Low-Energy Fridays: Juicing Nuclear Power the Right Way

Is industrial policy the only hope for nuclear energy? That’s the message of Juice: Power, Politics and the Grid, a new documentary recently published online. Across five episodes, each about 20 minutes long, the film attacks electric power markets, criticizes wind and solar energy and their supporters, praises traditional electric power regulation, and offers full-throated advocacy for nuclear energy.

Recent experience building nuclear power plants in the United States has not been great; the only new nuclear reactors built this century were years late and billions of dollars over budget. Consumers may not want to pay for these billion-dollar babies, but that’s where industrial policy comes in. Juice suggests that with a big-enough, determined-enough federal bureaucracy, we can build enough new nuclear plants to master it. The film pins its hopes on “economies of scale”—situations in which costs fall as production levels increase. Expecting federal bureaucracy to spark marketplace efficiencies is, shall we say, contrary to historical evidence (see our previous critique of industrial policy).

That said, there is a lot to like about nuclear power. For example, it offers safe, reliable, emission-free electric power that does not depend on the weather. Even acknowledging a few well-known disasters—one episode of Juice discusses the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan—nuclear energy is safer than almost any other form of power generation. Just one death worldwide has been directly attributed to nuclear power over the last 20 years. As someone in the documentary put it, “The fact of the matter is that in America, you’re more likely to be shot by your dog than to die because of nuclear power.”

But the cost of power matters. Cheap energy is a boon to society, and expensive energy is a bane. One of two new nuclear reactors at Georgia’s Vogtle power plant began producing electricity last year, and the second is expected to start later this year. The project is over six years late and as much as $20 billion over budget (so far). A similar effort in South Carolina was abandoned after $9 billion was spent. And, despite the filmmakers’ hopes, economies of scale are not guaranteed. When U.S. electric utilities built nearly 100 nuclear reactors in the 1970s and 1980s, costs rose rather than fell. Maybe this time will be different?

Some nuclear power proponents have pinned hope on small modular reactors (SMRs), which are small enough to be built in a factory rather than custom-built for each site. They say a standardized design will help drive down overall costs. (Yes, economies of scale are part of the SMR pitch—but at least the idea of assembly-line efficiency offers a reason for optimism.) Yet the most prominent SMR project was abandoned last fall in the face of sharply rising cost projections. “As is common with nuclear power, the project had more than doubled in price since it was first proposed,” one newspaper reported.

Nonetheless, several more SMR projects remain under development—many supported by big manufacturers seeking steady, reliable, carbon-free energy. These private companies are mostly putting their own money at risk rather than demanding someone else foot the bill. Though the U.S. Department of Energy has long supported nuclear energy research, including SMR development, private companies risking their own money and reputation has historically been a better way to innovate new technologies and cut costs.

Policymakers have an important role in nuclear power’s still-unknown future. Our nation’s outdated nuclear regulations expose the limited understanding that characterized the industry’s earlier days. The United States’ long record of nuclear safety will best be served by regulations that reflect lessons learned since the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was established in 1974.

There are many reasons to hope for the nuclear power renaissance Juice describes. But we only want nuclear power to grow if it will deliver reliable, clean energy at a reasonable cost. The best way to find out if we can get the needed innovations is by placing much of the responsibility on private companies with their own profits and reputations on the line.