by Brian Westenhaus  
Thursday, 14 October 2010

If you’re a large electrical user and concerned about just what all the alternative power generation ideas will do to your stockholders, management and labor interests, knowing just what the choices will most likely mean is paramount to the business and the society in which you exist.

Sweden’s forestry, chemical, mining and steel production industries through their group SKGS, which stands forSkogen [Forest], Kemin[Chemicals], Gruvorna [Mines] and Stålet [Steel], asked PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) to conduct an indicative estimate of the cost of new investment in nuclear, hydro and wind power as an alternative to fossil fuel power plants.  Just to know, so as to be informed reliably on which way is best.

The PWC calculations were made exclusive of policy instruments in the form of taxes, rebates and grants. For nuclear, however, the cost of waste management and decommissioning has been included in the calculation.

The report shows that when taxes, fees and contributions are excluded, both nuclear and hydropower are far more cost effective than investments in wind power. Wind power, the study suggests, is some 65% more expensive than hydro and about 50% more expensive than nuclear.  Somehow this writer isn’t surprised – but a whole lot of environmental types are not going to be happy that their anti nuclear claims are found fallacious.

Read more about the cost of nuclear power