Nuclear power advocates bring up the technology as a supposedly necessary part of a zero-GHG portfolio to address climate change. They insist that the “next generation” technology will be a winner if it is allowed to be developed.
Nevertheless, nuclear has two significant problems beyond whatever is in the next generation technology:
- Construction cost overruns are the single biggest liability that has been killing the technology. While most large engineering projects have contingencies for 25-30% overruns, almost all nuclear plants have overruns that are multiples of the original cost estimates. This has been driving the most experienced engineering/construction firms into bankruptcies. Until that problem is resolved, all energy providers should be very leery of making commitments to a technology that takes at least 7 years to build.
- We still haven’t addressed waste disposal and storage over the course of decades, much less millennia. No other energy technology presents such a degree of catastrophic failure from a single source. Again, this liability needs to be addressed head on and not ignored or dismissed if the technology is to be pursued.
Economics Outside the Cube 
Nuclear power gets another look in ‘all-of-the-above’ energy approach as climate worries mount https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuclear-power-smr-climate-ira-omnibus-spending/639484/
LikeLike
DOE is offering $6 billion to economically threatened nuclear plants to keep them on line. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/doe-to-offer-6-billion-to-keep-struggling-nuclear-reactors-online/618919/
LikeLike
Despite claims by nuclear advocates, France has not solved its nuclear waste disposal problem: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-nuclear-waste-storage-france/
LikeLike
Another hurdle that had not been raised before: the new technology plants require a different type of fuel which is not currently being manufactured. Capacity also needs to be ramped up, but that will have to rise in tandem with generation capacity: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuclear-reactors-of-the-future-have-a-fuel-problem/604707/
LikeLike
Yet more problems at Vogtle that will delay its start. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nrc-special-inspection-at-vogtle-could-lead-to-more-delays-for-troubled-nuc/602468/
LikeLike
A former NRC chairman questions the economic viability of future nuclear power plants.
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/former-nrc-chair-questions-economic-feasibility-of-new-nuclear-in-us/598188/
LikeLike
The luster is coming off of small modular reactors (SMR). https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/whats-the-role-for-new-nuclear-power-in-the-climate-change-fight
LikeLike
Exelon in the Midwest is threatening to close four plants if it is not paid a premium for its “zero GHG” power. Studies show conflicting results about whether nuclear plants are economic to run ignoring the costs of building new ones. It’s evident that these plants are on the cusp of viability.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcarpenter/2021/02/01/a-nuclear-company-says-its-plants-are-unprofitable-but-the-author-of-an-independent-report-disagrees-inside-the-dispute/?sh=338a3faa1785&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue:%202021-02-02%20Utility%20Dive%20Newsletter%20%5Bissue:32213%5D&utm_term=Utility%20Dive
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-power-dilemma
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-14/half-of-america-s-nuclear-power-plants-seen-as-money-losers?sref=iTvR5V6U
Click to access 2020q2-som-pjm.pdf
LikeLike
An MIT study finds the problem with rising costs comes from the non-standard design for most plants. Not sure why this is true for nuclear while large scale coal plants showed declining costs for decades before bottoming out.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/mit-study-lays-bare-why-nuclear-costs-keep-rising
LikeLike
Californians for Green Nuclear Power (CGNP) filed a complaint that closing Diablo Canyon would violate reliability standards. But the CAISO and CPUC both rejected the complaint, saying that they don’t have jurisdiction, the legal references were vague, and the complaint appeared “nonsensical.” https://www.powermarketstoday.com/public/Entities-in-Diablo-Canyon-complaint-reject-attempt.cfm
LikeLike
This lack of credibility where regulators cover up and dismiss important problems is at the core of why the public doesn’t trust nuclear power. You can’t just dismiss these issues as “fear mongering”–they have to be addressed head on with credible steps. That’s not happening now and the regulators are too captured to be reformed. Nuclear power proponents can wail on different blogs, but nothing will change until the industry makes truly fundamental changes. (And having proponents make such grievous analytic errors as we see on these blogs and in regulatory filings doesn’t help that credibility.)
LikeLike
Pingback: Nuclear vs. storage: which is in our future? | Economics Outside the Cube
And now this report on the global nuclear industry just came out, showing costs over $100/MWH and 10 year construction periods. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nuclear-energy-too-slow-too-expensive-to-save-climate-report-idUSKBN1W909J
LikeLike
These are typical “talking points” raised by opponents of nuclear power. Rather than repeat the rebuttals, please visit websites such as Californians for Green Nuclear Power, Inc. at http://CGNP.org CGNP is an intervenor before the CPUC. We have also been supplying detailed information as to how solar and wind are increasing California power sector emissions, instead of decreasing them. The key concept is the natural-gas-fired generation that “firms” the huge amount of California solar and wind must be dispatched intermittently and inefficiently. No wonder fossil fuel suppliers are finally running ads documenting the importance of natural gas fired generation to solar and wind. Obviously, fossil fuel suppliers are enriched by the deployment of solar and wind. Here’s what the Washington Post published in 2015. http://tinyurl.com/Natural-Gas-Secret
LikeLike
Unfortunately, you have misread the Washington Post article and the referenced study. It discusses an increase in installed gas-fired CAPACITY, but does NOT show an increase in gas-fired ENERGY. Based on California data showing dramatic DECREASES in GHG emissions from 2008 to 2017, it is obvious that increased renewables is leading to decreased fossil fueled generation, including natural gas. This is why natural gas plants are retiring prematurely in California.
LikeLike
Geologists have told me that previous cost overruns may be due to the problem that sites were chosen first and then plants were designed to fit those sites. Imagine how much less costly it would be to chose a standardized design and then find compatible sites. In addition, a friend at Los Alamos states that new technology will permit plants in smaller sizes, ones that can be embedded in solid rock away from fault zones.
On the second point, I understand that 4th generation nuclear designs use nuclear waste as a fuel source — solving the waste storage problem.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We’ve been told many things like this in the past for decades, yet we STILL have huge cost overruns that are now bankrupting engineering firms, and we still have substantial waste disposal problems. The overruns are not insignificant, but rather multiples of the original cost estimates, and I have rarely ever heard that these involved site problems. The fourth generation designs have been promised for a decade or more and still aren’t here.
LikeLike
Yep!
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 8:20 AM Economics Outside the Cube wrote:
> mcubedecon posted: ” Nuclear power advocates bring up the technology as a > supposedly necessary part of a zero-GHG portfolio to address climate > change. They insist that the “next generation” technology will be a winner > if it is allowed to be developed. Nevertheless, nucl” >
LikeLike