Ecology Law Currents: Myths of the Nuclear Renaissance

[bananas]

From Berkeley School of Law's new online journal, "Ecology Law Currents".

http://www.boalt.org/elq/C35.01_08_Harding_2008.04.10.php

Myths of the Nuclear Renaissance
Jim Harding*

More than thirty years ago, my now-deceased colleague David Comey was asked to make a presentation before the annual meeting of the Atomic Industrial Forum, then the major trade association backing expansion of nuclear power worldwide.<1> He was asked to deliver that speech because he had built credibility with the press and with key decision makers by being scrupulously careful with his facts and analyses. The industry understood that its reputation—particularly with the media—was poor, and they wanted to understand how David did it. In Comey’s view, there was an easy explanation—the nuclear industry regularly exaggerated and misled.

In the intervening years, not much has changed. The industry still seems to prefer the sound of a splashy argument to a defensible case. Popular articles in the press, some opinion leaders and politicians, and even some environmentalists have bought the notion of a nuclear renaissance. Among other things, we hear that:
1. nuclear power is cheap;
2. learning and new standardized designs solve all past problems;
3. the waste problem is a non-problem, especially if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;
4. climate change makes a renaissance inevitable;
5. there are no other large low-carbon “baseload” alternatives;
6. there’s no particular reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations.

In summer 2006, the Colorado-based Keystone Center convened a panel of about 25 experts from all sides of the compass to investigate the possibility of a major nuclear revival. Participants included representatives from the utility industry (e.g., Southern Company, American Electric Power, and Florida Power & Light), the environmental community (e.g., Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense, National Wildlife Federation, and Pew), two former commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and others. We were asked to look at economics, safety and security (in light of TMI, Chernobyl, and 9/11), waste, and proliferation. The report was released in June 2007 and is relatively sober and free of misleading one-liners.<2>

I. Costs of New Plant Construction

Few people question the economics of existing nuclear plants. Many are twenty to thirty years old, and anything depreciated over such a period ought to be cheap. New plants, however, are not cheap, despite a number of studies that make that claim. The Keystone group looked at the studies, and discarded nearly all of them. They are typically based on vendor projections; reference each other; do not include owner’s costs (contingency for unexpected delays or scope changes, construction management, land, interest costs); and are extremely optimistic with respect to construction time, capital cost, regulatory support, and many other factors. These aren’t assumptions so much as a wish list.

<snip>

[diane in sf]

1. Thank you--good info

[kristopher]

2. My, my, my...

"...The sheer magnitude of the capital investment (e.g., $12–18 billion for a two unit plant) is larger than the book value of many medium-sized electric companies. Finance, cash flow, liquidity, and rate shock will be big challenges. In terms of life cycle cost (inclusive of fuel, operations and maintenance, decommissioning, etc.), these higher capital costs translate into roughly 11–17 cents/kWh “levelized” over the life of the plant.<13> First year costs are nearly twice these values. In real (inflation adjusted) terms, it takes about six years of construction plus 13 years of operation for reactor costs to reach their life cycle levelized cost. These numbers make nuclear power a very indigestible resource for smaller utilities, large utilities unable to put construction work in progress into rate base, any utility with electricity-intensive, price-sensitive industrial loads, any entity building plants in a deregulated market environment, or any entity that sees substantial near-term improvements in costs of renewable technologies. In essence, it is a “bet the company” investment...."


After 20 year from commencing construction they are able to get down to 11-17 cents kWh?

Is that good?
:nuke: