I have found, however, that the benefits of nuclear are often presented without an acknowledgement of the drawbacks (here's a good example of that, from the Department of Energy). When, in fact, the drawbacks far outweigh the benefits.
The benefits of nuclear energy
Nuclear energy is often touted as a "clean" energy source. Supporters claim it has zero-emissions and is therefore climate friendly; it doesn't release harmful pollutants that contribute to acid rain, smog, lung cancer, and cardiovascular disease; it has a small land footprint, and produces very little waste; and it isn't intermittent like solar and wind, so it can reliably produce baseload power (nuclear power plants have an average capacity factor of 92.3 percent, meaning they reliably operate at full power on 336 out of 365 days per year).
Supporters of nuclear energy claim that if our goal is to move toward clean, reliable, sustainable, and emission-free energy, it only makes sense that nuclear should remain on the table.
The drawbacks of nuclear energy
1. Construction delays
The time it takes to build nuclear power plants is increasing: construction took 5 years in 1970, 15 years in 1980, and as many as 20 years today.
2. Underestimated costs
Because power plants do not earn income during construction, longer construction times translate directly into higher finance charges. No nuclear plant built in the last 50 years in the United States has been at or under budget. According to Congressional Budget Office, the 75 nuclear plants built between 1966 and 1986 were on average three times more expensive than their builders had originally estimated.
In Canada, the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station started construction in 1981 at an estimated cost of $7.4 billion, and finished in 1993 at a cost of $14.5 billion. And, in Augusta, Georgia, as of 2020, the Vogtle Plant is still only half complete after nine years of construction. It is more than five years delayed and has doubled from the original $14 billon cost projection to nearly $30 billion. [1]
3. Nuclear energy is not emissions-free
A 20 year construction schedule means that consumers must rely on dirty coal or natural gas in the mean time. Moreover, fossil fuels are used for mining and refining uranium ore. So, while nuclear may not directly produce greenhouse gasses and harmful pollution, it does so indirectly, by relying on dirty energy sources like fossil fuels and coal. From the view of climate change, it makes no difference. The construction and extraction processes needed for nuclear energy should be included in the assessment of the environmental impact of the energy source.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that we have 12 years to prevent global temperatures exceeding 1.5 °C of warming. Thus, building more nuclear plants now or any time in the near future almost guarantees the crisis that we're trying to avoid.
4. Water use
Nuclear reactors boil water to make steam and use water to keep the reactor cores cool. To avoid potentially catastrophic failure, these systems need to be kept running at all times, and require water at all times. As a consequence, 320 billion gallons of water were consumed by nuclear power plants in the US in 2015. The Palo Verde plant in Arizona uses 20 billion gallons of treated water every year. This water represents about 25 percent of the treated water in the greater Phoenix area.
Is this a sustainable use of treated water? It seems to me the answer is obviously no. Climate change could soon force Arizona into a water crisis, and with 25 percent of treated water diverted for electricity production, they could end up in a real pickle. While on the other hand, solar PV doesn't require any water on a marginal basis, and Arizona has more than enough free solar energy. If we're really worried about sustainability, it's a no-brainer that we should invest in solar, wind, and storage instead.
To make matters even worse for nuclear, some plants draw water from natural water sources, and when they do, fish and other wildlife get caught in the water intake structures. While this is an issue for all power plants with water-cooled systems, the problem is more acute for nuclear facilities. One study investigated impacts from 11 US coastal power plants and estimated that in 2003, a single nuclear plant killed close to 3.5 million fish.
5. Decommissioning costs
Decommissioning power plants is the process of cleaning up after the facilities are retired. The reactors can stay radioactive for thousands of years, so proper disposal is necessary. For US reactors, the expected total decommissioning costs range from $544 to $821 million.
Therefore, investing in just one new nuclear facility means committing to spending more then half a billion dollars somewhere down the line. If we assume that a 1 MW solar farm costs roughly $1 million to install, a 500 MW solar farm could be built for the cost to tear down a single nuclear plant.
And these figures assume no meltdowns or natural disasters. The cost of the Fukushima disaster cleanup is not yet known, but cost estimates are around $100 billion. This is why no private insurance companies are willing to fully insure nuclear power plants.
6. Nuclear can't compete with renewables plus storage
Excluding the cost of meltdown damage and radioactive waste storage, the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for a new nuclear plant in 2018 is $151/MWh. [2] This compares with $43/MWh for onshore wind and $41/MWh for utility-scale solar PV from the same source. Meaning, as of 2018, a new nuclear power plant costs 2.3 to 7.4 times that of an onshore wind farm or utility solar PV farm, take 5 to 17 years longer between planning and operation, and produces 9 to 37 times the emissions per unit electricity generated. [3]
Additionally, operations and maintenance and fuel costs together are adding 5 percent per year to the cost of nuclear, and will do so for the foreseeable future. [4] This, in addition to the rising construction costs, means that nuclear energy is on a "negative learning curve" -- it's getting more expensive and resource intensive as more plants are built. Typically, the more a good or service is produced, the less it costs. Not with nuclear energy.
A 2017 analysis by Bloomberg showed that over half of US nuclear plants were running at a loss. With the cost of solar, wind, and storage falling every year, nuclear energy is economically unsustainable. The only thing propping up the industry is the massive subsidies and federal support. Take those away and industry will collapse.
References
1. Jennifer Rennicks. "Overbudget, Delayed Plant Vogtle Nuclear Expansion Continues", September 26, 2018 https://cleanenergy.org/news-and-resources/overbudget-delayed-plant-vogtle-nuclear-expansion-continues-2/
2. Lazard’s levelized cost of energy analysis—version 12. https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf
3. Mark Z. Jacobson. "100% Clean, Renewable Energy and Storage for Everything", Cambridge University Press, December 22, 2019. https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook.html
4. Seba, Tony. Clean Disruption of Energy and Transportation: How Silicon Valley Will Make Oil, Nuclear, Natural Gas, Coal, Electric Utilities and Conventional Cars Obsolete by 2030. First Edition (2014). Page 167.
References
No comments:
Post a Comment