Why Are New U.S. Nuclear Reactor Projects Fizzling?

[jpak]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/02/why-are-new-us-nuclear-reactor-projects-fizzling/70591/

About a year ago, President Obama announced a new initiative to encourage the construction of a new generation of nuclear energy reactors. The plan sought to provide $55 billion in loan guarantees for these projects. Matthew Wald of the New York Times provides a progress report today: there hasn't been much. Two are moving forward, and the others are struggling. What's the holdup?

The Times explains that the issues they're grappling with won't sound new to those who understand the nuclear power industry:

<snip>

If you read between the lines, there are two factors preventing these reactors from moving forward. One is regulatory uncertainty. The other is financial uncertainty.

Regulatory Uncertainty

It seems like regulation shouldn't be an obstacle at all. The government is broadly in favor of more reactors, so why would it get it its own way? Unfortunately, it isn't that simple. Much of this regulation you can't simply shrug off. After all, if all of the safety rules aren't perfectly met, and a meltdown occurs, the government hardly wants to be seen as responsible because it shrugged off the regulation.

<more>

[GliderGuider]

1. They're not fizzling in the rest of the world, though.

According to these guys there will be at least 85 new reactors coming on line between now and the end of 2017 (that's 7 years from now). They will bring 85 GW of new generation to the world's grids. 12 GW per year of actual generation. In 17 countries that aren't the USA. I wonder what all those other countries know that the USA doesn't?

[FogerRox]

5. In the US its about Meltdowns and 3 Mile Island

even though that was 30 yrs ago.

[bananas]

13. No - there are a number of issues - all show-stoppers

The #1 show-stopper is cost, on both a $/kw and $/kwh basis.
After that are safety, proliferation, and waste.
These are all show-stoppers.
In the US, the problems of safety, proliferation, and waste have been sloughed off onto the government,
but the problem of cost has still been a show stopper - so they've tried to slough that off onto the government.
And they did, but the cost is still so f*cking much they still can't build them without some kind of magical financing scheme.
So they are relying on oerturning the bans on CWIP, which was banned in many states specifically because of the obscene cost overruns during the last nuclear build.
CWIP = Cost Overruns While In Progress = pay through the nose now for the empty cooling towers we're building.

[rgbecker]

2. Pretty much turned against the damn things when I figured I'd...

have to drive around Pennsylvania to get from New York to St. Louis after 3 mile island melted down. Seems if other countries can risk sparing the space, let them.

[FBaggins]

3. "Fizzling" is a bit of a stretch.

No new reactor projects in decades and our pulse-check is a year after the President announces that he'd like to get the ball rolling again?

You thought they were fizzling in China too... and then were left chanting that "renewables rule!" when the facts weren't on your side.

Did you note that they're increasing the amount of nuclear yet again in their upcoming 5-yr planning? I thought they had decided to cut it off once the recently initiated projects were done?

[jpak]

6. The facts are on my side - nuclear fizzle = nuclear fail

and renewables do rule

yup

[FBaggins]

7. Well... sure...

... if "facts" suddenly takes on a whole new meaning.

[FogerRox]

4. 55 billion is enough to 2 fission nukes.

Reactor designs have progressed past 3 Mile Island, that was decades ago.

[Nihil]

8. Reactor designs might have done ...

> Reactor designs have progressed past 3 Mile Island, that was decades ago.

... but the anti-nuke protesters haven't.

Face it: this is totally in keeping with all of the other scientific and
technological advances being made outside of the US - where the biggest
growth segment in "education" is Creationism ...
:shrug:

It's also totally in keeping with the "5% of the population consuming 25%
of the resources and being joint top in creating pollution" attitude of
"la-la-la, we can't hear you" international relations.

Some of us out here hoped for "change" too but just got more of the same shit
that we've been seeing for decades.

[Kolesar]

9. It can sometimes take decades to recoup initial costs.

...Since many investors have a short attention span, they don't like to wait that long for their investment to pay off.

The costs are also sometimes volatile, according to the NY Times piece. So you've got a situation where investors finally agree to endure a project with a long time-horizon for break-even, and then the costs go up. It's pretty easy to see why they would be unhappy.

How is President Obama supposed to change that annoying fact?

[GliderGuider]

10. How did the Prime Minister of Finland do it? nt

[Kolesar]

11. You tell me ... eom

[bananas]

14. He didn't. nt

[bananas]

12. "those who understand the nuclear power industry" - yup

you, me, kristopher, madokie, and others ...
and most of my understanding of the nuclear power industry has come from shop-talk with my friends, colleagues, business partners, and clients who worked in the nuclear industry...