Nuclear power

This article is about power derived from nuclear reactions. For countries that possess nuclear weapons see: Nuclear powers .

Economy

Opponents of nuclear power claim that any of the environmental benefits are outweighed by safety compromises and by the costs related to construction and operation of nuclear power plants, including costs for spent-fuel disposition and plant retirement. Proponents of nuclear power state that nuclear energy is the only power source which explicitly factors the estimated costs for waste containment and plant decommissioning into its overall cost, and that the quoted cost of fossil fuel plants is deceptively low for this reason. The cost of many renewables would be increased too if they included necessary back-up due to their intermittent nature.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A UK Royal Academy of Engineering report in 2004 looked at electricity generation costs from new plants in the UK. In particular it aimed to develop "a robust approach to compare directly the costs of intermittent generation with more dependable sources of generation". This meant adding the cost of standby capacity for wind, as well as carbon values up to £30 (?45.44) per tonne CO2 for coal and gas. Wind power was calculated to be more than twice as expensive as nuclear power. Without a carbon tax, the cost of production through coal, nuclear and gas ranged £0.22-0.26/kWh and coal gasification was £0.32/kWh. When carbon tax was added (up to £0.25) coal came close to onshore wind (including back-up power) at £0.54/kWh - offshore wind is £0.72/kWh.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Nuclear power remained at £0.23/kWh either way, as it produces negligible amounts of CO2. Nuclear figures included decommissioning costs. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.htm.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Proponents note that several opponents of nuclear power have been forced to conclude in studies that renewables cannot replace all current energy production from fossil fuels, due to issues like intermittent output. They argue that accepting the drawbacks of nuclear power may be preferable to accepting lower livings standards http://sharpgary.org/RenewableE.htmlhttp://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://www.inderscience.com/filter.php%3Faid%3D2383.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Capital costs

Generally, a single nuclear power plant is significantly more expensive to build than a single steam-based coal-fired plant. A coal plant is itself more expensive to build than a single natural gas-fired combined-cycle plant. Although the cost per megawatt for a nuclear power plant is comparable to a coal-fired plant and less than a natural gas plant, the smallest nuclear power plant that can be built is much larger than the smallest natural gas power plant, making it possible for a utility to build additional natural gas plants in smaller increments, and in areas of low power consumption.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In many countries, licencing, inspection and certification of nuclear power plants has added delays and construction costs to their construction. In the U.S. many restrictions were put in place after the Three Mile Island partial meltdown. Building gas-fired or coal-fired plants does not have these problems. Because a power plant does not yield profits during construction, longer construction times translate directly into higher interest charges on borrowed construction funds. However, the regulatory processes for siting, licensing, and constructing have been standardized since their introduction, to make construction of newer (inherently safer) designs more attractive to utilitie companies and their investors.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In Japan and France, construction costs and delays are significantly less because of streamlined government licensing and certification procedures. In France, one model of reactor was type-certified, using a safety engineering process similar to the process used to certify aircraft models for safety. That is, rather than licensing individual reactors, the regulatory agency certified a particular design and its construction process to produce safe reactors. U.S. law permits type-licensing of reactors, but no type license has ever been issued by a U.S. nuclear regulatory agency.

Related Topics:
Japan - France - Safety engineering

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

To encourage development of nuclear power, under the Nuclear Power 2010 Program the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has offered interested parties the opportunity to introduce France's model for licensing and to subsidize up to 50% of the construction cost overruns due to delays. Several applications were made, and two sites have been chosen to receive new plants.

Related Topics:
Nuclear Power 2010 Program - U.S. Department of Energy

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Operating costs

In the U.S. coal and nuclear power plants must operate more cheaply than natural gas plants to be built. In general, coal and nuclear plants have the same operating costs (operations and maintenance plus fuel costs). However, nuclear and coal differ in the source of those costs. Nuclear has lower fuel costs but higher operating and maintenance costs than coal. In recent times in the United States these operating costs have not been low enough for nuclear to repay its high investment costs. Thus new nuclear reactors have not been built in the United States. Coal's operating cost advantages have only rarely been sufficient to encourage the construction of new coal based power generation. Around 90 to 95 percent of new power plant construction in the United States has been natural gas-fired. These numbers exclude capacity expansions at existing coal and nuclear units.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

