Replacement of Fossil Fuels with Nuclear Energy for Electricity

The new nuclear power plants will all be federally run by the Department of Energy. The price of the energy will be exactly the breakeven point because there is no incentive for the government to make a profit because they are funded through taxes. This will keep the prices of electricity low to satisfy the customers. Regulations will be extremely high to prevent against disasters and to calm citizens about the dangers of nuclear energy. Based on 2016 estimates from the EIA, to completely replace coal energy with nuclear alone, 1.24 trillion killowatthours of nuclear energy will have to be generated. This would equate to roughly 13 new nuclear reactors the size of the Palo Verde nuclear power plant in Arizona. In reality, more than 13 plants will be needed to save on

According to nei.org, the Nuclear Energy Institute, “The average non-fuel O&M cost for a nuclear power plant in 2014 was 1.64 cents per kWh”. The unit ‘cents per kWh’ is the standard unit for LCOE (levelized cost of electricity) which directly and completely compares all energy sources and their energy output in comparison to their costs (direct and indirect). This number (1.64c/kWh) is much lower in comparison to other energy sources’ operating costs of power plants, such as petroleum, which has an O&M cost of 4 cents per kWh. This makes nuclear energy a very cost-efficient option for alternative energy, that will save money for other uses over time, such as for better nuclear energy research or for cutting consumer electricity costs. { Plus, the cost of uranium, which is currently the main fuel for nuclear reactors, is fairly low in comparison with other fuel options. The Nuclear Energy Institute also lists that, “The average fuel cost at a nuclear power plant in 2014 was 0.76 cents / kWh.” In contrast, the 2014 fuel costs for coal and gas were 2.53 and 4.01 cents/kWh respectively, making nuclear energy a very cheap alternative to fossil fuels. In addition, looking at Figure 1, it can be seen that fuel costs occupy much less of the total production costs for nuclear energy than for fossil fuels. In fact, uranium itself occupies only about 15% of the

You need 400000 cubic yards of concrete in making a nuclear power plant, and 66000 tons of steel. There's 300 miles of electric wiring, and 130000 electrical components There's 3500 workers at the peak construction of a nuclear power plant, and two to four billion dollars to build a nuclear power plant. There’s 400 to 700 jobs in a nuclear power plant, and 470 million dollars of energy made in a year at a nuclear power plant.

The US Department of Energy showed that 75 US nuclear reactors had initially had a budget of $45 billion, but ended up costing $145 billion. (“counterpoint: The Risks of Nuclear Power Outweigh the Benefits”) Another example of expensive nuclear plants would be that a study found that out of all nuclear plants in the world, 97% went over budget. Only 3% have been able to stay on budget, but probably because they had a very high budget, to begin with. Also, those power plants don’t get much income. “According to British Energy, a provision of 3 billion pounds invested at a return of just 3% per year…” (Buchan 2) All of this shows that nuclear power plants are too expensive to keep. They cost a lot of money and they have to spend money to make only 3%. 3 billion pounds for 3% back. I don’t think so. There are a lot more environmentally friendly ways to produce energy, other ways to make power and make more money and spend less money. This is an issue and governments must stop spending a lot of money on wasteful nuclear

Secondly, the book points out that the collective cost of nuclear energy production is not economical, which is unfounded. Even under favorable assumptions for wind and solar energy plants, such as an increase in capacity factor, it is shown that the total net benefits of a nuclear plant (at $804,763 per MW per year) clearly outweighs wind plant (at $283,311 per MW per year) and solar plant (at $113,349 per MW per year).6 This implies that the benefits a nuclear plant derived from reducing carbon emissions and having a high capacity factor clearly outweighs the insurance and operating costs of a nuclear

Low costs. The initial construction costs of nuclear power plants are large. When the power plants first have been built, we are left with the costs to enrich and process the nuclear fuel, control and get rid of nuclear waste, as well as the maintenance of the plant. The reason this is under advantages is that nuclear energy is cost-competitive. Generating electricity in nuclear reactors is cheaper than electricity generating from oil, gas and coal.

Although waste disposal is one of the bigger problems, the cost to keep nuclear energy running is also a problem since it is not yet competitive with coal and natural gas(1). Many costs are attached to nuclear energy including capital, plant operating costs, and external costs. The capital costs include the cost of the site, manufacture and labor, and the financing of the nuclear power plants. Building the nuclear reactors needed to generate electricity involves thousands of workers, huge amounts of materials, such as steel and concrete, and several systems provide electricity, ventilation, information, control and communication. The cost of the construction of the plant and the cost of the manual laborers make up most of the capital cost. Operating the plant is expensive too. Operating, maintenance, and fuel are all included in operating costs. Fuel management and final waste disposal are included in the fuel cost. The external costs are the costs that come environmentally and health wise. Any effects that the plant has on the environment, any effect that has to be fixed or payed for is included in the external cost. However, the external cost of nuclear power is much cheaper than the cost of fossil fuels, which the World Nuclear Association explains, “Nuclear energy averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average”. (4)Although nuclear energy has many costs, the effect on the environment is much less than other forms of power, other than wind. Nuclear power is the only energy producing industry which takes full responsibility for its waste and cost, according

First, let’s discuss the cost of nuclear energy. Cost per kilowatt-hour seems to favor nuclear, with nuclear energy at 2.1 cents and coal at 3.23 cents per kWh as a national average (according to The Institute for Energy Research, 2012). This statistic, however, completely ignores the cost of building a nuclear power facility, which The Union of Concerned Scientists reports a low-end estimate of over nine billion dollars before fissionable materials can be introduced. Two additional expenses for these

Nuclear energy generates the cheapest electricity. Uranium is also a very inexpensive resource and very little is needed to produce immense amounts of energy (RRC).

Although petroleum is cheaper, nuclear energy presents itself as a much stronger alternative to petroleum. This is because the cost of petroleum mining within the next fifty years or so will be too large to be an efficient energy source. A switch to nuclear energy may be more efficient as well as less hazardous to the environment as nuclear power plants emit much less carbon dioxide than fuel plants do. The World Nuclear Association went on to say “Greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear power plants are among the lowest of any electricity generation method and on a lifecycle basis are comparable to wind, hydroelectric and biomass.” Nuclear plants also produce a greater amount of energy since “In 2012, the "average" nuclear power plant in the

At the start of the mid 1950’s, the world was introduced to a new, alternative source of power that would revolutionize the energy industry; this power became known as nuclear energy. Since that time, nuclear energy seemed to pave the way in efficiency and supply power to countless cities around the globe. However, the past has shown that there are many major disadvantages to using nuclear energy. Today, many individuals believe that nuclear power plants are hurtful to the Earth and urge America and various other countries to use “green energy” instead and help preserve Mother Nature. Numerous individuals and groups from around the world are currently creating new ways

Direct Costs: Most direct costs include coal power plants and energy generation. For coal power plants, it’s estimated to cost within $1,000-$5,000 per kWe. Although the time it takes to construct these power plants takes years, the prices stay pretty secured. As mentioned earlier, the discount rates do vary and ultimately, change the price estimates of generation. For a 5% discount, the costs of generation range from $30-$50 per MWh. For a 10% discount, the costs of generation range from $35-$60 per MWh. (“Projected Costs of Generating Electricity” 12). The 10% discount is slightly more expensive, but not by much.

In his book, “Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power”, Benjamin Sovacool discusses that the economics of starting and operating a nuclear power plant. He compares it to those of other sources of electricity such as the renewable sources of energy which consist of wind, water and sunlight (WWS) and other non-renewable sources such as coal and other fossil fuels. Nuclear power plants inherently have a high initial capital budget for the construction of the plant. The initial investment may contribute between 70% and 80% of the cost of electricity (Du & Parsons, 2009). Cost projections thus need to take into

Nuclear power plants are one of the cheapest energy creators for how much energy the power plants

In 1942, Enrico Fermi successfully sustained a nuclear fission reaction and created the world’s first functional reactor. What his experiments, and those of earlier scientists like Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman, showed was that by splitting the nucleus of heavy radioactive elements (like uranium and cadmium), energy is released, and the reaction could be designed to generate a sustained energy source (Schlager & Weisblatt, 2006). Subsequent experiments illuminated the promise of nuclear energy as a reliable alternative to coal, and scientists and economists praised it as the future of energy. While nuclear power remains the most efficient form of energy (Nei.org, 2013), its early proponents failed to take into account the potentially devastating effects of a power plant overloading and exposing radioactive waste to nearby populations, and catastrophic events like the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters have substantially undermined the promise of Nuclear Energy. The question of whether nuclear power will become the standard of energy production remains a hotly debated topic among economists and environmentalists alike. The economic costs of nuclear energy are vast, ranging from government oversights and barriers to entry, to variable human capital costs and fiercely competitive substitutes. By analyzing the economics of the establishment of a nuclear power plant, we can get closer to answering the question of whether nuclear power will become the true future of energy.