I have an op-ed column out today that attacks the threat of a nuclear power plant in Maryland by looking at recent fruitless attempts to build plants, and the cost born by ratepayers.
A common perception of nuclear power is that it’s an affordable, carbon-free energy source that could meet a lot of America’s demand for electricity, if only those darn environmentalists would get out of the way. Unfortunately for nuclear power advocates and Maryland ratepayers, this statement crumbles upon contact with reality.
The average cost of electricity for all of Maryland’s sectors is 13.45 cents per kilowatt-hour. There’s a growing possibility some of us will have the pleasure of paying double that thanks to the pending merger between Constellation Energy and French electric giant EDF Energy, which is supposed to pave the way for construction of a new nuclear power plant at Calvert Cliffs. Doubling rates is fairly easy to predict with a trip down memory lane.
Ontario was slated to build a new nuclear plant until this summer, when a 2007 estimated price tag of $7 billion turned into $26 billion, which would’ve wiped out their 20-year budget. Turkey became a “turkey” when the only bidder for their new nuclear power plant offered a price for ratepayers of 21.16 cents a kilowatt-hour. Turkey’s wholesale energy prices average 7.9 cents a kilowatt-hour. The new bid for France’s plant also soared past expectations, settling at a cool $23.6 billion. Finland’s new nuclear power plant has seen four years of delay and cost overruns from 3 billion euros up 50 percent to 4.5 billion euros. That nicely works out to $6.74 billion in U.S. dollars and climbing.
It’s happening here too. Progress Energy revealed in 2008 to Florida that its tab for twin nuclear reactors would actually be $17 billion dollars, tripling the estimates the utility offered the year prior. This was before they delayed construction by 20 months and got the Florida Public Service Commission to hike ratepayers’ electric bills by 25 percent to cover the costs. This was also before San Antonio discovered in October their two newly proposed nuclear reactors would cost as much as $17 billion instead of $13 billion, causing at least a delay, likely to be followed by a rate increase to cover costs.
And all this was before the Maryland Public Service Commission approved the Constellation and EDF deal so we could have a new $9 billion (initial cost estimate) Calvert Cliffs reactor. It’s hard to hide from history when it lives so close.
In case you were wondering, ratepayers tend to foot the bulk of the cost overruns and delays you get with a new generation nuclear power plant, even if it never gets built. If it’s any consolation, Gov. Martin O’Malley got $100 checks sent to all BGE customers as part of the merger.
The reason we get all of these delays and cost overruns is because the nuclear power industry fudges the numbers to justify new plant construction. One of the most detailed and transparent studies by a certified public accountant named Craig Severance found that electricity from new nuclear reactors will cost in the range of 25 to 30 cents a kilowatt-hour, largely thanks to the construction delays and cost overruns that I illustrated above.
If I were a state ratepayer, I would hold on really tight to that $100 check that’s supposed to buy my vote in 2010. You’re gonna need it unless someone in Annapolis finds their common sense.
Cross-posted from The Dernogalizer
The Koreans are able to stamp out standard plants with commensurate cost reductions, the Japanese have built plants in about three years, and the AP-1000 plant at Sanmen, China is on schedule. Once the first 3 – 5 plants have been built in the US, the costs will come down as they have in Asia as long as we stick to a few standard designs.
Nuclear will never be cheap if you compare it with unregulated coal or a temporary lull in natural gas price, but economies of scale do work for nuclear energy and it delivers 24/7 low carbon power.
Various comprehensive studies indicated that nuclear is not nearly carbon neutral. Further, the costs and energy intensity of nuclear power will increase as more plants are built and uranium becomes increasingly scarce.
Further, one can make the argument that centralized, mega-power sources are part of our energy problem. Nuclear, wind or solar, any source with ‘economy of scale’ size aren’t going to help us build sustainable energy systems. While renewables can be dispatch on a small scale level, it is impossible with nuclear.
Regardless, I think that a rationale society would rule out nuclear because of its waste alone. In the best Yucca Mountain, reprocessing scenario, nuclear still produces waste that will stick around for thousands of years. As a result, we are committing our society to keep highly trained specialists with an intimate knowledge of nuclear technology around for THOUSANDS of years. Aside from our meddling with the atmosphere and causing global warming, I can’t think of any other human action that commits humanity to such a rigid, long term path.
Nuclear is much lower carbon than fossil fuels and in the same order of magnitude as solar and wind (studies such as ExternE confirm this). I would offer that small dispatchable nuclear reactors already exist (nuclear submarines). Solar cells use cadmium and arsenic which are toxic and last forever.
As for a cadre of specialists, we have had specialized professionals for millenia already. Nuclear is not quite as exotic as you may perceive.
Even these very high cost estimates are understating the true long term costs, since the problem of safe disposal will cost large amounts of money far into the future. With all the promising new possibilities in energy technology, some of which are likely to bear fruit soon, it is foolish to spend so much on nuclear.
Nuclear waste is quite small in volume, so you will not require huge amounts of money even for advanced disposal such as deep boreholes.
As for the “new” technologies, as most revolve around solar and wind, they are actually the oldest energy technologies. Yes they are improving, but nuclear is improving as well (e.g., advanced fuels are setting record burnups, pyoprocessing techniques are in development, etc.). The US would be smart to follow China and South Korea who are using ALL the lower carbon technologies.