Nuclear power appeared on the brink of a renaissance, until the Fukushima disaster. However, the darker side of nuclear energy has been exposed by Japan's struggle to contain radiation from the reactor damaged by the earthquake and tsunami. Measures to protect nuclear reactors from earthquakes in the future might be so expensive that investors will think twice before believing that an investment in nuclear energy can be profitable. Post resource - Fukushima disaster lays bare the true cost of nuclear power by MoneyBlogNewz.
What it will cost with nuclear power
About 62 percent of the public was interested in nuclear power in a Gallup poll in 2010. This was due to the idea of nuclear power as a clean, reliable energy source. In order to get nuclear power plants built, the Obama administration is preparing on providing $54.2 billion in loan guarantees for construction projects. The Fukushima disaster was not the reason why it was unlikely that nuclear reactors would be built in the U.S. Mark Cooper of the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School explained it was already unlikely. In a presentation before the House of Commons in Ottawa, Canada, Cooper said the U.S. nuclear industry was a bubble about to burst. In 2001, he said, the bubble started. Nuclear energy was given loan guarantees in billions of dollars by the Bush administration. By 2008 it became apparent that the nuclear industry could not deliver on costs. Natural gas became a cheap choice while the recession began. The other clean energy possibilities helped bring it down as well.
Increase in nuclear power costs
In the wake of the Fukushima disaster, building new reactors could become even more cost prohibitive. After the 1979 Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania, construction costs for nuclear reactors rose 95 percent, according to Cooper's research. Everyone had to pay 40 percent more in electricity due to this. After the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine, construction costs rose another 89 percent, and electricity costs were 42 percent higher. To be able to make nuclear reactors safer, there was a design change causing a rise in construction costs. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has already assembled a task force to investigate the design changes required for planned nuclear plants in the U.S., depending on lessons learned from Fukushima.
Most investors unwilling to take the risk
Now the Fukushima incident has occurred, investors are worried about where they put their money. Rather than invest in nuclear power plants, they're more likely to put money into clean energy alternatives such as solar, wind and natural gas. Utilities may also pass on assuming the risk of nuclear plants. When it comes to energy sources, nuclear energy makes sense if you do not want to pay much. Before taking into account the cleanup costs of a nuclear accident, onshore wind farms, for example, are up to 35 percent cheaper than nuclear plants. In the future, alternative sources will become increasingly capable of helping meet the world's energy needs without the financial and ecological costs of nuclear power. As an investor, it makes more sense to do a clean energy option. It could be more profitable for the most part.
Citations
Reuters
reuters.com/article/2011/03/25/idUS423443138820110325
Fast Company
fastcompany.com/1742619/what-are-the-economics-of-nuclear-power-after-fukishima
The National
thenational.ae/lifestyle/personal-finance/japans-nuclear-woes-add-pressure-to-invest-in-green-energy
Comments
Most nuclear investors now unwilling to take the risk
What it will cost with nuclear power
About 62 percent of the public was interested in nuclear power in a Gallup poll in 2010. This was due to the idea of nuclear power as a clean, reliable energy source. In order to get nuclear power plants built, the Obama administration is preparing on providing $54.2 billion in loan guarantees for construction projects. The Fukushima disaster was not the reason why it was unlikely that nuclear reactors would be built in the U.S. Mark Cooper of the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School explained it was already unlikely. In a presentation before the House of Commons in Ottawa, Canada, Cooper said the U.S. nuclear industry was a bubble about to burst. In 2001, he said, the bubble started. Nuclear energy was given loan guarantees in billions of dollars by the Bush administration. By 2008 it became apparent that the nuclear industry could not deliver on costs. Natural gas became a cheap choice while the recession began. The other clean energy possibilities helped bring it down as well.
Increase in nuclear power costs
http://www.ripoffreport.com/prostitutes/yarim-and-naomi-ben/yarim-and-na...
In the wake of the Fukushima disaster, building new reactors could become even more cost prohibitive. After the 1979 Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania, construction costs for nuclear reactors rose 95 percent, according to Cooper's research. Everyone had to pay 40 percent more in electricity due to this. After the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine, construction costs rose another 89 percent, and electricity costs were 42 percent higher. To be able to make nuclear reactors safer, there was a design change causing a rise in construction costs. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has already assembled a task force to investigate the design changes required for planned nuclear plants in the U.S., depending on lessons learned from Fukushima.
Most investors unwilling to take the risk
Now the Fukushima incident has occurred, investors are worried about where they put their money. Rather than invest in nuclear power plants, they're more likely to put money into clean energy alternatives such as solar, wind and natural gas. Utilities may also pass on assuming the risk of nuclear plants. When it comes to energy sources, nuclear energy makes sense if you do not want to pay much. Before taking into account the cleanup costs of a nuclear accident, onshore wind farms, for example, are up to 35 percent cheaper than nuclear plants. In the future, alternative sources will become increasingly capable of helping meet the world's energy needs without the financial and ecological costs of nuclear power. As an investor, it makes more sense to do a clean energy option. It could be more profitable for the most part.