Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman declared that we must “safely expand the use of nuclear energy – in this country and across the world” during a speech at the Middle East Institute’s 60th Anniversary Conference in Washington, DC today.
Referencing the conference’s theme – developing new approaches to enduring conflicts – Bodman focused his comments on energy concerns, specifically the “global dependence on fossil fuels.”
“What I’m saying, is that this is a global problem and it goes like this: if we are to encourage economic growth around the world if we are to raise living standards for all people of all nations the world needs a clean, affordable, diverse energy supply,” Bodman said.
Bodman noted that the president’s Advanced Energy Initiative and Global Nuclear Energy Partnership could also play a role in developing a lasting solution to the world’s growing energy demand.
He said, “GNEP aims to address our growing global energy demands in a way that will foster economic development around the world, improve our environment, responsibly manage nuclear waste, and significantly reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation and terrorism."
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Energy, Electricity, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman, Advanced Energy Initiative, Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.
Referencing the conference’s theme – developing new approaches to enduring conflicts – Bodman focused his comments on energy concerns, specifically the “global dependence on fossil fuels.”
“What I’m saying, is that this is a global problem and it goes like this: if we are to encourage economic growth around the world if we are to raise living standards for all people of all nations the world needs a clean, affordable, diverse energy supply,” Bodman said.
Bodman noted that the president’s Advanced Energy Initiative and Global Nuclear Energy Partnership could also play a role in developing a lasting solution to the world’s growing energy demand.
He said, “GNEP aims to address our growing global energy demands in a way that will foster economic development around the world, improve our environment, responsibly manage nuclear waste, and significantly reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation and terrorism."
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Energy, Electricity, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman, Advanced Energy Initiative, Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.
Comments
The French government built 58. Now, that might not be the American way, but everyone knows (or should know) that the most important cost for building reactors is the cost of capital, which depends on construction time and interest rates.
Construction time has hopefully been dealt with by the new COL process, as the biggest delay always was stupid licensing and the silly and obstructive American judicial system.
Interest rates is something different. I read somewhere that Exelon thought they would have to pay a horrendous 9 % interest on capital if they build a new reactor.
As expansion of nuclear energy is a a national security interest, the reasonable thing for the government to do would be to present utilities and investors with loan guarantees. This would reduce the discount rate to 1-2 % above inflation (since a State has a competitive advantage over corporations when it comes to loaning money), something that would have an immense effect on the preice of new nuclear power.
The effect would be even greater on wind power as it is even more capital intensive than nuclear power.
This subsidy should be extended to all CO2-free domestic energy projects in which the government gets required oversight, (so tax payer money is not willfully squandered). It would be both more fair and useful than the current Energy bill subsidies which are, frankly, rather tasteless.
Of course, an even better (but politically impossible) idea is that the government just built the 250 reactors itself.
It would be cheaper than the Iraq debacle...
The last energy bill does include loan guarantees "that avoid, reduce or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. These technologies include nuclear energy facilities, renewable energy, coal gasification and hydrogen fuel-cell technology."
Exelon's interest rates would be that high because they are in a deregulated market. That's why almost all of the current applications for new plants in the U.S. are in the Southeast states where they are all in regulated markets.
On a per kilowatt basis wind is more expensive than nuclear. However, an investor is only paying millions of dollars to build wind farms of only a couple hundred megawatts and not billions of dollars for nukes. So the risk is not really there for wind. What helps them most are the production tax credits.
Interesting comment. I believe that Eric mentioned to me once that you are an economist by training. I wonder what your reaction would be if someone suggested that it is possible to build much smaller nuclear plants that have initial cost structures much closer to those of wind farms?
Rod Adams
Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
I'm actually a mathematician by training.
Good question about smaller nukes. I would say that if you could keep your production costs below 2 cents per kWh then a smaller nuke plant could compete very nicely.
The smaller units of the current fleet are finding that even though they are operating at 90% or better they are still more expensive then the bigger plants. That's why you're not seeing anyone buying the AP 600 because it's levelized costs turn out to be much more costly.
The average size of the existing fleet is about 1,000 MW. The average size of the new plants is about 1,350 MW. Bigger is more cost competitive.
However, the drawback that you know is that it's much harder to finance a billion dollar project then a million dollar project. And at the same time, electric utilities are not huge conglomerates that can fork over the cash easily. So it's a challenge.
But if you could build a nuke under less than 100 MW and be competitive then you've got something going for you. You could also kill the centralized and decentralized argument.
Don't get me started on electricity deregulation. To quote Fred Banks
"Electricity deregulation is failing or has already failed whereever it has been implemented."
http://www.energypulse.net/centers/author.cfm?at_id=665
Or something like that. As far as I am concerned it's just one big ponzi scheme brought by partly corporate greed, but mainly by neoliberal ideology.
Actually, since deregulation results in higher power prices (and ultimately to higher power costs due to higher discount rates on new plants) I utilize this when I have been looking at different (American) utility stock to buy.
Owning nuclear reactors (or coal and hydro plants) in deregulated markets= cash machine.
Owning or building gas or oil fired plants, especially where nuclear hydro and coal is prevalent= cash drain
Building nuclear reactors (or anything accept combined cycle turbines) in deregulated markets= cash drain.
Building or owning reactors where oil and gas generation runs rampant= cash machine.
Building or owning reactors where nuclear, coal or hydro is prevalent= good, but not as good as it could be.
Constellation looks pretty attractive, Entergy very unattractive, Exelon I don't know. Many of the plants in the South East.
Don't be thinking you look silly not knowing about the loan guarantees. You're from Sweden and know a substantial amount about U.S. energy and could probably beat most Americans in a quiz.
Exelon does really well. Over the past year their stock has increased 16% despite having huge problems with the state governor on getting decent rates. As well, one of their subsidiaries, Commonwealth Edison, received an "impairment of the goodwill at Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd), resulting in a non-cash charge of $776 million." And yet they are still trucking due in large part from their nukes.
I wonder what their p/e would be without that? I'd better read their report and bring out the calculator.