The business case against nuclear power (Wall Street Journal, 2011-03-24).

New Nuclear – the economics say no; UK green lights new nuclear – or does it? (PDF, 144 KB, report from Citigroup Global Equities Online, 2009-11-09). "Three of the risks faced by developers — Construction, Power Price, and Operational — are so large and variable that individually they could each bring even the largest utility company to its knees financially. This makes new nuclear a unique investment proposition for utility companies."

Construction risk in new nuclear power projects – eyes wide open (KPMG, January 2011). Although it suggests, wrongly, that nuclear power is cheap, this report identifies a range of risks for investors including construction risk, market risk, regulatory risk, legal and political risk, environmental risk, and operations risk.

New Texas Institute study on nuclear power projects financing (Texas Institute press release, 2011-09-13). "... the study found that while the announcement of an intent to build a new nuclear reactor had no measurable impact on a utility's credit rating, the actual construction of a new nuclear plant carried an almost 70 percent probability that the utility would experience a rating downgrade, although the magnitude of the downgrade varied from utility to utility." See also Moody’s lowers SCANA’s credit rating (Columbia Regional Business Report, 2011-09-19).

In Finland, nuclear renaissance runs into trouble (New York Times, 2009-05-28).

Nuclear power's real chain reaction: spiralling costs (The Guardian, 2011-07-22). "The new delays and bumper cost overruns of EDF's new reactor in France make it very hard to believe that nuclear power can fulfil the promises its supporters make."

The Nuclear Subsidies report (PDF) from Energy Fair. Several of the subsidies identified in this report are so large that, for any one of them, its withdrawal would render nuclear power entirely uncompetitive.

Nuclear power: still not viable without subsidies (PDF, Union of Concerned Scientists, February 2011). See also After 50 years, nuclear power is still not viable without subsidies, new report finds (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2011-02-23). "Government subsidies to the nuclear power industry over the past fifty years have been so large in proportion to the value of the energy produced that in some cases it would have cost taxpayers less to simply buy kilowatts on the open market and give them away."

Via a ruling from the European Commission that one or more of the subsidies are unlawful state aid under EU competition law.

Via legal action in the courts against unlawful state aid for nuclear power.

Via political action at European or national level to remove subsidies for nuclear power. See, for example:

Public opinion around the world has shifted against nuclear power (see Fukushima spoils world appetite for nuclear power, Deutsche Welle, 2011-09-09).

In most countries, including the UK, France and Germany, the majority of people are now opposed to nuclear power. 

Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and Thailand have adopted policies aiming to phase-out nuclear power. It is likely that Japan will follow suite. Scotland is aiming for 100% renewable electricity supplies by 2020.

Siemens quits the nuclear game (World Nuclear News, 2011-09-19). See also Siemens drops Rosatom nuclear plant ambitions (Financial Times, 2011-09-18) and Siemens saves face as Rosatom tie-up fades away (Financial Times, 2011-09-19). "'From a shareholder point of view, nuclear is a risky business and the margins are now potentially lower,' says James Stettler at UniCredit."

SSE to abandon nuclear consortium (Financial Times, 2011-09-21). SSE pulls out of UK nuclear consortium (Reuters, 2011-09-23).

"Nuclear plants are mutual hostages: the world's least well-run plant can imperil the future of all the others." From "A plan to keep carbon in check," by Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala in the Scientific American, September 2006, p 33.

It is said that a nuclear power plant is likely to produce a nuclear disaster only once every 10,000 years. But with more than 400 such plants in the world today, we may, on average, expect a nuclear disaster once every 25 years or less. Counting only the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011, we are averaging one nuclear disaster every 11 years.

Nuclear miracle is plagued by fast-rising reactor costs and cheap renewables (Nuclear Power Daily, 2010-09-14).

Comparing the economics of nuclear and renewable sources of electricity (paper presented by Mark Diesendorf at Solar2010, the 48th AuSES Annual Conference). "... the costs of nuclear energy have been escalating very rapidly since 2002. The lowest cost renewables, appropriately sited, are already competitive with nuclear. Several more expensive renewables could be competitive with nuclear by around 2020. Furthermore, most renewable energy technologies are capable of much faster growth than nuclear energy ..."

The cost of photovoltaics (PV) are falling fast:

The cost of most other renewables is coming down via economies of scale, refinements in technologies, and refinements in manufacturing processes.

Strikes: Nuclear clients worried over strike threats (Construction Enquirer, 2011-08-17).

Reputation: EDF's reputation faces risk of meltdown (The Telegraph, 2011-07-25).