There has been a lot of speculation about what effect the Trump election will have on the energy industry in the U.S. Some analysts have pointed out the Trump rejection of climate change would reduce concern about the low-carbon emissions of nuclear power. Other analysts say that Trump's promise to expand domestic energy production will probably include nuclear power. Here are some reasons that have been put forward against Trump helping nuclear power expansion in the U.S.
Electricity demand is down so we only need new plants to replace old plants. There are fossil fuel plants that can provide temporary extra supply if needed.
Trump strongly supports the fossil fuel industry which can build new power plants faster and cheaper than nuclear plants. Alternative renewable supplies can provide new power without the long construction time and need to build very large power plants. So there is no economic incentive to build new nuclear plants.
Nuclear plants are great for providing baseload power but they are not as good as fossil plants and renewable plants at responding quickly and easily changes in demand. Flexibility is now becoming more important the constant baseload.
The wholesale electricity market in the U.S. has a mixture of regulated and unregulated sectors. This combination has resulted in a such a low price for electricity that it is difficult to find financing for a new fossil fuel plant let alone for a nuclear plant.
The major contracting firms that can build nuclear power plants can also build other major infrastructure projects. It would be easier for these firms to lobby to build other types of infrastructure than nuclear projects.
Nuclear power plants are very complex and capital intensive to construct. They have many points of failure and are expensive to maintain, a cost that rises with age.
The major utilities that build and operate nuclear power plants in the U.S. are performing poorly in the stock market. It is unlikely that investors are eager to sink money into a market sector with poor returns. Some recent major nuclear projects have had serious trouble finding sufficient investment to proceed.
Nuclear power plants need enormous amounts of cooling water. This requires that they be located on coastlines, major rivers or big lakes. Climate change is bringing severe weather which threatens infrastructure on coastlines, rivers and lakes with flooding. There is also the problem of rising sea levels increasing the risk of operating a reactor close to the sea.
Some states are voting to provide funding for non-competitive nuclear power plants to stay in operation. The arguments are low-carbon emissions and jobs in rural areas. With the Republican tendency to cutting government expenditures and the short falls lately in state budgets, this program of welfare for old nuclear plants may not expand under Trump.
Trump has already committed to expansion of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. In addition, the U.S. needs to develop a permanent underground repository for spent nuclear fuel. The government also needs to complete the vitrification plant at Hanford to dispose of left over waste from nuclear weapons production. It is likely that the Trump administration will give first priority for military nuclear programs and nuclear waste disposal over the construction of new nuclear power plants.
