Economy Puts US Nuclear Reactors Back In Doubt 392
eldavojohn writes "Remember those 30 new nuclear reactors the US was slated to build? Those plans have been halted. A few years ago, it seemed like a really good idea to build a bunch of nuclear reactors. The environmental impacts of other energy production methods were becoming well known and the economy was tanking. Well, natural gas is now much cheaper, and as a result it looks like building a single nuclear reactor in Maryland is such a risky venture that Constellation can't reach an agreement with the federal government for the loans it needs to build that reactor. The government wants Constellation to sign an agreement with a local energy provider to ensure they'll recoup at least some of the money on the loan, but Constellation doesn't like the terms. So, the first of those thirty reactors has officially stalled, with no resolution in sight. It looks like it'd take an economic meltdown to trigger nuclear reactor production in the US."
Re:Sustainable energy? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sustainable energy? (Score:3, Informative)
A major cost of nuclear reactors is the bickering of the NIMBYs. Construction can take fifteen years (ten for bickering, five for construction). An investor could be investing in something else which makes money during that time so to convince him to invest in your plant you have to garantee massive returns in the future.
Wikipedia has a page on the economics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants [wikipedia.org]
Re:Loan from government? (Score:2, Informative)
While it is cheaper for the consumer in the long run to run nuclear, there is a huge up front cost associated. Most banks will not accept the risks without an expensive reward. Governments can finance these types of needed infrastructure loans at a much better rate and reap the rewards (cheaper energy for the masses). If given the choice for the utilities to use an expensive bank loan or a cheap government loan, I am going to hope they choose cheap government loan. All of the costs of producing power are passed on to the customer in the rates paid by the customer. Utilities are regulated entities, and as such, are entitled to recoup the cost of providing service to the customer in the rate charged.
Re:It looks like it'd take an economic meltdown to (Score:3, Informative)
Jimmy Carter banned them by executive order.
Regan overturned the order but no one has tried to build one since then regardless.
Re:Bypass them (Score:3, Informative)
it will just sit there with a website detailing its budget, schedule, and design as a lesson to us all.
Meanwhile I watch with interest that China is building LOTS of old fashioned reactors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China [wikipedia.org]
"The country is expected to build around 22 reactors in the five years ending 2010 and projected to build 132 units after and has the most aggressive nuclear power expansion program in the world."
I won't be surprised if they get rather experienced at building nuclear reactors, and build them for cheaper and cheaper. Hopefully without decreasing safety too much ;).
Re:This is what the bailout should have gone to (Score:3, Informative)
False. The economic collapse without that money in a much bigger way. Think 25% unemployment followed but another 10%+ the following year as house are lost in the millions.
Also, we got most of that money back.
Yes, thats sign the remaining loans over to a private company, what could go wrong.
Re:Not westinghouse (Score:1, Informative)
The current industries lobby for policy, that is how our system works. I have no doubt in my mind that they are blocking any competition that would try to enter the market. There is an interesting post on the oil drum, here is a clip from it.
"The manufacture of LFTR would destroy the current business model of LWR manufacturers, who make their money selling fuel rather than reactors. Efficient use of nuclear fuel in LFTRs would mean that the manufacturers would have to make their money selling reactors, and the current manufactures don't know how to do that." http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877#comment-335174
The current industry will fight that tooth and nail.
Toyota, Toshiba and Hitachi, working with IThEMS seem to be ahead of the game. Here is a collection of articles about Thorium, MSR, and LFTR.
Power generation aside, they could start with a MSR or LFTR design to burn off much of the waste they are trying to store.
Here is a list of resources and articles about the Thorium, MSR, and LFTR that I put together for another forum, just pasting it in here.
Some Basics:
A Brief History of the Liquid-Fluoride Reactor - April 22nd, 2006
http://energyfromthorium.com/2006/04/22/...
