Nuclear energy is often touted as a low-cost, low-carbon source of energy, but the reality is that the true costs of nuclear energy are much higher than many previous studies have indicated. The construction costs of nuclear power plants are significantly higher than those of coal- or gas-fired power plants due to the need to use special materials and incorporate sophisticated safety features and backup control equipment. In the United States and Europe, nuclear reactors can cost twice as much as in Asian countries where industry is flourishing, according to a new analysis by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).The most effective way to reduce the total price of nuclear energy is to design and build plants more efficiently. However, the future of nuclear power in Russia will depend on how well Rosatom manages current nuclear projects, especially whether construction deadlines and contract costs will be met.
A Foreign Relations Council report on nuclear energy argues that a rapid expansion of nuclear power can create shortages of construction materials, such as reactor-grade concrete and steel, skilled workers and engineers, and safety checks by qualified inspectors. The cost of capital, construction and financing of nuclear power plants represents a large percentage of the cost of nuclear electricity. Jacopo Buongiorno, professor of nuclear science and engineering at MIT, led a group of scientists who recently completed a two-year study examining the future of nuclear energy in the United States. Nuclear opponents point to this latest disappointment as yet another example of why nuclear energy is not up to the task. This is important because nuclear power plants and nuclear waste will remain dangerously radioactive for hundreds, if not thousands, of years after their creation. Several dozen electric utility companies, nuclear equipment vendors, and engineering companies were involved in the construction of U.
S. nuclear plants, and therefore very little standardization was achieved. Despite a reduction in the global deployment rate of nuclear energy, it remains a promising solution both to the growing demand for electricity and to the growing challenge of climate change. Rosatom is expanding exports by offering attractive financing and a construction, ownership and operation model which is especially attractive to newcomers to the nuclear industry who would otherwise not accept the financial risk of developing nuclear power on their own. According to Anthonie Cilliers, a nuclear academic and engineer, because of the large capital investment and the low variable cost of operations, nuclear plants are more profitable when they can operate all the time to provide a return on investment. The discount rate for nuclear construction projects in the United States is generally about 12.5 percent, higher than in many other countries, especially those where the nuclear industry is at least partially subsidized by the government. Nuclear contractors in the United States and Europe have tended to begin construction before completing the design phase.
In addition to six reactors under construction in Russia, the current foreign portfolio of state-owned nuclear power company Rosatom includes 36 nuclear reactors planned or under construction. In conclusion, it's clear that while there are many advantages to using nuclear energy as an alternative source of electricity generation, there are also significant costs associated with it. The high capital costs associated with building new reactors make it difficult for many countries to invest in this technology. Furthermore, there are safety concerns associated with storing radioactive waste for long periods of time. Despite these challenges, however, it's clear that with proper planning and management, nuclear energy can still be an effective solution for meeting our growing electricity needs.
