Does nuclear power cost massive billion gov subsidies?

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
131 replies · 31K views
If the criterion is 'must be profitable when run by the British government' then you wouldn't have any car, aircraft, railway or computer industries either.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Pumblechook said:
Nuclear Power has never been profitable.

ABSOLUTE !00% BALONEY!

Nuclear power is VERY PROFITABLE in the USA!

In France, the electric utility EdF has ALWAYS been a government held corporation even
BEFORE nuclear power. Just because EdF is a government entitty doesn't mean that
it had to be "bailed out".

The nuclear power plants in France work just fine producing power for the French citizenry
at reasonable cost. In fact, because EdF sells so much of its power outside France; EdF
is a money MAKER for France:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jc-Zs6OxC028QfIiouRwvzqEn2iQD94DAHF80

The 104 operating nuclear power plants in the USA are also profitable for their owners; and
there's no bailout nor subsidies to the US nuclear power industry.

The morons that are anti-nuclear that keep saying that the US nuclear power industry is heavily
subsidized are using DISHONEST accounting. They count the money the US Government spends
on nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors for US Navy submarines as a subsidy.

That's as STUPID as saying the the US Government is subsidizing the airline industry because the
US military buys missiles and fighter and bomber aircraft from Boeing.

The dishonesty of the anti-nukes is only exceeded by their stupidity.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ensabah6 said:
While I am not privy to costs, I imagine the start-up costs of a natural gas burning plant is pretty low compared to a nuclear plant, with only CO2 as the by-product. That, coupled with my own skepticism of AGW, makes me wonder whether nuclear is competitive against natural and oil burning electrical generation.

Yes, a gas plant is the cheapest and the fastest to build. But the fuel is expensive, and moreover, the fuel price is quite volatile, as there are larger and larger tensions on the LNG market (until recently, with the crisis).
 
vanesch said:
Yes, a gas plant is the cheapest and the fastest to build. But the fuel is expensive, and moreover, the fuel price is quite volatile, as there are larger and larger tensions on the LNG market (until recently, with the crisis).
Comment

Nuclear: is it a heavily subsidised technology?
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sc=2051898
Monday, January 19, 2009, Nuclear Engineering International ©2009

Nuclear power has received significant public funding in the past, but how does this compare with the subsidies that support renewables today? By Steve Kidd

Those opposed to nuclear power frequently make the claim that it has always relied on a significant amount of public subsidies and doesn’t make sound economic sense, even considering any environmental and security of energy supply advantages. The industry counters by accepting that as a developing technology, nuclear received subsidies in the past, but as a mature technology today should be able to attract financial investors without any degree of governmental support.

There are three main areas where, broadly speaking, subsidies or other support for energy may apply: government research and development (R&D) for particular technologies; subsidies for power generation per unit of production (or conceivably per unit of capacity); and the allowance of external costs which are either paid by the community at large or picked up later by governments. Public policy has been driven by worries about energy security, as well as by the need to address environmental problems and social concerns. Reliable and affordable energy supplies are vital to any economy, while energy shortages or the threat of such have political and economic consequences. As concerns have evolved from oil shocks to climate change, each country’s energy provision and infrastructure needs to be restructured accordingly. We can examine each of the three main areas in turn.

. . . .

In conclusion, it can be accepted that nuclear historically received significant public funding, but this was arguably necessary for an ‘infant technology.’ Renewables now receive heavy direct subsidies in the market, while fossil fuels receive significant indirect subsidies in their waste disposal. While public assistance for renewables is arguably justifiable, the costs of doing so must be made explicit and subject to comparisons with alternatives. The adoption of any policies or conventions to take account of external costs of generating electricity will have a very beneficial effect on the prospects for any strong resurgence in the role of nuclear energy.


