THE CASE FOR EXPANDING AMERICA'S NUCLEAR ENERGY AND THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER TECHNOLOGY

 

UNLIKE MANY OTHER SECTORS OF THE U.S. economy, the nuclear energy industry is growing. In fact, it's beginning to boom, with the potential to help the United States reduce its carbon footprint while also making a major and positive impact on the U.S. economy over both the near and long term.   

THE CASE FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY  

1. Energy Demand Rising -  In spite of the Great Recession, energy demand has risen fairly steadily over the past several decades, while investments in new electric generating capacity have lagged. To keep pace with the rising demand for energy and to remain competitive in the global economy, the country will need to add significant new electric generating capacity.
2. Aging Fossil Fuel-Based Generating Capacity Is Aging - Replacing the existing infrastructure and adding new capacity to meet growing demand will also have to meet the demand for green energy, helping to reduce greenhouse gases and the use of carbon-based fuels. But sources such as solar and wind account for approximately 7 percent of our electricity supply, and for these sources to meet future demand would not be feasible in many parts of the country.
3. Future Electricity Demand - Overall U.S. electricity demand is expected to increase by as much as 30 percent over the next 25 years. To meet that demand and replace those aging fossil fuel plants, the electric utility industry may need to invest as much as $2 trillion in new generation and transmission during that time period. What's more, it must add this new capacity while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Today, there are 104 nuclear power stations in the country, which supply 20 percent of our electricity needs while producing zero emissions of any harmful greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides. Together, nuclear and renewables represent the 27 percent of America's total electricity supply that comes from clean energy sources, and nuclear power produces three-quarters of it, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Clearly, the best way forward is to expand the role of nuclear energy in our domestic energy supply. Although renewable sources clearly have an important role to play in America's energy future, the cost and physical limitations of solar and wind are currently both prohibitive and impractical. Still, America requires new sources of clean and carbon-free sources of baseload energy to fuel economic growth.

BENEFITS OF ADDING NEW NUCLEAR CAPACITY

From an economic perspective, these operating nuclear plants are already making a major contribution to the U.S. economy through direct spending in local communities and in tax payments to federal, state and local governments. Building new nuclear plants will only increase this already significant economic stimulus as follows:

1. New Jobs - Construction of each single unit nuclear power plant will create 1,400 to 1,800 on-site construction jobs and hundreds of additional support jobs during the construction period. Once a plant is operational, an additional 400 to 700 permanent operational jobs will be created at salaries that are typically 36 percent higher than the average in communities and towns that are home to nuclear plants.  The Nuclear Energy Institute estimates that private investment in new nuclear power plants has already created an estimated 14,000 to 15,000 American jobs and many of these are at Westinghouse.
2. Local Community Financial Benefits - Every new nuclear plant will also produce approximately $430 million annually in sales of goods and services in the local community, creating or sustaining hundreds of long-term, peripheral support jobs while also providing annual state and local tax revenue of, on average, more than $20 million to benefit schools, roads and other state and local infrastructure projects. And the Nuclear Energy Institute estimates that federal tax payments from each plant amount to approximately $75 million annually.
3. Boost Construction Materials - New nuclear plants will increase purchases of steel, concrete and thousands of electrical components.  For example, construction of each new Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear power plant in the United States will require procuring approximately 30,000 cubic yards of concrete, 22,500 tons of rebar, 15,000 metric tons of steel and 300 modules and assemblies.  Presently, 22 new nuclear power plants have been announced for the United States, with six under contract and four in the early stages of construction.

PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF NUCLEAR POWER

Over the past 30 years, more than 100 existing commercial reactors in the United States have continued to operate safely and efficiently without a single incident. As a result, Americans now support the use of nuclear power for electricity generation more than at any point in history. According to a study commissioned by the Nuclear Energy Institute, 70 percent of Americans favor the use of nuclear power, whereas the country was evenly divided on this question just 20 years ago.

A nuclear renaissance has arrived and it presents an extraordinary opportunity to help the U.S. economy rebound. We should embrace this historic chance to achieve energy independence and, at the same time, provide the United States with the clean electricity it needs to support robust economic growth well into the future.

COMMENTARY:   In a blog post dated November 1, 2010 titled, "The Looming Aging Crisis of America's Nuclear Power Plants -- Built To Last 40 Yrs, Can They Last For 80 Years?", I wrote that our nuclear reactors were expected to last 40 years, but many have already exceeded or are approaching their 40-year operational life cycle, so the NRC has granted an additional 20 years, extending their operational life cycle to 60 years.  Although this is not a serious cause for concern, the nuclear power industry must plan now to build new nuclear energy capacity or risk falling behind other countries.  

Although still under development, 4th generation or advanced class nuclear reactors are smaller, modular and more cost-efficient  than its predessors:  

• Generation I (built 1950-1965). 
• Generation II (built 1965-1995). 
• Generation III (built 1995-2010). 
• Generation III+ (To be built 2010-2030). 

Generation I and II reactors that were designed with a 40-year operating life cycles (now extended to 60 years) and built prior to 1995.  Generation III built after 1995 were designed with a 60-year operating life cycle.  Generation III+  are a slight improvement over the regular Class III.  

The claimed benefits for Generation IV reactors include:

• Cost 40%-50% less to build than larger Generation III and III+ nuclear reactors.
• Nuclear waste that lasts decades instead of millennia.
• 100-300 times more energy yield from the same amount of nuclear fuel.
• The ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity.
• Improved operating safety.

One disadvantage of any new reactor technology is that safety risks may be greater initially as reactor operators have little experience with the new design. 

If you are not familiar with nuclear power generation, I encourage you to read some of my other blog entries:

• February 11, 2011 titled, "Small Nuclear Ready For Big Splash"
• November 1, 2010 titled, "The Looming Aging Crisis of America's Nuclear Power Plants -- Built To Last 40 Yrs, Can They Last For 80 
• September 17, 2010 titled, "MIT Study: U.S. Nuclear Power Can Be Cost-Effective And The Uranium Supply Is Plentiful, But We Must Plan"
• August 9, 2010 titled, "Tri Alpha Energy, The Stealthy Plasma Fusion Nuclear Reactor Startup, Receives $50 Million Investment"
• May 5, 2009 titled, "Nuscale Progresses With Small Modular Nuclear Reactors"
• March 23, 2010 titled, "Bill Gates Goes Nuclear, Backs Toshiba 4S Nuclear Mini-Nuclear Reactor"
• January 29, 2010 titled, "Nuscale Power Paves The Way For Safe Nuclear Power With A Modular, Mini-Nuclear Power Plant"

After the catastrophic crisis of the Fukushima nuclear reactor plant, I wished I had not posted this blog post, but who would've thought Japan would've been hit with a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami wave that has killed thousands. 

Courtesy of an article appearing in the January/February 2011 issue of EnergyBiz, Wikipedia - "Nuclear Reactor Technology", and Wikipedia - "Generation IV Reactor"

Comments

[Abraham]

Helpful material and type of writing. There's no doubt I'll check back on this site later and see what else you could have
in store! ;-) So i'm going to discover if I will be able to uncover something associated with nuclear power!!

[Tommy]

James, sorry that I missed your comment, but I am quite busy on so many different projects. Briefly, I am a technology buff, and often conduct research cleantech technologies, including nuclear power. I often refer to myself as a technology research scientist. The above article predates the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe, when there was a very active movement towards nuclear. Even the Obama administration was pushing nuclear. However, the recent events is has probably going to delay things in order to completely re-evaluate nuclear safety. There are a lot of US nuclear reactors that are reaching their 40-year life spans, and the NRC is reviewing their applications to extend their licenses to operate for another 30 or 40 years. Safety is a huge issue now. Do these older reactors require additional improvements and strengthening? How much will this cost? Who is going to pay for it? It's a really tough choice. 9% of America's electrical needs comes from nuclear, so a lot is at stake. Hope these comments help. Tommy Toy

[James]

Dear Toy,
I am doing a debate at school about expanding nuclear energy, and I found you article very interesting. I plan to use the information in the article in my debate and need to know your biography. The biography is about how you are connected to the information on nuclear energy by profession or this is something you find interesting. So can you please tell me your background on this subject, it would be very helpful. Thank you