Nuclear Monitor #917

Jan van Evert, editor Nuclear Monitor

Greenpeace Germany has published a report titled ‘Fission for Funds: The Financing of Nuclear Power’ by Jens Weibezahn from the Copenhagen School of Energy Infrastructure, and Björn Steigerwald from the Technische Universität Berlin. The report provides a detailed overview of the various financing models currently in use or under development for nuclear power plants in Europe. This risk is high because of high upfront costs, combined with long construction periods, financing costs, fluctuating levels of public acceptance, and geopolitical factors.

Several EU countries, including France, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic, are betting heavily on nuclear power to reduce their CO₂ emissions. However, their financial room for manoeuvre is reduced by higher interest rates, high deficits and budget cuts. The report shows that government support for expensive, long-term, high-risk projects such as nuclear power plants is increasingly difficult to justify.

One of the main conclusions of the report is that financing models and examples from different countries show that in order for nuclear power plants to become financially healthy, the government has to de-risk the investment for private investors. This means that taxpayers and electricity consumers bear the financial risks.

Another problem is the declining cost of renewables. Since 2007, the EU added 74 EPR reactors’ capacity worth of solar and wind power. In contrast, the cost of nuclear power increased.

A few recent examples of cost overruns show the enormous financial risks of constructing nuclear power plants. 

Projects

Initial construction cost (bn €)

Final construction cost (bn €)

All three projects took at least 11 years longer to build than predicted. These problems and several other discussed in the report show clearly that nuclear power is a bad investment.

Read the full report here