Author Info:
Steve Kidd is Director of Strategy & Research at the World Nuclear Association, where he has worked since 1995 (when it was the Uranium Institute). Any views expressed are not necessarily those of the World Nuclear Association and/or its members
 
Last edited by a moderator:
russ_watters said:
In the roughly 30 years since the last nuclear plant construction projects began in the US, the US wind generation capacity has reached 1800 MW. ...
old post, maybe a typo.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table4.html" would be installed in 2008, bringing the current total to 23GW, peak. The energy output was estimated at 49 billion kwh for '08, making the US the number one producer of wind energy, in absolute terms, in the world, ahead of Germany.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
vanesch said:
I think there are good reasons to try to get away from fossil fuels in any case.

The problem with gas is that it is coupled to the oil market, and probably prices (although they are falling right now) will increase in the long term. So gas is going to be a very expensive thing to make electricity with. It is already now much more expensive than coal.

Also, although I'm certainly not an AGW alarmist, I think one will not be able to do without the issue. There is a serious probability that there is AGW after all, and even if it turns out not to be there, it will be a long time before this will be so obvious that it won't be a political argument anymore. So even if, against all odds, AGW turns out not to be real, "social AGW" will be with us for a few decades.

And finally, sooner or later, we WILL run out of cheap fossil fuels, even coal. Now, I know that the USA has huge reserves of coal, but Europe for instance, doesn't have many anymore. And, as you say, it is dirty, no matter how you turn it. Modern coal plants are somewhat cleaner than old plants, but it remains a very dirty thing.



Well, the nuclear boom in France was because EdF was a state monopoly. It was a state utility (but nevertheless, profitable).
How is it possible to assign profitability to a state monopoly in a meaningful way? It seems to me profitability is arbitrary in such a case, as the state can essentially charge whatever rates it whims to reach profitability. It could equally arbitrarily assign EdF a loss if it the higher (short term) goal was to provide lower rates for the public.
 
mheslep said:
How is it possible to assign profitability to a state monopoly in a meaningful way? It seems to me profitability is arbitrary in such a case, as the state can essentially charge whatever rates it whims to reach profitability. It could equally arbitrarily assign EdF a loss if it the higher (short term) goal was to provide lower rates for the public.

True, but then the rates by EdF were reasonable, and even somewhat lower than the rates in neighbouring countries, if I can believe some general surveys that have been done on the matter. That said, I agree with you that the bookkeeping of profitability of state monopolies is always an obscure issue.
 
mheslep said:
How is it possible to assign profitability to a state monopoly in a meaningful way? It seems to me profitability is arbitrary in such a case, as the state can essentially charge whatever rates it whims to reach profitability. It could equally arbitrarily assign EdF a loss if it the higher (short term) goal was to provide lower rates for the public.
mheslep,

It's EASY! Just look at what EdF charges its ratepayers and you will find that it doesn't need to
inflate the cost to be profitable. The rates EdF charges its customers are quite reasonable; and actually
LOWER than in neighboring countries.

In addition, EdF SELLS power to its neighbors like Denmark and Germany where it successfully
competes against wind [ Denmark ] and solar [ Germany ].

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
Morbius said:
... The rates EdF charges its customers are quite reasonable; and actually LOWER than in neighboring countries.
That may well be true. It also misses the point I made. To determine profitability one needs a ratio of all the costs, including capital costs, to the resulting income over time. In a company owned by he state, the state can (and frequently does) throw other tax dollars at the industry, then the user rates need not be reflective of the entire cost (ala US's Amtrac, Conrail, etc). That is not to say that the French did lose money on nuclear; I'm sure French nuclear did make money given it blocked costly and delaying law suits against its nuclear projects. Either way, we don't have conclusive evidence in front of us here merely by looking at French electrical rates.

In addition, EdF SELLS power to its neighbors like Denmark and Germany where it successfully competes against wind [ Denmark ] and solar [ Germany ].
Edit: French wine also successfully competes abroad thanks, in part, to the http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-grapes-of-wrath-depressed-french-wine-producers-bomb-government-offices-530798.html" given by the French taxpayers.

