Westinghouse Bankruptcy Shakes The Nuclear World – Forbes
My old friend from high school, Bruce Wilson, now a practitioner of LEED certified building construction, sent me this piece on the Westinghouse bankruptcy and what it means to the nuclear industry. I respond:
I have to think the author is correct, in that this will not kill the nuclear industry, any more than Solyndra killed solar. It may even represent an opportunity, by leading to standard designs that can be replicated far more easily and inexpensively than what we’ve done previously in most of the world, i.e., everywhere but France.
What’s undoubtedly true, however, is that the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) associated with wind and solar are continuing to fall, making things increasingly competitive, even considering that nuclear generates baseload power.
Nonetheless, anyone with any sense and compassion has to be rooting for nuclear, insofar as we live in a world that is under serious threat from climate change. The world food supply took a $175 billion hit in the wheat market last year alone due to higher temperatures that are converting farm land into desert. We really don’t have the luxury of time to sit by and see what happens before turning this around.
We also need to keep in mind that we’re dealing with a moving target, i.e. , nuclear technology is improving as well. We have promise of thorium on the fission side, and we have various approaches to fusion that are looking strong, e.g. an approach that I like is that of the Southern California-based company Tri-Alpha which is aneutronic; it uses a high-energy plasma field to accomplish the reaction wherein boron 11 fuses with hydrogen to form three helium 4 atoms (thus the name).
Lots of cool stuff happening.
The author of the original article is incorrect on two accounts. First citing several examples of failures in thriving industries are not good examples of a Westinghouse bankruptcy in a nuclear industry that is losing value to cheaper solar and wind (plus energy storage) Other articles on this subject point out that no one wants to buy nuclear if there are cheaper options in Wind and Solar. The Westinghouse bankruptcy is a warning and a sign of dangerous waters. Fukushima, an accident that we don’t even have the present knowledge or technology to correct points to another failure.
Many industries proceed without adequate understanding, bio-engineering, pharmaceuticals, Eco-management and more, but nowhere are potential failures quite so global or of such a long duration. It is a trade off to use nuclear to fix climate change while concurrently increasing the risk from nuclear. To blindly look at benefits is myopic and the short sighted without an assessment of risk. At some point we may say that climate change will kill 2 to 4 billion people and change the Earth for 10,000 years while increasing nuclear use will only likely kill 1 billion people but change the Earth for 500,000 years. We might then choose the nuclear option but nevertheless the assessment should be known as is the trading 1 billion lives for 3 billion and 10,000 years of environmental impact for 500,000.
The article also seems to blame the inexperience of the contractor and to some extent “regulators.” Reading the article one could get the impression that we “need less regulation in the nuclear industry” to promote the business of nuclear. (substitute “coal for nuclear” and see if you might have heard this line of reasoning before.)
If the contractor was the problem then another contractor should have fixed the problem. But no. The job was underbid in part perhaps to make this “resurgence of nuclear” palatable to backers and government. So we blame the contractor, when wanting the cheapest price regardless of qualifications, seems to be the responsibility that falls directly to Westinghouse and utilities.
The second major mistake of the author is comparing nuclear in the rest of the world to France. France embarked upon their domestic nuclear program by first monopolizing the industry. This is what made standardized designs possible. Stadardized designs are something you want to do when the technology is stable. With all the new designs and methods being explored the technology is anything but stable at this point.
Monopolies stifle innovation and eventually lead to increased prices. Just look at the price difference between Space X which provided competition and the other companies who held a near monopoly on space flight. France has come under such severe pressure from the EU for its electrical pricing that the government monopoly is beginning to break up. And the Nuclear industry in France is also under economic pressure, once again from cheaper wind and solar.
Breath very well said and I share your long view that there may be just more attempts to cover or gloss over serious structural Issues at the bedrock of large scale nuclear power .
energy is bought primarily as a commodity based on lowest LCOE price. The winds of change have blown hard and now its Gas , solar and wind in leading positions. Even CPS solar with storage is below the capital cost for large scale nuclear and so called clean coal w CC
And CPP solar if it gets cheaper which it is will added pressure on the need for carbon neitral base load power sources. So that is a external threat to nuclear that is growing.
Google nuclear flammanville France plant and one sees the Bloom is off the Rose Craig on the so called Freeeench secret sauce mix for large scale nuclear.
They had to bail out Arreva with EDF ( the French firm) EDf is making easier money with wind and other sorties.
The Flammanville plant has had serious cost over runs and explosions that get no ink as we live in the Trumperian ERA and the tweet of the moment takes all precedence over real news. !
The French fleet is aging and France has already announced close to a year ago that they will not be concentrating their energy supply in the Nuclear Genie like before. yes they will work in new ones but they will diversify more fuel sources.
The recycling plant to re work the waste which everyone cooed and awed over as a talking point for years also is having some indigestion now. On the English channel there are issues related to toxic waste entering the English Channel . Again not reported a lot.
The current literature on nuclear all discuss these issues in greater detail.
Fukajima accident hurt big nuke bad and the $ 192 Billion and counting clean up costs also casue the financial industry to shy from nuclear for risk reasons and Governments too,
out side of China, SE Asia and India and Russia interest and construction is down.
yes the alluring promise of the SMR and thorium types hold out more promise and it is in this area where the long term nuclear play lies.
Toshiba does not even know if they can find a buyer.
Chicago Bridge and iron was one of th eprime contractors and their years and decades of experience seems to have hit the wall in Georgia in the US and also at the SCANA plant in s Carolina where 2 other units are behind schedule and way over Budget.
So Craig nothing has changed there is no way to spin it it is what it is follies ongoing for years now.
So yes the NRC needs money and staff and new rules to adapt to the new technology and taking 10 years to get permits is onerous regulation actually poor regulation.
But is the Trumper working on this ?? is he concerned ? no he is gutting the budgets of climate change research , promoting coal throwing away years of good regulations that protected society and the economy.
trying to get real news on the so called Cesium and Strontium 90 etc plumes migrating across the Pacific ocean to the West coast is not easy as a big cover up is in play and the International Nuclear Industry and its allies in high places is the reason why.
So Craig it is not Cumba Yah time in the large scale nuclear zone it is doubtful that any large plants will be built here. It is up to the SMR s so get to work and ask the Trumpet to clear out things and make it easier to adopt new technology. Till then its the same ol song…. and the other technologies are hitting their Stride etc.
Toshiba regrets buying Westinghouse lost over $ 6.5 Billion plus.
One last point is the subsidies for big nuke in Illinois and NY state are not setting well with the free market types who dont consider non emissions as a value. Lawsuits are being filed to stop the under writing of older plants that Cant compete with Gas, solar, wind. The bankers know this too. The way it is.
What has not been explored to my knowledge is crops or pasture land used for solar PV. Lots of ambient light is “leaked” around solar panels on every installation. Some crops actually grow better in indirect light.
As a former winemaker I always wondered if grape vines might grow better with a little shade in the hotter and sunnier regions of California. Cooler climates produce better wine grapes. Some experiments have been tried by shading or misting in the San Joaquin valley grapes. There are over 400,000 acres of vineyards in California. Most of the acres are in the Central Valley, which is very hot and dry. The California Coast is foggy and cooler. The best wines are produced near the coast. Perhaps a little shade would help the central valley grapes make better wine. We could also feed a large population of sheep between the vines and under the PV panels.
Not so sure nuclear or fossil fuels will ever be “clean”. Keep it local and keep it for you grandchildren.
Breath,
It’s clear from your reply you are opposed to nuclear energy. Like many in Europe, your opposition is distorted by inaccurate, obsolete information coupled with a hugely exaggerated opinion of the capacity of wind and solar to meet the needs of industrial societies.
Craig is quite correct. One swallow doesn’t make a summer anymore that the failure of one or two plants of a certain design means the entire industry should cease.
Solar and Wind have improved and will continue to improve with superior storage technology, but both technologies have inherent flaws.
I’ve noticed your philosophic adherence for adapting society to fit the demands of new technology, rather than new technology fitting the demands of society.
In my opinion, the main power generator of the future will be advanced nuclear (I favour Thorium)
Reactors of the future will be very small, non pollutant, completely safe, high capacity, very versatile units. The plants will be located in the centre of power demand eliminating the cost of lengthy and vulnerable transmission infrastructure.
Your argument for increased regulations isn’t logical. Regulations must reflect the needs of the technology it’s regulating, or we wind up with arcane regulatory regimes stifling progress. Burdening any industry with obsolete, and inordinately expensive useless regulations is irresponsible.
The best analogy would be maintaining the late 19th century red flag legislation for automobiles.
Whether argued from an environmental or simply economic perspective, sooner or later industrial nation will have to consider advanced nuclear or become noncompetitive.