When the subject of energy comes up, invariably nuclear energy gets tossed into the discussion, in spite of the extravagant cost --
$7,500 per kilowatt to build
That’s more than double the capital costs for solar power and three and a half times the cost for wind.
Beyond Nuclear explores the myth of the French Nuclear Industry.
.
Areva, [The article in its entirety is worth reading, excerpts below] the French company that has left sickness, contamination, waste and environmental destruction in its wake, would have us embrace their presence ---
.With its human rights track record largely a well-kept secret, Areva has been welcomed into the United States, where the company has quietly established 42 offices with 5,300 employees. Its U.S. tentacles extend to virtually every phase of the nuclear fuel chain, from uranium enrichment to radioactive-waste management. With the smoke and mirrors resurgence of nuclear power gaining political and public traction, Areva -- read the French government -- smells huge profits, and the U.S. is prime prey.
Areva is behind the push to revive nuclear-waste reprocessing in the U.S. The separated plutonium would then be blended into MOX fuel and used in U.S. reactors, none of which is adapted to handle the hotter plutonium fuel.
Until recently, Areva, in partnership with the U.S. Shaw Group, was running MOX fuel test assemblies at Duke Energy's Catawba nuclear plant in South Carolina before the operation was shut down prematurely for safety reasons. The U.S. MOX fuel was made at the French MOX fuel-fabrication plant at Cadarache, a facility that had been closed due to the danger of earthquakes in the area. The plant was reopened solely to accommodate the U.S. fuel, a move that was challenged as illegal by French anti-nuclear advocates.
Areva recently won a contract to build and operate a new uranium-enrichment facility in Idaho. It operates more than 50 percent of this country's dry cask storage operations, where all of the U.S. spent reactor fuel still sits at the 65 reactor sites (there are 104 operating reactors in the U.S.) At least 30 percent of U.S. reactors use Areva-supplied fuel.
The company's U.S. plans also extend to new reactors, where it hopes to grab at least 33 percent of the U.S. market according to its Web site. This includes a proposal for seven of its unproven "generation three" design, the Evolutionary Power Reactor, billed as the world's largest reactor. (It is called the European Pressurized Reactor everywhere but the U.S.)
Seven EPR reactors are slated for six U.S. sites, although so far only two sites -- at Calvert Cliffs on the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland and Calloway near St. Louis -- have filed initial applications. George Vanderheyden, chief executive for UniStar, the company hoping to build the EPR at Calvert Cliffs, says the EPR "will be one of the most expensive technologies in the United States to build." UniStar has partnered with the French state electricity company, lectricit de France (EDF), on the project. However, cost may not be the only challenge.
The two Areva EPR reactors under way -- in Finland and France -- have already run into trouble. The Finnish reactor at the Olkiluoto nuclear site started first, in August 2005, but has already fallen three years behind schedule after safety and quality-assurance problems with the piping, containment liner and concrete base slab were discovered. This has put the Finnish EPR 50 percent over budget at a current estimated cost of at least $6.7 billion. Areva partner Siemens has pulled out of the project, leaving Areva to buy out Siemens' share at an estimated cost to the company of $2.6 billion.
Wind, Solar, Tidal/Wave, Geothermal don't leave environmental destruction in their wake. Plus, they're cheaper.
7 comments:
I didn't realize that when people were talking about nuclear being a green technology - they were actually talking about the color you turn when exposed to it ....
The cost puts things in perspective.
Areva doesn't seem to have a good history.
Friends who are nuclear proponents argue that nuclear is safe if it's done correctly. Areva sure proves them wrong.
What's a little radiation between friends?
When you frame it like that, it sounds different.
Areva's conduct is pretty frightening. The company seems careless.
We have a friend who was a rabid McCain supporter and so gung-ho about nuclear energy - it's safer, the anti-nuclear activists don't know what they're talking about, it's cheaper and so on.
This isn't the kind of information we could share with him because he wouldn't listen, but the resources you've provided have given us links to additional information so we can be informed. They're appreciated. You might not provide all of the answers to our questions, but the links have been great sources.
Post a Comment