In the pursuit of clean and affordable energy, solar and wind power have gained significant traction worldwide, with investments reaching trillions of dollars. However, the question arises: why not nuclear energy? When examining countries’ carbon dioxide output per kilowatt hour of energy produced, it becomes evident that France, which generates 61% of its electricity from nuclear power, produces only 32 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour. On the other hand, Germany, a country heavily investing in wind energy and phasing out nuclear power, produces 318 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour.
While wind energy releases less carbon dioxide than nuclear energy, it requires complementary power sources, such as natural gas, to provide electricity when the wind is not blowing. This leads to a direct competition between wind energy and larger baseload power stations like natural gas, rather than nuclear energy. To understand why nuclear energy is falling out of favor, we must delve into the world of economics.
Contents
The Cost and Construction Time
When deciding where to invest money in infrastructure, factors like risk, potential gain, and time to return on investment are essential considerations. Nuclear power plants have significantly higher construction costs compared to natural gas power plants. The average cost of constructing a nuclear power plant varies widely, ranging from $5,500 to $8,100 per kilowatt. Assuming a lower price of $6,000 per kilowatt, a 1,000 megawatt nuclear power plant would cost $6 billion. On the other hand, natural gas power plants are relatively cheaper, with a cost of around $920 per kilowatt, amounting to $1 billion for a 1,000 megawatt power plant.
Additionally, the construction time greatly differs between the two energy sources. Nuclear power plants take an average of six years to construct, while natural gas power plants can be completed in about two years. This poses a significant challenge when considering loan repayments and interest rates. Assuming a 3% interest rate and a repayment term of 25 years, the nuclear power plant would face substantial loan repayments without generating revenue for the first six years. Conversely, the natural gas plant would start generating revenue after two years, ultimately leading to a quicker return on investment.
Profitability and Risk
To illustrate the profitability of the two power plants over time, a simplified return on investment calculation can be examined. After six years, the nuclear power plant would accumulate $1.2 billion in loan repayments, without any revenue generated. This alone is a significant barrier to justifying nuclear energy investments. Additionally, nuclear power plants have a track record of running over budget and over time, resulting in further delays to revenue generation.
Considering the risk involved in reaching profitability, investors and politicians are hesitant to allocate funds to nuclear energy. Furthermore, the long-term nature of nuclear projects often conflicts with politicians’ shorter terms in office. These factors make nuclear energy a challenging investment to justify, even without considering safety concerns.
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Closure
An example of the economic challenges faced by nuclear energy is the decision to close the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in California. Pacific Gas and Electric, the operator of the plant, decided to shut it down when its 40-year license expires in 2024. The decision was primarily driven by the high cost of modernizing the facility, including earthquake protection measures. Retrofitting the plant to meet safety standards, especially after the Fukushima disaster, proved financially burdensome. Consequently, replacing the plant with renewables was deemed a more economically viable option.
The Changing Energy Landscape
Nuclear energy is not the only form of energy facing competition. In northern California, natural gas turbines were replaced by battery storage due to the state’s excess solar energy production. Buying and storing solar energy in batteries for later use proved economically favorable. As the energy landscape evolves, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. The most cost-effective forms of electricity generation currently include onshore wind, photovoltaic solar power, and combined cycle natural gas.
To regain prominence, nuclear energy needs to evolve and compete with the role natural gas fills. It must become smaller, cheaper, and safer, ideally being able to turn on and off, allowing it to integrate seamlessly with modern grids that rely heavily on renewables. Various solutions are being explored to make nuclear energy competitive once again.
Conclusion
The economics of nuclear energy pose significant challenges, including high construction costs, lengthy construction timelines, and the risk involved in reaching profitability. While nuclear power plants can eventually generate significant profits, the initial investment and long timeframe deter many investors and politicians. Safety concerns, along with the emergence of cheaper renewables and natural gas, also contribute to the decline of nuclear energy.
To understand the ever-changing energy market and make informed decisions, it is crucial to grasp the underlying technologies and economics. Platforms like Brilliant offer courses that deepen understanding of solar energy and other relevant concepts. By continuously improving our knowledge and problem-solving skills, we can strive towards a sustainable and efficient energy future.
