Is nuclear power economical?

Great Debates
21

Just to note some places where I think such discussions get off track. Among fossil fuels:
-coal: has the highest CO2 emissions per unit of electrical energy produced, by far, both because it contains more per unit energy in the fuel, and the efficiency of real world coal plants is lower than real world nat gas plants*. And it may kill significant numbers of people with ‘conventional’ pollutants not related to climate change.
-nat gas: basically does not kill anybody with pollutants not related to climate change, and much less CO2 per unit final energy than coal (though leakage of methane, itself a greenhouse gas, can potentially seriously affect that comparison).
-oil: virtually irrelevant to any discussion of electric power generation in the US, and hardly more relevant globally.

The cost of nuclear all in is much higher than that of gas fired plants in US conditions. And while govt policy affects almost everything in the modern mixed capitalist/socialist economies of the rich world, the effect on nuclear is much larger. No nuclear plants would ever be built in the US without federal govt gtees of the financing (nobody would lend given the track record of nuclear for huge cost overruns) and taking care of the waste. Power from gas would be only slightly more expensive without various special treatment in the tax code for mineral extraction, which don’t even apply solely to nat gas.

The baseline for what the market would select for new electric plants is nat gas combined cycle (only in some special cases of especially low cost coal right near the plant would it be coal now for new plants in the US**). The extra cost and CO2 reduction benefits of nuke, or renewables, or moreover higher tech national electric grid and storage to boost the practical % renewables can provide, should be compared to nat gas.

*comparing either state of the art reasonably economical supercritical boiler coal fired plants v gas turbine combined cycle gas plants, or comparing the actual inventory of existing plants, not counting simple cycle GT peaking plants which as the name says don’t operate much, not counting coal gasification combined cycle gas turbine plants because they haven’t proven economical yet (see the cost overrun disaster of Southern Co’s Kemper plant).
**though all kinds of new coal plants in China, India etc, the really intractable part of countering climate change other than with real breakthroughs in cost of low CO2 energy, and w/ direct climate engineering.

22

The fundamental problem of nuclear energy is that the regulations are set at “the best available technology”. While this has improved tremendously over the decades, it has not and never will get any cheaper, only more and more expensive.

23

You are missing the effect of environmental regulations. Nuclear plants are not allowed to emit detectable amounts of radioactive material. The limits are orders of magnitude below what can be justified by public safety. What if gas plants were not allowed to release detectable amounts of NOx? What would be their costs be then?

24

I’d be more convinced of this if you could point to a country where nuclear power has worked exceptionally well. France might be one example. But they basically work off of a single design throughout the entire country (one which they improve upon). And as Professor Davis points out, they have not successfully driven their costs ever lower.

I say existing nuclear tech is a lemon (I said it was a dud upthread, but that frankly overstates matters - I’m struggling for the proper word). There might be ways to improve it. But while Nimbyism is an issue, I think its ultimately a scapegoat. Financial markets in the US don’t fund nukes outside of places where there are tight regulatory environments that guarantee a profit. Where deregulation exists, financial markets in the US don’t touch this technology with a ten foot pole. They don’t complain about large nuclear demonstrations probably because they don’t exist anymore. Under tight regulation and implicit subsidy they do fund it.

As for alleged over-regulation in the US, I’m mildly skeptical given the number and cost of past industrial nuclear accidents. Sure, they haven’t cost lives outside of the government sector. I see from wiki that there have been at least 4 nuclear accidents in the US each costing over 1 billion dollars.

Ultimately though whether US nuclear power is over-regulated is a technical issue. I have not seen a counterplan outlining improved US regulation along with a description of its costs and benefits. There are those such as the Union of Concerned Scientist who don’t oppose nuclear power but do lobby for tighter regulation and improved safety. Eg: “Nuclear accidents can happen here—but they don’t have to. Enforcing fire and earthquake regulations, addressing flood risks, and safer storage for nuclear waste are just a few of the ways we can help prevent nuclear accidents.” Nuclear Power | Union of Concerned Scientists

25

Unknown!

No Thorium power generator has been built and run long enough.

And the nuclear waste fromalloftheother reactors has not been eliminated yet.

Has the cost of Fukushima been totaled yet?

psik

26

I’m from Sweden and we have long had well developed nuclear power. I think we have had at most around 33% of our power come from nuclear plants but don’t quote me on that.

Anyway this post is regarding the modern problems we have here with nuclear power. And it’s not problems with waste disposal or anything of the sort. The problem is that nuclear scientists today don’t get funded because our government has increased the tax on nuclear power. It’s really a shame because scientists at KTH, one of our leading universities, think they may be on their way to develop plants that actually run off the transmutated uranium (forgive me for lacking english nuclear terminology). To put it bluntly, the reactors would run off the nuclear waste. Since they can’t get any funding it seems they will not be making any further progress though.

Now i don’t think anybody with a healthy mind would claim that nuclear power is free of risk, but in a world where the choice currently stands between fossil fuel or radioactive fuel, the choice is clear in my mind. And is it economical? Yes, as long as the government doesn’t put a penalty tax on it it’s economical.

27

Sweden once passed punitive taxes on nuclear power. They reversed course last month: my (sub req) Economist article upthread was devoted to it. Here is the wire treatment: Sweden's deal leaves door to nuclear power open, but only just | Reuters

Vox article on Swedish nukes: Sweden decides it’s not so easy to give up nuclear power - Vox

Sweden has one of the lowest CO2 emission electrical grids on the planet: they are 40% nuke and 50% hydro. Nukes run around the clock, unlike solar and wind. That said there are a number of exciting technologies on the horizon, that could permit renewables to scale up a lot. We should be investing in them, but also in 3++ and 4th gen nukes. Maintaining options for a diversified energy portfolio is the way to go.
ETA: Oh, and welcome to the board Adoschtinad! My take is that nukes are typically economical once the plant is up and running. But high construction costs make new plants financially imprudent, at least with current technology and current non-existent taxes on CO2 emissions.

28

I actually didn’t know that they had reviewed their stance on the nuclear issue. I thought the whole notion of it was stupid to begin with so I’m glad they reconsidered.

Thanks for the warm welcome, I found this board by chance and I’m glad I did!

29

I’m not ‘missing’ the effect of environmental regulations. In fact a more realistic scenario is where a limit on CO2 emissions or a cost per ton of them put gas and nuclear on a more even footing. There have been a handful of new nuclear projects in the US, and the only reason is a few utilities feeling it prudent to hedge that possibility.

But your example is not realistic. It’s not the need to have extremely low leakage of radiation most of the time that makes nuclear so expensive, it’s the need to avoid large releases any more than extremely rarely, with the debate about about extremely. That requirement, large releases extremely unlikely, in a reasonable analysis is something organic to modern society, particularly rich democratic ones. In comparison a requirement that NOx be zero, and just for power plants, is arbitrary.

My comparison is given society and public policy as it exists, especially in the US. In that context nuclear subsidies are large, gas subsidies are small or really more like non-existent (the argument that such subsidies even exist is based on cherry picking tax code provisions that would also apply if you’re mining copper, or even just running any other business).

30

Situation in Slovenia. One third of energy comes from coal/gas, one from hydro and one from nuclear. Wind and sun are negligible. However half of the nuke goes to neighborhood Croatia as they financed half of it in 1981. But we are still net electro exporter (mostly to Italy). Nuke is 2nd+ generation Westinghouse with one 730MW block. For 2mio country is like having 1000cc kawasaki in your shack. It supposed to be operational to 2021 but it was prolonged for 20y. And from my point of reasoning it is very lucrative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krško_Nuclear_Power_Plant
There are of course great debates to build another block before this happens.

31

Nice article at Vox.com.
Nuclear power and renewables don’t have to be enemies. New York just showed how. - Vox

More detailed report:
https://www.sparklibrary.com/addressing-plight-existing-nuclear-part-1/

The decision about whether to build a new nuclear plant is very different than whether to keep an existing one open. Nuclear plants are expensive to build and routinely have cost over-runs. But for an existing plant, that’s water under the bridge. The New York State Public Service Commission (the electricity regulators) today approved a plan to expand renewable power and offer subsidies to keep these existing nuclear plants open. On the ratepayers dime. Because otherwise the nuclear plants would shut down due to declining revenues and competition from cheap natural gas.

Here’s the thing. Renewables are subsidized and there’s no penalty for CO2 emissions. The electricity regulators figured they attach a credit worth $50 a ton of CO2 to nuclear power. That’s a cheaper subsidy that renewables get. It’s probably not sufficient to justify the construction of a new nuclear plant. But it’s sufficient to keep existing plants open.

That’s the way to do it. I’ve voiced support for the status quo in this thread with regards to new plant construction. But some states may be permitting the premature shutdown of nuclear plants. That could balloon CO2 emissions.

Again, my first choice would be a rational fee placed on CO2 pollution. But barring that, we should figure out how to do something similar, in an indirect fashion.

32

Another pro-nuclear lefty here.

That doesn’t necessarily tell us a great deal about the potential of nuclear power so much as it does about the short-termism that drives investors.

33

Investors funded multi-billion dollar silicon chip fabrication plants. Any decent return to Musk’s properties will be far in the future.

No, the problem with nukes is that they are susceptible to high cost over-runs and are noncompetitive with the alternatives absent massive governmental subsidies. It’s not just the US. It’s also in South Korea and other places. Upthread, France was discussed as a possible exception to this rule, but they took economies of scale much more seriously than anybody else. And they were lucky enough not to bet on an inferior variant.

If nukes were that cheap, keeping existing plants would be a no-brainer. But absent subsidies (or fair penalties for emitting CO2) they would have been closed in New York State.

All that said, I shifted my position in the last post. I continue to support the status quo’s small nuclear construction program in the US. But I think we should be more aggressive insofar as extending the life of existing plants. New York State probably gets it about right: they are keeping 3 but looking carefully at the most dangerous power plant in the state.

34

The high cost of nuclear power in the U.S. Is largely because nuclear power requires billions of dollars in up-front capital, and then it takes decades to open a plant because of endless lawsuits brought by anti-nuke activists. The capital costs then compound over time. Then those same activists campaign against nuclear power on the grounds that it’s too expensive…

China can build a nuclear plant in something like 5 years and 3 billion dollars.

As for nuclear success stories, have a look at Ontario before their solar ‘revolution’, which has caused their energy prices to skyrocket.

35

There are cost overruns in South Korea as well. Hell, there are cost over-runs everywhere. I’m gonna need a good cite, by a non-industry affiliated think tank.

I googled for something like that, and came up with this pdf. This Canadian group looked at nuclear power internationally, with an emphasis on the US, but also reflecting the Canadian experience. I’ll note that all reactors in Ontario are CANDU reactors: good luck mandating a single design system in the US. Here is there conclusion: I add all emphasis: [INDENT][INDENT] The economics of nuclear plants vary from one country to another, depending upon energy resource endowments, government policies, and other factors that are country specific. Existing nuclear plants are economic and attractive to investors, as evidenced by the money investors continue to put in to increase output and extend operating life. The economics of new nuclear plants vary inversely with interest rates and improve as natural gas prices rise and become more volatile. New nuclear plant projects to produce electricity for general distribution would be economic at social discount rates of 5% in some countries, according to levelized cost models, **but there is no evidence they would be financially attractive to private sector equity investors in competitive electricity markets without inducements such as the US Energy Policy Act of 2005. ** Some governments are considering incentives for construction of new nuclear plant designs in order to avoid greenhouse gas emissions and enhance energy security. The response to the US incentives will provide fresh evidence about the economics of nuclear power. [/INDENT][/INDENT] The Canadian experience was reported on a year and a half later in this pdf: From the summary on page 2: [INDENT][INDENT]Privatization of AECL will do little to improve the company’s prospects and will mean the end of the CANDU reactor technology.
[/INDENT][/INDENT] In other words, no subsidies, no nukes in Canada.

Page 5 of the Canadian study: [INDENT]
Though by far the largest contributor of electricity to the province’s grid of any generating source, the price of nuclear power has been both financially and politically high. Cost-overruns and schedule delays plagued Ontario’s nuclear construction efforts, the worst case being the Darlington facility, built in phases between 1981 and 1993. Originally approved in 1978 at an estimated cost of $2.5 billion, construction hold ups, technical problems and project management issues were exponentially compounded by political interference and indecisiveness. All of these factors combined to delay completion by a decade. This pushed the final cost of the four-reactor project to over $14 billion (Ontario Clean Air Alliance, 2004) and created a crippling debt load for Ontario Hydro, the province’s hydro utility.[/INDENT] Same stuff, different country. It would be interesting to parse out the blame between “technical problems” and “political indecisiveness” following the Three Mile Island incident in the US. But lacking a detailed technical evaluation, I am highly dubious about whining about NIMBY.

But wait, look at page 9: [INDENT][INDENT] To its considerable credit, AECL’s five most recent power reactor projects, based on its previous CANDU-6 design, were completed on-time and on-budget. These represent the last five of a total of eleven CANDU-6 reactors AECL has built, reinforcing the importance of being able to replicate a reactor design as a means of achieving the economies of scale necessary to control construction risks. [/INDENT][/INDENT] That’s awesome and congrats. Not applicable in the US. Maybe France can pull it off again.

Also, uh oh: [INDENT][INDENT]However, the CANDU-6 design is now over 30 years old. AECL’s ability to market reactors domestically and abroad now depends on the extent to which it can success fully fund and develop the ACR. Though AECL professes confidence in the new ACR, its development marks a significant departure from the traditional CANDU reac tor design. It is still at the earliest stages of the design and regulatory certification processes, as evinced in the federal government’s 2009 budget that provided AECL $135 million specifically for the continued development of the reactor. [/INDENT][/INDENT] Good luck with that.

36

The Economist Magazine (sub req) comes out against the Hinkley Point nuclear power plant, a British venture with France’s EPR and China. Since 2012, cost estimates for the plant have spiraled upwards and EPR’s plants in Finland and France are over budget. Meanwhile onshore wind, solar and natural gas are mostly cheaper. Storage technology is still a problem, but could very well be a lot better by 2025 when Hinkley nuclear would allegedly start service.

This chart rewards study:
http://wm40.inbox.com/thumbs/a3_130b1b_724f6972_oP.png.thumb

Things could change. Fossil fuel costs could rise. Construction technology could get better, though so could electrical storage. Fusion power is suppose to be 30 years away, just as it was in 1985 and 1955. One day, one day…

37

Updating this thread:

38

The Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment was run for several years in the 60’s at Oak Ridge National Laboratories and was a success.

There are several active programs running around the world to test it. China in particular seems eager to pursue this.

To be sure it is not a magical fix to all problems associated with nuclear power generation but it tends to be better in most respects than what we have been using for the last 50 years.

A particular attraction is the reactor is inherently safe. Which is to say you cannot make it “melt down” even if you tried.

39

By chance (really was not looking) I came across this: