Nuclear power still doesn’t make much sense

The nuclear industry has been notorious for cost overruns and delays. The only nuclear reactors under construction in the United States — a Westinghouse project at the Plant Vogtle power station in Georgia — were started in 2013 and projected to be finished in 2017.

Loading

They are still not done — and an initial budget of $US14 billion ($21 billion) has more than doubled to more than $US28 billion. In 2017, utilities in South Carolina cancelled two reactors midway through construction after cost projections ballooned from $US11.5 billion to more than $US25 billion.

And after all this build time, you get a very expensive source of energy. In a common energy-industry measure known as “levellised cost,” nuclear’s minimum price is about $US131 per megawatt-hour, which is at least twice the price of natural gas and coal, and four times the cost of utility-scale solar and onshore wind power installations.

And the high price of nuclear power doesn’t include its extraneous costs, such as the staggering price of disasters. Cleanup and other costs for the 2011 Fukushima disaster, caused by an earthquake and a tsunami off the Japanese coast, may approach $US1 trillion.

Nuclear boosters say that these problems can be solved. There was much talk at the conference about streamlining regulations and reducing costs and build times by constructing smaller, more advanced and less disaster-prone reactors. Once we start building more, the industry will start seeing the benefits of scale and efficiency, several industry insiders told me.

“The best way to become good at building nuclear power plants is to build nuclear power plants,” said Sama Bilbao y Léon, the director general of the World Nuclear Association. John Kotek, an executive at the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s American trade group, pointed out that the US Navy builds nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers in a matter of years — suggesting that quick build times for small reactors could be doable.

Any new money put in nuclear is money you aren’t spending on renewable projects that could lower emissions immediately.

Perhaps. But the much-vaunted small reactors are still novel, mainly untested technology. In another era, it may have been worth taking a gamble on these systems in order to avert climate disaster.

But Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University and a longtime proponent of renewable energy, told me that such a bet makes less sense today, when wind and solar power keep getting better — because any new money put in nuclear is money you aren’t spending on renewable projects that could lower emissions immediately.

There’s an opportunity cost “of waiting around for a nuclear reactor to be built when you could have spent that money on wind or solar and got rid of emissions much faster,” Jacobson said. This cost may be particularly onerous when you consider the rapid advancement in battery technology, which can help address the main shortcoming of renewable power: its intermittency. The price of lithium-ion batteries has dropped by about 97 per cent since they were introduced in 1991, and prices are projected to keep falling.

Loading

Jacobson is one of several researchers who have argued that such advances will render nuclear power essentially obsolete. As we build more renewable energy systems — onshore and offshore wind, solar power everywhere — and improve technologies to store energy (through batteries and other ideas), wind and solar can meet most of our energy needs, Jacobson said. In a 2015 paper, he argued that the world can be powered through renewable energy alone. His findings have been hotly disputed, but other researchers have come to similar conclusions.

On the other hand, the International Energy Agency’s projections for reaching net-zero energy still rely on nuclear. The agency says that nuclear capacity will need to double by 2050, with two-thirds of that growth occurring in developing economies. Still, even with nuclear’s doubling, the IEA says nuclear power will contribute less than 10 per cent of global electricity in 2050; over the same period, the agency says renewable generation will grow eightfold, contributing 90 per cent of electric power in 2050.

Clearly, then, nuclear’s problems don’t mean we should shut down all nuclear plants; existing plants are quite valuable in our energy mix as we ramp up solar and wind. And in places like China, India and other regions where demand for energy is growing, new nuclear plants may have a big role to play — and if the small, advanced reactors become viable, perhaps we’ll see some of those, too.

But it’s unlikely that nuclear can play anything close to a dominant role; its share of electricity production is quite likely to fall over time.

Loading

Which isn’t really a surprise. A quick glance at daily headlines suggests nuclear power is plagued by too many problems for comfort. I landed in London at around the same time that international energy regulators were making emergency plans for maintaining the safety of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, which had come under shelling from Russian troops.

In South Korea, operators of the Kori nuclear power plant were cutting production in anticipation of a massive typhoon. And this summer in France, which gets about 70 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power, plant operators had to cut production because hot weather had raised the temperature of river water used to cool the reactors — kind of a big problem on a planet that keeps heating up.

Tyson Slocum, the director of the energy program at the advocacy group Public Citizen, summed up these problems neatly: “Nuclear power has simply been eclipsed,” he said. “It was an incredible zero-emission resource for its day. But for much of the energy system today, that day has long passed.”

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

The Business Briefing newsletter delivers major stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. Sign up to get it every weekday morning.