Can We Afford Nuclear Energy?
Nuclear power has suffered the greatest collapse of any enterprise in the industrial history of the world. The twentieth century will end with installed nuclear capacity less than 10%, and an ordering rate less than 1%, of the lowest IAEA forecasts made a quarter-century ago. No vendor has made money selling reactors. U.S. in-vestments exceeding a trillion dollars are delivering only about as much energy as biofuels. A nuclear plant with zero capital cost is cheaper to write off (and give away equivalent electricity-saving equipment) than to operate. Nuclear power’s unpleasant capital- and repair-cost escalation and technical surprises are worldwide phenomena, independent of politics. Even France’s nuclear program was outpaced twofold by energy efficiency, bankrupted its operator in all but name, and is unlikely to be replaced by more reactors.
Amory Lovins, November 1999
Hundreds of Billions of Dollars have been Spent on Nuclear Power Technology
The United States has invested hundreds of billions of dollars in research and development to support the nuclear power utility industry over the last five decades. More money has been spent in developing technological solutions for the peaceful use of nuclear power than was spent on the war in Vietnam and the space program combined. The electrical power that was originally thought to be "too cheap to meter" has become one of the most expensive sources of electricity, especially when the R&D and decommissioning expenses are considered. Once the nuclear power plant has reached the end of its life cycle, typically 20 years, the cost of dismantling and storing the now radioactive plant costs billions of dollars. At this point the "guts" of the plant itself are radioactive and require expensive decommissioning and storage for thousands of years.There are many reasons why nuclear energy is more trouble then it is worth and why we should instead select first the "low hanging fruit" of energy efficiency, conventional energy, and renewable energy sources.
Include All the Costs when Comparing Nuclear Power for Alternative Energy Paths
Nuclear power plants have already consumed the lion's share of the federal government's energy research and development budget for decades. Yet still major technological problems remain, such as how to safely and economically store the radioactive waste for thousands of years. Much of the cost of developing, designing, and maintaining nuclear plants have been hidden due to massive taxpayer investment into R&D. When the total costs to taxpayers and rate payers is calculated, nuclear power is revealed to be a pitifully poor investment.
Large Amounts of Capital Funding are Tied Up
Nuclear plants require major investments in capital. Utilities often lobby for legislation that requires rate payers to pay off the investment, regardless of whether or not the plant pays for itself over time. Capital is tied up for long periods of time that otherwise could be invested in energy efficiency or plants that use renewable energy sources. If a fuel cell power plant or gas-fired plant become uneconomical, it takes relatively little resources to turn them off and dismantle them. But to shut down and safely store a atomic plant requires billions of taxpayer and rate payer dollars.
Got Insurance?
If nuclear power is so safe, why are the plants exempt from full liability in case of a catastrophic accident? You are required to carry fire insurance for your house, and auto insurance by your lender. Why are not the nuclear utilities required to carry insurance to cover the damage to local communities in case of a major "event". The nuclear lobby has acquired a liability cap from the federal government which limits their financial responsibilities because it would be too expensive to purchase the full insurance protection.
Security Risks
Nuclear plants provide an easy target for "low tech" terrorists. Why create your own nuclear weapon when you can simply blow up a nuclear plant with conventional weapons? Remember when a piper cub buzzed the White House? Take one crazy terrorist, some explosives, and a piper cub and you could have a release of radioactive material from one of the over one hundred U.S. nuclear plants.
We Sold Them a Reactor for Peaceful Use Only!
As developing nations look to grow their economies, it would be in America's best interest to demonstrate practical energy solutions which don't require large capital investments and the development of high tech infrastructures. If other nations are encouraged to develop nuclear technologies and cultures, those high tech resources also make it easier for unscrupulous governments to develop weapons of mass destruction. Or will their security systems be up to the test of keeping enriched uranium out of the hands of local terrorists? The more atomic fission plants that are constructed world-wide only increase the likelihood of the technology or the fissionable material. Breeder reactors are the most dangerous in that they produce fissionable material which America would not want to see fall into the wrong hands. A suitcase of bomb grade material could be smuggled into the U.S. undetected by the most advanced missile defense system. And how will the prices for enriched uranium fluctuate on the international market if thousands of atomic plants are built world-wide?
Decentralized Power Generation is More Reliable
Centralized nuclear power plants must be completely shut down at times to perform regular maintenance. Accidents or unanticipated "events" can cause the entire plant to go off-line. However, modular solar thermal or photovoltaic plants can be shut down in sections so that parts of the facility are still producing power into the electrical grid. Electrical generating capacity is not severely impacted. Many nuclear plants spend a considerable amount of time off-line, not paying back their investment. As an alternative, hydrogen fuel-cell cars can generate electricity while they are parked. According to General Motors, if just one in twenty five cars in California were fuel-cell powered, they could generate enough electricity to equal the combined capacity of the State's present stationary power plants! And produce virtually no pollution.
But Won't the Hydrogen Economy Require Many New Nuclear Power Plants?
Presently existing renewable technologies can produce all the hydrogen and an efficient economy would require. Wind, solar, hydroelectric, biomass and geothermal can do the job. In fact Iceland is already developing hydrogen filling station which will use geothermal and hydroelectric power. Again, Armory Lovins, June 2003:Electricity from any source is rarely competitive with natural gas for producing hydrogen. Just the operating cost of existing nuclear plants is barely competitive with that of other traditional power plants or with the full cost of gas-fired cogenerated electricity or windpower—even less so when hydrogen or electricity delivery costs are included. New nuclear plants are forever uneconomic. Indeed, hydrogen fuel cells will join their toughest competitors. The hydrogen future, long touted by nuclear enthusiasts as the savior of their failed technology, is just another nail in its coffin.
See also this online Harvard Magazine article and the Hydrogen Future.
Fusion, The Energy Source of the Future?
Nuclear fusion has been characterized as the power source "of the future, and always will be." After decades of federally funded research, including billions of dollars, a practical, controlled fusion reaction has still not been demonstrated. Yet we have a wonderfully productive nuclear fusion plant 93 million miles away...the Sun. Why not use that one first? After all, the ultimate source for all coal, gas, wood, wind, hydroelectric, and biomass energy is the Sun!Despite immense investments, devoted efforts, and dedicated careers, those (nuclear) plants will long stand as a monument to what happens when a technology avoids market and political accountability for long enough to make really big mistakes, and when its advocates develop a reputation for mendacity.
Amory Lovins, November 1999