The International Energy Agency (IEA) sees the global demand for electricity growing at 1.9% per year in the period to 2040. This demand, coupled with a strong desire to reduce greenhouse gases and climate changing effects makes nuclear energy a perfect solution (Fauske, 2020). However, many have concerns over initial costs, economic impacts, and financing. 

The economics of new nuclear plants are heavily influenced by their capital cost, which accounts for at least 60% of their levelised cost of electricity (Fauske, 2020). Interest charges and the construction period are important variables for determining the overall cost of capital. However, once a nuclear plant has been constructed, the production cost of electricity is low and predictably stable. Operating costs of plants are manageable, and have a “low risk of significant operating cost inflation.” Further, plants have long lives; some being predicted to last “ 60 years or more (World Nuclear Association, 2017).  Long service life and high capacity factor allow a sufficient amount of funds for plant decommissioning, waste storage, and other costs associated with plant operation. 

With the current climate crisis, it is of economic benefit to invest in clean energy that doesn’t add to the problem. Increased global temperatures as a result of Greenhouse Gases are causing economic strife throughout the world; increased natural disasters such as fire, hurricanes, flooding, heatwaves, polar vortex’s etc., are causing millions of dollars in losses from damaged infrastructure, lost businesses, human health, and more. By utilizing clean power, GHGs can be reduced significantly and can result in less of these abnormalities and thus, a decreased loss of life, limb, property, and money in the long run. 

Further, Nuclear power plants “create some of the largest economic benefits compared to other electric generating technologies due to their size and the number of workers needed to operate the plants (Nuclear Energy’s Economic Benefits — Current and Future, 2012).”

Simply speaking, Nuclear Power Plants require manpower- and a lot of it; the nuclear energy sector creates thousands of jobs. 

Moreover, an increased reliance on nuclear energy will produce a demand for more skilled laborers such as welders, pipefitters, masons, carpenters, millwrights, sheet metal workers, electricians, ironworkers, heavy equipment operators and insulators, as well as engineers, project managers and construction supervisors needed to make a plant operate correctly (Nuclear Energy’s Economic Benefits — Current and Future, 2012). This demand will result in a more college-educated population, and thus bolster the United States economy. 

Nuclear energy expansion in the U.S. and around the world, could also provide a unique opportunity to rejuvenate the nuclear manufacturing sector through an investment in factories, processes, and research to supply the components necessary for nuclear technologies. The demand for these commodities, components and services provides an export opportunity for U.S. manufacturers. 

In order for these advantages of nuclear power to be fully realised, policymakers need to address fundamental market design problems. One such idea is to place monetary value on nuclear advantages such as reliability, security, and climate change mitigation.  

Finally, In the interest of the general public, the average nuclear plant pays about $16 million in state and local taxes annually (Fauske, 2020). These tax dollars benefit schools, roads, and other state and local infrastructure.

Financing Nuclear Power Plants is challenging, and for a number of reasons. First, the high capital cost and technical complexity of NPPs present relatively high risks during construction (delays and cost overruns) and operation (equipment failures and unplanned outages) (The Financing of Nuclear Power Plants, 2009). Second, the often controversial nature of nuclear projects, could give rise to additional political and regulatory risks. Last, given the long time frame involved in nuclear projects from the start of construction to the end of operating life, a broad-based political consensus is likely to be needed, otherwise investors will be open to the risks of sudden policy shifts as governments change, potentially jeopardizing their investment (The Financing of Nuclear Power Plants, 2009).

Since our proposed plant is less complex than other designs, installation on-site is simplified. Off-site fabrication and assembly reduces cost, and components are delivered to the site ready to install. As a result, construction occurs in a shorter, more predictable period of time and requires less manpower. Our short construction schedule provides greater assurance that the plant will achieve operation before unforeseen external events impact the schedule.

Our plants have no reactor coolant pumps, no external steam generator vessels, and no large-bore reactor coolant piping. This translates into lower cost to fabricate, install, operate, maintain and decommission, thereby reducing the life-cycle cost to produce energy while lowering operational risk.

By giving FissionChips Inc. the money to adequately research, design, build, staff, and finance a sustainable and efficient Nuclear Energy program, the government would be taking an active role in the advancement of clean energy, thus signifying leadership in the world energy economy and telling its citizens that it cares about clean, reliable energy. In providing the resources needed to propel this nation towards the front of the global clean energy race, we can create more jobs, more energy, a better earth, and thus, a stronger society. 

Deinert, M. R. (2017). Nuclear Power nuclear power , Economics nuclear power economics of. Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology,7180-7193. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0851-3_33

Desai, H. (2020, July 28). Resources. Retrieved from https://www.nei.org/resources

Dry Cask Storage. Retrieved from: https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/dry-cask-storage.html

Fauske, A. (2020, May 13). Cost Benefit Analysis of Nuclear Power Plants. Retrieved from https://www.fauske.com/blog/cost-benefit-analysis-of-nuclear-power-plants

IEA (2019), World Energy Outlook 2019, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2019 

Mueller, M. (2020, April 22). Nuclear Power is the Most Reliable Energy Source and It's Not Even Close. Retrieved from https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close

Nuclear Energy - How Energy Works. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.duke-energy.com/Energy-Education/How-Energy-Works/Nuclear-Power#tab-1973b216-dd36-401f-9959-96cac246cc61

Nuclear Energy’s Economic Benefits — Current and Future. (2012). Stanford University. Retrieved from http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2018/ph241/may2/docs/nei-apr12.pdf

Nuclear Explained: Nuclear power and the environment. (Last updated January 2020). Retrieved from: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-and-the-environment.php#:~:text=A%20major%20environmental%20concern%20related,fuel%2C%20and%20other%20radioactive%20wastes.&text=The%20radioactivity%20of%20nuclear%20waste,a%20process%20called%20radioactive%20decay.

Nuclear Power Plants. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/radtown/nuclear-power-plants#:~:text=Public%20safety%20is%20a%20high,limits%20for%20radioactive%20air%20emissions.

Nuscale Power. Retrieved from https://www.nuscalepower.com/.

Schiffman, H. (2011). Green Issues and Debates: An A-to-Z Guide. Sage Publications, 361-366.

The Financing of Nuclear Power Plants. (2009). Nuclear Development. doi:10.1787/9789264079229-en

The Pros & Cons of Nuclear Energy: Is it safe? (2019, April 30). Retrieved from https://springpowerandgas.us/the-pros-cons-of-nuclear-energy-is-it-safe/

Thompson, J. (2018). Is Nuclear Energy the Key to Saving the Planet? High Country News. Retrieved from www.hcn.org/issues/50.21/nuclear-energy-a-new-generation-of-environmentalists-is-learning-to-stop-worrying-and-love-nuclear-power.