The nuclear industry recommends that reactors work well beyond retirement age.
While nuclear plants in the U.S. get licensed to operate for 40 years, the lifetime will likely be extended in many cases to 60 years. Nuclear plants could even roll on for 80 years if safety and reliability benchmarks can be achieved, said executives and researchers on a conference call sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) today.
"We will need to extend the life of old plants," said Maria Korsnick, chief nuclear officer of Constellation Energy's nuclear group.
The problem boils down to economics and circumstances. Nuclear plants require tremendous amounts of time and capital: a nuclear plant typically might generate one to two gigawatts of power and the "overnight cost" or construction cost minus interest might range from $4,000 to $10,000 a kilowatt depending on the estimates. As the price rises, nuclear becomes less competitive with wind and solar, not to mention natural gas. Because of the recession, many utilities have cancelled plans for new plants or pushed them out into the future. Constellation, in fact, just bowed out of a project because the fees associated with a federal loan guarantee; the 1.6-gigawatt plant had been budgeted at around $6,000 a kilowatt.
Unfortunately, most of the nuclear facilities in the U.S. already hover around the 40-year mark in terms of age. Over half are already asking for licenses that will let them operate for 60 years and the other half are expected to seek similar requests.
The U.S. has 104 commercial nuclear power plants that provide about 20 percent of the country's power.
"If you let these current operating units retire, you will end up with a gap. Why put ourselves in that crisis?" she said. Nuclear plants provide 70 percent of the carbon-free electricity in the U.S. and operate 90 percent of the time, she added.
In April 2010, Nuclear Fissionary calculated the total cost of electricity production by kilowatt hour, and although the construction cost of a nuclear power plant is running $6,000 per kilowatt, the weighted average operating costs per kilowatt make nuclear power a bargain when compared to renewables, namely solar and wind. Please refer to the following graphs and charts.
| Energy Source | % of Total | Cost per kWh | Weighted Avg Cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nuclear | 19.7% | $0.04 | $0.008 |
| Hydro | 6.1% | $0.03 | $0.002 |
| Coal | 48.7% | $0.04 | $0.022 |
| Natural Gas | 21.4% | $0.10 | $0.022 |
| Petroleum | 1.1% | $0.10 | $0.001 |
| Other Renewables | 3.0% | $0.15 | $0.005 |
| 100% | $0.059 |
| Energy Source | % of Total | Cost per kWh | Weighted Avg Cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nuclear | 39.4% | $0.04 | $0.015 |
| Hydro | 6.1% | $0.03 | $0.002 |
| Coal | 29.0% | $0.04 | $0.013 |
| Natural Gas | 21.4% | $0.10 | $0.022 |
| Petroleum | 1.1% | $0.10 | $0.001 |
| Other Renewables | 3.0% | $0.15 | $0.005 |
| 100% | $0.058 [change of -1.7%] |
Local storage facilities for these plants will also need to be extended or the industry will have to move toward centralized interim storage facilities.
Japan and France, which re-license plants every ten years after a safety inspection, are also looking at extending the life of their plants, said Ronaldo Szliard, director of nuclear science and engineering at Idaho National Laboratory.
If the age of reactors can be extended, it could be a financial boon, added Neil Wilmshurst, chief nuclear officer at EPRI. Existing nuclear plants in the U.S. are paid for already. Thus, there is no financing cost. Nuclear plants are also more of a known commodity than carbon capture facilities.
What are the problems? That needs to be figured out. Further studies are needed to test to longevity and durability of cement exposed to radiation.
"We don't believe there is a problem but we need to understand what the aging process entails," said Szliard.
Wilmshurst added that the industry also needs to upgrade its procedures. Many nuclear plants, for instance, use digital control systems like virtually everything else in the working world. Part of the problem has to do with making sure the existing safety systems will continue to function properly if underlying controls are shifted.
COMMENTARY: I often wondered what the useful life of a nuclear power plant was, and this article is quite worrisome. With nuclear power plants originally built to least 40 years, I don't think the U.S. has any other choice but to extend their operating service licenses to 60 years. The longevity issue is a global problem with France and Japan requesting 10-year operating permit extensions. However, extending operating permits is a temporary fix. Twenty years can pass by very quick, so you have to ask yourself: What are we going to do after their operating permit licenses expire after 60 years of service?
If you review Nuclear Fissionary's comparison of both construction costs and operating costs per kilowatt hour for nuclear, coal, hydro, natural gas, petroleum and renewables, namely wind and solar PV, nuclear is the better choice over the long-term. 19.7% of America's electricity is produced from nuclear power plants, while only 3% is produced from renewable energy sources. Therefore, unless there are major cost breakthroughs in both wind and solar power capital and operating costs per kilowatt, I don't see how we can let our nuclear power plants wither and die.
The catastrophic nuclear reactor accident and subsequent uncontrolled meltdown at Fukushima, Japan builds an even stronger case for making sure America's 104 nuclear reactors are safe from earthquakes and flooding caused by natural disasters, including tsunami's. America cannot afford the same fate as Japan.
Courtesy of an article dated November 1, 2010 appearing in GreenTechMedia and an article dated March 9, 2010 appearing in CanadaFreePress
Comments