Investors abandoning new nuclear power plants

[kristopher]

Cernavoda nuclear power project in balance after massive pull-out
Four European energy giants have pulled out of constructing Romania’s nuclear power station Cernavoda’s third and fourth reactors

In a blow to the Government’s long-term energy strategy, France’s GDF Suez, Germany’s RWE, Spain’s Ibredrola and Czech Republic’s CEZ will no longer participate in the Cernavoda nuclear project in Romania.
The long-delayed four billion Euro plan to build two new reactors is now in the balance as the Government was hoping to boost private financing for the project.

http://www.thediplomat.ro/articol.php?id=1686

Single Lithuanian nuclear power plant desperately seeking investor
MINSK/ST.PETERSBURG – The media in the small Baltic state of Lithuania are busy discussing the recent fiasco with a tender that failed to home in on any investor for a nuclear power plant (NPP) project Lithuania hopes will replace its shutdown Ignalina. Nuclear proponents attack Russia and environmentalists insist Lithuania will be better off without nuclear energy. Meanwhile, tensions are rising over the three developing NPP projects in the region – Lithuania’s own, Russia’s Baltic, and Belarus’s Ostrovets sites. The neighbours are clueless about where to sell future output and keep passing the blame around.

http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2011/single_lithuania


Of the seven myths I plan to talk about, the one that is most irritating to my ear is that nuclear power is cheap. Existing plants may be, but new ones are not, despite a number of often-cited studies claiming the opposite. ...Nuclear power is therefore like a fat kid at the front of the line, insisting to be fed before anyone else, and promising in exchange to grow into another Schwarzenegger. His appetite and promises haven’t changed in twenty years, and governments would be wise to stop feeding him.
-Seven Myths of the Nuclear Renaissance
Jim Harding

[madokie]

1. The world doesn't have to have nuclear energy

to supply demand nor to get our co2 under control. Too many ifs and or buts with nuclear for me to feel comfortable with it.
This is good news.

rec

[kristopher]

2. Reality is far different than nuclear industry hype on nearly every front.

And nothing strips their bullshit away faster than asking an investor to risk money. If the investors can't get 100%+ of their risk transferred to taxpayers and ratepayers, they can't run away fast enough; not surprising since the default rate is estimated to be more than 50% for any nuclear projects that have to depend on markets where they are competing with renewables and energy efficiency.

[madokie]

5. Has any of the 103 working nuke plants we have now been privately financed?

Something tells me that they've all been built on the publics back.

"Reality is far different than nuclear industry hype on nearly every front."
Let me add: Its always been that way and my suspicions is it will continue to be.

[joshcryer]

3. Until I am shown credible neutral party projections showing renewables ending coal in 20 years...

...I will support Gen IV. See my sig for why I support it and why it is important that we end our emissions of coal as soon as possible and avoid CO2 emissions that will leave feedbacks for centuries to come.

[madokie]

4. No one and I mean 'you too" has a lock on what is best going forward.

The subject is or was that without public financing nuclear is dead in the water. Tme and time again that has been shown to be reality. Gen 4 reactors are 24 years at best away. In the mean time lets argue endlessly.

Let me see 2035 for gen 4 and its 2011 now so.....

"Until I am shown credible neutral party projections showing renewables ending coal in 20 years...

...I will support Gen IV."

Does someone just slap the piss out of you every morning when you get up or what? :rofl:

[joshcryer]

16. I don't think you understand. I am fully supportive of renewables. But the investment they're....

...getting cannot and will not avert catastrophic climate change with enormous consequences.

Do not lie to me and tell me that renewables are doing the job, because they are not, no credible projection on the planet says that they are or that they will.

[jpak]

9. Until I see a credible neutral party projecting that a Gen IV plant will be actually built

I will support renewables

yup

[joshcryer]

15. So you will support renewables despite that they won't end coal before catastrophic climate change.

Check.

[FBaggins]

17. Can you at least be honest enough to admit...

...that anyone who did project that would immediately become a non-credible non-neutral party in your opinion?

[Nihil]

18. Ouch. (n/t)

[Kolesar]

6. 1983 - Whoops! A $2 Billion Blunder: Washington Public Power Supply System

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,955183,00.html

Excerpt:
Over the past decade, Whoops borrowed $8.3 billion to start construction on a total of five nuclear plants, only one of which is likely to be completed. The bonds in default were issued for two plants that Whoops calls Projects 4 and 5. Some $6 billion worth of other Whoops bonds for Projects 1, 2 and 3 are in no immediate danger of default, but investors are increasingly afraid that these securities will also eventually be in jeopardy. Projects 1,2 and 4 are located at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in eastern Washington, while 3 and 5 are at Satsop, in the western part of the state.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,955183,00.html#ixzz1Co3AMDfd

Washington dealt with the loss of generation by launching a large scale and very effective "efficiency" campaign, where residences, industrial, commercial, and government sites replaced their appliances, lighting and other apparatus with more efficient models.

[NNadir]

7. Wow. Look at all the oblivious anti-nukes lining up for spin. The Czechs pulled out of Cernovoda

to build their own nukes in their own country.

The news that CEZ plans to quit the Cernavoda NPP altogether was first reported by the Romanian agency Mediafax shortly before the company statement. It cited CEZ Romania's corporate affairs manager Adrian Borotea as saying that the Czech company will be seeking low-risk investments in the region.

The Romanian state holds a 51% stake in EnergoNuclear, the joint company that will build two new units at Cernavoda on the Danube River, which already has two 706 MW reactors that produce about 18% of Romania's electricity.

The other shareholders in EnergoNuclear are Belgium's Electrabel, Italy's Enel, Spain's Iberdrola, a local unit of ArcelorMittal, and Germany's RWE. With CEZ's decision to back out of the project, its 9.15% stake will be up for grabs by some of the other shareholders in the joint venture.

CEZ with market capitalisation of USD 24 B is planning to build two new units at its Temelin nuclear power plant in the Czech Republic, and up to three other units at its Czech Dukovany nuclear plant and Slovakia. Those are estimated to be worth about USD 27 B.

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=120398">Sofia News Agency.


Cernovoda 2 came on line within the last two years. Every day it easily produces more electricity that the dumb wishful thinkers can produce with all of the solar PV stuff in the entire State of California.

Cernovoda 3 and 4 will be finished.

The rest of the world doesn't give a rat's ass about what a bunch of provinicial consumerist anti-science anti-nukes in the intellectual backwaters think. There are over 60 nuclear reactors now under construction around the world, almost any one of which will easily produce more energy than all the wind turbines in Denmark, and all of which will last decades longer than any wind infrastructure any where.

Just when one thinks that the anti-nuke squad couldn't possibly be more delusional - they go and prove one wrong.

Have a nice koolaid drinking day.

[jpak]

8. But where is the NJ molten salt breeder reactor?

:rofl:

[NNadir]

10. China just announced its intention to build molten salt reactors.

I guess the giggly boy stupid squad have no influence there.

[jpak]

11. You mean the famous NJ molten salt breeder reactor - that will reap "fabulous riches"

for its "inventor"?

:D

[NNadir]

12. Well, I very much doubt that anyone who knows anything about nuclear science

would choose to discuss technical, business or personal points with neo-creationist anti-nukes, would they?

Most people I know choose not to have personal conversations with people living on trust funds and wasted on stupid pills.

China is building molten salt reactors.

Have a nice day.

[jpak]

13. The science is clear

the NJ molten salt breeder = a unicorn

yup

neo-creationists...

:rofl:

[NNadir]

14. An anti-nuke speaking of "clear science" is by definition, an oxymoron.

Have a nice evening.