Nuclear power: Greenpeace sees a bottomless pit for taxpayers
Cost increases, massive delays and reliability problems make nuclear power an expensive gamble - especially for taxpayers, says Greenpeace.
A nuclear power plant as envisioned by the US company Nuscale.
(Image: Nuscale)
Due to uncontrolled cost increases, massive delays and reliability problems, investors often lose interest in nuclear projects. Almost all nuclear power plants are directly or indirectly dependent on the support of the authorities to ensure their profitability. The financial risk is not borne by the operators, but by taxpayers, according to a study by Greenpeace. Its nuclear expert Roger Spautz summarizes: "Nuclear energy is a bottomless pit for taxpayers."
For its study, the environmental protection organization took a closer look at current projects and financing models in ten countries and the technology of the Small Modular Reactor. The overall result was that nuclear power plant projects have a very specific risk profile compared to other investments in energy infrastructure. This is due to the high capital requirements prior to the start of construction, the long construction times, regular budget and schedule overruns and revenue risks, writes Greenpeace.
Nuclear power plant projects only become interesting for private investors when a government reduces risks through loan guarantees, revenue guarantees, state suppliers and utility companies or through structures through which consumers co-finance parts of the project developments. This applies equally to large and small projects. The aspect of the burden on tax or fee payers is becoming more important in view of rising interest rates.
Further risks
Greenpeace sees the competitiveness of nuclear power plants compared to renewable energies as a further problem. The electricity production costs for nuclear power would be around 18 US cents per kWh compared to 6 for solar or wind energy. And even if the costs of system integration are taken into account, which arise due to the fluctuating output of renewables compared to the controllable output of nuclear power plants, renewables would still come off more favorably.
Greenpeace also points to geopolitical risks, as Russian or Chinese state-owned companies are involved in some projects or supply the fuel for them. Overall, the fuel supply is not very diversified, with 96 percent of the uranium for nuclear power plants in the EU coming from five countries in 2021: 24 percent from Niger, 23 percent from Kazakhstan, 20 percent from Russia, 16 percent from Australia and 14 percent from Canada.
The Small Modular Reactor (SMR) recently propagated by the industry is not new to Greenpeace. Reactors with a much lower output have already existed in the past, and modular reactors are already being built today. Proponents hope that SMRs will make projects less complex, shorten construction times, reduce costs and simplify technology. Greenpeace writes that it is not yet possible to predict what the costs would actually be if such SMRs were to be produced in series. It refers to the recently canceled SMR project by NuScale Power Corporation in the US state of Idaho. So far, there are only a few operational projects classified as SMRs, such as the KLT-40S in Russia or the PHWR-2020 in India.
Hidden costs
This can result in yield risks in the operation of a nuclear power plant, which Greenpeace adds to the hidden costs, as well as problems with the supply of cooling water due to low river levels and high temperatures, as occurred in France in 2022. Further hidden costs result from the limited liability of nuclear power plant operators, as regulated in the Brussels Supplementary Convention. According to this, they are liable for damage of up to 1.2 billion euros in the event of a nuclear accident. Any damage in excess of this sum insured or where the available funds are exhausted must be covered by public or international funds.
Empfohlener redaktioneller Inhalt
Mit Ihrer Zustimmmung wird hier eine externe Umfrage (Opinary GmbH) geladen.
Ich bin damit einverstanden, dass mir externe Inhalte angezeigt werden. Damit können personenbezogene Daten an Drittplattformen (Opinary GmbH) übermittelt werden. Mehr dazu in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.
Among the hidden costs, Greenpeace also includes those arising from the decommissioning and dismantling of nuclear power plants. The industry assumes that such costs make up around 15 percent of the original construction costs and are all the less significant in view of the long operating times. However, previous nuclear power plant decommissioning projects have shown that the costs could be considerably higher. The costs that could be incurred in the future for the final storage of spent fuel rods and other radioactive material are not foreseeable, as there is currently not a single final storage facility in the world.
(anw)