Exercising Britain's nuclear options

That's another fine mess you got us into, Maggie!

Chris Huhne insists Britain's new nuclear power stations will be built on time, but scepticism remains ...

Britain faces a looming energy gap as coal power stations are turned off in 2015 to comply with European clean air legislation.

And the replacement of obsolete fossil fuel plants with zero-carbon renewable or nuclear generation is central to meeting targets to cut UK carbon emissions by 34 per cent by 2020.

Mr Huhne's efforts to allay fears of delay followed a Confederation of British Industry report warning that £150bn of private sector investment in low-carbon infrastructure – including nuclear – is being threatened by uncertainties in the planning regime ...

The biggest hurdle for new nuclear is that the power stations are hugely expensive, and the cost of power too unreliable to provide a sufficiently secure return.

It is therefore incumbent on the government to create a policy framework that will provide incentives for private sector investment ...

But the trickiest issue of all is the reform of the electricity market, and the vexed question of what constitutes a subsidy.

Nuclear is not the only industry with such a front-loaded cost model ...

"The design of our electricity market is almost uniquely ill-qualified for delivery of long-term kind of investment," said Dieter Helm ...

Independent  10 August 2010        

Dieter Helm

Who will pay the bill for closing Britain's £200bn energy gap?

One fact is broadly agreed upon by all parties: in order to meet its climate change obligations and to ensure the lights do not go out, Britain has to spend somewhere in the region of £200bn on new energy production facilities before 2020: on traditional coal and gas-fired power plants, on nuclear and on renewables.

The question is where the money is going to come from. It will not be the public sector – even if we were not headed into a period of extended austerity, the Government would want the privately-owned energy industry to bear the lion's share of the cost of upgrading its infrastructure.

Nor will it be the energy companies – they simply do not have this sort of cash on their balance sheets.

That leaves two possibilities.

Either consumers will have to pay more, through higher bills, in order to provide the energy industry with the capital it needs, or investors will have to come up with necessary cash, through rights issues and other types of fund-raising exercises at the companies in question.

As a leading member of the latter camp, Mr Woodford's message is that he is not prepared to cough up unless Ofgem extracts some money from the former camp too, by taking a less aggressive line on the returns energy companies earn from customers ...

Independent  21 July 2010    Coal: Carbon Capture & Storage    Rebalancing the Economy

Britain's Nuclear Renaissance in Doubt

China 'leapfrogs US to become biggest energy user'

EDF ran secret lobbying campaign to reduce nuclear waste disposal levy

The nuclear industry is being offered what campaigners claim is a taxpayer subsidy on the disposal costs of waste from new reactors following a secret lobbying campaign, the Guardian has learned.

The revelation will put further scrutiny on the new government's promise that there will be no subsidy for nuclear power. Liberal Democrat Chris Huhne, the new energy and climate change secretary of state, admitted to the Guardian this week that the government already faces a £4bn funding black hole over existing radioactive waste ...

Documents released under a freedom of information request reveal the extent of behind-the-scenes lobbying last year in Whitehall by EDF Energy ...

A spokesman from Greenpeace said: "These documents blow EDF's claim that they won't need any subsidies for new nuclear clean out of the water. They know full well that the economics of nuclear don't stack up and that new reactors will only ever happen if the British taxpayer is forced yet again to carry the atomic can." ...

An energy department spokesman said: "The allegation that outcomes of the consultation have been pre-agreed with industry have no foundation. The coalition has committed that there will be no public subsidy for new nuclear."

Guardian  02 June 2010    Corporate State Britain

Nuclear industry presses sceptical Huhne over backing new reactors

Centrica and E.ON lobby Liberal Democrat energy secretary to commit government to £30bn nuclear newbuild programme ...

Huhne's party, the Liberal Democrats, said in their manifesto that they opposed new nuclear plants but the coalition agreement with the Conservatives involved a new pledge to allow nuclear stations to be built with a proviso that they do not involve public subsidies.

Huhne has already followed this up with a commitment to make companies pay for all their clean-up costs after a nuclear accident.

Currently, the industry only pays the first £140m, with the government picking up the rest of the bill, which Huhne believes amounts to a public subsidy ...

The economics of nuclear power have already been hit by low gas prices and a weak pound, which makes it more expensive for UK-based companies such as Centrica to import reactor parts.

The government has also promised to introduce a minimum carbon price to help make nuclear economic, which the Liberal Democrats support. But the industry will want it to be at least €50 a tonne, compared with current prices of about €15.

Firms are also concerned that Whitehall cost-cutting could result in the programme to decommission existing reactors, which is funded by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), being slashed ...

Guardian  19 May 2010

Huhne 'sceptical' on nuclear power

Google-funded hot rock 'water' drill could reduce cost of geothermal energy

UK on course to reap massive renewable energy harvest

Sheffield Forgemasters gets £80m state loan ...

... from the British government to build a massive steel press to supply components for the nuclear industry ...

The company will become only the second in the world with necessary nuclear accreditation able to make the largest forgingsrequired to make the critical components required for the global civil nuclear industry ...

Lord Mandelson, who is visiting the company today, said: "This is not just help for one company. Today we're announcing a willingness to invest that will make the UK a leading provider in the nuclear and the low carbon supply chain."

Currently the UK is able to supply around 50pc of the plant and equipment for a new nuclear programme in the UK but with investment this could increase to 70pc, the Government said.

The Government also committed to co-fund the delivery of up to 1,000 apprenticeships a year in the nuclear energy sector.

Michael Macdonald of the Prospect union said:

"Not only is it great news for local job security, but workers at Sheffield Forgemasters will be making a vital product to support new nuclear build in the UK, as well as the global market. This deal provides yet more evidence that new build will bring jobs into the UK supply chain."

Telegraph  17 March 2010

Thousands of jobs that were to have been created in Britain to build the next generation of nuclear power plants could be heading overseas instead, after Westinghouse, the nuclear company sold by the government three years ago to Toshiba, chose one of its largest shareholders as the lead contractor to build reactors.

Westinghouse is expected to confirm this week that it has appointed US-based Shaw Group to head up its £10bn nuclear programme, passing over the favourite for the contract, rival engineering group Fluor.

Industry sources said that Shaw is likely to source far more reactor components from overseas than Fluor, which has close relationships with British manufacturers. The Unite union claimed that 10,000 new jobs in the UK would not be created as a result of Shaw being selected ...

Guardian 22 November 2009

The government has approved 10 sites in England and Wales for new nuclear power stations, most of them in locations where there are already plants.

It has rejected only one proposed site - in Dungeness, Kent - as being unsuitable on environmental grounds.

A new planning commission will make decisions on the proposals "within a year" of receiving them ...

Ministers hope to fast-track the construction of the new plants so that some can be producing energy by as early as 2018.

Mr Miliband said the new Infrastructure Planning Commission would have to make a decision on each application within a year of receiving it, to avoid a repeat of previous lengthy inquiries.

However, he insisted that people living close to the proposed sites would have plenty of opportunities to make their views known during the streamlined planning process ...

Mr Miliband said nuclear was one of a "trinity" of future fuel options, alongside renewables and clean coal, which would help to secure the UK's energy security and reduce its dependence on imported gas.

"We need all of them in the long term because of the challenge of the low-carbon future is so significant," he said.

Most people living close to power plants were "enthusiastic" about them and the developments would create 9,000 jobs ...

BBC NEWS  09 November 2009

10 new nuclear power stations named

Greenpeace

Ed Miliband paves way for most ambitious fleet of nuclear reactors in Europe

Speaking on BBC Breakfast, he said that the economy and environment made the case for nuclear power overwhelming.

Mr Miliband added: “I do understand the anxieties that there are because there have been concerns about nuclear power.

“I think it is right that we go ahead with this. It has a good safety record. There is no evidence that people’s fears about nuclear are grounded, in my view ... " ...

He dismissed concerns about a new planning body, which will be announced to Parliament later alongside the locations of the next generation of nuclear plants, saying that local residents would be consulted more than ever before.

Greg Clark, the shadow energy secretary, said that the Government was rushing through nuclear stations without consulting Parliament or the public because it had failed to act earlier to ensure that the lights did not go out when the current generation of nuclear stations came to an end.

He told Radio 4’s Today Programme: "It is a national emergency and it's been left far too late - we've known for the last 10 years that most of our nuclear power fleet would come to the end of its planned life ... "

Robin Oakley, head of climate and energy campaigns at Greenpeace, said: "Nuclear is a dangerous and expensive irrelevance to tackling climate change and providing real energy security.

