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
nuclear reactors not needed for Medical Isotopes
Race on in the Prairies to solve isotope shortage
Acsion Industries, University of Winnipeg say their cheap solution could be running in three years
The Globe and Mail 1 August 09
“…………………the smaller operation could be up and running inside three years, with little regulatory hassle, and for the bargain-basement price of $35-million……………………………I don’t think you’ll find another expression of interest that combines so clearly a health-care focus and a low cost. We’ll have to be taken seriously.”…………………..
the University of Winnipeg submission offers something completely different.
Under the proposal, researchers would shore up the country’s isotope stocks using a Manitoba-based particle accelerator rather than a nuclear reactor.
Unlike a reactor, a particle accelerator does not produce nuclear waste and would not be subject to the same stringent rules that make reactor construction a decade-long process.
“It’s a completely different technology,” said Jeff Martin, a University of Winnipeg physicist. “The regulatory process is much simpler, and for good reason. For instance, you can shut an accelerator off. With a reactor, that’s tricky.”
To carry out the proposal, the university has launched the Prairie Isotope Production Enterprise (PIPE), a not-for-profit partnership that includes Acsion, the province, the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority and other nuclear and radioisotope companies……………………..
While the Manitoba solution isn’t intended to solve international supply issues, the technology could be exported.
“Once you get it working here,” said Randy Kobes, associate dean of science at the university, “you can franchise it.”
Race on in the Prairies to solve isotope shortage – The Globe and Mail
Braidwood nuclear reactor shut down
Braidwood nuclear reactor shut down
Chicago Breaking News 31 july 09
One of the two nuclear reactors at the Braidwood Generating Station was shut down last night and remains offline this morning because of a transformer problem that is preventing the unit from receiving power, an Exelon spokeswoman said………..
The transformer problem triggered an automatic shutdown at the facility 60 miles southwest of Chicago
Nuclear plans hurting power companies’ credit ratings
FACING SOUTH 31 July 09
Power companies pursuing construction of new nuclear plants may find it harder to get credit — meaning ratepayers could end up shouldering a greater financial burden for the costly and environmentally harmful projects.Moody’s Investors Service, a leading independent credit rating firm, recently released a report that says it’s considering taking a “more negative view” of debt obligations issued by companies seeking to build new nuclear plants.
Titled “New Nuclear Generation: Ratings Pressure Increasing,” the report raises concerns that investing in new nuclear plants involves significant risks and huge capital costs at a time when national energy policy is uncertain. Yet companies investing in new nuclear projects — cost estimates for which are hovering in the $6 billion range — haven’t adjusted their finances accordingly, according to Moody’s:
‘Few, if any, of the issuers aspiring to build new nuclear power have meaningfully strengthened their balance sheets, and for several companies, key financial credit ratios have actually declined. Moreover, recent broad market turmoil calls into question whether new liquidity is even available to support such capital-intensive projects.’…………………………
The financing problems have already caused some companies to back away from nuclear projects. Earlier this month, AmerenUE announced that it was suspending plans to build a new reactor at its Callaway plant in Missouri. A factor was that state’s ban of “Construction Work in Progress,” a financing scheme that allows a nuclear utility to recover the construction costs of a reactor from ratepayers before the reactor is up and running.
Nuclear startup costs high, safety low
TENNESSEAN.com 31 July 09 By John McFadden, Ph.D.
”….does nuclear power offer a safe, affordable domestic solution?
Unfortunately, the facts suggest otherwise. The industry is dependent on subsidies and is not economically viable. Nuclear waste is problematic at best.The technology is not safe despite billions of tax dollars spent on research to try to make it safe.The claims from nuclear energy’s proponents have always been too good to be true. “Too cheap to meter” was the first. Inaccurate power projections led to TVA’s first nuclear plant construction program in the 1970s and ’80s, leaving more than $25 billion in debt, which Tennessee Valley residents are still paying.
Current estimated cost for one new 1,200-megawatt reactor is $7.5 billion. From 1950 to 1999, federal subsidies totaled around $145 billion. Cleanups of radioactive federal Superfund’ sites are expensive, difficult and proceeding slowly. The fact is that they may never be cleaned up.
Many of those who believe in and trust free-market economics are pushing for increased nuclear power, citing France as a model of nuclear power success, but the French utility is government-owned.
