THE ECONOMICS OF NUCLEAR POWER

In any case, the charge is utterly untrue at present, and very likely far into the future. True, the price of uranium has tripled, but it is still only a fraction of the cost per kWh of fossil fuels; besides, fuel costs are a minor part of the operating costs of a nuclear plant, so that the price of electricity is not very sensitive to the cost of uranium. The investment cost for a nuclear plant is also higher, and in recent years it has gone up much faster than inflation thanks to the delay tactics by the anti-nuclear crusaders who are now bemoaning the high expense. Per installed kW, the investment cost of a nuclear plant is now almost double the cost of a coal-fired plant, but the total cost of a kWh of electricity, which includes depreciation of the plant (or repayment of borrowed capital plus interest), is still lower for nuclear plants, and the proof of the pudding is in the cost accounts: Last year, nuclear power was 20% cheaper in the Midwest (where coal is nearby and cheap), and 50% cheaper than the power generated by burning Arab oil in New England.

But the favorable economics are only due to government subsidies, say the nuclear foes. More bunk. The research underlying nuclear power was subsidized, including $1 billion spent on improving safety. But Uncle Sam is paying nothing to investor-owned utilities; he is taxing them, and making money on uranium enrichment and Price-Anderson premia.

3-76/2

On the other hand, the government is paying $1 billion every year from your taxes to compensate Black Lung victims. (We are not, of course, against helping them; we are for curbing the disease by going nuclear.)

Equally false is the charge that nuclear power is a net energy loser. In fact, only about 6% of a reactor's lifetime output is needed to build and operate the plant, including enrichment of its fuel. For a coal-fired plant, the figures are 6.7% abd 7.8% for surface-mined and deep-mined coal, respectively. [Nucl. Technol., Apr.75] Only 45 MW is needed to enrich all the uranium to fuel a 1,000 MW reactor even with the present wasteful diffusion process, and this energy premium will be significantly reduced by using the centrifugal process (AtE Jan.75) and almost eliminated if and when laser separation is achieved (AtE Feb.75).

To return to dollar costs, we again recommend Forbes' How to calculate the cost of electricity (S1.60 from ERG, 1661 Worcester Rd., Framingham, MA 01701). But even without going into fixed and variable costs, is there not something awfully fishy about it when Ralph Nader is worried that the utilities and nuclear corporations will not make a sufficiently big profit?