Follow this blog:
RSS

Obama’s nuclear power plant push: Is there a building boom ahead?

By | February 16, 2010, 10:53 AM PST

The Department of Energy is offering $8 billion in loan guarantees to break ground on a new nuclear power plant in Maryland. Will this be the start of a nuclear building boom?

Speaking in Lanham, Maryland, President Obama outlined a simple objective: Jump start nuclear power plant construction in the U.S., which hasn’t built a new plant in three decades.

Obama touted the Maryland construction project as a way to create jobs and deliver more efficient power. Obama also noted that the U.S. government will continue to offer loan guarantees to build more nuclear facilities.

Among Obama’s notable remarks:

In order to truly harness our potential in clean energy we’re going to have to do more, and that’s why we’re here.  In the near term, as we transition to cleaner energy sources, we’re going to have to make some tough decisions about opening up new offshore areas for oil and gas development.  We’ll need to make continued investments in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies, even as we build greater capacity in renewables like wind and solar.  And we’re going to have to build a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in America.

And.

Our competitors are racing to create jobs and command growing energy industries.  And nuclear energy is no exception.  Japan and France have long invested heavily in this industry.  Meanwhile, there are 56 nuclear reactors under construction around the world:  21 in China alone; six in South Korea; five in India.  And the commitment of these countries is not just generating the jobs in those plants; it’s generating demand for expertise and new technologies.

As noted before, the timing does seem right for a nuclear power building boom and modern plants would make sense to go along with a smart grid. However, starting these projects will require a little more than a few loan guarantees. Obama acknowledges that there will be disagreements over nuclear power. Simply put, you can expect a big scrum over nuclear power, but once a few of these plants are built opposition is likely to fade.

The calculus for nuclear power was detailed in September. It goes like this:

Pro:

  • Nuclear power is clean and emits no carbon dioxide.
  • Popular opinion is coming around to nuclear power.
  • Next generation reactors are more efficient and cheap.
  • The systems that power nuclear plants are smart and feature automated safety features and better shutdown processes.

Con:

  • Nuclear plants still cost more than fossil fuel versions.
  • You still have to store the waste somewhere.
  • When there is a rare accident the ramifications can be large.
  • These plants are big terrorist targets (France has its reactors inside double containment buildings).
  • Not in my backyard (NIMBY) is prominent.

The debate over nuclear power plant construction is just beginning. Consider a few comments from Smart Planet readers the last time the nuclear topic came up:

People seem to forget that Uranium is not a freely accessible, inexhaustible material. It is getting harder to find and ever more expensive to process. And so far its mining and processing is extremely dependent on fossil fuels. By all means go ahead and build your big glowing basilicas, but beyond 2070 you won’t be able afford to fuel them.

Vs.

Building next generation plants based on the ‘4S’ model developed in Japan, nuclear power can be safe, environmentally sound, and less expensive per watt generated than fossil fueled plants. Using breeder technology, these reactors can be permanently sealed and buried underground, beyond the reach of terrorists.

They will run at full power for 30 years before their output drops to below half of its initial capacity. No refueling costs, and no storing of the wastes once they run down - the wastes will remain contained in the plant permanently.

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Larry Dignan

About Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan is the editor-in-chief of SmartPlanet.

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan

Editor-in-Chief

Larry Dignan is editor-in-chief of SmartPlanet and ZDNet. He is also editorial director of TechRepublic. Previously, he was an editor at eWeek, Baseline and CNET News. He has written for WallStreetWeek.com, Inter@ctive Week, New York Times and Financial Planning. He holds degrees from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and the University of Delaware. He is based in New York but resides in Pennsylvania.

Follow him on Twitter.

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan
Larry Dignan does not hold any investments in the companies he covers.
If you liked this, don't miss...
19
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Obama's nuclear power plant push: Is there a building boom ahead?
> Nuclear power is clean and emits no carbon dioxide.

Not true - unless you ignore the mining and milling of uranium, its transport, processing, management and storage of waste for hundreds (??) of years.

> Popular opinion is coming around to nuclear power.

Cite?

> Next generation reactors are more efficient and cheap.

Next generation don't exist commercially. They arr decades away - at best.

> The systems that power nuclear plants are smart and feature automated safety features and better shutdown processes.

It's always the *next* design that's going to be 100% safe - conveniently forgetting that the last design was promised to be 100% safe - just before it leaked.
Posted by Jack.Mildam
16th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Obama's nuclear power plant push: Is there a building boom ahead?
The main point of this discussion should be: Where is the money coming from? The USG is in a big hole of debt and digging deeper as we speak, how can we afford to continue? I am pro nuclear energy, but we have to control the USG's spending or we will be nowhere soon. We should go for a breeder type of reactor, the waste produced is much less than a stndard reactor, too many are afrais it will be used as a weapon, not peacefully, ergo it doesn't get doen and then you really get a NIMBY attitude--don't haul that stuff through my town, just think what could happeen in a train wreck, literally and it would be one figuratively as well.
Posted by dhays
17th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Obama's nuclear power plant push: Is there a building boom ahead?
... and in virtually the same breath shuttered the finally completed after 20 years of construction and several BILLION $ Yucca Flats storage facility.

Ok 'bama ... where we going to store the waste from these new plants of yours for the next 10,000 years?
Posted by mgkdrgn
17th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Waste Management
My top objection to nuclear power is what will be done with the waste? The government has spent a lot of money with a pilot storage facility in Nevada; there are certain problems with the method that keep coming up. The low level radioactive waste is not a huge problem and can be dealt with current technology. It is the high level radioactive waste including the decommissioned reactor that is a great challenge. Concrete breaks down fast when containing high radioactive waste. The waste pilot location sounded good because of the salt bed would cover the barrels of waste; the problem is the area is geologically unstable.

The waste has to be kept secure for about 10,000 years. The closest thing we have are the Egyptian pyramids and they are not 10,000 years old.

The second problem with nuclear power is that it is not cheap. The article indicated that some modern designs are almost as cheap as fossil fuel plants. Add in the cost of decommissioning a reactor and that makes it more expensive.
Posted by sboverie
17th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Where do we get the fuel?
We don't have the nuclear fuel to go into nuclear power expansion unless we go into breeders. The dirty secret is that today many US nuclear power plants are running on reprocessed uranium from decommissioned Soviet missiles. This is due to run out in a few years.

Other sources for new nuclear fuel are from countries that are not all that friendly to us, such as Russia.
Posted by zackers
17th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Waste issue may not be that big
There are new technologies being developed that may eventually allow us to deal with nuclear waste without having to wait hundreds of thousands of years. Check out the two comments by "EFJ" at http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=222600475&cid=NL_eet

It will require the practical development of these new technologies and won't come soon, but it beats throwing it down a hole.
Posted by zackers
17th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Obama's nuclear power plant push: Is there a building boom ahead?
Where is the proposed plant to be built? Other news reports claim the the guarantees are to be for two additional units to be built at an existing nuclear plant in Georgia.

Is there any information on when recentently constructed base load fossil fired plants were started and placed in service?
Posted by David Wilson
17th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Obama's nuclear power plant push: Is there a building boom ahead?
With the price of oil recently pushing $100/barrel, the American public is finally coming to the same conclusion that the French and Japanese made a couple of decades ago: the use of commercial nuclear power plants is an excellent way to safely and economically produce base load electricity with minimal environmental impact and zero use of oil or coal. Learn more about nuclear power plants from the American Nuclear Society at http://www.ans.org/pi/.

The volume of waste (fission products and transuranic elements) is about 3% of the total volume of nuclear fuel used in a typical commercial nuclear power plant reactor. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Geological_disposal for a concise discussion of geological disposal options. This amount of waste is extremely small when compared to the volume of waste from an equivalent coal fired power plant.

This same Wikipedia article debunks radwaste myths promulgated by popular culture and fiction. Learn about the permanent disposal of transuranic waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico. This facility has already been permanently disposing of defense transuranic wastes for about 9 years. Learn about WIPP at http://www.wipp.energy.gov/general/general_information.htm.
Posted by nhoward
17th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Obama's nuclear power plant push: Is there a building boom ahead?
Why are we not dumping this kind of money into wind, solar, and water power solutions instead? We have plenty of desert in this country and plenty of available rooftops to install collectors. Yet to retro fit my home I would have to spend $40,000 to $50,00.
Posted by jns.das@...
17th Feb 2010
-1 Votes
+ -
Uranium may not be plentiful, but has anyone remembered Thorium?
While uranium may be hard to get and may be getting harder to get all the time, thorium-232 is more than 3X as plentiful. It is frequently used for its chemical properties in the most common applications. it is safe to handle because its half-life is so long that close contact to it is a non-issue.

Bombard it with a single neutron and it becomes Uranium-233 (after giving off one electron out of the nucleus). U233 is a very fissible fuel that is almost impossible to get to a high enough concentration to make a critical mass (ie., a nuclear explosive). But it works wonders in any reactor, including breeders.
Posted by LarryPTL
17th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Obama's nuclear power plant push: Is there a building boom ahead?
I think its silly to scream the world is coming to an end from global warming, yet maintain the quasi-religious opposition to nuclear power we have seen in all too many members of the politically correct community.

Regarding nuclear waste: Isn't it a contradiction that so many supposedly enlightened, erudite people cry in their champagne over the need to store nuclear waste for centuries, yet propose that we store billions of tons of carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants?

Paradoxically, toxic materials found in coal (i.e., mercury) as well as all that carbon dioxide, will remain biologically and environmentally active forever, hence will have to be sequestered from the environment forever, precisely because they are not radioactive and hence will never decay.

Regarding safety: Until Chernobyl, one could truthfully say that no member of the public was ever harmed by a civilian nuclear power plant accident. And after Chernobyl? It is still as true as it was before said reactor exploded, that there has never been any injury to any member of the public caused by a nuclear power plant that was built to western safety standards.

Since America is hung up about plutonium and storing radioactive by-products, I suggest we ship our spent fuel to China, Russia or France. At least then, nuclear power advocates such as myself will have the satisfaction of knowing that the plutonium in said spent fuel is being utilized instead of being wasted.
Posted by AlexKovnat
17th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Obama's nuclear power plant push: Is there a building boom ahead?
Nuclear power is NOT CLEAN ENERGY.

Why the hell do so many politicians continue to assert that it's anything other than highly hazardous, highly toxic and extremely bad for the environment in several ways?
Posted by james.faction
17th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Obama's nuclear power plant push: Is there a building boom ahead?
Loar guarantees do not mean that this makes economic sense. Do you realize that the default rates on nuke loans is right around 50%? Why would that be? Perhaps it's just too expensive to make any sense to build. New nuclear power produced from 3rd generation designs (i.e. the ones that are being looked at commercially today) produce electricity at anywhere from 12-17 cents/kwh for lifetime costs and for the first year of operation 20-29cents per kwh. That's just ridiculously expensive. The Georgia twin plants are going to cost around 8 billion each if they come online at budget (and whens the last time that's happened?)

Sure there are ideas for waste storage, but when they shut down Yucca Flats as the best storage site, the last estimate was that it would cost 96 BILLION dollars to open and run. That's just economic insanity--do you add that price on top of the cost of generating the electricity?

The bottom line is that this is one of the biggest examples of corporate socialism in history. What would energy efficiency and real renewables look like if we sent that money to them instead?

"http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/11/nuclear-companies-face-reactor-design-problems-ethics-questions.html
Posted by klassman6
17th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
No Need to store waste fuel rods
France and elsewhere except US, these countries are do re-enrichment to remove the waste fuel and reuse the rods again, this way the volume of waste fuel is only a teaspoon for a 20 year energy use of a family and can be safely stored unlike now needing large storage capacity. Further cheaper energy means, cost savings for consumer and cheaper cost for industrial output, will bring back jobs to USA.
Posted by manelsatish
17th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
The secret to cleaner and more efficient energy is to eliminate line loss
In other words, the closer the generator is to where it's used, the lesser the line loss and the more efficient the power useage is.

Nuclear power is very large-scale generation. In France and Japan population density is much higher than the US, so it makes more sense for them to go Nuclear (although even then it's debatable).

What we should ALL be doing (although current power providers hate this and have been fighting against it for years) is generating our own power. Rooftop solar and wind. Small-scale generation is both more efficient and less disruptive to the environment. Don't expect anyone anywhere in govt, least of all the President, to tell you this because as you should know they are constantly lobbied to the extreme by the power industry. As Obama has said many times: The future is up to YOU. Do something for yourself. Individual or small community power projects are the best way forward for all of us.
Posted by james.faction
17th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Obama's nuclear power plant push: Is there a building boom ahead?
After researching the websites below I believe coal fired plants are cheaper, safer and take less time to bring online. I am for new, cleaner means of power generation only when they can compete on cost!

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/accidents/accidents-1970%27s.htm

http://www.opb.org/thinkoutloud/shows/nuclear-northwest/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Public_Power_Supply_System
Posted by Repeal
17th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Obama's nuclear power plant push: Is there a building boom ahead?
No question that coal is cheaper than nukes (see my post above) but the whole issue about coal is the CO2 emissions per kwh are completely unacceptable, unless you are willing to bet your children's and grandchildren's future that the mainstream climate scientific community has created some nefarious conspiracy to take over the world. I'm with the consensus that it's way too risky to continue to follow the carbon intensive path.

But it's not that I'm for nuclear either: take the gigantic subsidies and huge capital investments you'd have to make in nukes (McCain's plan would have cost upwards of 4 trillion dollars if it were fully implemented) and put a fraction of that into energy efficiency improvements in buildings, appliances, transmission infrastructure, etc. and you're looking at reducing the amount of energy needed. Add in a prudent investment in real renewables like China is doing and you'll take care of the rest and you can retire old nukes and coal fired plants and still meet CO2 emissions levels by 2050.

Pie in the sky? Not at all: check out last November's Scientific American for starters.
Posted by klassman6
18th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Obama's nuclear power plant push: Is there a building boom ahead?
Nuclear is NOT clean energy.

Concentrating Solar IS clean energy !

If we were to invest this $8 Billion in Concentrating Solar
we could have at least four giga-size Concentrating Solar
Farms online in three years, tops.

And we have giant swathes of unused desert land in the
USA where we can't farm, can't build cities, and there's no
useful mineral deposits either.

But there's a nearly inexhaustible supply of sunlight shining
down on Phoenix, Arizona.

We already have 13 of these plants in the USA, up and
running. Build more, prove what a great investment they
are, as that will set the stage for solving our energy
problems permanently.

And BTW, we can store the heat from the Solar Thermal
plants overnight, so it's not a matter of load balancing.
Posted by Jkirk3279
18th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Obama's nuclear power plant push: Is there a building boom ahead?
Nuclear power is old-fashioned, a toxic wolf in white angels dress, pretending to give us the gift of abundant energy and leaving a gene-altering legacy. Will Obama only open his eyes when his own family starts glowing in the dark? Look at the deformities caused by Depleted Uranium to the people of Iraq!
No more subsidies to the dirty nuclear industry!
Posted by Eva Schlottmann
25th Apr 2011
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!