To be competitive in the current market, both the nuclear and coal industries must reduce new plant investment costs and construction time. The burden is clearly greater for nuclear producers than for coal producers, because investment costs are higher for nuclear plants, which also have the same operating costs. Operation and maintenance costs are particularly important because they represent a large portion of costs for nuclear power.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

One of the primary reason for the uncompetitiveness of the Nuclear industry has been the reluctance of the U.S. government to tax Carbon emmissions which causes Global warming. Only when the negative externalities of Coal and Gas consumption in the form of Carbon emmissions is taxed will Nuclear Industry become competitive. The U.S. government has been unwilling to join Kyoto protocol which would have ensured that the free market would dictate efficient quantities of Nuclear power production but has instead been willing to ensure that the Government decides behind closed doors in an untransparent manner how subsidies are doled out.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Subsidies

The subsidies for nuclear power are often criticized by opponents. However, competing energy sources also receive subsidies. Fossil fuels receive large direct and indirect subsidies, like tax benefits and not having to pay for their pollution http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/report.cfm?publicationID=149. Renewables receive large direct production subsidies and tax breaks in many nations http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf68.htm.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Energy research and development (R&D) for nuclear power has and continues to receive much larger state subsidies than R&D for renewable energy or fossil fuels. However, today most of this takes places in Japan and France: in most other nations renewable R&D get more money. In the U.S., public research money for nuclear fission declined from 2179 to 35 million dollars between 1980 to 2000 http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf68.htm - however, in order to restart the industry, the next six U.S. reactors will receive subsidies equal to those of renewables and, in the event of cost overruns due to delays, at least partial compensation for the overruns (see Nuclear Power 2010 Program).

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

According to the DOE, insurance for nuclear or radiological incidents in the US, is subsidized by the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act - in July 2005, Congress extended this Act to newer facilities. In the UK, the Nuclear Installations Act of 1965 governs liability for nuclear damage for which a UK nuclear licensee is responsible. The Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage puts in place an international framework for nuclear liability.

Related Topics:
DOE - US - Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act - July - 2005 - Congress - UK - Nuclear Installations Act - Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Other economic issues

Nuclear Power plants tend to be most competitive in areas where no other resources are readily available - France, most notably, has almost no native supplies of fossil fuels http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html. The province of Ontario, Canada is already using all of its best sites for hydroelectric power, and has minimal supplies of fossil fuels, so a number of nuclear plants have been built there. India too has few resources and is building new nuclear plants. Conversely, in the United Kingdom, according to the government's Department Of Trade And Industry, no further nuclear power stations are to be built, due to the high cost per unit of nuclear power, compared to fossil fuels http://www.dti.gov.uk/nuclear/nuclear.htm. However, the British government's chief scientific advisor David King reports that building one more generation of nuclear power plants may be necessary http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050512-082200-3520r.htm. China tops the list of planned new plants, due to its rapidly expanding economy and fervent construction in many types of energy projects http://tauon.nuc.berkeley.edu/asia/2000/XuMi.pdf.

Related Topics:
Ontario, Canada - United Kingdom - David King

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Most new gas-fired plants are intended for peak supply. The larger nuclear and coal plants cannot quickly adjust their instantaneous power production, and are generally intended for baseline supply. The market price for baseline power has not increased as rapidly as that for peak demand. Some new experimental reactors, notably pebble bed modular reactors, are specifically designed for peaking power.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Any effort to construct a new nuclear facility around the world, whether an older design or a newer experimental design, must deal with NIABY objections. Given the high profile of both the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents, few municipalities welcome a new nuclear reactor, processing plant, transportation route, or experimental nuclear burial ground within their borders, and many have issued local ordinances prohibiting the development of nuclear power. However, a few U.S. areas with nuclear units are campaigning for more (see Nuclear Power 2010 Program).

Related Topics:
NIABY - Nuclear Power 2010 Program

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Current nuclear reactors return around 40-60 times the invested energy when using life cycle analysis. This is better than coal, natural gas, and current renewables except hydropower http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.htm.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~