5 ms·

What is preventing new nuclear power plants from being built? Is it just fear/local opposition, or is there some regulatory or financial reason that new plants

What is preventing new nuclear power plants from being built? Is it just fear/local opposition, or is there some regulatory or financial reason that new plants aren't being proposed?

ekianjo 7y ago
Probably political will is lacking the most. Almost nobody campaigns for building more nuclear plants.
- imtringued 7y ago
  Have you been living under a rock? There is no shortage of pro nuclear campaigns. The reason nuclear platns don't get built is that they are too expensive to build. Every pro argument is built around theoretical reactor designs that haven't been built yet. Building an old design is expensive, building a new design is even more expensive.
angersock 7y ago
Fear manifesting in extreme regulation, cost of insurance, cost of construction, court cases...the whole thing.
jartelt 7y ago
No one wants to make the investment to build a plant that costs several billion dollars and will take up to 10 years to build. There have been attempts to build new plants in the US but the cost over runs have been huge. Rate payers are fed up with billion dollar cost increases. Plus, many of the plants that are currently operating in the states are losing money because their electricity is too costly. We have had a series of nuclear plant bailouts in the past few years. If you can't make money after the construction costs have already be amortized, how can you make money on a new plant? It's just a very poor financial investment to build a large reactor in the states (unless something changes).
cjslep 7y ago
Low energy prices. Of the ones that are being built have caused an epic cascade of business failures from construction companies to Westinghouse (who was the leading reactor core design company in the US, not even a construction company). As I understand it the USA has had a glut of skilled construction labor, all the expert laborers from the 70's never really had a chance to pass down their trade during the nuclear glut of the 80's - 00's
- irrational 7y ago
  Do you mean glut (an excessive quantity)? Or are you thinking of gut (to destroy the essential power or effectiveness of)?
  - cjslep 7y ago
    The first: no nuclear power plants to build, and an abundance of skilled and experienced blue collar labor available (but dwindling as time progressed).
jhallenworld 7y ago
In the US, the answer is simple: the financial ruin from Three Mile Island. The reactor was brand new when it had the meltdown, so was a total loss and required billions to clean up. Who wants that risk?
- number6 7y ago
  I guess most people dont remember Three Mile Island - but that's why no one build a Nuclear power plant after that incident. Regulations became stricter and the risks of lawsuits... you can imagen...
timerol 7y ago
I am under the impression that it's regulatory. Specifically, regulations adding time to get plants permitted and constructed. If you look at the graph of new nuclear power plants coming online, only look at the US, and squint just a little, it looks like the time of construction in the US starts growing right after Three Mile Island, and doesn't stop until any potential return is so far in the future that new plants stop being built. http://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/annual-capacity-additions-and-construction-times.jpg http://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/annual...
- neuland 7y ago
  This is a cool chart. So, there are still reactors getting built in other parts of the world, albeit fewer than in 70's and 80's. If it's regulatory, I'm surprised that more climate focused candidates don't campaign on streamlining regulations to make it possible for more plants to get built. It's essentially zero cost in comparison to other climate efforts that will cost billions / trillions in re-investment. I don't know a lot about renewables or energy production, but my understanding is that solar and wind are not good for base load unless there's a big improvement in storage technology (either batteries or some physical setup like the pair of lakes in West Virginia where they pump water around). So, nuclear is something we can do now that we know works. And since all these plants are at the end of their life, we can get a much more realistic picture of the total cost of ownership, instead of projections about what the produced power would cost.
  - reaperducer 7y ago
    So, there are still reactors getting built in other parts of the world The map shows three currently under construction in the United States, which is more than any other country with under a billion people.
    - waiseristy 7y ago
      The chart is misleading, 1 of those bubbles was canceled in 2017 (SUMMER 2-3). The other started in the 80's, got canceled, and then picked up again a few years back. The third is brand new
pytester 7y ago
Cost https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17/exelon-official-no-new-nuclear-plants-to-be-built-in-the-us.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17/exelon-official-no-new-nucle...
Retric 7y ago
Nuclear power is not cost competitive. Reasonably safe nuclear power plants require a lot of concrete and steel. A highly trained workforce and significant security 24/7. Quite a bit of land with access to water and or the construction of a huge cooling tower(s). Past all this you need a massive insurance policy or state backing in case something major goes wrong. Without subsidies it’s a money losing proposition even if you can sell all power produced at a good rate. However, with renewables regularly pushing down the value of electricity for much of the day things have gotten even worse.
- ImprovedSilence 7y ago
  Or states are giving tax breaks to fracking (natural gas) companies in the name of “job creation”, only helping to lower the cost of electricity produced from natural gas. Basically we are subsidizing non-renewalable energy sources.... Also regulation drives a big chunk of the cost of nuclear. It’s not the cement and labor that drives the cost here...
  - Retric 7y ago
    Globally the same amount of Nuclear power was produced in 2017 as 2002. That has little to do with local regulations and a lot to do with basic economics. As China etc have very different approaches to regulation.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    I've observed a bit of an irony there - the fossil fuel industries generate political protection for themselves because of all the jobs they generate. Nuclear is an order or two more efficient (you need a fraction of the mines, and a fraction of the work to keep the whole technology stack running). In practice this seems to mean that nuclear power doesn't have much of a lobby in favor of it even if it is established as an industry. In Australia the coal lobby is a pretty noticeable force in two states and arguably influenced the last election. If we were 100% nuclear instead there wouldn't be enough people in the industry to make a political difference.
- aqme28 7y ago
Circuits 7y ago
It would cost too much money.
jakespracher 7y ago
It’s a shame new ones can’t be built! New reactor designs are far more efficient and safe. There are designs you could leave unattended with no power indefinitely and they would never melt down https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612940/the-new-safer-nuclear-reactors-that-might-help-stop-climate-change/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612940/the-new-safer-nucl... The problem is we can’t build them cost effectively. Toshiba had to sell it’s 18 billion memory chip business to cover the losses of its nuclear division. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting-westinghouse-nucle-idUSKBN17Y0CQ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting-westin... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting-westinghouse-bankr/toshiba-reaches-deal-to-help-resolve-westinghouse-bankruptcy-rebuild-finances-idUSKBN1F7028 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting-westin...

What is preventing new nuclear power plants from being built? Is it just fear/local opposition, or is there some regulatory or financial reason that new plants aren't being proposed?

ekianjo 7y ago

Probably political will is lacking the most. Almost nobody campaigns for building more nuclear plants.

imtringued 7y ago
Have you been living under a rock? There is no shortage of pro nuclear campaigns. The reason nuclear platns don't get built is that they are too expensive to build. Every pro argument is built around theoretical reactor designs that haven't been built yet. Building an old design is expensive, building a new design is even more expensive.

angersock 7y ago

Fear manifesting in extreme regulation, cost of insurance, cost of construction, court cases...the whole thing.

jartelt 7y ago

No one wants to make the investment to build a plant that costs several billion dollars and will take up to 10 years to build. There have been attempts to build new plants in the US but the cost over runs have been huge. Rate payers are fed up with billion dollar cost increases. Plus, many of the plants that are currently operating in the states are losing money because their electricity is too costly. We have had a series of nuclear plant bailouts in the past few years. If you can't make money after the construction costs have already be amortized, how can you make money on a new plant? It's just a very poor financial investment to build a large reactor in the states (unless something changes).

cjslep 7y ago

Low energy prices. Of the ones that are being built have caused an epic cascade of business failures from construction companies to Westinghouse (who was the leading reactor core design company in the US, not even a construction company). As I understand it the USA has had a glut of skilled construction labor, all the expert laborers from the 70's never really had a chance to pass down their trade during the nuclear glut of the 80's - 00's

irrational 7y ago
Do you mean glut (an excessive quantity)? Or are you thinking of gut (to destroy the essential power or effectiveness of)?
- cjslep 7y ago
  The first: no nuclear power plants to build, and an abundance of skilled and experienced blue collar labor available (but dwindling as time progressed).

jhallenworld 7y ago

In the US, the answer is simple: the financial ruin from Three Mile Island. The reactor was brand new when it had the meltdown, so was a total loss and required billions to clean up. Who wants that risk?

number6 7y ago
I guess most people dont remember Three Mile Island - but that's why no one build a Nuclear power plant after that incident. Regulations became stricter and the risks of lawsuits... you can imagen...

timerol 7y ago

I am under the impression that it's regulatory. Specifically, regulations adding time to get plants permitted and constructed. If you look at the graph of new nuclear power plants coming online, only look at the US, and squint just a little, it looks like the time of construction in the US starts growing right after Three Mile Island, and doesn't stop until any potential return is so far in the future that new plants stop being built. http://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/annual-capacity-additions-and-construction-times.jpg http://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/annual...

neuland 7y ago
This is a cool chart. So, there are still reactors getting built in other parts of the world, albeit fewer than in 70's and 80's. If it's regulatory, I'm surprised that more climate focused candidates don't campaign on streamlining regulations to make it possible for more plants to get built. It's essentially zero cost in comparison to other climate efforts that will cost billions / trillions in re-investment. I don't know a lot about renewables or energy production, but my understanding is that solar and wind are not good for base load unless there's a big improvement in storage technology (either batteries or some physical setup like the pair of lakes in West Virginia where they pump water around). So, nuclear is something we can do now that we know works. And since all these plants are at the end of their life, we can get a much more realistic picture of the total cost of ownership, instead of projections about what the produced power would cost.
- reaperducer 7y ago
  So, there are still reactors getting built in other parts of the world The map shows three currently under construction in the United States, which is more than any other country with under a billion people.
  - waiseristy 7y ago
    The chart is misleading, 1 of those bubbles was canceled in 2017 (SUMMER 2-3). The other started in the 80's, got canceled, and then picked up again a few years back. The third is brand new

pytester 7y ago

Cost https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17/exelon-official-no-new-nuclear-plants-to-be-built-in-the-us.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17/exelon-official-no-new-nucle...

Retric 7y ago

Nuclear power is not cost competitive. Reasonably safe nuclear power plants require a lot of concrete and steel. A highly trained workforce and significant security 24/7. Quite a bit of land with access to water and or the construction of a huge cooling tower(s). Past all this you need a massive insurance policy or state backing in case something major goes wrong. Without subsidies it’s a money losing proposition even if you can sell all power produced at a good rate. However, with renewables regularly pushing down the value of electricity for much of the day things have gotten even worse.

ImprovedSilence 7y ago
Or states are giving tax breaks to fracking (natural gas) companies in the name of “job creation”, only helping to lower the cost of electricity produced from natural gas. Basically we are subsidizing non-renewalable energy sources.... Also regulation drives a big chunk of the cost of nuclear. It’s not the cement and labor that drives the cost here...
- Retric 7y ago
  Globally the same amount of Nuclear power was produced in 2017 as 2002. That has little to do with local regulations and a lot to do with basic economics. As China etc have very different approaches to regulation.
- roenxi 7y ago
  I've observed a bit of an irony there - the fossil fuel industries generate political protection for themselves because of all the jobs they generate. Nuclear is an order or two more efficient (you need a fraction of the mines, and a fraction of the work to keep the whole technology stack running). In practice this seems to mean that nuclear power doesn't have much of a lobby in favor of it even if it is established as an industry. In Australia the coal lobby is a pretty noticeable force in two states and arguably influenced the last election. If we were 100% nuclear instead there wouldn't be enough people in the industry to make a political difference.
aqme28 7y ago

Circuits 7y ago

It would cost too much money.

jakespracher 7y ago

It’s a shame new ones can’t be built! New reactor designs are far more efficient and safe. There are designs you could leave unattended with no power indefinitely and they would never melt down https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612940/the-new-safer-nuclear-reactors-that-might-help-stop-climate-change/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612940/the-new-safer-nucl... The problem is we can’t build them cost effectively. Toshiba had to sell it’s 18 billion memory chip business to cover the losses of its nuclear division. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting-westinghouse-nucle-idUSKBN17Y0CQ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting-westin... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting-westinghouse-bankr/toshiba-reaches-deal-to-help-resolve-westinghouse-bankruptcy-rebuild-finances-idUSKBN1F7028 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting-westin...