Nuclear Energy

6. Blithely Ignoring Health Costs
So far, we have discussed the overt or covert subsidies given by governments to nuclear
energy. Apart from these subsidies, probably the worst part of this nexus between governments and
nuclear industry is that governments have allowed the nuclear industry to simply ignore the health
costs of nuclear energy. Nuclear electricity cost calculations do not take into account the health
costs of the radiation leaked into the atmosphere at every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle. In fact, the
nuclear industry does not even admit to these costs, blithely lying that it is clean and causes no
health damage to its workers and the people living in the neighbourhood of its installations. And so,
these costs are silently borne by the people.
Part IV: Conclusion
A new November 9, 2009 report “New Nuclear – The Economics Say No” by Citi
Investment Research & Analysis, a division of Citigroup GlobalMarkets Inc., says: “Three of the
risks faced by developers — Construction, Power Price, and Operational — are so large and
variable that individually they could each bring even the largest utility company to its knees
financially. This makes new nuclear a unique investment proposition for utility companies.
Government policy remains that the private sector takes full exposure to the three main risks:
construction, power price and operational. Nowhere in the world have nuclear power stations been
built on this basis. We see little if any prospect that new nuclear stations will be built in the UK by
the private sector unless developers can lay off substantial elements of the three major risks.
Financing guarantees, minimum power prices, and / or government-backed power off-take
agreements may all be needed if stations are to be built …” ccxlix
That's precisely the point we've been trying to make in this Chapter, that nuclear energy is
one of the most expensive ways of generating electricity, is definitely much more costly as
compared to electricity from fossil fuels, and the only way it can be competitive with conventional
electricity is if it is highly subsidised by the government. In fact, Steve Thomas, the renowned
independent energy policy researcher based in UK, writes that studies by the British government in
1989, 1995, and 2002 all came to the same conclusion, that in competitive electricity markets,
electric utilities would not build nuclear power plants without government subsidies. ccl
Apart from public opposition, this cost factor is one of the important reasons why nuclear
electricity is on the decline the world over, especially in countries with competitive electricity
markets.
Then how come Areva won an order for constructing Olkiluoto-3 in Finland? It is being claimed
that this proves that the new Generation III+ reactors are feasible in liberalised energy markets.
However, a closer examination of the deal indicates that this is not a commercial order made in a
free market without subsidies and guarantees, as the following facts about the order prove:
� Areva deliberately offered a low and fixed price for the project, in order to get its first order
in 15 years.
67
ccli There were fears that if it did not get an order for its EPR reactor soon, it