Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Nuclear energy: Don't believe the sticker price

Published: Monday, November 16, 2009

Updated: Monday, November 16, 2009 22:11

A common perception of nuclear power is that it's an affordable, carbon-free energy source that could meet a lot of America's demand for electricity, if only those darn environmentalists would get out of the way. Unfortunately for nuclear power advocates and Maryland ratepayers, this statement crumbles upon contact with reality.

The average cost of electricity for all of Maryland's sectors is 13.45 cents per kilowatt-hour. There's a growing possibility some of us will have the pleasure of paying double that thanks to the pending merger between Constellation Energy and French electric giant EDF Energy, which is supposed to pave the way for construction of a new nuclear power plant at Calvert Cliffs. Doubling rates is fairly easy to predict with a trip down memory lane.

Ontario was slated to build a new nuclear plant until this summer, when a 2007 estimated price tag of $7 billion turned into $26 billion, which would've wiped out their 20-year budget. Turkey became a "turkey" when the only bidder for their new nuclear power plant offered a price for ratepayers of 21.16 cents a kilowatt-hour. Turkey's wholesale energy prices average 7.9 cents a kilowatt-hour. The new bid for France's plant also soared past expectations, settling at a cool $23.6 billion.  Finland's new nuclear power plant has seen four years of delay and cost overruns from 3 billion euros up 50 percent to 4.5 billion euros. That nicely works out to $6.74 billion in U.S. dollars and climbing.

It's happening here too. Progress Energy revealed in 2008 to Florida that its tab for twin nuclear reactors would actually be $17 billion dollars, tripling the estimates the utility offered the year prior. This was before they delayed construction by 20 months and got the Florida Public Service Commission to hike ratepayers' electric bills by 25 percent to cover the costs. This was also before San Antonio discovered in October their two newly proposed nuclear reactors would cost as much as $17 billion instead of $13 billion, causing at least a delay, likely to be followed by a rate increase to cover costs.

And all this was before the Maryland Public Service Commission approved the Constellation and EDF deal so we could have a new $9 billion (initial cost estimate) Calvert Cliffs reactor. It's hard to hide from history when it lives so close.

In case you were wondering, ratepayers tend to foot the bulk of the cost overruns and delays you get with a new generation nuclear power plant, even if it never gets built. If it's any consolation, Gov. Martin O'Malley got $100 checks sent to all BGE customers as part of the merger.

The reason we get all of these delays and cost overruns is because the nuclear power industry fudges the numbers to justify new plant construction. One of the most detailed and transparent studies by a certified public accountant named Craig Severance found that electricity from new nuclear reactors will cost in the range of 25 to 30 cents a kilowatt-hour, largely thanks to the construction delays and cost overruns that I illustrated above.

If I were a state ratepayer, I would hold on really tight to that $100 check that's supposed to buy my vote in 2010. You're gonna need it unless someone in Annapolis finds their common sense.

Matt Dernoga is a senior government and politics major. He can be reached at dernoga at umdbk dot com.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

9 comments Log in to Comment

G Revere
Wed Nov 18 2009 13:07
The average electricity bill my roommates and I pay is around 35 dollars. Split five ways, we each pay about seven dollars a month for power. Even if nuclear power cost us twice as much, it'd cost each of us another measly seven dollars a month to keep the lights on. This seems like an acceptable cost for a cleaner, more sustainable energy source.
mdenergygal
Tue Nov 17 2009 17:52
Stephen and Jason are correct. Because of the structure of Maryland's electricity market, customers who do not choose a retail electric supplier buy their power thru their utility's Standard Offer Service ("SOS"). Under current Maryland law, SOS procurement must be structured in such a way as to ensure the lowest price with the least volatility. The utilities procure SOS in blind auctions, and the lowest bids win. So, if a nuclear generator were to offer a high price in the SOS auction, it would not win a portion of the SOS load. The arguments of those who believe cost overruns at CC3 will be passed along to ratepayers are ridiculous, at best.
Stephen
Tue Nov 17 2009 17:26
I would like to echo Jason's comments regarding the restructured electricity market of which Maryland is a member. All electric generation in MD must compete in an open, transparent energy market called a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) - in this case the RTO is called PJM. Electricity from CC3 would have to compete with electricity sourced from coal, natural gas, oil, solar, wind, and hydro generators sourced from a PJM footprint that extends across all-or-part of 13 states and D.C. If CC3 cannot compete and earn a profit in this regional market with diverse generation technologies, it is not MD electricity customers that foot the bill (as they do in Florida) but rather the Constellation shareholders. As Jason states, MD energy customers benefit greatly from MD's membership in the PJM RTO.
michelle
Tue Nov 17 2009 14:52
The fact is we need safe, clean energy NOW. Nuclear reactors, bogged down by financial issues and construction delays, won't come on line for years. I'd much rather see the BILLIONS of dollars it takes to build a nuclear reactor go toward investments in truly clean, safe, renewable, and relatively quick energy solutions, including solar, wind, & geothermal. Let's not forget that we still don't have any viable, long-term for radioactive waste.
Jason
Tue Nov 17 2009 11:09
In the prior post, "$9 million" should be "$9 Billion."
Jason
Tue Nov 17 2009 11:08
Mr. Dernoga misrepresents two key facts in presenting his survey of nuclear cost overruns. First, Constellation and EDF did not engage in a merger. In fact, Constellation sold to EDF a 39.9% interest in the Constellation nuclear fleet (which in addition to the approximately 10% already owned by EDF raised EDF's ownership share to ~49.9%). Second, and most importantly, Mr. Dernoga implies that if Calvert Cliffs 3 is constructed that it, too will cost more than projected and that ratepayers will foot the cost of the over-runs. While the potential of exceeding the $9 million construction cost estimate can be reasonably assumed based on the historical evidence presented, in fact, such costs would be borne by Constellation shareholders - not BGE ratepayers. Such bifurcation of risk is one of the primary benefits of the deregulated environment Maryland enjoys. If CC3 were constructed at higher than expected cost, then shareholders would bear the brunt of recouping such costs over a long period in a very competitive regional energy market. MD ratepayers can shop for power with competitive retail suppliers or take default service under the local utility tariff. Default service is procured by the utilities on an open, competitive basis. If Constellation chose to make an offer to supply default service it would have to compete with other suppliers and reflect the prevailing market price - not an inflated cost to quickly recover CC3 cost overruns.
jb
Tue Nov 17 2009 10:44
To an extent, I agree with Mike R. The operational costs for nuclear power are relatively small compared to coal and gas, but the capital costs are still pretty high. That is the challenge faced by the industry.
Mike R
Tue Nov 17 2009 09:29
I'd like to see these sources of yours. There are plenty of other authoritative reports of nuclear energy which show the costs being a heck of a lot less than coal or oil, and we can't just arbitrarily resolve this discrepancy by claiming one side "fudged the numbers". The fact is that nuclear energy is a heck of a lot better for the environment than coal or oil, and it's a lot more sustainable. While it would be nice if everyone used wind turbines and solar panels to power their homes, right now nuclear power is the most realistic energy alternative we have.
oscar
Tue Nov 17 2009 06:34
siktir lan ibineler..hindiler siksin sizi

You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now

Log In