Miksi "ydinvoimarenessanssi" jäi tulematta

Uusimmassa Time-lehdessä on hyvä artikkeli, joka kuvaa sitä kuinka uuden sukupolven ydinvoiman taloudellinen kannattamattomuus on täysin pysäyttänyt paljon puhutun ydinvoimarenessanssin. Yhdysvalloissa puhutaan sosialistisesta panostuksesta ydinvoimaan, kun yksityiset pääomat hakeutuvat taloudellisesti kannattaviin uusiutuviin energiamuotoihin.

Kiina ja Venäjä toki rakentavat vanhan 1970-luvun mallin päivitettyjä voimaloita, mutta uuden sukupolven voimaloita on rakenteilla vain kaksi, Olkiluodon 3-reaktori ja toinen Ranskassa. Kummatkin ovat ylittäneet budjettinsa reippaasti eivätkä olisi olleet taloudellisesti kannattavia ilman voimakkaita julkisia tukia (OL3:n osalta Ranskan ja Ruotsin vientituet sekä Arevan epätoivo tehdä sopimus avaimet käteen -periaatteella, minkä he nyt ovat kiistäneet ja asia on vetoomustuomioistuimessa). Etelä-Afrikan ja Kanadan ydinvoimatarjouskilpailut kaatuivat kannattavien tarjousten puutteen takia (Areva oli nostanut hintansa realistiselle tasolle).

Tässä sitaatti Timen jutusta:
"If you want to understand why the U.S. hasn't built a nuclear reactor in three decades, the Vogtle power plant outside Atlanta is an excellent reminder of the insanity of nuclear economics. The plant's original cost estimate was less than $1 billion for four reactors. Its eventual price tag in 1989 was nearly $9 billion, for only two reactors. But now there's widespread chatter about a nuclear renaissance, so the Southern Co. is finally trying to build the other two reactors at Vogtle. The estimated cost: $14 billion. And you can be sure that number is way too low, because nuclear cost estimates are always way too low.--

Nuclear power really is emissions-free, so we're fortunate that 20% of our electricity comes from existing nuclear plants. But even if they weren't spectacularly expensive, additional nukes couldn't come on line quickly enough to solve our climate problems; the industry dream of 45 new plants by 2030 would barely replace aging plants scheduled for decommissioning. And nuclear energy may be the least cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gases, which is why private investors are pouring billions into efficiency as well as wind, solar and other renewables instead. Taxpayers would get more bang for their energy bucks if their elected representatives made similar choices.--

Ultimately, the U.S. may be heading toward a similar brand of nuclear socialism. Obama talks about massive nuclear subsidies as just one part of his larger clean-energy agenda, but he hasn't made them contingent on GOP support for that larger agenda. So the nuclear subsidies are sure to pass, while the larger agenda is likely to stall. Eventually, extravagant government largesse might create a nuclear rebirth of sorts — but it might end up strangling better solutions in their cribs or prevent them from ever being born."