Letter Paul Dorfman et al: We write in response to Hansen et al’s Letter (‘EU must include nuclear power in it’s list of sustainable sources’), which mistakenly advocates nuclear energy to address climate change. In fact, spending on new nuclear power significantly reduces our chances in effectively responding to climate change. This is because, for nuclear to be considered a feasible option, new reactor build should be able to be completed economically, efficiently and on-time – however, practical experience proves otherwise. Nuclear new-build represents a high-risk technical, regulatory and investment option, with significant delay and cost over-run. Market analysis shows investment in nuclear power to be uneconomic – this holds for all plausible ranges of investment costs, weighted average costs of capital, and wholesale electricity prices. In the end, the fate of new nuclear seems inextricably linked with, and determined by, that of renewable energy technology roll-out. World-wide, market trends for new nuclear are in stark decline and renewables are markedly rising. The, perhaps obvious, explanation for this dynamic can be found in the ramping costs of the former and the plummeting costs of the latter.
FT 20th Dec 2019 read more »