7/2/2013 9:45 PM ET|
Nuclear power faces uncertain future
The shifting economics of energy and Japan's Fukushima disaster may have squashed the industry's attempted comeback.
About a decade or so ago, many Americans were talking about a "Nuclear Renaissance." The public's unease about the industry, which dated at least as far back as the 1979 Three Mile Island accident, had begun to fade and new nuclear power plants were being proposed in the U.S. for the first time in decades.
The prospect was tantalizing: Electricity generated by nuclear power promised once again to help the U.S. in its quest to broaden its energy portfolio, reduce carbon emissions and end its long dependence on imported fossil fuel.
Now, though, optimism surrounding nuclear energy is slipping away, even as President Obama has vowed that 80% of America's electricity will come from renewable resources by 2035 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Nuclear power accounted for about 19% of the total U.S. generation during 2012, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Coal contributed about 45% and natural gas 23%. Renewable sources currently make up only about 10% of power production.
"There were expectations that (a new nuclear plant) might come, but the combination of the recession and the development of shale gas practically nipped it in the bud," says John Rowe, the former chief executive of Exelon (EXC), one of the biggest operators of nuclear power plants, in an interview. "You just don't have an economic space for new nuclear anymore."
Exelon, which is based in Chicago, looked into building new reactors in Texas but scrapped the idea in 2007 when it realized the project was economically unfeasible, he said. Merchant power plant operator NRG Energy (NRG) also abandoned a reactor project in the Lone Star State in 2011. Duke Energy (DUK) shelved plans for reactors in North Carolina earlier this year.
The 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan didn't help matters, either. Although more than 18,000 people died in the earthquake and tsunami, no one has been reported suffering from radiation sickness, and experts don't expect a major spike in illnesses in future years.
In the U.S., about 30 new nuclear plants have been announced, but construction has actually begun on only five. All of these projects are behind schedule and over-budget, according to Jim Riccio of Greenpeace, a longtime critic of the industry.
Southern Co. (SO) is at least 14 months late in its $14 billion project to add two reactors at its Alvin W. Vogtle nuclear power plant near Augusta, Ga., according to The New York Times. "Still, all is not lost," the newspaper noted. "Some of the changes since the company committed to the project seven years ago have helped it along; interest rates are at historical lows and the price for labor and materials has been held down by recession."
Scana (SCG), which owns South Carolina's largest utility, recently said its new reactor project in the state was behind schedule because a subcontractor was struggling to meet deadlines. The outlook for other projects also remains problematic.
"In the face of escalating nuclear construction costs, cheap natural gas, rising competition from increasingly inexpensive wind and other renewables, falling consumer demand, and a heightened focus on energy efficiency, the economics of these new nuclear reactor projects could not be more abysmal for ratepayers," said the Vermont Law School Institute for Energy and the Environment earlier this year in a report critical of the industry.
Indeed, as the economy faced its worst slowdown since the Great Depression, demand for electricity plunged, and it still hasn't returned to 2007 levels, according to Richard Myers, vice president for policy at the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), an industry trade group. He added that most of the new generating power now under construction will be natural gas-fired plants.
"It's a little dangerous to put all your eggs in one basket," he warned.
All this represents a change in fortunes for the nuclear industry. During the 1990s, as some states deregulated their electricity markets, utilities gained the ability to refinance their nuclear debt at lower interest rates. As their operating costs fell, plants that many had expected to be shuttered got a new lease on life. Some were sold to companies such as Exelon, which began adding to their nuclear portfolios. In 2011, it acquired Baltimore-based Constellation Energy for $7.9 billion. New Orleans-based Entergy (ETR) spent more than $1 billon acquiring reactors including New York State's Indian Point.
Despite the recent setbacks, industry executives argue that nuclear plants are resilient.
"The plant's age is really not an indication of how long it can run," said Myers of the NEI, adding that the industry spends about $8 billion annually on new equipment. "We invest quite heavily in all our plants."
And the future isn't entirely bleak. Small, modular reactors that are being developed appear to have some promise. They're cheaper than more conventional reactors. And given their smaller size, they also produce less radioactive waste. Some will be able to be run for extended time periods without refueling outages, according to the Department of Energy. But some critics are skeptical that the technology will pan out.
Nuclear power has the advantage over coal and natural gas of being benign from a greenhouse gas perspective, though the disposal of radioactive waste remains a crucial issue. Critics such as Greenpeace have long argued that the risks of nuclear power far outweigh the benefits.
"The continued greenwashing of nuclear power from industry-backed lobbyists diverts investments away from clean, renewable sources of energy," the environmental group says on its website. "In contrast to nuclear power, renewable energy is both clean and safe."
Earlier this month, Edison International's (EIX) Southern California Edison announced it was going to retire the two reactors at its San Onofre plant (pictured) near San Diego, which had been idle since last year. While Myers said that plant's situation was unique, former Exelon CEO Rowe said it might be a harbinger of things to come.
"I think some additional plants will have curtailed lives," he said.
One issue that needs to be resolved is the long-term disposal of radioactive waste. President Obama canceled the Yucca Mountain, Nev., storage project earlier this year. And Nevada political officials such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have fiercely opposed the facility for years.
"We obviously don't agree with that decision and continue to contest it," Myers said, adding that the "political will to tackle the problem appears to exist."
If America really wants to be energy independent, nuclear will likely have to play a role. Although waste is an issue that won't go away, fossil fuels have plenty of their own baggage, such as greenhouse gases. Renewable sources, while promising, still tend to be expensive.
Nuclear power "emits very little CO2 and other pollutants and provides a lot of energy from a very small amount of fuel," wrote Ashutosh Jogalekar in Scientific American earlier this year. "It also generates a very small amount of waste. Compared to this, coal and oil produce a lot of air pollution and waste and you also need a lot of them to generate electricity."
This article is part of an MSN Money special report on America's quest for energy independence. Up next: Alternative-fuel cars: Are we there yet?
More from MSN Money
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
Why is it that states where they have nuclear power you pay HUGE BUCKS for
CO2 & Methane Just part of the circle of life.
What do you do with the waste from a nuclear reactor?
Wind and solar backed with nat gas in the near term and batteries in the long term is without a doubt the cleanest and most viable supply scheme moving forward. The price of wind and solar has dropped dramatically over the last ten years, and both are seeing exponential growth during a period of flat electricity demands and falling prices. The low financing costs (and oppurtunity cost compared to buying bonds) combined with free fuel make them an extremely attractive option for utilities and large electric consumers. They're a great hedge against inflation and variable fuel costs. All electric produced past the assumed lifespan when financed is essentially free leading to big potential windfalls down the road.
A lot of people don't realize it, but natural gas can also be produced renewably from virtually anything organic based, but probably not in the quanity we use it today. Combine that with the advances in large batteries and the pending proliferation thereof via the electrification of many automobiles and you have a recipe for a 100% renewable future without breaking the bank.
fission nuclear reactors are obsolete. in a year or two Hot Cat low energy nuclear (cold fusion)
reactors will be practical. Some of the reactors have been successfully tested and demonstrated.
Don't invest in conventional nuclear fusion. Its going to be the biggest dinosaur. LENR is virtually radiation free and meltdowns are impossible.
Wind and solar, clean, green, free and forever, God willing!
In the early 1970s, I read in Popular Mechanics magazine that some were thinking of harnessing the 40 foot tidses in the Bay of Fundy to generate electricity. At the time I thought it was a good idea but that was the last I heard of it. Most of the west coast’s population is made up of Environmentalist Watermelons so maybe the tides and winds on the west coast could be used as a power source. From San Diego to Seattle there could be a windmill every 100 feet. The Environmentalist Watermelons are always the people pushing Wind and Solar power but let’s see if they put their money where their mouth is. The Environmentalist Watermelons in Massachusetts were all out there yelling foul when a few windmills went up and here these Watermelons want us flyover country people to have one in our back yard. Some things never change.
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
[BRIEFING.COM] The stock market capped the trading week with losses across the major averages. The S&P 500 fell 0.5% to surrender its weekly gain, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average (-0.7%) and Russell 2000 (-0.9%) underperformed. The two indices posted respective losses of 0.8% and 0.6% for the week.
Equity indices were pressured from the get-go after several heavyweights disappointed the market with their earnings and/or guidance, which led to some broader profit-taking. After ... More
More Market News
|There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.|
MUST-SEE ON MSN
- Video: Easy DIY smoked meats at home
A charcuterie master shares his process for cold-smoking meat at home.
- Jetpacks about to go mainstream
- Weird things covered by home insurance
- Bing: 70 percent of adults report 'digital eye strain'