When the crucial issues of the today are digging out from under an economic recession and acting quickly to deter climate change, Public Citizen has repeatedly questioned the wisdom of putting any of our eggs in the nuclear basket –- a technology that is too expensive and too slow to be relevant to the times.
Case in point, the nuclear reactor design the industry is using to usher in the nuclear revival in the U.S is whimpering in retreat abroad. The European Pressurized Reactor — designed by French-state controlled Areva and peddled by French-state controlled Electricite de France — set to make its debut in Finland is currently 3 years behind schedule and nearly $3 billion over its original cost estimates. This reactor design, floundering in Finland as well as France, is the same that has been proposed for Maryland by a joint-venture between Baltimore-based Constellation and the previously mentioned, Electricte de France. While time and money are certainly key issues in rendering nuclear power obsolete when selecting our future energy portfolio, we were recently reminded of the most significant of nuclear power’s inherent flaws: safety. Recently, British nuclear regulators, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, brought its attempted nuclear relapse to a standstill due to safety concerns with the EPR. Electricite de France and Areva’s plans to build four new reactors in the UK within 8 years ground to a halt after British regulators suspended production due to concerns with its automated safety systems, calling them overly-complicated and specifically pointing to no controls for a manual shut down of the reactor and the ability of lower level safety systems to override higher levels as the culprits. The British were fortunate enough to discover and alert Areva to the flaw before starting construction. The Finish, already up to their ears in cement, have finally followed suit.
Back in the U.S., the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission tasked with both ensuring the safety and security of each new nuclear reactor design considered for U.S. soil and reviewing license applications to construct and operate said nuclear reactors, are doing it a little differently.
As the push for new reactors rains upon the NRC from foreign companies and U.S. utilities, the NRC has decided to deal with the duality of certifying reactor designs and the emplacement of said reactors simultaneously. The process of reviewing the license for designs that have yet to be deemed safe is challenging the NRC’s ability to successfully regulate nuclear power in the U.S.
However, in Maryland, the state Public Service Commission has an opportunity to stop the EPR before it has to fumble further down this convoluted federal regulatory path. After near bankruptcy and a failed merger with Warren Buffett’s MidAmerican, Constellation Energy has succumb to a deal with its nuclear development partner EdF. The deal, currently before the PSC, will give EdF significant influence over Constellation Energy and solidify its agenda to open up the US market- via Maryland- to French nukes, If the deal goes through, Maryland will be destined for a path riddled by high costs, great waste, elevated safety risks, and energy that will take years, perhaps decades to reach ratepayers.
To take action to stop Maryland’s grim energy future and encourage its status as a leader in clean energy, please sign this petition, urging the Maryland Public Service Commission to strike down the deal between Constellation and EdF. Say no deal to EdF and No Way to unsafe energy.
The cost of nuclear power comes from regulator laws designed for the specific purpose of making nuclear power too expensive.
Anti-nuclear activists stonewall the construction of every single power plant, demanding countless unnecessary environmental and safety checks. This causes the projects to run over budget, and power companies to abandon nuclear plans because tangling with the greens is to much hassle.
And so the cycle continues, anti nuclear activists campaign to make nuclear power to expensive, and then tell the public with the same breath that they should not even consider nuclear power because it is to expensive.
Call me a 19th century reactionary, but that sounds like a political faction blackmailing science.
To “anon” I wonder if they were building nuclear facilities in the 19th century what we would do with them today……. as they would be very old and outdated. I am sorry greed always trumps safety and that stuff would be in the water now more than it is already. “anon,” which by the way here means “chicken” without even taking into consideration cost, nuclear energy is poison and we have enough of that to try to clean up already. The Greens are doing a great job may they continue to cost pro-nuke folks lots and lots of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I offer a little focus:
The high capital cost of a nuclear power plant sometimes leads to the incorrect belief that this inevitably leads to high electricity costs. The attached White Paper by the Nuclear Energy Institute “The Cost of New Generation in Perspective” provides a realistic analysis of the costs of new nuclear reactors in the United States. These costs are likely more relevant to Canada than European experience. This paper also shows how generating options with the highest capital cost, including nuclear, do not have the highest levelized cost of electricity
Nuclear power has been part of the energy supply mix in Canada for many decades. In Ontario, nuclear power generates half of the province’s electricity. As Alberta considers its energy future, a balanced supply mix involving fossil fuels, carbon sequestration, renewable and nuclear power generation could provide reliable electricity while controlling emissions. This viewpoint has gained increasing relevance as countries around the world are taking action to control greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming.
The next generation of nuclear power reactors, Generation III +, are currently being considered or are under construction at sites around the world. These Generation III + reactors have been designed to improve safety margins and can be constructed and operated more efficiently than their second generation counterparts.
In Europe, Generation III+ reactors are currently under construction in Olkiluoto, Finland and Flamanville, France. The site preparation for the EPR reactor at Olkiluoto began in May, 2006. Originally, the reactor was expected to be completed by 2010; however, construction delays have caused the commissioning to be postponed until 2012. These types of delays are not unusual for first of a kind major construction projects involving new technology. It is expected that the costs of building subsequent reactors will be on time and budget at Flamanville based on the lessons learned at Olkiluoto.
Construction of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited’s CANDU reactors have not resulted in the same type of delays. The technology is proven and the company has experience building the reactors. A total of six CANDU reactors have been constructed on time and budget over the past decade in Romania, South Korea and China.
Because Generation III+ reactor technology is relatively new, some delays and unexpected costs may arise. However, Canadian taxpayers are not expected to assume the financial risk associated with building a nuclear power plant. The private sector (company shareholders) accepts the full financial risk of the investment with confidence that it will be constructed on time and on budget.