Nuclear power appears on the verge of collapse in the US. This has profound environmental implications, writes Ahmed Abdulla of the University of California, San Diego. Yet, he adds, there are no simple solutions – and no signs that the trend can be reversed. Courtesy The Conversation.
In 2025, the second of two nuclear reactors at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in California will be shut down. Locally, critics of the technology will rejoice at the fulfillment of their ultimate goal: a nuclear-free California.
At the same time, through the shutdown of its four nuclear reactors, the state will have lost more annual low-carbon electricity than its solar PV and wind plants cumulatively generated in 2016.
There seem to be no innovations or policy changes on the horizon that might provide a respite for the technology in the foreseeable future
Commercial nuclear reactors provide roughly one-fifth of the electricity produced in the U.S. Across the country, they face grave threats to their profitability and, therefore, to their continued operation. Nuclear power’s hard times have come relatively quickly – and show no signs of reversing.
Editor’s note: the chart shows the electricity mix, not the overall energy mix
Nuclear falters
Only a decade ago, nuclear reactors were cash cows. But a combination of low natural gas prices and a boom in solar and wind power has rendered them unable to compete in states with price competition for power. Five of the country’s nuclear plants have shut down in the past decade. Of the remaining 99, at least a dozen more may close in the next.
I see deeply ingrained problems in the industry: an inability to convince policymakers that it can contribute to a low-carbon energy transition, forcing it to resort to other narratives; the difficulty and expense inherent in nuclear innovation; and the failure to improve public perception
Recognizing this, several states have moved to subsidize their nuclear power plants, most recently in New Jersey. But such efforts are arguably temporary fixes, given that the average American nuclear power plant is 37 years old.
Meanwhile, efforts to build new nuclear reactors in this country have been either canceled or beset by substantial delays and cost overruns. There seem to be no innovations or policy changes on the horizon that might provide a respite for the technology in the foreseeable future.
I, along with colleagues, have been investigating the current and likely future prospects of nuclear technologies for the past decade. The industry’s common refrain is that its troubles are the result of unfortunate economic realities, mismanaged federal energy policy, stringent regulation and organized opposition. In my view, that downplays some catastrophic miscalculations on its part.
To be sure, each of the factors that the industry laments does play a role. If the cost of natural gas and renewables had remained high, it’s likely that would have created a modest renaissance in nuclear power plant construction.
Even so, I see deeply ingrained problems in the industry: an inability to convince policymakers that it can contribute to a low-carbon energy transition, forcing it to resort to other narratives; the difficulty and expense inherent in nuclear innovation; and the failure to improve public perception.
Attempts to pivot
Now that the industry is in dire straits, a range of ideas for revivifying it are being hotly debated across the industry and in Congress. In my view, while some of these ideas happen to rely on modest, well-considered arguments informed by history and experience, others are spurious or inappropriate.
For example, some proponents of nuclear power cite national security in their efforts to secure substantial appropriations. These advocates worryabout a world where China and Russia lead in nuclear technology and nuclear power plant exports. In response, some analysts have recommended that the Department of Defense invest in reviving the U.S. civilian nuclear enterprise.
Saddling the Department of Defense with the task of saving the U.S. nuclear industry poses deeply troubling questions regarding its mission and its role in American public life
My research group has investigated the merits of this argument in depth and find it unconvincing. In addition to the regulatory and economic challenges posed by a reactor designed to fulfill a defense mission, saddling the Department of Defense with the task of saving the U.S. nuclear industry poses deeply troubling questions regarding its mission and its role in American public life.
Proponents of nuclear power also suggest commercializing a new generation of nuclear technologies. These envisioned systems would be smaller, cheaper or safer than current reactors. But innovation in nuclear power is different from that in most other industries. It takes roughly US$10 billion to commercialize a new nuclear power system, and the process will undoubtedly require government involvement due to the elaborate testing infrastructure needed and the sensitive nature of nuclear technology.
Our research suggests that government efforts to stimulate innovation in this domain have thus far lacked funding and focus. Even if the federal government – or an extremely generous investor – were to write a check for that amount, I have come to suspect that the likelihood of success would be small.
Public perception
Meanwhile, a small number of the technology’s supporters champion changing the mission of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to focus not only on regulating reactor safety but also on promoting the construction of new nuclear reactors across the country.
In my view, this idea betrays profound ignorance of the technology’s history and public perception challenge. Research shows that nuclear power suffers from worries over safety in a way other energy sources don’t. Even decades ago, researchers highlighted that nuclear power evokes dread in people because they see its risks as unknown, immediate, uncontrollable and potentially catastrophic.
It’s very troubling that the industry has failed to resolve this negative public perception challenge over the past five decades
One explanation for this dread is the lack of trust in the risk communicators associated with the nuclear industry, such as public officials and industry scientists. There’s also the relationship between radiation from a potential nuclear accident and cancer, itself a disease that engenders dread.
It’s very troubling that the industry has failed to resolve this negative public perception challenge over the past five decades. Could a new generation of nuclear technologies realistically overcome some of the public’s dread? Despite an enormous literature on public perception and risk communication, I have found no convincing answer to this question.
The loss of nuclear power in the U.S. will have profound environmental implications, delaying national efforts to mitigate dangerous warming gases down to negligible levels. In 2017, the U.S. nuclear industry avoided 547.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions – providing more low-carbon electricity than solar and wind power combined.
