Is nuclear energy the answer?
probably not
Nuclear power is one of the most polarizing topics in any discussion of our energy future. As someone who appreciates the potential of nuclear energy, I am torn about its prospects. On one hand, nuclear energy offers an always-on, low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels. On the other, its cost remains a significant hurdle, deterring new developments in this sector.
The central issue with nuclear power is its cost. Constructing nuclear power costs approximately $10,000 per kilowatt of capacity. This is ten times as expensive as solar and wind, which cost around $1,000 per kW. See this plot, from Lazard:
Critics of renewable energy often point to solar and wind’s intermittency — the fact that the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow. You can, of course, add storage to solar, which increases the cost to $1,600 per kW, still much cheaper than nuclear.
To the power plant operator, though, intermittency is completely irrelevant. They don’t care if they only get power 6 hours one day, zero the next, and 12 the next. What they care about is how they get on average, which determines their annual revenue. From the operators perspective, solar and wind and wind get the W, which is why the market is building so much solar and wind.
Why is nuclear power so expensive? A significant factor is the lack of scale. In most industries, costs decrease as production increases, benefiting from what experts call “learning by doing”: the more of a product you build, the cheaper and higher quality the products are.
The very first flat-screen TVs were very expensive. But, as we made gazillions of them, the price plummeted, so now you can get a ridiculous 86" TV with WiFi and built-in Netflix for under $1,000 with which to watch important and educational shows like this.
The nuclear sector has not experienced this price drop due to the small number of plants built worldwide, as well as the fact that those plants are not standardized. If we were to embark on a large-scale nuclear construction program, we would likely see costs drop significantly.
However, this introduces a “chicken and egg” problem: to make nuclear power economically viable, we need to build many plants, but the market won’t build many plants until costs decrease.
This means that, if society desires to pursue nuclear energy, substantial government intervention will be necessary to steer investment away from solar and wind and into nuclear in order to jumpstart the industry. This will cost a huge pile of money, which the government will have to pay and, ultimately, tax payers will have to pay back.
One argument that I often hear is that costs are high because the nuclear industry is over-regulated. This is fundamentally a risk tolerance argument — that we are too worried about small chances of disaster. This seems like a bad argument, though: about 400 nuclear reactors have been built, and three have melted down (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima) — in other words, about 1% of the plants ever built have had serious accidents.
Learning from other high-stakes industries like aviation, which has achieved a remarkable safety record through rigorous regulation and continuous improvement, it’s likely that nuclear power can also reach similar levels of safety. However, a lot of planes crashed getting to where we are today and the journey towards safer nuclear technology may involve a learning curve marked by accidents and setbacks — a prospect that will be “unpopular” with the public.
If the choice were fossil fuels vs. nuclear, I would pick nuclear every day. But that’s not our choice. Solar and wind also exist and they are already very cheap, and prices continue to decline. Obviously, those are intermittent, but a lot research by energy experts has demonstrated how we can build a grid that runs reliably and cheaply on (mainly) solar and wind.
If you want to continue to advocate for nuclear energy, my question to you is, “What specific policy are you advocating for? How do we get a lot of nuclear plants built? And is your policy cheaper than a solar and wind powered future?” Leave me your proposed policy in the comments.
Of course, we could just wait for fusion energy. It’s only 17.8 years away.
Related posts
Thanks for addressing this. My main concern about nuclear energy (which is why I vote no) - is similar to my concern about SAI (stratospheric aerosol injection) which is likely to be considered necessary - our political economic systems are not collaborative enough and sufficiently public-good oriented to have systems in place on a global level or even national level that can manage safety of these technologies and handle crises. In the face of global warming we already see societal and political disruptions, civic breakdown, water shortages, rising sea levels, food shortages in much of the world and all kinds of supply chain disruptions. With increased climate catastrophes, wars and political disruption potentially leading to un-manned or even attacked nuclear power plants (as is happening in Ukraine now), I have no confidence that such plants could be kept safe . SAI requires global continuous operation and unified action over decades. Nuclear power plants require reliable stable governance and societal structures for safe operation. I have no confidence that we can expect that.
Nope, we can't do it all with wind and solar, because of the enormous land requirements -- not just for the panels and wind turbines, but the power lines to connect to the grid. Already in the US opposition to new siting of wind/solar farms and power lines is greatly slowing deployment, and we are still far from even 50%. That leaves only nuclear plants, which can be located where retired power plants are already connected to the grid, and can be deployed economically at scale if any of the small ones under development work out. Plus, in any case, our climate situation is so desperate and urgent that we need to try all viable alternatives.