Recent Comment
Share
It's been a grim month for Nuclear Power, always a contentious issue for greens, power from the atom has taken two steps back as South African utility Eskom announce plans to cancel their tendering process for new nuclear plant in South Africa. It comes a week after revelations from the French economic publication Les Echos reveal that French campaign group "Sortir du nucléaire" have accused EdF of lying during a public consultation exercise which was the prelude to the decision to build a new nuclear plant at Flamanville in France.
Originally, it was announced that power from the Flamanville plant was costed at €43 / MWh, however, delays and added construction costs (a feature of every nuclear plant that has gone before Flamanville) have added to the costs and so the price of nuclear electricity from the plant is now estimated to be €55 / MWh - Les Echos stated that EdF were expected to announce this at their next meeting. The only other nuclear plant under construction is that at Olikuoto in Finland. It is of the same EPR (European Pressurised Reactor) design that is being constructed at Flamanville. The Finnsh reactor has also been plagued with problems and at one point in the construction, French contractor Bouygues were accused of using unqualified welders... quite worrying considering the specialised nature of nuclear engineering!
In an economy where finance is hard to come buy, and the governments of the world are already propping up their economies with massive debt, will massive projects which carry potentially massive liabilities such as nuclear power begin to look even less attractive, whilst smaller unit-cost renewables, with a demonstrable payback within their own life time
Hits: 6126
Comments (16)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Ben, December 21, 2008
surely if a country works properly and realises a problem like WW2 Great Britain then renewable energy could come about significantly quicker than nuclear.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Christina Macpherson, December 21, 2008
The nuclear industry, desperately hanging on , came up with this furphy about emissions.
Sure - if you don't count the emissions in the entire fuel cycle - from mining- through transport - through waste disposal and decommissioning - then nuclear looks "clean"
And of course, we all have to develop that religious belief that a "safe disposal" method will be found, for nuclear wastes - a sort of "act of faith".
And - we are supposed to believe that terrorists would not get hold of nuclear materials, and that all those nuclear hungry states don't really want nuclear weapons.
It astonishes me that "Engineering Graduates" and other so well-qualified persons can just shut their minds to the awkward questions, and expect the rest of us - the great unwashed with common sense, to make these "acts of faith", too.
And of course, more seriously - they expect us to invest in nuclear power - an industry that is so dangerous that it cannot get insurance!
Sure - if you don't count the emissions in the entire fuel cycle - from mining- through transport - through waste disposal and decommissioning - then nuclear looks "clean"
And of course, we all have to develop that religious belief that a "safe disposal" method will be found, for nuclear wastes - a sort of "act of faith".
And - we are supposed to believe that terrorists would not get hold of nuclear materials, and that all those nuclear hungry states don't really want nuclear weapons.
It astonishes me that "Engineering Graduates" and other so well-qualified persons can just shut their minds to the awkward questions, and expect the rest of us - the great unwashed with common sense, to make these "acts of faith", too.
And of course, more seriously - they expect us to invest in nuclear power - an industry that is so dangerous that it cannot get insurance!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Christina Macpherson, December 21, 2008
didn't understand that the comment had been received
-
- +0
-
-
written by Fred, December 21, 2008
Was this article written in a vacuum? The problems with nuclear power (in the U.S., at least) are not financial or technological, they are political.
Exxon Oil could cover the cost of 4 or 5 nuclear plants out of their 2008 profits alone, and have change left over! They have $40 billion cash on hand right now. And they are not the only ones with money in the bank.
The reason no-one wants to build a plant is because the process is continuously sabotaged by legal shenanigans. It's agony.
All Congress would have to do is pass the necessary laws to expedite permitting and contruction and deny the endless lawsuits, but how likely is that?
Since they were the ones that passed the ugly laws that allowed and encouraged all the eternal bickering and backstabbing to begin with.
And good reliable technology is there ready to be put in use. Including safe and secure waste storage.
