Cost of Nuclear Power

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

SONGs Toon Ol'Boy Club

“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.”

Cost of Nuclear Waste Storage and Decommissioning

Ratepayers and taxpayers fund nuclear waste storage. Ratepayers fund nuclear power plant decommissioning. The waste must be stored for hundreds of thousands of years.  Money is deducted from ratepayer utility bills every month to pay for decommissioning and waste storage. The federal government was required to starting managing nuclear waste storage starting in 1983, but has failed to do so. Utility companies have sued and won settlements from the federal government because of this. Taxpayers are funding these settlements. NOTE: The federal government has suspended collection of waste storage funds from ratepayers. However, it is unclear at this time if this is temporary.

      • In California, the portion paid for decommissioning costs is managed the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC).  The rate paid varies. For example,  Southern California Edison requested a decommissioning rate increase from 16.05 cents per kWh to 16.07 cents per kWh to be effective January 2014. This is the rate for residential customers.
      • The ratepayer portion paid for nuclear waste storage is managed by the Department of Energy (DOE).
        • Starting in 1983, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) authorized the DOE to charge electric utilities fees to cover the costs of disposing of the nuclear waste they generate. Utilities today pay annual fees at a rate of 1 mil (0.1 cent) per kilowatt-hour of the electricity they sell that is generated by nuclear power plants. In addition to the ongoing yearly fees, the NWPA established one-time fees to cover the costs of disposing of waste that was generated before the law was enacted. DOE provided utilities with several options for paying that one-time charge, but several utilities have not yet paid the fee, and a significant amount remains uncollected.
      • Under contracts signed with electric utilities pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the DOE was scheduled to start removing waste from storage sites at individual power plants for transport to a federal storage or disposal facility by 1998. After the federal government missed its 1998 contractual deadline to start collecting waste, electric utilities began—successfully—to sue the government for resulting damages, which are paid from the Treasury’s Judgment Fund (taxpayer funded).
      • See more details, including costs and monies accummulated, in this July 27, 2010 Congressional Budget Office Statement to Congress, The Federal Government’s Responsibilities and Liabilities Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

CPUC role: Protect ratepayer financial and safety interests

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has jurisdiction over nuclear power radiation safety. However, the CPUC regulates utility expenditures and other safety issues at nuclear power plants, and sets utility rates.

Loretta M. Lynch, former CPUC President says the CPUC has become a lapdog rather than an independent regulator representing the public. See her interview here (starts at minute 1:00). The Governor appoints the five Commissioners with confirmation from the State Senate, but cannot fire them.  However, the Governor independently selects which one will be CPUC president and can remove them from that role. Governor Gray Davis removed Lynch as president and appointed Michael Peevey (former President of Southern California Edison).

 

Aging nuclear reactors cost ratepayers billions of dollars

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

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:

 

Federal Subsidies: Nuclear vs. Solar Energy

Over its history as a significant California energy source, the nuclear power industry has received four times more subsidies than the California distributed solar industry and has had six times longer to mature with the assistance of such subsidies, as shown in this chart from Ask Saint Onofrio: Finding What Has Been Lost in A Tale of Two Energy Sources by Nancy E. Pfund & Noah W. Walker, August 2013. This study finds that, over the last half century, California’s nuclear power suppliers have received over $8.21 billion in federal support. By contrast, the federal solar investment tax credits are slated to revert from 30 percent to 10 percent of initial system costs in 2016.

Federal Calif Subsidies Nuclear Vs Solar 1963-2012

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.

Brochure: California Coastal Commission: Why it exists and what it does

      • 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’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

Other California Ratepayer Costs

SONGs and Scripps Seismic Submarine

    • See CPUC nuclear website for information on billions of dollars of additional costs required for California’s two nuclear power plants.

