[NukeNet] New NIRS Factsheets: Nukes Not the Answer

[catalyst at actionpa.org]

From:  Michael Mariotte <nirsnet at nirs.org>

THINK NEW ATOMIC REACTORS CAN BE BUILT CHEAPLY AND ON-TIME?

THINK AGAIN!

The Bush Administration and nuclear power industry have asserted that
new nuclear reactors-unlike the current generation--would be built at
competitive prices and on schedule.

The Nuclear Energy Institute, for example, has made repeated claims that
new power reactors can be built for about $1,500-$2,000/kw.  This means
a standard 1,000 MW reactor could be built for about $1.5-$2.0 billion;
a large 1,500 MW reactor would be expected to cost about $2.25-$3
billion.

Current real-world experience shows that these claims are just
pipedreams.

* On July 11, 2006, the Finnish government reported that the construction
schedule for its new EPR (European Pressurized Reactor) already has
slipped by a full 12 months-and construction of this reactor began only
15 months ago, in April 2005!  Cost for this 1600 MW reactor is
estimated to be three billion Euros, or about $3.7 Billion dollars, and
that is with extremely favorable loan interest rates that wouldn't be
available to private US utilities. Several US utilities, such as
Constellation Energy, have expressed interest in the EPR design.

* In June 2006, Toshiba purchased the world's largest manufacturer of
atomic reactors: Westinghouse. The company heralded the purchase by
asserting that Westinghouse could expect 20 or more new reactor orders
in the next several years. Industry analysts quoted by Reuters said each
reactor order would be worth $2.6 Billion to Toshiba, a price already
above the NEI's stated cost goal.  Since Toshiba only supplies the
reactors and doesn't perform the construction, nor much of the
non-nuclear side of the plant, actual prices for a fully-constructed
Westinghouse reactor can be expected to reach at least the range of the
EPR, and probably even higher. On the other hand, the cost of the EPR
can be expected to increase as further construction delays are
experienced.


In short, anyone thinking a new generation of atomic power reactors can
be built at competitive prices should think again-and think hard.

One more quick news item: in July 2006, it was reported that uranium
prices have risen some 600% over the past five years: from $7.25/pound
in January 2001 to $45.50/pound in June 2006. Continued price rises
would threaten nuclear power's traditional operating cost advantage over
some other fuel sources (coal, gas), making nuclear's economics outlook
even bleaker.

Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
July 28, 2006

[1] For example, see Nuclear Energy Institute Wall Street Briefing, "A
Solid Business Platform for Future Growth," February 2, 2006,
http://www.nei.org/documents/Wall_Street_Briefing_2-2-06.pdf "To be
conservative, the NEI financial analysis assumes a capital cost of
approximately $2,000 per kilowatt for the first few plants built,
declining to approximately $1,500 per kilowatt for the later plants."

[2] "Finland's 5th Nuclear Reactor Delayed," Tuesday July 11, 2006, by
Matti Huuhtanen, Associated Press
3 "Toshiba sees US nuke plant orders for Westinghouse," Tuesday, June
27, 2006, Reuters


------------------------------------------------------------------------

New fact sheets on NIRS website: View them and use them!

Are Federal Permissible Standards for Tritium Too Permissive? [New  
NIRS fact sheet]
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/tritiumnaturalbackground.pdf

Why New Nukes are Risky.  [Coalition briefing paper on the economic risks
of nuclear power, presented to Wall Street analysts.]
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/whynewnukesareriskyfcts.pdf

Nuclear Power and Climate: Why Nukes Can't Save the Planet.  [NIRS factsheet.]
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/nukesclimatefact606.pdf

And don't forget to send this link to all of your friends/work
colleagues/church groups/college classmates and everyone you meet to
encourage them to sign the Petition for A Sustainable Energy Future!
http://www.nirs.org/petition/index.php?r=ft