| Both sides previous revision
Previous revision
Next revision
|
Previous revision
|
responses_to_ai:technological_inevitability:incentivized_technologies_not_pursued:nuclear_power [2023/03/31 03:21]
jeffreyheninger |
responses_to_ai:technological_inevitability:incentivized_technologies_not_pursued:nuclear_power [2023/04/05 23:10] (current)
rickkorzekwa |
| |
| Different countries have dramatically different relationships with nuclear power. Some countries have embraced it. France produces 70% of electricity using nuclear power. Some countries, like the United States, use nuclear power but have made it prohibitively expensive to construct new nuclear power plants. Some countries previously used nuclear power, but have chosen to abandon it. Germany produced 30% of its electricity using nuclear power in 2010, but will complete shutting down the last of its nuclear power plants in April 2023. Some countries, like Italy, have completely rejected nuclear power. Nuclear power is a resisted technological temptation for some countries, but not for others. | Different countries have dramatically different relationships with nuclear power. Some countries have embraced it. France produces 70% of electricity using nuclear power. Some countries, like the United States, use nuclear power but have made it prohibitively expensive to construct new nuclear power plants. Some countries previously used nuclear power, but have chosen to abandon it. Germany produced 30% of its electricity using nuclear power in 2010, but will complete shutting down the last of its nuclear power plants in April 2023. Some countries, like Italy, have completely rejected nuclear power. Nuclear power is a resisted technological temptation for some countries, but not for others. |
| | |
| | ==== Costs and Benefits ==== |
| |
| Since the main benefit of nuclear power is electricity generation, calculating the net benefit requires comparisons to other ways of generating electricity. | Since the main benefit of nuclear power is electricity generation, calculating the net benefit requires comparisons to other ways of generating electricity. |
| |
| |
| Nuclear power has several other benefits, compared to other electricity sources. Like fossil fuel plants, it can be operated all the time, and so supplies baseload power. Nuclear power plants can also be designed to be dispatchable,((A dispatchable power source can be turned up or down to match demand.)) although this reduces their capacity factor.((French nuclear power plants, which are dispatchable, have a capacity factor of about 70%, compared to American nuclear power plants, which are run continually, and have a capacity factor of about 90%. Since most of the cost is in construction, it is preferable to have it generate electricity for as much time as possible. \\ Électricité de France. //Facts and Figures.// (2021) Slide 95. [[https://www.edf.fr/sites/groupe/files/2022-05/edf-facts-and-figures-2021-vdef.pdf]].)) Like renewables, they do not emit carbon dioxide when they produce electricity. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions((This includes greenhouse gasses released while constructing and decommissioning the plant, and while mining, refining, and transporting the fuel.)) are comparable to renewables. Nuclear power also does not release air pollution, which means that it kills far fewer people than fossil fuels.((IPCC Working Group III. Mitigation of Climate Change, Annex III: Technology - specific cost and performance parameters. (2014) p. 1335. [[https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf#page=7.]])) | Nuclear power has several other benefits, compared to other electricity sources. Like fossil fuel plants, it can be operated all the time, and so supplies baseload power. Nuclear power plants can also be designed to be dispatchable,((A dispatchable power source can be turned up or down to match demand.)) although this reduces their capacity factor.((French nuclear power plants, which are dispatchable, have a capacity factor of about 70%, compared to American nuclear power plants, which are run continually, and have a capacity factor of about 90%. Since most of the cost is in construction, it is preferable to have it generate electricity for as much time as possible. \\ Électricité de France. //Facts and Figures.// (2021) Slide 95. [[https://www.edf.fr/sites/groupe/files/2022-05/edf-facts-and-figures-2021-vdef.pdf]].)) Like renewables, they do not emit carbon dioxide when they produce electricity. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions((This includes greenhouse gasses released while constructing and decommissioning the plant, and while mining, refining, and transporting the fuel.)) are comparable to renewables.((IPCC Working Group III. Mitigation of Climate Change, Annex III: Technology - specific cost and performance parameters. (2014) p. 1335. [[https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf#page=7.]])) Nuclear power also does not release air pollution, which means that it kills far fewer people than fossil fuels.((Ritchie. //What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?// Our World in Data. (2020) [[https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy]].)) |
| |
| Nuclear power also has some unique challenges. | Nuclear power also has some unique challenges. |
| The Messner Plan was announced without public or parliamentary debate. There have been significant anti-nuclear protests in France, but they have been much less successful than in other countries. | The Messner Plan was announced without public or parliamentary debate. There have been significant anti-nuclear protests in France, but they have been much less successful than in other countries. |
| |
| Several other countries also use nuclear power extensively. Ontario, Canada produces 60% of its electricity using nuclear power.((Most of the rest of Canada uses hydroelectricity or wind. | Several other countries also use nuclear power extensively. Ontario, Canada produces 60% of its electricity using nuclear power.((Most of the rest of Canada uses hydroelectricity or wind. \\ |
| Electric power generation, monthly generation by type of electricity. \\ //Statistics Canada.// (2023) [[https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=2510001501]].)) It accounts for over 40% of the electricity generated in Sweden and Ukraine (before the war) and over 30% of the electricity generated in Finland.((//World Development Indicators.// World Bank. (2015) [[http://wdi.worldbank.org/table/3.7]].)) South Korea was working towards producing 60% of its electricity using nuclear power, but this has stalled at about 30% after Fukushima and a scandal involving counterfeit parts in 2013. China and India are both building double digits of new reactors, but nuclear power’s share of electricity generation in these countries is still small. | //Electric power generation, monthly generation by type of electricity.// Statistics Canada. (2023) [[https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=2510001501]].)) It accounts for over 40% of the electricity generated in Sweden and Ukraine and over 30% of the electricity generated in Finland.((//World Development Indicators.// World Bank. (2015) [[http://wdi.worldbank.org/table/3.7]].)) South Korea was working towards producing 60% of its electricity using nuclear power, but this has stalled at about 30% after Fukushima and a scandal involving counterfeit parts in 2013. China and India are both building double digits of new reactors, but nuclear power’s share of electricity generation in these countries is still small. |
| |
| === United States === | === United States === |
| |
| The United States uses nuclear power and does not have plans to stop. It generates about 20% of the electricity in the US. However, almost no new nuclear power capacity is being built. Other than Vogtle Units 3 & 4, which began construction in 2013 and are currently being turned on, no new nuclear reactors have begun construction since 1978 in the US.((//Vogtle 3 reaches first criticality.// World Nuclear News. (2023) [[https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Vogtle-3-reaches-first-criticitality.]])) There is almost a de facto moratorium on new nuclear power in the United States. | The United States uses nuclear power and does not have plans to stop. It generates about 20% of the electricity in the US. However, almost no new nuclear power capacity is being built. Other than Vogtle Units 3 & 4, which began construction in 2013 and are currently being turned on, no new nuclear reactors have been built which begun construction since 1978 in the US.((//Vogtle 3 reaches first criticality.// World Nuclear News. (2023) [[https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Vogtle-3-reaches-first-criticitality.]])) There is almost a de facto moratorium on new nuclear power in the United States. |
| |
| The anti-nuclear-power movement in the United States is about as old as commercial nuclear power. In the early 1960s, a nuclear power plant at Bodega Bay, California, near San Francisco, was canceled due to local protests.((Wellock. //Battle for Bodega Bay.// California History LXXI.2. (1992) [[https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Battle_for_Bodega_Bay:_The_Sierra_Club_and_Nuclear_Power,_1958-1964]].)) As these local protests grew and extended their influence elsewhere in the country, they created organizations like the Friends of the Earth and the Union of Concerned Scientists. These organizations have not been able to directly defeat nuclear power politically on a national scale, even after a partial core meltdown at Three Mile Island. | The anti-nuclear-power movement in the United States is about as old as commercial nuclear power. In the early 1960s, a nuclear power plant at Bodega Bay, California, near San Francisco, was canceled due to local protests.((Wellock. //Battle for Bodega Bay.// California History LXXI.2. (1992) [[https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Battle_for_Bodega_Bay:_The_Sierra_Club_and_Nuclear_Power,_1958-1964]].)) As these local protests grew and extended their influence elsewhere in the country, they created organizations like the Friends of the Earth and the Union of Concerned Scientists. These organizations have not been able to directly defeat nuclear power politically on a national scale, even after a partial core meltdown at Three Mile Island. |
| Instead, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission added increasingly strict safety regulations, which caused the cost of building new nuclear power plants to increase dramatically. Reactors which began construction in the late 1970s took 2.4 times as long and cost 9 times as much as reactors which began in the 1960s. Especially damaging were changes to the regulatory code made during construction. New plants stopped being built under this stricter, and still frequently changing, regulatory regime. For more details of how this occurred, see discussions by Jason Crawford((Crawford. Why has nuclear power been a flop? Roots of Progress. (2021) [[https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop]].)) and Brian Potter.((Potter. Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Construction Physics. (2022) Parts [[https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction|I]], [[https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction-370|II]], and [[https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction-c3c|III]].)) | Instead, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission added increasingly strict safety regulations, which caused the cost of building new nuclear power plants to increase dramatically. Reactors which began construction in the late 1970s took 2.4 times as long and cost 9 times as much as reactors which began in the 1960s. Especially damaging were changes to the regulatory code made during construction. New plants stopped being built under this stricter, and still frequently changing, regulatory regime. For more details of how this occurred, see discussions by Jason Crawford((Crawford. Why has nuclear power been a flop? Roots of Progress. (2021) [[https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop]].)) and Brian Potter.((Potter. Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Construction Physics. (2022) Parts [[https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction|I]], [[https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction-370|II]], and [[https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction-c3c|III]].)) |
| |
| It is unclear to me why this occurred. It might be the result of a failure to align the incentives of the NRC with the goal of building new nuclear power plants. It also might have been an intentional strategy by anti-nuclear activists to slow the development of nuclear power. Distinguishing between these possibilities would require figuring out the motivations of various individuals on the NRC during the 1960s and 1970s, which is beyond the scope of this page. | We are uncertain why this occurred. It might be the result of a failure to align the incentives of the NRC with the goal of building new nuclear power plants. It also might have been an intentional strategy by anti-nuclear activists to slow the development of nuclear power. Distinguishing between these possibilities would require figuring out the motivations of various individuals on the NRC during the 1960s and 1970s, which is beyond the scope of this page. |
| |
| Estimating the direct cost of nuclear power being too expensive to build requires a bit of a calculation, which can be found in the Appendix. Under a different regulatory regime, the levelized cost of electricity could be $20/MWh less than coal and similar to natural gas. If 20% of the United States’ electricity generation switched from coal to nuclear, this would reduce the direct costs of electricity in the US by \$16 billion/yr. For comparison, the total sales of electricity in the US are about \$400 billion/yr.((The United States consumed about 3.9 trillion kWh in 2021 and the average price was about 10 ¢/kWh.. \\ //Use of Electricity.// U.S. Energy Information Administration. [[https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-electricity.php]]. \\ //Prices and Factors Affecting Prices.// U.S. Energy Information Administration. [[https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-affecting-prices.php]].)) | Estimating the direct cost of nuclear power being too expensive to build requires a bit of a calculation, which can be found in the Appendix. Under a different regulatory regime, the levelized cost of electricity for nuclear power could be $20/MWh less than coal and similar to natural gas. If 20% of the United States’ electricity generation switched from coal to nuclear, this would reduce the direct costs of electricity in the US by \$16 billion/yr. For comparison, the total sales of electricity in the US are about \$400 billion/yr.((The United States consumed about 3.9 trillion kWh in 2021 and the average price was about 10 ¢/kWh.. \\ //Use of Electricity.// U.S. Energy Information Administration. [[https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-electricity.php]]. \\ //Prices and Factors Affecting Prices.// U.S. Energy Information Administration. [[https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-affecting-prices.php]].)) |
