• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • New Study on Staggering Cost of Nuclear Energy, Staggeringly Pessimistic

    Jack Spencer, Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy at the Heritage Foundation, authored this post.

    The Center for American Progress is promoting a  study called “Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power,” which according to a CAP press release uncovers the “staggering” costs new nuclear power. The study prices out new nukes based on what it purports to be a realistic set of conditions.

    Aside from the cherry-picking of data and its clear tilt toward Big Green (the vast industrial complex and lobbying machine being built around global warming alarmism), its conclusions are potentially not that far off.

    In other words, it describes a possible cost structure for new nuclear power. Where it misses the mark is by not telling the reader that such an outcome is not predetermined, thus leaving its audience with the impression that nuclear energy is necessarily expensive. That is not the case.

    The reality is that nuclear related institutions in the U.S. are not structured to promote a strong, efficient, and sustainable nuclear industry. Subsidies, the regulatory environment, and the nation’s nuclear waste management strategy all promote entrenched interests, are disincentives to innovation and discourage competition. Together, these all result in higher prices.

    The value of the CAP study is to demonstrate why a nuclear renaissance may never unfold unless something is done to ensure that the conditions set forth by the study never come to pass. The Heritage Foundation has written extensively on what some of these pro-market reforms should be.

    Here is a study on waste management;
    here is one on subsidy reform; and
    here is one on how regulation contributed to killing the nuclear industry
    and one on how to fast-track permits for new reactors.

    The CAP study shows what could be if we do not learn any lessons from the past. Heritage is busy using CAP’s base numbers with a new set of assumptions to determine what could be if we make the right policy choices.

    While we are working on that, here are our initial thoughts on the study. This will give you some insight into what we are thinking as we are crunching a new set of numbers.

    Environmentalists didn’t stop nuclear energy. Oh, wait, yes they did. The study dedicates an entire page (3) to argue that environmentalists did not kill nuclear energy. It suggests that Wall Street and utility executives simply assessed the risks associated with nuclear power being too great to carry forth with their nuclear projects. Fast forward to page 20, after describing how one of the greatest cost drivers with nuclear power is construction delays, the paper points out that organized opposition has been a “highly significant factor” in delaying plant construction. Perhaps these were not environmentalists who organized.
    New plants are already delayed and over budget, well not ALL of them. Sticking with page 20, the study falls back on the anti-nuke adage that delays and budget overruns of the Finish reactor demonstrates that new U.S. reactors will also be over budget and delayed. It also points out that two-thirds of current reactor projects around the world are also being delayed. First, as Heritage has pointed out numerous times, the Finland reactor is a first of a kind and assigning delays and cost overruns that it incurs to future reactors is not a legitimate criticism. But more importantly, while the CAP study might point out that two-thirds of the reactors might be delayed, one-third is not. So instead of assuming that the U.S. will do the wrong things that the two-thirds are doing, how about learning some lessons from what the successful one-third?
    A ten year construction schedule is not predetermined. The basic problem with the study is that their conclusions are based on the assumption that new nuclear plants will take ten years. This significantly drives up both the cost of capital and other inflationary pressures, which the study refers to as construction cost escalations. A fairer approach would have been to develop conclusions based on a few scenarios. Japan, for example, is completing plants in four years. So while it is true that historically plants have been delayed in the U.S., it is also true that modern construction methods in industrialized economies are allowing plants to be built more efficiently. That should have been recognized.
    Assumes technological homogeneity. One of the real disservices to the American public of the current debate over nuclear power is that lack of discussion over the array of nuclear technologies available. While large, light-water rectors will likely remain the back-bone of the U.S. fleet; there are a host of other technologies that we should be discussing. Each has their own set of advantages for different applications. Not recognizing the impact that new technologies could have on the viability of nuclear power dismisses one of the greatest contributions that nuclear technology could have on America’s energy future.
    Overnight costs are misleading. The CAP study started with an overnight cost estimate as the basis from which to build its total cost models. The problem is it uses Florida Power & Light’s estimate as the basis for the study’s overnight costs. The problem is that using this estimate does not take into consideration the significant savings that should be achieved as additional plants are built. So while the FP&L plant may well cost $4,070/KW, future plants should cost significantly less as regulatory hurdles become more predictable, the supplier base matures, construction methods are honed, and economies of scale are achieved.
    So-called “all in” costs are misleading. The study attempts to calculate all of the costs associated with the plant, divide them by the amount of electricity the plant will produce to give an all-in cost for nuclear power. This is the exorbitant 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt hour that the report suggests. The problem with this mixture of fixed capital costs and variable costs is that it is based on what the cost for electricity would be in the year 2018, the year the plant comes on line. While the study recognizes that the current low cost of nuclear energy is largely because the plants are already paid for, it ignores the fact that the cost for nuclear energy at new plants would be drastically reduced once they are paid for. A more accurate way to assign all-in costs would be to describe all-in, lifetime costs. In other words, the actual cost to consumers should be spread over the life of the plant, which will likely be over 80 or more years.
    Variable costs are unnecessarily escalated. In addition to the capital costs, the study describes and assortment of variable costs. Like the capital costs, these estimates assign first year costs to the overall cost of electricity, rather than spreading those costs over the lifetime of the plant. Nor do they not allow for the possible downward price pressures that a shift in policy would produce. For example, it assigns a cost to building a workforce to operate the plant. While developing a workforce certainly has costs associated with it, the total cost of such activities should not be assigned to the all-in cost of electricity. They are investments that would be returned over time. Another interesting cost that is assessed is that for property taxes. To be sure, property taxes are an important source of revenue for local communities that host nuclear plants. The problem is that the study assumes that because the costs for the plant will be so high, so will the property taxes. If, however, costs can be kept down, than so to will taxes.
    Pursuing a least cost approach. One recommendation that is on spot is that the nation should pursue a least cost approach to meet its needs. The Heritage Foundation advocates a free-market approach to energy policy. It does not support subsidies for nuclear or any other energy source. The federal government should set a fair and predictable regulatory environment and allow all energy technologies to compete in the open market place.