Solar is minuscule. There's more wind energy generated in Germany in absolute terms than in Denmark.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mheslep said:
That may well be true. It also misses the point I made. To determine profitability one needs a ratio of all the costs, including capital costs, to the resulting income over time.

mheslep,

Those HAVE been looked at! Even with a government run corporation - the rate payers still pay
one way or the other - they pay directly in rates - or through their taxes. Either way nuclear power
IS cost effective in France.

The French taxpayers are NOT subsidizing the power purchases of Denmark and Germany.

The evidence is CLEAR - nuclear power IS economical in France. The only reason nuclear power
has economic problems in the USA is because of the delays caused by lawsuits.

That can be FIXED! The problem in the USA is that we give the anti-nukes "a second bite at the
apple" in legal parlance. We have a 2-step licensing process - one before construction, and one
before operation / after construction.

It's the opportunity to file lawsuits and rehear the same issues that they LOST on in the construction
permit process that causes the problem. The utility has borrowed money to build the plant and the
operation is held up by lawsuits and the plant can't begin earning its keep.

The push is to reform our licensing laws - so that any objections and lawsuits have to be filed at
the construction permit level. If the opponents LOSE their lawsuit the utility gets a construction
permit. If the NRC says the plant was constructed in accordance with that permit - then the utility
gets a license - and the opponents who LOST on the first round can NOT file for a second chance.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
Morbius said:
mheslep,

Those HAVE been looked at! Even with a government run corporation - the rate payers still pay
one way or the other - they pay directly in rates - or through their taxes. Either way nuclear power
IS cost effective in France.

The French taxpayers are NOT subsidizing the power purchases of Denmark and Germany.

The evidence is CLEAR - nuclear power IS economical in France. The only reason nuclear power
has economic problems in the USA is because of the delays caused by lawsuits.
You seem to be mistaking evidence with capitalization.
 
Morbius said:
...That can be FIXED! The problem in the USA is that we give the anti-nukes "a second bite at the apple" in legal parlance. We have a 2-step licensing process - one before construction, and one before operation / after construction.

It's the opportunity to file lawsuits and rehear the same issues that they LOST on in the construction permit process that causes the problem. The utility has borrowed money to build the plant and the operation is held up by lawsuits and the plant can't begin earning its keep.

The push is to reform our licensing laws - so that any objections and lawsuits have to be filed at the construction permit level. If the opponents LOSE their lawsuit the utility gets a construction permit. If the NRC says the plant was constructed in accordance with that permit - then the utility gets a license - and the opponents who LOST on the first round can NOT file for a second chance.
I agree completely. I generally would support any politician proposing such. Edit: Absent such reform, I do not support limitless building of http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/11/news_pf/State/Nuke_plant_price_trip.shtml" nuclear plants that rate holders will have to eventually pay for. (Though some more are needed even if they are expensive).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mheslep said:
I agree completely. I generally would support any politician proposing such. Edit: Absent such reform, I do not support limitless building of http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/11/news_pf/State/Nuke_plant_price_trip.shtml" nuclear plants that rate holders will have to eventually pay for. (Though some more are needed even if they are expensive).
mheslep,

The power plants are capital intensive - but fuel cost is low.

Nuclear generated electricity costs about 2.0 to 2.1 cents per kilowatt-hour at the busbar; where
coal produced power is about 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour. Nuclear is actually the 2nd cheapest
next to coal - that is without the environmental and health costs of coal being internalized.

If we augmented the cost of coal with the environmental / health costs; then it would no longer be
the cheapest; nuclear would be. The nuclear costs include the tax paid for waste disposal and
the contribution to the fund that pays for plant decommissioning.

As long as the utility doesn't face opposition from lawsuits and government; nuclear power is quite
economical. We have both extremes in the USA for comparison. If you look at California and
New York; where the State government actually opposed the power plants; then plants like
Diablo Canyon [ CA ] and Shoreham [ NY - bankrupted ] cost way more than they need to.