The market is unwilling to fund construction or provide insurance without federal subsidies — too much risk! Nuclear power is not economically viable, and has no plan for long-term storage for waste.On-site storage of the radioactive waste is currently the default plan, and it is more of a problem than most recognize.
Startup costs high, safety low | tennessean.com | The Tennessean
California’s nuclear reactor “reliable”?
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS)…………… Reliability Questioned
Examiner.com by Shirley Vaine July 30, 2009
“…………the latest completed performance review by The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on March 4, 2009, for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS)……………the NRC was concerned that “the continuing performance problems are not being effectively addressed,…………..“
……………No one knows how long the reactor will be down even if the replacement goes perfect. Southern California could have an “unknown timetable” of a dismantled reactor …………….
The good news is that California has control over reliability and economics of our power generation, and these issues are not pre-empted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We already endured an “energy crisis” in 2000. Let’s plan not to have another one.An earthquake shut down Japan’s new nuclear reactors in 2007 and they are still down today, costing the company to buy power elsewhere to meet demand and costing the country billions of yen.
Not only is nuclear power financially unpredictable, the safety risk is an intrical part of that harmful fuel. Additional losses would also come from tourist avoiding visiting this potential health hazard area……”
Nuclear decommissioning – costs blow out endlessly!
Saving funds for shutdown of nuclear plants proves tricky
MISSOURIAN July 24, 2009
BY DAVE GRAM and FRANK BASS/The Associated PressVERNON, Vt. — 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 nuclear reactors or shutting them down inadequately presents the most severe of risks. Radioactive waste could leak from abandoned plants into ground water or be released into the air, and spent nuclear fuel rods could be stolen by terrorists.
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………………………………
“No one at the NRC wants to acknowledge what is absolutely obvious to us, that the funds are inadequate and that the industry has bare assets,” said Arnold Gundersen, a retired nuclear engineer and decommissioning expert.
Those critics say the industry is making assumptions about their investments that do not account for another market collapse, political obstacles to getting the licenses renewed and unforeseen safety problems that could make nuclear power less palatable.
Last week, British officials reported on a 2007 leak in a cooling tank at the decommissioned Sizewell-A nuclear plant.
Saving funds for shutdown of nuclear plants proves tricky – Columbia Missourian
Perry nuclear plant reduces power
Perry nuclear plant reduces power
WKSU , July 24, 2009
The Perry Nuclear power plant east of Cleveland has reduced power to 37-percent. The plant is operated by FirstEnergy. Company spokesman Todd Schneider says employees found a leak in the system that controls the turbine and reduced power to make repair
The costs and risks of nuclear energy
The costs and risks of nuclear energy
Gainsville.com Diane Forkel 24 July 09 “……………….Progress Energy is looking ahead to increasing energy use. Their plans are to build two new nuclear power plants. However, electric customers beware, excessive cost overruns (and defects and deficiencies) at a Finnish power plant have been reported in the New York Times. If Progress Energy experiences similar problems, utility customers should brace for a double-cost whammy in their electric bills.
Nuclear power plants carry a good deal of financial risk, so the industry is heavily backed by the government. Currently, applications are being made for billions of dollars in loan guarantees, aka government bailouts. And they could end up being just that.
A Union of Concerned Scientist website notes in 1985 Forbes magazine called the nuclear industry bailout of that era “the largest managerial disaster in business history.”……………The nuclear power plant carbon footprint (CF) is also quite large. It encompasses plant construction, plant decommissioning, and construction of a huge waste storage facility, such as Yucca Mountain, and/or other additional storage facilities. I am sure new research buildings and experimental plants for nuke waste technological breakthroughs will also add to CF………………………..
Inexperience is also blamed for Areva’s costly nuclear power plant construction problems in Finland. Yet Areva has more experience than its U.S. counterparts in building nuclear facilities.
Areva’s costly construction issues are unnerving. Structural construction problems raise safety concerns. An accident at any nuclear facility could be devastating in terms of loss of live and long-term environmental damage.
I have to wonder if this country is adequately prepared to handle radiation fallout from a nuclear accident. And the financial burden of a nuclear accident, or even just a huge bailout, could cause the country’s soaring deficit to shatter and crash.