    Maybe the CAP folks are correct and the cost of nuclear energy is prohibitively expensive. Maybe other alternatives are the way to go for a clean, affordable energy future. As one who believes in the value of nuclear energy, I am fully supportive of removing all the subsidies and government preferences and allowing the market to decide. If Big Green is so confident, then they should be prepared to do the same.

    Addendum: David Bradish at the Nuclear Energy Institute’s blog makes a very good point:

    The study assumes a payback period of 40 years. That’s way too long. A new nuclear plant will probably be setup to pay back its loans for construction in 15-20 years and maybe faster depending on the financing agreements. Investors don’t wait 40 years to receive their money back and in fact 15-20 years is a long time for any investment. Changing this one assumption in the study basically cuts the cost of electricity from a nuclear plant in half and becomes more in line with the conclusions from the other studies I’ve seen.”

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    9 Responses to New Study on Staggering Cost of Nuclear Energy, Staggeringly Pessimistic

    1. Kent beuchert Tampa says:

      One of the silliest asumptions always assumed in these "nuclear is too expensive" articles is that

      the costs can be determined by those who know nothing about such things. The utilities are the consumers and are the ones qualified and motivated to determine relative costs of various technologies. There are also issues of quality and practicality – alternative energies such as wind, solar, etc. are uncontrollable, unreliable, unpredictable and unable to meet peak demand, which means their capacity must be duplicated.

      Even if some of the costs turn out to be what these anti-nukes consider extreme, they are usually far less than alternative technologies, when such things as actual power production (not "rated capacity"), lifespan, actual land

      costs, financing, subsidies, are taken into account. A nuclear plant will last 60 years, a windmill and solar panels about 20 years. A nuclear plant can exceed its rated capacity for years, while alternative technologies rarely average over 25% of their rated capacity. A nuclear plant can produce power at all times required, while alternative technologies have zero ability to guarantee power when needed every day. The cost of nuclear includes the land, whereas alternatives pay rent over their lifespan, something not included. Nor is the loan interest included in alternative power sources.

      If one wishes to estimate current nuclear costs, there are plenty of examples from around the world to examine – some in Japan, etc. A nuclear plant there recently went online and cost $2,000 per kilowatt, compared to the estimates of CAP of $8,500 per kilowatt for a plant in Florida. But even at $8500, the Florida plant won't come anywhere close to producing 25 cents per hour power. Actually, look for less than a third of that figure. http://nuclearinfo.net is an Australian website with recent figures for nuclear power. India and China are going fullbore building nuclear plants, and I'd say that if they

      find them far cheaper than wind and solar, so should we. And as for those "20 year build times,"

      I believe that Hitachi-Westinghous recently quoted satted that they can deliver electricity

      within 3 years of the first concrete pour.

    2. James Miller, TN says:

      I would like to see the same analysis re-performed using Crystal Ball or @Risk. Each variable could have its own distribution and sampling done via Monte Carlo simulation. In the end, a probability of each outcome could be determined. We could them spend our time debating input variable distributions. I would also like to see a sensitivity study done. I don't necessarily like the answer that new nuclear is that expensive (as I am a nuke) and appreciate the criticisms above but I also think CAP did a decent job with the report (even though I would have made some different assumptions). The report has certainly generated some great discussion.

    3. Simon, Perth says:

      Due to the fallibility of humans, strict regulation is essential – otherwise we end up following the cheaper European model where waste is allowed to be dumped illegally in the ocean (see BBC report http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4312553.stm ) or utilities are allowed to neglect their safety responsibilities (see another BBC report http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/781354… ).

    4. Thomas Gray South Ca says:

      I think a point to make here is, the oil suppliers want nothing to do with electric cars, the cap and trade folks want nothing to do with clean energy.

    5. Pingback: Celebrity Paycut - Encouraging celebrities all over the world to save us from global warming by taking a paycut.

    6. Nicole Murphy, Michi says:

      Anyone going to the "Managing Outage and New build Risk" conference in Orlando next week (http://www.ds-energy2009.com/)?

    7. Pingback: Climate Progress » Blog Archive » Nuclear cost study 3: Responding to Heritage’s staggeringly confused ‘rebuttal’

    8. Pingback: Clean Energy Insight - Moving Energy Forward » Blog Archive » Tennesse Senator Proposes 100 New Reactors

    9. Bryan Kelly says:

      Read another view of CAP's cost and schedule conclusions, along with a few related ideas here:

      Surety Bonds for Nuclear Energy Facility Construction Cost-Savings

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×