It’s time for the U.S. nuclear industry to abandon its surface excuses for poor performance and focus on the reality of the industry’s poor economic record. That’s the latest word from Steve Nesbit, outgoing president of the American Nuclear Society.
Nesbit said in the ANS’s NuclearNewswire this week, “There is no ‘divine right’ behind nuclear energy. We like to admire the fascinating aspects of nuclear technology, but at the end of the day, it comes down to the money, and that’s where we stubbed our toe badly over the past two decades.”
Remember the “nuclear renaissance” that was supposed to rescue the struggling industry earlier this century? Despite widespread optimism and hefty government backing, the renaissance didn’t end the dark ages “when advanced light water reactors turned out to be much more expensive than their marketing claimed, while alternatives—primarily natural gas—plummeted in price.”
Industry supporters, Nesbit noted, tend to point fingers elsewhere when it comes to atomic power’s poor performance for so many years. He said, “We tend to point to impediments to nuclear technology, such as overly restrictive licensing requirements and adverse public opinion, but these matter only to the extent of their impact on the bottom line. Again, it comes down to the money.”
The nuclear industry tends to focus on possible future developments such as advanced reactors, smaller reactors, and factory construction. While these may turn out to be worthwhile, “That’s more of a hope than a plan.”
Summing up, Nesbit wrote, “money matters. The existing fleet of light water reactors operates very efficiently, but for most plants, aggressive cost reductions have reached the point of diminishing (or negative) returns. Looking toward future deployments of nuclear power reactors, we need a level playing field that recognizes the attributes of nuclear energy and the downsides of other energy sources. Clean energy would benefit from a tax policy that allows capital-intensive projects to recover investments quickly. To attain these ends, we must stay engaged on the policy front.
“Finally, in the spirit of ‘physician, heal thyself,’ let’s have an honest appraisal of our past cost and schedule performance shortcomings to ensure that we don’t relive them.”
Nesbit, P.E., in 2019 founded nuclear consulting firm LMNT Consulting. That followed a long career at Duke Energy, starting in 1982. He has taught nuclear engineering at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He became ANS president in June 2021 for a term through June 2022.
Nesbit’s call for economic realism in U.S. nuclear comes in recent context that includes:
*The price tag for the troubled Vogtle project in Georgia tops $30 billion and may go higher.
*U.S. nuclear power generation fell by 1.5% in 2021 compared to 2020. Since the end of 2017, six nuclear reactors with generating capacity of 4,736 MW have closed, and no new plants have come online for decades.
* Brookfield Business Partners, the current owners of Westinghouse Electric, wants to sell the historic nuclear vendor after buying it out of bankruptcy, claiming it has been so profitable that it’s time to sell, and prompting a financial analyst to wonder that if it is so profitable, why not keep it and grow the business.
–Kennedy Maize
Twitter (@kennedymaize)