Skip to main content

Should America Build More Nuclear Power Plants?

That's the question that Patrick Kiger at the Science Channel is asking his readers:
So what do you think? Should we build more nuclear power plants? Or should we focus harder on energy conservation and developing solar, wind and geothermal technologies instead?
The short answer, of course, is that we're going to need to build all of those things in order to both meet future demand and to maintain a diverse energy mix that promotes security of supply. There's plenty more, and I encourage our readers to stop by and let Kiger and the Science Channel community know what we think about the issue.

Comments

Gunter said…
Well, maybe not...

AP reports the plan for an Idaho nuclear plant was scuttled based on the economics of building a nuclear plant--a cost projection that is steadily rising even before the first shovel goes in the ground.

Similarly, the same unpredictable cost tag of construction has put the screeching breaks on Scana Corp.'s (South Carolina Electric & Gas) plan to submit an application to NRC. Rather than needing to squirrel away $1.5 to $2.5 billion, the projected price tag has jumped to $6 to $9 billion per unit.

Again, Moody's is saying there is no way to predict the sticker shock.
David Bradish said…
Paul,

I guess you missed my post last week on how construction commodities such as steel and concrete have increased dramatically in price over the past several years. If you had read it you would have found that these price increases are affecting all new power plants and not just new nuclear plants.

According to Platts' Nuclear News Flash last Friday, here's SCANA's explanation for the cancellation:

"We're still very pro-nuclear," he said. "We're just taking a step back and pausing." He cited the rising costs of construction, particularly materials such as steel and concrete, as the reason for the company's hesitancy. He
acknowledged, however, that the increasing cost of materials was "going up across the industry."


Industry meaning power industry.
America should build more nuclear power plants, at the same time developing renewable power like wind and solar, for both of those will be needed if you want to keep the growing economy running.
Gunter said…
I guess Wall Street missed your post as well.
David Bradish said…
No they didn't. Check out page 9 from Moody's October 2007 report - New Nuclear Generation in the U.S.:

Dramatic increases in commodity prices over the recent past, exacerbated by a skilled labor shortage, have led to significant increases in the over-all cost estimates for major construction projects around the world. In the case of new nuclear, the very detailed specifications for forgings and other critical components for the construction process can add a new element of complexity and uncertainty. As noted previously, labor is in
short supply and commodity costs have been extremely volatile. Most importantly, the commodities and world wide supply chain network associated with new nuclear projects are also being called upon to build other generation facilities, including coal as well as nuclear, nationally and internationally. Nuclear operators are also competing with major oil, petrochemical and steel companies for access to these resources, and thus represent a challenge to all major construction projects.


NIRS is the only one who's missing it.
Gunter said…
To the contrary... you cite a few of the reasons why Wall Street is not bullish on "Should America Build More Nuclear Power Plants?"

Again, it takes governments, not markets to build nuclear power.
Anonymous said…
Wind will never be the answer to America's energy issues...neither will water....unless you are talking about the chemical reaction with water. Nuclear is the way to go. It provides the most power, the quickest, and most efficiently. We cant perdict steel and concrete prices. Build now ask questions later. Remember we nee Plutonium reactors at some point as the supply of uranium is limited as fossil fuels. Many people dont realize that some alternative energy sources produce WAY more CO2 than fossil fuels.

Popular posts from this blog

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.


Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…