However, if you look at the Commonwealth Edison system serving Chicago and northern Illinois - the
fleet of 7 reactors in the Chicago area provide something like 80% of the system's power which is on
a par with France.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Morbius said:
The evidence is CLEAR - nuclear power IS economical in France. The only reason nuclear power has economic problems in the USA is because of the delays caused by lawsuits.
French nuclear power was also planned to be economical.
"France has 104 varieties of cheese but only one standard reactor, while the U.S. has one cheese but 104 different reactors." Dale E. Klein (NRC chairman)
 
Morbius said:
mheslep,

The power plants are capital intensive - but fuel cost is low.

Nuclear generated electricity costs about 2.0 to 2.1 cents per kilowatt-hour at the busbar; where coal produced power is about 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour. Nuclear is actually the 2nd cheapest next to coal - that is without the environmental and health costs of coal being internalized.

If we augmented the cost of coal with the environmental / health costs; then it would no longer be the cheapest; nuclear would be. The nuclear costs include the tax paid for waste disposal and the contribution to the fund that pays for plant decommissioning.
Yes those are roughly the fuel+O&M numbers I see. However, comparisons of O&M alone to coal don't help much, since the plant cost for coal at ~http://web.mit.edu/coal/The_Future_of_Coal_Chapters_1-3.pdf") - not that such a comparison is all that useful, as in addition to cost of plant wind rightfully should be weighed with some baseband costs from other sources to cover variability, and some portion of the transmission costs for the necessarily remote locations in the wind belt. I see the 'all-in' cost of wind, if it intends to become 20% of the US power system, at more like 6-8 cents per kilowatt-hour (unsubsidised), more still for offshore installation.

As long as the utility doesn't face opposition from lawsuits and government; nuclear power is quite economical. We have both extremes in the USA for comparison. If you look at California and New York; where the State government actually opposed the power plants; then plants like Diablo Canyon [ CA ] and Shoreham [ NY - bankrupted ] cost way more than they need to.

However, if you look at the Commonwealth Edison system serving Chicago and northern Illinois - the fleet of 7 reactors in the Chicago area provide something like 80% of the system's power which is ona par with France.
Agreed.

Edit: Why not send your comments to Sec. Chu, your former lab director, who seems to have abandoned nuclear power in his new post. Here's an 81 page energy presentation he was pitching in public speeches just before his nomination. It mentions nuclear only in passing, and has no mention at all with regard to building more nuclear.
http://www.lbl.gov/Publications/Director/assets/docs/AAAS_Keynote_B.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The nuclear part of EDF is in considerable debt.

No nuclear power has ever really paid its way.

Even American Westinghouse was run by the British Government for a few years.
 
Pumblechook said:
The nuclear part of EDF is in considerable debt.

No nuclear power has ever really paid its way.

Even American Westinghouse was run by the British Government for a few years.
Do you have a source for that EdF information?
 
Morbius said:
Dr. Moore also covers the fact that nuclear has about one-fifth to one-tenth the carbon footprint
of wind and solar in terms of the full lifecycle. Neither nuclear, wind, nor solar is truly carbon
emission free when you consider the CO2 emitted in the manufacture of the steel for reactor vessels,
pipes and rebar for nuclear; turbines and towers for wind, and heliostats for solar.

This link would support your claim on solar (at least for photovoltaics) but not for wind:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn268.pdf

(Not that I'm advocating wind of nuclear)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"EDF's debt rose to €24.5 billion at the end of 2008 from €16.3 billion a year earlier."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123442614532776763.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


The new Finnish Olkiluoto station is well over budget and taking a lot longer than planned to bring on-line.

"The Olkiluoto-3 reactor is thus at least 37 months behind schedule after 42 months’ construction, and some 50% over budget"
 
Last edited:
Pumblechook said:
The nuclear part of EDF is in considerable debt.

No nuclear power has ever really paid its way.

