Before the Fukushima disaster, nuclear power appeared on the brink of a comeback. However, the darker side of nuclear energy has been exposed by Japan’s struggle to contain radiation from the reactor damaged by the earthquake and tsunami. Expensive new safety measures that might be required because of the Fukushima disaster could make the expense of nuclear power prohibitive to investors as a primary source of energy in the future.
The financial truth about nuclear power
Increasing the use of nuclear power as a clean, reliable source of energy won the support of 62 percent of the public in a 2010 Gallup poll. The Obama administration announced plans to provide $54.2 billion in loan guarantees for the construction of nuclear power plants. The Fukushima disaster was not the reason why it was unlikely that nuclear reactors would be built in the U.S. Mark Cooper of the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School explained it was already unlikely. Cooper said the United States nuclear industry was a bubble that was going to burst just like any. This was said in Ottawa, Canada, at a presentation at the House of Commons. In 2001, he said, the bubble started. Nuclear energy was given loan guarantees in billions of dollars by the Bush administration. In 2008, many were upset about the nuclear industry. It was not doing also as several hoped it would. The recession, cheap natural gas and growing sources for clean energy alte! rnatives effectively finished it off.
Paying more for nuclear power
The Fukushima disaster has many individuals worried. It might cost more money to build a new reactor. After the 1979 Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania, construction costs for nuclear reactors rose 95 percent, according to Cooper’s research. This caused a huge increase in electricity costs. About 40 percent more was being paid for it. Construction costs went up 89 percent causing electricity to rise 42 percent in 1986 after the Ukraine Chernobyl disaster. Construction costs for nuclear reactors skyrocketed due to design changes required to address safety concerns. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has already assembled a task force to investigate the design changes required for planned nuclear plants in the United States, depending on lessons learned from Fukushima.
Risking it’s asking too much of investors
Now that the Fukushima incident has occurred, investors are worried about where they put their money. Rather than invest in nuclear power plants, they’re more likely to put money into clean energy alternatives such as solar, wind and natural gas. It also might affect utilities. The corporations don’t want the nuclear plant risk. Sometimes you don’t want to pay much for energy. If this is the only consideration, nuclear energy makes probably the most sense. The cost to clean up a nuclear accident aside, it is cheaper to do most other choices. Onshore wind farms are 35 percent cheaper than nuclear power plant building. In the future, choice sources will become increasingly capable of helping meet the world’s energy needs without the financial and ecological costs of nuclear power. As an investor, it makes more sense to do a clean energy option. It can be more lucrative for probably the most part.
Citations
Reuters
reuters.com/article/2011/03/25/idUS423443138820110325
Fast Company
fastcompany.com/1742619/what-are-the-economics-of-nuclear-power-after-fukishima
The National
thenational.ae/lifestyle/personal-finance/japans-nuclear-woes-add-pressure-to-invest-in-green-energy
No comments:
Post a Comment