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

“… 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

  • One Day Son All This Will Be YoursNuclear waste is dangerous to human health for thousands of years
  • Ratepayers and taxpayers are funding the cost of this storage. 
    • The government is in default on a contractual obligation to dispose of spent fuel from nuclear utilities; the user fees being paid to the government to finance the activities needed to meet that obligation are used to offset the [federal] deficit, while expenditures for those activities are constrained under limits on discretionary appropriations; and all the while, taxpayer liabilities resulting from failure to meet the government’s contractual obligations continue to grow.
    • The Financial Report of the United States Government for FY 2011 reports that these liabilities totaled $49.1 billion— including both the unpaid damages for non-performance and unspent Nuclear Waste Fund fees and interest.
    • Source: Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s nuclear Future, January 2012, P. 78
  • 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.  
  • Learn more…

Used Nuclear Fuel Storage U.S. Map 2011 NEI

U-235 Uranium

http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=nuclear_where

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

Price of Uranium 1994-2011

8 Responses to Cost of Nuclear Power

  1. CaptD says:

    Great article… Well Done

    Now add THE RISK of a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster (like Fukushima) happening!
    All it takes is one or more:

    ~ Tornado strike?
    ~ Earthquake?
    ~ Human error?
    ~ Tsunami?
    ~ Power outage?
    ~ Pipe break?
    ~ Test gone wrong?
    ~ Old fuel issues?
    ~ Terrorist attack?
    ~ Hurricane?
    ~ Plane crash?
    ~ Heavy rains/River floods?
    ~ Metal Fatigue?
    ~ Nuclear Ransom?
    ~ Solar Flair?
    ~ EMP?
    ~ Lightning?
    ~ Dam Failure?
    ~ Fire?
    ~ Operator suicide?
    ~ Jihadist?
    ~ CME?
    ~ Carrington Effect?
    ~ Cyber-warfare?

    Are we really safe or just VERY LUCKY?

  2. CaptD says:

    I believe that if Americans really knew the true cost of Fukushima, WE, the people, would demand CHANGING the use of reactors in the USA and that is something that many in Government and the entire Nuclear Industry want to avoid at all cost!

    What will determine the total cost of Japan’s “Trillion Dollar” Eco-Disast­er?

    Please feel free to add your comments and or estimates to this list:
     Decommissi­oning costs
     Loss to all other radioactiv­e decontamin­ation caused by this Disaster.
     Loss of revenues by Tepco
     Loss to TEPCO’s share holders caused by radioactiv­ity
     Loss of Japanese personal income caused by radioactiv­ity
     Loss to Japanese businesses caused by radioactiv­ity
     Loss of all Japanese health costs related to radioactiv­ity
     Loss due to unusable Japanese Land related to radioactiv­ity
     Loss due to Japanese housing caused by radioactiv­ity
     Loss of Japanese Property Values caused by radioactiv­ity
     Loss of fishing grounds caused by radioactiv­ity
     Loss of manufactur­ing caused by radioactiv­ity
     Loss to the value of the Yen caused by radioactiv­ity
     Loss to other Utilities caused by Fukushima’­s radioactiv­ity
     Loss to Japans credit rating caused by Fukushima’­s radioactiv­ity
     Loss to the Japanese peoples Lives because of radiation
    ……and lets not forget the
     Loss to the Japanese Nuclear Industry World-Wide…

    Where would we get the funds to pay for it, rob social Security and or Medicare?

  3. CaptD says:

    Soon when folks think Location, Location, Location, one of the most important things is:
    “How close am I and or are we downwind from a potential Nuclear Reactor Meltdown”

    Lets use Southern California as an example:

    What would happen to property values in SoCal if SORE, (San Onofre Reactor Emergency) suffered a meltdown like Fukushima for ANY reason, like an EQ (Earth Quake), terrorism, Tsunami, operator error or just “because it can”?

    Per the NRC: Fact Sheet on Nuclear Insurance and Disaster Relief http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/funds-fs.html

    In short, if there is more than $12 Billion in damages, residents are left holding a empty radioactive bag! This is only a tiny fraction of what it will cost in Fukushima, which is estimated to be about a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster!

    What is the value of all the homes and Commercial property downwind of SORE?
    Probably at least several TRILLION dollars…

    Here is a great graphic that will help everyone visualize what is downwind of any of the US reactors! NRDC Nuclear Fallout Map: http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/fallout/
    Just click on a reactor and zoom in…

    Where will the US Government get the REST of the money if it happened at SORE (or a reactor where you live) next week, probably from Social Security and or Medicare?

    In reality, ALL those affected are doomed! Tens of thousands are still living in nuclear refugee camps in Japan and it has been over a year since their triple meltdowns which are BTW still sending radioactive pollution Globally!

    Ask yourselves, Where would you and your family relocate to?
    How would you survive without a home to live in?

    Now you know why the RISK of a meltdown is unacceptable…

  4. CaptD says:

    How about the cost to cleanup after a reactor is shutdown?

    Concerning the ON GOING cost of Nuclear:
    1. The NRC has no location for long term storage
    … Where will the spent fuel be taken too?
    2. The nuclear Industry knows once one reactor
    … Gets de-commissioned the rest will follow!
    3. Expect to see “newly” detected radioactive leakage
    … When a reactor is decommissioned.
    4. The Gov’t.’s estimates of clean up are TOO LOW,
    … Rate payers will balk at HUGE NEW clean up bills.
    Here is Proof:
    GAO –> N.R.C. Skimps on Financial Oversight, Audit Says – http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/n-r-c-falls-short-on-financial-oversight-audit-says/

  5. Pingback: 10/25/2012 Irvine CPUC meeting – San Onofre on agenda | San Onofre Safety

  6. Pingback: 1/8/2013 San Francisco CPUC prehearing conference on San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant | San Onofre Safety

  7. Marushka says:

    May I add to the Solutions portion…

    WWS = Wind Water Solar http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/january/jacobson-world-energy-012611.html
    Stanford Report, January 26, 2011
    The world can be powered by alternative energy, using today’s technology, in 20-40 years, says Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson A new study – co-authored by Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson and UC-Davis researcher Mark A. Delucchi – analyzing what is needed to convert the world’s energy supplies to clean and sustainable sources says that it can be done with today’s technology at costs roughly comparable to conventional energy. But converting will be a massive undertaking on the scale of the moon landings. What is needed most is the societal and political will to make it happen.

    http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/january/jacobson-world-energy-012611.html

    The Solutions Project

    http://www.thesolutionsproject.org/

    Stanford Professor Mark Jacobson at Pathways to 100% Renewable Energy Conference
    “last 100 years, 100 million died too soon”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XCYlCF3QuQ 13mins

    w/ Mark A. Ruffalo, Marco Krapels, and Mark Z. Jacobson http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_sLt5gNAQs 1hour

  8. Marushka says:

    A three trillion yen loan is being negotiated for Tepco; likely another drop in the bucket of long-term costs. Prof Hirokai Koide, June 2011 Lecture @ approx 1:07 “Price-Anderson Act is in US. They define if a serious accident. Law was passed in 1957 and for Japan, the “Act of Compensation for Nuclear Damage.” They define the maximum cost the power companies must restitute [reimburse, restitution] if a serious accident happens in a nuclear plant. The law was passed in 1957, and the “Act of Compensation for Nuclear Damage” in 1961. The Japanese law says no matter how big the accident, the power companies can get away with paying 5 billion yen.”

    The Price Anderson Act is likely similar… only a small sum will be expected of the people here, people will not be given the opportunity to relocate because of economic devastation or lack of mobility (elderly, disabled, mortgages), and the struggle overwhelming in many cases. We cannot afford the costs, the risks are far too great, from the cellular damage caused to the waste problems… the only sane choice is no nukes. The only safe nuke is the one never built.

    link to Dr. Koide’s lecture: http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2011/06/16/prof-hiroaki-koide-of-kyoto-university-on-the-ugly-truth-about-the-nuclear-disasters-of-chernobyl-and-fukushima-video/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s