The Nuclear Plant Supply Industry: Impact of the Highly Imperfect Nature of Competition

In this section we analyze various social impacts associated with the establishment and operation of nuclear power plants. The impacts of nuclear plants on nearby communities and people living there have been a controversial issue since long time. Nuclear power generation and utilization has several impacts on society which includes real estate, property values, employment, taxes, social services, physical and mental health, economic development and cultural parameters, etc.

The responsibility to ensure the safety of nuclear energy production throughout the world is in the hands of people. But, the layperson concept may be a bit askance because many consumers may view the issue of nuclear energy only in terms of price considerations. This is a discomforting notion considering the myriad of risks involved, especially in light of the consequences that have occurred at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant in Japan, and the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the Ukraine. While no comparison exists in the United States (U.S.) that would enable U.S. citizens to understand the human and environmental toll that results when something tragically wrong occurs; it remains well past the time for us to consider real solutions to our energy needs that do not have the potential for such wide-spread devastation. Regardless of the various technologies and engineering acumen used to operate nuclear power plants, they are only as effective safety-wise as those who are charged with maintaining security.

Being a supporter of nuclear power in today’s society could be potentially risky. So conveys author William Tucker who believes there is no other alternative, even after the Fukushima disaster (228). Tucker uses a plethora of examples and statistics to demonstrate how nuclear power could be the best alternative; moreover, he doesn’t specify which energy technology is most dangerous, but states that they all are in different ways. All alternatives have risks that determine how harmful they can be; however, it is up to the people to decide how much they are willing to risk. Progressing on from the risks, Tucker claims that we need nuclear power “if we are going to maintain our standard of living” (228). As others try to disprove this statement,

The primary reason that people intend to build a nuclear power plant is the cost of nuclear energy. The number of nuclear power stations increased dramatically during the first oil crisis. During that time, the nuclear energy is taken as a substitution of fossil fuels with reasonable cost. Governments were afraid that the high oil price in the future would affect economics, especially for those industrialized countries who have a lack of natural resources such as Japan and some countries in Europe. Since the nuclear stations can operate for a fairly long period, typically 40 to 60 years, the lifetime cost of nuclear-generated electricity is low and can be very competitive at a low price per unit energy produced. Also, majority of the cost of nuclear energy is incurred during construction and preparation before it starts operating. The cost of uranium affects little to the total cost of nuclear energy, so not like a thermal power station, which is sensitive to the price of coal, natural gas or oil, the electricity price from a nuclear power plant will be pretty stable. These advantages on cost will benefit both industry and people’s living. A report from Mckinsey about energy in Japan shows that after the Fukushima accident, because of the shutdown of nuclear power plants, household electricity prices have increased by more than 50% from 10 ₵/kWh to 16₵/kWh. [27] The rise of electricity price may be a result of power shortage. This means

For example, the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island drove an all-out collapse in public support, underwriting the anemic growth in the industry in the United States over the past three decades. Anti-nuclear sentiment swelled while construction of new reactors stalled. Fears of nuclear power were further confirmed after the 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in the Soviet Union. More recently, the 2011 earthquake, which caused a subsequent tsunami, and led to the nuclear accident in Fukushima reignited public fears about nuclear technology, and caused effects on the industry. The below chart from The Economist, showing the predicted increase in the number of nuclear reactors over time versus the reality, sums up much of the literature on this

Nuclear power is being forced out of its own industry because of alternative energy sources such as wind power, hydrogen energy, solar power, tidal energy, geothermal energy, biomass energy, coal, oil, and natural gas. The overall reason to why these energy sources are forcing the nuclear energy out of business is because each of these alternative energy sources claim to be more efficient, more sustainable, and more environmentally friendly. There is an increased demand for alternative energy sources because of the rapid incline in climate change and the urge to suddenly have a true impact on our environment. This urge exists because in the past, many environmentally harmful products were mass produced and different energy sources were created, but they were harmful to the environment. “The social changes of the 1960s brought a new ecological awareness to American culture, galvanizing the environmental movement.” (“Conserving the Environment”) These harmful products and energy sources were used excessively and caused the earth to respond with climate change. Many people believe that there is a need to “catch up” and to make a true impact on our environment.

Nuclear energy was supposed to be the energy of the future. The ‘energy of tomorrow.’ It was to safely and cheaply meet all of the United States’ energy needs for years to come (Karl Jagers, Kullander pg. 1). Yet according to the World Nuclear Association only twenty percent of our nation’s power comes from nuclear reactors (Nuclear Power in the USA).

As a result, numerous countries are creating more nuclear power plants. From the 1990s, the rate of nuclear power plants constructed increased because of technological and managerial, deregulation, and safety improvements.

On March 11th of 2011, an earthquake and tsunami in Japan caused the Fukushima power plant to meltdown and release dangerous radiation into the environment and completely destroy the plant. Before this incident, public support for nuclear under Barack Obama, who was advocating increased production for nuclear power as it’s a clean energy, was at 71%.1 The most recent nuclear meltdown was the Three Mile Island incident in 1979, located in Harrisburg Pennsylvania, which was becoming a fading memory in the public’s mind. 2 In the aftermath of the Fukushima plant meltdown, the world became increasingly anxious about nuclear energy. Nonetheless, even with the renewed fears of nuclear power, production of new plants would continue in East Asia, India and the Middle East would

While many of these may be true, the costs are quickly paid for, and can be paid for even more quickly if the extent of the subject be studied and updated. Between 1995 and 2008, Nuclear power production costs have remained at the same level, while other power plants production costs have gone up. Nuclear power plants can produce a lot more electric per unit of fuel than other methods. This electricity can be sold cheap because it is plentiful and the upkeep is less. Nuclear plants do not need constant upkeep as do other methods. There, a cost is cut, putting more money back in a person’s pocket. Much of the costs paid for are the continued cost of safety concerns, as these reactors must be continuously watched in case of any dangerous leakages.

In 2014, it was reported that nuclear reactors “provided 2411 billion kWh, over 11% of the world 's electricity”(Plans for Reactors). During that year, the International Energy Agency held special attention toward hazardous scenarios. Minus the conspiracy, “World Energy Outlook 2014 had a special focus on nuclear power, and extends the scope of scenarios to 2040” (Plans for Reactors). In 2030, it is noted that there will be sixty percent capacity growth among nuclear reactors. Countries with existing nuclear power plant count will increasingly expand their nuclear stations. China will have an increase of 46%, while Korea, Russia and India will have 30% all together, whereas the US will have a 16% expansion of nuclear capacity. The plan in motion for 2030 is to have nuclear power plants to have low carbon pollution. “It is noteworthy that in the 1980s, 218 power reactors started up, an average of one every 17 days”(The Nuclear Renaissance) today, there are more than 400 nuclear power plants already made and used, now in the process of expanding their count. In the 1980s, the US had 47 reactors in their base, 18 in Japan and 42 in France. Now, the generating capacity increased in various countries such as USA, Belgium, Germany and Sweden. Many countries have power plants which increase in capacity each year, “...in Switzerland, the capacity of its five reactors has been increased by 13.4%” (Plans for Reactors), a few in US increased to 20%, nine reactors in Spain have an

The use of nuclear energy has a negative connotation for many countries and their populations, not just since the Fukushima accident in 2011. While many countries decided to decrease their capacities or withdraw completely from this sector, China, the fastest growing non-OECD country, is the only nation to increase their capacities. This thesis gives a detailed overview of the Chinese nuclear industry, including its challenges and opportunities.

Additional overheads that nuclear power plants generate are the market failures resulting from the negative externalities generated by nuclear power. The negative externalities of nuclear energy must be factored into the economic costs of nuclear energy. One of the negative externalities associated with nuclear energy is the environmental damages

In an era when many industry analysts project peak oil will be reached by mid-century or sooner, identifying opportunities to promote alternative energy sources assumes new importance and relevance. This paper provides a review of the relevant literature to determine the importance of government infrastructural investment for nuclear power generation. The research will show that these investments are widely regarded as essential because of the high costs of nuclear development and power generation. A discussion concerning the form government involvement assumes in the form of policy statements regarded nuclear power is followed by an assessment concerning whether detailed regulation should be used for the approval of nuclear plant designs, operating practices, nuclear fuel supply arrangements, sponsoring nuclear research development, and ownership control of enrichment reprocessing facilities. Finally, an evaluation of what economic influences concerning nuclear development views versus fossil fuel power generation is followed by a summary of the research and important findings in the conclusion.

Over the past 70 years, energy use and energy sources alike considerably shifted in the United States. With these shifts, the environmental concerns associated the energy sources changed as well. Whether it meant regulating coal use to minimize air pollution or funding alternative fuel source research, the government has played a significant role in how the energy has been used. In addition, worried consumers attack the industries by rallying for them to eliminate pollution. This dual sided advance on the energy industry sometimes leads to slow advancement, such as the case with nuclear energy. Typically, energy policy has shifted to minimize the effects on the environment. However, there were situations in which the government actually