The ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan means higher costs, canceled projects and laser-like regulatory scrutiny for the global nuclear industry, signaling the likely end to its decade-long growth spurt.
The unfolding disaster at Tokyo Electric Power Co’s Fukushima Dai-ichi complex is only a week old and regulators around the world are already making policy changes sure to increase costs and limit financing for projects touted as one of the best ways to cut carbon emissions.
US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton flagged her concern about industry risk on Wednesday, days after US senators had asked for a review. The US relies on nuclear energy for 20 percent of its power and until now the US President Barack Obama administration’s energy policy has been nuclear-friendly.
“What’s happening in Japan raised questions about the costs and the risks associated with nuclear power, but we have to answer those,” Clinton told MSNBC.
Authorities in China, the industry’s biggest growth market, ordered a safety crackdown on Wednesday that threatens a burgeoning national expansion program.
Japan’s crisis will give more power to Chinese nuclear safety officials, said Mark Hibbs, an expert on nuclear policy in China and other countries at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
“The regulators are playing catch-up with the Chinese industry,” said Hibbs, who is based in Berlin. “The Japanese accident is going to give the regulators a lot more political clout.”
Germany went a step further, shutting down seven older reactors this week in response to the incident in Japan.
Such actions promise to trigger a ripple effect around the world, throwing up hurdles for power generation companies on the brink of huge expansion.
On the drawing board are plans to more than double the number of nuclear power plants worldwide. There are 477 proposed or planned plants, compared with the 441 already in operation. China, Russia and India account for the bulk of the growth, according to data from the World Nuclear Association.
A pullback to review safety, let alone impose new regulations, will affect companies such as Shaw Group, which builds reactors, uranium producers that supply fuel and those that design the piping and instrumentation.
Other big players in nuclear construction and equipment are privately owned Bectel Corp, General Electric, Babcock & Wilcox and Areva SA.
Operators in the US will face more scrutiny from the government for new units, requiring them to spend more to build to a higher standard, analysts said. Already the capital costs to build a plant are high — more than US$4,000 a kilowatt for a nuclear plant. That’s almost twice as much as a conventional coal-fired plant at US$2,200 a kilowatt and more than four times as much as a gas-fired plant, according to a Brattle Group study. New regulations could put some nuclear plants in jeopardy.
“Here in the United States, the problem is likely to be nonmaintenance capital expenditures — safety-driven retrofits to reactors or fuel-storage sites that make it uneconomical to continue operating when other alternatives provide cheaper power or greater investor returns,” said Kevin Book, managing director for research at Washington-based ClearView Energy Partners.
Once built, nuclear power was traditionally cheaper than natural gas and coal — markets that historically have been extremely volatile.
However, even that advantage has eroded. The development of massive shale gas fields in North America, believed to hold a century’s worth of the fuel, have depressed natural gas prices, a situation that is not expected to change for years. Nuclear power averaged US$0.066 a kilowatt-hour versus US$0.065 for natural gas and US$0.062 a kilowatt-hour for coal, according to a 2009 study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
US Secretary of Energy Steven Chu (朱棣文) told US Congress on Wednesday federal regulators would check to see if safety measures need to be boosted at current and proposed US reactors.
Companies that will likely draw scrutiny from regulators and more opposition from the public include Entergy Corp, which owns Indian Point located north of New York City, and Southern Co, which is still working to obtain a construction license for its Vogtle expansion in Georgia, Barclays said. Pacific Gas and Electric and Edison International — companies that have plants in earthquake-prone California — should expect stiffer treatment from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well as more attention from groups that oppose nuclear power.
Since building a power plant fueled by natural gas is much less expensive than building a nuclear plant, power companies seeking to avoid the political and economic risk may go the gas route instead, analysts said. Despite the expected increase in costs and new regulation, many world leaders have declared their industry safe and have said nuclear power is needed to meet the world’s surging demand for electricity.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, speaking at a briefing with Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, said on Wednesday that nuclear energy is safe provided power stations are built in the right place and are designed and managed properly.
“Everyone is asking a simple question: Can atomic energy be safe? The answer is clear: It can be and is safe, but for this it is necessary to make the right decisions about the location of the plant, about the design and the operator,” Medvedev said.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers