THE VINE JULY 16, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Joe Romm is testifying before the Senate EPW today and has a nice, concise statement on nuclear power that's worth reading. (It's based on a longer report that he wrote for the Center for American Progress here.)
Romm's less-controversial point—or at least it shouldn't be controversial, though I imagine it won't be popular—is that, at the moment, nuclear power is still far more expensive than a lot of the other alternatives to fossil fuels. American Electric Power CEO Michael Morris, for one, has given up on the economics of new nuclear plants and is getting out of the business for now. All told, thanks to countless cost overruns and material bottlenecks, electricity from new nuclear plants looks to cost upward of 12-17 cents/kWh across the plant's lifetime, according to the nuke experts at the Keystone Center (retail electricity prices currently hover around 9 cents/kWh).
And that's compared with less than 8-9 cents/kWh for wind, according to the Energy Department's recent opus on the subject, and the equivalent of 2-3 cents/kWh for many California-type efficiency programs. (Some utilities are even contracting for concentrated solar for 14-15 cents/kWh—comparable to, if not cheaper than, nuclear.) That doesn't mean nukes should be ruled out entirely—Romm concedes that they'll need to play a supporting role in decarbonizing the economy. On the other hand, if Congress has only limited resources for orchestrating a shuffle away from fossil fuels, efficiency and renewable power seem like better investments in the short term—although John McCain has argued for exactly the opposite.
Of course, one way Congress could give nuclear a boost would be to expedite the licensing process for new plants, but Romm argues against this, too, saying the "economic and safety risks are too high." I'd imagine this point will be a lot more controversial—McCain, for instance, opposes any cap-and-trade bill that doesn't have a provision for expedited licensing. I'm not sure how big a brawl this could be, although even if the licensing process was changed, the costs alone still make it unlikely that nuclear will play more than a relatively small role (say, 10 percent) in a future low-carbon diet.
--Bradford Plumer
8 comments
Brad,
I know many a proponent of Atomic power, and I think it could be a great addition to the energy portfolio but regrettably many in the pro-nuclear camp don't want to admit that nuclear power built and run by private utility companies won't ever make a realistic contribution to the energy table by themselves. Ever. The private nuclear sector has had to rely on the Federal Govt for subsidies, tax credits, relaxed licensing protocols and even disposing of the waste for the last 30 years and still they're operating at net loses.
If America really was serious about making nuclear a part of the portfolio then the only way to do so and within a reasonable time frame (and by than I mean 10-15 years down the road) is to have the plants built & run by the US Government. Much like the Bureau of Reclamation and Corps of Engineers built many of the large hydro-electric dams did. By doing so, the plant construction, licensing and initial startup costs will be spread nationally and not borne by local market demands, which is what happens now. As it stands, I'll consider nuclear the least viable option to focus on as a substitute to fossil fuels for regional power generation because of so many logistical and realistic obstacles. But nationalizing nuclear power is something Americans would never even humor as a solution.
Another point that many people on the nuclear side of energy can never honestly answer is why not invest in renewables until nuclear could supplant coal (assuming it ever could). They never fully explain the reason for resistance to government (local, state or Federal) investment in wind and solar other than their irrational contrariness. However, it's nice to see that many folks are warming to the idea of renewables playing a real part in the energy portfolio and PUCs coming on board after much reluctance.
- singlespeed
July 16, 2008 at 2:28pm
I wonder if Mr. Plumer included disposing of waste product into his cost estemate. Long term storage and water decontamination ect.. I have no problem with nuclear power as long as Hanford is cleaned up and I'm sure the other states with disposal facilities will think the same way.
- philthyw
July 16, 2008 at 2:41pm
Actually, 10 percent is quite a bit. Wind could also add 10% for wind. And we could easily get another 15% for improved energy efficiency from coal fired power plants if EPA drops its counter productive New Source standards for retrofits. This would achieve 35% CO2 reduction in power plants.
Add that to a similar reduction for new CAFE standards and we can make a huge dent in CO2 emissions with existing proven technology and save about 3-4 million barrels per day of imports. Furthermore, with the addition of ANWR drilling, we couild reduce oil imports by about another million barrels per day.
- r-ennis
July 16, 2008 at 2:52pm
singlespeed--Interestingly, I think a lot of people are coming around to that view. In addition to Morris getting out of nuclear (and Moody's getting bearish on nuclear), there was a news item the other day noting that Goldman Sachs was getting into the solar business.
philthyw--Yeah, that estimate includes waste disposal. (Then again, there are all sorts of claims about whether reprocessing spent fuel makes sense, which is another debate entirely; though some experts think that's more trouble than it's worth.)
r-ennis--Agreed that 10 percent isn't nothing, and doubly agree with the idea of reducing oil through a variety of means. I guess it's mostly an argument against the idea that we could easily scale up and get 80 percent of our electricity from nukes like France does (in any case, we already generate more power from nuclear than France).
- Brad Plumer
July 16, 2008 at 3:54pm
Mr. Plumer,
Thanks for the clarification. In myown opinion I'll hold out for solar before resorting to nuclear. In case someone asks me. The tortuses can get a bit of shade beneith the solar cells but the fish in the Columbia will get no benifit from nuclear power. Thank you for the article and all the research that went into it. TNR is fast becomming my favorite news service due to articles like this one.
- philthyw
July 16, 2008 at 4:56pm
I will point out that nuclear would be more competitive if we factor in the lifecycle cost of the pollution of alternative sources. Even with several hundred years of radioactive byproducts, nuclear power is not going to have anywhere near the negative environmental effects of coal. (Although the negative effects of solar and wind power are much lower than either, granted.)
- benjamin81
July 16, 2008 at 5:23pm
While environmental effects of wind and solar are negligible in small quantities, nobody knows the impact on the environment if, say, the equivalent energy contained in 50 million barrels per day of oil is derived from wind.
Nevertheless, benjamin, you raise an interesting point concerning environmental effects. A cap and trade system can work here. Coal and other fossil fuel burning could pay a price for CO2 which could be claimed by developers of non CO2 sources. Then, all competitors, including carbon capture and sequestration, would play on a level playing field.
At $50 per ton, this amounts to an additional production cost at a coal fired facility of about 6 cents per kwh to be born by the consumer, who will, ultimately have to pay for these changes. I hope they are worth it. Unless China and India follow suit, we would be creating a huge incentive for the remainder of our manufacturing to locate there.
Whatever we do will cost us trillions of dollars and set back the clock on solving the world's other pressing problems like AIDS in Africa or world poverty, which could be reasonably tackled with similar expenditures.
- r-ennis
July 17, 2008 at 10:24am
Fortune 's Brian O'Keefe just published a colorful little profile of Matthew Simmons, the longtime
- Anonymous
September 24, 2008 at 12:51pm