Globally, the average size of new construction
starts in recent years has been above 1 GW. Given the sheer size of investment needed in a nuclear power plant, financing can be difficult. In general, the liberalisation of wholesale electricity markets has increased investment risk for power generation projects and turned investment preferences towards less capital-intensive technologies such as gas turbines.
The large individual project size of a nuclear plant reinforces the effect of market risk. Few private electricity utilities have the financial capabilities to support such an investment on their own.
Nuclear plants, like other conventional power plants in these markets, are now exposed to market conditions. Many plants were built and brought into operation at a time when the price of wholesale power was regulated, usually on the basis of cost, which protected them from the risk of unexpectedly low prices and short-falls in revenue.
Rapid growth in renewables-based power supply and low natural gas prices in the United States are putting pressure on the financial performance of existing conventional power generators, including nuclear plants.
Although the operating costs of nuclear plants are relatively low compared to other types of
power plants, significant ongoing investments are often required (especially to obtain an extension to an operating licence), which operators may not be able to recover if wholesale prices are too low.
Because of the sheer scale of the investment required, all but 7 of the 54 nuclear power plants under construction globally are owned by state-owned companies and all but one of the projects in private hands (all of which are in advanced economies) are subject to price regulation, which reduces risks to investors.
The report is from 2019.
In the United States, what policies can be put in place to make nuclear power competitive in wholesale markets?
I think there would be. The problem with nuclear power is it would take 20 plus years to get through the permits. That is a lot of capital to put out before hand. Then you have the “not in my back yard factor”. Neither of those will change until there is a more viable way to dispose of the waste.
Well that’s a catch 22. Our best method to deal with nuclear waste is to use it up in next generation reactors. That we can’t build because, reasons
Is there a currently existing regulatory framework that’s close to what you’re envisioning? Like, should our NRC regs be more like, just for example, Korea or France? Generally, what’s holding us back in the United States regs?
Solar panels and wind turbines aren’t its competition. Yes it is over twice as expensive as gas or coal power. So if you want them widely deployed you would need them to be subsidized. On the other hand, since they are mass produced the cost should come down when it scales up.
they over-regulate. typical govt bureaucratic process. you get these young new hires with their massive egos trying to prove themselves along with those with what appear to be various antisocial personality disorders making lives in the industry miserable
good question. it’s like asking “how to fix the irs?”
The company estimates a twelve-unit NuScale plant would cost $4,200 (an earlier estimate was $5,000) per kilowatt. In comparison, the Energy Information Administration in 2011 estimated costs to be $4,700 per kilowatt for conventional nuclear power, $4,600 for a carbon sequestration coal plant and $931 at a gas-fired plant or in excess of $1,800 for a gas-fired plant with carbon sequestration.[5]
How much could we really cut down on those ongoing investments?
Right now, for example, French facilities are dealing with corrosion on some welds. It took plant shut downs and 4 months at the time of the article’s writing, to check a few dozen of more than a hundred. How much can you cut down on the regs and ongoing costs while still making sure stuff like this gets caught?
Around 35 welds have been checked so far and 105 will have been looked at by the end of June. Reuters reported that during his lengthy appearance before law makers Doroszczuk said the issue would require a “large-scale” plan and could take “several years”.
