Some Friendly Economics For The Nuclear Energy Booster Club

-- End Ad Box --->In simple terms, the capacity factor gives the
I would like to begin this brief exposition with aamount of energy (in e.g. kWh) that is actually
bizarre fairy tale that was confected by two wellobtained, as compared to that made available if
known energy experts, Amory Lovins and Josephmaximum output (= 'nameplate' capacity x time)
Romm, and published in Foreign Affairs (1992-93),were realized. It appears that in the U.S. wind
which is the prestigious journal of the (United States)generation works at maximum efficiency about
Council on Foreign Relations. It goes like this:one-third of the time, but this is confusing. With
"For example, the Swedish State Power Board foundcapacity factors between 0.25 and 0.35, the energy
that doubling electric efficiency, switching generatorsactually obtained as a percentage of maximum
to natural gas and biomass fuels and relying upon theenergy is less than one-half for many long periods.
cleanest power plants would support a 54 per centIt might also be useful to cite some figures for the
increase in real GNP from l987 to 2010 - while phasingcost of nuclear relative to gas and coal. The
out all nuclear power. Additionally, the heat andEconomist (July 9, 2005) presents estimates from
power sector's carbon dioxide output would fall byseveral sources for average electricity costs. For
one-third, and the costs of electrical services byGerman utilities the Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS)
nearly $1 billion per year. Sweden is already amonggives 1.5 cents/kwh for nuclear, 3.1-3.8 cents for gas,
the world's most energy-efficient countries, evenand 3.8-4.4 cents for coal. Similarly, they give 1.7
though it is cold, cloudy and heavily industrialized.cents/kwh for nuclear in the US, 2 cents for coal,
Other countries should be able to do better.and 5.7 cents for gas. The International Energy
I called that statement completely wrong the firstAgency (IEA), employing a discount rate of 5%,
time I saw it, while in my new energy economicsargues that nuclear is $21-31/Mwh, while gas ranges
textbook (2007) I suggest that it and similarfrom $37-60/Mwh. Other sources (e.g. Massachusetts
contributions are misleading bunkum. For example,Institute of Technology (MIT) and Britain's Royal
there are a number of questions that must beInstitute of International Affairs) disagree, however I
answered in detail before biomass can unambiguouslyspecifically make a practice of ignoring everything
be classified a large- scale fuel of choice for the nearoriginating with the energy economists of MIT and
or distant future. As for renewables such as solar andthe RIIA, especially the latter, and advise everyone
wind, and probably hydrogen, they will undoubtedlyreading this to do the same.
increase in quality and quantity, but it will not be atSo much for cost, but what about price of nuclear
the expense of nuclear.electricity - especially to private enterprises and
As David Schlageter pointed out in the importanthouseholds? In the case of Sweden, the low cost of
forum EnergyPulse (2008), "Renewable energynuclear and hydro power, and fairly smart regulation,
sources only supplement the electric grid withmade it possible to provide electricity to the industrial
intermittent power that rarely matches the dailysector at perhaps the lowest price in the world. This
electrical demand." He continues by saying that "Inbeing the case, nothing is more offbeat than hearing
order for an electric system to remain stable, itabout the "subsidies" paid the nuclear sector. Cheap
needs large generators running 24/7 to createelectricity meant the establishment of new
voltage stability. Wind and solar generation are notenterprises, and just as important the expansion of
on-line when needed to meet energy demand, andexisting firms. The tax income generated by these
therefore to help decrease system losses." In theactivities, and used for things like health care and
promised land of wind energy, Denmark, voltageeducation, more than compensated taxpayers (in the
stability is attained by drawing on the energyaggregate) for any 'subsidies' that might have been
resources of Sweden and Germany (and perhapsdispensed by the government.
Norway). The Danes pay for the imported electricity,An antithetical situation may prevail for wind and
but not for the stability.biofuels. In Germany the energy law guarantees
Every member of the nuclear booster club, to includeoperators of windmills and producers of solar energy
myself, should make it his or her business toan above-market price for power for as long as 20
memorize the quotations in the previous paragraph,years. This is an explicit subsidy, although it may be
because they provide an excellent contradiction toboth economically and politically optimal due to the
the tiresome delusion that it is economically feasiblereduction in greenhouse gas emissions. More
to largely supplant nuclear energy with 'renewables'.important, inexpensive electricity for plug-in hybrids is
They also suggest why - with electric demand on themade available.
verge of increasing faster than supply in many partsA more complex subsidy involves the exploitation of
of the world - more nuclear capacity is nowbiofuels. Research newly carried in the United States,
scheduled for introduction than at any time during theand reported in the influential journal Science, claims
past 3 decades.that almost all biofuels used today result in more
Deeper Meaningsgreenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if
For those readers who have been exposed tothe pollution directly and indirectly caused by
secondary school algebra, the above reference toproducing these 'green' fuels is taken into
things like voltage stability is superfluous. Sweden andconsideration. In addition, there would be a substantial
Norway produce, on the average, the lowest costloss of 'consumer surplus' throughout the world due
electricity in the world. Norway, however, generatesto a likely increase in food costs. Some of the
almost all its electricity with hydro, which is generallyintricacies of this important issue have been examined
recognized as the lowest-cost power source, whileon an elementary level by Clay Ogg (2008).
Swedish electricity is produced in almost equalIn these circumstances, it might be argued that
amounts by hydro and nuclear. As I show in aFrance's total acceptance of nuclear power makes a
forthcoming paper (2008), with this as a background,great deal of sense. As noted in the Financial Times
elementary algebra indicates that the unit cost of(October 6, 2006), nuclear power has provided "an
Swedish nuclear power is equal to the unit cost ofabundance of cheaply-produced electricity, made the
Norwegian (and Swedish) hydro. This is not acountry a leader in nuclear technology worldwide and
welcome conclusion for many pseudo-scholars.reduced its vulnerability to the fluctuations of the
But what about nuclear waste, which is repeatedlyturbulent oil and gas markets." France can also supply
portrayed as a malicious and unavoidable cost ofsome electricity to neighbouring countries, which helps
nuclear based electricity because, ostensibly, it willcounterbalance the short sighted and unthinking
have to be locked up for hundreds of thousands offoolishness being promoted by the European Union's
years? An argument that is sometimes presenteddirectors and its Energy Directorate.
however is that the costbenefit of no carbon-dioxideStrange Behaviour
(CO2) emissions from nuclear facilities. For instance,I'm a social scientist, Michael. That means I can't
the International Energy Agency has calculated thatexplain electricity, or anything like that, but if you
for France - the country with the largest productionwant to know about people I'm your man.
of nuclear energy (as a per cent of the total output--J.B. Handelsman in (The New Yorker Collection,
of electric power) - the average person is responsible1986)
for 6.3 tonnes of carbon dioxide, which e.g. isMy situation is somewhat different, Michael. I knew
one-third of the U.S. average. of disposing of nuclearenough about electricity to work on power lines for
waste is balanced by thethe U.S. Army during a brief period, and later to
The cost-benefit trade-off mentioned just above isdesign terminal installations for the U.S. Navy, but
probably worth remembering, however I prefer foralthough I have taught social science (i.e. economics)
students (and anybody else) to inform me thatin 14 universities, I am still unable to understand why
France intends to treat its 'waste' as a potential fuel,so many people are willing to risk the economic
and to explain why. (A similar strategy has beenfutures of themselves and their families because of
proposed in the UK by their energy minister.) For thatthe drivel being put into circulation by persons with a
reason a law has been passed in France stipulatingpsychotic hatred of technological excellence, although
that toxic waste is to be stored in such a way that itthey are quite capable of enjoying its material
can be comparatively easily accessed and recycled if,advantages. Something to be aware of here is that
at some point in the future, "new" technologiesthe rich will never be without reliable and plentiful
appear which will allow it to be used as a satisfactoryenergy, regardless of its availability or lack thereof to
input in the nuclear fuel cycle.the less fortunate. One of the reasons that they will
The latter provision is, as the reader might guess,never be without it is that they are fully aware of its
partially intended to appease or possibly bewilderimportance.
nuclear sceptics, because technology is alreadyPerhaps the clearest argument for nuclear power has
available for recycling this 'déchet', and in the eventbeen presented by Rhodes and Beller (2000), which is
that the price of newly mined and processed uraniumsimilar to the basic contention of this article. They say
escalates, it would almost certainly be utilized withoutthat "Because diversity and redundancy are important
further debate. Of course, as noted by manyfor safety and security, renewable energy sources
comments to EnergyPulse, few persons who workought to retain a place in the energy economy of
with or near uranium believe that there will be athe century to come." The meaning here is clear,
shortage of this commodity in the foreseeableespecially if you add that we probably will never
future, even if the forthcoming nuclear revivalpossess what is known in intermediate economic
eventually assumed the dimensions of a Manhattantheory as the optimal amount of nuclear power. But
Project.they do state that "nuclear power should be
There are occasionally long discussions of the cost ofcentral….Nuclear power is environmentally safe,
nuclear relative to the cost of renewables in thepractical and affordable. It is not the problem - it is
technical literature. An item that frequently appears isone of the solutions.
the capacity factors of windmills and solar generators.