Skip to main content

Scientific American: A Second Look at Nuclear

Scientific-American-Nuclear-Wind-SolarMatthew Wald, Energy reporter for The New York Times, has written the cover story for Scientific American's special edition, Earth 3.0. Wald's piece, "Can Nuclear Power Compete?", went online Tuesday and is currently the most-read energy story on the SciAm site. The pull quote,
...Like another moon shot, the launch of new reactors after a 35-year hiatus in orders is certainly possible, though not a sure bet. It would be easier this time, the experts say, because of technological progress over the intervening decades. But as with a project as large as a moon landing, there is another question: Would it be worthwhile?

A variety of companies, including Wallace’s, say the answer may be yes. Manufacturers have submitted new designs to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s safety engineers, and that agency has already approved some as ready for construction, if they are built on a previously approved site. Utilities, reactor manufacturers and architecture/engineering firms have formed partnerships to build plants, pending final approvals. Swarms of students are enrolling in college-level nuclear engineering programs. And rosy ­projections from industry and government predict a surge in construction.
Characteristic of Wald's reporting, the article is even-handed and thorough. One small complaint? The online producers at did not include sidebar material from the print version. Two of the more interesting charts are below.




Anonymous said…
this article provides some information that is based more on green enthusiasm than on reality.

The costs of electricity from windmills is in Germany (22000 MW installed) paid with 9,2 c (euro) about 13 c$
The investment costs for windmills given looks very low. It needs to be mentioned as well that a windmill is usually producing on average 17% of nominal capacity a nuclear plant at more than 80%. Though the investment needs to be multiplied x4
The electricity from windmills is erratic. It does not replace any coal fired plant. These plants needs to be kept on fire in case of low wind. Though this electricity is nearly useless.

Anonymous said…
From one anonymous surfer to another: You don't have any of your facts straight.

A recent wind analysis specific to ERCOT in Texas showed that 80% of wind's production displaced nat gas but about 20% displaced coal (see top of pg. 21).

Here's a whole report on wind capacity factors and how they are generally exaggerated. The report mentions a European average of 21% over the last 5 years.

I'd like to see the source for the German wind cost data. The US is running about 4-8 cents/kWh. That puts wind in a highly competitive position relative to other new plants in the US.

We always have nat gas plants on reserve whether wind is part of the picture or not. These plants are literally paid whether they run or not. If the US had a rational demand side management plan that included voluntary real time pricing measures you wouldn't have to rely on reserve capacity so much.

Electricity is electricity whether it comes from a nat gas plant or a wind plant. The primary criteria
that differentiates the generation technologies should always be cost. For wind this should include the costs of maintaining a reliable supply of electricity in the face of wind's variability. These costs are real (about 1 cent/kWh) but they are hardly the deal breaker that they're made out to be.
Anonymous said…
Would like to leave with a notice that is an anti-wind power site. It's bias is obviously anti wind power. It's articles are not peer reviewed in any fashion and this one's capacity factor numbers are contradicted in articles from the DOE's wind power review 2007 and wind power 2030 articles as well as the IEA. So take windwatch stuff with a grain of salt.

The windpower 2030 from the DOE pegged the additional costs from wind to be lower than 1c/kWhr. Such costs are lowered with better predictive modeling so that standby generators are kept off when not used.

I do find that the overal costs of that are put up are contradictory to other sources. For wind, in 2007, the installed costs went up to the $1700's. The cost per kWhr is totally derived from who knows what since there is no actual reference to any factors like discount rate or what it actually is.

It seems like a delivered cost which would artificially lower the price of nuclear since it wouldn't include the interest charges on the large capital costs. A better overal scheme would be to use levelized costs rather than delivered costs. From I believe the IEA, levelized costs would make coal the cheapest, wind second and nuclear trailing third.

I found the article to be somewhat balance in what could derail nuclear but way too pessimistic in it's evaluation of alternative generation and technologies.

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…