United States: The elimination of nuclear power is a good thing – for cost reasons

In Germany, nuclear energy has long lost its future. Many people are afraid of super-GAU – the elimination of nuclear power has long been decided. But even in the United States, where nuclear energy is much less critical, the technology has apparently long-term, as a new study shows.

Granger Morgan and his colleagues at Carnegie Mellon University have been studying the potential of US nuclear power over the next few decades – and come to a negative conclusion: more than 50 nuclear power plants are old and expensive to exploit. At the same time that electricity generated by the wind and the sun becomes cheaper and natural gas remains cheap, the operation of the furnaces is no longer profitable.

Significance of Nuclear Energy Reductions

Even today, former tankers in the United States would be withdrawn from the system. A replacement of the capacity lost by the construction of new nuclear power plants is not in sight.

In the long run, therefore, the United States will come out of nuclear power if the prognosis comes true. However, not because technology has too many opponents in Germany, but for cost reasons.

This badessment does not apply only to the United States, where nuclear energy provides about 20% of electricity, write the researchers in the journal "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" ". The importance of nuclear power is probably declining worldwide, with a few exceptions as in China

New buildings were shut down

The goal of a decarbonization of the economy – that is, the output of fossil fuels – is therefore the most difficult to achieve, scientists write. They say that they are losing "one of the most promising candidates" for low carbon energy production in the coming decades.

The failure of new construction projects in recent years shows just how bad the US nuclear perspective is: in South Carolina, two new furnaces were to be built at Virgil C. Summer. When construction was completed at 40% and has already spent nine billion US dollars, the project was abandoned. In addition, a new construction project in Florida was rejected.

One can also wonder if two new kilns will ever be erected in the Vogtle nuclear power plant (Georgia). Costs have recently been estimated at $ 25 billion, further increases are considered likely.

It is above all the high level of investment combined with the uncertainty over future energy prices that has made the new buildings unprofitable. Nuclear energy has opportunities only if, for example, it is clear that a CO2 tax of at least a hundred dollars a ton would be introduced in the next ten years, say the scientists.

It is also necessary that the government invest in the development of new generations of nuclear power plants in order to reduce the comparatively high costs of the reactors currently used. In addition, the US nuclear regulator must speed up its processes dramatically, so that new construction projects have a chance.

World Increase

However, the authors themselves do not believe that the situation of nuclear energy in their country will change significantly in the years to come. It is unlikely that a major nuclear power plant will be built in the coming decades.

On a global scale, the absolute amount of nuclear energy is expected to increase slightly over the next few decades, at least according to forecasts from the World Energy Outlook 2017 of the International Atomic Energy Agency. 39; energy. " This is mainly due to the many newly built tankers in China. However, global growth in renewable energy and natural gas is several times higher. Relatively speaking, the share of nuclear energy is falling.

Greenpeace shares the opinion of the authors of the new US study on nuclear power plants. Atomic energy is in decline and has not been able to contribute significantly to the reduction of CO2 emissions in the future, said Heinz Smital, nuclear energy expert.

The electricity produced by nuclear power plants is not competitive. "This does not mean that nuclear energy will disappear completely," said the Greenpeace expert. Britain, for example, would build new nuclear power plants at any price, even if it represented a net decline for the population and a reliable energy supply could be built more quickly, easily and efficiently. cheaper without nuclear energy. The country needed a nuclear infrastructure including skilled workers and specialized companies for the construction of nuclear powered submarines. "It would be too expensive to allocate all these costs to the military."

For Smital, it is mostly military reasons that push countries like Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey and Egypt to invest in the construction of new nuclear power plants. "Solar energy would be cheaper for these countries."