by Robert Bryce Info
Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, recently published his fourth book, Power Hungry: The Myths of "Green" Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future.
Obama and the GOP keep pushing nuclear power, but for all their money and rhetoric, their proposals were doomed even before Japan. Robert Bryce on how natural gas killed domestic reactors.
President Barack Obama told a crowd in Prague two years ago that “we must harness the power of nuclear energy on behalf of our efforts to combat climate change.” In January, in his State of the Union address, and again in last month’s proposed budget for 2012, he backed up his rhetoric with some $36 billion in federal loan guarantees for a spate of new reactors. Republicans, led by Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, have been his partner, with Alexander giving speeches and writing numerous op-eds, declaring that the U.S. “can’t afford to ignore nuclear power.”
During his post-earthquake press conference Friday, Obama reiterated his pro-nuclear stance, saying that the U.S. would, by 2035, be getting 80 percent of its electricity from "clean energy” which he described as "wind and solar and homegrown biofuels, along with natural gas, clean coal, and nuclear power."
Here’s the truth, though: This much-ballyhooed nuclear renaissance was little more than a mirage. Love fission or hate it, the rebirth of America’s nuclear sector—with some 20 reactors reportedly planned for the next 15 to 20 years—was going nowhere fast. And this stillborn rebirth was readily apparent for months before the magnitude 9.0 earthquake and tsunami devastated northeastern Japan, damaging several of the country’s reactors and giving the world its worst nuclear crisis since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.
Needless to say, the news from Japan, especially for hard-core nuclear advocates like me, depresses on many levels, as it will clearly slow down popular demand and give fresh fodder to anti-nuclear environmental groups, most notably, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace.
“How can you compete with natural gas when it’s priced at less than $4?”
Survivors take shelter at an evacuation center at Watari town in Miyagi prefecture on March 14, 2011. Inset: US President Barack Obama (Photo: Getty Images; AP Photo)
But the forces that already undermined the revival of America’s nuclear sector are largely economic, not political. The most formidable obstacle: the ongoing shale gas revolution. The ability of drillers to unlock vast quantities of natural gas has resulted in an avalanche of methane production and a resulting collapse in prices. Last year, U.S. gas production hit its highest level since 1973. And despite a very cold winter, natural-gas prices have generally stayed below $4 per thousand cubic feet, which is about half the level seen as recently as 2008.
On Sunday morning, I discussed the economics of nuclear with a senior executive in the U.S. nuclear utility sector. He asked, “How can you compete with natural gas when it’s priced at less than $4?” The answer, said the executive, who asked that his name not be used because he was not authorized to speak the media, is, “you can’t.”
Indeed, last September, Exelon Corporation, one of the largest nuclear operators in the U.S., decided to delay construction of a planned two-reactor project in Texas. The company explained that natural-gas prices needed to be at least $8 for the project to make economic sense. Other officials in the nuclear sector have told me that natural-gas prices need to be above $7 for reactors to be economically viable.
Combine low natural-gas prices—which, by the way, are perhaps the only bright spot in an otherwise bleak commodities market)—and the high cost of a big new reactor, say, a Westinghouse AP1000, which may cost $5 billion to $7 billion, and the obstacles facing nuclear become even more obvious. Electric providers can build gas-fired generators much faster than new nuclear plants. Better still, they can do it for one-fifth the cost and avoid the nightmarish process of nuclear licensing and permitting. The myriad of utility regulators at the state level as well as the glacial pace of action at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, have helped prevent the startup of a new nuclear plant in the U.S. since 1996.
The punch line is this: Long before we started hearing about the possibility of reactor meltdowns in Japan, it was obvious that for the foreseeable future, the U.S. electric sector would only build, at most, four reactors. Aside from two reactors (Summer 2 and 3) that may be built in South Carolina and two others (Vogtle 3 and 4) in Georgia, the U.S. nuclear sector has no solid prospects for new commercial reactor construction. And those four reactors are only economically viable because the companies pushing them are being allowed by those states’ regulators to recover the costs of the plants as they are being built. In other states, new reactor projects must prove their profitability and have power-purchase agreements before construction. As you might expect, even with government-backed loan guarantees, bankers aren’t rushing to finance bet-the-company-size construction projects with budgets of $10 billion to $14 billion for a plant with 2,000 megawatts of capacity that might not come online for a decade.
While multiple factors will prevent nuclear from gaining much traction in the U.S. in the medium term, the enormous power densities achievable with fission assures its commercial viability for many decades to come. Among the more attractive prospects: licensing and construction of modular reactors by companies like Babcock & Wilcox, which could, given their lower cost, allow utilities to invest relatively modest amounts of capital in reactors that could provide baseload capacity. In addition, scientists in India, as well as at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island, continue working on research that could allow use of thorium in the reactor core. That element (which sits two doors to the left of uranium on the Periodic Table) is far more abundant in the earth than uranium and when used in a reactor, may help reduce the proliferation of weapons-grade material.
Furthermore, the world’s insatiable hunger for electricity assures that nuclear energy endures as the best hope for large-scale, dispatchable production of electrons from low- or no-carbon sources. That’s essential given soaring global electricity demand. In November, the International Energy Agency projected that global electricity demand will soar by some 80 percent by 2035. (Over that same time period, the IEA expects oil demand will grow by 19 percent, coal by 20 percent, and natural gas by 44 percent.)
No country is going nuclear faster than China. On Friday, the Japanese newspaper Asahi Shinbun published an interview with Liu Wei, the vice president of China Nuclear Power Engineering Corp., who said that China will build 60 new reactors by 2020. The article ended with Liu discussing his visit to Japan. Last year, he visited the Kashiwazaki Kariwa nuclear plant in Niigata Prefecture, where, he said, he was able to "learn about nuclear facilities and earthquakes. It was a good experience."
Let’s all hope he paid attention.
Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, recently published his fourth book, Power Hungry: The Myths of "Green" Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future.
Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
OBAMA. Full Stop.
WOW -- the British response was amazing. Please return us to the civilized world. NEED A LEADER.
$4.00 a gallon in Hawaii today!
Here in South Florida, from Miami Beach to Boca Raton and on up to Palm Beach, gas has reached $3.89 a gallon.
.... british response?
The American press preempted the coverage of the Global response with a Justin Bieber dance party and hair combing. Obama. NCAA picks made top news while he chuckled with buddies. This week on Idol, Jenny returns to the block and is misunderstood by her past roommate (CBS 7:30C/M). The rest of the world is too focused on the Nuclear winter and Japan.
I don't know who Mr Obama is trying to fool when he says he supports the construction of more nuclear power plants. When in fact it's his administration's policies, namely the new additional costs to companies for securing loans and guarantees from the Feds, that are causing investors in nuclear energy to back off now. Case in point: Under a program created by the previous Congress, a Maryland applicant, Constellation Energy, was seeking a guarantee from the Feds for 80% of the cost of a project. The Obama administration settled on a fee of $880Million, or 11.6% of the $7.6Billion loan. Because of the recent deregulation of other energy sources, Constellation backed off from it's request and in a letter to the Energy Department, Constellation called the figure "shockingly high" and said it would doom the project. What kind of interest did we charge GM; exactly what was the rate of interest they agreed to pay us for the loan we gave them? Likewise, since 2009 what kind of juice money has anyone of late had to pay us for our generosity ? Money at the Federal Reserve's window is going for mere pittance today... yet the current administration wants to charge Constellation almost 12% for a construction loan.... Now that's what I call putting "the squeeze" on a customer; obviously a trait Mr Obama acquired from his time on the South Side of Chicago. The man is slicker than Willie ever was. So the next time Mr Obama is staring into that TV camera, and tells you he's for nuclear power... don't you believe him. The best liars always look you in the eye when they plan on goofing you.
You need to sell more tires and talk less.
That's a lie, pettibone. The FACT that the US is willing to fund these guys in the middle of spending cuts says volumes for the president, The length of the loan is also an issue and the high-risk involved speaks even more. Sounds to me like the President made Constellation the best offer they got, for funding.
to Don Smith.... When it comes to the development of energy sources, Mr Obama is quick to shell out stimulus money in the form of grants to the likes of wind farmers, solar panelists and cow fart collectors... but when the word "nuclear" is part of the equation, the president is proving he knows how to put the screws to the applicant. You know I'm right... especially after the way Obama's proved he's no friend to our domestic oil companies by granting loans to Brazilian drillers, while at the same time closing down or delaying American oil rigs in the Gulf. In fact, don't take my word, when last Friday Bill Clinton said, "Delaying the permitting of oil rigs in the Gulf was ridiculous at a time when the economy is still recovering."
Not a friend of domestic oil companies?? Where do you get that crap??? Brazillian Drillers?. OUR companies are drilling MORE THAN EVER, RIGHT NOW. Obama's been very even-keeled with those jerks, even though they lied about safety issues for fifty years. And Clinton gave a speech with NO PRESS allowed. NO COVERAGE, except from the right-wing guessing at what he said. YOU know THAT'S true.
don, does it strike you as odd that the administration would lend money to Petrobras, which our good buddy George Soros has a nice stake in. yet it steadfastly refuses to grant new permits to US companies. Or consider further drilling in areas where oil is known to exist? Cut out the subsidies and issue the permits.
to Don Smith... Dude, you're gonna have to deal with reality at some point... Obama may be a lil light on his feet and able to charm the skin off a snake, but the guy is not the "Tooth Fairy", just like he's not responsible for an increase in American oil production either.
Who's not dealing with reality, here? After the oil spill, they shut down THIRTEEN rigs for safety violations in deep water operations. THIRTEEN OUT OF THIRTEEN HUNDRED RIGS What's WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?? WHERE DO YOU DIG UP THIS CRAP?????????
When are you going to figure it out? They've produced more oil than ever and made more money than ever
It takes 10 years before the first bit of low-cost energy is produced by a nuclear power plant. Not to mention how oil-intensive the mining the fuel, refining the fuel, building the plant is. Nuclear is a dead end. But to say it's economically unfeasible because natural gas costs so little is absurd. Fracking, the process used to get natural gas cheaply, is destroying water tables everywhere. Remember the YouTubes of people lighting their tap water? That is the result of fracking. Wind, solar, harnessing the tides are the safe and ultimately economical ways to produce the energy we need.
You're right, Raven... the new fracking process is killing our water tables, but they don't have to- they're just using it way too much to maximize well outputs. They need to control it. Wind, Solar, Ocean and Geothermal are all local solutions; while good, they each have a number of limitations. Each will provide a little power to the national grid. As far as nuclear goes, though, I think it's still not well-understood, but it's not a dead-end, either- it's a great way to supply a LOT of power.
America is the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. It's insane to be building nuclear power plants -- or importing oil -- when natural gas is so abundant here. If and when America does need to "go nuclear," it should be using far safer Thorium-fueled plants. The only reason Uranium has been the standard for nuclear power is because of the dual use for nuclear weapons.
I'm not sure about Thorium... it has a long half-life, like the other fissionable materials. We should be heavily researching fusion For natural gas, we should be going on the Pickens Plan- alternate energy, whereever we can, and use natural gas to power our trucks, too.
Fusion has been researched for over 40 years, Don. Technical solutions to ongoing problems seem no closer now than they were 20 years ago. But it would be neat if we could get it to work.
They've been getting closer, Alan, if a tad slow. I guess pounding hydrogen into helium can be a bit tricky... but we do know it can be done
Of course it can be done, Don. Our sun is a great example. But that doesn't mean we will be able to do it here on earth (outside of H-bombs, of course) for commercial power production anytime soon.
Got me there, Alan... maybe not
I'm not trying to get you, Don. I'd love to see fusion work.
Nuclear power makes sense in some areas of the country but we've never fully recovered from the Three Mile Island scare. Natural gas has some serious environmental problems we need to address before we sell out to that special interest monster.
I loathe these cool, reasoned and dispassionate discussions regarding the relative costs of nuclear power (and the heavily subsidized nuclear power plant industry) as compared with alternative fuel sources. Use of nuclear power is insane. Period. There is no other way to look at it. For thousands of years into the future, our descendants will be dealing with the results of our madness and cursing our memories. The problem is radioactive waste -- how do the geniuses who brought us this never-ending calamity find a way to keep this deadly poison isolated, over a long period of time, from the biosphere -- particularly from underground water sources. The time frame in question when dealing with radioactive waste ranges from 10,000 to 1 million years and beyond, according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation doses. Radioactive wastes remain deadly to living organisms for extremely long periods. Of particular concern are two long-lived fission products, Technetium-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and Iodine-129 (half-life 15.7 million years), which dominate spent nuclear fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years. The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are Neptunium-237 (half-life two million years) and Plutonium-239 (half-life 24,000 years). Radioactive waste cannot simply be placed in ordinary containers. Radioactivity itself tends to damage materials like steel and other metals. Furthermore, a large quantity of radioactive matter tends to get very hot, and this also weakens containers. A number of incidents have occurred when radioactive material was disposed of improperly, shielding during transport was defective, or when it was simply abandoned or even stolen from a waste store. At Maxey Flat, a low-level radioactive waste facility located in Kentucky, containment trenches covered with dirt, instead of steel or cement, collapsed under heavy rainfall into the trenches and filled with water. The water that invaded the trenches became radioactive and had to be disposed of at the Maxey Flat facility itself. According to a report from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, it will take 3 million years for radioactive waste stored in the United States (as of 1983!) to decay to background levels. Commercial nuclear power plants in the U.S. alone produce 3,000 tons of high-level waste each year. The amount of spent fuel removed annually from the approximately 100 reactors in the U.S. would fill a football field to a depth of one foot. When spent fuel is removed from a reactor core, it still emits millions of rems of radiation. The U.S. has plans to concentrate all nuclear waste at one site like Yucca Mountain in Nevada. A single site would be easiest to defend, but the process of transporting waste thousands of miles along U.S. highways is a massive logistical nightmare because of the sheer volume of the material involved. Trucks and trains would need to run 24/7 for years on end to bring all the waste to the storage site, while more is being created all the time. They would never catch up and so they would never stop running. Accidents are inevitable. There is also the risk of terrorist attack. So, 100 U.S. nuke plants in the U.S. are going to remain the permanent homes of deadly radioactive waste that will outlive civilization itself. Our children's children will not just curse us, they will damn us.
Read Full Article »