Collateral Damage From Fukushima Hits Europe
ENERGY, 26 Dec 2011
Several leading European electricity providers and nuclear power plant constructors now count as part of the collateral damage caused by the tsunami that destroyed the Japanese nuclear power plant of Fukushima last March.
In reference to the German government’s decision to phase out nuclear power soon after the meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, Johannes Teyssen, CEO of E.ON, one of Germany’s leading electricity providers and power plant operators, warned the public that the industry’s balance sheet would be affected by “extraordinary costs caused by (these) market shifts and regulations.”
Data tabulated by the Free University of Berlin suggests that each of the eight nuclear power plants, had they remained in operation, would have generated a net income of one million euros per day for E.ON and other providers.
Earlier this month E.ON, along with Germany’s three other leading electricity providers RWE, Vatenfall and EnBW announced plans to slash 20,000 jobs, and braced themselves for losses amounting to billions of dollars.
E.ON predicted an unprecedented depreciation of the company’s value by three billion euros (3.9 billion dollars), and said it would be compelled to reduce its worldwide personnel by 11,000 in the coming months.
The three other companies also warned that a further 10,000 jobs would have to be sacrificed in 2012 to make up for operational losses, portending a mass exodus of skilled and semi-skilled labourers from the industry.
The state-owned French company AREVA, a specialist in the construction and management of nuclear power plants as well as a premier operator of uranium mines and nuclear waste facilities, also announced billion-dollar losses and substantial personnel cutbacks.
Back in November AREVA reported losses of up to 1.6 billion euros for 2011 and anticipated losses worth 2.4 billion euros in the coming fiscal year.
An AREVA spokesperson said that these losses were due to the company’s unprofitable investments in uranium mines in countries like Namibia and South Africa.
The spokesperson also estimated that AREVA would invest an additional 150 million euros in the Olkiluoto nuclear power plant – a so-called third generation pressurised water reactor (European Pressurised Reactor or EPR) that has become virtually synonymous with the enormous economic risks associated with nuclear power.
AREVA started constructing the Finnish plant in 2005 with an estimated construction cost of 3 billion euros. However, delays and mismanagement could likely double the cost to some 6.6 billion euros.
AREVA’s other EPR project in Flamanville, France began in December 2007 at an expected cost of 3.5 billion euros and was scheduled for completion in 2012.
Last July, however, AREVA’s partner Electricité de France (EdF) announced that estimated costs have exploded to 6 billion euros and warned that completion of construction is delayed to 2016.
Additionally, AREVA’s long-term and lucrative partnership with the German electronic giant Siemens came to end this year, when the latter terminated its nuclear energy business unit following the uproar over Fukushima.
While few of the corporations have publically acknowledged Fukushima as the major crack in the nuclear industry’s foundation, experts like Stefan Schurig, director of the climate energy director of the World Future Council, are convinced that “Fukushima was one of the last nails in the coffin for nuclear energy.
“The Japanese catastrophe confirmed existing doubts about the safety of nuclear energy,” Schurig said. “It is only a matter of time before all countries phase out nuclear power.”
Schurig pointed to the lingering tragedies of the Fukushima crisis, such as widespread contamination of the surrounding area with Caesium 137, irreversible oceanic pollution and food supplies made inedible by poisoned farmland, problems whose effects will be felt for many years to come.
“The whole region will be uninhabitable for years,” Schurig said.
Many believe that last year’s disaster in Japan had a more profound impact on the energy market than previous environmental disasters.
“The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, caused by the explosion at Deepwater Horizon in 2010, had no sensible (or lasting) effects on the use of fossil combustibles,” Schurig said.
“But Fukushima put an end to the myth that highly industrialised countries like Japan could guarantee absolute safety and control over the production of nuclear energy,” he pointed out.
In addition, he said, the catastrophe of Fukushima exposed nuclear power’s hidden costs and potential shortfalls.
For instance, the Japanese operator of the nuclear power plant Tepco is currently weathering compensation claims totalling over 34 billion euros for 2011 alone.
In contrast, renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and biomass energy are considerably less expensive and will become ever more so with development of the technique, Schurig said.
As if to confirm Schurig’s assertion, E.ON announced this month that, parallel to reducing its share of nuclear power, it would invest 7 billion euros in renewable energy sources, particularly offshore wind turbine parks and thermo solar technology, over the next five years.
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.