Skip to main content

Union of Concerned Scientists Needs to Do a Bit More Research on Their Nuclear Claims

Mr. Elliott Negin, media director for the Union of Concerned Scientists, published the same jaded piece at Seeking Alpha and Greentech Media on how nuclear power is “Too Costly to Revive.” He begins by painting a somewhat rosy picture of the nuclear industry but then begins to dish it out by discussing the “industry’s Achilles’ heel” (cost of construction).

The nuclear industry likes to point out that it has low production costs, which it does. What it doesn't mention, however, are its rapidly escalating capital costs, those associated with paying the cost of plant construction, including financing.

Well, we like to tout the good cost numbers of nuclear and of course our critics like to point out the not-so-good numbers. So which is it?

According to EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2010 released last month, nuclear’s estimated costs are definitely competitive with other technologies.

If you look at the total levelized unsubsidized costs of the emission-free technologies, nuclear is a little bit more expensive than biomass, gas w/CCS and geothermal. Nuclear comes out ahead, though, of coal w/CCS, hydro, wind and solar. The unsubsidized numbers for wind and solar do not look so pretty.

So according to at least one government source, nuclear is quite competitive. Interestingly enough, in UCS’ Blueprint report that Mr. Negin cites, UCS presents older EIA cost numbers showing nuclear is competitive as well (p. 77, pdf). It appears that Mr. Negin’s “too costly to revive” claims are undermined by UCS’ own report.

The mysterious 50 percent default rate myth

Again, Mr. Negin:

based on the industry's financial track record, the Government Accountability Office estimated that the average risk of default on a federal loan guarantee for nuclear plant construction is 50 percent.

No link was provided to the GAO report mentioned here and when looking into the GAO report UCS referenced in their Climate Blueprint study (pdf), there was no mention of a 50 percent default rate for nuclear (pdf). So where does this come from?

Fortunately, since we’ve been reading UCS’ bunk reports on nuclear for a number of years, it looks like Mr. Negin is referring to this 2008 GAO report on loan guarantees (pdf).

Unfortunately for UCS, the GAO report didn’t make any such 50 percent default claim. Here’s the only mention of the default rate in the report (page 19):

Calculated from table 6 of the Federal Credit Supplement, Fiscal Year 2009. The assumptions presented for the LGP [Loan Guarantee Program] were a default rate of 50.85 percent and a recovery rate of 50 percent, which result in a loss rate of 25.42 percent when multiplied together.

According to GAO, the 50 percent default rate applies only to the loan guarantee program, not nuclear. It gets better.

If we go to table 6 of the Federal Credit Supplement that GAO cites, we will also find in row 46 in the Excel file that the assumed default rate for the loan guarantee program is 50 percent. There’s a note, however, and the note says this about the program on row 138:

Assumptions reflect an illustrative example for informational purposes only. The assumptions will be determined at the time of execution, and will reflect the actual terms and conditions of the loan and guarantee contracts.

Wait, you mean there’s no real data behind the 50 percent default rate? It’s only an “illustrative example”? Hmm, it looks like it pretty much kills UCS’ default claims.

If UCS says it then it must be right?

Back to the UCS Media Director:

The [UCS Climate Blueprint] peer-reviewed study found that a combination of low-carbon energy polices would economically reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation 84 percent by 2030. New nuclear plants would not be an cost-effective part of the generation mix…

Aw shucks. Over here, I guess we’re laboring under the delusion that cost-effective nuclear WILL be a part of the mix. A number of EIA and EPA studies confirm it, EPRI says it and even the National Academy of Sciences agrees, not to forget President Obama and the Secretary of Energy, among others. If one is really seeking alpha (financial value), truth will come in handy.

Comments

Gwyneth Cravens said…
There you go again David, relying on fact-based numbers. Home run!
The two best carbon neutral power plants on the chart, nuclear and biomass, could actually be complimentary systems if some of the nuclear capacity is used to manufacture hydrogen.

The oxygen produced from electrolytic hydrogen production could be used to significantly increase the electrical efficiency and reduce the capital cost of the biomass power plant while the CO2 from the biomass power plant could be synthesized with the hydrogen to produce carbon neutral: gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, methanol,methane, and dimethyl ether.
crf said…
I'd be skeptical about the costs of coal and natural gas with CCS. No one has ever built a commercial CCS coal or gas plant. CCS is dependent on geology. CCS cannot be easily retrofitted to plants. And you can build a coal plant or gas plant without CCS and it will be cheaper. For every coal plant built, its proponents will argue for not building it with CCS, because it is just "one plant" added to thousands of coal plants in the world and so will be a rounding error in reducing GHG. Coal proponents will win a large proportion of those fights.

Banking on Carbon Capture and Storage as a crucial part of carbon reductions is like playing Russian roulette with an unknown number of bullets in the chamber. It should only be a backup or side plan: the main plan should be electricity without GHG in the first plan.
SteveK9 said…
The real answer to these critiques is going to come when Asia is completing large reactors for less than $1B. Which will proabably be the case within 15 years.
sault said…
Do your research before you criticize others:

CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high--well above 50 percent. The key factor accounting for this risk is that we expect that the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources. In addition, this project would have significant technical risk because it would be the first of a new generation of nuclear plants, as well as project delay and interruption risk due to licensing and regulatory proceedings.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4206&type=0

Written in 2003 so you can't claim the CBO was a bunch of liberal hippies then either!
David Bradish said…
sault, why did you bring up CBO? There was no mention of them in the post.

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…

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…

Innovation Fuels the Nuclear Legacy: Southern Nuclear Employees Share Their Stories

Blake Bolt and Sharimar Colon are excited about nuclear energy. Each works at Southern Nuclear Co. and sees firsthand how their ingenuity powers the nation’s largest supply of clean energy. For Powered by Our People, they shared their stories of advocacy, innovation in the workplace and efforts to promote efficiency. Their passion for nuclear energy casts a bright future for the industry.

Blake Bolt has worked in the nuclear industry for six years and is currently the work week manager at Hatch Nuclear Plant in Georgia. He takes pride in an industry he might one day pass on to his children.

What is your job and why do you enjoy doing it?
As a Work Week Manager at Plant Hatch, my primary responsibility is to ensure nuclear safety and manage the risk associated with work by planning, scheduling, preparing and executing work to maximize the availability and reliability of station equipment and systems. I love my job because it enables me to work directly with every department on the plant…