Summary of MSR Pros / Cons
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Molten_salt_reactor
What is Thorium?
http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/
'Nuclear Reactor Revolution' translated provisionaly in English
http://www.ithems.jp/e_books.html
International Thorium Energy Organisation, IThEO
http://www.itheo.org/
Articles by Date:
August 30, 2010 :: Development of Tiny Thorium Reactors Could Wean the World Off Oil In Just Five Years
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-08/thorium-reactors-could-wean-world-oil-just-five-years
August 29, 2010 :: Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7970619/Obama-could-kill-fossil-fuels-overnight-with-a-nuclear-dash-for-thorium.html
July/August 2010 :: American Scientist - Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2010/4/liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactors
July 30, 2010 :: DEBATE OF THE WEEK: IS THORIUM A VIABLE OPTION FOR THE FUTURE?
http://www.nucleartownhall.com/blog/debate-of-the-week-is-thorium-a-viable-option-for-the-future/
June 12, 2010 :: The LFTR in the American Scientist
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2010/06/lftr-in-american-scientist.html
May 2010 :: Too Good to Leave on the Shelf
http://memagazine.asme.org/Articles/2010/May/Too_Good_Leave_Shelf.cfm
March 23, 2010 :: Energy Cheaper than from Coal
http://energyfromthorium.com/2010/03/23/energy-cheaper-than-from-coal/
March 16, 2010 :: Thorium, a Readily Available and Slightly Radioactive Mineral, Could Provide the World with Safer, Clean Energy
"Thorium-based reactors could be more efficient and create less waste than today’s uranium-based generating plants."
http://machinedesign.com/article/thorium-a-readily-available-and-slightly-radioactive-mineral-could-provide-the-world-with-sa
December 21, 2009 :: Uranium Is So Last Century — Enter Thorium, the New Green Nuke
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
December 17, 2009 :: A LFTR deployment plan for Australia
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/12/17/lftr-in-australia/
March 20, 2010 :: Scaling the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor: The Big Lots Reactor and the Aim High Reactor
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2009/03/scaling-liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactor.html
April 26, 2008 :: Nice summary comment on the oil drum and industry resistance
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877#comment-335174
Re:Not westinghouse (Score:4, Informative)
I seriously doubt that westinghouse has anything to do with Thorium based reactors not being on the short list despite their many benefits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Key_benefits [wikipedia.org]). I would say it has far more to do with the lack of ability to produce weapons with their byproducts. The US would prefer to get a little something extra out of the deal.
Looking at the Wikipedia page, most the claimed benefits for thorium are no different from those of an appropriately designed modern uranium reactor ("no possibility of a meltdown, it generates power inexpensively, it does not produce weapons-grade by-products .. will burn up ... nuclear weapon stockpiles"), the one signficant different claim ("will burn up existing high-level waste") is not true.
It can correctly be said that the high level waste from a thorium reactor would be about half that of a uranium reactor, but given the small volume of the current waste stream this gives small actual advantage.
Thorium reactors are a perfectly viable technology, but it is relatively undeveloped, and thus has much longer lead times, and much greater up front costs for no significant advantage.
The Achilles heel of nuclear power has always been the high capital costs, which means a longer period before profitable returns, and thus greater risk. It is simple hard-headed investment decision making that has kept nuclear power plants form being built. With thorium this problem is magnified.
If we can't get an established technology like uranium reactor built, thorium has no chance at all.
Re:Aren't fusion plants around the corner? (Score:1, Informative)
Do you have a source? That "too cheap to meter" quote keeps getting thrown around but is never directly attributed to anyone.
A quick google search turns up the source; The truth about "too cheap to meter" [longtail.com]. As usual with famous quotes, it was taken out of context.
Ironically, it turns out he was probably referring to fusion power.
And nobody would have thought a nuclear plant would be cheaper to *build* than a coal one.
But it is cheaper to operate, not having to deliver and dispose of thousands of tons of coal and ash every year .
Re:Funny in summary (Score:3, Informative)
Are you aware that Oak Ridge built and operated [wikipedia.org] one successfully for 5 years nearly half a century ago?
Does the fact that the project was a complete success not factor into your definition of "almost completely unproven"?