Pressing ahead with its plans for the next generation of nuclear power stations, the government has repeatedly pledged that no taxpayers’ money will be spent on subsidising nuclear construction or bailing out debt-ridden energy companies. But, says Tom Burke in the new issue of Prospect, no one should be blinded to the fact that the economics behind nuclear power remain lousy—and the government’s plans will fail. If we are serious about climate change and want to ensure security of energy supply, we need to focus on carbon capture and storage technologies.
Share
Comments
Print
Add CommentPost Tools
Prospect Buzz
-
David Brooks of the New York Times discusses Philip Blond’s essay in February’s Prospect
-
The Bath Chronicle write up Prospect’s event with Andrew Rawnsley at the Bath Literature Festival
-
Tom Chatfield in the Sunday Times on game guru Shigeru Miyamoto
Prospect Podcast
-
Everyday philosophy: Nigel Warburton asks what's so special about God
Nigel Warburton's March philosophy column for Prospect explores the friction between law and religion via Kant, Kierkegaard and Britain's first Asian judge
Prospect Reads
-
Vanity Fair reveals James Cameron’s Oscar speech
-
10 rules for writing fiction
-
Imagine being adopted, tracing your birth parents, and finding out your father is…
Follow us
Blogroll
- 3quarksdaily
- Bloghorn
- British Psychological Society research digest
- Crooked Timber
- Finance & Economics
- Foreign Policy passport
- France Profonde
- Freakonomics blog
- Fugitive Peace—Gideon Lichfield
- Gauche—Paul Anderson
- Gideon Rachman
- Guido Fawkes
- Happiness and Public Policy
- Harry’s Place
- Marginal Revolution
- Normblog
- Oliver Kamm
- Overcoming bias
- Political Betting
- PooterGeek
- Potlatch—William Davies
- Prospect magazine homepage
- The Economist—Free Exchange
- The Guardian Comment is Free
- The Spectator—Coffee House
- The Times—Comment central
- The Virtual Stoa
- Virtual Philosopher – Nigel Warburton
Same old arguments…. here is one issue on which the old Tom Burke has not changed his mind – even though the whole world is now turning toward more nuclear power. Even Germany is planing to extend the life span of its reactors by 40 years; Australia is looking into the subject, as are Vietnam and all of eastern Europe. The USA is expaning its nuclear capacity fast.
Burke forgets to stress that we in Europe (having closed most of our coal mines) are already madly subsidizing wind and solar power, just as we subsidised coal and nuclear in the past. By no longer using the coal we have, we may well be impoverishing ourselves for very little gain. In any case, the economics of fuel use change continuously,especially with changes in the price of carbon fuels as well as technology. Both have been to the advantage of nuclear power.
There are many types of subsidies and not all should be condemned out of hand. Subsidies (transfer from taxes)are less regressive than simply charging higher prices to consumers, the only real alternative. So the subsidies argument is a red herring,as is the economic one. Government always use subsidies to support national assets.
Also, our growing energy ‘dependence’ (on imported oil and gas) needs to be looked at in the round. Reducing energy imports (e.g. of gas and oil) may intensify tensions and even hostilities abroad, as well as reduce competitiveness at home. Yet growing import dependence may also mean a larger defence budget. Our leaders not only promise to spread democracy in the Middle East and Africa, but also to ensure energy ’security’. More linked-up thinking is needed when talking about energy policy!
The storage of electricity remains a real problem for renewables, both from the engineering and financial perspective. We are lucky to already have a grid connected to power stations, with the nuclear stations using little land (compared to wind farms, for example), generating much heat continuously and producing very little waste in volume terms. We can manage the radioactive waste, if we want to, other countries do! (Weapons are a much greater problem.)
In the end the green lobby always refers to ‘global warming’, but this remains a major justification for a nuclear renaissance!
In any case, this alarm about the heating planet is a creation of computer models and can be debated, the world has not warmed at all during the last decade. It is probably just another red herring, in this case beloved by both the nuclear people and environmentalists, for rather different reasons.
In the end, Burke can surely only have one motivation for his views,and that is to turn back the clock and retreat into the preindustrial age, puritanism or even widespread poverty – de facto, though not in theory of course. Renewables and highly energy efficienty technology cannot yet replace existing generating capacity based on known and tried technology, they never may. If there is change, it will come gradually, not by government diktat.
