Skip to main content

Nuclear Question of the Day

What is the more harmful public policy: Germany's stated intention to phase-out all of its nuclear generating capacity, or Western Australia's adamant opposition to allowing uranium mining on its territory? Discuss.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
My vote goes towards the German phase-out.

WA's ban, if it were to somehow stay intact for multiple decades could actually pave the way towards the US moving to fuel recycling and possibly even towards incorporating a thorium cycle into the mix. If WA suffers ecnomically, tough for them.

The German phase-out will hammer that country's industrial economy. The current generation of solar and wind power is, as we all know, too inconsistent to provide more than an occasional cushion to the grid. A Germany that must de-industrialize to some extent is a poorer and eventually more radical Germany, as the money that fuels their Welfare State dries up and people look for scapegoats and possibly turn towards even more idiotic policies than what the Greens have stuck them with.

A weaker, poorer Germany is, in my opinion, nothing but bad news for Europe and the world at large.
Anonymous said…
I believe that the German nuclear phaseout is the more harmful policy. The German nuclear phaseout not only is destructive to the European Commission's goal of carbon emissions reductions, it also is destructive to investment climate.

In fact, I believe that one of the main reasons the nuclear phaseout was put in place was to effectively "discriminate" against nuclear energy by making the lifetime of investment return on a nuclear power plant less than its realistic engineering lifetime.

Utilities in Germany have invested billions of dollars in their nuclear power plants. The first few years of plant life are time in which the utility pays back the "mortgage," whereas the later years of plant life are the time in which the utility earns a profit, minus operating expenses, payroll, taxes, fees, and fuel.

The "phaseout" policy cuts the life of the plant off before its engineering life expires. In other words, profitable years of service are cut out.

The effect is similar to being forced to scrap one's car immediately after the note expires...and not being able to drive the car for some years while not paying a note on the vehicle. Can you imagine being forced, by law, to scrap a car after just 3, 4, or 5 years, when the actual serviceable life of the car is around 8-10 years? Defunct nuclear power plants have basically no real estate value but have decommissioning costs.

The German nuclear phaseout has the effect of encouraging utilities to build fossil-fuel power plants. In Germany's case, this means new coal-fired plants.

This brings Germany into conflict with the EC's carbon emissions reduction goals, as well as imposing the burdens of increased fossil fuel particulate emissions on Germany's health system, which is publicly financed. These are "hidden costs" of Germany's "nuclear phaseout" policy that are not accounted for by the policy makers.

The Western Australia policy, while shortsighted, allows the uranium to remain in the ground for another day when the policy gets reversed.

Before it's mined, the uranium in the ground is just a bunch of rocks that are counted in theoretical energy reserves. It's not a multi-billion dollar set of investments that engineers, banks, construction workers, and welders have spent years to develop.

The limits on extraction of the ore in Western Australia do cause some constraint in supply and tends to push up prices of uranium worldwide. However, a higher price makes it more profitable to mine slightly lower-grade deposits in other locations like Canada that would not be profitably mined at lower prices.

The other financial impact is the theoretical "opportunity cost" for Australian mining firms that can't mine the ore. This is similar to the theoretical "opportunity cost" that is routinely experienced by mining companies when ore prices [for any ore like gold etc.] are lower than is profitable for the mining company to extract the ore.

Both of these factors are relatively minor when compared with the major costs and hidden costs associated with the German policy.

To reiterate, the German policy has the following major negative impacts:

-decreases profitable service life of nuclear power plants
-forces utilities to invest money prematurely/unnecessarily in new fossil-fuel fired power plants
-reduces Germany's competitive advantage because profitability of utilities is reduced and because utilities' funds are tied up in unnecessary investments
-brings Germany into conflict with EC carbon emissions reduction goals
-imposes "hidden cost" of health impacts from fossil fuel particulate emissions on publicly-financed health care system
-imposes potential future costs if carbon emissions were to be taxed
Anonymous said…
My vote is also with the German phase-out. Uranium mining in WA is an opportunity that they may choose to pursue or not. Power production shortfalls in Germany will hit the whole economy, and impact the rest of Europe by the hobbling of one its key industrial members.

One of the keys which Ruth brings out also is the destruction of invested infrastructure. In a way all wealth is the result of infrastructure (otherwise we would all be hunter-gatherers still). The more value that can be extracted from each infrastructure investment, the more wealth is available for future investment and development and to support our advanced lifestyles (eg. internet!).

I think there are some hopeful signs that the folly of this German policy is going to become sufficiently apparent that it is reversed, although the timing is getting tight, and the closure of the Bulgarian reactors recently shows that the tide is not turned yet.
Randal Leavitt said…
The German and Western Australian policies are only harmful if you think that high tech hospitals, electric trains, the internet, and automation are good. If you hate modern life (or like to pretend you do) and you think that people should run around naked in the forest and eat bugs, then these German and Australian policies are not harmful - they are steps toward utopia. The Greens, through their well organized political actions, are dragging us all toward their ideal state of more primitive living. And they will gloat and praise themselves when we get there. I, however, won't go willingly into that dark green night.
J Wheeler said…
I have to vote for the Germans here. Germany's Green Party policies overflow into the policies of the European Union affecting all of Europe.

