I don’t talk too much about nuclear power here, for a very simple reason: I don’t think there’s much interesting to say about it. I’ve been saying since the very earliest days of this blog that our future would have plenty for people on every part of the political spectrum to hate. More nukes that will annoy left wingers, more government intervention in energy markets that will annoy the right wingers[1], etc. You can quickly build your own list and figure out instantly which end of the spectrum will hate each one.
More generally, I’ve long assumed that regardless of what a lot of people on the left end of the spectrum think, the US will wind up with at least “some” new nuclear power plants. The US has roughly 100 nuclear plants operating now, and I expect we’ll see that number increase, even with some decommissioning of older plants, to roughly operating 120 plants by 2030.[2] In other words, we will build more nuclear plants, but it won’t be the shining city on the hill renaissance that so many proponents push. Nor will it be the end of the world if we build a few dozen new plants. If my hunch is right that nuclear will prove to be uncompetitive, it will only die by failing miserably in the market, possibly at unacceptably high cost to taxpayers and customers. The political reality is that nuclear power will get every reasonable chance, and then some, to succeed.
This all came to mind when the following item came to my attention:
Nuclear Renaissance Dealt Blow by South Texas Project Troubles:
A critical court ruling today rang the first chime in what could be the death knell of the so-called “nuclear renaissance,” starting with the failed expansion of the South Texas Project (STP).
This afternoon’s ruling by 408th District Court Judge Larry Noll that CPS Energy can safely withdraw from the proposed STP expansion project without losing all its investment offers the utility and the city of San Antonio the cue they’ve been waiting for to exit the national nuclear stage. Combined with the NRG Energy CEO’s announcement during a shareholder and press conference call this morning that NRG would “wind down the project as quickly and economically as possible” if CPS withdraws or STP does not receive federal loan guarantees, this news marks a major blow to those who claim nuclear power is a viable alternative to fossil fuel energy. The expansion project calls for two new nuclear reactors at a site with two existing reactors.
These events give credence to the contention made over the past five years by opponents of nuclear power that it is a needlessly expensive and risky way to meet future energy needs.. In less than a year, the price of the STP nuclear expansion ballooned from around $5 billion to more than $18 billion. Given this case study of nuclear power’s failure, we must call into question the federal government’s decision to increase federal loan guarantees to support oversized, untenable projects that are already proving too risky for private investors.
It’s as premature to sound nuclear power’s death knell as it is to schedule a victory party for the renaissance.
So please, everyone, calm down. We’ve got much bigger problems to worry about, like how the heck we’re going to stop the Three Stooges (China, India, and the US) from blowing humanity’s remaining carbon budget.
[1] Of course, the right wingers who scream the loudest about letting the market pick winners and set prices unfettered by nasty old government intervention are curiously silent about or even supportive of the government lending a helping hand to the nuclear power industry, e.g. Obama To Propose Tripling Of Nuclear Loan Guarantees.
[2] The high up-front costs of nuclear power plants, plus the ongoing headaches of waste management and plant decommissioning will make nuclear power less attractive than some newer technologies, like concentrating solar with storage, thin-film solar PV, offshore wind, wave/tidal, and continued use of geothermal. At least that’s my guess. Ask me in a few years (or months or weeks) and I might have a somewhat different view.
Visit Lou's Graphs Page.
Link to original post
Dan Yurman said:
Nuclear Engineering International January 2010
The USA's Nuclear Future, Pg. 42
[snip]
GNP Funding
A key path to meeting the challenge of public acceptance of nuclear energy in the U.S. is widespread stock ownership of the plants through publically-traded corporations. In order for utilities to develop stock offerings, the U.S. government must place the full faith and credit of federal loan guarantees behind the new plants.
Without the loan guarantees, few utilities have the market capitalization to ‘bet the company’ on a multi-billion dollar investment in a new nuclear reactor.
Workforce
The second critical issue which requires attention is developing a cadre of nuclear engineers and skilled trades capable of building new reactors on time and within budget.
Foreign competition will raid U.S. engineering programs for talent unless the federal government puts in place a scholarship program and partnership with industry for jobs to channel graduates to U.S. projects. Secure funding for new reactors, via loan guarantees, will convince engineering students to enter the nuclear energy field.
Supply Chain
The third critical issue is revitalizing U.S. manufacturing capabilities including development of a facility to produce large forgings, e.g., 400 tons or more, for reactor vessels. There are three manufacturing centers under development by Areva in Virginia, Shaw in Louisiana, and Babcock & Wilcox/McDermott at locations in Ohio and Indiana.
Without these capabilities, the U.S. new nuclear build will create demand that will drive up the global costs of nuclear reactor components and produce delays in construction. For instance, despite increases in capacity, Japan Steel Works reports a three-to-four year wait time for 400 ton reactor vessels.
Fuel Cycle
The fourth critical issue is to resolve issue of management of the spent fuel by developing two strategically located 500 ton/year recycling plants. Related to this initiative is the need for a commercial MOX fuel manufacturing capability.
The final part of this initiative is development of commercial versions of fast reactors to burn the MOX fuel and complete the fuel cycle. The U.S. MOX plant being built at Savannah River will use weapons grade plutonium as its feedstock, and cannot be considered in the near-term as a facility in this commercial spent fuel initiative.
This strategy, which needs to evolve through R&D, pilot projects, and commercial acceptance, is far more cost-effective than the burden of indefinitely storing tens or hundreds of thousands of tons of spent fuel and the loss of the energy potential of the spent fuel itself.
end snip]- reply
- 0 points
Sat, 2010-01-30 12:35 — Dan YurmanPost new comment