the EPR site in Finland mean the reactor already is badly overdue and vastly over budget, even though it was designed to have a shorter construction period than previous models.

The site has been plagued by water-logged concrete, faulty welds and flawed pipes, delaying the reactor start date by at least three years and raising costs by roughly 50 percent…………………………………Areva also is vying sell the technology to the United Arab Emirates as part of a project led by Total and GDF Suez.

Rebound of nuclear plants raising worries over waste – International Herald Tribune

Tags: , , ,

January 31, 2009 Posted by | 2 WORLD, business and costs, wastes | Leave a comment

Uranium Stocks Remain in Deep Sleep

Uranium Stocks Remain in Deep Sleep The Market Oracle 38 Jan 09 Boy, this is one frustrating market. The uranium stocks just seem to be trapped in a deep sleep and are hesitant to wake up. I guess that is still preferred seeing as how the spot price of uranium U308 dropped $3.00 this week. Going by that we are still lucky that the stocks have not plunged.

Uranium Stocks Remain in Deep Sleep :: The Market Oracle :: Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting Free Website

January 29, 2009 Posted by | business and costs | Leave a comment

Japan nuclear capacity to fall as Chubu scraps units | Reuters

Japan nuclear capacity to fall as Chubu scraps units

TOKYO, Jan 27 (Reuters) – Japan’s nuclear power generation capacity will fall by 1,380 megawatts, or 2.8 percent, to 47,935 megawatts from Friday, a government official said, reflecting a utility’s move to scrap two nuclear reactors and replace them with a new one.

Chubu Electric Power Co (9502.T), Japan’s third-biggest utility, said in December it would decommission its 540-megawatt No.1 and 840-megawatt No.2 generators at its sole Hamaoka nuclear plant, and build a new No.6 reactor to replace them. [ID:nT303675]

The move reduced the number of nuclear power generators for commercial use in Japan, which has the world’s third-biggest nuclear generation capacity after the United States and France, to 53 from 55.

Japan nuclear capacity to fall as Chubu scraps units | Reuters

January 28, 2009 Posted by | business and costs | Leave a comment

Cleanup agencies looking for more money as Hanford work continues

Cleanup agencies looking for more money as Hanford work continues Jan 26, 2009 

Komo News By SHANNON DININNY, Associated Press

RICHLAND, Wash. (AP) – Each year, the federal government spends roughly $2 billion to rid the nation’s most contaminated nuclear site of toxic and radioactive waste………………………..The federal government created Hanford in the 1940s as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. Today, it is the nation’s most contaminated nuclear site, with cleanup costs expected to top $50 billion…………………Even more challenging in recent months: finding the money to complete the work and meet legal deadlines for cleanup.

The Energy Department has said it will miss 23 deadlines this year because there is insufficient money in the 2009 budget. Now, some U.S. senators are pushing the Obama administration to spend stimulus money to clean up not just Hanford, but all Cold War-era sites……………….In 1989, the state and federal government signed the Tri-Party Agreement to establish legal deadlines for completing all phases of the cleanup. Twenty years later, the two sides are embroiled in a lawsuit over missed deadlines and inadequate funding.

Cleanup agencies looking for more money as Hanford work continues | KOMO News – Seattle, Washington | Local & Regional

January 26, 2009 Posted by | business and costs | , , , | Leave a comment

Nuclear plant foes shift from environmentalists to consumer groups

Nuclear plant foes shift from environmentalists to consumer groups
By DON NORFLEET The Fulton Sun Jan 26, 2009 Other than balancing the state’s budget during a recession, AmerenUE’s plan to build a second reactor at the Callaway Nuclear Plant is considered by many as the biggest issue facing the current session of the Missouri General Assembly.

The plant expansion, estimated to cost from $6 to $9 billion, would be the single most expensive construction project in Missouri’s history.

Unlike the first nuclear reactor to be constructed in Missouri, opposition to the second nuclear reactor at the Callaway Nuclear Plant has come more from consumer groups than anti-nuclear activists and environmentalists.

January 26, 2009 Posted by | business and costs, USA | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »