Argentina wants China to fully fund $8.3 bln nuclear plant
Argentina wants China to fully fund $8.3 bln nuclear plant amid cash shortfall. By Eliana Raszewski, 6 Apr 22, LIMA, Argentina, (Reuters) – Argentina is pushing China to fully finance a new $8.3 billion nuclear power plant in the country, as the government grapples with high debt levels and looks to bring down its fiscal deficit as part of a recent deal with the International Monetary Fund.
The South American nation signed an agreement with the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) for construction of a nuclear power plant in February. CNNC at the time said it would finance 85% of the cost, with Argentina shouldering the rest.
The country, however, now faces a tighter fiscal outlook. It needs to hit a fiscal balance by 2025 from a 3% deficit last year under terms of a recent $44 billion IMF program, including cutting billions of dollars in energy subsidies.
“We’re aiming for 100% in terms of financing from China to guarantee no delays given the problems we have with funding,” said Jorge Sidelnik, executive director of Argentina’s state operator Nucleoelectrica Argentina, the local partner……………………. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/argentina-wants-china-fully-fund-83-bln-nuclear-plant-amid-cash-shortfall-2022-04-05/
Does EDF really need even more subsidies for Sizewell C nuclear project?
By doing so, our beloved leaders are ensuring
that Sizewell C will now have subsidised development, subsidised
construction, subsidised power production and subsidised waste management,
for a project still being run by Europe’s most subsidised company,
Electricité de France. Free markets? Don’t you believe it.
Does EDF really need even more subsidies for Sizewell C?even more subsidies for Sizewell C? Under new
legislation, our normally parsimonious government has just earmarked a
further £1.7 billion towards meeting their (uncosted) promise to ensure
that another new nuclear fission power plant may possibly begin being built
before the next election.
By doing so, our beloved leaders are ensuring
that Sizewell C will now have subsidised development, subsidised
construction, subsidised power production and subsidised waste management,
for a project still being run by Europe’s most subsidised company,
Electricité de France. Free markets? Don’t you believe it.
Electrical Review 6th April 2022 https://electricalreview.co.uk/2022/04/06/does-edf-really-need-even-more-subsidies-for-sizewell-c/
 | |||
UK government’s energy strategy relying on massive nuclear expansion will fail credibility test
The government is expected finally to publish its much-delayed energy
strategy review on Thursday. The review is urgently needed both to address
the soaring energy prices that are inflicting financial hardship on many
households but also to end Britain’s reliance on Russian oil and gas so
as to avoid funding Vladimir Putin’s war machine. The clear test of the
credibility of whatever the government announces must be whether and how
quickly it reduces Britain’s dependence on expensive hydrocarbons for the
bulk of its energy.
The chances of meeting that test look slim, given the
rifts within the government and Conservative Party that have so far held up
the review for more than a month. Bizarrely, Tory MPs have fought furiously
in favour of restarting fracking, which would do nothing to reduce
Britain’s reliance on hydrocarbons, while fiercely resisting any reversal
of the de-facto ban on new onshore wind farms, which would be by far the
quickest and cheapest way to bring new energy on stream.
Both would of course be difficult to deliver since they are beholden to local planning
decisions. But whereas polls indicate that the public is overwhelmingly
opposed to fracking, they reveal strong public support for onshore wind.
Indeed, a YouGov poll last year found that nearly 70 per cent of the public
would support onshore wind farms near where they live. Polls indicate that
support rises higher if it means cheaper energy for residents. A large
expansion of onshore wind ought to be a key feature of a credible strategy,
yet comments yesterday by Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, suggest
that opposition in cabinet rules this out.
On the other hand, an energy
strategy that rests upon a massively expanded role for nuclear risks
failing the credibility test. That’s not because there isn’t a role for
nuclear as a source of baseload electricity for when solar and wind
supplies are low. There is a strong case for expanding Britain’s nuclear
fleet of 11 reactors, all but one of which are due to be deactivated by
2030, with only one new one, Hinkley Point C, under construction.
The
problem is the same one that has dogged all recent efforts to expand the
nuclear fleet: vast costs of construction. The energy review needs to
contain realistic plans with deliverable timelines. Boris Johnson’s hopes
of delivering six or seven new nuclear power stations by 2050 look
implausible given that Britain has succeeded in starting construction of
one in the past 16 years and even that is nearly a decade behind schedule
and far over budget.
What’s more, under the government’s preferred funding model, construction costs would be passed on to consumers long before any electricity is delivered, further pushing up energy bills.
The review must therefore include plans to expand other sources of baseload,
including battery storage and carbon capture for gas-fired power stations.
Finally a credible strategy must include plans to reduce energy demand as
well as expand supply. The government needs to turbo-charge the drive to
improve home insulation, the switch to heat-pumps and the optimisation of
the energy network. A smart grid that allows differential pricing and
households to sell electricity from home solar panels and electric car
batteries could dramatically reduce energy supply requirements. Such plans
may lack the glamour of Mr Johnson’s fantasy of a floating wind farm in
the Irish Sea. But they would show that the government is serious.
Times 4th April 2022
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-britains-energy-strategy-power-play-p8g9hp0qp
France pays the steep cost of inflexible and ageing nuclear as electricity prices soar
French baseload and peak prices soar due to a combination of massive outages of French nuclear power plants, cold weather and inefficient heating
France pays the steep cost of inflexible and ageing nuclear as electricity prices soar — RenewEconomy 3 Apr 22,
The common refrain among critics of wind and solar is to blame their “variability” or “intermittency” for soaring electricity prices as Europe wrestles with gas shortages worsened by the war in Ukraine. But France, the nuclear “pin-up” country for the anti-renewables brigade, is not faring so well either.
Over the weekend, the key “day ahead” prices of electricity in France surged to unprecedented levels. On Friday, the futures price for “baseload” for wholesale French electricity price hit the eye-watering level of €714 a megawatt hour ($A1050/MWh).
It didn’t get much better by Sunday, when the day-ahead price for Monday settled at €515/MWh ($A758/MWh), which is the predicted average price over a 24-hour period. The price for peak electricity between 8am and 9am was €2,987/MWh ($A4,400/MWh).
The prices for both baseload and peak prices in the rest of the European market were significantly cheaper, and in Germany it was dramatically so.
The main reasons? Both supply and demand. Less than half (30GW) of France’s 64GW of nuclear capacity was available, thanks to planned and unplanned outages, and extended repairs due to corrosion issues in their ageing plants.
The forecast is for cold weather, and many French homes are fired with inefficient, energy hungry electric resistance heating, largely as a result that the French believed they had no reason to be energy efficient because of the their massive investment in nuclear.
“Massive outages of French nuclear power plants, in combination with cold weather and electric (often resistance) heating, are causing a critical situation for electricity supply there tomorrow,” energy analyst Kewes van der Leun tweeted over the weekend.
The French authority called on consumers to reduce their power consumption.
The situation in Europe is similar to the growing “north-side” divide in electricity prices in Australia, identified by the Australian Energy Market Operator, which has noted that since early 2021 average prices in the most heavily coal dependent states of Queensland and NSW are considering higher than elsewhere.
Partly that is due to a lack of transmission (France has similar problems), but also to the inflexibility of baseload, and the desperation of baseload owners to bid up prices when they can to recoup their costs.
Sure, states with high amounts of renewables do experience price spikes, but they tend to be short lived and the average price is significantly lower than so-called “cheap” coal.
The situation in France is not likely to get better any time soon. President Emmanuel Macron has pledge to invest significantly more in nuclear and his far-right opponent, Marine Le Pen (who is given an outside chance of unseating him) has pledge to stop all new wind and solar development.
But new nuclear won’t help. At the very best, a new reactor could be online by 2035, although France’s recent experience with massive cost over-runs and delays would put a major question mark over that being achieved.
French baseload and peak prices soar due to a combination of massive outages of French nuclear power plants, cold weather and inefficient heating
France pays the steep cost of inflexible and ageing nuclear as electricity prices soar — RenewEconomy
The common refrain among critics of wind and solar is to blame their “variability” or “intermittency” for soaring electricity prices as Europe wrestles with gas shortages worsened by the war in Ukraine. But France, the nuclear “pin-up” country for the anti-renewables brigade, is not faring so well either.
Over the weekend, the key “day ahead” prices of electricity in France surged to unprecedented levels. On Friday, the futures price for “baseload” for wholesale French electricity price hit the eye-watering level of €714 a megawatt hour ($A1050/MWh).
It didn’t get much better by Sunday, when the day-ahead price for Monday settled at €515/MWh ($A758/MWh), which is the predicted average price over a 24-hour period. The price for peak electricity between 8am and 9am was €2,987/MWh ($A4,400/MWh).
The prices for both baseload and peak prices in the rest of the European market were significantly cheaper, and in Germany it was dramatically so.
The main reasons? Both supply and demand. Less than half (30GW) of France’s 64GW of nuclear capacity was available, thanks to planned and unplanned outages, and extended repairs due to corrosion issues in their ageing plants.
The forecast is for cold weather, and many French homes are fired with inefficient, energy hungry electric resistance heating, largely as a result that the French believed they had no reason to be energy efficient because of the their massive investment in nuclear.
“Massive outages of French nuclear power plants, in combination with cold weather and electric (often resistance) heating, are causing a critical situation for electricity supply there tomorrow,” energy analyst Kewes van der Leun tweeted over the weekend.
The French authority called on consumers to reduce their power consumption.
The situation in Europe is similar to the growing “north-side” divide in electricity prices in Australia, identified by the Australian Energy Market Operator, which has noted that since early 2021 average prices in the most heavily coal dependent states of Queensland and NSW are considering higher than elsewhere.
Partly that is due to a lack of transmission (France has similar problems), but also to the inflexibility of baseload, and the desperation of baseload owners to bid up prices when they can to recoup their costs.
Sure, states with high amounts of renewables do experience price spikes, but they tend to be short lived and the average price is significantly lower than so-called “cheap” coal.
The situation in France is not likely to get better any time soon. President Emmanuel Macron has pledge to invest significantly more in nuclear and his far-right opponent, Marine Le Pen (who is given an outside chance of unseating him) has pledge to stop all new wind and solar development.
But new nuclear won’t help. At the very best, a new reactor could be online by 2035, although France’s recent experience with massive cost over-runs and delays would put a major question mark over that being achieved.
Macron rubbing hands with glee as UK energy crisis means EDF poised for ‘£30bn payday’
Macron rubbing hands with glee as UK energy crisis means EDF poised ‘£30bn payday’. EMMANUEL MACRON could win big from the UK energy crisis, with EDF being tipped to secure contracts worth nearly £30 billion.
Dr Paul Dorfman, an associate fellow at the University of Sussex said: “The UK has a very strong relationship with EDF, they own and run the substance of UK reactors and are helping to build Hinckley point and the rest of it.
“However, EDF are in debt. Moodys, the financial organisation has recently downgraded EDF’s credit rating. A quarter of all of France’s reactors are currently offline due to safety and security problems, that’s
largely because they have an ageing nuclear fleet, like us.
“In order to kind of try to prolong their lifespan, the French government has big upgrade of their nuclear. “The cost estimates are around £70-80 billion just to upgrade, just to keep them tottering on.”
EDF is currently constructing the Hinckley Point C nuclear power station and is also adding new reactors to Sizewell C in Suffolk and Bradwell B in Essex. Dr Dorfman has warned that these new reactors constructed by EDF are the same type of EPR reactors that were built in France, which the French court of Auditors estimated cost an extra €19billion (almost £16 billion). He continued: “EDF is clear about the need for Government investment in order to proceed with Sizewell C.”
Express 1st April 2022
UK government’s nuclear dream likely to fade away, as private investors resist that risky call
Private investors are yet to be convinced that the returns from nuclear
power are sufficiently attractive to plow billions of pounds into a new
fleet of reactors that is being pushed by the U.K. government.
Unclear policy, competition from renewables and concerns about how attractive the
financial returns will be all make the investment case for nuclear less
compelling, according to people involved in the discussions.
That could be a major stumbling block for the government as it seeks to enlist private
capital to help fund projects like Electricite de France SA’s Sizewell C
plant.
Financial Post 29th March 2022
NuScale’s small modular nuclear reactor – ”too late, too expensive, too risky and too uncertain” – Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis
A small modular reactor (SMR) that NuScale has been developing since the turn of the century is “too late, too expensive, too risky and too uncertain,” according to an analysis of the project by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
The first-of-its-kind SMR is a serious financial threat to the member communities of the Utah Associated
Municipal Power System that have signed up for a share of its power and to any other communities and utilities thinking about doing so. NuScale has optimistically targeted the cost of power from the new plant at $58 per megawatt-hour (MWh), although some estimates predict costs for the power from new SMRs could reach $200/MWh.
IEEFA 17th Feb 2022
EDF announces another delay and cost overruns to Hinkley Point C nuclear project
French energy giant EDF has revealed it will have to announce new delays
and cost overruns for its Hinkley Point C nuclear plant project in the UK.
The latest setback follows conflict in Ukraine, supply chain disruption and
inflationary pressures.
EDF last updated its construction schedule in
January 2021, when it said the UK’s first new nuclear plant to be built
in decades would be delayed by six months to June 2026. It revealed costs
would rise by an additional £500m to £23bn.
Originally, the plant was
expected to open in 2025 and had a construction budget of £18bn. However,
like similar nuclear new-build projects in Flamanville, France and
Olkiluoto, Finland, it has been subject to repeated delays and spiralling
costs. In a note to its 2021 annual report, EDF arued risks to schedule and
cost at completion targets had increased. The energy firm cited the ongoing
impact of the pandemic, Brexit, lower-than-expected civil performance and
tensions in global building materials markets.
22 Mar 22, https://www.cityam.com/edf-announces-another-delay-to-hinkley-point-c-nuclear-plant/
City AM 28th March 2022
Boris Johnson beholden to the nuclear industry. That’s going to cost UK bigtime – Chancellor Sunak not happy.
Boris Johnson’s flagship energy strategy has been held up over a row
with Rishi Sunak about funding a new generation of up to eight nuclear
power stations costing the public more than £13bn.
The strategy, which has
been delayed for a month, was due to be published this week but has now
been pencilled for 5 April after disagreement about the multibillion-pound
cost of new nuclear plants and amid ongoing tensions between the prime
minister and his chancellor, as well as the wider cabinet.
Johnson has told the nuclear industry that he wants 25% of electricity generation to come
from nuclear power by 2050, up from 16% now. Whitehall sources told the
Guardian this shift could require the building of about eight new nuclear
power stations. Draft targets suggest ministers are looking at 30GW of
nuclear power capacity, meaning a huge building programme would be needed,
as capacity is due to fall to 3.6GW as plants are decommissioned.
Of the eight UK plants currently in operation, all but one are due to be switched
off by 2030. Each new plant would require the government to take a minority
stake in the project to reduce the risk to developers, and substantial cash
outlay to encourage investment.
Despite Johnson’s keenness for new
nuclear power, Sunak is concerned about the cost to the taxpayer, or extra
costs added to soaring energy bills. The Treasury has already promised
£1.7bn of direct cash for a single large-scale nuclear project – the
£20bn Sizewell C – as well as £120m for a new Future Nuclear Enabling
Fund, which aims to address barriers to entering the sector.
Building eight plants could cost more than £13bn in initial investment costs from the
government if the same amount of investment were to be put in, according to
a Whitehall source. However, the government is also pushing for the nuclear
industry to reduce its build costs.
Guardian 28th March 2022
Hinkley Point C nuclear project faces mor.e delays, increased costs
|
| Hinkley Point C faces more delays amid Ukraine crisis. Developer EDF warns war may trigger even higher costs for Britain’s flagship nuclear power station. The UK’s £23bn new flagship nuclear power plant is at risk of becoming more expensive and being plagued by delays as its developer EDF blamed challenges including the conflict in Ukraine. EDF is carrying out a “new comprehensive review” of the costs and timeframes of Hinkley Point C, which it is building in Somerset with updates expected in the summer. The majority French state-owned company had already raised cost estimates in 2017, 2019 and again in 2021 amid the pandemic, with the project currently set to cost between £22bn and £23bn and start generating power in mid-2026. It was originally forecast to cost £18bn. The developers have to foot the bill for cost overruns at the project, but it comes as EDF is in talks with the UK Government about building a second new power plant, Sizewell C in Suffolk, which could see households take on more risk for overruns. The Prime Minister is believed to want nuclear power to supply about a quarter of Britain’s electricity by 2050. That could imply about six large stations similar to Hinkley will be needed by 2050. In a sign of its commitment to the technology, the Government is planning to take a 20pc equity stake in the Sizewell C project. In documents filed with French financial authorities, EDF said of Hinkley Point C: “Due to the difficulties encountered by the project, notably on civil performance and marine works, and the increase in risks such as the Ukrainian conflict, Brexit, Covid, supply chain disruption and inflation, a new comprehensive review to update the costs and schedule estimates announced in January 2021 is underway and is expected to be finalised by summer 2022.” Telegraph 27th March 2022https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/03/27/hinkley-point-c-faces-fresh-cost-overrun-ukraine-crisis/ |
France’s nuclear energy output continues to slump
Falling nuclear output in France has spurred gas demand in the country and
is hampering EU moves to cut dependence on Russian supplies, according to
some analysts. “The underperformance of French nuclear power in the
Ukraine crisis is completely underestimated. The orders of magnitude are
dizzying” one analyst, who wished to remain anonymous, told Montel.
France, with 56 reactors – the world’s second-biggest nuclear
production capacity – has long been viewed as Europe’s powerhouse,
exporting output across the bloc. Now, that picture has changed with the
country’s nuclear availability plunging in recent months to its lowest
level in over 30 years.
Since 2015 France’s annual nuclear output has
slumped by around 100 TWh, TSO figures showed. In 2015, French reactors
generated 417 TWh. This year atomic output is forecast to drop to 295-330
TWh.
Montel 25th March 2022
https://www.montelnews.com/news/1308826/french-nuclear-slump-hinders-russian-gas-exit–analysts
Chernobyl nuclear worker gives the inside story on the dire situation for the staff as Russians took over.
Chernobyl nuclear power plant: Worker reveals risk of accident as Russians force staff to do 24-hour shifts i News, By Isabella Bengoechea, March 25, 2022 A Chernobyl worker has given the first inside account after the power plant was seized by Russian forces i News
A Chernobyl worker has given the first inside account of life at the nuclear plant since the Russian invasion and warned that exhausted staff are being forced to work 24-hour shifts, increasing the risk of an accident.
Mykola Pobiedin, foreman of the radioactive waste processing workshop at Chernobyl, who worked as a liquidator there after the 1986 disaster, described a dire safety situation where the plant was encircled by military trucks and tanks and troops patrolled with machine guns.
He compared allowing Chernobyl to be operated by exhausted staff to a bus driver who “has not slept for days” transporting passengers.
Chernobyl, the site of the worst nuclear disaster in history, was captured by Russia on the first day of invasion on 24 February.
More than 200 workers were forced to stay on site. On 20 March, about 100 were allowed to return to their homes, after nearly four weeks working under armed guard.
Personnel at Chernobyl usually work in 12-hour shifts before being replaced by the next shift.
However, because no rotation was permitted, they were forced to work for 24 hours straight with one half hour break.
Mr Pobiedin, who gave permission to be identified, spoke to i by phone from the city of Slavutych, which was built in 1986 to house workers evacuated from the plant after the disaster.
In a separate debrief, he spoke to Valeriy Korshunov, founder of the European Institute of Chernobyl, a Ukraine-based NGO which works to educate the public about the Chernobyl disaster through scientific and cultural projects, in order to prevent new nuclear disasters in future.
Mr Korshunov and his organisation hope to publicise the plight of the Chernobyl workers to draw attention to the dangerous situation Russia has inflicted on Ukraine’s nuclear sites.
He passed on his comments to i, with the permission of Mr Pobiedin and his family.
Mr Pobiedin suggested there was an increased risk of accidents as a result of the extreme fatigue of staff working at such a sensitive site.
“There may be some errors, some actions are not undertaken,” he said. “A tired person would do a mistake and it will cause issues.”
Though reluctant to cause alarm about a possible nuclear accident at Chernobyl, he added: “If you are riding a bus in which the driver has not slept for days. What could it lead to? If Europe agrees to drive with such a bus driver, then let it be…”
“There is a break for half an hour, for example to eat or for private needs, and the rest of the time people are concentrated on watching monitors. This is intellectual work; you cannot be distracted.”
Despite having managed to leave the power plant, his memories of Russia’s attack on the first day of the invasion are still stark.
“Everything started with the ‘Everyone to the bomb shelter’ alarm, which we followed,” he said.
“Then this whole situation got clear – it was a seizure.
“Then came the command ‘Everyone to the workplace!’ Well, then we started organising our life there somehow, adapting to the situation.
“The Russian military did not enter the territory of the power unit. They drove around the industrial site in their armored personnel carriers. In this way they controlled the whole situation.
“In other words, everything around us was encircled…………………………
the staff managed to keep up their spirits by attempting to carry on as normal and listening to the Ukrainian national anthem on the radio…………………………….
Since the release of the staff, only about 50 have opted to replace them – a perhaps understandable reluctance considering they would be going as hostages with no idea of when they could leave.
“I saw they arrived with backpacks,” said Mr Pobiedin. “They probably took something, but how long will it last?”
He called for the regular rotation of sufficient personnel to ensure the safety of the nuclear facilities: “The rotation is very important. We can’t let people just be there indefinitely.
“Some personnel change should be done. The Russians are not opposing to such shift changes. It should be scheduled: once a week, once every 10 days … So that people know and get prepared.
“And not so that people come and do not know how long they must stay. One does not know if it is one day, 20 days or for ever.”
While the freed workers may have breathed a sigh of relief at finally leaving, they may not have escaped the worst of their ordeals.
Many live in Slavuytsch, about 40km from Chernobyl. However the city is under intense shelling by the Russians.
Others who live in other nearby settlements are currently trapped in the city and cannot return home. When i was speaking to Mr Pobiedin, our interview was cut off halfway through after sirens went off and he had to go down into a bomb shelter. https://inews.co.uk/news/inside-chernobyl-nuclear-power-plant-accident-risk-1540986
World’s richest men enthuse over new nuclear power, despite its poor progress
The world’s richest people are going nuclear, By Lizette Chapman, SMH, March 24, 2022 — In recent weeks, some of Silicon Valley’s most famous technologists have hailed a historically polarising energy source — nuclear power — as a solution to both cutting carbon emissions and weaning the world off now-controversial Russian gas.
Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk wrote on Twitter that nuclear is “critical” to national security, while the risk of radiation is overplayed. And venture capitalist Marc Andreessen called for “1,000 new state-of-the-art nuclear power plants in the US and Europe, right now.”
The war galvanised a sentiment which has been building in recent years in the startup world, where billionaires including Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Peter Thiel have opened their wallets to back next-generation nuclear companies. None of the advanced reactor startups has yet produced an operating commercial product, but some believe that the combination of tech advances and a new urgency around ditching fossil fuels could be a catalyst for the sector — which has mostly languished in regulatory purgatory since the 1970s.
“We wouldn’t be having a conversation about innovation in nuclear power today without the investment and thinking of the leaders of Silicon Valley,” said Josh Freed, who specialises in climate and energy at public policy think tank Third Way in Washington.
Last year, venture investors ploughed a record $US3.4 billion into nuclear startups — more than in every year over the past decade combined, according to research firm PitchBook. That number reflects very early-stage startups as well as more mature companies like Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Helion Energy, both of which raised funding rounds of $US500 million or more in 2021. In the previous decade there was an average of fewer than 10 deals a year. Last year the number jumped to 28.
“We wouldn’t be having a conversation about innovation in nuclear power today without the investment and thinking of the leaders of Silicon Valley,” said Josh Freed, who specialises in climate and energy at public policy think tank Third Way in Washington.
Last year, venture investors ploughed a record $US3.4 billion into nuclear startups — more than in every year over the past decade combined, according to research firm PitchBook. That number reflects very early-stage startups as well as more mature companies like Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Helion Energy, both of which raised funding rounds of $US500 million or more in 2021. In the previous decade there was an average of fewer than 10 deals a year. Last year the number jumped to 28.
Nuclear energy development not possible in USA, unless it is tax-payer funded?
What Is Holding U.S. Nuclear Energy Back? OilPrice.com 21 Mar 22,
”……….There are three basic business risks associated with nuclear power for an investor-owned utility: financing, operating, and sales. (Four if you add in new construction risk which is not inconsequential.) The simple reason no US investor-owned utility — apart from Southern Company’s Plant Vogtle—- is building or considering new nuclear investments is the first risk, financing. To paraphrase a former NYC mayoral candidate, the capital costs are “too damn high”. By any metric, nuclear power is economically uncompetitive. According to the recent Lazard study comparing the cost of new power generation, it is about three times more costly than natural gas and five times more costly than new wind and solar.
This begs an obvious question. How can we have more of something if it is wildly, economically uncompetitive? The answer is simple: eliminate the consideration of economics from new power plant development. Take for example a large nuclear construction project at Turkey’s four-unit Akuyu nuclear power station. In the US that is a $40+billion capital project. No US investor-owned utility has the balance sheet to handle multiple unit projects of that size. Only the US government has the borrowing capacity for projects of that magnitude and risk. This, in turn, suggests that new nuclear power plant development will only occur in the US If we compromise on our free enterprise principles and take new nuclear plant development out of the private sector entirely. These enormous financing risks are now impossible to comfortably absorb in a corporate setting where they must be constantly balanced against shareholder interests. ….’
UK’s Business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng considering launching State-owned nuclear company
Government ministers are mulling over plans to launch a state-owned
nuclear company, which would assume stakes in future domestic projects.
Business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng is considering the move as he looks to
speed up the development of nuclear plants – which have suffered years of
delays- and reduce the UK’s reliance on foreign energy, according to The
Sunday Times.
City AM 20th March 2022
1 This Month
No Nuclear in Cwm Llynfi! Stop the nuclear power station near Maesteg.
4 August – WEBINAR – Hiroshima & Nagasaki: Nuclear Bombs Never Again
Tuesday, Aug. 4 at 5 pm PT / 8 pm ET.
Aug 5, 2026 10:00 AM in Australia/Melbourne
Join the Nuclear Bombs Never Again webinar on August 4th at 5pm Pacific Time / 8pm Eastern Time / 9am Japan Standard Time.
Cross generational voices at the intersection of Japan-Korea-US policy and militarization will share their lived experiences, nuclear impacts in these contexts, anti-war strategies, and actions you can take to advocate for a world with Nuclear Bombs Never Again. This 75-minute event is co-hosted by WILPF US and Korea Peace Now.
22,000+ miles voyaging for nuclear disarmament
and a radiation-free environment https://vfpgoldenruleproject.org/
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- July 2026 (320)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
-
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
nuclear-news 