We need nuclear power at least until the promised new energy technologies become commercially available (without high subsidies!)as well as affordable, and that may not be the case very soon.
By then the Earth may be cooling again and growing humanity will need carbon fuels we have as well as uranium. We here in the UK are lucky, we can always import clean, cheap nuclear power from France!
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen is right about Tom Burke’s litagy. Tom refuses to understand that recent significant developments in economic realities, particularly the increases in the price of oil and gas, together with security of supply concerns, appear to be adding to the socio-political and economic pressures for Europe to speed integration of its energy sector, and rebalance the implementation of the Common Energy Policy towards more long-established solutions.see http://kn.theiet.org/magazine/issues/0814/power-eu.cfm
What about the French example? Does it work? Is it subsidised?
I don’t know. I would like some honest discussion.
Sincerely,
Dr.George Zilbergeld
French nuclear power generation is and always has been heavily subsidised, directly and indirectly but particularly through cross-financing with France’s nuclear weapons programme. This is doubtless one of the reasons why the actual figures are a state secret — which doesn’t encourage belief in its economic viability.
Further up this page, one sees that Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen is at her usual business of casting doubt on global warming — “this alarm about the heating planet is a creation of computer models and can be debated, the world has not warmed at all during the last decade”. Provably wrong, of course: in the meantime, see the profile of her at http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1281 for more information about her “scientific scepticism”.
French Nuclear power is probably a major economic asset to France. For one, France has close to the lowest cost electricity in Europe (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.htm). Further, France is the world’s biggest Electricity Exporter (http://indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=fr&v=82). The French have also become a major force in Civil Nuclear technology worldwide, even in the USA. For example, the French company AREVA is a major employer in my state of Virginia (http://www.us.areva-np.com/careers/locations/lynchburg.htm), with over 2000 workers and expansion under way (http://www.wsls.com/sls/news/local/lynchburg/article/500_new_jobs_for_lynchburg/12148/). Recently, our Senator Webb acknowledged this in a visit to AREVA’s facilities (http://www.newsadvance.com/lna/news/local/article/webb_gets_nuclear_schooling_during_lynchburg_visit/7631/).
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen asserts “the subsidies argument is a red herring, as is the economic one. Government always use subsidies to support national assets.” I beg to differ, and strongly support Tom Burke’s analysis. Ministers have persistently promised there will be no taxpayer subsidies for new nuclear plants, as part of a political propaganda campaign to secure public backing for plans they know to be controversial. There is akey legitimacy question raised here. I have detailed elsewhere on the Guardian Comment is Free site (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/davidlowry)and in a report of a presentation I made at meeting at the House of Commons in November 2006 (’Nuclear subsidies: facts and fantasies’,
http://www.nuclearpowernothanks.co.uk/unnecessary_dangerous_expensive.pdf) why these ministerial assertions are demonstrably untrue. Dr Boehmer-Christiansen has previously written some sensible papers on nuclear waste policy evolution: she should stick to that area.
I gather that you are mostly discussing national subsidies here – but don’t forget that all of us are forced to subsidize the nuclear industry through Euratom’s unparalelled sway over the Commission and the EU bureaucracy! I’ll just quote you a little piece from an article I will publish, at the upcoming “European Social Forum” in Sweden 16-21.st of September. By the way you should come: 20.000 young people will gather and there’ll be hundreds of cultural events and seminars…
(Quote): ” So, our hope is to you: when you come home from this European Social Forum, make your voice heard! It is basic knowledge, that radioactivity causes all kinds of cancers and other sicknesses, even mutations and dead or deformed babies. The incredible timespans before the highly radioactive spent fuel can be considered harmless (we are talking about hundreds of thousands of years) – makes it unlikely that any kind of containers or materials will last that long, without releases.
The nuclear industry is taking out any profit they can make right now, and leaving the waste and the problems for all future generations to try to take care of. It’s just not fair!
The EU is part of the problem, since “Euratom†(the nuclear industry’s own spoiled brat agency within the EU) is being favoured above all other energy sectors. They have their own budget and money box, and the peoples’ elected representatives – the European Parlament, does not even have full powers of co-decision over Euratom. And all new members of EU are forced to pay to Euratom and the nuclear industry – even if they don’t want to use nuclear power themselves, or would rather invest in more sustainable alternative energy. This is a clear and unacceptable democratic problem within the EU institution! Euratom is a relic from the Second World War and should be abolished!
You should remember, that from the beginning, nuclear power was not created as an energy solution. It was a military solution, to create the A-boms and the “superpowers†– and nuclear power is still being used to terrorize others. Later, as a bi-product and to trick people into acceptance, they started talking about “Atoms for Peace†and promising people electricity and energy so cheap, that we would hardly have to pay for it! As we now know, that was a lie: the EU is forcing all member states to pay 2-3 times more in subsidies to the nuclear maffia, than to all other energy sectors put together.
As long as Euratom remains the holy cow within EU – it will be very difficult for any alternative energies to develop and compete on equal terms. Euratom makes a joke out of EU’s talk about “free marcets and fair competitionâ€. Countries that reject the nuclear option, should exit Euratom. If the Euratom Treaty remains unchanged within the proposed Lisboa Treaty (new EU Constitution) – then Euratom remains a strong reason to reject this proposal. — “Nuclear Power? No Thanks!†(Unquote)
Thanks for your informative debate. Per Hegelund, active with “The Swedish Environmental Movement’s Nuclear Waste Secretariat”, Milkas.
“If you take E.ON’s estimate of the cost of a new reactor of £3,000/kW, then the operating cost of that reactor is likely to be about £80 to generate a kW of electricity for an hour—a measurement known as a kilowatt hour (kWh).”
£80 per kWh? How on Earth do you get that? For a start, you can’t derive operating costs from construction costs. Total costs are the sum of the two: nuclear (and wind) have relatively high construction costs and very low operating cost. Fossil fuel plant have lower capital costs (proportionately) but then you pay for fuel so operating costs are higher per kWh.
Secondly, £80 per kWh is ludicrous. You are out by a factor of at least a thousand. Check any source you like. Check your electricity bill. Costs per kWh are in pence, not tens of pounds.
Thirdly, it is very unlikely indeed that, even when you get your cost definition right and your units right (£/MWh I imagine), operating costs of nuclear will exceed the price as you claim. You don’t need this transparently false statement to be true to support your argument. As I said, nuclear has very low operating costs – certainly lower than gas or coal. Once you have built it, then you might as well run it in almost all circumstances. Operating costs are not really the issue for nuclear. What matters is whether the total lifetime cost (mainly capital) exceeds the expected price – if so, thewn it’s not worth building in the first place.
Now I have no idea whether this is true or not. But it’s the right question to ask. I do know that the one paragraph where I have been able independently to check your figures is complete gibberish. I also see that you seem to be a green activist working for the largest, dirtiest coal producer on the planet. Forgive me if that makes me suspicious of your arguments and conclusions.
“If you take E.ON’s estimate of the cost of a new reactor of £3,000/kW, then the operating cost of that reactor is likely to be about £80 to generate a kW of electricity for an hour—a measurement known as a kilowatt hour (kWh).”
£80 per kWh? How on Earth do you get that? For a start, you can’t derive operating costs from construction costs. Total costs are the sum of the two: nuclear (and wind) have relatively high construction costs and very low operating cost. Fossil fuel plant have lower capital costs (proportionately) but then you pay for fuel so operating costs are higher per kWh.
Secondly, £80 per kWh is ludicrous. You are out by a factor of at least a thousand. Check any source you like. Check your electricity bill. Costs per kWh are in pence, not tens of pounds.
Thirdly, it is very unlikely indeed that, even when you get your cost definition right and your units right (£/MWh I imagine), operating costs of nuclear will exceed the price as you claim. You don’t need this transparently false statement to be true to support your argument. As I said, nuclear has very low operating costs – certainly lower than gas or coal. Once you have built it, then you might as well run it in almost all circumstances. Operating costs are not really the issue for nuclear. What matters is whether the total lifetime cost (mainly capital) exceeds the expected price – if so, thewn it’s not worth building in the first place.
Now I have no idea whether this is true or not. But it’s the right question to ask. I do know that the one paragraph where I have been able independently to check your figures is complete gibberish. I also see that you seem to be a green activist working for the largest, dirtiest coal producer on the planet. Forgive me if that makes me suspicious of your arguments and conclusions.
Tom Burke misrepresents the time taken to approve the construction of Sizewell B. The government accepted the CEGB’s request to build a PWR in 1978 and orders were placed for Sizewell B in 1980. In December 1979 the government announced that there would be a public inquiry. The Pre-Construction Safety Case was submitted to the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate in August 1981. The date of the public inquiry was announced in January 1982 and the inquiry itself began in January 1983 and finished in March 1985. The Inspector’s report was not published until January 1987. Finally the NII accepted the Pre-Construction Safety Case and issued a licence to proceed with construction in August 1987.
I don’t see the reason why why should develop a new nuclear solutions based on fission reaction. It’s a waste of money, time and enough nuclear waste to kill the planet plus some extra benefit like unstable chain reaction. I don’t know why they don’t do more to develop fusion reaction which is more safety, no nuclear waste and clear energy. Why is that? Why invest in old technologies but not develop the newest goods of physics? Hope the question will be answer soon and thanks the God there are people who really looks for clean energy and brighter future for all of us. For more info please visit http://www.iter.org that’s the future not nuclear power plants based on standard chain reaction and uranium.
Much is made by the anti-nuclear lobbyists about the so called hidden costs of nuclear, i.e. its subsidies for construction, research, safety and operation, but what is deliberately ignored is the hidden costs of renewables. Take wind farms, without government incentives or subsidies, none would have been built anywhere in Europe. Then add the costs of constructing links to the national grid and the need to upgrade the national grid to meet the new demands placed on it by the new power sources. Also what is forgotten is the need to subsidies the backup conventional power stations so they can be made available when the wind does not blow, which is 80% of the time. In fact you will find offshore wind power significantly more expensive than fossil fuel or nuclear power stations.
How about you add in some more factors to your cost per kilowatt-hour.
[(constructions costs per kilowatt) x (total wattage of plant) + (operational costs per hour)x(lifespan in hours)] / (the total expected lifespan of the plant expressed as an hour figure)
Nuclear power is very very inexpensive, and there are experiments into thorium reactors which operate even cheaper and produce less dangerous waste.
[i][quote]Nicholas Newman says:
April 20, 2009 at 11:50 am
Much is made by the anti-nuclear lobbyists about the so called hidden costs of nuclear, i.e. its subsidies for construction, research, safety and operation, but what is deliberately ignored is the hidden costs of renewables. Take wind farms, without government incentives or subsidies, none would have been built anywhere in Europe. Then add the costs of constructing links to the national grid and the need to upgrade the national grid to meet the new demands placed on it by the new power sources. Also what is forgotten is the need to subsidies the backup conventional power stations so they can be made available when the wind does not blow, which is 80% of the time. In fact you will find offshore wind power significantly more expensive than fossil fuel or nuclear power stations.[quote][/i]
The difference is that nuclear is a mature industry and renewables isn’t. In a competitive, privatised martket, cost is the only factor and so subsidies are required until renewables are near or at cost parity. I’d also question your use of the word ‘hidden’. Renewables have various schemes, predominantely ROCs, but they are nearly all well known. Nuclear on the other hand has given its liabilities and waste issues to the government with a rather large lack of information given to the public.
I suspect many wind farms would have been built, but obviously not as much as we have now (in certain areas they are economic without subsidies or small communities/islands will prefer them even if they are a little more expensive)
The building of new national grid links is an added expense, granted, as most of the suitable sites are far from the areas of most usage, but the upgrades to exisiting lines are by and large needed regardless as they are passing their useful lifetime.
Wind power does still require partial conventional reserves, but at a low percentage of the generation mix, the requirements are low until you get near 20%. In fact currently wind energy has reduced the cost of electricity as its marginal cost is effectively zero forcing conventional plant to sell their electricity for less. And the wind blows more than 20% of the time.
Burke should try and get the electricity price right in a blog so reliant on numbers.
£80 per MWh, not £80 per kWh. out by a factor of 1000.
well these anti-nukes always exaggerate
why should I believe the rest?