McCain’s Nuclear Energy Plan May Cost $315 Billion
According to a Bloomberg analysis, John McCain’s plan to revive the U.S. nuclear power industry with 45 new reactors may cost $315 billion, with taxpayers bearing much of the financial risk.
The Republican presidential nominee expects a 29% increase in electricity demand by 2030, and wants 45 new nuclear power plants built by then. Industry estimates put their cost at $7 billion each.
The Energy Information Administration estimated last year that adding nuclear power capacity would cost $2,143 a kilowatt (kW) before financing and inflation. That compared with $1,434 to $2,302 for clean-coal technologies.
Over the past year, the expense has more than doubled to $5,000 a kilowatt, or $7 billion for a typical reactor, utility filings and company statements show. The increase in part reflects rising prices for commodities such as steel and cement.
In comparison, modern wind turbine generators cost between $1500 and $2000 per kW for wind farms that use multiple-unit arrays of large machines. Smaller individual units cost up to $3000 per kW. It’s projected that by 2015, concentrated solar (a.k.a. solar thermal) plants could produce baseload power at approximately $3000 per kW as well.
Taxpayers are on the hook for most of the nuclear bill if borrowers default. A 2003 Congressional Budget Office report said that the default rate on nuclear construction debts might be as high as 50%, in part because of the project’s high cost. In short, such defaults could potentially cost taxpayers $100 billion.
Senator McCain’s primary solutions to the United States’ energy problems are increased nuclear production and offshore drilling. He has expressed little confidence or interest in pursuing renewable energy, having said
“When you say wind solar and tide, most every expert that I know says that, if you maximize that in every possible way, the contribution that that would make given the present state of technology is very small, is very small…the truly clean technologies don’t work.”
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has expressed support for nuclear energy, but believes a comprehensive plan including renewable energy and potentially clean coal technology.
“It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option,” his energy plan states. “However, before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed, including security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage and proliferation.”
Sources: Bloomberg, ClimateProgress
Articles Related to Nuclear Power:
- PBMR Contract - 4th Generation Nuclear Power Plant by 2014
- 75% of Greens OK with Nuclear Power
- Reduce, Reuse and Recycle Should Apply to Used Nuclear Fuel
Image courtesy of Wikimedia
Those calculations of windpower costs are fundamentally flawed. Those calculations asume that windgenerators produce constantly their maximum output which is not true. The average power procuced by windgenerators is about 1/4 of the maximum output. This alone quadruples the cost of wind power to 6000 $ - 8000 $ / kw. Nuclear power plants also lasts about twice as long as wind generators. Not to mention the amount of extra powerplants you need when there is no wind. Wind power is a good way off producing about 10 % of the electricity but after that the costs of building more wind power skyrockets.
I’m forced to disagree with you. If you compare energy production statistics (cost per kilowatt-hour of energy produced), wind power is significantly lower than nuclear.
Additionally, wind power does not require ‘extra powerplants’. They do require other plants which can produce baseload power when the wind isn’t blowing sufficiently, but they reduce the amount of non-renewable energy required.
A new totally new design for wind turbines from Australia promises very quiet turbines (really!) and higher efficiency:
http://www.hushenergy.com.au/
(I am not affiliated with these turbines in any way except I am a *fan*)
Wind turbines usually last 20 years. Nuclear reactors last about 60 years now. And nuclear reactors could probably could last a lot longer. Wind only supplies about 1% of our electricity while nuclear supplies 20% of our electricity.
The cheapest way to build nuclear reactors would be on existing sites that already have reactors. Estimates have shown that nuclear capacity could be more than tripled if more nuclear plants were built at sites that already exist.
Large nuclear energy parks of 10 to 40 reactors could reduce the capital cost even further.
Marcel F. Williams
Coal supplies 50% of our energy - does that make it better than nuclear?
If you really want to go into the details, we could talk about the environmental costs of uranium mining, the problem dealing with radioactive waste, the lack of qualified nuclear engineers to run all these proposed new reactors, etc. etc.
However, the costs and risks discussed in the article are accurate.
Dana Nuccitelli said on September 12th, 2008 at 11:42 am
“I’m forced to disagree with you. If you compare energy production statistics (cost per kilowatt-hour of energy produced), wind power is significantly lower than nuclear.”
Could you show me some calculations.
“Additionally, wind power does not require ‘extra powerplants’. They do require other plants which can produce baseload power when the wind isn’t blowing sufficiently, but they reduce the amount of non-renewable energy required.”
Yes but you still need to keep the amount of power produced by wind in reserve. And that reserve has to come from somewhere. If you only produce about 10 % of the total power produced with wind power you can create this reserve simply by adjusting the power output of the existing plants which is relatively cheap. But if you build more windpower you’ll start
needing plants that are shutdown during high wind periods and turned on during low wind periods.
These are the extra poverplants I was talking about.
These power plants are build only to create the power reserve for wind power and should be calculated towards the total cost of wind power.
And I agree with you that wind power is great way of reducing carbon diokside emissions. I only disagree with those wind power enthusiasts who think we should produce 60% of our energy with wind power.
Jarkko - “The [US Dept. of Energy] report found that wind power should cost 6 to 8.5 cents per kWh, even without the current tax credit, including the cost of transmission to access existing power lines. And the cost of integrating the variable wind power into the U.S. grid would be under 0.5 cents/kWh.”
Here’s the report:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf
I agree with you that we shouldn’t rely on wind for 60% of our energy production. I prefer solar thermal, which can provide baseload power. However, we’re getting off topic, since this article was primarily about nuclear power.
Dana Nuccitelli said on September 13th, 2008 at 9:40 am
“The [US Dept. of Energy] report found that wind power should cost 6 to 8.5 cents per kWh, even without the current tax credit, including the cost of transmission to access existing power lines. And the cost of integrating the variable wind power into the U.S. grid would be under 0.5 cents/kWh.”
Those are about the same figures I have seen. The cost of nuclear power varies between 3.1 to 6.4 cents per kWh so it is 0 to 65% cheaper than windpower.
http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ydinvoima
Unfortunately the source is in finnish because I could not find any exact price information from english wikipedia page on nuclearpower. But sources for these prices are from a Finnish indrusty consortium and from study made by the European Union commission which should be reliable.
“I agree with you that we shouldn’t rely on wind for 60% of our energy production. I prefer solar thermal, which can provide baseload power. However, we’re getting off topic, since this article was primarily about nuclear power.”
I know this is offtopic, but just out curiosity I would like to know how would you produce/store energy required during nighttime or during cloudy periods?
“environmental costs of uranium mining”
Negligible compared to the environmental costs of oil drilling and gas flaring, coal mining, oil spills, not even considering the radiation that comes from coal smokestacks themselves.
“lack of qualified nuclear engineers”
Straw man, and in addition there has been an increase in nuclear engineering majors, you may want to check your facts, we will have the needed staff in 5-10 years max
“the problem dealing with radioactive waste”
This is made out to be worse than it really is, what we really should be doing is reprocessing but on-site storage is sufficiently safe, you really think terrorists would choose a waste site over oil or gas pipelines or drilling rigs to conduct attacks?
A very promising form of nuclear power that is being pursued in many countries (slowly in the US) is the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor technology. The technology appears very cost effective, inherently safe, can be located close to demand, more efficient than current technologies, and scalable to the needs of specific areas. The drawback seems to be the large amount of waste. However, it is safer in the modules and essentially useless to any terrorist activity. Also, as demonstrated by the Chinese, a PBMR is useful not only for direct energy production, but also as a Hydrogen “pump” to generate hydrogen for fuel cell applications