AboutWillliam S. Linnell Expertise I can answer questions about the viability of nuclear power versus other forms of energy, about the economics of nuclear plants and public policy issues.
Experience Only two Commercial nuclear plants in the United States have shut down early. I led the successful fight to shut down one of them-the Maine Yankee plant which shut down 12 years early.
Organizations NIRS (Nuclear Information & REsource Service)
Cheaper, Safer, Power: Co-founder and Spokesperson
Publications Maine Nuclear Watch
Education/Credentials B.A., American Studies, Colby College
Question Can the use of nuclear energy be justified? What are the facts, stastistics & case studies regarding this? Thank you
Answer While the use of nuclear power can be justified in such applications as submarines or aircraft carriers, it cannot be justified for producing electricity, as it is the most expensive way to make electricity.
The construction costs alone for new nuclear plants are so high that no investor will ever get their money back. Even without considering the costs of maintenance, waste disposal, decommissioning, and health and safety hazards, the price of new nuclear power is more expensive than any other form of power.
(See "Forget Nuclear" by Amory Lovins, Imran Sheikh, and Alex Markevich, available from the Rocky Mountain Institute.)
For a current example, consider the new plant under construction in Finland. It was supposed to be the flagship of a new generation of nuclear plants. It was supposed to be completed in the summer of 2009. It is fifty per cent over budget, and the end is nowhere in sight. After thousands of defects and problems, Areva, the French Company that is building the plant, will no longer predict when the plant can be finished. A similar plant under construction in Flamanville, France, is experiencing similar difficulties.
In short, the nuclear industry can't even build one new plant, unless it has unlimited resources. In some Asian countries where decisions are made centrally, and decision-makers have access to public funds, there are more plants under construction. But unlimited funds do not make nuclear power economical, they just waste more money.
Some claim that nuclear is the answer to global climate change, but there is a fundamental flaw in their reasoning: while it is true that nuclear does not produce greenhouse gases, it is too expensive to displace fossil fuels effectively. In other words, if you want to displace fossil fuels, you can displace a lot more of them if you use any other form of power generation other than nuclear. Since nuclear is the most expensive energy, it is the least effective. Precious financial resources should be spent on alternative energy such as wind, solar, biomass, cogeneration and hydropower.
Some point to France, which produces most of its energy from nuclear, as a nuclear success story. But read the Charpin Report, issued in 2000. This French Government report states that reprocessing of nuclear fuel is not economical. It further states that reprocessing does not reduce the amount of nuclear waste. In other words, France has a growing pile of nuclear waste that it cannot dispose of, and, as seen above, it can't afford to even finish building a new nuclear plant.
In the United States, even with huge government subsidies and loan guarantees, Wall Street Investors are leery of investments in nuclear. Investment agencies promise to downgrade bond ratings of any utility that invests in nuclear.
Here's an useful comparison: In 2007, world wide private investment in new windpower was $71 billion. During the same period, private investment in nuclear was zero.
Finally, nuclear is an economic loser, and can't be justified. Any other investment in energy is better.
Bill Linnell
Portland, ME USA
landmk01@maine.rr.com
