Antinuclear

Nukenomics? Can the nuclear industry stand on its own?

“SMRs are just the next chapter in a nuclear industry that can’t stand up on its own,” said Don Hancock, director for nuclear waste safety at the Southwest Research and Information Center, “so it always has to be funded by the government.”

Even if some risks are reduced, “pocket nukes” would still be more dangerous than wind, solar and other renewable energy, according to UCS. They’re also much more vulnerable to use by terrorists.

“The few projects now going forward in Europe,”  “notably in Finland and France, suggest that the industry’s cost estimates are wildly unrealistic.” 

Nuclear Power, Part 2: Nukenomics  By Ned Madden, 14 June 13 TechNewsWorld Can the nuclear industry stand on its own two feet financially?….. Even giant corporations in the nuclear energy industry are cautious about the fiscal viability of the nuke space. Construction cost estimates for new nuclear power plants are highly uncertain.

Risky Business However, construction costs are just the beginning. Billions of dollars are spent in operating performance, fuel price, waste disposal and other factors.

Analysis of the economics of nuclear power must take into account who bears the risks of future uncertainties. To date, all operating nuclear power plants worldwide have been subsidized by governments and developed by state-owned or regulated utility monopolies.

Most of the risks associated with nuclear power plants have been borne by taxpayers and ratepayers rather than suppliers….. Insurance protection is another enormous factor. In accordance with the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act of 1957, nuclear power in the U.S. has been granted indemnity from the burden of carrying full third-party insurance liabilities…. In fact, Price-Anderson significantly shifts accident and security risks from industry to taxpayers by limiting the primary insurance a nuclear plant owner is required to carry to $375 million, the UCS charges…….

Can the Industry Stand on Its Own?

Other nuclear watchdogs remain cautious about embracing innovations such as SMRs.

“SMRs are just the next chapter in a nuclear industry that can’t stand up on its own,” said Don Hancock, director for nuclear waste safety at the Southwest Research and Information Center, “so it always has to be funded by the government.”

Even if some risks are reduced, “pocket nukes” would still be more dangerous than wind, solar and other renewable energy, according to UCS. They’re also much more vulnerable to use by terrorists.

Perhaps even more sobering, though, is nuclear power’s true cost.

“Subsidies to the nuclear fuel cycle have often exceeded the value of the power produced,” concludes a UCS report released in 2011, “Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies.” The report attempts to take into account all the costs and risks shifted from the nuclear industry to government and ratepayers over the past 50 years.

“This means that buying power on the open market and giving it away for free would have been less costly than subsidizing the construction and operation of nuclear power plants,” the report observes……

“The few projects now going forward in Europe,” concluded Taylor, “notably in Finland and France, suggest that the industry’s cost estimates are wildly unrealistic.” http://www.technewsworld.com/story/78268.html

June 15, 2013 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized