Cost of nuclear 'underestimated'
The cost of
new nuclear power has been underestimated by a factor of three, according to a
British think tank. BBC News, 29 June 2005 The New Economics
Foundation (NEF) says existing estimates do not allow for the cost of building
novel technologies and expensive time delays in construction. They claim that renewable energy
sources like wind and solar should be relied upon instead of nuclear power. However their report
has been dismissed as inaccurate by the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA).
"This report is grossly out of kilter with almost all other reports that
have been done," said Simon James of the NIA.
'Voodoo
economics'. These hidden costs, combined with the
risk of terrorism, mean that nuclear should not be promoted as an answer to
climate change, the NEF claims.
Instead, the report says, renewable energy sources like wind, solar and
geothermal could meet the world's energy needs in a way that is environmentally
friendly. At a cost of
3.0-4.0p/kWh for offshore and 1.5-2.5/kWh for onshore production, wind is a far
cheaper option than nuclear, the NEF claims. "But a resurgence of interest in nuclear power,
justified by voodoo economics, stands to hinder and potentially derail
renewable energy," said Andrew Simms, NEF policy director. However, the Royal
Academy of Engineers (RAE), who recently completed their own estimates of the
cost of nuclear power, dismissed the report. "They are focusing on the worst-case scenario for
nuclear power and the best-case scenario for renewables; so it is hardly a
balanced view," an RAE spokesman told the BBC News website. "Too much of the debate at the moment is either
nuclear or wind, when really we should be looking for a holistic approach." Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4631737.stm |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework