The future of the nuclear industry in the United States is a topic of considerable debate. On one hand, cheap natural gas is threatening the economic viability of nuclear power. On the other hand, some supporters are hailing the construction of the first new U.S. nuclear power reactors as a sign of a "nuclear renaissance."
Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn, recently delivered a speech to the Nuclear Energy Institute. The mission of the Nuclear Energy Institute in their own words is "to foster the beneficial uses of nuclear technology before Congress, the White House and executive branch agencies, federal regulators, and state policy forums; proactively communicate accurate and timely information; and provide a unified industry voice on the global importance of nuclear energy and nuclear technology." Unsurprisingly, Alexander's speech was in support of U.S. nuclear power.
The title of the speech was "The United States without nuclear power." He made reference to a study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies which said that up to twenty five of the ninety nine operating U.S. nuclear power reactors could be closed by 2020. Alexander claimed that a closure of nuclear plants in the U.S. was a "real threat to our economy and way of life." Alexander is on the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee which will be devoting time to considering the role of nuclear power in the U.S. energy system.
Alexander pointed out that when Japan closed all of its nuclear reactors after the Fukushima disaster, the cost of electricity rose by over fifty percent. Germany will be paying over a trillion dollars to abandon nuclear power and may have to buy power from other countries, raising energy costs. In contrast, he mentioned the United Arab Emirates which is currently constructing four nuclear power reactors. These reactors are supposed to be finished and operational by 2027 when they will generated about a quarter of UAE's electricity.
Alexander calls for the U.S. to build one hundred new reactors to replace the generating capacity of the nuclear power reactors being closed by 2020 as well as the twenty percent of existing U.S. coal power plants that will be closed by then. He wants to end what he calls the "nuclear waste stalemate" that has resulted from the cancellation of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. He says that the U.S. must reduce excessive regulation, avoid picking winners and losers with subsidies, double energy research, and encourage energy diversity.
With respect to Alexander's international references, Japan should not restart about a third of their reactors because they are over active fault lines. There is widespread corruption and violation of regulations in the Japanese nuclear industry. Germany is moving strongly in the direction alternative energy sources. The UAE will be fortunate to bring any of those four new reactors on time and on budget. The nuclear industry has a terrible record of delays and cost overruns. And they are fighting serious corruption in the UAE which raises concerns about construction and operation of nuclear power plants.
Building a hundred nuclear reactors in the next ten years is a recipe for disaster in the U.S. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is failing in its job of regulation of the nuclear industry. It is not excessive regulation that is the problem. The nuclear industry is guilty of negligence, incompetence and corruption. Nuclear power is having trouble competing in the market place for energy. As far as subsides are concerned, alternative sustainable energy is becoming competitive without subsides and nuclear power will not be able to compete without subsides.
I agree that we need more energy research on different sources. Tying up hundreds of billions of dollars in new nuclear reactors will prevent money being spent on other sources such as renewables. And, finally, given the problems in the Waste Isolation Plant in New Mexico which is in an old salt mine like the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, it may not be viable storage facility for nuclear waste. There will be no "nuclear renaissance" in the U.S.
