. 24/7 Space News .
Weighing The Financial Risks Of Nuclear Power Plants

"Some U.S. plants were really well done, and they happen to be the older ones," Dan Kammen, UC Berkeley professor of energy and resources and of public policy said. "If we can learn the lessons from those plants, which are often simplicity of design and standardization of design, then I think nuclear could make a comeback."
by Staff Writers
Berkeley CA (SPX) Apr 05, 2007
Enticed by the gleam of government subsidies, many companies are rushing to invest in nuclear power, expecting that new technology and safer reactors will make them as good an investment as other types of power plants.

A new study appearing in the April 1 issue of the journal Environmental Science and Technology notes, however, that the country's history of unexpected cost overruns when building nuclear plants should sound a cautionary note for power companies that nuclear power may not be financially attractive.

"For energy security and carbon emission concerns, nuclear power is very much back on the national and international agenda," said study co-author Dan Kammen, UC Berkeley professor of energy and resources and of public policy. "To evaluate nuclear power's future, it is critical that we understand what the costs and the risks of this technology have been. To this point, it has been very difficult to obtain an accurate set of costs from the U. S. fleet of nuclear power plants."

The study, conducted by a research team from Georgetown University, Stanford University and UC Berkeley, analyzes the costs of electricity from existing U.S. nuclear reactors and discusses the possibility for cost "surprises" in new energy technologies, including next-generation nuclear power.

What they found was a range of electricity costs, from 3 cents per kilowatt hour to nearly 14 cents per kilowatt hour, with the higher costs attributed to such problems as poor plant operation or unanticipated security costs.

"In the long term, whether these plants are 4 cents or 8 cents per kilowatt hour, they are still a good deal, if you think carbon is an issue," Kammen said, referring to the carbon dioxide emissions from oil, coal and gas-fueled power plants that exacerbate global warming. "If the argument is that cost really needs to be important, then I'm not sure nuclear competes that well."

Some politicians also tout the increased security benefits of having domestic sources of energy, but this doesn't translate into decreased risk for investors, the study notes.

"In a deregulated electricity environment, investors will increasingly share the financial risks of underperformance of generation assets," said co-author Nathan Hultman, assistant professor of science, technology and international affairs at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., and a visiting fellow at the James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization at the University of Oxford. "We don't have a good way of forecasting these risks yet, but looking at the historical data can be one way to understand the possibilities and scenarios for the future."

No new nuclear power plants have been built in the United States in 29 years, in part because they've proved to be poor investments, producing far more expensive electricity than originally promised. In 2005, about 19 percent of U.S. electricity generation was produced by 104 nuclear reactors.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Advanced Energy Initiative of 2006 sought to change that, offering financial incentives for new plant construction that employs new reactor and new safe-operating technologies. Current nuclear plant operators have given notice that they intend to apply for approval of 27 new "generation III+" reactors.

But Kammen points out that in the past, when U.S. companies have introduced new technologies, they've run into unexpected costs that have kept electricity prices high. France, on the other hand, standardized the design of its nuclear power plants and encountered fewer cost surprises.

"Some U.S. plants were really well done, and they happen to be the older ones," he said. "If we can learn the lessons from those plants, which are often simplicity of design and standardization of design, then I think nuclear could make a comeback."

New and safer technologies are essential to making nuclear power more acceptable, he said, but "we need to optimize a few designs, we don't need a proliferation of types of plants, because we have proven we are not good at managing them."

The answer to the increased riskiness is not more government subsidization, he added, but more savvy investment decisions by the companies interested in nuclear power.

The project leader for the study was Jon Koomey, a staff scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a consulting professor in the department of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University. Additional aspects of this large study will be published later this year in Environmental Research Letters, an open-access journal published by the London-based Institute of Physics. The research was supported by the Karsten Family Foundation, the Energy Foundation and the James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization at the University of Oxford.

Email This Article

Related Links
University of California - Berkeley
Civil Nuclear Energy Science, Technology and News



Memory Foam Mattress Review
Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily
XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News


Alstom And Atomenergomash Launch Joint Energy Venture In Russia
MOSCOW, April 2 (AFP) Apr 02, 2007
The French industrial group Alstom and Atomenergomash of Russia agreed Monday to establish a joint venture to build turbines and nuclear reactors, Alstom said in a statement.







  • Call For Removal Of NASA Inspector General
  • HerOrbit.com Cofounders Are Headed to Space
  • NASA Medical Review Team Appointed
  • New Mexico Voters Weigh Spaceport Tax Impost

  • ESA Prepares For A Human Mission To Mars
  • Spirit Studies Rocks in Vicinity Of Home Plate
  • NAU Researchers Find Possible Caves On Mars
  • Opportunity Begins Imaging Of Cape Of Good Hope

  • Progress On The Sea Launch Investigation And Recovery
  • Two New Payloads For Ariane 5
  • Proton-M Carrier With Canadian Satellite To Be Launched April 10
  • South Korea Plans To Launch First Rocket In 2008

  • ESA Signs Arrangement With New Zealand On Tracking Station
  • DMCii To Launch New Higher-Resolution Satellite Imaging Service
  • First Greenhouse Gas Animations Produced Using Envisat SCIAMACHY Data
  • GeoEye Acquires Leading Aerial Imagery Provider From GE Oil And Gas

  • Rosetta And New Horizons Watch Jupiter In Joint Campaign
  • New Horizons Shows Off Its Color Camera In Io Image
  • Alice Views Jupiter And Io
  • A Look From LEISA

  • Hubble's View Of Barred Spiral Galaxy NGC 1672
  • Chandra Sheds Light On Galaxy Collision
  • Meteorites Contain Solar System Clues
  • Elusive Oxygen Molecule Finally Discovered In Interstellar Space By The Odin Satellite

  • Shanghai Vies To Win Battle Of Moon Rovers
  • A Piggyback Solution For Science Versus Exploration
  • Assembling Of Moon Mission Spacecraft Begins
  • Dust-Busting Lunar Style

  • Glonass System To Be Launched By Year-End
  • Haicom Is Proudly Announce The New HI-601VT GPS GSM Real-Time Tracker
  • Comtech To Supply Movement Tracking Systems To US Army
  • Russia Allocates $380 Million For Glonass In 2007

  • The content herein, unless otherwise known to be public domain, are Copyright 1995-2006 - SpaceDaily.AFP and UPI Wire Stories are copyright Agence France-Presse and United Press International. ESA PortalReports are copyright European Space Agency. All NASA sourced material is public domain. Additionalcopyrights may apply in whole or part to other bona fide parties. Advertising does not imply endorsement,agreement or approval of any opinions, statements or information provided by SpaceDaily on any Web page published or hosted by SpaceDaily. Privacy Statement