Exxon Oil could cover the cost of 4 or 5 nuclear plants out of their 2008 profits alone, and have change left over! They have $40 billion cash on hand right now. And they are not the only ones with money in the bank.
The reason no-one wants to build a plant is because the process is continuously sabotaged by legal shenanigans. It's agony.
All Congress would have to do is pass the necessary laws to expedite permitting and contruction and deny the endless lawsuits, but how likely is that?
Since they were the ones that passed the ugly laws that allowed and encouraged all the eternal bickering and backstabbing to begin with.
And good reliable technology is there ready to be put in use. Including safe and secure waste storage.
-
- +0
-
-
written by John Wheeler, December 22, 2008
Warren Buffet and France's Areva have been battling it out to buy Constellation Energy for weeks, and finally Areva came in with a winning offer of $4.5B for a 49% share of Constellation's five nuclear plants in MD and NY. Serious investors know nuclear energy has a bright future in the USA and around the world.
Other examples that illustrate my point of a bright future for nuclear energy:
* Exelon's on-going attempts at a hostile takeover of NRG energy,
* The UAE has begun hiring experts to staff a nuclear regulatory agency in preparation for building thier first nuclear plant to generate electricity.
* China and Russia are building several new reactors (a fact the writer of this blog missed).
* Nuclear technologies such as thorium fuel and small reactors are getting investment and international attention.
* Owners of several new nuclear plants planned in the USA have already ordered heavy forgings and I know at least one "next generation" reactor vessel has already been forged.
* In the recent economic down-turn, utilities that generate electricity with nuclear plants have performed well; 5% to 10% better than the market overall. Examples include Exelon, Entergy, Duke and others.
On the flip side, even advocates of wind and solar energy acknowledge massive taxpayer subsidies will be needed to make these technologies marginally competitive.
In the end, energy technologies that earn investor confidence and provide the most cost effective sources of carbon-free base load electricity will come out on top. For now, that is nuclear energy.
Other examples that illustrate my point of a bright future for nuclear energy:
* Exelon's on-going attempts at a hostile takeover of NRG energy,
* The UAE has begun hiring experts to staff a nuclear regulatory agency in preparation for building thier first nuclear plant to generate electricity.
* China and Russia are building several new reactors (a fact the writer of this blog missed).
* Nuclear technologies such as thorium fuel and small reactors are getting investment and international attention.
* Owners of several new nuclear plants planned in the USA have already ordered heavy forgings and I know at least one "next generation" reactor vessel has already been forged.
* In the recent economic down-turn, utilities that generate electricity with nuclear plants have performed well; 5% to 10% better than the market overall. Examples include Exelon, Entergy, Duke and others.
On the flip side, even advocates of wind and solar energy acknowledge massive taxpayer subsidies will be needed to make these technologies marginally competitive.
In the end, energy technologies that earn investor confidence and provide the most cost effective sources of carbon-free base load electricity will come out on top. For now, that is nuclear energy.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Teaser-Trailer.com, December 22, 2008
This utterly biased article was written to please the main demographics of ecogeek I suppose... 
Ecogeek should strike a balance instead of showing signs of "eco-integrism"...
I'm all for renewable energy in the long term. But our planet can't buy time. And because most people are just too lazy to change the way they live, going nuclear is a solution, in the short term, that we cant' afford to spit on...
Don't be a posh diehard ecologist like Christina above: open your eyes and save the planet besides yourself by seizing the real opportunities that are on the table.
Ecogeek should strike a balance instead of showing signs of "eco-integrism"...
I'm all for renewable energy in the long term. But our planet can't buy time. And because most people are just too lazy to change the way they live, going nuclear is a solution, in the short term, that we cant' afford to spit on...
Don't be a posh diehard ecologist like Christina above: open your eyes and save the planet besides yourself by seizing the real opportunities that are on the table.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Scatter, December 22, 2008
if that balance involves promoting a technology as flawed as nuclear power as a solution? A technology which won't deliver energy in the short term unless you count 2018 (about the shortest time you could possibly deliver new nuclear if you started right now), short term?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Fred, December 22, 2008
This site should really be called EcoTard. The intellectual and technical content of the articles is almost non-existent.
