The unsustainable cost of nuclear power

Katie Nekola

Nuclear power is getting attention as a potential solution to global warming, since the nuclear fuel cycle emits less greenhouse gases than coal plants do. Nuclear proponents say that we should invest in new nuclear power plants as an alternative to coal, and in Wisconsin, some advocate repeal of a state law that requires that any new nuclear power plant proposed must be economically beneficial to ratepayers. This law was enacted over twenty years ago, when the cost to build new nuclear plants was several orders of magnitude higher than for any other technology. Today, the gap has widened much further and the cost of new nuclear plants would be astronomical. Here are some facts about the true cost of nuclear power.

Fuel Supply and Cost of Uranium and Enrichment:

The U.S. faces stiff global competition for nuclear fuel. We import 65 percent of our oil, but 90 percent of our uranium. At a time when state and federal leadership has set goals for "energy independence," reliance on nuclear power would mean depending on technology that requires fuel imported from overseas. Moreover, according to MIT scientists, there is less global supply of enriched uranium than commonly projected and the price has increased more than tenfold over the last five years.

Repairing Aging Nuclear Reactors

Wisconsin's nuclear reactors were built in the late 1960's and early 1970's and have required major capital expenditures to keep operating. Wisconsin households paid a total of approximately $125 million for a steam generator replacement project at Kewaunee in 1998. Point Beach has replaced steam generators at both of its units, the most recent in 1996.

Security Costs

After September 11, 2001, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission upgraded its security requirements for nuclear power plants, mandating millions of dollars of capital expenditures for each facility. Even with these measures, however, there is uncertainty as to whether nuclear facilities are truly safe from terrorist attacks. A report from Argonne National Lab concluded that aircraft crashes could subject nuclear plants to numerous multiple failures that could lead to "total meltdown" even without direct damage to the containment structure. In addition, spent fuel that is stored in fuel pools or dry casks is less protected than the reactor itself, and since spent fuel is being stored on site, near nuclear reactors, there is a risk of radiation leaks from those sources as well. As Peter Bradford, former Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner, pointed out, "Private investors saw Three Mile Island transform from a $2 billion asset to a $1 billion cleanup job in about 90 minutes."

Waste Disposal Costs

Part of our electric rates go to payments to the federal Nuclear Waste Fund, which is intended to fund the construction of the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada and pay for transportation of waste to the proposed disposal site. To date, Wisconsin customers have paid about $600 million into this fund. Although Yucca was scheduled to begin accepting waste in 1998, the date has been repeatedly postponed, and it is now estimated that Yucca won't open until 2020, if ever.

In addition, there are also costs associated with disposing of low-level radioactive waste. Between 1993 and 2003, these costs increased at a rate of about 20 percent per year in the U.S.

Decommissioning

Nuclear plant owners are responsible for costs to dismantle retired units, dispose of waste, and decontaminate the site. Each unit has its own decommissioning trust fund, paid for by customers. Wisconsin ratepayers have spent $1.5 billion for the eventual decommissioning of the Point Beach, Kewaunee, and Genoa plants.

Cost to Build New Nuclear Power Plants

Estimates of the cost to construct nuclear power plants are as high as $4,000 per kilowatt, as compared to about $1,400 per kilowatt for wind projects.

Federal Subsidies

Some people object to government subsidies for renewable energy projects. What they might not know is that new nuclear plants are being underwritten by tax dollars in amounts infinitely larger than any support being offered to clean, safe energy sources. For example, the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 included a loan guarantee program for nuclear plant developers, risk insurance that protects corporate investors against costs associated with delays in licensing, and federal tax credits. The nuclear industry has long enjoyed limited liability for nuclear accidents under the Price-Anderson Act, which ensures that taxpayers, not industry, will pay for damages in the event of a serious accident.

Conclusion: It's Time for Smart Investments

Clean Wisconsin opposes new nuclear power for many reasons, including the fact that there is nowhere to dispose of radioactive waste, safety concerns, and cost. Cost becomes an environmental issue when the state decides to spend taxpayer money to support dirty and dangerous technologies. Every dollar that goes to subsidize nuclear power is a dollar that could be used to develop renewable energy and energy efficiency. In contrast to the vast money pit required by nukes, every dollar invested in energy efficiency programs returns three dollars in electricity savings to Wisconsin customers. There is no waste, radioactive or otherwise, and efficiency is not a terrorist target. There is no multi-billion dollar decommissioning fund necessary, and no money is needed to plan and build a permanent radioactive waste storage facility that may never open. Fuel supply and price will never be an issue for energy efficiency or renewable power. And the fact that energy efficiency technology components need replacement from time to time actually presents economic opportunity for Wisconsin manufacturing, rather than the economic drain created by maintenance of aging nuclear plants.

California has made a commitment to reducing its energy use by investing much more in energy efficiency than Wisconsin does, and its per capita energy use is about half of Wisconsin's as a result. It has made real commitments to stopping global warming without building more nuclear plants, and is keeping the lights on and industry humming along just fine. Wisconsin would be wise to follow its example.