Nuclear solution comes with a huge price tag

Nuclear solution comes with a huge price tag

North County Times By MARK WILLIAMS – AP Energy Writer | Saturday, May 2, 2009

COLUMBUS, 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.

“A large plant would be difficult to finance under the best of conditions, but in today’s credit-constrained markets, without supportive state energy policies, we believe getting financial backing for these projects is impossible,” said Thomas Voss, AmerenUE’s president and chief executive.

Reactors were expensive even 40 years ago at around $1 billion. The cost of AmerenUE’s Missouri project dwarfed even the market value of its parent company………………….. “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…………….

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/05/02/business/z6edbd99928ffa519882575a6006f16a6.txt

May 5, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, USA | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, radioactive | Leave a comment

Waste and cost raise doubts about nuclear power

Waste and cost raise doubts about nuclear power indyweek.com by Gerry Canavan 22 April 09 “………………………..

Beyond the valid safety arguments (see “New revelations about Three Mile Island disaster raise doubts over nuclear plant safety“), which pro- and anti-nuke contingents have argued bitterly about for four decades, there are other concerns about the nuclear solution: the exorbitant cost to build the plants, their financial risk—fraught with more uncertainty considering the country’s recession, and the absence of a place to dispose of tons of dangerous radioactive waste.

No new nuclear power plants have been constructed in this country in more than 20 years. Yet as of February 2009, there were 22 applications for new and expanded plants before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission—12 of them would be located in the South—but none has yet received permission to proceed with actual construction…………

…………nuclear fuel costs are lower compared to coal, peat, wood and natural gas—but not renewable energy sources. Nor do the overall costs include disposal or recycling (also known as reprocessing) of the radioactive waste. In the 1990s, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences studied the feasibility of recycling plutonium; a report concluded that 62,000 tons of spent fuel would cost $50 billion to $100 billion………..

…………..Under the new Construction Work in Progress guidelines signed into state law in 2007 as part of Senate Bill 3, the bulk of the costs for these proposed plants will be passed on to consumers—even if the plants are never completed.

“Taxpayers and ratepayers have been forced to bail out the nuclear power industry twice in the past 30 years, and if Congress gives the industry the massive loan guarantees it wants, we likely will have to cough up hundreds of billions of dollars to do it yet again,” wrote Ellen Vancko, the nuclear energy and climate change project manager at the Union for Concerned Citizens, in a report on federal loan guarantees commissioned by the group. “The industry has gone from promising electricity ‘too cheap to meter’ to being too costly to consider.”

Waste and cost raise doubts about nuclear power: News: National/ International: Independent Weekly: Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill

April 23, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, USA | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, radioactive | Leave a comment

Waste and cost raise doubts about nuclear power:

Waste and cost raise doubts about nuclear power
indyweek.com by Gerry Canavan 22 April 09 “………………………..There is no long-term solution to the problem of what to do with nuclear-generated waste, merely the hope that something will be worked out. Those hopes may dwindle further in the face of what has happened to France, once vaunted as the nation that did nuclear “right.” First, French attempts to build new reactors in France and Finland has been financially disastrous, much like that of the American nuclear industry in the 1980s. The Finnish Olkiluoto reactor is now 55 percent over budget, while the Flamanville project in France has exceeded its budget by $1 billion less than a year into construction.But more important, claims that France had perfected the recycling of nuclear waste are coming under scrutiny. Critics of the French system point to the reprocessing plant at La Hague, which has been discharging 100 million gallons of radioactive waste annually into the English Channel, as well as similarly radioactive gas releases from La Hague. And the French nuclear industry, despite reprocessing, nonetheless has generated 10,000 tons of spent fuel rods like those that now sit in “temporary” storage at Shearon Harris.

Waste and cost raise doubts about nuclear power: News: National/ International: Independent Weekly: Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill

April 23, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, USA | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear costs, radioactive | Leave a comment