Nuclear Power’s Renaissance in Reverse

[kristopher]

Nuclear Power’s Renaissance in Reverse

PARIS – Last June, Yukiya Amano, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), declared that “nuclear power will make a significant and growing contribution to sustainable development in the coming decades.” But, as this year’s World Nuclear Industry Status Report highlights, recent trends paint a very different picture.

Duke Energy, America’s largest utility, has shelved plans to build two reactors in Florida, after having spent $1 billion on the project. The decision came only three months after the company abandoned investment in two new units in North Carolina.

In fact, this year, four American utilities have decided to shut down a total of five reactors permanently – the first closures in the United States in 15 years. One of the units – Kewaunee Power Station in Wisconsin – was abandoned after massive investment in upgrades and a 60-year license renewal; it simply could not generate power at competitive prices. For the same reasons, Vermont Yankee, another plant with a license to operate through 2032, is now scheduled to close in 2014.

Similarly, the world’s largest nuclear operator – the French state-controlled utility Électricité de France – announced its impending withdrawal from nuclear power in the US, after having sunk roughly $2 billion into aborted projects. And, in order to help offset soaring operating costs, which resulted in losses of €1.5 billion ($2 billion) last year, EDF will raise electricity prices this year for its French customers by 5%, on average, and by another 5% next year.

Over the five years ending in March 2013, EDF lost 85% of its share value. Likewise, the world’s largest nuclear builder – the French state-controlled company AREVA – lost up to 88% of its share value between 2008 and 2012...

Read more at http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-global-decline-of-nuclear-energy-by-mycle-schneider-and-antony-froggatt

[madokie]

1. I love reading this

Like I said yesterday, on paper nuclear energy sounds like the cats meow but in reality not so much. Too many variables and all of them are too critical for it to be a safe way to make steam to power turbines. Once things go wrong they tend to go wrong in a big way. That we can't tolerate, we can't have.
Just how long will it be before the area around Hanford, Chernobyl or Fuchishima be habitable by humans again? We're talking about a vast area in both Hanford and Chernobyl with Fuchishima no where contained yet even after 2 and damn near a half years. Its possible for Fuchishima to turn into a much larger problem yet. I'd say the chances of that happening is better than a 50-50 chance too, if worse can be better that is.
Personally I say shut the damn things down and let us deal with the consequences.
Oh, I love reading this because I never believed the nuclear hype to begin with.

[diane in sf]

2. k&r thank you!