Skip to main content

"Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power"

Business-Risks-Costs-New_Nuclear-PowerIn case some of you missed it, the Climate Progress blog has picked up a study by Craig Severance, Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power [PDF]. The report has quite a number of holes in it, in my opinion, and the biggest hole has to do with a flawed assumption in how the study calculates the cost of electricity from a new nuclear plant. We've been discussing and debating the study over at Climate Progress and the author has been great in responding to most everyone's critiques.

So what's the flaw?

The study claims that a new nuclear plant's capital costs, when all is said and done, will be about $10,500/kW. Many studies that I'm aware of estimate that a new nuclear plant will cost between $5,000-$8,000/kW for the all-in construction costs. Mr. Severance's capital cost assumptions are quite a bit higher than the highest estimate but whatever. That's not the flaw of the study's cost numbers. The flaw is how the cost of electricity from a new nuclear plant is calculated.

Apparently, the cost of electricity from a new nuclear plant comes out to 25-30 cents/kWh, "triple current U.S. electricity rates." The studies I've seen come out to less than half of that number. So what gives? It appears to be the study's assumption for how fast a utility pays off a nuclear plant.

The study assumes a payback period of 40 years. That's way too long. A new nuclear plant will probably be setup to pay back its loans for construction in 15-20 years and maybe faster depending on the financing agreements. Investors don't wait 40 years to receive their money back and in fact 15-20 years is a long time for any investment. Changing this one assumption in the study basically cuts the cost of electricity from a nuclear plant in half and becomes more in line with the conclusions from the other studies I've seen. I've explained this in more detail here.

This is just one of the problems with the study that I, and many others, have found. We're having quite a spirited discussion and debate over at Climate Progress so if you have the time, please do check it out.

Update: The Heritage Foundation blog has their own thoughts on the study.

Comments

Charles Barton said…
Such conclusions might have been justified by projewcting the inflation rates for power facilities that prevailed between 2002 and 2007 ahead into the next decade. But the crash of 2008 not has altered our perception of the future and written paid to such projections. It will be4 some time before we know what future costs we may expect for all forms of power generation during the next few years.
Anonymous said…
With the current economic downturn the price of many of the material needed to build a nuclear plant has gone down considerably. Not to mention that interest rates are so low right now, a utility could issue 30 year power bonds at VERY favorable rates, and by the time the plant came online the economy would be back on the upturn ready to use the extra power.

That said, we are about to hit a period of very serious inflation, so if plants don't get off the ground soon they may never happen. The government is pulling a billion dollars out of thin air, and when you increase the supply of money at the same time production is going down inflation is the only result.
gunter said…
Severeance's estimate is consistent with what both Moody's and Standard & Poor's concluded sometime ago---it is not possible to reliably estimate the final all in cost of nuclear.

Final cost estimates are best guestimates as well as steadily moving targets--upwards.
perdajz said…
Gee Gunter, ya really think that after all this, Moody's and/or Standard and Poor's have a leg to stand on? After scrutinizing their role in the mortgage backed meltdown, are you really suggesting these agencies are credible authorities on the economics of nuclear power?
StephanieB said…
Interested in Nuclear Power? Check out this story http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=MultiPublishing&mod=PublishingTitles&mid=7155F7796F354F21B1183937D847D6DF&tier=4&id=EC420EF0C28C431B82F0DE4D387B21D5&AudID=91D6A3BAF82C4E7A83278901E7E75565
Anonymous said…
Anyone going to the "Managing Outage and New build Risk" conference in Orlando next week (http://www.ds-energy2009.com/)?
Bryan Kelly said…
For some ideas on the construction cost and schedule aspects of the CAP study see:

Surety Bonds for Nuclear Energy Facility Construction Cost-Savings

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…