The problems with nuclear are not so much technical as economic. Moody's Investor Services, hardly an outfit run by hippie freaks, estimates that a new nuclear plant will cost over $5,000 per kilowatt to build--twice as much as solar and four times as much as natural gas. The government is offering massive subsidies to build nuclear plants and power companies still don't want to take the plunge.
Even if it is more expensive, I am inclined to think the nuclear power plant is far more friendly to the planet than solar, and if you care about carbon footprints or very-long-term sustainability, it's better than natural gas, too. (I am not too big on the former, but the latter is important. Going big on fission buys us a lot of time to develop fusion, which in the end is the only truly sustainable energy source. When you run out of fusion, you've run out of the Universe.)
However, I've seen tons of analyses of the costs of nuclear, and I'm inclined to think that when push comes to shove, nobody really knows how much they could cost if society wanted them enough to construct them in quantity. How much of the cost of a plant in the US is defending against absolutely inevitable litigation, in a process designed to be used by environmentalists against anything they don't like? How much of the cost is because we refuse to consider any actually modern design, in much the same way we get stuck on refusing to consider how to deal with waste because the problem is perceived to be so big that people's minds just irrationally shut down? How much of the expense is due to compliance with an outdated regulatory regime that hasn't been updated for the properties of pebble bed or other modern designs? Why are China and France able to put them up?
I don't think there's any actual engineering reason that nuclear plants should be more expensive (per watt) than natural gas or coal, even before fuel price spikes. (Which will come again... and again... and again...) A given design, certainly, but across the whole set of safe, modern nuclear designs? I doubt it. Our thinking on this topic is so deeply 1960s (OMG RADIATION!!1!) that we are all but incapable of considering the topic rationally in 2010.
How much of the cost of a plant in the US is defending against absolutely inevitable litigation, in a process designed to be used by environmentalists against anything they don't like?
The Price Anderson Act (and similar later laws) limit the maximum liability of nuclear plant operators. If nuclear power really is as safe as any other kind, then Congress should repeal those limits.
I am talking about endless legal challenges filed before the plant even begins construction. I can't go over all possible nuclear laws, but if there are any laws protecting against that sort of liability they sure aren't working very well. (From what I can see, Price Anderson only affects "nuclear incidents" after a plant is running; if you can show me that's not true, I'm listening.)
I did not read the whole article - just scanned through it (it is long). Firstly, it Focusses on a reactor in Finland and most of those costs are very recent.
Your stats of the above is probably based on this part:
> In October 2007, Moody’s Investor Services piled on with a report projecting that new reactors would cost $5,000 to $6,000 per kilowatt to build, or up to $12 billion per unit. This figure, which was based on actual bids for new reactors in the United States, caused considerable sticker shock.
Current prices for nuclear reactors shot up extremely over the past 5 years. This is because nuclear power became an option for a lot of countries (with global warming fears). The problem with this is that it increased costs significantly.
Being a very specialized field, construction of new nuclear power stations can not just be increased as demand increases. As a good example - there is only one company that can forge a reactor vessel in one step - and it has a backlog of more than 5 years.
Source: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0901.blake.ht...