Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
Greenpeace co-founder and current co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy (CASEnergy) Coalition, Patrick Moore, will be appearing on C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning at 9:30 ET. (Extra bonus: Greta
Comments
ESKOM just dumped a 2 unit EPR project in South Africa even with France offering to tender 85% of the cost of construction. Even this residual financial risk was to great to bear for the government owned utility.
In fact, new nukes run the risk of being the ultimate in toxic mortgages.
According to a Moody's assessment of the credit risk that wading back into this quagmire brings on will not be removed by socializing the up front costs for the builders. Moore may not believe in the conclusion of the Congressional Budget Office's concern of greater than 50% default rate on these loans, but he is wrong again to dismiss it as some figment of CBO's imagination projected into the future. If you read it, the conclusion is based on the very real product of this industry's financial history and the fact that nobody knows just how high the cost of construction will soar. Even this 2003 assessment was using $2.5 billion for an 1000 MWe unit. The projected price tag is now far far and away from that guesstimate.
Moore's gets it wrong again to blame the abandonment of construction in the 1970's on politics. It was the financial collapse, pure and simple, as the result of the industry's gross failure to bring reactors online on budget and on schedule.
He stumbled through the question about the "nuclear exclusion clause" in homeowner insurance policies because the professional risk assessors won't risk to match the cost of an accident however remote the probabilities, hence the liability cap and leaving the taxpayer holding the tab.