Is nuclear energy cost effective??

Question

Is it worth if when it comes to spending less money?

Answer 1

At present the nuclear industry is paid a levy by the government (at least in the UK). The biggest financial problem with nuclear power is the time it takes to build the reactor. Heavy construction together with the various public enquiries and legal battles makes for a lengthy (and expensive) process.

Construction alone will take 6-7 years. During this time interest must be paid on borrowed money without any return (since no eletricity will be produced until after construction and safety checks have been made). If interest rates are low enough (less than 5%) then electricity produced via nuclear is more cost effective and cheaper than a combined gas turbine generator (CCGT) that takes less than 2 years to build and start operating. At rates over 5% electricity produced by CCGT is cheaper. In general rates are above this 5% as investors want a quick return on the money they've lent out. If investors could wait for a longer return period the nuclear would be for more cost effective.

Other factors to consider include:
- decommissioning. These costs can greatly increase for nuclear since the power station has a 40+ year life span.
- the operating life of the power station.
-cost of fuel. Gas is for more likely to increase in price.

In 1994 Nuclear Electric stated than a kWh from Sizewell C would cost 1.1p over the 40 year lifespan compared to 1.7p for a CCGT power station operating for 20 years.

To add to Wood...
Cold fusion is not possible. Ask any nuclear physicist (which I am). There was a farsical claim in the 1980s by two chemists who believed to have produced 'cold fusion' in a test tube. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

Nuclear fusion is at least 50 years away, and may still not be viable. The new ITER reactor being built will take us closer to finding out but a working reactor would still be 2, probably 3, generations away. http://www.iter.org/

Answer 2

The current problem with nuclear energy right now is that we're operating with a type of "fision"... which is basically "splitting" atoms. Though this does produce quite a bit of energy, it isn't the most efficient nuclear reaction and there is a lot of waste.

What scientists would like to do is to operate with a procedure of "fusion". This the "combination" of atoms. Science HAS been able to fuse atoms in the past, however the resources and energy spent to make the process happen was not worth the net result (Fusion produces far more energy than Fision, but we simply haven't found a "cheap" way to do it yet)

That's what the term 'cold fusion' means. It's a cheap, energy-efficient way of performing "fusion".

When and if scientists ever figure that out, we will probably move to more nuclear power!

It just isn't a very cost-effective, or waste-effective form of energy at the moment.



Addition*****

I appreciate the additions/criticisms to my post by the other answerers. It is always good to find out more about such an interesting topic!

Answer 3

Well, if it were indeed cost effective in the present litigious environment, where it takes decades just to get a site approved due to endless lawsuits, probably not, otherwise they'd be popping up like mushrooms. If the gov't can pass laws to mitigate that stuff, and if you make the utility companies pay for the long terms costs of fossil fuel burning through an equitable carbon tax, it's definitly cost effective. Those things haven't happened yet, so right now it's just not worth it for investors.

Re Wood's answer. Fusion is an important *research* effort, but not ready for prime time. No one has ever gotten net energy out from a controlled reaction. Decades of research are required before you can even say whether or not it's more cost effective than even solar or wind power. Metal lattice cold fusion is pathological science. It simply doesn't exist.

Answer 4

Impossible to say until we know the final cost of radioactive disposal.