Is nuclear power back? The nuclear power industry has ramped up public relations in an effort to build the first new nuclear power plant in over 30 years, focusing on how economical and safe the next generation of nuclear reactors will be. As a result, public confidence in nuclear, which was shaken by accidents at Chernobyl (1986) and Three Mile Island (1979), is rising.
Before we all jump on the nuclear bandwagon, though, we should drill down on the cost issue. According to “Can Nuclear Power Compete?” in Scientific American Earth 3.0, here are conservative federal government agency estimates on how the four major electricity producing options compare financially:
Nuclear – capital cost of $2,475/kilowatt, $0.033/kilowatt-hour
Coal – capital cost of $1,534/kilowatt, $0.03/kilowatt-hour
Natural gas – capital cost of $717/kilowatt, $0.047/kilowatt-hour
Wind – capital cost $1,434/kilowatt, $0.034/kilowatt-hour
Some estimate that these numbers on nuclear are low. In fact, utilities in Florida have submitted cost estimates to regulators of $8,000/kilowatt. Part of the reason that nuclear power may be much more expensive is that plant construction is subject to high cost surprises. Big variables include:
- rising costs of steel and concrete
- interest on construction loans for nuclear power plants that could take over a decade to build
Then there are the potential cost surprises later on of fuel, waste disposal and decommissioning of the power plant at the end of its useful life. Read “What History Can Teach Us About the Future Costs of U.S. Nuclear Power” for more details.
When you see an ad from the Nuclear Energy Institute that says “no other source of energy can economically contribute as much carbon-free electricity today as nuclear energy” or when people tell you “nuclear is too cheap to meter,” consider if they are including large potential variable costs. If we’re going to put nuclear on the table as a low-carbon option to meet our growing power needs then we need to make sure we’re accounting for all expenses, start to finish.
Tell us what you think about nuclear’s prospects for the future.
GreenGuy
said on February 03, 2009
said on February 04, 2009
said on February 04, 2009
Nuclear centralized industry will progressively die yes, while being progressively replaced by networked decentralized renewables energy sources.
(a link to show France position, not the Sarkozy governement position but CAP21, a environmental and moderate mouvement : http://is.gd/iqra )
said on February 17, 2009
For example, recent IEA documents peg the cost of production in the US (2005) at around 0.9c/kWhr for wind. Earlier documents (2003) quote that the levelized costs of wind are around 5.5c/kWhr, which by the way were lower than nuclear. Levelized costs include capital and interest and profits. Obviously, we can have a whole range of costs actually computed in and just as obviously interpreted in whatever fashion the author desired because he didn't state what he used in his data, which I found to be incomplete.
For example, wind costs increased in 2007 to around $1700, because of short term supply line shortages from the DOE report on wind 2007 released may 2008, just to show how incomplete his data is.
I think that although some of his arguements had merit, it did come down to a bit of nuclear washing for public support. The lack of transpancy certainly didn't engender any trust in his arguements and the entire article I found was to make the nuclear arguement from the get go. It certainly wasn't as balanced as it could've and should've been.