Good discussion. One thing I'd mention is there was a comment about Thatcher not wanting debt on the government balance sheet. My wife's aunt was an investment banker involved in the nationalisation of the National Grid, and apparently Thatcher had plans in place to build four nuclear power stations that was subsequently cancelled by Major, so I don't think that was quite correct!
Another good episode. However, I would disagree with the remarks about TVA's ability to finance nuclear plants. In the 1960s and early 1970s TVA started construction on 17 nuclear units. Only 7 were finished and currently operate. Due to the prolific spending, Congress in 1979 set a statutory debt ceiling of $30 billion. Currently TVA has a debt of roughly $23.8 billion.
If the debt ceiling was adjusted for inflation today it would be roughly $138 billion.
The cost estimate for the Clinch river BWRX-300 is $5.4 billion. DOE is kicking in a $400 million dollar grant. Unless some other financing mechanisms are used this will project will bring TVA very close to the debt ceiling.
Seems like the future of Nuclear is via SMR’s. These large projects carry too much uncertainty as you noted. Thats where the capital is flowing so that cost is predictable and scalable.
SMRs are even safer than existing commercial reactors. There is no uncertainty, especially since we have been in the nuclear power business for more than 70 years. What makes them expensive is government and state regulation. Match the regulation with the risk and you get infinite power for pennies per kWh. But there are too many entities that influence the government who love dollar per kWh power. But, keep up the illusion and open up your pocketbooks. It seems that our society is doomed to this end.
You make the mistake most people make. You assume that building nuclear power is expensive and that is just the way it is. It is expensive because the NRC precludes the licensing of reactor design and construction. It is expensive because utilities hold a monopoly on electric power supply. It is expensive because state regulators (and federal ones as well) are in the pockets of the monopolies and politicians (who are in the pockets of monopolists). Your message should be: Release nuclear power to free enterprise and watch the prices fall. But governments cannot do that because people are too afraid to hold them to morality and to a focus on the best interests of the people. So, it is not going to change unless we get the yolk of the NRC off our backs. That is the reality. Nuclear reactors are the safest machine ever built (nobody hurt in the normal commercial operations of nuclear power reactors anywhere in the world for almost 7 decades). It is the government that is holding us back. Fix that, and you will easily have a penny per kWh power, especially if you allow fast reactor recycling of spent nuclear fuel. As Pogo said: We have met the enemy and it is us.
The post-startup revenue risk seems to be the harder to deal with issue. At least with the vibes based energy-market system we are being pushed towards.
But this will be the same issue with *any* mostly negiigble costs respurce system, wether variable wind and solar or firm nuclear or geothermal is predominant.
I suspect that only a predictable, steadily-rising carbon tax can make nuclear power plants economically competitive. Without the great 'cost-of-fuel' advantage that a carbon tax would bring, what utility executive would opt for a nuke instead of the far-less risky gas turbine plant? That's a career-ending decision. A no-brainer.
Good discussion. One thing I'd mention is there was a comment about Thatcher not wanting debt on the government balance sheet. My wife's aunt was an investment banker involved in the nationalisation of the National Grid, and apparently Thatcher had plans in place to build four nuclear power stations that was subsequently cancelled by Major, so I don't think that was quite correct!
Another good episode. However, I would disagree with the remarks about TVA's ability to finance nuclear plants. In the 1960s and early 1970s TVA started construction on 17 nuclear units. Only 7 were finished and currently operate. Due to the prolific spending, Congress in 1979 set a statutory debt ceiling of $30 billion. Currently TVA has a debt of roughly $23.8 billion.
If the debt ceiling was adjusted for inflation today it would be roughly $138 billion.
The cost estimate for the Clinch river BWRX-300 is $5.4 billion. DOE is kicking in a $400 million dollar grant. Unless some other financing mechanisms are used this will project will bring TVA very close to the debt ceiling.
Seems like the future of Nuclear is via SMR’s. These large projects carry too much uncertainty as you noted. Thats where the capital is flowing so that cost is predictable and scalable.
SMRs are even safer than existing commercial reactors. There is no uncertainty, especially since we have been in the nuclear power business for more than 70 years. What makes them expensive is government and state regulation. Match the regulation with the risk and you get infinite power for pennies per kWh. But there are too many entities that influence the government who love dollar per kWh power. But, keep up the illusion and open up your pocketbooks. It seems that our society is doomed to this end.
You make the mistake most people make. You assume that building nuclear power is expensive and that is just the way it is. It is expensive because the NRC precludes the licensing of reactor design and construction. It is expensive because utilities hold a monopoly on electric power supply. It is expensive because state regulators (and federal ones as well) are in the pockets of the monopolies and politicians (who are in the pockets of monopolists). Your message should be: Release nuclear power to free enterprise and watch the prices fall. But governments cannot do that because people are too afraid to hold them to morality and to a focus on the best interests of the people. So, it is not going to change unless we get the yolk of the NRC off our backs. That is the reality. Nuclear reactors are the safest machine ever built (nobody hurt in the normal commercial operations of nuclear power reactors anywhere in the world for almost 7 decades). It is the government that is holding us back. Fix that, and you will easily have a penny per kWh power, especially if you allow fast reactor recycling of spent nuclear fuel. As Pogo said: We have met the enemy and it is us.
The post-startup revenue risk seems to be the harder to deal with issue. At least with the vibes based energy-market system we are being pushed towards.
But this will be the same issue with *any* mostly negiigble costs respurce system, wether variable wind and solar or firm nuclear or geothermal is predominant.
I suspect that only a predictable, steadily-rising carbon tax can make nuclear power plants economically competitive. Without the great 'cost-of-fuel' advantage that a carbon tax would bring, what utility executive would opt for a nuke instead of the far-less risky gas turbine plant? That's a career-ending decision. A no-brainer.
Only so long as utilities have monopolies.