"We don't need coal or nuclear, because proven green technologies such as wind and combined heat and power stations can secure Britain's energy needs, create green jobs and slash our emissions."

Telegraph  09 November 2009

The hidden cost of Britain's new generation of nuclear power could be the destruction of the Kalahari desert in Namibia and millions of tonnes of extra greenhouse gas emissions a year, the Observer has discovered.=

The desert, with its towering sand dunes and spectacular lunar-like landscapes, is at the centre of an international uranium rush led by Rössing Uranium, a subsidiary of the British mining giant Rio Tinto, and the French state-owned company, Areva, which part-manages the nuclear complex at Sellafield and wants to build others in Britain.

Rössing is expanding its existing giant mine – which already provides nearly 8% of the world's uranium – into the Namib-Naukluft national park. Areva has leased hundreds of square kilometres of the desert near Trekkopje, where it plans to build one of the world's largest uranium mines.

At least 20 other mining companies from the UK, Canada, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea and elsewhere have also been given licences to explore thousands of square kilometres of the national park and its surrounds, and six new mines, several of which would be in the park, are at the development stage. Namibia has some of the planet's richest uranium deposits and expects to become the third largest uranium producer and largest exporter within five years.

The mines are all expected to be in open pits up to 200 metres below the desert sands. With their waste heaps, acid plants and giant slurry ponds, they will extend over hundreds of square kilometres.

"Large areas of the desert will be inevitably devastated," says Bertchen Kohrs, director of the Namibian environment group Earthlife. "They will do immense damage. We fear that there will be major contamination of the ground water supplies." ...

Observer  08 November 2009

Work begins on Niger uranium mine

The nuclear industry funds the special armed police force which guards its installations across the UK, and secret documents, seen by the Guardian, show the 750-strong force is authorised to carry out covert intelligence operations against anti-nuclear protesters, one of its main targets.

The nuclear industry will pay £57m this year to finance the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) ...

Most of the nuclear force's officers are armed with high-powered guns and Tasers. The CNC has spent £1.4m on weapons and ammunition in the past three years.

They patrol outside nuclear plants, with their jurisdiction stretching to three miles beyond the perimeter of the installations. They have the same powers as any other British police officer and can, for instance, arrest and stop and search people.

The body that regulates the CNC is also funded by the nuclear industry. Four of the eight members of the Civil Nuclear Police Authority are nominated by the nuclear industry as its representatives. Those four are employed in the industry. The others – mainly former police officers – are deemed to be independent.

The force is expected to expand as the government presses ahead with plans for a new generation of nuclear plants, which are likely to attract protests.

Ben Ayliffe, head of Greenpeace's anti-nuclear campaign, said: "There are very obvious worries about an armed police force that is accountable to an industry desperate to build nuclear reactors in the UK. This industry will probably be very keen for their police force to use all the powers available to them to prevent peaceful protests against nuclear power." ...

Guardian  20 October 2009

Police State Britain

For me, nuclear power is the lazy option. Stick up a few more reactors, don't say too much about costs per kilowatt hour (let alone costs for each tonne of CO2 abated), dump the responsibility of dealing with the waste on future generations, and don't worry too much about the state of the grid or the impact on renewable energy.

I can't deny that the alternative course of action (reducing total energy consumption by at least 40%, massively ramping up investments both in large-scale renewables – including the Severn barrage – and small-scale microgeneration, making a proper go of Combined Heat and Power and "Energy From Waste" schemes, and relying on combined-cycle gas turbines for base load generation) is the harder option in terms of the quality of leadership required.

But those still wavering about the balance of pros and cons should not underestimate the knock-on effects of any commitment to new nuclear.

It will undoubtedly slow investment in new renewables.

It will reassure politicians that they don't have to do the heavy lifting required to put energy efficiency at the heart of any strategy.

It will weaken efforts to move towards localised distributed energy solutions (why else do you think the industry and pro-nuclear civil servants fought so hard against feed-in tariffs for so many years?), and it will "lock us in" to today's hugely inefficient generation and transmission system for the next 40 years or so ...

Guardian  20 October 2009

Even with billions of pounds a year being poured into clean-up operations, it is a toxic legacy going back to the cold war that continually threatens to undermine the facelift given by the new private sector companies.

The companies, mainly from France and Germany, have joined the government to try to convince the public it is time for a nuclear renaissance, on both energy security and climate change grounds.

In recent days the industry watchdog, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII), has admitted that the possibility of a serious accident at Britain's biggest nuclear complex, Sellafield in Cumbria, is still "far too high", while questioning the safety designs of new reactors being submitted for approval.

The private sector managers who took over at Sellafield less than a year ago have been told in a letter that they should reduce the risks at the radioactive storage pond dubbed "Dirty 30" and elsewhere as soon as possible.

The harsh assessment by the NII was revealed by one of its inspectors, Mark Foy, at a meeting of local stakeholders who live around the area of the plant.

"We are concerned that the risk of a major event caused by further degradation of legacy plants, or increased time at risk due to deferrals, is far too high," said Foy. "We have written to Sellafield Ltd to advise that every effort should be given to addressing and reducing the risks at the earliest possibility."

The warning comes months after the Observer revealed an internal NII report that detailed 1,767 leaks, breakdowns and other mishaps around the atomic industry over the last seven years.

While most were small in nature they are nonetheless worrying and undermine the cheerful message from the Nuclear Industry Association that safety of UK plants is "second to none" ...

Guardian  20 October 2009

Watchdog gives nuclear industry a clean bill of health

The government is poised to allow nuclear power generators to use ordinary landfill sites for dumping "hundreds of thousands of tons" of waste in an attempt to reduce the £73bn cost of decommissioning old reactors ...

... ministers are keen to encourage the power industry to build a new generation of reactors. Actions being considered by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and its Nuclear Decommissioning Authority include:

• Allowing the nuclear industry to use ordinary landfill sites for disposing of radio?active waste in a more extensive way.

• Allowing the main independent nuclear waste dump at Drigg in Cumbria to reduce its costs by scaling back the level of containment.

• Building a £1.5bn radioactive liquid-waste processing plant at Sellafield, Britain's biggest atomic site, despite a history of project cost overruns and wider safety concerns there.

• Extending a blueprint for dealing with existing high-level waste to cover that created by future nuclear stations – an "unjustifiable" step, according to the chair of the committee that created the blueprint.

Cumbria county council, regarded as the most pro-nuclear authority in the country, is among those trying to stop at least two landfill sites from being used for dumping radioactive waste ...

Guardian  19 October 2009

£73bn to take nuclear plants out of service

Much of UK suitable for nuclear waste burial

Villagers offered £75m to accept nuclear waste

What is the best solution to dispose of Britain's nuclear waste?

Government officials have drawn up secret plans to tax electricity consumers to subsidise the construction of the UK's first new nuclear reactors for more than 20 years, the Guardian has learned.

The planned levy on household bills would add £44 to an annual electricity bill of £500 and contradicts repeated promises by ministers that the nuclear industry would no longer benefit from public subsidies. There is mounting pressure on the power industry to show it can keep the lights on, with fears growing of an energy gap as ageing nuclear stations are retired and plans for new coal plants attract hostile protests.

Ministers have become concerned that power companies such as E.ON and EDF Energy are reluctant to commit themselves to building nuclear stations because energy prices have fallen and they fear they will not be able to recoup the multi-billion pound cost of building new nuclear stations.

The government believes that only by artificially increasing the cost of electricity generated by coal and gas stations through an additional carbon levy on household bills can nuclear become more competitive and encourage new reactors to be built.

One European utility executive told the Guardian: "New nuclear will not happen without sorting out the carbon price."

The Guardian understands that the Office of Nuclear Development (OND), set up by Lord Mandelson's business department, has promised nuclear companies that the price of carbon under the EU emissions trading scheme – now about €13 per tonne – will not be allowed to fall below €30 per tonne, and ideally €40.

According to the energy consultancy firm EIC, the new carbon levy would add £44 to the £500 annual electricity bill paid by an average household ...

The executive director of Greenpeace UK, John Sauven, said: "Nuclear power has always been a byword for monumental taxpayer handouts. Now the likes of EDF Energy are getting cold feet over the cost of new nuclear stations, it looks like the government is trying to sweeten the deal with public money. This is despite saying categorically that any new reactors will have to survive without subsidy. Without huge financial support, nuclear power doesn't make economic sense. Even the big utilities now admit this." ...

Guardian  19 October 2009

The Cabinet Minister behind a £12.5billion nuclear power deal with French-owned energy giant EDF is set to take a highly-paid job with the firm.

John Hutton’s proposed move comes just a year after the former Business Secretary gave the go-ahead for the firm to buy many of Britain’s existing and future nuclear power plants.

It is bound to raise new questions about the so-called ‘revolving door’ which allows Ministers to quit and take up lucrative jobs with firms they helped while in Government.

The energy deal saw EDF – which is controlled by the French government – take over British Energy and its eight UK nuclear power stations ... the world’s largest energy firm, wants Mr Hutton, who resigned from the Cabinet in June, to take on a role advising the firm on ‘key strategic issues’ ...

Mail on Sunday  13 September 2009

Nuclear advocate John Hutton in talks to take EDF job

Defence Secretary John Hutton resigns

Defence Secretary John Hutton has announced that he is resigning from the Government today, Friday 5 June 2009.

Mr Hutton has issued the following statement:

"I have decided to resign from the Government. I will also be standing down as a Member of Parliament at the next general election.

"This is not the place to go into my reasons for leaving. But I can say that it has been one of the hardest decisions I have ever had to take.

"I was delighted to be appointed Secretary of State for Defence last October.

"I have always had the deepest admiration for our Armed Forces, and everything they do ... "

MoD 05 June 2009

New nuclear plants get go-ahead

Caborn takes nuclear job

Concern over Labour cash gifts from nuclear industry

Going Nuclear

"Nuclear Jack"

The powerful business of promoting a nuclear future

This must rank as one of the great PR triumphs of all time

UK Government ministers are telling the public that nuclear energy is essential to meet our low carbon electricity requirements over the coming years.

When ministers announced that nuclear energy was to be part of the UK’s energy future several years ago they also said that the taxpayer will not subsidise new reactors ...

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is currently working on a new Energy Bill that will create a financial incentive structure to pay for new ‘clean coal’ technology.

It is likely that companies like EDF will be lobbying for nuclear to be included too.

DECC insisted in a Telegraph article this week that there is no plan to set a floor price for carbon, saying that carbon prices will rise when the supply of permits is restricted next year.

A spokesman from DECC said: “The Government has been repeatedly clear that there will be no subsidy towards the building of new nuclear power stations and their clean up. It is for energy companies to fund, build and develop these, not the taxpayer. That remains the case.”

The article included a statement by independent nuclear energy consultant John Large who estimates that supporting new nuclear power stations will cost households “significantly more” that the £15 figure suggested as being needed to give renewables the financial boost it needs to stack up.

Other energy consultants say there is no doubt that there is a substantial price tag attached to nuclear. Whether funded through a government levy or through increased electricity prices consumers will ultimately have to dig deep into their pockets ...

Wind Energy Planning  26 August 2009

Ministers had pledged that they will not subsidise new nuclear plants.

However, energy companies have told the Government that without some form of financial support, it will not be economically viable for them to build the new nuclear power plants ministers want to see constructed ...

While several energy companies have said they plan to build new nuclear plants, executives are becoming concerned that the plants will not be able to compete with carbon-emitting stations burning coal or gas.

One option under discussion is to set a “floor price” for the carbon permit that coal and gas generators have to buy to cover their emissions. EDF, which is planning to build four new UK reactors, is backing a floor price.

The move would increase the costs of gas- and coal-fired power stations, allowing nuclear plants to be more competitive.

Another option is for consumers to pay a new tariff that would be applied directly to their energy bills, similar to the “renewables obligation” that is currently added to household bills to help fund new wave and wind power.

Ministers are currently preparing a new Energy Bill that will create another “obligation” on bills, to pay for new “clean coal” technology.

Sources in the energy industry confirmed there had been talks about lobbying for a nuclear levy to be added to the Bill ...

Telegraph  18 August 2009

Mr Hutton claimed that there will be no subsidies to the nuclear industry. But this is an empty promise. Even if public money is not needed to help them set up the plants, it will almost certainly be needed to dispose of the waste. Mr Hutton also neglected to mention that no other country has managed to run a nuclear industry without vast public expense.

All we are left with is the global warming case for going nuclear. And that simply does not stack up. Nuclear plants release less carbon dioxide than coal or natural gas power facilities, but it has been estimated that 10 new reactors would cut the UK's carbon emissions by just 4 per cent; and only then after 2025.

Meanwhile, the nuclear push threatens to divert investment from renewable energy technology such as wind and wave, as well as decentralised power generation schemes. It will also distract official attention from the hugely neglected imperative of increasing energy efficiency. Every pound invested in conservation saves seven times as much carbon dioxide as one spent on nuclear power. ...

The Independent 11 January 2008

The government said it would be up to energy companies to fund, develop and build nuclear power stations in the UK, "including meeting the full cost of decommissioning and their full share of waste management costs" - seemingly handing over full responsibility to the private sector.

But the energy white paper published by Hutton conceded: "In extreme circumstances the government may be called upon to meet the costs of ensuring protection of the public and the environment." ..

Guardian  11 January 2008

No nuclear subsidies, say Tories

No subsidies for nuclear, says energy minister

The Government today gave the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power plants, provoking a sharply polarised response from the supporters and opponents of nuclear energy.

Announcing the plans in Parliament, John Hutton, the Business Secretary, said ... that Britain needed nuclear energy to help it meet its two energy challenges, of making sure Britain had secure and affordable supplies of power at a time of global instability, and of tackling climate change.

He suggested that it would not be costly for the taxpayer, stressing that it would be for the energy companies to fund, develop and build the new plants, including meeting the full costs of decommissioning and "their full share" of waste management costs ...

Times  10 January 2008

On the surface, nuclear energy has considerable attractions. Uranium, the fuel on which almost all nuclear energy is based, is found in a wide range of countries – unlike oil or natural gas.

Supplies should last 200 years or more with technology being developed to prolong its use. Nor does nuclear produce large volumes of the greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, that are believed to be causing climate change.

And unlike wind, solar or tidal power, nuclear energy is not dependent on weather or the time of day in order to produce an output. According to the research house, New Energy Finance, once a nuclear power plant is running it can generate electricity 85%-95% of the time.

Wind generators provide power for only 25%-30% of the time.

Nor are the financial costs of the two technologies radically different. New Energy Finance calculates it costs between $1.2m (£584,000) and $2.5m to finance each megawatt of electricity from a new nuclear plant.

Wind generators cost between $1.5m and $2m per megawatt ...

Times 02 December 2007

Carving up the nuclear spoils

Based on this conservative analysis of the economics of nuclear power, the Government believes that nuclear power stations would yield economic benefits to the UK in terms of reduced carbon emissions and security of supply benefits under likely scenarios for gas and carbon prices.

As an illustration, under central gas and nuclear cases, and with a future carbon price of €36/tCO2, the net present value over 40 years of adding 10GW of nuclear capacity would be of the order of £15 billion.

dti 2007

the suggestion that nuclear power is somehow uneconomic, that its costs preclude it from serious consideration, does not match the facts ...

The Guardian stated that "the most obvious objection is cost: nuclear power is expensive, especially when compared with gas".

However, most international studies show that nuclear can compete with gas - even before the carbon costs are taken into account. It is also worth noting that most of these studies were completed before gas prices quadrupled.

Nuclear produces electricity at a predictable cost, so utilities are likely to use it to hedge against fossil-fuel costs and carbon price volatility. The current strength of gas and coal prices simply enhances that economic case.

Experience in Finland and France has proven that the costs of building and operating a new generation of nuclear power stations can be borne by the private sector.

Similarly, if the UK opts for nuclear new-build, there will be no call on the taxpayer's purse and no need for a subsidy from government. ...

Guardian  23 May 2006

The economics of nuclear energy are differentiated from its main competitors in electricity generation, natural gas and coal, by the fact that nuclear energy typically has high construction costs and low variable operating costs.

As a result, the cost competitiveness of nuclear energy depends highly on initial construction costs and the cost of capital for nuclear power companies.

Drivers of the initial construction costs include investment in new technologies, especially for increased safety, and government regulations and permitting requirements for grid connections, safety, and storage.

Cost of capital can be driven by a wide variety of factors (including the state of interest rates around the world, but typically, governmental regulation of nuclear energy has heavily influenced the availability and pricing of capital for nuclear energy projects, including at one time heavy subsidies for nuclear power and more recently, strong restrictions on nuclear energy development ...

wikinvest 

Economics of Nuclear Power Generation

How will UK Nuclear Energy be Funded?

'No quick fix' from nuclear power

Nuclear energy

UK industry to foot nuclear waste bill