Areva, French Nuclear Giant, Warns of $5.6 Billion Loss
Source: New York Times
Areva, the French nuclear technology giant, warned on Monday that it was facing a loss of a magnitude that raises doubts about its ability to continue operations without an injection of state funds to restore its capital.
The state-controlled company expects a 2014 net loss of about 4.9 billion euros, or $5.6 billion, from a loss of 500 million a year earlier, it said in a preliminary statement. The loss is substantially larger than Arevas market capitalization of about 3.7 billion, suggesting it may need new funds to continue operating.
France gets a larger share of its electricity from atomic power than any other country, and it has long identified the nuclear industry as a national champion worthy of state support. French officials have been discussing a restructuring of the sector, including the possibility that Areva, which is 87 percent state-owned, could tie up in some form with the EDF Group, the utility also known as Électricité de France.
Ségolène Royal, the French energy minister, said after the Areva announcement that the governments priority was to create a strong nuclear industry by creating synergies, Reuters reported.
<snip>
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/business/international/areva-nuclear-results.html?_r=0
What a boondoggle.
And it's just going to get worse.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Yet for some reason, wanting to destroy nuclear energy is and always has been a so called "progressive" cause.
Boggles the mind.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)is a progressive value. Because Chernobyl, or something.
bananas
(27,509 posts)Get past the hype and PR.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)bananas
(27,509 posts)It was over years before Fukushima.
2009: Exelon CEO John Rowe on Friday said his company won't be building new nuclear plants
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x202798
2010: Entergy CEO says nuclear remains too costly: "the numbers just don't work."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x248996
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Natural gas which is now serving all of VT Yankee's former customers.
Scaremongering about Fukushima hasn't helped any. Japan's increased their dependency on coal as a result. Talk about unfeasible and bullshit.
bananas
(27,509 posts)so the weak economy and cheaper gas were irrelevant.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)If it were, it could very well have filled the gap left by VY.
A weaker economy means less demand for electricity, which means expansion of nuclear energy wouldn't have made for a good investment, especially if existing natural gas infrastructure can cover customers for less.
NickB79
(19,257 posts)http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323407104579038682331577924
"I absolutely think there will be more retirements" beyond the four nuclear plant closings announced this year, said Deb Katz, executive director of Citizens Awareness Network, a group formed 22 years ago to agitate for the retirement of a nuclear plant in Massachusetts, the now-defunct Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power Station. "Gas is putting coal and nuclear out of business."
bananas
(27,509 posts)I was responding to this statement:
I was trying to point out that:
a) It doesn't matter whether the economy is weak or strong, cheaper electricity sources are going to win in either case.
b) Wind is also cheaper than nuclear, so blaming it on gas isn't complete, because even if gas was more expensive, say through a carbon tax or carbon cap, wind would still be cheaper than nuclear, nuclear would still not be competitive.
A corrected statement might be:
bananas
(27,509 posts)"A surprising result of our study is the rather little difference between a 'Renaissance' or a 'Full exit' of nuclear power in combination with a carbon budget when it comes to GDP losses"
Public Release: 1-Oct-2012
Restricting nuclear power has little effect on the cost of climate policies
Incremental costs due to policy options restricting the use of nuclear power do not significantly increase the cost of even stringent greenhouse-gas emissions reductions
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
"Questions have been raised if restricting nuclear energy - an option considered by some countries after the accident in Fukushima, Japan - combined with climate policies might get extremely expensive. Our study is a first assessment of the consequences of a broad range of combinations of climate and nuclear policies," lead author Nico Bauer says. Restrictions on nuclear power could be political decisions, but also regulations imposed by safety authorities. Power generation capacities would have to be replaced, but fossil fuels would become costly due to a price on CO2 emissions, this in sum is the main concern.
"However, in case of restricted use of nuclear power, the flexibility of allocating a long-term carbon budget over time enables higher near-term emissions due to increased power generation of natural gas," Bauer says. Along with demand reductions and efficiency improvements, these provisions could help fill the gap on electricity. The price of natural gas is projected to decrease due to demand reductions, according to the study. Decommissioning existing plants will also avoid refurbishment costs for expanding lifetimes of old nuclear power plants.
As a result, early retirement of nuclear power plants would lead to cumulative global gross domestic product losses (GDP) that amount to about 10 percent of climate policy costs. If no new nuclear capacities are allowed, the costs would amount to 20 percent.
For their study, the scientists looked into different nuclear power policies. These cover a range of scenarios from "Renaissance", with a full utilization of existing power plants, a possible refurbishment for a lifetime expansion and investments in new nuclear power capacities, to "Full exit", with a decommissioning of existing power plants and no new investments. They contrasted each scenario with climate policies implemented via an inter-temporal global carbon budget which puts a price on carbon emissions. For the budget, the cumulative CO2 emissions from the global energy sector were limited to 300 gigatons of carbon from 2005 until the end of the century. This represents a climate mitigation policy consistent with the target of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.
"A surprising result of our study is the rather little difference between a 'Renaissance' or a 'Full exit' of nuclear power in combination with a carbon budget when it comes to GDP losses," Bauer says. While the 'no policy case' with a nuclear phase-out and no carbon budget has only negligible effect on global GDP, the imposition of a carbon budget with no restrictions on nuclear policy implies a reduction of GDP that reaches 2.1 percent in 2050. The additional phase-out of nuclear power increases this loss by about 0.2 percent in 2050 and hence has only little additional impact on the economy, because the contribution of nuclear power to the electricity generation can be substituted relatively easy by alternative technology options, including the earlier deployment of renewables.
###
Article: Bauer, N., Brecha, R.J., Luderer, G. (2012): Economics of nuclear power and climate change mitigation policies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Early Edition) [DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1201264109]
bananas
(27,509 posts)because nuclear sucks.
"Over the next 11 years, France will reduce the amount of electricity coming from nuclear by one-quarter -- from 75 percent to 50 percent. To do that, estimates are that as many as 20 of Frances 58 reactors would have to be closed."
Au revoir, nuclear power? France eyes an energy shift of its own
France is looking to undo decades of nuclear power growth and instead boost energy sources like wind, solar, and small hydro projects.
By Chris Dalby, Oilprice.com October 20, 2014
French President Francois Hollande has promised to limit the growth of the countrys nuclear power, many older reactors have been targeted for decommissioning, and Greenpeace and other environmental groups have been relentless in their anti-nuclear campaigning. But until now, it seemed unlikely that France would ever truly rethink its love affair with nuclear power.
Last week, it did. On Oct. 10, Frances parliament voted to begin moving to undo decades of nuclear growth and to reduce its importance to the countrys energy mix. Over the next 11 years, France will reduce the amount of electricity coming from nuclear by one-quarter -- from 75 percent to 50 percent. To do that, estimates are that as many as 20 of Frances 58 reactors would have to be closed.
The vote was part of a package of legal reforms in Frances long-awaited energy transition law, a main pillar of which was slowing nuclear power production and then maintaining it at the new lower level before progressively lowering it over the next 10 years.
The second pillar was removing bureaucratic hurdles that prevented renewable energy projects from getting off the ground. A trial period will see wind, solar, bio-gas and small hydro projects receive streamlined authorization in seven French regions.
<snip>
House of Roberts
(5,179 posts)This sounds like a debt maintenance problem.