13 Comments

Summary:

Growing support for nuclear energy in the U.S. has hinged on three key arguments in recent years: It offers a carbon-free alternative to coal; a domestic alternative to petroleum; and a supposedly cheaper, more reliable alternative to renewable sources like wind and solar. But according to […]

Growing support for nuclear energy in the U.S. has hinged on three key arguments in recent years: It offers a carbon-free alternative to coal; a domestic alternative to petroleum; and a supposedly cheaper, more reliable alternative to renewable sources like wind and solar. But according to a new analysis from Climate Progress, existing nuclear power plant technology can generate electricity at no less than $0.25 to $0.30 per kilowatt-hour (including fuel and O&M, excluding distribution) for the first year of operation.

Costs would drop slightly in following years, but that’s triple today’s average utility rate, about 10 times the estimated per-kilowatt-hour cost of efficiency-boosting measures, and more than some generation costs for existing renewable energy technologies.

As a result of the research, Climate Progress, which is published by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, said it may nix nuclear energy from the 14 “stabilization wedges” included in its proposed climate change response. The current list suggests 700 gigawatts of nuclear energy plus radioactive waste storage capacity equivalent to 10 Yucca mountains.

In addition to assessing business risks for new nuclear power facilities, study author Craig Severance set out to clarify the notion that short-sighted, anti-nuclear environmentalists halted carbon-free energy development. High costs, he writes, have thwarted nuclear all along:

Utility executives and Wall Street financiers were the ones who stopped nuclear power’s expansion in the 1970’s. As more evidence of the business risks and the costs associated with nuclear power became clear through  utilities’ own experiences, utility boards across the country, and the financial houses who fund them, stopped  considering  nuclear power a serious future option. Orders for new plants that had already been advanced, were quietly withdrawn. The nuclear industry simply failed to compete against other available options, whose risks and costs were significantly lower.

Climate Progress challenged nuclear energy advocates today to go beyond touting relatively low operating costs for paid-off nuclear plants, and provide detailed documentation of cost estimates for energy from new facilities. As for next-generation nuclear technology (like Hyperion’s nuclear-in-a-hot-tub-sized-box device), Climate Progress considers it a fine idea — and worth pursuing — but not likely to help us meet 2020 or even 2030 greenhouse-gas emission reduction targets.

As Time’s Michael Grunwald noted last week, “It turns out that new plants would be not just extremely expensive but spectacularly expensive.” The fallout from overly optimistic early estimates can now be felt around the world, from Finland, where costs have ballooned and progress slowed at a nuclear plant, to Florida, where a plant planned for just off the Keys could cost up to $18 billion.

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. The paper suffers from the same problems all papers do that are written solely to reach a predetermined conclusion.

    The author bases all his nuclear-cost calculations on worst-case assumptions. Some nuclear plants have seen cost over-runs because of litigation from political groups, but others have been built on schedule and within budget. But the writer assumes that all future plants will face the same political attacks. The world would be better served if people were given accurate information instead of anti-nuclear propaganda like this article.

    To illustrate the author’s separation from reality, consider this quotation from his article: “Energy storage and load management offer additional solutions to reduce, shift and better manage loads. Pumped-water and compressed-air energy storage as well as utility-scale batteries are now being implemented.” A more false statement could hardly be imagined. Not only are there no large-scale energy storage systems being implemented, not only are none to be implemented in the foreseeable future, there is no imaginable system on the distant horizon. For more on this point, please look at Solar Energy, Wind Power, Intermittency, and Storage.

    The author believes that reducing electricity demand will solve the problem. Not so. The most effective thing that can be done to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions is converting fossil-fuel applications to electricity — battery-powered cars, electrified rail transport, heat pumps in place of furnaces, etc. etc. Electricity demand will definitely rise, not fall.

    Typical of such anti-nuclear polemics, this article references a study by Cambridge Energy Research Associates that calculated the construction cost of obsolete reactor designs using obsolete manufacturing and construction methods at current prices. The CERA study ignores actual data of contemporary designs available from countries that are building nuclear plants. This data shows the CERA study to be wildly wrong.

    As would be expected, the author nowhere considers the costs of alternatives to nuclear energy, which have risen in parallel with nuclear costs for the very same reasons. He also leaves out the pertinent fact that most wind turbines, which are the only renewable energy source close to competing with nuclear, are imported from Asia, where workers’ pay and safety standards are much lower. The heavy subsidies wind projects get now benefit foreigners much more than they do Americans. Since the US is running an unsupportable trade deficit, it’s not clear at all how this can proceed.

    All the author has achieved is proving that by carefully selecting material that serves his purpose and ignoring inconvenient facts he can succeed in confusing his readers.

  2. Nuclear Energy More Expensive Than Some Clean Power, Study Says | Novogreen Monday, January 5, 2009

    [...] Read more about this here. [...]

  3. Nuclear Officially More Expensive than Renewables » Dekalb Academy of Technology & the Environment Tuesday, January 6, 2009

    [...] Climate Progress and Earth2Tech [...]

  4. Nuclear Energy More Expensive Than Some Clean Power, Study Says « Nuclear and Indigenous Items of Interest Tuesday, January 6, 2009
  5. Quite a bit of selective information in this article! I’ll try to keep this short, but:

    1) Why would the author ever use the cost of nuclear energy for the FIRST YEAR only for comparison purposes? The advantage of nuclear plants is that they are ridiculously economical to operate over their entire lifespan, which in the new plants’ case is 60 years, and most likely more. Just for rough comparison, a $20B (WAY high!), 1600 MWe plant that ran for 60 years with $250M in annual costs (again, high), and an availability factor of 0.9 (low) would produce electricity at ~4.6 cents / kW. Clearly, very competitive even with egregiously conservative assumptions. With a $7B initial cost and 95% availability factor, that number drops to ~2.8 cents / kW.

    2) As mentioned by a previous poster, where are the alternative sources mentioned in the article? Let’s say the author supports wind and thinks we should use those instead (likely). To equal a 1600 MWe nuclear plant we’d need about 800 2MWe wind mills right? No, since wind is AT BEST a 0.25 availability factor, you’d need about 4 times that, or ~3600 2MWe wind mills at ~$4M each (total? $14.4 billion). Not to mention that each windmill completely consumes between 0.35 and 0.5 acres, not to mention the 5 to 10 turbine diameters required between each turbine (not included in the 0.35-0.5 estimate). So, figure between 500 and 1000 acres of land? Remember, this has to be in a WINDY area.

    Articles like these, seemingly intended to once again scare the public away from nuclear power, need to be taken with more than a few grains of salt. Hopefully, most people with common sense will realize that…

  6. Козлодуй и Белене не са решение | Блогография Wednesday, January 7, 2009

    [...] материали от: earth2tech.com и  ecogeek.org please wait…Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast) Filed Under: Bсички, [...]

  7. Nuclear officially more expensive than renewables | Gfeen.com Wednesday, January 7, 2009

    [...] Cl­ima­te Pr­o­­gr­essan­d E­a­rth2Te­ch « Chinese researchers develop nickel catalyst fuel cell Toyota, Honda hybrid sales drop in [...]

  8. EnergyByEarth.com » Nuclear Officially More Expensive than Renewables Thursday, January 8, 2009

    [...] Climate Progress and Earth2Tech Share and [...]

  9. Nuclear Energy More Expensive Than Some Clean Power, Study Says — Climate Today Thursday, January 8, 2009

    [...] Growing support for nuclear energy in the U.S. has hinged on three key arguments in recent years: It offers a carbon-free alternative to coal; a domestic alternative to petroleum; and a supposedly cheaper, more reliable alternative to renewable sources like wind and solar. But according to a new analysis from Climate Progress, existing nuclear power plant technology can generate electricity at no less than $0.25 to $0.30 per kilowatt-hour for the first year of operation- that’s triple today’s average utility rate- about 10 times the estimated per-kilowatt-hour cost of efficiency-boosting measures, and more than some generation costs for existing renewable energy technologies. As a result of the research, Climate Progress said it may nix nuclear energy from the 14 “stabilization wedges” included in its proposed climate change response. The current list suggests 700 gigawatts of nuclear energy plus radioactive waste storage capacity equivalent to 10 Yucca mountains. As Time’s Michael Grunwald noted last week, “It turns out that new plants would be not just extremely expensive but spectacularly expensive.” The fallout from overly optimistic early estimates can now be felt around the world, from Finland, where costs have ballooned and progress slowed at a nuclear plant, to Florida, where a plant planned for just off the Keys could cost up to $18 billion. http://earth2tech.com/2009/01/05/nuclear-energy-more-expensive-than-some-clean-power-study-says/ [...]

  10. Xander Mobetz from http://www.amillionpixels.com/ Tuesday, January 20, 2009

    They’re forgetting that even plutonium isn’t available that much in nature. At some point we can’t even use nuclear power anymore.

Comments have been disabled for this post