Cost of Nuclear Power

Many reports claiming nuclear power is cheaper than other sources of energy don’t include all costs and use flawed analysis.  See details below.

“Nuclear power, as a practical, affordable way to keep the lights on, is an absurdly problematic endeavor, fraught with no end of unexpected technical complications. And god help us if another Chernobyl or Fukushima revisits our fragile human condition, which of course, it will, but…as an investment opportunity, with its unfettered Trillions in government subsidies, and America’s naive ratepayer picking up the rest, how can one’s portfolio be without it? That said, I heat the spas and pools, in all of my homes via solar.”

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) 2005 Cost Analysis to replace San Onofre’s four steam generators is seriously flawed.

• Assumed extremely high future gas prices. See Edison may be saving money with San Onofre shut down 2/21/2012.
• Excluded
  • Cost of storing tons of toxic radioactive waste for thousands of years.
    • NOTE: A federal court awarded the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) more than $34.6 million for the federal government’s failure to provide a permanent nuclear waste storage site for the Rancho Seco nuclear waste. 
  • Cost of a potential nuclear accident.
  • Energy efficiency alternatives, such as increasing incentives to replace inefficient air conditioners.
  • Renewable energy and other energy options.
  • Load balancing.
  • Costs for potential problems with the steam generators.
    • The steam generator replacement project cost $680 million (in 2004 dollars). This included $569 for replacement steam generator installation and $111 million for removal and disposal of the original steam generators. See San Onofre steam generator replacement costs – CPUC 12/15/2005 decision.
    • The poorly designed new steam generators leaked radiation in less than one year and developed decades of unprecedented premature wear in less than two years. Millions of dollars of additional costs are mounting with no end in sight.

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (H.R. 6) signed by President Bush

• Over $13 billion in cradle-to-grave subsidies and tax breaks
• Unlimited taxpayer-backed loan guarantees
• Limited liability in the case of an accident
• Other incentives to the nuclear industry to build new reactors.  See:

• Nuclear Giveaways in the Energy Policy Act of 2005
  • Price-Anderson Act: The Billion Dollar Bailout for Nuclear Power Mishaps
  • Nuclear Power is Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive
  • The Extreme Costs of Nuclear Power

 

Once-Through Cooling (OTC)

The San Onofre and Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors kill millions of fish and other aquatic life every year, due to their once-through cooling systems. They are out of compliance with Federal Clean Water Act §316(b) regulations.  

• The California Coastal Commission (CCC) issued a coastal development permit for reactor Units 2 and 3.  A condition of the permit required study of the impacts of the operation of the nuclear reactors on the marine environment offshore from San Onofre, and mitigation of any adverse impacts.  The permit (No. 6-81-330-A) requires Southern California Edison (SCE) to design and build mitigation projects that adequately compensate for the adverse effects of the power plant’s once-through seawater cooling system on coastal marine resources.

• Long-term monitoring and evaluation of the San Onofre mitigation projects is a condition of the coastal development permit.  See 2012 Mitigation Program Annual Status Report.
• University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB) scientists working under the direction of the Executive Director of the CCC are responsible for designing and implementing monitoring programs aimed at determining the effectiveness of these mitigation projects.  The San Onofre Mitigation Monitoring Program is based at the Marine Science Institute, University of California Santa Barbara. See UCSB San Onofre Mitigation Monitoring website.
• Annual Funding for the San Onofre (SONGS) Mitigation Monitoring Program is provided by SCE (paid by ratepayers) as a requirement of their coastal development permit for operating SONGS.  

• The California State Water Resources Control Board (WRCB) is responsible for implementing the Federal Clean Water Act §316(b) regulations on cooling water intake structures.  However, they have delayed implementation.
  • If the WRCB enforced compliance, the costs would be prohibitive, resulting in the probable shutdown of San Onofre.
  • Edison estimates $2.5 billion to retrofit San Onofre NC  Times 8/8/2009
  • Edison Feasibility Study for Installation of Cooling Towers at San Onofre 9/18/2009: Estimated initial costs of more than $3 billion, and annual costs of  $85 million. 
  • WRCB Alternative Cooling System Analysis for San Onofre 2/27/2008: Estimated capital and start-up costs of $593.1 million; all capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, and energy penalty costs over 20 years, discounted at 7.0% totals $2.62 billion. 
  • WRCB Once-Through Cooling website (status and policy)
  • Once-through Cooling Water Use and CWA 316(b) Regulation
  • Amended Policy 2012
  • Federal Water Pollution Control Act

• New Jersey’s Oyster Creek is closing due to the expense of complying with their once-through cooling rules.
  • Early closure for Oyster Creek – World Nuclear News 12/9/2010
  • New Jersey Administrative Consent Order 12/9/2010

• The California’s Independent System Operator’s annual transmission planning process is evaluating potential reliability impacts caused by retiring California once-through cooling gas plants and nuclear power reactors, the off line time needed to retrofit them with alternative technologies, as well as the timing issues of when plants will implement their compliance strategies (2012-2020).  See CAISO Once-through cooling generation.

California Emergency Services Act

• About $5.4 million annually is paid by taxpayers and ratepayers, under the California Emergency Services Act (Article 10, pages 67-72) for state and local emergency service preparedness in the event of a nuclear power plant accident.
  • $2,047,000 annually to California state agencies
    • $1,094,000 to California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA)
    • $953,000 to State Department of Public Health
  • $3,332,000 annually to local government agencies
    • $1,732,000 for the Diablo Canyon site
    • $1,600,000 for the San Onofre site

Other California Ratepayer Costs

• The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved $64 million for new seismic studies and related costs for San Onofre. The CPUC decided all costs will be paid by ratepayers.  See 5/10/2012 CPUC press release.

• See CPUC nuclear website for information on billions of dollars of additional costs required for California’s two nuclear power plants.
  • Nuclear Decommissioning
    • see also NRC skimps on financial oversight NY Times 05/06/2012
  • Relicensing
  • Once-through Cooling systems (OTC)
  • Uranium enrichment services
  • System upgrades and maintenance
  • Seismic studies and other studies

 Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) annual budget is over $1 billion. 

•  FY 2012 is $1,038.1 billion per Federal Register Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for FY 2012
• 90% of the budget comes from nuclear industry fees, which are indirectly paid by ratepayers. The remaining 10% is from U.S. taxpayers.

“… the NRC is required, by law, to recover about 90 percent of our budget authority directly from the industry that we regulate…  The NRC received a bit more than $1 billion for FY 2012, so the amount we will recover in fees by Sept. 30 is approximately $909.5 million. We collect those fees and send the money back to the U.S. Treasury.” – Arlette Howard, NRC Fee Policy Analyst

Nuclear Waste Storage

• Nuclear waste is dangerous to human health for thousands of years. 
• Ratepayers and taxpayers are funding the cost of this storage. 
• There is no safe storage solution for this waste. 
• The Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires this waste to be stored at current sites for hundreds of years.  

U-235 Uranium

• Uranium mining carries serious environmental and health risks.
• The U.S. is dependent on other countries for most of the U-235 uranium fuel.
• The price of U-235 uranium has risen dramatically in recent years.

     Price of uranium purchased by U.S. nuclear power plants