Fukushima further bursts "nuclear renaissance" bubble

Images such as this explosion at Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 were seared into the public mindIn a new report entitled "Nuclear Safety and Nuclear Economics: Historically, Accidents Dim the Prospects for Nuclear Reactor Construction; Fukushima Will Have a Major Impact," Dr. Mark Cooper of the Vermont Law School's Institute for Energy and the Environment compares the cost increases for new reactor construction -- due to increased nuclear safety regulation in the aftermath of the 1979 Three Mile Island meltdown -- to escalating costs that can be expected after the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe. Cooper points out, however, the new reactor construction costs were already skyrocketing before the TMI and Fukushima meltdowns -- but the accidents accelerated the cost increases dramatically.

He concludes: "From a big picture perspective, Fukushima has had and is likely to continue to have an electrifying impact because it combines the most powerful message from TMI on cost escalation with the most powerful message from Chernobyl on the risk of nuclear reactors in a nation where it was not supposed to happen. And, it has taken place in an environment where information and images flow instantaneously around the world, so the public sees the drama and trauma of losing control of a nuclear reaction in real time."

Reactor re-construction costs in Canada soared overbudget

Canadian CANDU (Canadian Deuterium-Uranium) reactor refurbishment -- or re-construction -- costs skyrocketed dramatically over budget. CANDUs were expected to operate for 40 years. However, just 20 years into operations, significant age related degradation required extensive, and exorbitant, refurbishment of the reactors if they were to continue operating.

As documented by Pat McNamara in Nuclear Genocide in Canada:

"Refurbishments

AECL's claim that the CANDU reactors would last for 40 years had no basis in fact. The first CANDU reactor was shut down in 1983 at Pickering A after 12 years of service for re-tubing. All four of the Pickering A reactors were re-tubed over the following 10 years. In 1997, all four Pickering A and three of Bruce Powers reactors were shut down for accumulated safety problems and lack of reliability. 

In 1999, Ontario Power Generation estimated it would cost $1.1 billion dollars and take three years to get all four Pickering A reactors back in service. Work commenced in 1999 to bring Unit 4 of Pickering 'A' back into service at a cost of $457 million. According to the Report of the Pickering 'A' Review Panel:
"In late September 2003, the first of four Pickering 'A' reactors returned to service. Compared with the plan approved by the Board of Directors of Ontario Power Generation (OPG) in August 1999, the cost of Unit 4's return to service had almost tripled, and the return to service date has slipped by more than two years." 

The cost to repair Unit 4 was $800 million dollars over budget and two years late. They spent more money fixing one reactor than the original estimate for all four reactors. OPG went ahead and fixed Unit 1 at a cost of $1 billion. Due to the delays and massive cost overruns of the first two reactors, OPG decided to permanently shut down Units 3& 4.

Spending all this money on the reactors did little to improve their performance. In the summer of 2007, Units 1 & 4 were shut down for further repairs along with one other reactor from Pickering B. Combined with the two reactors on permanent shutdown, only three of the eight reactors were generating electricity all summer. 

By 2005, Bruce Power restarted reactors 3 and 4 at a cost of $720 million, which was more than double their initial estimate of $340 million. They have since announced plans to refurbish four reactors by 2013 at a cost of $5.2 billion. They started working on the first two reactors in 2007. This part of the project was supposed to cost $2.5 billion but it is already 25% over budget.

In 2008, Hydro-Quebec announced plans to refurbish Gentilly 2 at a cost of $1.9 billion. This was $700 million more than the estimate when the project was first proposed in 2004. 

In February 2009, AECL was given a $100 million subsidy to address cost overruns for refurbishments at Bruce Power and Point Lepreau. This came only two weeks after AECL was given $350 million dollars by the Canadian government as announced in the January 27, 2009 budget." (excerpt from Part 4, "Nuclear Costs to Date")

Reactor construction cost overruns in Canada continue to haunt taxpayers and ratepayers

This excerpt is taken from Pat McNamara's Nuclear Genocide in Canada, Part 4, "Nuclear Costs to Date":

"Cost Overruns from Reactor Construction 

The last reactors built in Canada were at Darlington, 40 minutes east of Toronto. The four Darlington reactors were not completed until 1993 at a cost of $14.5 billion, or more than $10 billion over budget. By 1998, the cost overruns from the 20 reactors in Ontario were the major contributor to Ontario Hydro's $35 billion debt. The utility was bankrupt and split into five separate components. The Canadian government forgave $20 billion of Ontario Hydro's debt (all Canadians are paying this bill) and Ontario electricity users are paying the balance with a surcharge on their electricity bills." (emphasis added)

Skyrocketing new reactor construction costs that just toppled Calvert Cliffs 3 could also undermine South Texas Project 3 & 4 and Summer 2 & 3

NIRS, Public Citizen, South Carolina Sierra Club, and former NRC Commissioner Peter Bradford have warned in a press release that the same forces -- skyrocketing new reactor construction costs, decreased demand for electricity, competition from renewables and efficiency, low natural gas prices, etc. -- which just undermined the Calvert Cliffs 3 new reactor proposal in Maryland are also battering away at the new reactor proposals in Texas (South Texas Project Units 3 and 4) and South Carolina (V.C. Summer Units 2 and 3). Calvert Cliffs, South Texas Project, and Summer were the top three federal nuclear loan guarantee finalists after Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia, which the Obama administration awarded a conditional $8.3 billion taxpayer-backed loan guarantee last February. The audio recording of the full press conference is also posted online.

French "nuclear miracle" plagued by fast-rising reactor costs and "crowding out" of renewables

A new study by Dr. Mark Cooper of Vermont Law School, released today, warns "it is highly unlikely that the problems of the nuclear industry will be solved by an infusion of federal loan guarantees and other subsidies to get the first plants in a new building cycle completed. U.S. policymakers should resist efforts to force the government into making large loans on terms that put taxpayers at risk in order to ‘save' a project or an industry that may not be salvageable." The press release contains a link to the executive summary and the full report. Steven Thomas of Greenwich University in London, expert on Electricite de France and Areva economic woes, joined Dr. Cooper for the press conference, a full audio recording of which can be found at www.nuclearbailout.org after 6 p.m. today.