Is the PlayStation generation really this dumbed down?
Is the PlayStation generation really this dumbed down?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Ben, December 22, 2008
I wouldnt agree with Freds view about ecotard but it would be nice to see a few more figures and stats in articles.
-
- +0
-
-
written by EV, December 22, 2008
A technology which won't deliver energy in the short term unless you count 2018 (about the shortest time you could possibly deliver new nuclear if you started right now), short term?
Well, we seem to be looking 100 years out for CO2, so why not look at a measly 10 years out for solutions? After all, it's not like any wind/solar/hydro solution you could come up with would take less than 10 years either. Why is it that you are being so short sighted? Take the long term look at all this and plan accordingly.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Russell Lowes, December 24, 2008
Nukes are a failed 20th Century technology. Nuclear energy construction costs have gone up from $1500 per kilowatt of installed capacity to over $7000 in a matter of two and a half years. This is what happened last round, in the 1980s. Cost projections were really sales pitches and then the costs went up astronomically. Nukes ended up costing much more than coal, natural gas, energy efficiency, including appliance efficiency improvements and energy-efficient architecture.
When you add up all the costs in a reasonable, unbiased fashion, nukes are coming in at about 24 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared to wind at 12, including generation, transmission and distribution end costs to the customer. Energy efficiency has cost about an average of 3 cents/KWH.
Again, nukes are a failed 20th century technology.
When you add up all the costs in a reasonable, unbiased fashion, nukes are coming in at about 24 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared to wind at 12, including generation, transmission and distribution end costs to the customer. Energy efficiency has cost about an average of 3 cents/KWH.
Again, nukes are a failed 20th century technology.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dennis Cossiboon, February 05, 2009
Anyone to say that Nuclear technology has failed is a moron and blind to reality, you all know this to be true.
20% of US energy comes from Nuclear plants.
that's 19% more than solar and wind combined.
and 17% more than hydro. Oh, that' sounds failed to me.
I think its really moronic and narrow minded to call nuclear power failed tech.
Really, you can talk dollars and cents all you want, but if it costs more than its worth, they would have been shut out of the market a long time ago. And its the narrow minded people that have kept more plants from not being built.
Fact is, its a clean technology. You'd think lefties would be all for it. But lefties aren't for anything but big government and smoking grass.
So lets take the plants out of Cali and see how they power their A/C's next summer. LOL
Stupid stupid people.
20% of US energy comes from Nuclear plants.
that's 19% more than solar and wind combined.
and 17% more than hydro. Oh, that' sounds failed to me.
I think its really moronic and narrow minded to call nuclear power failed tech.
Really, you can talk dollars and cents all you want, but if it costs more than its worth, they would have been shut out of the market a long time ago. And its the narrow minded people that have kept more plants from not being built.
Fact is, its a clean technology. You'd think lefties would be all for it. But lefties aren't for anything but big government and smoking grass.
So lets take the plants out of Cali and see how they power their A/C's next summer. LOL
Stupid stupid people.
-
- +0
-
-
written by wedding dresses, October 13, 2009
Source? I'd really like to know where you got that information from.
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
That nuclear power plants are facing some of these delays/cancellations is no more proof that nuclear is a bad idea than the canceling of wind and oil projects proves we won't be using more of those options.
Replacing coal power with nuclear remains the fastest way to cut CO2 emissions since, as France showed, it only takes about twenty years for a determined country to make all its base load power from nuclear power plants. They have the lowest per capita emissions in the developed world and really should be taken seriously. Even Denmark, and Germany burn enough more coal than France to have higher emissions despite their renewables industry. Our goal as America should be to take the best of both worlds, produce 20% of our electricity from renewables like Denmark, the other 80% with Nuclear like France