Even American Westinghouse was run by the British Government for a few years.

Pumblechook,

100% WRONG! If nuclear power plants can't pay their own way; then utilities such as
Commonwealth Edison in Chicago would be out of business since it relies on nuclear power
plants for the vast majority of its electricity production.

Yes - EdF has debt - as do ALL utilities - that is how they operate. They borrow the money
to build the plants - and the plant pays for itself during its lifetime. It's like looking at everyone
that has a home mortgage in the USA and saying - "These people are in debt". That doesn't
mean that they are insolvent or bankrupt.

Westinghouse BUILDS reactors - it doesn't operate them. The economics of nuclear power
relies on whether the utility that operates the reactor can make money.

Westinghouse built the majority of the PWRs in the USA from the '60s to '80s. Since then,
there have been no new nuclear power plants built in the USA. Westinghouse essentially
became a nuclear fuel supplier; NOT a reactor manufacturer. As a nuclear fuel supplier,
the downsized company was in the same business as BNFL - British Nuclear Fuel Limited;
which is the British crown-corporation that supplies / reprocesses nuclear fuel. BNFL purchased
the nuclear part of Westinghouse in 1999.

Westinghouse still had a nuclear design component; which was engaged in the design of the next
generation reactors. BNFL / British government were concerned that these efforts would be a net
drain on the company if the new Westinghouse designs were not successful in being accepted.
So BNFL sold Westinghouse to Toshiba and BNFL returned to just nuclear fuel services.

However, the financial condition of a reactor manufacturer that is no longer doing a large business
in building reactors is not a good harbinger of the economics of nuclear power.

The real question is whether nuclear power plants can produce enough electricity such that the sale
of that power at market rates pays for the construction and operation of the plant. The answer to that
question is YES - as the operators of the USA's current fleet of 104 nuclear power plants can attest.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
Pumblechook said:
"EDF's debt rose to €24.5 billion at the end of 2008 from €16.3 billion a year earlier."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123442614532776763.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Pumblechook,

Yes - well that can happen when your government forces you to sell power below market rates.

Quoting your own link above:

PARIS -- State-controlled utility Electricité de France SA posted a sharp drop in 2008 earnings, blaming
French regulations that require it to sell some of its electricity at below-market prices.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
Pumblechook said:
"EDF's debt rose to €24.5 billion at the end of 2008 from €16.3 billion a year earlier."
If you can't calculate the profitability of a public owned company then it's debt is even harder to really account for. We have railway lines built a 150years ago which on the governments books are £Bn in debt and brand new NHS hospitals that are somehow built without any government expenditure.

It's probably fair to say that the French aren't 90% nuclear because of a philosophical objection to using imported natural gas.
 
Nonsense. If nuclear was successful in the private sector British Energy, EDF and BNFL would be trading healthily in the private sector. They are NOT.

BE has had massive subsidies.
 
Pumblechook said:
Nonsense. If nuclear was successful in the private sector British Energy, EDF and BNFL would be trading healthily in the private sector.
I suspect the French believe that their nations power supply would be safer in the hands of their government than owned by a foreign hedge fund.

Perhaps if banking was successful in the private sector then Wall St wouldn't need all those bailouts!
 
Pumblechook said:
Nonsense. If nuclear was successful in the private sector British Energy, EDF and BNFL would be trading healthily in the private sector. They are NOT.

BE has had massive subsidies.

Pumblechook,

EdF was founded as a Government owned corporation for the production of electric power

LONG before the decision to use nuclear power. That's just the way the French decided to

operate their electric system. It is NOT the result of having a non-profitable energy source.

As usual; you have the direction of implication in your argument exactly backwards.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
Pumblechook said:
"EDF's debt rose to €24.5 billion at the end of 2008 from €16.3 billion a year earlier."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123442614532776763.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Eh, yes, but you should read your own source: this debt (meaning, borrowed money for acquisitions) came essentially from EdF taking over foreign operators for which they had to pay money. Nowhere it is said that they are loosing money on their nuclear part (which is a large chunk of what they are, btw). What happened was that their PROFIT fell by 39% in 2008.
 
