When billionaire Warren Buffett, (left) - the world's top investor, decides that nuclear power is not financially viable - well - you gotta stop and think.....!

Democratic countries like the USA, UK, India are wrestling with this unsolvable problem of the astronomic cost of nuclear.

The only countries that pretend that nuclear is economically viable must depend on government ownership (e.g France, Russia, China), and on secrecy about the costs of security, waste storage, and the weapons use (e.g France, Russia ,China). - Christina Macpherson

Costing estimates from the nuclear industry are unreliable and unverified

The nuclear industry has been hugely subsidised. Nuclear power is currently more expensive than wind power in the UK and USA.

The factors that determine costs include:

- the capital costs of reactor construction
- the time taken to build the reactor
- the interest rates associated with project financing
- the reactor's efficiency and performance
- the costs of adequate liability insurance relating to accidents and terrorist acts- the required rate of return on capital investment
- the costs of reactor decommissioning
- the costs of radioactive waste storage and disposal

The nuclear lobby distorts the picture, when comparing nuclear costs to those of other energy sources - by over-stating the likely performance, understating time to build and costs of nuclear. Costs of accidents and limited insurance are understated. The government bears the cost of waste disposal, and costs ofshutting down reactors are unpredictable.

Costs of the industry in the UK and USA have been very high. Predictions of cheaper costs in other countries are dubious, and often based on an unreasonably low interest rate. "Cheaper capital costs" are often based on costs of past construction, rather than of today's. The huge government subsidies are not included when estimating costs. The much-touted new nuclear reactor for Finland is owned by a consortium and is 40% government-owned, and will sell to its consortium, and get finance at low interest, not market interest rates

Bad reactions Guardian.co.uk Michael Meacher May 7 2008 - "The figures just don't stack up for the argument that new nuclear power stations will ensure a secure and sustainable energy source.

With French and German companies lining up to build new nuclear power stations in Britain, the die now seems cast for nuclear. Or is it?

The government's goal is certainly ambitious. Ten countries - primarily the UK, US, France and Canada, but also including Japan, Korea, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa and Switzerland - have set up the Generation IV International Forum. It will develop a successor nuclear energy system to the previous Generations I (Magnox) and II (advanced gas-cooled reactors and the Sizewell B light water reactor) and follow the Generation III systems now being built.

..............It is intended that these Generation III models, plus (hopefully) improved versions in future, will lead reactor orders through to 2030, after which it is hoped that Generation IV will kick in, with the goal of nuclear sustainability.

However, the roadmap to get there is beset by practical problems that may prove insurmountable. …………………………Meanwhile, Japan has closed seven nuclear power stations built on an earthquake fault line.

The Olkiluoto reactor is already two years behind schedule after just two years' building and has a £1bn cost overrun so far, and there can be no reliable evidence on the economics of nuclear power until the new designs of the Westinghouse AP1000 and European …………………EPR water reactors have been fully tested over many years in service. Contrary to claims by the industry, unresolved questions of cost … are he biggest challenges to the nuclear revival ……………………….So, a nuclear renaissance? Forget it.

Sky-Rocketing Reactor Costs Hit Europe: Beyond Nuclear Bulletin 7 May 08 " Several weeks ago we revealed that cost estimates for new U.S. reactors were soaring to more than $12 billion, well above the commonly touted $3-4 billion per unit. This week, Wulf Bernotat, the head of the world's largest power company, Germany's E.ON, predicted that new reactors proposed for Great Britain could cost at least $9 billion apiece, double their original estimates. The prices do not of course include the potentially massive costs of decommissioning reactors, once closed, nor dealing with the nuclear waste they produce.
Dr. Bernotat's projections are to be taken seriously as his company is already enduring the bitter experience of a partnership in the new French reactor under construction in Finland. That reactor - also slated for the U.S. - is reportedly already more than $2.5 billion over budget but Dr. Bernotat predicts a final price tag of almost $7 billion.

What You Can Do: Join with us as we work to prevent obscene giveaways that would Bandaid over the nuclear industry's financial woes using as much as $500 billion of taxpayer money. That's the amount potentially hidden in the Lieberman-Warner so-called climate change bill about to come to the floor of the Senate. Call your senators and urge them to oppose and eliminate all nuclear subsidies - whether in the bill or offered as amendments.................................".

Race is on to fix global warming and make money

The New Nation Tarequl Islam Munna April 28, 2008,
"Forget the arguments over whether global warming is real. Many American businesses and researchers are well past all that and are scrambling to find ways to make money in a world that must slash its use of fossil fuels.

Energy entrepreneurs have sparked an energy revolution that's just starting in the United States but already producing new ideas, more jobs and growing exports.................................................for renewable energy to really take off, the federal government will have to end subsidies for fossil fuels, put a limit on greenhouse gas emissions and charge for putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, he said. …………………while Washington debates, states and businesses are going to work.

Half of the states have passed measures to encourage the use of renewable energy, spurring power companies to seek new sources of electricity. States in the Northeast, Midwest and West have started to form regional carbon-trading systems to limit emissions. Universities and colleges offer science, engineering and management programs to address global warming. Investors are funding new companies with fresh approaches to produce new sources of energy.

'Every forecast you hear about solar, wind and clean technology going forward, they're all wrong - by half. They're too small,' said Joseph Stanislaw, a former economist at the International Energy Agency, which advises on climate change and other world energy policies............................................................."

Woes Caused By Markets, Not Environmentalists The Tampa Tribune Dallas Dunlap May 2, 2008 - "………………nuclear energy is pretty much a socialist enterprise. Reactors are massively expensive and take a long time to build. There is the problem of security and locating waste disposal sites......

.... Utilities can't get financing and insurance for new reactors. Nuclear power works best in countries like France where it is completely a government undertaking.

Even though the U.S. government is dangling more and more handouts to utilities, the 'nuclear renaissance' f it happens at all, is far in the future...".

The Kazakh Rockefeller of Nuclear Fuel The Moscow Times April 23, 2008
"Mukhtar Dzhakishev, president of state-owned mining enterprise Kazatomprom, said he plans to triple production at the Ulba Metallurgical Plant in Ust-Kamenogorsk, a former secret city south of Siberia.
e needs to make Kazakhstan the world's biggest supplier of atomic fuel for civilian nuclear reactors. He's seeking to become, in effect, the John D. Rockefeller of nuclear power.

"We don't want to be just a sack of uranium," Dzhakishev said in a recent interview.................Dzhakishev's plan puts Kazatomprom in direct competition with some of its largest customers and partners, including France's Areva and Russia's Techsnabexport, the world's two leading integrated fuel suppliers. Both firms own mineral rights in Kazakhstan.................................."

Lukashenka won't get money
Charter97.org 21 April 08 - "The former political prisoner, Doctor of Medicine Yury Bandazheuski, is set to change the direction of financial flows of European aid to Belarus for overcoming aftermaths of Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident, and has received support of European deputies in that................

.....................a conference was held in the European parliament. Its topic was a policy of Belarus in liquidation of aftermaths of Chernobyl catastrophe. In the declaration adopted summing up the results of the discussion, it is stated that Europe should help Belarus in this problem, but without cooperation with the regime.In the statement, the EP noted the need to launch independent funding channels to fund the rehabilitation of radioactively-contaminated areas in Belarus and make the channels secure from abuses on the part of the Belarusian "authoritarian regime," "Nezavisimaya Gazeta" writes.

It was stated during the discussion that Belarusian citizens are unaware of the truthful information about the situation in areas affected by the disaster and consequences of the disaster. Those affected do not receive necessary social protection and medial aid..........."

South Africa: Nuclear Power Poses Problems for Eskom - allAfrica.com 15 April 2008 "……………………the production of nuclear power plants may be stalled because of a backlog at Japan Steel Works, the only factory in the world able to manufacture the central part of a reactor's containment vessel in a single piece. The company makes four a year. A shift to double capacity will not be enough to meet demand.

In Finland, the construction of a new technology reactor has been delayed for two years. The nuclear industry globally has a history of cost and time overruns. It is something that Eskom is going to have to manage very carefully indeed.......................................".

Uranium losing its dark lure The uranium market has come to a standstill with no transactions or new demand, as spot uranium prices continue to decline. MineWeb Rodrick Mukumbira 09 Apr 2008 - "The spot uranium market is depressed and, given that the spot price has been through something of a freefall since December this year, divine intervention appears the only solution to bring back the glory days of last year.

This week, industry consultant TradeTech's Spot Price Indicator remained unchanged at US$71.00 per pound U3O8, after it shed US$2 two weeks ago, with no transactions and no new demand reported. Demand for yellowcake seems to be waning, in the face of possible oversupply of the commodity..................."

The "Real Cost" of Nuclear Power Keeps Going Up Beyond Nuclear 8 April 08 -,"While publicly the nuclear industry touts the price tag for a new reactor at less than $4 billion, the true costs look to be triple that figure. Beyond Nuclear has obtained documents filed by Florida Power and Light that reveal sky-rocketing costs of as much as $12 billion per reactor unit without the financing cost.

The $4 billion price tag was already obscene but $12 billion is the wakeup call for anyone who still imagines nuclear energy has utility in addressing climate change. The nuclear industry, like our economy, is headed for a financial meltdown, which can only be made worse if our tax dollars are used to foot these enormous projected costs for new nuclear plants................................".

The Japanese Nuclear Power Option: What Price?

Endo Tetsuya and Arjun Makhijani The Unacceptable Cost of the Nuclear Power Option for Japan

Japan Focus 15 March 08 Arjun Makhijani - "................Before jumping to nuclear, a cost comparison is needed................Nuclear power capital cost estimates were $2,000 to $2,500 per kilowatt, just a couple of years ago. Last October, a Florida Power and Light estimated them at $5,400 to over $8,000 per kilowatt. Progress Energy is estimating the cost of energy produced by its reactors at $7,000 per kilowatt, exclusive of transmission lines. The cost of electricity at such plants would be in the vicinity of 12 to 16 cents per kilowatt hour, if there were no delays and the plant operated nearly perfectly for decades. This is higher than the cost of wind-generated electricity in good locations of 8 to 12 cents per kilowatt-hour. Even solar thermal power is 14 cents per kilowatt hours today, including some storage of heat for generation after sundown; it promises to go down to about 10 cents as the industry matures in the next decade and becomes of a similar size to wind energy...................................................

I know that renewable energy would be more difficult for Japan than many other countries with more land area, including the United States. But rushing deeper into costly nuclear power, pretending it does not have proliferation potential is a risky exercise in self-deception. Japan imports its uranium now, as well as its oil. Plutonium is a really undesirable and costly fuel that is a huge proliferation risk. It is time for Japan to leave twentieth century energy notions behind and get serious about a 21st century renewable energy sector. Some energy will have to be imported, most likely, but that would be nothing new.

The world has plenty of sources of low or zero-CO2 energy, like wind and solar energy. Wind-generated electricity is already more economical than nuclear, whose costs have been skyrocketing even as U.S. utilities get set to order them................................."

.

Interview with environmentalist Bill McKibben By Asher Price
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF 9 March 08
"................................................. aside from all the things like melting down and what you do with the waste, and terrorists, the other real risk that comes with nuclear power is the opportunity cost. It's way too expensive. Anything other than a complete government-subsidized operation, we wouldn't do it. Give me $6 billion or whatever you're charging at the moment for a new nuclear reactor and I can show you ten ways to get twice the carbon bang for the buck. .

.. The natural flow right now of energy markets is going to be much more in the direction of what the engineers call distributive generation, where we stop having as many huge, centralized plants, and are generating power much closer to where it's consumed in different ways. Some of those will be much more ecologically benign. There seems to be a nuclear rush on in Texas, but there also seems to be a wind rush on in Texas. Those technologies, given a level playing field, will do better. ....................................."

Uranium sell-off to help pay for £72bn clean-up The Guardian Tarry Macalister March 7 2008 - "The most wide-ranging sell-off of British nuclear assets was under way last night, with the private sector being offered everything from stockpiled uranium to atomic fuel manufacturing plants and land at 18 sites. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which is nursing a £300m budget overrun for 2006-07 alone, is attempting to raise cash to help pay for a £72bn clean-up bill.......................................

......................The government's clean-up agency confirmed yesterday that controversial fuel reprocessing plants such as Thorp and the Sellafield Mox Plant - as well as the fuel manufacturing facility at Springfields in Lancashire - could all be included in any sale. This is despite operating problems at the first two which are held largely responsible for the latest budget overrun.The sell-off comes as John Hutton, secretary of state for business, dropped a commitment to maintaining at least a 29.9% stake in the nuclear generator, British Energy. He also made clear the government could eventually disposeof the full 39% holding it acquired when the company ran into financial trouble……………

………………Environmental campaigner Greenpeace expressed deep concern about the potential sell-off of uranium and plutonium stocks plus the Thorp and Mox complexes. "It is not surprising that the NDA is selling off sites but it beggars belief that the rest is being offered to buyers, given there has been no consultation at all about this," said Jean McSorley, the group's nuclear consultant…………

……..Thorp has been largely out of action for three years after an accident. Malcolm Wicks, Energy minister, admitted in a parliamentary question recently that the Sellafield Mox plant has produced barely five tonnes of reprocessed fuel since 2002, despite being billed as a plant that would have an annual throughput of 120 tonnes.

Storm brews over the content of ethical funds
The Observer 17 Feb 08 - "There are plenty of climate change and eco options, but few are really green, writes Huma Qureshi Ethical and climate change funds that claim to be socially responsible are failing to invest in companies which support the environment The report by independent financial adviser Holden & Partners reveals most ethical funds are 'surprisingly mainstream' in their overall portfolios, with very little investment in committed environmental companies………

………..Climate change funds, which invest in environmental companies, are a big growth area according to many fund managers. James Vaccaro, investment director at Triodos Renewables, a purely environmental retail fund, says: 'Companies are under pressure to develop alternative sustainable energy sources for the future and investors should benefit from this demand…………….Strictly speaking, these (so-called 'climate change' funds) do not necessarily fall into the same definition as an 'ethical' fund as they generally do not follow the same strict screening process. Instead ………………

………..HSBC's biggest holdings are in energy provider Eon, Vestas Wind Systems and international industrial services group Suez. The fund will only invest in companies that generate at least 10 per cent of their revenues from climate change activities, but Thomas says he would not exclude investment in sectors such as nuclear power........................................."

As Nuclear Waste Languishes, Expense to U.S. Rises The New York Times By MATTHEW L. WALD February 17, 2008 - "WASHINGTON - Forgotten but not gone, the waste from more than 100 nuclear reactors that the federal government was supposed to start

accepting for burial 10 years ago is still at the reactor sites, at least 20 years behind schedule.But it is making itself felt in the federal budget. With court orders and settlements, the federal government has already paid the utilities $342 million, but is virtually certain to pay a total of at least $7 billion in the next few years and probably over $11 billion, government officials said. The industry said the total could reach $35 billion.

The payments come from an obscure and poorly understood government account that requires no new Congressional appropriations, and will balloon in size, experts said. ....................the damage number is rising. If the repository that the government is trying to develop at Yucca Mountain, near Las Vegas, could start accepting waste at the date now officially projected, in 2017, the damages would run about $7 billion, according to Edward F. Sproat III, director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.

If the repository opens in 2020, the damages would come to about $11 billion, he said, and for each year beyond that, about $500 million more. The industry says the total could reach $35 billion.
'The rate-payer has paid for it,' said Michael Bauser, the associate general counsel of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade group. 'The Department of Energy hasn't done it, and now the taxpayer is paying for it a second time.'.....................the government now pays the damages out of general revenues....................
The government is also running up extra expenses on its own wastes. Some of the waste that is supposed to go to Yucca, left over from nuclear weapons production, is sitting in storage that is expensive to maintain.

Each reactor typically creates about 20 tons of waste a year, which is approximately two new casks, at roughly $1 million each. If a repository or interim site opened, clearing the backlog would take decades, experts say. At present, waste is in temporary storage at 122 sites in 39 states..........."