One needs to look no further than the premature shutdowns of Kozloduy Units 3 and 4 in Bulgaria as evidence; removing 880 MW of safe, emissions free, low cost energy from service and replacing it with Russian natural gas. In the process Bulgaria was transformed from a net energy exporter to a net importer, and Russia's strangle-hold on the Eastern European energy supply was further solidified.

This transgression against humanity was accomplished to support an out-dated EU policy that ignores science in favor of the Green Party's agenda to rid the world of the "evils of nuclear energy."

John Wheeler
This Week in Nuclear
Anonymous said…
The comments posted are all quite right and to the point, but I'm not too worried. I have a feeling that both policies are about to be overturned. The Germans will overturn their brutally stupid phaseout as soon as it hits their pocketbooks hard enough, or they realize that the nuclear plants would simply be replaced by coal plants. It's ironic that the country that invented the petrochemical industry would turn their backs on nuclear power in favor of windmills. And the Aussies will overturn their policy as soon as they pull their collective heads out of the sand and realize they are literally leaving buried treasure in the ground.
Anonymous said…
Here's another vote for the German phaseout. I live in Germany, and I couldn't care less what Australia is doing. We could get fresh uranium from anywhere, dig it up ourselves or get a clue and recycle the slightly used fuel that is currently mislabelled as "unsolvable waste problem". Some engineers that could design the necessary advanced reactors should even be still around.

Unfortunately, with the stupid phaseout, all that doesn't even matter.

I wonder what would happen if the power utilities had the balls to go on strike and turned all nuke plants off right away. Should be interesting to see the Greens trying to talk away the resulting brown outs...
Anonymous said…
I guess it depends on how you define ‘damaging’.

I lived for several years in Australia and am now in central Europe – so here are my tuppence. My understanding is that both positions of interest have mostly political roots (shock, horror! I know).

In Oz, Labour party controlled Western Australia does not want to kowtow to the Liberal federal government’s recent interest in Nuclear Power. My understanding is that the WA Labour leaders came to power with an anti-Nuclear stance being a central theme of their election. But the federal Labour party is now under some pressure to modify its own position, in particular the ridiculous three mines policy there.

In Germany it’s not too different; the current position is one of convenience so a coalition government could be formed. Positions are starting to change, but those in power (or those slowly conceding it) can be expected to want to save face.

This is no justification of the above, but merely my view. Is either position damaging? I don’t really think so since there have been recent news articles suggesting changing winds in both camps (google Austria-Nuclear and Germany-Nuclear and you’ll find several examples within the past few months).

So, I’ll pick item ‘C’ – the United States’ GNEP program, technological and leadership ambitions, etc. as stated in the DOE’s recently released GNEP strategic plan; contrasted against the US political will as manifested by real government spending commitments. [point being that the requested FY 2007 GNEP programme budget request of $250 million (which was/is being mostly denied) amounts to less than a single day’s activities in Iraq @ $100 billion/yr].

With regard to global energy policy, and in particular nuclear energy, the last thing the world needs now is US techno-political window-dressing without credible, tangible commitments.
Anonymous said…
The earlier post said, "So, I’ll pick item ‘C’ – the United States’ GNEP program..." and then states that the low funding to date for GNEP is evidence of "US techno-political window-dressing without credible, tangible commitments."

Actually, the $2 billion that U.S. utilities will have spent by the end of this year preparing for new nuclear construction, and the large number of plants now in queue for licensing, is a pretty impressive commitment.

On the other hand, GNEP is about moving back to reprocessing, and whether this happens soon or 20 years later is about as important as whether Australia decides to mine the extra uranium now or 20 years later. There's plenty of uranium, and Yucca Mountain can hold a lot of spent fuel if the capacity cap is taken off, so we should make sure that it makes economic sense before we rush into building a big reprocessing plant.
Anonymous said…
$2 Billion to prepare for further construction!? Where did that number come from? I would be interested in a source if you've got one. It sounds positive, but $2 Billion and no plant orders… it’s a bit depressing as well.

And I agree, the items listed in my comment aren't really that risky in the near term (but then neither are the two items posed in the original question).

But I'm trying to look beyond... both beyond the next decade or two and beyond the US boarders to long-term, sustainable global nuclear energy development and deployment. And in that context, I think my concerns remain valid.

Finally, I would be careful about stacking the potential of Yucca Mountain up against reprocessing. Keep in mind that there are currently ‘zero’ licensed geologic repositories on the planet, while functioning reprocessing facilities have operated for some time in Japan, France, the Russian Federation, and the UK.

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin