Nukes for all

McCain calls for 700+ new nuclear plants costing $4 trillion

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 1:21 PM on 06 May 2008

Read more about: nuclear power | energy | insanity | John McCain | politics

"A nuke in every garage" is the GOP nominee's energy and climate plan.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) made a stunning statement on the radio show of climate change denier Glenn Beck this week:

... the French are able to generate 80 percent of their electricity with nuclear power. There's no reason why America shouldn't.

The Wonk Room, which has the audio, writes of the interview, "McCain Seemingly Agrees With Glenn Beck That Solutions To Climate Change Can Be Delayed." That is lame all by itself. But the statement quoted above is even more radical. McCain is repeating his little-noticed uber-Francophile statement from his big April 2007 speech on energy policy, "If France can produce 80 percent of its electricity with nuclear power, why can't we?"

Why can't we? Wrong question, Senator. The right question is, Why would we? Let's do the math.

The U.S. has some one hundred nuclear reactors providing about nearly 100 gigawatts of capacity (see here) and nearly 800,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity, roughly 20 percent of total U.S. power. For the record, France has only 59 reactors, capacity of about 63 gw, generating 550,000 gwh (some of which is exported), covering nearly 80 percent of their usage (see here). (Note to Sen. McCain: France is a much smaller country than ours.)

What would it take for us to be 80 percent nuclear?

We would have to quadruple the number of reactors to 400, which would take decades even if we could somehow return to -- and sustain -- the fastest decadal rate of U.S. nuclear plant construction. But that wouldn't mean just building 300 new nuclear plants, for several reasons.

First, by 2050, almost all of the existing plants would need to be replaced, so that is another hundred to build if we want to hit the 80 percent goal.

And then, since McCain is not a big booster of energy efficiency (his McCain-Lieberman climate bill has no substantive energy efficiency provisions in it at all), we have to deal with some 1.1 percent annual electricity growth, which means we'll need more than 600 nukes in 2050.

Third, McCain wants to switch much of our oil consumption to electricity (a strategy I endorse). As he said in last year's energy policy speech:

I'll work to promote real partnerships between utilities and automakers to accelerate the deployment of plug-in hybrids ... Fifty percent of cars on the road are driven 25 miles a day or less. Affordable battery-powered vehicles that can meet average commuter needs could help us cut oil imports in half.

We import more than 12 million barrels of oil a day. To cut that in half to 6, when EIA projects we will import over 16 in 2030 (see here [PDF]), means replacing far more than 100 billion gallons of gasoline a year with electricity. If 80 percent of that electricity comes from nuclear power, then that is -- very conservatively -- another 100 nukes.

Bottom line

To satisfy McCain's odd desire to be like the French and get 80 percent of our electricity from nuclear power in the coming decades would require building more than 700 (gw-sized) nuclear power plants by mid-century -- more than one a month.

Although we have been unable as a country to agree on even one storage site for our existing nukes' radioactive waste (Yucca Mountain), the McCain plan would require seven such sites -- for a longer discussion of just what 700 gw would entail, see the Keystone Center's 2007 nuclear study discussed at "Nuclear Power No Climate Cure-All."

And remember that the Bush administration just signed a deal permitting all reactor fuel to come from Russia post-2020 (see here). McCain trusts the Russians so much, he wants to exclude them from the G-8 meetings. So, where would we get all our uranium from?

Finally, in October, Moody's Investors Service said "new reactors would cost up to $6,000 per kilowatt of capacity to build" -- I'll be posting a longer review of nuclear costs soon, and suffice it to say, Moody's estimate is not the high end these days. Since $6,000 per kw is $6 billion per gw, 700 gw would require a cost of some $4 trillion, assuming there was no significant cost escalation from production delays and from the serious bottlenecks in the nuclear supply chain -- and not even counting the cost of the uranium.

Dontcha think the country could find a better use for that kind of money in the effort to avoid catastrophic global warming and the harsh consequences of peak oil -- something better than committing this country to an ultimately unsustainable high-cost energy source for the entire 21st Century?