Furthermore, we will increasingly need reliable sources of low-carbon electricity: The world is likely to witness increased electrification over the coming decades while seeking to dramatically reduce emissions.
Those who care about the mitigation of greenhouse gases, like myself, should be deeply concerned that nuclear power appears to be on the verge of collapse in the U.S.
Editor’s Note
Ahmed Abdulla is an Assistant Research Scientist in the Center for Energy Research at UC San Diego and an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University.
Prior to joining UC San Diego, he conducted doctoral work on nuclear economics and nuclear security, investigating the economic and institutional challenges to deploying a new generation of small modular reactors around the world. He holds a Ph.D. in Engineering and Public Policy from Carnegie Mellon University, and a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Princeton University.
This article was first published on The Conversation and is republished here with permission from the author and under the creative commons license of the publisher.
[adrotate banner=”78″]
Bas Gresnigt says
It’s far cheaper and faster to compensate nuclear loss with more wind, solar, geo-thermal and storage (batteries, PHS, PtG with storage in deep earth cavities for long winter dips in wind)
then with new nuclear.
Valentin Stoyanov says
I don’t see Bulgaria in the chart. Ca. 35% of the electricity in my country is generated by two nuclear reactors and still has the lowest price compared to other energy sources.
Karel Beckman says
You are quite right. This seems to be only a selection of countries, other countries are missinjg as well. The original chart can be found here: https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/NuclearShareofElectricityGeneration.aspx
that includes Bulgaria
Bas Gresnigt says
In next decade nuclear power will collapse in all countries where consumers can choose which electricity they buy from which utility.
Simply because now nothing can stop the continued price decrease of wind & solar towards a <3cnt/KWh level in next decade, and further thereafter towards 1.5cnt/KWh…
No sign that new nuclear designs can decrease present new nuclear cost level of ~20cnt/KWh with more than 50%.
Ian Hore-Lacy says
Comparing the LCOE (per kWh generated) costs of occasional inputs of wind and solar with those costs of dispatchable generation is nonsensical. The relevant comparison needs to be the delivered cost of reliable 24/7 supply to meet demand.
Intermittent renewables have considerable costs in the system to cover the times they are not available. At low levels these are manageable, but with higher levels of supply they become very large, eg Germany, and compromise reliability.
Bas Gresnigt says
In Denmark distributed wind produce ~50%.
In Germany distributed wind+solar produce 25%.
Both countries have an ~10 times better supply reliability than USA!
The many thousands of distributed generators don’t fail suddenly or unexpected….
Ian Hore-Lacy says
Well actually they do, in isolation!
Denmark is a wonderful example of wind being effectively backed up by Norway’s (relatively) huge hydro resources. They are a perfect match. Germany has a much greater challenge and a complex situation which I have written up here: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/energiewende.aspx – and of course the continued (and indefinite?) reliance on coal is controversial, torpedoing the early intentions to reduce CO2 emissions by extravagant investment in wind.
Bas Gresnigt says
You suggest that many distributed wind+solar generators can fail suddenly / unexpected at the same moment. Only some can, e.g. when the local grid fails. But due to their distributed nature and the thousands of other generators, those failures have hardly any impact. If you don’t agree, can you explain why?
The interconnection of W.Danish grid with Norway has a capacity of only 1GW (E.Danish grid has no interconnection with Norway). As all interconnections between grids, their interconnections do help but are not decisive.
“continued reliance on coal”
German reliance on coal reduced substantially:
1990 ; coal produced 57%
2000 ; coal produced 52%
2010 ; coal produced 42%
2017 ; coal produced 37% (AGEB figures)
That reduction will accelerate, once all nuclear is off, which is in 2023.
“torpedoing early intentions to reduce CO2”
The prime intention of the Energiewende was and is the fast closure of all nuclear. That the Germans suffered (serious congenital defects and deaths) under Chernobyl fall-out, contributed highly.
Second target was to migrate to a renewable society (we should not consume all and leave nothing for next generations). Climate played hardly any role in the discussions when they decided towards the Energiewende in the fall of 2000.
Jan Veselý says
Always when I see this kind of lamentation how the world was so bad to nuclear energy I am going to ask a question: “How it is possible that there are other industries which are under similar pressure, similar bad public view and still exist and are able to thrive (f.e. chemical industry, pharmaceutics, industrial fishing, coal energy, offshore drilling, …)?” My answer is, because they are profitable, they have a business case. Nuclear power just got stuck in big cost overruns and long delays. QED
Karel Beckman says
Jan I think you are doing the author an injustice. This is exactly the point he is making! He does add that the bad state of the nuclear industry is bad from a climate viewpoint. That’s a different point. But he makes it clear he does not go along with the industry’s lamentations.
Jan Veselý says
We are at the same page with the author about the lamentation. We both think that it is focused on wrong stuff. We are just different with our conclusions. He writes: “Even so, I see deeply ingrained problems in the industry: an inability to convince policymakers that it can contribute to a low-carbon energy transition, forcing it to resort to other narratives; the difficulty and expense inherent in nuclear innovation; and the failure to improve public perception.”
I write: “It’s the money.”
priffe says
It will change and perhaps drastically so when and if other countries without the strange history of activism and political missteps of the West can show that new reactors can be safe and commercially successful. China just launched an EPR and an AP1000, without any attention from the media. It will take years before they are evaluated.
The fossil energy companies are the real foes of nuclear.