• 10 mins India’s Reliance Boosts Export Refinery Capacity By 30%
  • 2 hours Nigeria Among Worst Performers In Electricity Supply
  • 8 hours ELN Attacks Another Colombian Pipeline As Ceasefire Ceases
  • 13 hours Shell Buys 43.8% Stake In Silicon Ranch Solar
  • 17 hours Saudis To Award Nuclear Power Contracts In December
  • 20 hours Shell Approves Its First North Sea Oil Project In Six Years
  • 21 hours China Unlikely To Maintain Record Oil Product Exports
  • 22 hours Australia Solar Power Additions Hit Record In 2017
  • 23 hours Morocco Prepares $4.6B Gas Project Tender
  • 1 day Iranian Oil Tanker Sinks After Second Explosion
  • 4 days Russia To Discuss Possible Exit From OPEC Deal
  • 4 days Iranian Oil Tanker Drifts Into Japanese Waters As Fires Rage On
  • 4 days Kenya Cuts Share Of Oil Revenues To Local Communities
  • 4 days IEA: $65-70 Oil Could Cause Surge In U.S. Shale Production
  • 4 days Russia’s Lukoil May Sell 20% In Oil Trader Litasco
  • 4 days Falling Chinese Oil Imports Weigh On Prices
  • 4 days Shell Considers Buying Dutch Green Energy Supplier
  • 5 days Wind And Solar Prices Continue To Fall
  • 5 days Residents Flee After Nigeria Gas Company Pipeline Explodes
  • 5 days Venezuela To Pre-Mine Petro For Release In 6-Weeks
  • 5 days Trump Says U.S. “Could Conceivably” Rejoin Paris Climate Accord
  • 5 days Saudis Shortlist New York, London, Hong Kong For Aramco IPO
  • 5 days Rigid EU Rules Makes ICE Move 245 Oil Futures Contracts To U.S.
  • 5 days Norway Reports Record Gas Sales To Europe In 2017
  • 5 days Trump’s Plan Makes 65 Billion BOE Available For Drilling
  • 6 days PetroChina’s Biggest Refinery Doubles Russian Pipeline Oil Intake
  • 6 days NYC Sues Five Oil Majors For Contributing To Climate Change
  • 6 days Saudi Aramco Looks To Secure $6B In Cheap Loans Before IPO
  • 6 days Shell Sells Stake In Iraqi Oil Field To Japan’s Itochu
  • 6 days Iranian Oil Tanker Explodes, Could Continue To Burn For A Month
  • 6 days Florida Gets An Oil Drilling Pass
  • 7 days Oil Prices Rise After API Reports Staggering Crude Oil Draw
  • 7 days Tesla Begins Mass Production Of Solar Shingles
  • 7 days EIA Boosts World Oil Demand Forecast For 2018 By 100,000 Bpd
  • 7 days Businessman Seeks Sale Of $5.2B Stake In Kazakhstan Oil Field
  • 7 days Exxon Accuses California Of Climate Change Hypocrisy
  • 7 days Norway’s Recovering Oil Industry Resumes Hiring
  • 7 days $2.3 Million Seized Following Singapore Oil Heist
  • 7 days China Nears 2016 Carbon Emissions Target
  • 8 days Oil Companies Respond Slow To New U.S. Lease Plan
Alt Text

Is This The End Of Nuclear Power In The UK?

The UK has been planning…

Alt Text

Nuclear Power's Resurgence In The Middle East

While nuclear power loses popularity…

Michael McDonald

Michael McDonald

Michael is an assistant professor of finance and a frequent consultant to companies regarding capital structure decisions and investments. He holds a PhD in finance…

More Info

Does Nuclear Power Deserve Such A Bad Image?

Does Nuclear Power Deserve Such A Bad Image?

Nuclear power plants seem to draw a special level of animosity even beyond that of conventional power sources that emit greenhouse gases. Perhaps because of the raw capabilities of the plants, nuclear power has been a hot button issue for decades. Today, as many of the U.S. and European nuclear power plants reach the thirty-year mark, there is a growing discussion about their overall safety. Unfortunately, much of that debate is misguided.

The real issue for the viability of new nuclear power plants is whether or not it is cost effective. But given the relatively modest operational and decommissioning costs - decommissioning older nuclear power plants generally adds 0.1 to 0.2 cents per kwh, while fuel costs contribute just 0.5 cents per kwh – the economic hurdle largely boils down to the massive upfront cost of construction, which translates into high costs for financing. Related: Germany’s Nuclear Cutback Is Darkening European Skies

Nevertheless, once built, older nuclear power plants can operate safely for decades. Nuclear critics like to cite the Chernobyl and the 2011 Fukushima disasters as evidence that nuclear power is not safe, especially when generated by older plants. But the truth of the matter is that both disasters were caused by very special circumstances. Chernobyl was a result of a combination of human error and poor engineering brought to the public by the same regime that created perhaps the world’s least reliable automobile. Fukushima was the result of a tsunami. While these examples might support the view that earthquake prone regions and countries with weak track records of successful technological progress should not operate nuclear power plants, neither example is really relevant to the debate over the aging of nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power plant age by itself does not really matter. Nuclear power plants were given a forty-year operating license initially because that is the maximum possible length allowed by U.S. nuclear regulators, not because of any inherent time limits on engineering. Instead what actually matters in nuclear plant safety is the material condition of the plant. Related: How China Could Hold The Oil Markets To Ransom

Nuclear fission results in a process called “embrittlement,” which affects any materials inside the reactor. This is especially true of the containment vessels in nuclear reactors which deteriorate over time.

The degree of embrittlement should be the ultimate barometer for the health of the plant, and as a result, how and when plants should be shuttered. There are ways to test for embrittlement . Embrittlement is not a direct function of plant age though. It is determined by the type of materials used, the operational conditions, as well as repairs made over time. Plant age itself no more drives nuclear power plant safety than car age drives the likelihood of getting a flat tire. Instead, what matters is how the car has been driven and how recently the tires have been replaced. Related: A Spanner In The Works Of The Solar Revolution

This does not mean that nuclear power plants can be used forever, and indeed old plants are decommissioned once the cost of maintenance no longer makes sense . Nuclear power can present dangers if risks are not accounted for and mitigated, just as airplanes can be dangerous under certain circumstances. Yet, most major airlines are flying planes that are twenty to thirty years old. Why is that safe? Because industrial equipment can operate almost indefinitely if it is closely monitored and properly maintained. That should be the real determinant for how long nuclear reactors are allowed to operate.

By Michael McDonald of Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • G.R.L. Cowan on May 12 2015 said:
    The "special level of animosity" Michael McDonald sees nuclear energy getting is, I think, just the same animosity any similarly effective decarbonizer would get. Government is the biggest fossil fuel rent-taker and nuclear energy has taken a much bigger bite out of that rent than anything else ever.
  • RH Bennett on May 12 2015 said:
    As a scientist, I need to have the data. I have made personal requests to other scientists and colleagues that work in the industry. One was sent to Fukushima to help evacuate the health risks. Every request for data was denied, even from my friend citing a prohibition for our Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Animosity may not be accurate. Rather history shows that governments and the industry are simply not trust worthy, not forthright and nowadays intimidating. The technology is extremely complex in and of itself and there remain critical unresolved technologies like how to safely store the wastes and where. The industry says waste management is the governments responsibility (read contractors) and will be conducted with complete secrecy for national security reasons.
  • RH Bennett on May 12 2015 said:
    We scientists like to see the data. Data on the critical issues around nuclear power is thin at best.

    When the Fukushima Diachi reactors melted down, my family was in Tokyo. I have a scientist friend that was sent there right after the explosions and fires. I asked Dr. D. how much radioactive material, not just gamma energy was disseminated over the greater Tokyo area. He did not and could not respond to me directly and sent a message through a mutual friend, that he was prohibited by our government and could not even mention why he was in Japan.

    The information about the quantity of radioactive nuclides dispersed over Japan, including Tokyo remains unknown to the public and any one that might release it will be charged with a violation of the new Japan State Secrets Act and jailed.

    The level of animosity is appropriately high and it results from the beach of trust as secrecy is enforced here and in Japan. No amount of PR can restore trust. The more officials obfuscate we must expect that fear and animosity will increase.
  • jmdesp on May 18 2015 said:
    @RH Bennett : Your claim is surprising. It might be that in the immediate aftermath of the accident, some people have been restrained from giving their own independent estimates, as long as it could not be easily cross-verified.
    But since then, there has been many simulations of the atmospheric releases, and for example independent estimates by the French IRSN and the US Department of Energy about how much radiation was released and how it propagated, as well as scientific publications.

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News