| |
| The two main indirect costs seem to be the contribution to climate change, measured by the social cost of carbon,((The United States estimates the social cost of carbon to \$51 / ton of CO2 equivalent. \\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG). //Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide: Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990.// (2021) [[https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf]].)) and premature deaths due to air pollution. Our World In Data has estimated both of these:((Ritchie. //What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?// Our World in Data. (2020) [[https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy]].)) Nuclear power causes 0.03 deaths per TWh((The majority of the deaths from nuclear power used in this calculation were caused by the evacuation of the area around Fukushima. It is not clear to me whether it is reasonable to attribute these deaths to the nuclear disaster, unless more deaths would have occurred if these people were not evacuated.)) and 3 tons of CO2 equivalent per GWh, natural gas causes 3 d/TWh and 500 t/GWh, and coal causes 25 d/TWh and 800 t/GWh. This corresponds to an expected 20 d/yr and \$100 million/yr of climate change caused by nuclear, compared to 2,000 d/yr and \$20 billion/yr of climate change avoided if natural gas is replaced or 20,000 d/yr and \$30 billion/yr of climate change avoided if coal is replaced. | The two main indirect costs seem to be the contribution to climate change, measured by the social cost of carbon,((The United States estimates the social cost of carbon to \$51 / ton of CO2 equivalent. \\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG). //Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide: Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990.// (2021) [[https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf]].)) and premature deaths due to air pollution. Our World In Data has estimated both of these:((Ritchie. //What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?// Our World in Data. (2020) [[https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy]].)) Nuclear power causes 0.03 deaths per TWh((The majority of the deaths from nuclear power used in this calculation were caused by the evacuation of the area around Fukushima. It is not clear to me whether it is reasonable to attribute these deaths to the nuclear disaster, unless more deaths would have occurred if these people were not evacuated.)) and 3 tons of CO2 equivalent per GWh, natural gas causes 3 d/TWh and 500 t/GWh, and coal causes 25 d/TWh and 800 t/GWh. This corresponds to an expected 20 d/yr and \$100 million/yr of climate change caused by nuclear, compared to 2,000 d/yr and \$20 billion/yr of climate change avoided if natural gas is replaced or 20,000 d/yr and \$30 billion/yr of climate change avoided if coal is replaced. |
| === Germany === | === Germany === |
| |
| The German anti-nuclear movement had a similar origin to the American one.((For a good short history of Germany’s anti-nuclear movement, see: \\ Appunn. //The history behind Germany’s nuclear phase-out.// Clean Energy Wire. (2021) [[https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-germanys-nuclear-phase-out]].)) The movement began with local opposition to a nuclear power plant in Wyhl, which subsequently developed into anti-nuclear-power organizations, including the Green Party. Regulatory cost increases were not as severe as in the United States, but they were sufficient to stop any new construction from starting after 1982. An SPD-Green coalition government from 1998-2005 decided to slowly phase out nuclear power, although this decision was reversed after Merkel came to power. In 2010, nuclear power provided about 20% of Germany’s electricity. | The German anti-nuclear movement has a similar origin to the American one.((For a good short history of Germany’s anti-nuclear movement, see: \\ Appunn. //The history behind Germany’s nuclear phase-out.// Clean Energy Wire. (2021) [[https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-germanys-nuclear-phase-out]].)) The movement began with local opposition to a nuclear power plant in Wyhl, which subsequently developed into anti-nuclear-power organizations, including the Green Party. Regulatory cost increases were not as severe as in the United States, but they were sufficient to stop any new construction from starting after 1982. An SPD-Green coalition government from 1998-2005 decided to slowly phase out nuclear power, although this decision was reversed after Merkel came to power. In 2010, nuclear power provided about 20% of Germany’s electricity. |
| |
| In 2010, an earthquake and tsunami along the coast of Japan caused nuclear meltdowns and hydrogen explosions at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. The Japanese government has confirmed one death from radiation,((//Responses and Actions Taken by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan on Radiation Protection at Works Relating to the Accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant 6th Edition (Fiscal Year of 2018).// Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare. (2018) p. 13. [[https://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/topics/2011eq/workers/ri/gr/gr_190131.pdf]].)) and no measurable increase in cancer rates as a result of released radiation is expected, with estimates ranging from zero((//The health effects of Fukushima.// World Nuclear News. (2012) [[https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_The_health_effects_of_Fukushima_2808121.html]].)) to a few hundred.((Caracappa. //Fukushima Accident: Radioactive Releases and Potential Dose Consequences. ANS Annual Meeting.// (2011) [[http://www.ans.org/misc/FukushimaSpecialSession-Caracappa.pdf]].)) Massive anti-nuclear protests broke out across the world, including in Germany. In response, Merkel’s government decided to phase out nuclear power by 2022. This has been delayed slightly by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but the last of Germany’s nuclear power plants will be shut off in April 2023. | In 2011, an earthquake and tsunami along the coast of Japan caused nuclear meltdowns and hydrogen explosions at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. The Japanese government has confirmed one death from radiation,((//Responses and Actions Taken by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan on Radiation Protection at Works Relating to the Accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant 6th Edition (Fiscal Year of 2018).// Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare. (2018) p. 13. [[https://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/topics/2011eq/workers/ri/gr/gr_190131.pdf]].)) and no measurable increase in cancer rates as a result of released radiation is expected, with estimates ranging from zero((//The health effects of Fukushima.// World Nuclear News. (2012) [[https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_The_health_effects_of_Fukushima_2808121.html]].)) to a few hundred.((Caracappa. //Fukushima Accident: Radioactive Releases and Potential Dose Consequences. ANS Annual Meeting.// (2011) [[http://www.ans.org/misc/FukushimaSpecialSession-Caracappa.pdf]].)) Massive anti-nuclear protests broke out across the world, including in Germany. In response, Merkel’s government decided to phase out nuclear power by 2022. This has been delayed slightly by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but the last of Germany’s nuclear power plants will be shut off in April 2023. |
| |
| The decision to abandon nuclear power in Germany was clearly political, made at the highest level of government. It occurred in response to a highly publicizing crisis involving nuclear power. This crisis was vaguely like a warning shot in that its consequences were not that terrible, but it rallied public and political opinion against the risks posed by a technology. | The decision to abandon nuclear power in Germany was clearly political, made at the highest level of government. It occurred in response to a highly publicized crisis involving nuclear power. This crisis was vaguely like a warning shot in that its consequences were not that terrible, but it rallied public and political opinion against the risks posed by a technology. |
| |
| Germany’s decision to reject nuclear power has been extensively debated in public, which makes it easier to estimate the amount of value foregone by resisting the technological temptation. Some of the nuclear power has been replaced by electricity generated by burning coal, especially since the Russian invasion of Ukraine cut off much of Germany’s natural gas supply.((Schmitz. //Amid an energy crisis, Germany turns to the world’s dirtiest fossil fuel.// NPR. (2022) [[https://www.npr.org/2022/09/27/1124448463/germany-coal-energy-crisis]].)) Cost estimates for this decision can be found in a paper by Jarvis, Deschenes, and Jha.((Jarvis et al. //The Private and External Costs of Germany’s Nuclear Phase Out.// National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 26598. Table 7. [[https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26598/w26598.pdf]].)) Shutting down half of Germany’s nuclear power plants cost \$1.6 billion/yr in additional operating costs, \$1.8 billion/yr due to the social cost of carbon, and caused 1,100 additional premature deaths per year due to air pollution. This compares to \$0.2 billion/yr gained by avoiding nuclear waste and the risk of accidents. | Germany’s decision to reject nuclear power has been extensively debated in public, which makes it easier to estimate the amount of value foregone by resisting the technological temptation. Some of the nuclear power has been replaced by electricity generated by burning coal, especially since the Russian invasion of Ukraine cut off much of Germany’s natural gas supply.((Schmitz. //Amid an energy crisis, Germany turns to the world’s dirtiest fossil fuel.// NPR. (2022) [[https://www.npr.org/2022/09/27/1124448463/germany-coal-energy-crisis]].)) Cost estimates for this decision can be found in a paper by Jarvis, Deschenes, and Jha.((Jarvis et al. //The Private and External Costs of Germany’s Nuclear Phase Out.// National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 26598. Table 7. [[https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26598/w26598.pdf]].)) Shutting down half of Germany’s nuclear power plants cost \$1.6 billion/yr in additional operating costs, \$1.8 billion/yr due to the social cost of carbon, and caused 1,100 additional premature deaths per year due to air pollution. This compares to \$0.2 billion/yr gained by avoiding nuclear waste and the risk of accidents. |
| In 1987, in response to the Chernobyl disaster, Italy held a referendum on nuclear power. The referendum involved three technical questions, and the anti-nuclear position won 70-80% of the vote for each of them.((//1987 Italian referendum.// Wikipedia. [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Italian_referendums]]. \\ //Eligendo Archivio.// Ministero dell’Interno. [[https://elezionistorico.interno.gov.it/index.php?tpel=F&dtel=08/11/1987&tpa=I&tpe=A&lev0=0&levsut0=0&es0=S&ms=S]].)) Italy shut down all four of its nuclear power plants by 1990 and has not reopened or built any since. | In 1987, in response to the Chernobyl disaster, Italy held a referendum on nuclear power. The referendum involved three technical questions, and the anti-nuclear position won 70-80% of the vote for each of them.((//1987 Italian referendum.// Wikipedia. [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Italian_referendums]]. \\ //Eligendo Archivio.// Ministero dell’Interno. [[https://elezionistorico.interno.gov.it/index.php?tpel=F&dtel=08/11/1987&tpa=I&tpe=A&lev0=0&levsut0=0&es0=S&ms=S]].)) Italy shut down all four of its nuclear power plants by 1990 and has not reopened or built any since. |
| |
| In 2008, Italy elected a pro-nuclear government which called this decision a "terrible mistable, the cost of which totalled over €50 billion."((//Nuclear phase out a '€50 billion mistake'.// World Nuclear News. (2008) [[https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP_Nuclear_phase_out_a_50_billion_mistake_2010081.html]].)) If we take this as a serious estimate, then Italy has foregone €1.8 billion/yr to avoid using nuclear power. This government started planning the construction of new reactors, but a referendum in 2011 saw 94% of voters reject the plan.((//2011 Italian referendums.// Wikipedia. [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Italian_referendums]].)) | In 2008, Italy elected a pro-nuclear government which called this decision a "terrible mistable, the cost of which totalled over €50 billion."((//Nuclear phase out a '€50 billion mistake'.// World Nuclear News. (2008) [[https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP_Nuclear_phase_out_a_50_billion_mistake_2010081.html]].)) If we take this as a serious estimate, then Italy has foregone €1.8 billion/yr to avoid using nuclear power. This government started planning the construction of new reactors, but a referendum in 2011 (after Fukushima) saw 94% of voters reject the plan.((//2011 Italian referendums.// Wikipedia. [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Italian_referendums]].)) |
| |
| Nuclear power is also illegal in Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Georgia and Uruguay. | Nuclear power is also illegal in Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Georgia and Uruguay. |
| For this calculation, I will say that nuclear power could cost \$20/MWh less than coal and similar to natural gas under a different regulatory regime. | For this calculation, I will say that nuclear power could cost \$20/MWh less than coal and similar to natural gas under a different regulatory regime. |
| |
| Multiplying this by 20% of the United States electricity generation would result in \$16 billion/yr in direct financial benefit from switching from coal to nuclear. The direct benefit from switching from natural gas to nuclear would be marginal. | Multiplying this by 20% of the United States electricity generation would result in \$16 billion/yr in direct financial benefit from switching from coal to nuclear. The direct financial benefit from switching from natural gas to nuclear would be marginal. |
| |
| |
| ===== Notes ===== | ===== Notes ===== |
| |
