NYT: Much Talk of a Nuclear Renaissance, but So Far Little Action

The bottom line: "Operators would need to be convinced there is a sound and robust business case" for building a plant before they start devoting capital to it, Mr. Kernan said. He said there was no evidence yet to suggest that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/03/politics/03power.html

Much Talk of a Nuclear Renaissance, but So Far Little Action

By MATTHEW L. WALD
and HEATHER TIMMONS
Published: March 3, 2006

...
That move has only added to the talk of a rebirth of nuclear construction, but analysts say that most of it is still just that — talk. In the United States, Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman recently referred to more than a dozen new reactors on the drawing boards, but not one has yet been ordered, and industry analysts do not expect to see any orders until late 2007, at the earliest. "I think we all were surprised by the price," said Michael G. Morris, the president and chief executive of American Electric Power, the largest power generator in the United States. Mr. Morris, whose company serves five million customers in 11 states, favors more nuclear power.

China has announced its intention to quadruple its nuclear output in the next 20 years, but at the same time the country has also stated that it wants to develop its own reactor.

Politicians in Italy, Britain and Poland have been examining the merits of new nuclear plants. But to date, the only nuclear plant being built in Europe is a Finnish reactor that was the focus of 12 years of debate before construction began last year.
...
"The market environment is now significantly riskier than it was when the original nuclear plants were built," said Peter Kernan, an analyst at S.& P. who was a co-author of the report. "Operators would need to be convinced there is a sound and robust business case" for building a plant before they start devoting capital to it, Mr. Kernan said. He said there was no evidence yet to suggest that.
...

operators are waiting for the taxpayers to pick up the tab of building and insuring against disaster, then they will be only too happy to run the thing with a skeleton crew and reap the profits.

The problem with deciding to build a reactor is the extremely expensive legal battles that accompany any proposed nuclear project. You cannot expect private enterprise to pony up 10 bilion dollars on a project which may or may not get approved, and which won't be ready to produce a return on investment for 10-15 years. So some of the subsidies they need are only an smooth licensing process, so they aren't tied down by 15 years of legal challenges. Of course, they also need protection from liability (no private insurer is capable of insuring against a theoretical worst-case disaster; the government would have to deal with that).

So some of what is going on is that nuclear companies are testing the legal/political waters. This consists of such steps as getting the government to pre-license standard reactor designs (this has already happened). For 15 years, the nuclear industry has been planning on a comeback. They believe the energy future will come down to a battle between coal and nuclear, and they're wagering that nuclear will begin to look attractive as the costs of coal become more apparent (environmental destruction, especially global warming). The real story is that natural gas is now becoming much more expensive, and it is clear that the supply of natural gas can no longer be relied on in the near future.

in the licensing process.

After all THEY are the ones footing the bill to build these things ($2 billion in subsidies for each 6 new nucular plants under ChimpCo's energy bill).

...and the are also paying for the disposal of spent fuel from these plants....

...and 50% of the of the licensing costs and up to $2 billion if the NRC delays construction....

No, the taxpayers shall NOT be allowed to have representation here.

Long Live King George!

is another person's right to obstruct.

If you believe that nuclear power is inherently dangerous and uneconomic, and that nuclear power is only a function of corporate corruption (only still in play because corporations have figured out how to milk the public), than I suppose you will not be inclined to trust the decision of any regulatory body to approve a new reactor.

But if you believe that nuclear power is relatively safe and economic, you are inclined to read the technical engineering literature about the design of generation three and four nuclear power plants with approval; they've made significant advances in safety. So you are more willing to trust the decision of the regulatory agency when it approves the new designs. You are more comfortable with a nuclear plant being located next to existing units (on already-approved sites).

If you do not trust the regulatory agency, you need to consider how the public's interest is represented by the agency: its officials are ultimately appointed by the elected officials that we send to Washington. Right now, that's admittedly a sore point.

If solar were about three times less expensive than it currently is, we would not be having this argument. Our economy would be switching to solar, rapidly. But solar is not economic yet. Neither it seems is nuclear, the industry appears to be on the verge of a revival but in truth no new orders have been placed yet. Alas, in the meanwhile, we will burn coal. My electricity (in the Ohio Valley) comes from coal. My electric bill runs $40 to $140 a month. The plight of polar bears, the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet -- these seem like remote problems to the voters who have to pay for electricity, or the industries that employ them. I reach the conclusion that nuclear is not going to solve this problem -- even a revival of the nuclear industry would consist of tens of new plants, which would raise the percentage of electricity from non-fossil fuels only marginally (I would support a properly engineered nuclear power revival if it were of a scale that would matter). We had better hope to hell that your solution, solar, will become economic and soon. Otherwise, we are in deep trouble. Deep trouble.

by new nucular plants??????

Zero.

And none of the utilities that have proposed to build new nucular plants under ChimpCo's Nucular Giveaway Program have any plans to close existing coal plants or defer building new ones.

Duke Power (a nucular wannabee) is planning to increase its fossil fired capacity by 2200 MW...

http://www.platts.com/Magazines/POWER/Power%20News/2005/070705_10.xml

So how is this supposed to save the polar bears????

(clue - it won't)

Buying an Energy Star rated refrigerator and putting a $4000* solar hot water heater on ones roof would do more to save the polar bears than any of the proposed new nucular power plants....

reduction in electricity use = ~3850 kWh per year

savings = ~$350 per year

(cost of the solar heater before any state rebate and federal tax credit)

And no one would protest against this...

I live in a small brick ranch house with double-paned windows; every light in my house is CF. My biggest gas bill this year is about $150 (I keep the thermostat between 66 and 70, depending on the time of day). My eight year old car gets 28-33 mpg (city-highway) but I live 1.6 miles from work (I have the luxury of a permanent position at the college I teach at). These choices of mine were deliberate.

But I should clarify my position on nuclear: I would support a major shift to nuclear (to replace coal), if it were properly engineered. It is now clear, however, that this isn't likely to happen, not for at least two decades. NNadir's skepticism not withstanding, I think solar will gradually begin to become competitive in a 20 year time frame. Meanwhile, we need to hope that global warming doesn't trend to the upper range of the models, or we will be pretty much screwed. (I'm sure you've read the threads about the forthcoming climate report that says the scientific community now is certain that warming is caused mainly by greenhouse gas forcing, and that the big fear now is that a tipping point is coming where the climate changes irrevocably and drastically -- due to positive feedback loops in the climate that will accelerate the warming.) The unfortunate thing is that we need to reduce our greenhouse emissions by 50% to prevent calamity, and neither solar nor nuclear will do this. NNadir believes that nuclear is capable of accomplishing this, and I think he is right. But again, I reach the conclusion that this isn't going to happen. I presume you believe that conservation plus solar (and other renewables) will accomplish this. I am a bit more skeptical, in the short run, but more optimistic about that in the long run. But please forgive my impatience: "feel good" projects like the occasional 75 megawatt solar farm, or a few hundred thousand rooftops in the southwest, are not enough. We need the political will to choose then implement a real solution soon. I grow pessimistic, we will just carry on with the suicidal status quo -- as you point out, utilities are building more "modern" coal plants. We do not yet as a nation have the political will to solve the problem.

By the way, have you read Gus Speth's book, Red Sky at Morning? It is an interesting analysis of why the environmental movement isn't able to achieve the success now that it did 35 years ago. According to Speth, 35 years ago the environmental perils were obvious and intolerable, and the sudden surge in public concern and organized activism blindsided the polluters. So Congress was forced to pass good legislation (clean air, clean water) that successfully mitigated the worst of the air and water pollution of the day. But according to Speth, the problem we confront now, global warming, is removed from the public's concern because it seems abstract, distant, theoretical. And industry is a lot better at deflecting concern; they manipulate the public adroitly through the media, and control the politicians. I hope the latest news -- about the damage at high latitudes to global warming, about the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and the rough tropical weather -- will make global warming a higher political priority.

and can reduce electricity used for water heating by >65%.

Energy Star appliances can reduce domestic electrical demand by major double-digits (>50%) - today.

Hybrid autos too.

and none require new nucular plants.

No new nucular plant has been ordered in the US since 1978 - WHY????

Could it be that they're "too expensive" and not competitive?????

(yup)

US uranium production has fallen from 43 million pounds per year in 1980 to ~2 million pound per year today - WHY??????

Could it be that the US has high-graded its uranium resources and if it had to rely solely on its domestic uranium supplies they would only last 25 years???

(yup)

How is any this supposed to save that polar bears???

(it can't)

Last year the US installed >2500 MW of renewable energy capacity vs. 0 MW of new nucular - a few measly MW at a time.

Growth in US renewables capacity is accelerating and over the next 10 years will produce more electricity than ChimpCo's new nucular power plants (if they are ever built). Furthermore, construction of these new plants may not keep pace with reactor retirements over the next decade and we may see a net decrease in US nucular capacity over this period.

The result???? Renewables will do far more to "save the polar bears" than what the charlatans would have you believe...

than coal.

Are renewables less expensive than coal? That's the problem.

and they are building them (and PV too).

If you would supply a good reference or link for that, which makes it clear how costs are being measured, I would be grateful.

World's Largest Solar Energy Farm to be built in Southern California

http://www.stirlingenergy.com/breaking_news.htm

500-850 MW

and in Nevada...

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=43336

64 MW

and the 354 MW of solar electric in California...

http://www.eere.energy.gov/troughnet/deployed.html

...and domestic solar hot water heaters make real economic sense.

A typical electric hot water uses 5000 kWh per year (~$450 to operate @ $0.09 per kWh).

A typical solar hot water heater costs ~$4000 installed.

Without any rebate, the payback time is <9 years. With a $1250 rebate (Maine's current rebate), the payback time is ~6 years and with the current federal tax credit, 5-6 years.

Note: there is no "payback time" for a nucular powered electric hot water heater - every day is "pay day" - and they sock to you again on April 15th as well...

electricity, measured in a fair manner? Your second link says that when the plant has been scaled to a suitable size, it will produce electricity at 7 cents per kilowatt hour (initially, at 9-13 cents). But it's my understanding that electricity can be produced from coal for 4 cents per kilowatt hour.

It depends on the coal plant.

For new coal plants with different combustion and pollution abatement technologies the estimated costs range from 4.45 to 10.6 cents per kWh.

Carbon emission and mitigation cost comparisons between fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable energy resources for electricity generation.

Ralph E.H. Sims, Hans-Holger Rogner, Ken Gregory

Energy Policy 31 (2003) 1315–1326

www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/ Pess/assets/Energy%20Policy%202003.pdf

And that doesn't take into account the externalities either....

So the answer is "how much pollution you want from that coal-fired plant"????

(which isn't really an answer :) but there it is...)

Conventional wisdom is that solar is best for niche applications (such as off-grid PV power), and close to competitive for peak power (especially in the southwest, for parabolic trough systems). Hopefully in 10-20 years, it will become clearly competitive, at least for peak power; wind already is competitive, to augment baseline generation capacity. I'm glad to read about the Nevada parabolic trough plant. Now the trick is baseline electric generation.

Over 40 years, they cost about the same as coal. It's legal fights that making them politically expensive.