US nuclear companies to make $billions out of India deal
ww.chinaview.cn 2009-07-21By Xinhua Writer Yang Qingchuan
“…………. The agreement, inked by Clinton and Indian Minister of External Affairs S. M. Krishna, will set terms for U.S. officials to monitor India’s weapons usage and allow the US to sell sophisticated military technology to India, including fighter jets.
Under the terms of the deal, the U.S. would be allowed to conduct “end-use monitoring,” meaning it would conduct regular assessments of India’s military policies to verify that weapons systems are being used for their intended purposes.
Such an agreement is required by U.S. law before American companies can legally sell weapons systems to any foreign nation.
In other words, it will turn on the greenlight for U.S. defense giants such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing, to sell advanced and sophisticated weaponry to India.
“The agreement will boost India’s ability to defend itself through the acquisition of U.S. defense equipment while promoting American high tech exports,” the U.S. State Department said of the deal in a statement.
New pact puts growing U.S.-India military ties under spotlight_English_Xinhua
Under Chernobyl’s shadow
Jul 15, 2009 21:20
Under Chernobyl’s shadow
Jpost.com By RUTH EGLASH, REPORTING FROM PRIPYAT, UKRAINE “……………..Just two kilometers from the Chernobyl nuclear power station, Pripyat – once home to some 48,000 people working at the nearby plant – was evacuated forever in less than three hours when Reactor No. 4 exploded, filling the air with deadly radioactive fallout.
Within 24 hours of the explosion on April 26, 1986, the entire city was emptied, with residents being told to take only essentials. No one has returned to live here since.
Although eerily empty, Pripyat still remains a symbol of one of the worst man-made ecological disasters in history and the repercussions of Chernobyl, both medically and environmentally, still resonate strongly not just for former residents but for the Ukrainian people in general.
A report released by Greenpeace on the 20th anniversary of the accident, with new data based on cancer statistics in neighboring Belarus, estimated that approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancers in the area were caused by Chernobyl. Additionally, demographic data from the previous 15 years showed that 60,000 people died in Russia as a result of the fallout and the total death toll for Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000 indirectly.
Radiation from the accident has also had ongoing effects on survivors, including damage to immune and endocrine systems, accelerated aging, cardiovascular and blood illnesses, psychological problems, chromosomal aberrations and an increase in fetal deformities.
Despite these horrific aftereffects and even as many Ukrainians still come to terms with what happened, officials in Kiev are actively seeking to expand the country’s nuclear energy capabilities, even if it comes at the risk of another Chernobyl.
The move to enhance nuclear energy, which can power the country’s large cast iron and steel industries, as well as individual homes, is justified today, say officials, because of the growing tensions between Ukraine and Russia.
Utilities Seek to Halt Nuclear Waste Fee
The New York Times By Matthew L. Wald July 11, 2009, 8:02 amUtilities Seek to Halt Nuclear Waste Fee
The nuclear industry is contemplating something akin to a rent strike.
Since the early 1980s, utilities have been paying the Energy Department a fee of one tenth of a cent per kilowatt-hour generated in reactors, to pay for a nuclear waste repository. In exchange for the payments, the department signed contracts promising to take the wastes beginning in 1997……………………
Now the power-generation industry wants to stop paying the fee — which would amount to about $769 million for 2009. Some $29.6 billion has already been paid though the end of last year, according to a Bloomberg report.
The law requires the energy secretary to determine every year the “adequacy” of the fee, the industry’s trade group, the Nuclear Energy Institute, pointed out in a letter on Thursday.
It is now well beyond adequate, according to utilities, since the government is spending very little money on the project.
Power companies have already won court decisions that allow them to collect damages, now likely to run well over $20 billion, from the federal government, for their extra costs — including building temporary steel-and-concrete silos, in which old fuel can be stored for decades.
(The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is also preparing to vote on a new policy for waste that would consider such storage adequate for the next few decades, and would permit new reactors to be built even without a long-term plan for waste disposal.)…………………………..“There is no clearly defined program for disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste,’’ wrote Frederick Butler, the president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
Utilities Seek to Halt Nuclear Waste Fee – Green Inc. Blog – NYTimes.com
Energy risk –
French power supply problems could hit UK COMMODITY RISK MANAGEMENT & TRADING Energy Risk News 10 July 2009 : London Unusually high temperatures last month put a third of France’s nuclear power stations out of action, forcing the country to import electricity from the UK. According to Chris Bowden, CEO of energy and carbon advisors Utilyx, the UK may face similar crises in years to come.Bowden says higher temperatures in summer periods can increase UK demand significantly because of increased use of air-conditioning. This, along with accidental and planned power plant outages, could “dramatically reduce” supply margin.”The UK must not become complacent and believe that France’s crisis call for electricity is limited to France alone,” says Bowden. “Nuclear power currently accounts for about a fifth of the UK’s total electricity generation so our own security of supply could also be at risk during hot weather.”
