Book: «ABC of Awareness»
Personal and spiritual growth
- Purpose of spirituality
- The benefits of modesty
- The more the better?
- Children develop their parents
- Perceptive reality
- The human needs
- Higher consciousness
- About the meaning of life
Global warming, climate change
- Definition of global warming
- Cause and effects of global warming
- Responsibility and global warming
- Energy consumption
- Reduce the energy demand
- Carbon footprint
- CO2 emissions by country
- Reason for climate change
- Global warming news
Nuclear energy, atomic power
Time for change
Most recent content
He who sets his life goals mainly in the material area, will also realize mainly material goals.
New Finish nuclear power plant Olkiluoto with enormous financial losses
The dispute around enormous financial losses from the Finish Olkiluoto nuclear reactor project deepened yesterday, when the French nuclear giant Areva published its half-year results. Areva threatened to freeze construction if TVO does not submit to the company’s demands of shouldering a share of the cost. The latest estimate of construction costs reached €5.5 billion, which compares to the price of 2.5 billion originally presented to Finnish public and politicians.
"The fight over extra costs is a demonstration that international nuclear companies have no intention whatsoever to bear the risk of delays and cost overruns in future reactor projects, which exposes electricity users to huge liabilities," Greenpeace energy campaigner Lauri Myllyvirta said.
Source and more info see http://www.olkiluoto.info/en/
Email this page
Printer-friendly version
Comments
Expensive new nuclear power plants
Wow. This is important information. We normally just get to know about low cost benefits of nuclear power.
So the reality seems to be rather different, at least for new nukes...
And Yet Finnland Approves Another Two Reactors Jul 2010
Despite these cost overruns, Finnland has recently approved (Jul 2010) the construction of two new reactors in principle, see the New York Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/business/global/02power.html
Could it be that the Finns are determined to reduce their carbon footprint to match the French and Swedes? (Who, not only are heavily invested in nuclear, but also have two of the lowest carbon emission per captia numbers in the developed world). Or perhaps, the Finns are just trying to avoid the mistakes of their Danish and German neighbours, who are achieving efficiencies of less than 20% on the rated capacity of their wind turbines?
First-of-a-kind projects like the 1600 MW Olkiluoto 3 reactor described above often run into cost overruns as described above. Consider Germany's first off-shore wind farm -- Alpha Ventus -- which came on-line last year, 2009, at $85 million over budget and one year behind schedule, see http://www.winddaily.com/reports/First_German_offshore_wind_farm_online_999.html
When you do the math and compare the $/MWh that can be expected to be generated by the German wind farm to the Finnish Olkiluoto reactor, you will find the German wind farm to be more than three times expensive. (note in making the calculation, I was genourous in estimating the MWh that the wind farm would generate and handicapped both the life expectancy of the nuclear reactor and its capacity factor.)
If you really want to arrest carbon emissions and by implication global warning, people have to seriously consider nuclear. The only other real solution is geo-engineering, e.g. putting reflectors up in space.
T-Squared