No new nuclear golden age, just old industry hands trying to profit.
No new nuclear golden age, just old industry hands trying to profit.
The Hidden Truth Behind Nuclear Power: A Dark Side and Costly Consequences
Nuclear power has long been touted as a crucial solution for reducing carbon emissions and combating climate change. However, a closer look reveals a more complex and troubling reality. While the nuclear industry continues to push for subsidies and funding, the tangible results are few and the costs are astronomical. It’s become clear that the nuclear narrative presented to the public is a distortion of the truth, serving the interests of a select few rather than the greater good.
The Costly Side of Nuclear Power
The track record of nuclear power projects is marked by cost overruns, delays, and dishonesty. In Georgia, the construction of two Westinghouse reactors at Plant Vogtle started in 2009, but as of today, only one reactor is operational and struggling to achieve commercial operation. Recent testimony from the Georgia Public Service Commission staff uncovered multiple unplanned trips and inaccurate cost estimates provided by utility executives. The estimated cost of the project has skyrocketed from $13.3 billion to a staggering $33 billion.
The burden of these costs falls largely on ratepayers, with the U.S. taxpayer indirectly providing $12 billion in loans through the Department of Energy (DOE). These astronomical sums spent on nuclear projects are diverting funds from more viable, less expensive solutions for decarbonizing the power sector. The transition to renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, is hindered by the lack of adequate transmission capacity and a fragmented electricity market system.
According to a study by the Brattle Group, meeting the transmission capacity needs for renewables by 2030 alone could cost between $30 billion and $90 billion. By 2050, the figures rise to a staggering $200 billion to $600 billion. Diverting funds to nuclear power instead of investing in vital transmission infrastructure is a waste of resources.
Nuclear’s Tenuous Future
While the nuclear industry receives favorable media coverage and support from some politicians, the reality is far from rosy. Public opinion on nuclear power has fluctuated over the years, influenced by events such as the Fukushima disaster in 2011. A Gallup poll in 2016 showed the lowest level of support for nuclear power in decades, at just 44%. Currently, support stands at 55%, but this is no guarantee for the future.
- COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations are increasing again, suggestin...
- NatWest bank, embroiled in scandal with Nigel Farage, sees profits ...
- Bidenomics’ critics proven wrong. Happy days here again.
The existing fleet of 92 reactors in the U.S. generates approximately one-fifth of the nation’s electricity, but most of these plants are slated for closure by 2050. Extending their lifetimes beyond their original 40-year design poses risks due to the lack of experience and the challenges of managing radioactive waste. The issue of where to store this waste persists, even after the abandonment of the Yucca Mountain repository project in Nevada.
The Illusion of Smaller Reactors
In recent years, there has been a push for smaller nuclear reactors known as small modular reactors (SMRs) and “advanced” reactors. This shift in focus was an attempt by the nuclear industry, led by the DOE, to revive its prospects after the failed attempts to build large-scale reactors. However, the viability of these smaller reactors is still questionable.
Despite the hype surrounding their potential, the DOE’s own report states that only large reactors with a capacity of 1 GW or more have a chance of making a significant impact on decarbonization. Building 200 to 300 large reactors by 2050 is necessary to achieve the desired results, a far cry from the paltry number of reactors ever built in the United States. The cost estimates for such a massive buildout range from $3 trillion to $5 trillion or more. These figures beg the question of where the funding will come from and whether pursuing nuclear power is a realistic solution in the face of potential technological advancements in other energy production techniques.
A Need for Honest Dialogue and Realistic Solutions
It is evident that nuclear power is not the panacea it is made out to be. The costs, risks, and challenges associated with the industry raise serious concerns. Instead of pouring billions into nuclear projects, attention should be turned to developing renewable energy sources and investing in transmission infrastructure to enable their widespread adoption.
A shift in public opinion, combined with the acknowledgment of market signals and a true understanding of the technical, financial, environmental, and geopolitical challenges of nuclear power, is necessary. Congress must resist the temptation to nationalize the electricity sector and rebuild an industrial infrastructure long lost.
While the nuclear industry seeks to keep aging reactors in operation and secure funding for unproven smaller and advanced reactors, the focus should be on finding realistic and cost-effective solutions for a sustainable, low-carbon future. The hidden truths behind nuclear power must be exposed, and an honest dialogue must take place to ensure that the choices made today lead us down the path of a cleaner and safer world.
Stephanie Cooke is the former editor of Nuclear Intelligence Weekly and author of In Mortal Hands: A Cautionary History of the Nuclear Age. The opinions expressed in ANBLE.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of ANBLE.
More Must-Read Commentary Published by ANBLE:
- ‘The global economy is due for a reality check,’ warns the central banks’ bank
- Demand for urban real estate will be challenged for the rest of the decade. Here’s how the world’s superstar cities are projected to fare by 2030
- ‘The Feckless 400’: These companies are still doing business in Russia–and funding Putin’s war
- Great Place To Work CEO: ‘It’s time to acknowledge why diversity makes us uncomfortable’