Energy risk – – risk management, trading, finance, commodities in the global energy market
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ruled that the Green Party of Florida and two other environmental groups could challenge Progress Energy’s plan for two new nuclear reactors. | Ocala.com | Star-Banner | Ocala, FL
Legal challenge to nuclear plant advances Environmental groups opposing Progress’ proposed Levy reactors may argue issues in court, board rules. Ocala.com By Fred Hiers
Friday, July 10, 2009Progress Energy’s road to building its proposed nuclear power plant in Levy County northwest of Dunnellon is becoming anything but smooth.
On Wednesday, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board – an arm of the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission – ruled that the Green Party of Florida and two other environmental groups could challenge the utility company’s plan for two new nuclear reactors and had successfully raised major concerns about the plant’s potential environmental impact.
That means Progress Energy will have to argue its case about those environmental issues during a legal hearing, including in oral arguments
The other two environmental organizations that petitioned to be part of future hearings and had objections were the Nuclear Information and Resource Service and the Ecology Party of Florida.
The environmental groups had 12 areas of concern. The licensing board dismissed nine. The remaining three had to do with radioactive waste, how construction would affect the aquifer in the area and the plant’s use and disposal of salt water…………………………
The environmental groups also said the proposed plant should make better plans as to what it would do with its spent radioactive waste and have long-term storage strategies. The utility should also better explain its safety and security procedures for the waste.
The licensing board also agreed with the environmental groups that the utility company should better address the environmental impact of building its plant on a flood plain and its effect on the aquifer and wetlands.
Don’t nuke the climate
International campaign “Don’t nuke the climate” : we need your support
Please answer before the 12th of July 2009.
Register your group
The first partners In December 2009, at the next UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, it will be the world leaders’ duty to aim for an ambitious agreement regarding greenhouse gas emissions cut targets. They should also agree on a relevant budget to finance climate change mitigation and adaptation.Nuclear power has been kept outside of climate change mitigation mechanisms like CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) and JI (Joint Implementation) so far. However, some evidence shows that the nuclear lobby could be preparing its comeback at the next COP to have this dirty energy labeled as clean or carbon-free and thus benefit from new subsidies. Will our leaders let themselves be talked into financing a dangerous, costly and irrelevant technology, which would divert urgently needed money from real solutions to climate change?
This is why we now propose you to support the international campaign “Don’t nuke the climate” which will be initiated by the Réseau “Sortir du nucléaire” (French Network for Nuclear Phase-out). A campaign document will be edited at a large scale (several hundreds of thousand copies) by September 2009. It will include petition postcards to be signed by citizens, which will be gathered and then presented in Copenhagen during a media-oriented action. Beside, we will ask citizens to send us pictures to make a huge mosaic showing the face(s) of world citizens’ refusal of nuke as a solution to global warming.
We would highly appreciate to see your logo on this document and on the dedicated website, our aim being to distribute this campaign as broadly as possible, not only in France, but also in Europe and maybe further. Our last campaign on this topic, in year 2008, has already gathered 27 partners at a national level. However, the issue is global and requires international committment. We know some of you are already active on the issue of nukes and global warming, and hope this campaign could contribute in joining our efforts to allow the antinuclear voice to be heard even stronger in Copenhagen.Like already many organizations, do not hesitate to register your NGO as a partner of the campaign “Don’t nuke the climate”The writing work is in progress and your remarks will be welcomed.
1 This Month
petition to oppose the rapid increase of space-military industry threatening Jeju Island and the region.
[Petition by April 19th (KST)] Stop the joint military-Hanwha Systems-Jeju Provincial Government Sea Launch!
World Nuclear Power. Reactors 1951-2026, 75 Years of Nuclear Power.
Interactive Map– https://dv.worldnuclearreport.org/
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
of the week–London Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (211)
- 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)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
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 