Nuclear

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.

The nuclear White Paper: an analysis

Posted by bex — 10 January 2008 at 5:44pm - Comments

Our political unit has been trawling through the fine print of this morning's nuclear White Paper. Here's their initial analysis, outlining some of the more subtle ways the government has understated the real risks to the taxpayer and the lack of clarity on economics:

 

  • The White Paper shows how nuclear companies will be able to cap their liabilities, leaving the tax payer exposed if estimates for dealing with waste change.
  • It openly admits the government will have to provide extra money if cost estimates are wrong.
  • It uses questionable financial estimates to build the nuclear economic case.
Syndicate content

Follow Greenpeace UK