Warren Buffett rejects Nuclear Plant in Idaho due to high cost SunValleyonline By Andrea Shipley, Snake River Alliance Executive Director
January 29, 2008 - "Advocates of a nuclear power "renaissance" are basing their appeals on the notion that nuclear power will be an inexpensive way to get new baseload capacity and to combat global warming. However, MidAmerican Nuclear Energy Company, owned by leading businessman Warren Buffett, has ended its pursuit of a nuclear energy facility in Payette County after the company spent $13 million researching the viability of the location.

'When one of the top business people of this country agree with the Snake River Alliance's conclusion that nuclear energy is not economically viable in this state, it sends a very clear message to other investors who want to try to build a nuclear plant in Idaho' said Andrea Shipley, Executive Director of the Snake River Alliance...........................................................".

Losses mount for operator of Japan's quake-hit nuke plant TOKYO (AFP) 30 Jan 08 - "Tokyo Electric Power Co., operator of the world's largest nuclear plant which was hit by an earthquake last year, said Wednesday it expected much wider losses this year as inspections continue.

A powerful quake in July caused a slew of problems at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant in central Japan, including a fire and ...radiation leak.

………………….Tokyo Electric, or TEPCO, now expects to post net losses of 155 billion yen (1.45 billion dollars) in the year to March, nearly two-thirds larger than the initially forecast 95 billion yen, a statement said.

Energy efficiency is big biz the enquirer BY MIKE BOYER | 20 August 07- "During a tour last year of the EarthConnection, a learning center at the College of Mount St. Joseph in Delhi Township retrofitted with solar heating panels and other energy-efficient equipment, Larry Feist was struck by all the electro-mechanical controls they required………………Feist saw an opportunity…………..Next month, that opportunity becomes a reality as Cincinnati State introduces the first major in renewable-energy technology approved by the Ohio Board of Regents.
There are a handful of other programs in Ohio aimed at training installers in energy-efficient products, but those are targeted workforce-development efforts……………

…..ENERGY EFFICIENCY IS HOT
Feist says a graduate of the electro-mechanical engineering technology program can expect to earn anywhere from $33,000 to $43,000 upon graduation. He believes industry's demand for greater energy efficiency will fuel the market for people will skills in renewable energy and energy efficiency…………

……..A $1 TRILLION INDUSTRY
Nearly 3,000 Ohioans and 500,000 people nationally are employed in the business of supplying wind turbines, solar panels, and ethanol, according to a study for the Ohio Department of Development presented last month at the American Solar Energy Society's annual convention in Cleveland.
Thousands more are employed in manufacturing energy-efficient products from automobiles to appliances, according to the study done by economist Roger Bezdek of Washington D.C.-based Management Information Services Inc.

These industries recorded nearly $1 trillion in gross revenues in 2006, including about $51 billion in Ohio. The numbers could skyrocket over the next 25 years - resulting in up to 2.2 million new jobs and $220 billion in annual revenues in Ohio and up to 40 million jobs and $4.5 trillion in revenues nationwide - if federal and state governments would make an all-out push for renewables and super-efficient products, the report argues............................".

Why does the industry keep going, if it's SO bad?

- an extract from 16 Dirty Secrets About Nuclear Power- Counter Punch 27 June 07 By RUSSELL D. HOFFMAN -

".............What keeps the industry going is government contracts, government subsidies, government insurance, and tax breaks. The government feeds BILLIONS into the industry, financing the 'esearch and development' of new reactor designs, and the training the commercial reactor operators through the military reactor program. Research reactor institutes are often controlled jointly by the industry and by the government. It's self-perpetuating......................

To make matters worse, after a meltdown, most people with reactor-caused illnesses will never be paid a red cent by any insurance company, the reactor owners or operators, or any local, state or federal entity.

Check your homeowner's insurance policy if you have one. Reactor accidents are specifically excluded! And you need look no further than the nuclear industry's under-funded, federally-mandated minimalist insurance policy known as The Price-Anderson Act to KNOW that no citizen will be paid their due if they survive after an accident.

You'll get fractions of a penny on the dollar if you live to collect anything at all. You'll be called stupid for living so close to a reactor, or paranoid for thinking that accident "X" miles away caused YOUR cancer. "X" could be a little as 11 miles or less!.................................................."

The nuclear shield - Globe and Mail - TOM ADAMS July 16, 2007 - "Acts of gross negligence by suppliers of nuclear goods and services - the kind of mistakes that might cause nuclear reactors to explode - will no longer be protected from liability under a proposed law that passed first reading in the House of Commons last month.
If the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act passes, companies knowingly supplying faulty nuclear goods or services that cause a nuclear accident will no longer be exempt from liability for injuries or loss of property suffered by neighbours of nuclear power stations.

Under the existing law, suppliers such as General Electric, SNC-Lavalin and Westinghouse are immune from prosecution, even if they supply faulty equipment recklessly or with intent to injure.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's new law will also provide more time for victims of radiation poisoning to claim compensation. Under existing law, any cancers that turn up more than 10 years after an accident cannot be compensated; the new version would give victims 30 years. However, research on survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki shows radiation-induced cancers even 60 years after their exposure.........................When the original Nuclear Liability Act was passed in 1970, damage compensation was limited to $75-million - about $415-million in today's currency. The new liability limit is $650-million....................................

...All nuclear countries provide similar liability shields for their nuclear industries by curtailing property rights. In fact, lobbying for this protection from the consequences of accidents was one of the global nuclear industry's original reasons for developing national and international lobby groups, such as the Canadian Nuclear Association.
Liability protection for any potentially catastrophic activity or industry is a terrible idea that encourages risk-taking and irresponsibility................................................"

Risky Business: The Outlook for Investing in Nuclear Power - Social Funds 10 May 2007 by Anne Moore Odell - "A new report scrutinizes the nuclear industry from an investor's perspective and finds a rotting fantasy of cheap energy and huge returns. An influential coalition of socially responsible investors and environmental, health, and public interest organizations recently released the report 'Why a Future for the Nuclear Industry is Risky' that strongly comes down against the inclusion of nuclear power in the future energy equation. The report argues that nuclear power is not a good investment for people interested either in a healthy return or a healthy planet. The report is based on presentations by Peter Bradford and David Schlissel, both of whom have extensive experience in the technical and governmental aspects of the nuclear power industry. ............................

............According to the report, new nuclear power plants would be bad investments:'New nuclear power plants will not be cost competitive with other electricity generating alternatives.' Instead, pointing to renewable energy sources such as wind, the report states that in 2005 investment in renewable energy capacity was almost $40 billion and is continuing to grow. US nuclear power plants will likely be phased out by mid-century, said Leslie H. Lowe, Program Director at ICCR. US nuclear power plants are part of an aging infrastructure and although the government has re-licensed many nuclear plants for the next twenty years, at the end of these twenty years, the plants will not be operational. …………………………

………………….According to Lowe, "SRI investors for years have known there is huge risk in new nuclear power...............................................One reason why nuclear power is considered cost prohibitive, according to the report, is the expense of building new nuclear power plants, despite the large subsidies provided in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005). Building new nuclear power plants also takes a long time, and no new nuclear power plants have been built in the US for almost thirty years. The report suggests that future plants could run into some of the same difficulties that previously built plants did, such as running over initial cost estimates by more than 200%.

'Nuclear power is not a market solution,' Lowe said. 'We could not have nuclear power without government subsidies. Plant liability is capped by the government and with the Price-Anderson Act, the public is on the hook.' The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act was first passed in 1957 and renewed several times since then. It installed a no fault insurance system for nuclear power plants with any claims above $10 billion to be picked up by the federal government. The report states, 'in the last 50 years, nuclear energy subsidies have totaled close to $145 billion and amount to more taxpayer dollars for R&D than for all other energy sectors combined'..............................."

TIMELINE

July 07 U.S. Expands Renewable Energy Cooperation with Sweden
June 07 UN report - Global investment In Renewable Energy Reached US$100 Billion inn 2006
June 07 Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) wants 100% US govt loan for new plants
May 07 UK govt sells nuke shares to pay for nuke decommissioning
May 07 Report US nuclear energy subsidies $145 billion over past 50 years