• 3 minutes Shale Oil Fiasco
  • 7 minutes "Leaked" request by some Democrats that they were asking Nancy to coordinate censure instead of impeachment.
  • 12 minutes Trump's China Strategy: Death By a Thousand Paper Cuts
  • 16 minutes Global Debt Worries. How Will This End?
  • 56 mins americavchina.com (otherwise known as OilPrice).
  • 24 mins Democrats through impeachment process helped Trump go out of China deal conundrum. Now Trump can safely postpone deal till after November 2020 elections
  • 10 hours Forget The Hype, Aramco Shares May be Valued At Zero Next Year
  • 2 days Everything you think you know about economics is WRONG!
  • 2 days Wallstreet's "acid test" for Democrat Presidential candidate to receive their financial support . . . Support "Carried Interest"
  • 1 day Natural Gas
  • 3 hours POTUS Trump signs the HK Bill
  • 15 hours Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, Ukraine Oil & Gas exploration company Burisma, and 2020 U.S. election shenanigans
  • 3 hours Iraq war and Possible Lies
  • 6 hours READ: New Record Conoco Eagleford Vintage 5 wells, their 5th generation test wells . . . Shale going bust . . . LAUGHABLE
  • 2 days 2nd Annual Great Oil Price Prediction Challenge of 2019
  • 1 day Aramco Raises $25.6B in World's Biggest IPO
  • 20 hours My interview on PDVSA Petrocaribe and corruption
  • 1 day Winter Storms Hitting Continental US
Alt Text

U.S. Nuclear Has A Tough Road Ahead

High-profile disasters and a booming…

Alt Text

Should We Rethink Nuclear Power?

Nuclear energy has received a…

Llewellyn King

Llewellyn King

Llewellyn King is the executive producer and host of "White House Chronicle" on PBS. His e-mail address is lking@kingpublishing.com

More Info

Premium Content

Natgas Boom Undermining U.S. Nuclear Future

America's nuclear power industry should be luxuriating in its extraordinary safety record and the fact that it is a carbon-free way to make electricity.

But all is not well in atom land. In fact, things are dismal. Only five nuclear plants are under construction, and they are having birth pains as schedules slip and costs rise.

One plant, Vermont Yankee, has been taken out of service and others are on a watch list. This is happening not because of safety or end-of-life, but because cheap natural gas is undermining the economics of nuclear.

The market has spoken and it has determined that gas is cheaper in the short term, and wind and solar, though limited, enjoy social acceptability and declining costs.

The mighty Exelon Corporation is trying to save three, and maybe more, of its nuclear plants with a political fix; arguing that nuclear is a value proposition – its value to the community will continue long after the gas boom has fizzled. It is an argument that might have been made to save commuter railroads in the heyday of the automobile. Related: The Inconvenient Truth About A Green Revolution

But that is not all that challenges nuclear. Despite its environmental advantages in a time of climate change, the public has been steadily turning against nuclear, persuaded by a relentless campaign that has been waged by opponents like the Union of Concerned Scientists and Natural Resources Defense Council and by Japan’s Fukushima accident following an earthquake and a tsunami. Wrongly, it is believed this resulted in lives lost: Many lives were lost to flooding, but not to radioactivity release.

But the public has absorbed a fear of nuclear, unless it is associated with the navy. That was reflected this month, when a Gallup poll revealed that only 51 percent now support nuclear, as opposed to a traditional divide of 60 percent for and 40 percent against. It is hopeless to expect a big swing to nuclear with this kind of public sentiment. The current slim majority favoring nuclear falls far short of a call for action.

Moreover, the nuclear industry has had its fair share of bad news of which does nothing to help the public love the atom. Related: Top 5 Richest Tycoons In Renewable Energy

The San Onofre plant in California was closed down because new steam generators were defective, and the owners decided it was not worth the hundreds of millions it would cost to fix things. Cost overruns and delays, once blamed on environmental opposition, now are almost always a result of problems in the construction.

Much hope has rested on two new reactors being built by the Southern Company in Georgia. Known as Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4, there are delays and cost overruns and the utility is in court with the prime contractor, the eponymous Westinghouse Electric Company. Although the Southern Company is determined to complete the reactors and under its feisty chairman, Tom Fanning, possibly to build more, the costs are rising.

Just a few months ago, there was hope that new reactors -- smaller mass-produced power plants -- were in the pipeline. But now the industry is convinced the next reactor design will have to be developed outside of the United States; probably in Asia, where both China and India are working on radical new reactors, far from today’s light water plants -- 100 of them -- operating in the United States. Related: Japan May Not Restart Nuclear Reactors After All

The U.S. challenge is not science or engineering – we have designs aplenty and great nuclear science – but regulation. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) – which protects public health and safety -- is not equipped to license a new reactor, and it is believed that a new reactor type would have to spawn a whole new regulatory bureaucracy. One aspirant with a new nuclear design says ruefully, “It’s as though the FAA had recertified every aspect of flying when the jet engine came along.”

The NRC, even its staff admits, is slow and ponderous. What they don’t admit is that the commission is not only protecting the public, by making sure that today’s reactors are safe, but it’s also preventing the public from having better nuclear power in the future.

For the industry the problem is not only the time it would take to bring a new reactor through licensing, but also the cost. The applicant, not the government, pays for the NRC to license a reactor. Some say that cost could run towards a billion dollars.

Considering this situation, U.S. leadership in reactor technology is doomed.

By Llewellyn King for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:




Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage



Leave a comment
  • Anna on April 22 2015 said:
    Mr. King,

    Nuclear energy is NOT carbon free.

    Nuclear power plants emit 90 – 140 g of CO2 per kwh.

    PLUS, nuclear power plants release massive amounts of CARBON-14 which is converted to CO2 in the atmosphere!

    Conclusion: Nuclear energy releases huge amounts of carbon.

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News
Download on the App Store Get it on Google Play