Since 2007, there have been applications to license 26 new nuclear reactors in the US. Nine have been canceled or suspended indefinitely in the last 10 months, and 10 have been delayed 1-5 years.
Why? Because, as almost always happens with nuclear plants, they end up being much more expensive than original plans project. In these cases, costs over-runs were triple that of estimates, while the price for natural gas declined, making them even less attractive.
And, importantly, energy efficiency programs combined with reduced energy demand because of the recession dramatically reduced the need for new power supplies.
Nuclear looks good to lots of people – and Republicans are demanding strong incentives for it in the Senate Climate Bill – but the history of nuclear is frought with significant cost over-runs, multiple delays and cancellations. It’s a fact that energy efficiency combined with renewable energy sources such as solar and wind are much faster to ramp up and much cheaper.
It makes absolutely no sense to burden taxpayers with huge subsidies for an industry with such a poor track record, which also presents perfect targets for terrorist attacks.
Read the article we wrote awhile back that summarizes the issues surrounding nuclear energy.
Can We Afford More Nukes?
Expanding nuclear power capacity in the US beyond the current fleet of 104 reactors – which don’t emit greenhouse gases once they’re operating – has the potential to help combat climate change. Nuclear power currently generates about 20% of U.S. electricity, and building more reactors could reduce the 50% market share held by coal-fired power plants, the nation’s primary source of global warming emissions.
But is nuclear power a climate solution we can afford? The short answer, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), is no. As UCS Nuclear Energy and Climate Change Project Manager Ellen Vancko notes, "Even if you discount nuclear power’s current security and safety problems, the skyrocketing cost of construction could be the industry’s Achilles’ heel."
Wall Street has made it clear that it will not finance the nuclear industry’s expansion without federal loan guarantees because of the high risks and uncertain costs associated with such investments. A recent Moody’s report characterized investments new nuclear plants as a "bet the farm" risk, stating that companies that build new reactors will take on a higher business and operating risk profile, which will threaten their credit ratings.
To circumvent these financing challenges, the nuclear industry is supporting legislation that was passed by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in June. That bill, S. 1462, would underwrite the industry’s expansion by creating a new Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA). Although CEDA’s provisions are poorly understood, the implications of this pending legislation are enormous, according to UCS.
A recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report concluded that S. 1462 would exempt the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Loan Guarantee Program, which was established under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, from Federal Credit Reform Act provisions requiring such programs to be funded each year by congressional appropriation. "The effect of this exemption," the CBO stated, "would be to give DOE permanent authority to guarantee such loans without further legislative action or limitations." That means DOE could give virtually unlimited loan guarantees to expensive and risky new technologies, all underwritten by taxpayers without congressional oversight. (The CBO report is available online.)
"The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Energy Department could hand out more than $130 billion to nuclear and fossil fuel energy projects," Vancko said. "That’s a lot of money. But what is even more alarming is that CBO’s calculation is based solely on pending Energy Department loan guarantee applications. It does not include an estimation of the hundreds of billions of dollars in additional loan guarantees that could be approved by a new energy bank if this program becomes law."
Vancko recently co-authored a briefing paper, "Nuclear Power: A Resurgence We Can’t Afford," which is available at the link below. In it she provides a clear-eyed look at the nuclear industry’s history of cost overruns, projections of current reactor construction costs, comparisons with cleaner, more cost-effective low-carbon energy options, and the potential risks to taxpayers from overly generous federal subsidies and loan guarantees.
The UCS published a separate briefing paper earlier this year, called "Nuclear Loan Guarantees: Another Taxpayer Bailout Ahead?"
Loading...
I have to say this article is biased to the extreme in promoting an anti-nuclear position. The predisposed nature of this anti-nuclear article is illustrated by the many statements it makes which are outright misrepresentations of the truth that can only be classified as lies. This partialness can be seen in the following statement. “It’s a fact that energy efficiency combined with renewable energy sources such as solar and wind are much faster to ramp up and much cheaper” than nuclear power.
The only way that renewable power sources like solar and wind are cheaper than new nuclear power sources is when you throw energy efficiency into the calculation. If you want even more bang for your buck why not combine energy efficiency with nuclear power? Also, energy efficiency can only go so far. The technology is great but you can’t force it down people’s throats. The American public will not stand for the “efficiency police” knocking on their door and asking them if have left any lights or appliances on.
The fact is that renewable power like solar and wind would not be built unless for huge government subsidies. In fact the government subsides for wind alone are so great that the new wind farm in Texas will produce power for the electrical grid even when the market price is negative $35 MWh.
http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/51147
The fact is wind and solar are inefficient technologies that can not produce power on demand and would not be built unless for the government subsidies and government mandates placed upon utilities to use wind and solar. Don’t get me wrong, taking into account all of wind and solar downfalls I still think there is a place for wind and solar in our future energy mix. How much of place does wind and solar have in that mix, well that is the question?
I think it is not unreasonable to see 5 to 7% of our future energy needs being meet by wind and solar without their ill effects of intermittency i.e.…brown outs being felt upon the electrical grids. They are however not a bass load technology and when deployed in mass quantities they produce carbon because when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow you must turn on carbon producing natural gas plants or you will take down one of our countries three electrical grids with a multi billion dollar brown out.
200 new nuke plants now,
Jfarmer9
This article reflects the current trend of anti-nukes in saying that new nuclear plants are too expensive to build. This however is not the case. A new nuclear plant will have a plant life from 70 to over 100 years. If you take all of the costs of building and running a new nuclear plant and dived this number by 50 to 70 years you will find that the power from a new nuclear plant will not only be cheaper than today’s coal burning plants but be cost competitive to today’s 50 year old hydro plants. You can not get cheaper power than nuclear if you base the costs on the entire plants life cycle.
The problem of course is the up front cost and the financial terms which are usually based on 30 years. This is where a trillion dollars in federal loan guarantees are needed to build 200 new nuclear plants. This is money that will allow financial terms for a new nuclear plant to be based on 50 years instead of 30. Thus the upfront cost of a new nuclear power plant that will run for 70 plus years will not have to be paid for all at once by the first 30 years consumers.
Not only will this money be paid back but this is money that the federal government can make money off of. Let us remember Moodys is the same company that was giving AIG a high credit ratting all the way up to the start of our current economic crisis. Also, the building of 200 new nuclear plants will probably put twice as many people to work as Eisenhower’s highway program did. In time of 10% plus unemployment this will be a welcome relief to our countries unemployed.
Viva the Nuclear Renaissance,
Jfarmer9
First off, when taking in account construction and the fuel cycle nuclear is about equal to natural gas for CO2. See http://www.stormsmith.nl/ for a complete study of energy and nuclear power.
Secondly, according to the DOE, the US imports over 90% of the fuel used to power our commercial reactors. Much of this comes from not so friendly places. People are up in arms about our 60% oil imports. So, for the US, nuclear is the worst of all options.
Independence,
The study you sight of the amount of CO2 that a new nuclear plant produces is skewed. There are several flaws in the study but the one I will point out is the entire life span of a new nuclear plant is not taken into account. With the development of materials that are neutron flux resistant it is more probable than not that a new nuclear power plant will have a plant life of 100 years plus. Also, your study does not take into account that with a large scale deployment of solar and wind you must build on a 1 to 1 ratio as many carbon producing natural gas power plants as solar and wind plants. If you do not build on a one to one ration you will brown out the electrical grid. This production of two power sources to produce the same amount of wattage will create significant CO2 emissions. Not only will this CO2 come from the upfront production of two power sources but in the ongoing burning of natural gas. For as I have already stated when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shinning you must feed the grid with another power source or the grid will collapse. Once again don’t get me wrong I am a big fan of natural gas. I know to some that does not sound right coming from me while to others it sounds right on target. However the fact is natural gas is a limited resource and its ability to release less CO2 than other fossil fuels should not be wasted on the production of electricity for the grid. I would much rather see natural gas used in our transportation system for long haul trucking, boats, and even hybrid cars. I think that in lees than century we will be kicking ourselves for using natural gas to produce electricity and even see the heating of homes as wasteful use of this limited resource. The irony of my pro nuclear position is that 200 new nuclear power plants in the US will drive down the price of natural gas making the consumption of this limited resource increase. This is what happened in the 70s the last time when many of our current nuclear power plants came on line. Thus is life but any how 200 new nuke plants now, jfarmer9