NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 309
primary energy consumption in the US. However, coal is “king,” generating about 55% of US electric-
ity. Hydro generates about 10% of US electricity.
The US generates more electricity from nuclear energy than any other nation. However, France
generates the greatest percentage of electricity from nuclear energy — about 75-80%. France is fol-
lowed by Sweden. In 1994, Sweden generated about 50% of its electricity from nuclear energy, but now
says it is getting out of nuclear energy electricity generation. The Swedish government claims this move
will not increase its greenhouse gas emissions — a claim not believed in all circles.
Worldwide, for 1994, nuclear energy accounted for 6% of the primary energy consumption and
18% of the electricity generation. These numbers are just below the values for the US. 424 nuclear
reactors operate worldwide, with a total capacity of 338GWe, spread over 30 countries.
In all but a few countries, nuclear energy growth was brought to a stop or at least to a crawl in the
late 1980s and the 1990s. A summary of the reasons is:
- Reduction in oil and gas prices, especially since the late 1980s.
- Reduced growth in energy, compared to the pre-1973 period.
- Rising cost of nuclear energy.
- Increasing fears about nuclear energy.
- Campaigns against nuclear energy.
Public interest in nuclear energy began about 1944, grew strongly until about 1974, reached its
peak then, and by 1994 dropped to a low level.
Is the age of nuclear energy over? Outside of a few countries, will more reactors be built? Has the
verdict been given on nuclear energy?
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.