Talk about living in a dream world.

These operators can't survive in the private sector.

REPEAT.. If they were successful they would be in the private sector and would have been for years.

The Finnish builder/operator is only going ahead on the basis that they get a guaranteed price for their output.

The non-nuclear part of British Energy is profitable. The nuclear part is not. Attempts to privatised BE Nuclear have failed.

BE couldn't even pay rates (local tax) at some of its stations.

"""If nuclear power seems cheap in France, it is because half the costs have been ignored. An accurate accounting of costs, direct and indirect, reveals France's massive nuclear electricity programme as a ruinously expensive folly.

Written with Peter Bunyard, co-editor of The Ecologist. Published in The Ecologist Vol. 11 No. 6, December 1981.""
 
Last edited:
Pumblechook said:
Nonsense. If nuclear was successful in the private sector British Energy, EDF and BNFL would be trading healthily in the private sector. They are NOT.

BE has had massive subsidies.
Coal is subsidized by the lives and health of coal miners and the people who die prematurely from burning coal and by the damage caused by global climate change. Is that not a form of subsidy in the sense that the coal power companies can make money without having to pay those social and environmental costs?

The fact is that in most countries the capital costs of massive nuclear and hydro-electric projects are beyond the capabilities of private companies. This means that nuclear and hydro projects tend to be done by governments. It does not mean that they require public subsidies to make them economic. There have not been many hydro-electric projects that did not have government funding - but I don't know of any for which the cost of power production does not compare favourably to the cost of coal generated electricity.

To determine whether nuclear and/or hydro compares favourably to the cost of other ways of generating power, you have to look at the total cost of building and operating the plants. The real savings of a nuclear plant is in the fuel. A 1000 MWe coal plant uses about 4 million tons of coal a year - a coal train per day. At even $60 per ton, the cost is $240 million for fuel. There are enormous handling costs as well.

U costs about $90,000 per ton but a 1000 MWe plant uses only about 200 Tons of U per year (about 25 tons of enriched U), for a total cost of less than $20 million. So in fuel, the coal plant will cost $220 million more per year to operate than a nuclear plant. You can pay off a lot of capital over 40 years at $220 million per year.

If one looks at just the economic factors, nuclear compares favourably. If one then factors in the relative environmental and social costs, coal might be the much more expensive - and more heavily subsidized - way to generate power.

AM
 
Pumblechook said:
Talk about living in a dream world.

These operators can't survive in the private sector.

REPEAT.. If they were successful they would be in the private sector and would have been for years.

The Finnish builder/operator is only going ahead on the basis that they get a guaranteed price for their output.

The non-nuclear part of British Energy is profitable. The nuclear part is not. Attempts to privatised BE Nuclear have failed.

BE couldn't even pay rates (local tax) at some of its stations.

"""If nuclear power seems cheap in France, it is because half the costs have been ignored. An accurate accounting of costs, direct and indirect, reveals France's massive nuclear electricity programme as a ruinously expensive folly.

Written with Peter Bunyard, co-editor of The Ecologist. Published in The Ecologist Vol. 11 No. 6, December 1981.""
As I don't care to see this thread locked, I hope we can get more facts on the historical costs of nuclear power in France - the entire capital and operating costs - not tangents. So far in this thread we don't have any useful facts on French nuclear costs, just assertions. Corporate debt is not that useful as a measure. The Ecologist is essentially an advocacy journal, though if there are references that can be pulled from that article I'd enjoy seeing them.
 
Last edited:
Andrew Mason said:
If one looks at just the economic factors, nuclear compares favourably.
In theory perhaps, doubtful in practice. In any case you have not looked here at the principle economic factors. Plant costs. Insurance. Enrichment.
 
Last edited: