Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
kristopher
kristopher's Journal
kristopher's Journal
February 22, 2013
(FL) State senators to utilities: Build nuclear power or risk loss of funding
State senators to utilities: Build nuclear power or risk loss of funding
By Ivan Penn and Mary Ellen Klas, Times/Herald Tallahassee Bureau
Thursday, February 21, 2013 4:13pm
TALLAHASSEE — Fed up Tampa Bay area state senators want utilities to either start building nuclear power plants or lose a state law that allows them to charge customers for the plants in advance.
Duke Energy customers already are on the hook for $1.5 billion for a proposed $24 billion plant in Levy County that the utility has delayed for almost a decade and still has not committed to build. The utility gets to pocket about $150 million of that money.
..."There were no provisions to look out for the consumers," said Sen. John Legg, R-Lutz, one of the Senate bill's sponsors. "It has no accountability. It's an open-ended checkbook."
..."We do not support any changes to the law," said Mark Bubriski, an FPL spokesman. "Repealing the law would effectively kill all investment in new nuclear power for Florida, and we believe that would be very short-sighted policy."
More at: http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/state-senators-to-utilities-build-nuclear-power-or-risk-loss-of-funding/1276080
By Ivan Penn and Mary Ellen Klas, Times/Herald Tallahassee Bureau
Thursday, February 21, 2013 4:13pm
TALLAHASSEE — Fed up Tampa Bay area state senators want utilities to either start building nuclear power plants or lose a state law that allows them to charge customers for the plants in advance.
Duke Energy customers already are on the hook for $1.5 billion for a proposed $24 billion plant in Levy County that the utility has delayed for almost a decade and still has not committed to build. The utility gets to pocket about $150 million of that money.
..."There were no provisions to look out for the consumers," said Sen. John Legg, R-Lutz, one of the Senate bill's sponsors. "It has no accountability. It's an open-ended checkbook."
..."We do not support any changes to the law," said Mark Bubriski, an FPL spokesman. "Repealing the law would effectively kill all investment in new nuclear power for Florida, and we believe that would be very short-sighted policy."
More at: http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/state-senators-to-utilities-build-nuclear-power-or-risk-loss-of-funding/1276080
February 20, 2013
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/19/cannot-afford-nuclear-power-energy-mix
A nuclear proponent makes the case for nuclear power.
This article is fundamentally "it" for nuclear. It gives the entire case for nuclear power.
Can you spot what is wrong?
We cannot afford not to have nuclear in our low-carbon energy mix
Nuclear power must prove itself in cost terms – but we should not be thinking of giving up now
James Smith
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 19 February 2013 12.59 GMT
The euphoric phase on low-carbon energy is over. There is no solution that is clean and cheap and always on.
Yet we must make major investments in energy. Old coal and nuclear plants will have to close. And climate change has to be tackled or it will result in costly economic damage.
So let's consider the options for investment in low-carbon electricity. Over the coming 20 years there are only three options that are relevant – wind, carbon capture and storage (CCS) and nuclear. Each has significant imperfections yet each works. And there is no muddle through option.
Each technology has deeply entrenched opponents. But if all the opponents have their way, we are left with no solution. Or at a minimum there will be a long period of argument, muddle and delay, followed by a rushed, expensive and late period of investment. Isn't that how it is already feeling?
Let's consider the three energy technology options in turn....
Nuclear power must prove itself in cost terms – but we should not be thinking of giving up now
James Smith
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 19 February 2013 12.59 GMT
The euphoric phase on low-carbon energy is over. There is no solution that is clean and cheap and always on.
Yet we must make major investments in energy. Old coal and nuclear plants will have to close. And climate change has to be tackled or it will result in costly economic damage.
So let's consider the options for investment in low-carbon electricity. Over the coming 20 years there are only three options that are relevant – wind, carbon capture and storage (CCS) and nuclear. Each has significant imperfections yet each works. And there is no muddle through option.
Each technology has deeply entrenched opponents. But if all the opponents have their way, we are left with no solution. Or at a minimum there will be a long period of argument, muddle and delay, followed by a rushed, expensive and late period of investment. Isn't that how it is already feeling?
Let's consider the three energy technology options in turn....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/19/cannot-afford-nuclear-power-energy-mix
February 19, 2013
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/17/1604661/chinese-companies-projected-to-make-solar-panels-for-42-cents-per-watt-in-2015/
Chinese Companies Projected To Make Solar Panels for 42 Cents Per Watt In 2015
Chinese Companies Projected To Make Solar Panels for 42 Cents Per Watt In 2015
Future cost drops from Chinese crystalline silicon solar producers will not be as steep as recent years, but they will still be significant.
Stephen Lacey, via GreenTechMedia
The cost of producing a conventional crystalline silicon (c-si) solar panel continues to drop. Between 2009 and 2012, leading “best-in-class” Chinese c-Si solar manufacturers reduced module costs by more than 50 percent. And in the next three years, those players — companies like Jinko, Yingli, Trina and Renesola — are on a path to lower costs by another 30 percent.
...“Clearly, the magnitude of cost reductions will be less than in previous years. But we still do see potential for significant cost reductions. Going from 53 cents to 42 cents is noteworthy,” says Shayle Kann, vice president of research at GTM Research.
With plenty of innovation still occurring in crystalline silicon PV manufacturing — including new sawing techniques, thinner wafers, conductive adhesives, and frameless modules — companies are able to squeeze more pennies off the cost of each panel. However, as the chart above shows, innovating “outside the module” to reduce the installed cost of solar will be increasingly important as companies find it harder to realize cost reductions in manufacturing.
Future cost drops from Chinese crystalline silicon solar producers will not be as steep as recent years, but they will still be significant.
Stephen Lacey, via GreenTechMedia
The cost of producing a conventional crystalline silicon (c-si) solar panel continues to drop. Between 2009 and 2012, leading “best-in-class” Chinese c-Si solar manufacturers reduced module costs by more than 50 percent. And in the next three years, those players — companies like Jinko, Yingli, Trina and Renesola — are on a path to lower costs by another 30 percent.
...“Clearly, the magnitude of cost reductions will be less than in previous years. But we still do see potential for significant cost reductions. Going from 53 cents to 42 cents is noteworthy,” says Shayle Kann, vice president of research at GTM Research.
With plenty of innovation still occurring in crystalline silicon PV manufacturing — including new sawing techniques, thinner wafers, conductive adhesives, and frameless modules — companies are able to squeeze more pennies off the cost of each panel. However, as the chart above shows, innovating “outside the module” to reduce the installed cost of solar will be increasingly important as companies find it harder to realize cost reductions in manufacturing.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/17/1604661/chinese-companies-projected-to-make-solar-panels-for-42-cents-per-watt-in-2015/
February 18, 2013
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0216/Hanford-nuclear-tank-in-Washington-State-is-leaking-liquids
Hanford nuclear tank in Washington State is leaking liquids
Hanford nuclear tank in Washington State is leaking liquids
The long-delayed cleanup of the nation's most contaminated nuclear site became the subject of more bad news Friday, when it was announced that a radioactive waste tank is leaking.
By Mike Baker, Shannon Dininny, Associated Press / February 16, 2013
OLYMPIA, WASH.
The long-delayed cleanup of the nation's most contaminated nuclear site became the subject of more bad news Friday, when Washington Gov. Jay Inslee announced that a radioactive waste tank there is leaking.
The news raises concerns about the integrity of similar tanks at south-central Washington's Hanford nuclear reservation and puts added pressure on the federal government to resolve construction problems with the plant being built to alleviate environmental and safety risks from the waste.
The tanks, which are already long past their intended 20-year life span, hold millions of gallons of a highly radioactive stew left from decades of plutonium production for nuclear weapons.
On Friday, the U.S. Department of Energy said liquid levels are decreasing in one of 177 underground tanks at the site. Monitoring wells near the tank have not detected higher radiation levels, but Gov. Inslee said the leak could be in the range of 150 gallons to 300 gallons over the course of a year and poses a potential long-term threat to groundwater and rivers.
"I am alarmed about this on many levels," Inslee said at a news conference...
The long-delayed cleanup of the nation's most contaminated nuclear site became the subject of more bad news Friday, when it was announced that a radioactive waste tank is leaking.
By Mike Baker, Shannon Dininny, Associated Press / February 16, 2013
OLYMPIA, WASH.
The long-delayed cleanup of the nation's most contaminated nuclear site became the subject of more bad news Friday, when Washington Gov. Jay Inslee announced that a radioactive waste tank there is leaking.
