Areva going to promote Gen II (less safe) reactors for developing countries?

[kristopher]

PARIS, Jan 15 (Reuters) - State-controlled nuclear reactor maker Areva (CEPFi.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) is considering producing cheaper nuclear reactors after its flagship EPR reactor lost out to a lower-cost South-Korean rival in a $20 billion tender in Abu Dhabi last month, the Financial Times reported on Friday.

Top Areva management last week launched a review of its product range "to determine whether Areva should reintroduce the simpler second-generation CPR 1,000 reactors, which it stoppped building 20 years ago, for client countries that are new to nuclear power", the paper said.

The review comes as analysts have said that French nuclear firms should stop pushing expensive state-of-the-art reactors to developing countries and instead market the EPR -- Areva's flagship nuclear reactor -- to rich countries where top-notch safety systems are politically key.

"We are targeting one-third of the market for new reactors and we had thought that market would be for reactors of the safety standard EPR. The question that Abu Dhabi poses is that perhaps that is not the case," the FT cited a senior Areva executive as saying.

http://in.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idINLDE60E0F820100115

[Statistical]

1. Well you are always saying reactors cost too much. Here are some that cost less.

Watch what you wish for.

[kristopher]

2. This is a current example of how reality always deviates from nuclear industry hype.

This goes directly to the legitimacy of Jacobson's approach. The perfect scenario you wish decision-making to be based on is too narrowly defined by an industry that is trying to get trillions of dollars in funding.

You criticize Jacobson for using a global perspective that doesn't focus exclusively on the best and most appealing technologies. The fact is that the real world has a habit of forcing compromises such as the OP onto such fairy tale scenarios as you insist on, and if we build the 17,000 plants needed to provide the planet's non-carbon energy needs a lot of them are not going to involve corruption, inferior materials, graft, poor planning and execution, poor management and/or any of a whole host of other potential areas of failure.

[NNadir]

3. Less safe than what? There are zero Gen II reactors that have killed like Alpha Piper,

disaster (about which anti-nukes know zero) or as many people as Texas City (about which the anti-nukes know zero), or at or like the "renewable" energy disaster (killing hundreds of thousands in a single night) at Banqiao, (about which anti-nukes couldn't care less) or like the Connecticut gas plant, (about which anti-nukes have had nothing to say even while they sell gas or the millions who have died - and will die - as published in Lancet (which I will discuss this weekend) from COPD in Asia, many of them from biomass.

Areva built more than 50 Gen II reactors that are operating until this day in France - did it in less than ten years - offers the lowest electricity rates in Europe and has made electricity the 4th largest export of the fifth largest economy in the world.

Zero French have died from the operation of Gen II reactors.

There is NOT ONE anti-nuke who understands nuclear technology, and EVERY SINGLE ONE of them relies wholly on innuendo and fantasy.

[kristopher]

4. The choice isn't nuclear or fossil fuels 'nads.

'Nads and his "false choice" fallacy. It is your second favorite false argument next to the "man can never fly" fallacy.

The preferred alternative is a combination of renewables.

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[TheWraith]

5. You post your soup of words like it means something.

It doesn't alter the bottom line math with regard to base-load power demand, the massive overbuilding needed for wind/solar and others to produce equal amounts of power. And the fact that YES, it is a choice between fossil fuels and nuclear. Until you can show enough energy out of wind and solar to take coal out of the equation NOW, which is what we need to do if we're going to survive, then it's a moot discussion.

[kristopher]

6. Renewables can do it faster and cheaper

The Jacobson study looks at those issues and concludes:

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered.

The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security.

Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

Jacobson
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


An "opportunity cost loss" means that coal ssc or nuclear take longer to produce the same amount of electricity.

Estimates for new nuclear power place these facilities among the costliest private projects ever undertaken. Utilities promoting new nuclear power assert it is their least costly option. However, independent studies have concluded new nuclear power is not economically competitive. Given this discrepancy, nuclear’s history of cost overruns, and the fact new generation designs have never been constructed any where, there is a major business risk nuclear power will be more costly than projected. Recent construction cost estimates imply capital costs/kWh (not counting operation or fuel costs) from 17-22 cents/kWh when the nuclear facilities come on-line. Another major business risk is nuclear’s history of construction delays. Delays would run costs higher, risking funding shortfalls. The strain on cash flow is expected to degrade credit ratings.

Generation costs/kWh for new nuclear (including fuel & O&M but not distribution to customers) are likely to be from 25 - 30 cents/kWh. This high cost may destroy the very demand the plant was built to serve. High electric rates may seriously impact utility customers and make nuclear utilities’ service areas noncompetitive with other regions of the U.S. which are developing lower-cost electricity.

Severance
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf

The additional cost of building 100 new nuclear reactors, instead of pursuing a least cost
efficiency-renewable strategy, would be in the range of $1.9-$4.4 trillion over the life the
reactors.

Cooper Report:
http://www.vermontlaw.edu/it/Documents/Cooper%20Report%20on%20Nuclear%20Economics%20FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf

[Kolesar]

7. Billions are going into wind power and trillions are sitting in "Money market" accounts

but no investor wants to invest the the forlorn nuclear industry. Such a pity

[Statistical]

9. Actually GA utility issues billions in 40 year bonds for new reactor at very low interest rate.

So guess investors are interested and they are not demanding massively high rates for the risk.

6.6% on taxable bonds, and 4.90% on tax free bonds.


http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100303-712069.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines
--------------------------------------------

Despite the caution, around $2 billion of the bonds are rated within the middle of investment-grade credit quality ranges by Moody's Investors Service, Standard & Poor's and Fitch Ratings.

Wednesday, pricing information was out on one part of the three-part deal. About $1.2 billion in Build America Bonds, due April 1, 2057, were launched at 205 basis points over the yield of Treasurys, according to lead bookrunner Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS).

Earlier indications were that the bonds would provide greater yields. The reduction in returns may indicate the deal is going well and that there's good investor demand.

Meanwhile, a $24.4 million portion of tax-exempt bonds was priced to provide a top yield of 4.90% in 2040.

[Kolesar]

10. Subscription required ... eom

[Statistical]

11. Thats weird? not for me

Google news "GA nuclear bonds".

I am surprised they are going for so low. I figured they would be 7.5%+. Thought I could lock up some nice long tern returns with little risk. Guess everyone else though same thing.

[Kolesar]

12. So it is 4.9% and 2.08% lower than federal Tbills, is that what it says? eom

[Statistical]

13. No. There are two bonds. 4.9% taxfree and 6.6% taxable (which is 2.08% higher than 30yr T-bond)

I figured the taxable bonds would easily be 7.5% to 8% because of all the hysteria about nuclear being too expensive and risky. Thought I could lock up some 8% interest until year 2057. Guess that isn't going to happen.

[kristopher]

14. SUBSIDIZED "Build America Bonds"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Build_America_Bonds

And that is IN ADDITION TO the loan guarantees.


Georgia Taps Build America Bonds to Subsidize Nuclear Expansion
Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A

By Michael McDonald and Brendan A. McGrail

March 4 (Bloomberg) -- Georgia’s Municipal Electric Authority tapped the Build America Bond program, selling $1.22 billion of the taxable securities as it seeks to license the first nuclear power plant in the U.S. in 30 years, according to Bloomberg data.

The public utility, one of four owners of the proposed expansion of the Vogtle electric generating station near Waynesboro, Georgia, agreed to pay an annual interest rate of 6.637 percent on securities maturing in 2057, according to sale results. It plans to sell another $1.3 billion of federally subsidized Build America Bonds before the end of this month to finance most of its share of the project, according to offering documents.

President Barack Obama endorsed plans to build the two new nuclear reactors on Feb. 16 when he announced $8.33 billion of conditional federal loan guarantees, which are separate from the Build America subsidies. Its construction and operating licenses, to be decided by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission before the end of next year, would be the first since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, according to offering documents.

The Georgia authority is securing the nuclear power bonds with agreements it signed to sell the electricity it expects they’ll begin producing in 2016, according to Christopher Jumper, a Fitch Ratings analyst. There will still be revenue from the contracts to pay back bondholders even if the license is never issued, Jumper said. ...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aC2eKnZZaX.8

[Statistical]

15. You are mistaken. Loan guarantees are 70% of reactor cost. These bonds are the other 30%.

They are not guaranteed. GA could default on them just like CA could default on it's muni-bond debt.

The subsidy is to help states issue any municipal debt in this recession (tight credit market). It isn't a nuclear specific subsidy. If GA was issuing a bond for library they could use BAB program.

Still the subsidy doesn't affect what investors are willing to pay. It reduces the cost to GA.

Investors are willing to pay as little as 6.6% taxable or 4.9% tax-free on 30% of reactor cost that is NOT GUARANTEED.

I am personally sad it isn't higher. I thought with all the anti-science "nukes kill" idiots out there that interest rates would be in the 7%-8% range.

[kristopher]

16. The article specifies the shift of risk from the private sector to the public sector

They have used both several subsidies and (apparently) preconstruction rate increases to ratepayers in order to shift the risk from the private sector to the public sector. Try reading for comprehension...

March 4 (Bloomberg) -- Georgia’s Municipal Electric Authority tapped the Build America Bond program, selling $1.22 billion of the taxable securities as it seeks to license the first nuclear power plant in the U.S. in 30 years, according to Bloomberg data.

The public utility, one of four owners of the proposed expansion of the Vogtle electric generating station near Waynesboro, Georgia, agreed to pay an annual interest rate of 6.637 percent on securities maturing in 2057, according to sale results. It plans to sell another $1.3 billion of federally subsidized Build America Bonds before the end of this month to finance most of its share of the project, according to offering documents.

President Barack Obama endorsed plans to build the two new nuclear reactors on Feb. 16 when he announced $8.33 billion of conditional federal loan guarantees, which are separate from the Build America subsidies. Its construction and operating licenses, to be decided by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission before the end of next year, would be the first since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, according to offering documents.

The Georgia authority is securing the nuclear power bonds with agreements it signed to sell the electricity it expects they’ll begin producing in 2016, according to Christopher Jumper, a Fitch Ratings analyst. There will still be revenue from the contracts to pay back bondholders even if the license is never issued, Jumper said. ...

And what do the ratepayers and taxpayers get for their exposure?
Nuclear energy at 25-30 cents per kilowatts is the best part of the package IF it is ever delivered.

[Kolesar]

8. It's Piper Alpha...eom