Nuclear costs in the US go up, up and away!

Posted by jamie — 13 March 2008 at 6:13pm - Comments

News from the Sunshine State reminds us that nuclear power is only an option for companies with very deep pockets. Or a hand in their customers' pockets, to be precise.

Progress (ha!) Energy have tripled the estimate for the new plant it's planning to build in Florida, saying that the new price tag will be an eye-watering $17 billion, and they haven't even got permission to start building yet. How are they going to pay for this? Why, by bumping up bills for its existing customers of course. "You can't avoid the notion that nuclear has an upfront cost for the customer," said Jeff Lyash, president and chief executive of Progress (double ha!) Energy Florida. "It does."

And that's just the beginning. We all know that, once the diggers move in, the costs for a nuclear power station take on a mysterious life of their own, spiralling ever upward. Just look at the delay-ridden, cash-sucking plant currently being built in Finland. It's the same in this country as well, with costs for dealing with existing waste (never mind the waste generated by a hypothetical fleet of new nuclear power stations) going repeatedly skywards.

So if the day comes when another load of nuclear power stations are being built here, remember it won't be private companies picking up the elephantine costs: one way or another, it'll be us.

Article tagged as: climate change, energy, nuclear power, nuclear waste, USA
Comments Commenting is now closed

Hi Colin

I have to say I find the argument that nuclear is cheaper in 'the long run' a pretty bizarre one.

How have the NEI (whose objective, by the way, is "to ensure the formation of policies that promote the beneficial uses of nuclear energy and technologies in the United States and around the world") calculated the long-term and external costs?

The cost of "managing" wastes that can remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years?

The external costs of the impacts of radioactivity on our seas and seafood?

The higher incidences of cancers (the government's Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee estimates that this and future generations can expect 200 cancer deaths worldwide for each year that Sellafield discharges nuclear waste into the sea and air)?

The costs of combating nuclear proliferation due to an increase in weapons grade plutonium? etc.

Even in terms of shorter term, more tangible costs, the nuclear industry is notoriously abysmal at calculating them. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) got a slamming from The National Audit Office recently for exactly this. The costs of decommissioning have spiralled from £56bn to £73bn over a few years (the taxpayer pays).

Disposing of the UK's stockpile of legacy wastes is estimated at an additional £10-20bn.

The Sellafield MOX plant - sold to the taxpayer as a money spinner - is producing MOX fuel at a cost of about £90m per tonne.

And, time and again, the taxpayer is left to clean up...

Cheers,

Bex
gpuk

By bex - 27 March 2008 at 11:53am

Hi Colin I have to say I find the argument that nuclear is cheaper in 'the long run' a pretty bizarre one. How have the NEI (whose objective, by the way, is "to ensure the formation of policies that promote the beneficial uses of nuclear energy and technologies in the United States and around the world") calculated the long-term and external costs? The cost of "managing" wastes that can remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years? The external costs of the impacts of radioactivity on our seas and seafood? The higher incidences of cancers (the government's Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee estimates that this and future generations can expect 200 cancer deaths worldwide for each year that Sellafield discharges nuclear waste into the sea and air)? The costs of combating nuclear proliferation due to an increase in weapons grade plutonium? etc. Even in terms of shorter term, more tangible costs, the nuclear industry is notoriously abysmal at calculating them. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) got a slamming from The National Audit Office recently for exactly this. The costs of decommissioning have spiralled from £56bn to £73bn over a few years (the taxpayer pays). Disposing of the UK's stockpile of legacy wastes is estimated at an additional £10-20bn. The Sellafield MOX plant - sold to the taxpayer as a money spinner - is producing MOX fuel at a cost of about £90m per tonne. And, time and again, the taxpayer is left to clean up... Cheers, Bex gpuk

By bex - 27 March 2008 at 11:53am

About Jamie

I'm a forests campaigner working mainly on Indonesia. My personal mumblings can be found @shrinkydinky.

Other posts by this author

Authors around the world stand up for free speech and forests

May 31 2017

Saving the Sumatran tiger

May 26 2017

Who still banks on destroying Indonesia's forests?

March 15 2017

Comments

Follow Greenpeace UK