Part 1 of 2 Parts
Supporters of nuclear power often favor a technology-inclusive approach over reliance solely on what they refer to as desirable-but-inadequate renewables. This framing of the debate does not compare energy generating technologies because it claims that all technologies are needed. It condenses the diverse portfolio of renewable energy sources into a single technology for the sake of the discussion. It also ignores the biggest and cheapest resource which is energy efficiency. Retrofitting existing government building with good insulation worldwide could reduce energy demand by one third. Nuclear promoters often evade any mention of nuclear energy generation’s actual status, economics, prospects and operation role. Another major problem with the call for all the renewable energy sources plus nuclear fission is the fact that backing nuclear power with lavish subsidies actually diminishes needed resources for implementing sustainable renewables.
Nuclear power accounts for about ten percent of global electricity generated but the global nuclear industry is stagnant and slipping. In 2020, nuclear power added four hundred megawatts more capacity than it retired. In 2021, nuclear capacity dropped for the seventh year in the past thirteen years. The global fleet of commercial nuclear power reactors averages about thirty-two years so requirements are outpacing additions. Global nuclear power cultures, skills, vendors and prospects are shriveling. A great deal of this is being caused by bad economics. Solar and wind are now the cheapest bulk source for at least ninety percent of world electricity. The renewables are winning between ten and twenty times more investment than nuclear.
A 2016 report claimed that foreign nuclear power plants were “competitive” but it was convincingly debunked by nuclear experts including the author of the report. The cheapest reactors in China cost at least twice as much per kilowatt hour as the Chinese wind and solar that are outgenerating them by two to one. In China, renewable investments were equal to the previous twelve-year cumulative nuclear investments.
The best analysis in the report claims that renewables plus nuclear “can create the most cost-effective carbon-free energy system” but only if it is very cheap. This assumption is based on learning curves that have not been observed for current nuclear power reactors. The assumption of improving learning curves is even less certain for new types of reactors that have not yet been built. It also assumes that renewables and storage are far more expensive than they are shown to be by empirical data. The report also ignores most grid-flexibility resources. Diverse peer-reviewed studies without the shortcomings of the 2016 report show a better match for empirical market choices and do not need nuclear power to minimize cost or carbon.
Considering over twenty-four thousand actual energy projects in the marketplace, new unsubsidized renewables make electricity five to thirteen times cheaper than new nuclear builds according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). Another report from Lazard merchant bank claims three to eight times cheaper. Per dollars, renewables provide three to thirteen more kilowatt hours and can displace three to thirteen times more fossil fuel electrical generation.
Please read Part 2 next