Cheap Natural Gas Unplugs U.S. Nuclear-Power Revival

The Wall Street Journal ^ | March 15, 2012 | REBECCA SMITH

[MinorityRepublican]

The U.S. nuclear industry seemed to be staging a comeback several years ago, with 15 power companies proposing as many as 29 new reactors. Today, only two projects are moving off the drawing board.

What killed the revival wasn't last year's nuclear accident in Japan, nor was it a soft economy that dented demand for electricity. Rather, a shale-gas boom flooded the U.S. market with cheap natural gas, offering utilities a cheaper, less risky alternative to nuclear technology.

"It's killed off new coal and now it's killing off new nuclear," says David Crane, chief executive of NRG Energy Inc., NRG -1.14% a power-generation company based in Princeton, N.J. "Gas has come along at just the right time to upset everything."

Across the country, utilities are turning to natural gas to generate electricity, with 258 plants expected to be built from 2011 through 2015, federal statistics indicate. Not only are gas-fired plants faster to build than reactors, they are much less expensive. The U.S. Energy Information Administration says it costs about $978 per kilowatt of capacity to build and fuel a big gas-fired power plant, compared with $5,339 per kilowatt for a nuclear plant.

Already, the inexpensive natural gas is putting downward pressure on electricity costs for consumers and businesses.

The EIA has forecast that the nation will add 222 gigawatts of generating capacity between 2010 and 2035—equivalent to one-fifth of the current U.S. capacity. The biggest chunk of that addition—58%—will be fired by natural gas, it said, followed by renewable sources, including hydropower, at 31%, then coal at 8% and nuclear power at 4%.

[factoryrat]

I agree, definitely. Fission reactors are a mature technology now, with all of the groundwork laid out by our predecessors. The only things we can improve are cycle efficiency, and going back to fuel reprocessing and breeder reactors, along with the possibilty of using thorium as as fuel feedstock for a new generation of plants.

[factoryrat]

The situation in Japan was based on worst case scenario being trumped by an even worse case that nobody could have for-seen scenario. All of their emergency systems worked as expected, until they were submerged under seawater. The plants were designed for a 50 year event, and were damaged by a 100 year event. It sucks that it happened, but it has been learning experience for the NRC, and the power companies. Fermi II south of Detroit is of the same GE design and manufacture as the reactors at Fukashima. Should we shut that plant down because of this? No, you wouldn't because the geography and risks involved are very different.

[cpdiii]

The situation in Japan was based on worst case scenario being trumped by an even worse case that nobody could have foreseen scenario. All of their emergency systems worked as expected, until they were submerged under seawater. The plants were designed for a 50 year event, and were damaged by a 100 year event.

I stand by my statement of "piss poor design," for that particular location. There are historical records of Tsunamis of this magnitude hitting that area of Japan.

The life span of a reactor is normally 30 to 40 years until decommissioning. That makes it about 60 to 80 percent probability of experiencing a 50 year event. It makes it a 30 to 40 percent probability of of experiencing a 100 year event for which it IS NOT DESIGNED TO SAFELY ENDURE That was piss poor engineering. I sure as hell would not get on an airplane if it had a 30 or 40 percent chance of crashing.

The design of that plant would be perfectly acceptable in other areas that are not subject to massive earthquakes and or Tsunamis.

The part that really makes me angry is this has probably killed off New Nuclear Power plants in the United States. I am a very active proponent of Nuclear Power. The disaster in Japan did not need to happen.

[factoryrat]

The GE design was not a piss poor design. Four US reactors that are currently in operation are of that design. The location of the Japanese reactors had more to do with their failure than the plant design itself. That was a poor choice of location by the Japanese, which given their engineering prowess, was possibly governed more by business and government pressure, rather than sound engineering practices. As far as nuclear power being dead here, four new reactors are slated to be built at existing sites, to add to generating capacity, with more to follow. As far as plant life goes, most of the plants operating in the US are running on extensions to their licenses, having been so over-engineered to begin with that they can easily extend their lives by at least 20 years.

[cpdiii]

The GE design was not a piss poor design. Four US reactors that are currently in operation are of that design.

You are very correct and you stated it properly as being piss poor for that particular location. That is what I also meant but did not put it properly.