Power Plant Engineering

 10.2.2 WHAT MIGHT CHANGE THE CURRENT SITUATION?
Cost. Currently, nuclear energy is regarded as costly, and some costs are surely being passed on
to future generations. The euphoric claims of the 1940s and 1950s regarding low cost nuclear energy
have been discounted for at least two decades. The statement of the 1950s that nuclear energy would be
“too cheap to meter” has haunted the industry. However, the text states that nuclear energy was cheaper
than fossil energy for a period in the 1970s, and today is cheaper than fossil energy in some countries.
In the US, the long construction times, of about 10 years, have significantly driven up the cost.
During construction period, capital is invested, interest payments occur, but no income from the sale of
electricity occurs.
The development of factory-built, packaged, nuclear reactors, which could be purchased much
as combined cycle combustion turbines are done today, would probably significantly reduce the cost.
“From order to operation” within 2 or 3 years would be quite a change.
Standardization of nuclear reactor designs would likely significantly reduce the cost, and would
likely increase safety.
Two things should be noted about US reactors. Many designs were developed and built. And
most of the US reactors were ordered over a very short period of time, 1965 to 1973. Thus, during the
1970s and 1980s the opportunity to “get out the bugs,” and for the better systems to evolve and win out
didn’t fully occur. With the benefit now of experience, with standardization, and with reduced order-to-
start-up times, the cost of nuclear energy should come down.

---

310
POWER PLANT ENGINEERING
Public Attitude. The public requires assurance that the industry truly has the issues of safety,
fuel security, and waste disposal well under control. Perhaps the French experience will be convincing
in this regard.