The news raises concerns about the integrity of similar tanks at south-central Washington's Hanford nuclear reservation and puts added pressure on the federal government to resolve construction problems with the plant being built to alleviate environmental and safety risks from the waste.
The tanks, which are already long past their intended 20-year life span, hold millions of gallons of a highly radioactive stew left from decades of plutonium production for nuclear weapons.
On Friday, the U.S. Department of Energy said liquid levels are decreasing in one of 177 underground tanks at the site. Monitoring wells near the tank have not detected higher radiation levels, but Gov. Inslee said the leak could be in the range of 150 gallons to 300 gallons over the course of a year and poses a potential long-term threat to groundwater and rivers.
"I am alarmed about this on many levels," Inslee said at a news conference...
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0216/Hanford-nuclear-tank-in-Washington-State-is-leaking-liquids
February 14, 2013
February 14, 2013
The UK government has been planning the development of a ‘next generation’ of nuclear power plants in the region for some time, but with the price of renewables falling quickly and the costs of nuclear rising, it is looking increasingly likely that the plans will have to be scrapped. There are also other important issues with new nuclear; such as the unresolved issue of nuclear waste, and its dependence on further subsidies, which will be illegal under European Union rules.
Investors have been steadily dropping out of plans. The British utility company Centrica is just the latest to pull out of the program. This week it wrote off £200 million ($315 million) while doing so, following on the heels of previously involved German utilities. In order for the program to still go forward, the government would need to break “two important electoral pledges and may face legal challenges that it intends to breach European Union subsidy rules in guaranteeing a minimum price for nuclear power,” Climate Central writes.
...
“Centrica’s chief executive, Sam Laidlaw, said the company had pulled out because the project was more costly and extended further into the future than had been planned four years ago. Together with its partner, the French government-owned EDF, Centrica has spent close to £1 billion ($1.5B) on the project and is now writing off its 20 percent share of £200 million ($315M), concentrating instead on renewables and natural gas for electricity generation.”
Essentially, renewable clean energy technologies are a better choice than nuclear in every way. They are cheaper, faster to build, don’t create radioactive waste, aren’t as susceptible to environmental disasters, don’t require the same level of safety measures, and have far more public support. At current rates of growth, renewables are predicted to generate more electricity in the UK than nuclear by 2018, and expected to power 1 in every 10 homes in the UK by 2015...
Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/14/new-nuclear-power-in-the-uk-looking-increasingly-unlikely/#UvYxihjvXbhkiXGM.99
New Nuclear Power In The UK Looking Increasingly Unlikely
New Nuclear Power In The UK Looking Increasingly UnlikelyFebruary 14, 2013
The UK government has been planning the development of a ‘next generation’ of nuclear power plants in the region for some time, but with the price of renewables falling quickly and the costs of nuclear rising, it is looking increasingly likely that the plans will have to be scrapped. There are also other important issues with new nuclear; such as the unresolved issue of nuclear waste, and its dependence on further subsidies, which will be illegal under European Union rules.
Investors have been steadily dropping out of plans. The British utility company Centrica is just the latest to pull out of the program. This week it wrote off £200 million ($315 million) while doing so, following on the heels of previously involved German utilities. In order for the program to still go forward, the government would need to break “two important electoral pledges and may face legal challenges that it intends to breach European Union subsidy rules in guaranteeing a minimum price for nuclear power,” Climate Central writes.
...
“Centrica’s chief executive, Sam Laidlaw, said the company had pulled out because the project was more costly and extended further into the future than had been planned four years ago. Together with its partner, the French government-owned EDF, Centrica has spent close to £1 billion ($1.5B) on the project and is now writing off its 20 percent share of £200 million ($315M), concentrating instead on renewables and natural gas for electricity generation.”
Essentially, renewable clean energy technologies are a better choice than nuclear in every way. They are cheaper, faster to build, don’t create radioactive waste, aren’t as susceptible to environmental disasters, don’t require the same level of safety measures, and have far more public support. At current rates of growth, renewables are predicted to generate more electricity in the UK than nuclear by 2018, and expected to power 1 in every 10 homes in the UK by 2015...
Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/14/new-nuclear-power-in-the-uk-looking-increasingly-unlikely/#UvYxihjvXbhkiXGM.99
February 14, 2013
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-02-13/nuclear-revival-dying-in-europe-as-power-prices-slump-energy
Nuclear Revival Dying in Europe as Power Prices Slump
Nuclear Revival Dying in Europe as Power Prices Slump
By Ladka Bauerova on February 14, 2013
A Czech atomic-plant expansion planned near the German border had been one of the few prizes left for Europe’s nuclear-power industry after the Fukushima disaster stopped projects from Switzerland to Romania.
Russian and U.S. contractors have prepared to bid for the $10 billion contract to build two new reactors, Europe’s largest competitive tender for a nuclear project. Now a combination of cheaper European power prices and carbon credits, falling demand for electricity and concern government support may falter leaves CEZ AS’s project in doubt, analysts and investors said.
“The future of nuclear energy in Europe looks very dim indeed,” said Mycle Schneider, an independent consultant on energy and nuclear power based in Paris. “Nuclear is too capital intensive, too time-consuming and simply too risky.”
<snip>
...German wholesale power prices have more than halved since 2008 as the economic crisis cut demand and wind turbines and solar panels increased supply, while a slump in EU carbon permits to a record low has removed much of nuclear’s advantage over fossil fuels. At the same time, increased technical scrutiny after Fukushima has raised the cost of new reactors.
...
By Ladka Bauerova on February 14, 2013
A Czech atomic-plant expansion planned near the German border had been one of the few prizes left for Europe’s nuclear-power industry after the Fukushima disaster stopped projects from Switzerland to Romania.
Russian and U.S. contractors have prepared to bid for the $10 billion contract to build two new reactors, Europe’s largest competitive tender for a nuclear project. Now a combination of cheaper European power prices and carbon credits, falling demand for electricity and concern government support may falter leaves CEZ AS’s project in doubt, analysts and investors said.
“The future of nuclear energy in Europe looks very dim indeed,” said Mycle Schneider, an independent consultant on energy and nuclear power based in Paris. “Nuclear is too capital intensive, too time-consuming and simply too risky.”
<snip>
...German wholesale power prices have more than halved since 2008 as the economic crisis cut demand and wind turbines and solar panels increased supply, while a slump in EU carbon permits to a record low has removed much of nuclear’s advantage over fossil fuels. At the same time, increased technical scrutiny after Fukushima has raised the cost of new reactors.
...
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-02-13/nuclear-revival-dying-in-europe-as-power-prices-slump-energy
February 13, 2013
Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/12/world-solar-pv-capacity-surpasses-100-gigawatts-in-2012/#uVvTSX1zjAtcI7yJ.99
World Solar PV Capacity Surpasses 100 Gigawatts In 2012
World Solar PV Capacity Surpasses 100 Gigawatts In 2012
February 12, 2013
Cynthia Shahan
This bright news below brings the message that people are changing, things are changing. From a statement released in Brussels yesterday we find that the world’s cumulative solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity capacity surpassed 100 gigawatts (GW) in 2012, achieving just over 101 GW. This is according to new market figures from the European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA). “A landmark year,” EPIA called it. Indeed!
Wonderful to find that it’s not just speeches and pleas for change, that there is change in the works. The sun is the source of energy the world is harnessing without depletion or toxicity to a greater and greater extent. And 2012 was another strong year for the solar industry (following a very strong in in 2011). More than 30 GW of PV were connected to the electricity grid in 2012, EPIA added. And there was a sort of balancing out in where that solar power was installed. Non-European markets increased their installations and accounted for more than 13 GW of the worldwide total.
Harnessing the Power of the Sun
“This global capacity to harness the power of the sun produces as much electricity energy in a year as 16 coal power plants or nuclear reactors of 1 GW each. Each year, the world’s PV installations reduce CO2 emissions by 53 million tons,” EPIA wrote.
Clean Technica (http://s.tt/1zG16)
February 12, 2013
Cynthia Shahan
This bright news below brings the message that people are changing, things are changing. From a statement released in Brussels yesterday we find that the world’s cumulative solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity capacity surpassed 100 gigawatts (GW) in 2012, achieving just over 101 GW. This is according to new market figures from the European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA). “A landmark year,” EPIA called it. Indeed!
Wonderful to find that it’s not just speeches and pleas for change, that there is change in the works. The sun is the source of energy the world is harnessing without depletion or toxicity to a greater and greater extent. And 2012 was another strong year for the solar industry (following a very strong in in 2011). More than 30 GW of PV were connected to the electricity grid in 2012, EPIA added. And there was a sort of balancing out in where that solar power was installed. Non-European markets increased their installations and accounted for more than 13 GW of the worldwide total.
Harnessing the Power of the Sun
“This global capacity to harness the power of the sun produces as much electricity energy in a year as 16 coal power plants or nuclear reactors of 1 GW each. Each year, the world’s PV installations reduce CO2 emissions by 53 million tons,” EPIA wrote.
The surpassing of the 100-GW mark occurred in yet another year of strong global PV development, with an estimated 30 GW connected to the grid and made operational in 2012 – roughly the same as the record-setting level of 2011. These results are preliminary, and the 30 GW figure could be increased by an additional 1 or 2 GW when final numbers come in. Final results for the year will be published in May, in EPIA’s annual “Global Market Outlook for Photovoltaics 2013-2017.”
Clean Technica (http://s.tt/1zG16)
Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/12/world-solar-pv-capacity-surpasses-100-gigawatts-in-2012/#uVvTSX1zjAtcI7yJ.99
February 13, 2013
Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/10/texas-wind-power-set-to-double-transmission-as-energy-exec-hints-at-end-of-nukes/#0b7jGTa4SXpgVeeJ.99
Texas Wind Power Transmission Set To Skyrocket As Energy Exec Hints At End Of Nukes
Texas Wind Power Transmission Set To Skyrocket As Energy Exec Hints At End Of Nukes
February 10, 2013
Tina Casey
A $7 billion project that will send wind power from remote areas in West Texas to Dallas, Houston and other big cities is on the verge of completion, and that could pound yet another nail into the coffin for U.S. nuclear power and, for that matter, coal. The new Texas wind power project was authorized by the state’s Public Utility Commission (PUC) in 2008. When completed some time this year it will include 3,500 miles of new line carrying up to 18,456 megawatts, and according to a trade news report, PUC is already looking to order more wind power transmission lines, apparently with connections to out of state markets....
Texas Wind Power Up, Nukes Down
...eventually, according to Christopher Crane, the CEO of energy giant Exelon. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune last week, Crane predicted that the influx of low cost wind power would lead the company to start shuttering its nuclear plants...
In 2011, rival utility giant NRG was set to build two new power plants in Texas but backed off as a wind power surplus combined with a stiffer regulatory environment for nuclear power, consequent on the Fukushima nuclear disaster...
Texas Wind Power Up, Coal Down
Coal is on even more shaky ground, partly because new wind farms and other clean energy facilities are beginning to offer more competitive alternatives, and also because existing coal power plants are being converted to other fuels, namely biomass and natural gas.
As with nuclear power...
Clean Technica (http://s.tt/1zC1z)
February 10, 2013
Tina Casey
A $7 billion project that will send wind power from remote areas in West Texas to Dallas, Houston and other big cities is on the verge of completion, and that could pound yet another nail into the coffin for U.S. nuclear power and, for that matter, coal. The new Texas wind power project was authorized by the state’s Public Utility Commission (PUC) in 2008. When completed some time this year it will include 3,500 miles of new line carrying up to 18,456 megawatts, and according to a trade news report, PUC is already looking to order more wind power transmission lines, apparently with connections to out of state markets....
Texas Wind Power Up, Nukes Down
...eventually, according to Christopher Crane, the CEO of energy giant Exelon. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune last week, Crane predicted that the influx of low cost wind power would lead the company to start shuttering its nuclear plants...
In 2011, rival utility giant NRG was set to build two new power plants in Texas but backed off as a wind power surplus combined with a stiffer regulatory environment for nuclear power, consequent on the Fukushima nuclear disaster...
Texas Wind Power Up, Coal Down
Coal is on even more shaky ground, partly because new wind farms and other clean energy facilities are beginning to offer more competitive alternatives, and also because existing coal power plants are being converted to other fuels, namely biomass and natural gas.
As with nuclear power...
Clean Technica (http://s.tt/1zC1z)
Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/10/texas-wind-power-set-to-double-transmission-as-energy-exec-hints-at-end-of-nukes/#0b7jGTa4SXpgVeeJ.99
February 12, 2013
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2013/01/15/new-centralized-nuclear-plants-still-an-investment-worth-making/
See also:
Quarterbacks and New Nuclear Power Plants - Sunk Costs
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2013/01/22/quarterbacks-and-new-nuclear-power-plants-sunk-costs/
New Centralized Nuclear Plants: Still an Investment Worth Making?
...Even without Fukushima, the verdict on large centralized US nukes is probably in, for the following reasons:
1) They take too long: In the ten years it can take to build a nuclear plant, the world can change considerably (look at what has happened with natural gas prices and the costs of solar since some of these investments were first proposed). The energy world is changing very quickly, which poses a significant risk for thirty to forty year investments.
2) They are among the most expensive and capital-intensive investments in the world; they cost many billions of dollars, and they are too frequently prone to crippling multi-billion dollar cost overruns and delays. In May 2008, the US Congressional Budget Office found that the actual cost of building 75 of America’s earlier nuclear plants involved an average 207% overrun, soaring from $938 to $2,959 per kilowatt.
3) And once the investments commence, they are all-or-nothing. You can’t pull out without losing your entire investment. For those with longer memories, WPPS and Shoreham represent $2.25 bn (1983) and $6 bn (1989) wasted investments in which nothing was gained and ratepayers and bondholders lost a good deal.
Some recent investments in centralized nuclear plants in other countries highlight and echo these lessons....
1) They take too long: In the ten years it can take to build a nuclear plant, the world can change considerably (look at what has happened with natural gas prices and the costs of solar since some of these investments were first proposed). The energy world is changing very quickly, which poses a significant risk for thirty to forty year investments.
2) They are among the most expensive and capital-intensive investments in the world; they cost many billions of dollars, and they are too frequently prone to crippling multi-billion dollar cost overruns and delays. In May 2008, the US Congressional Budget Office found that the actual cost of building 75 of America’s earlier nuclear plants involved an average 207% overrun, soaring from $938 to $2,959 per kilowatt.
3) And once the investments commence, they are all-or-nothing. You can’t pull out without losing your entire investment. For those with longer memories, WPPS and Shoreham represent $2.25 bn (1983) and $6 bn (1989) wasted investments in which nothing was gained and ratepayers and bondholders lost a good deal.
Some recent investments in centralized nuclear plants in other countries highlight and echo these lessons....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2013/01/15/new-centralized-nuclear-plants-still-an-investment-worth-making/
See also:
Quarterbacks and New Nuclear Power Plants - Sunk Costs
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2013/01/22/quarterbacks-and-new-nuclear-power-plants-sunk-costs/
February 12, 2013
Yet another delay announced for nuclear friendly Finland's new reactor
Which means, of course, even greater cost overruns.
Finland's Olkiluoto 3 reactor seen delayed to 2016
Commercial production at Finnish nuclear reactor Olkiluoto 3 is likely to be delayed to 2016, utility Teollisuuden Voima (TVO) said, sparking a new round of accusations between TVO and the builder, consortium Areva-Siemens.
The reactor was originally scheduled to start operating in 2009 but has been hit by repeated delays and soaring costs.
The French-German consortium's last estimate was for the reactor to be ready by 2014, but TVO said last July that such a timeframe was impossible.
TVO and Areva have traded accusations about who is to blame for the delays, and the International Chamber of Commerce's arbitration court is processing a dispute on cost overruns between the consortium and TVO....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/11/teollisuudenvoima-olkiluoto-idUSL5N0BBEZ520130211
Commercial production at Finnish nuclear reactor Olkiluoto 3 is likely to be delayed to 2016, utility Teollisuuden Voima (TVO) said, sparking a new round of accusations between TVO and the builder, consortium Areva-Siemens.
The reactor was originally scheduled to start operating in 2009 but has been hit by repeated delays and soaring costs.
The French-German consortium's last estimate was for the reactor to be ready by 2014, but TVO said last July that such a timeframe was impossible.
TVO and Areva have traded accusations about who is to blame for the delays, and the International Chamber of Commerce's arbitration court is processing a dispute on cost overruns between the consortium and TVO....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/11/teollisuudenvoima-olkiluoto-idUSL5N0BBEZ520130211
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Dec 19, 2003, 02:20 AMNumber of posts: 29,798