Apparently the GOP nominee thinks the answer is "no." Caveat Emptor!

For my fellow energy realists, I would add that it would take an astonishing effort just to have nuclear power in 2050 provide the same 20 percent of U.S. power it does today -- an outcome I am not inherently opposed to, but I certainly wouldn't devote yet more tens of billions of federal subsidies to, as McCain would, especially given the myriad flaws nuclear power has.

That's why I have little doubt that if we can move beyond the uninformed platitudes of people like McCain and ever really get serious about global warming and peak oil, then the realistic, affordable solution is at hand -- namely energy efficiency to avoid significant load growth, concentrated solar power to replace most coal, and wind power for plug-in charging. And yes, we'll still have some hydro and nukes and combined cycle natural gas turbines and/or cogen in 2050, and possibly even some coal with carbon capture and storage, assuming that industry ever gets serious about that possible solution.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

For story: Nukes for all
26 Comments | Post a Comment

Only the elite can afford energy at $6+/kW

by sunflower at 1:31 PM on 06 May 2008

$6000/kW is cold comfort

by sunflower at 1:32 PM on 06 May 2008

$6/W

May or may not be a reasonable estimate for one plant. But surely the 700th won't cost this much - economies of scale should kick in quickly on something that takes as much design work and custom components as a nuclear plant.

I hate to say this and I'd never vote for the guy, but at least it sounds like a plan. I haven't heard either of the Dems advocate for your solution.

by Matt G at 2:27 PM on 06 May 2008

Both Obama and Clinton endorse a better solution

See
http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/15/could-a-president-o ...

by jromm at 3:10 PM on 06 May 2008

Heh

$6000/kW is the overnight cost.
The end result cost can be as high as $8000/KW or higher.
http://www.nirs.org/images/fplturkeypointcostchart.jpg

by GreyFlcn at 3:10 PM on 06 May 2008

Nothing is cheaper than nuclear, except hydro

Sunflower wrote: Only the elite can afford energy at $6+/kW

Only the elite can afford energy at 3 cents per kWh? Nothing is cheaper than nuclear, except hydro.

by Nucbuddy at 3:49 PM on 06 May 2008
[ Parent ]

Why are Japan and South Korea going 60% nuclear?

Joseph Romm wrote: McCain is repeating his little-noticed uber-Francophile statement from his big April 2007 speech on energy policy, "If France can produce 80 percent of its electricity with nuclear power, why can't we?"

Why can't we? Wrong question, Senator. The right question is, Why would we?

Perhaps we would, for the same reasons that Japan and South Korea are:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf79.html

Nuclear Power in Japan
[...]
Japan has embraced the peaceful use of nuclear technology to provide a substantial portion of its electricity. Today, nuclear energy accounts for about 30% of the country's total electricity production, from 47.5 GWe of capacity (net). There are plans to increase this to 37% in 2009 and 41% by 2017.
[...]
In 2004 Japan's Atomic Industrial Forum released a report on the future prospects for nuclear power in the country. [...] Projected nuclear generating capacity in 2050 was 90 GWe. This means doubling both nuclear generating capacity and nuclear share to about 60% of total power produced. In addition, some 20 GW (thermal) of nuclear heat will be utilised for hydrogen production. Hydrogen is expected to supply 10% of consumed energy and 70% of this will come from nuclear plants.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf81.html

Nuclear Power in Korea
Generation capacity of 62 GWe in 2005 is expected to grow to 88 GWe in 2017, 26.6 GWe (30%) of this nuclear, supplying 47% of demand (214 TWh). At the end of 2006 nuclear capacity was 17.5 GWe net (28% of total), supplying 39% of demand (141 billion kWh in 2006). In 2020 nuclear capacity of 27.3 GWe is expected to supply 226 billion kWh - 43.4% of electricity, and by 2035 the government expects nuclear to supply 60% of the power.

by Nucbuddy at 4:04 PM on 06 May 2008

Nuclear power is a sham

All of the electric power we could ever want from any source will not solve our energy problems. We need liquid fuels for tractors/combines, trucks, and trains for moving food, medicine, coal, and maintenance vehicles for the electric power grid. Nuclear power will accelerate oil depletion and give us nothing in return. $4 trillion dollars is a lot of waste in oil, natural gas, and coal used in the construction of nuclear boondoggles. The same goes of solar electric and wind electric (not passive solar, which is ok). For an explanation, see: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html

cjwirth www.peakoilassociates.com

by cjwirth at 4:12 PM on 06 May 2008

You Would Need A Lot Of

Land Area(wind and solar needs)..plausible.
Every carport in America covered by solar panels at current efficiencies?, or even convert existing road surfaces to solar as some have suggested using new materials. Maybe even cover every building with a solar panel?
Better battery technology...(after all, the sun doesn't always shine nor the wind blow)
Much improved electric grid (with less electrical losses), otherwise all of the above efficiencies gained would be minimized.

I agree better efficiency is a place to start, but it takes education and $$$$. Hmm ... rings a bell.

How do you suggest raising the large amount of capital investment to do the above in distributed scattered projects across the US with different standards of manufacturing? Thousands of contracts? run by big contractors? Mom and pops putting up panels? At what pace? What about hail damage? UV degradation issues with existing solar panels? Oh ..OK ..Takes R&D $$$..otherwise they won't last more than 3 to 5 years before replacement is needed. get out the Tax breaks for consumers every 5 years.

We would also need a gas tax or something significant to fund it all. Would take decades to replace all existing infrastructure with wind and solar. Even existing tax incentives appear to not be enough to get many more people switching over to viable solar and wind (faster adoption rates would be needed) and industries to support it all (including taking silicon from competing industries like semiconductors ..yikes! jobs..oh well). Need ramp up silicon production? OK ..hire new engineers..build new facilities. Takes $$.

Price inflation in silicon might be counter productive, much like ethanol did with food based on corn. Any lessons to learn from that issue?
I'de say so.

Your idea sounds plausible, and I applaud it, it's once again faced with engineering and scalability issues. You would still need the *DREADED* nuclear power you so much oppose to fill in the gaps until the US was awash with solar and wind environmental citizenship, and retired atomic plants(and engineers), which would mean needing to fund continuing operations and upgrades on atomic plants (afterall we don't want accidents do we for the reliable GigaWatts we already have (powering web site like this one) ..makes things messy too.

Take your pick:

Dirty coal (getting cleaner by the day I hear)
Solar and Wind (and scalability issues)
Atomic power (and new smaller alternatives like China is building)..smart guys and gals I hear.
Hydro

The easiest fix for drug addicts who hate anything that radiates (i.e. America's oil addicts who fear energetic electrons and helium nuclei that could be shielded) is "easy oil"..or coal, and increased ramp-up of solar and wind. But dealing with oil addiction means dealing with drug dealers (foreign unfriendly oil sources).

Missing winning ingredients to make it all happen?

Education and Time.

Possible Solution?
Join the club of the aging masses that never seem to learn, while we "wish it could be better" for earth club.

-JChan

by JChan111 at 5:29 PM on 06 May 2008

Why are Japan, Korea and China Going Nuclear?

They're awake, instead of asleep at the wheel and see where the future is headed in my opinion.

They'll miniaturize and modernize atomic power, use plugin-hybrids to eventually reduce their smog issues, export their ideas to us and reap the rewards in jobs and new industries, but it won't all be a panacea of course(they'll still have environmental issues, particularly China).

US? We'll still be fighting wars over oil because of our stupidity the way it looks to me.

-JChan

by JChan111 at 5:53 PM on 06 May 2008
[ Parent ]

Nuclear

The linked example is 4.4 dollar per watt not including interest, or above 8 dollars per watt including interest. That is not future cost, but current cost.

And as to solar and wind - what scalability issues. Net land use of solar less than coal mining per kWh. Net land use of wind about the same. That does not even consider that a percent of solar (and some wind) could go on existing surfaces - rooftops, walls, roads parking lots.

by Gar Lipow at 6:06 PM on 06 May 2008

I Agree ..Lets Go Wind and Solar

uh ....is anyone out there listening?

"Sometimes the psychology of consumerism is as great a hurdle as all the technological solutions dreamed up by the idealist in us all"

-JChan

by JChan111 at 6:33 PM on 06 May 2008
[ Parent ]

Wind and solar air-rights construction, redux

Gar Lipow wrote: a percent of solar (and some wind) could go on existing surfaces

Then why is it not? Could it be that it is not economically competitive to do that?

by Nucbuddy at 9:47 PM on 06 May 2008
[ Parent ]

Romm's source says nuclear is the cheapest

Joseph Romm wrote: in October, Moody's Investors Service said "new reactors would cost up to $6,000 per kilowatt of capacity to build" [...] Since $6,000 per kw is $6 billion per gw, 700 gw would require a cost of some $4 trillion,
[...]
Dontcha think the country could find a better use for that kind of money

..Not according to that link you just gave, Joseph:

Nuclear plants are the most expensive to build, [Jeff, president and CEO of Progress Energy Florida] Lyash said, but customers will pay less in the long run because the cost of generating electricity from a nuke is far below the cost of making it from coal, natural gas, wind or solar.
According to industry estimates, the cost of generating electricity from a nuclear plant is about 0.4 cents a kilowatt-hour, 4.2 cents from a coal plant and 7 cents from a natural gas plant.
"Over its lifetime, it will have the lowest fuel cost and it will have the lowest environmental impact," Lyash said.

by Nucbuddy at 10:02 PM on 06 May 2008

wind and solar economical

Wind and solar are competitive once all the costs are factored in...energy from coal costs should include global warming costs,mercury poisoning.etc...the cost to build a nuclear plant is about the same as deconstruction costs the large amts of water used cost a lot according to Lester Brown...as a matter of fact study Lester Brown Jean Polar Bear

Join the Green Party of the US now.You know the other 2 parties are corporate sponsored.

by Jeanmac at 10:29 PM on 06 May 2008

Fair and balanced?

" We would have to quadruple the number of reactors to 400, which would take decades ....
we have to deal with some 1.1 percent annual electricity growth, which means we'll need more than 600 nukes in 2050....
We import more than 12 million barrels of oil a day....
If 80 percent of that electricity comes from nuclear power, then that is -- very conservatively -- another 100 nukes....

To satisfy McCain's odd desire to be like the French and get 80 percent of our electricity from nuclear power in the coming decades would require building more than 700 (gw-sized) nuclear power plants by mid-century -- more than one a month... "

Wow, you convinced me Joseph, with electric transportation and growth we are going to need 700 GW of reliable high capacity factor generation by 2050!

" That's why I have little doubt that if we can move beyond the uninformed platitudes of people like McCain and ever really get serious about global warming and peak oil, then the realistic, affordable solution is at hand -- namely energy efficiency to avoid significant load growth, "

Joseph, you use the worst imaginable assumptions to calculate the required reactor construction, and then call for no growth because your proposed solar plan cannot handle it.

Don't look now but I think your bias is showing.

Most next generation plants will be in the 1,500 Mw range. The number of plants needed would be much less.

" Although we have been unable as a country to agree on even one storage site for our existing nukes' radioactive waste (Yucca Mountain), the McCain plan would require seven such sites -- "

The capacity limit is political, it can take any amount. Seabed disposal would be more sensible.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/seabed/seabed.htm ...

" Dontcha think the country could find a better use for that kind of money in the effort to avoid catastrophic global warming and the harsh consequences of peak oil -- "

I have yet to see a better plan. Joseph, what is your grand plan to provide 700 GW of production (not just data plates) to replace all fossil and nuclear power? Show us your cost estimate for 700GW of reliable, dispatchable, affordable, power, 365 days per year by 2050.

CSP? What is the cost with storage for worst case weather, how do you handle seasonal variation, and how do you distribute it around the country without creating a terrorists delight that they could use kill millions?

http://science-community.sciam.com/topic/Solar-Grand-Plan ...

" So, where would we get all our uranium from? "

We have affordable uranium to support 10 billion people at the U.S. level for 400 years without breeders, the supply is unlimited with breeders.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/2/75132/75324/#9

" the cost to build a nuclear plant is about the same as deconstruction costs the large amts of water used cost a lot according to Lester Brown...as a matter of fact study Lester Brown Jean Polar Bear "

Show your calculations and references.

Water is no problem.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/2/75132/75324/#32 ...

Things Everybody Should Know About Energy

by BILL HANNAHAN at 11:34 PM on 06 May 2008

Nuclear decommissioning costs are around zero

Jeanmac wrote: the cost to build a nuclear plant is about the same as deconstruction costs

That is not true:

For nuclear power plants any cost figures normally include spent fuel management, plant decommissioning and final waste disposal. These costs, while usually external for other technologies, are internal for nuclear power.
Decommissioning costs are about 9-15% of the initial capital cost of a nuclear power plant. But when discounted, they contribute only a few percent to the investment cost and even less to the generation cost. In the USA they account for 0.1-0.2 cent/kWh, which is no more than 5% of the cost of the electricity produced.

by Nucbuddy at 11:35 PM on 06 May 2008
[ Parent ]

Practical?

It's hard to imagine any low carbon, affordable energy future that does not include a large contribution from efficiency and conservation. I don't think many people would disagree. That's why all these projections of massive numbers or new nuclear units are straw man arguments.

If you can't build nuclear units to produce the power, you certainly can't build renewables with storage either.

However, the concept of building one or two new nuclear units a month in the 2020 to 2030 time frame is certainly doable. The 104 operating units didn't just appear out of thin air. Considering the impact of the TMI "pause" the majority were built in about a 10 to 12 year span. And that was a time when our GDP and population were on the order of half what they were now. As can be inferred from the original post, France, a much smaller country, built 59 units, mostly in about 20 years or less.

If we work hard on conservation and renewables, continue to develop wind/solar up to their logical contribution of 20 to 30%, and build a nuclear unit a month starting in 2015, coal could be gone in less than 50 years. Continue to fight against all sources but your pet projects and we'll still be 50% fossil fuel in 50 years.

by KenG at 6:01 AM on 07 May 2008

Nuclear dreams

4 trillion dollars worth?

50 billion per year in subsidy diversion (corporate welfare cuts for fossil, nuclear, and agribizz energy) will get this renewable/conservation energy revolution going.

A tax neutral plan. No new taxes.

Just how can the 4 trillion for your nuclear nightmare be raised? Wall street is not buying into the risk. neither is the public or most politicians.

Maybe you all could get a dicator appointed who would mandate nukes (bush-lite/mccain just won't do)? Hehey. Scalia will certainly help out with an appointment, but could Cheney be robotized to do the job?

First cancel the constitution nukers. Major parts have been already, it shouldn't be that hard.

But that's your next step to your nuclear dreams.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 6:13 AM on 07 May 2008

to MattG - who says:

" I haven't heard either of the Dems advocate for your solution."

...thats because you don't read here, (I see this is your first comment) there have been many stories about their carbon free energy solutions here.

There is no one silver bullet. Nuclear power is not the solution. Obama is more pro nuke than Clinton, but neither advocates for putting all our eggs in one basket like this. Especially to once again rely on a dwindling resource to power it, as Uranium is reaching a peak in 50 years or so, just like oil. Its just bad policy.

Both Obama and Clinton have detailed clean energy plans to get us to a low carbon (Obama) and zero carbon (Clinton) future.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/files/pdf/poweringamericasf ...

John McCain already vetoes every eco bill

by dotcommodity at 7:10 AM on 07 May 2008

Campaign BS dot

It's all hogwash. Once the election is over we will see what we are really facing.

It will be a hopeless battle, but we are used to that. Maybe Barack can lend some "hope"? At least with him it is a possibility.

Romm better jump onboard the Barack bandwagon if he wants to have some input this time around. No one was listening to him during the first Clinton administration.

The stark reality of 4,5,6.. dollar gas is a big lever to motivate the leviathan, I think Barack could use it to move the world, given a well placed fulcrum. That is the role the usually ineffective environmental movement must play.

We must demontrate how this already existing green technology can stop our energy related disasters. War over oil, nuclear proliferation, GHG climate disaster, economic decline from trade deficits and ever soaring energy prices, and so forth.

Organizations that take our donations (like NRDC and others) and then lobby for clean coal, nuclear power, and agribizz fuel farming must be brought to heel by the grassroots. We want those donations to back renewable/conservation energy revolution instead.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 7:25 AM on 07 May 2008

Nukes are being built because there is no uranium

Dotcommodity wrote: Uranium is reaching a peak in 50 years

Wherefrom did you here, or how did you establish, that? Our economically-mineable fission-fuel resources are enough for the next half-trillion years, at current nuclear-electricity production rates.
google.com/search?q=nucbuddy+trillion+year

by Nucbuddy at 8:44 AM on 07 May 2008
[ Parent ]

Suggested reading for Dot

"
" I haven't heard either of the Dems advocate for your solution."
...thats because you don't read here, (I see this is your first comment)...
Uranium is reaching a peak in 50 years or so, just like oil. Its just bad policy. "

Dot, show us your calculations and reference to back up this claim. Show us the errors in this analysis which shows that uranium will be cheap for hundreds of years.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/2/75132/75324/#26 ...

Things Everybody Should Know About Energy

by BILL HANNAHAN at 9:23 AM on 07 May 2008

[dotcom]

/(I see this is your first comment)/ And here I thought I talked too much - Grist tells me I have over 100 comments, to your 37.

Yes, I've read the posts. But none tell me how either Dem will get us near zero carbon. Cap and trade will help if done right, but if introduced agressively will drive polluters to other countries. Other than that I see a lot of "invest in clean energy" lip service. Again, a good thing, but investing in R&D is hardly a concrete plan to solve the problem. "Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure..." (sigh)

Now I'm not saying that McCain doesn't have far worse policies in general. I'm just saying that outlined above is a practical plan for removing most of our carbon output in a reasonable timeframe.

by Matt G at 9:38 AM on 07 May 2008

More suggested-reading for Dot

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html

Uranium is a relatively common metal, found in rocks and seawater. Economic concentrations of it are not uncommon.
[...]
Since uranium is part of the energy sector, another way to look at exploration costs is on the basis of energy value. This allows comparisons with the energy investment cost for other energy fuels, especially fossil fuels which will have analogous costs related to the discovery of the resources. From numerous published sources, the finding costs of crude oil have averaged around US$ 6/bbl over at least the past three decades. When finding costs of the two fuels are expressed in terms of their contained energy value, oil, at US$ 1050/MJ of energy, is about 300 times more expensive to find than uranium, at US$ 3.4/MJ. Similarly, the proportion of current market prices that finding costs comprise are lower for uranium. Its finding costs make up only 2% of the recent spot price of US$ 30/lb ($78/kgU), while the oil finding costs are 12% of a recent spot price of US$ 50/bbl.
By these measures, uranium is a very inexpensive energy source to replenish, as society has accepted far higher energy replacement costs to sustain oil resources.

by Nucbuddy at 9:41 AM on 07 May 2008
[ Parent ]

Hey Romm

Have you ever heard of Thorium? Four times the natural abundance of Uranium.

Have you ever heard of a Breeder Reactor? Makes more fuel than it consumes. Seems like majic, doesn't it.

Did you know that a natural byproduct of sulphate mining is an anoying build up of....Uranium?

Did you know that uranium can be recoverred form this big, wet mine called the ocean?

Wow, neat stuff.

by wcasino at 7:10 AM on 13 May 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.