Birth Pangs of the Nuclear Renaissance

Kennedy Maize

Pages: 1 2 3

The much-ballyhooed U.S. nuclear renaissance, with a few exceptions, is running late, thanks to the usual Washington bureaucratic quagmire plus the added risk resulting from crumbling financial markets. The future doesn’t look much brighter. The poor outlook for Yucca Mountain and the new administration’s general indifference to nuclear power have made a rebirth of the nuclear industry an even higher-risk proposition than before.

As the nuclear industry enters its fifth year of the much-heralded but still-awaited "nuclear renaissance," a certain industry ennui appears to have settled in. That was apparent at the Platts 5th Annual Nuclear Energy Conference in February during two days characterized by lots of sun and wind gusts of up to 50 miles per hour. Little energy was captured. There was much treading of policy water.

The local weather went unremarked-upon during the event, but there was plenty of discussion about the inability of wind or sun to supplant the very important baseload characteristics of nuclear power 24/7/365. Much ruminating focused on the uncertain political and regulatory environment for nuclear, despite the clear business and social cases that the industry believes are its underpinnings.

The nuclear industry folks seem to have adopted the "stiff upper lip" characteristic of the British in the latter days of their empire. The conference exuded the industry’s long-standing confidence that the resurgence of atomic power is so desirable — and therefore inevitable (see sidebar). No other technology responds so directly to the fears of global warming. Much has been invested; much more will come. Keep the faith, attendees seemed to say. But there was an undercurrent of doubt.

New Strategy for Promoting Nuclear Energy

Climate change and energy security are emerging as two of the most pressing challenges the U.S. has to contend with in the coming years. President Barack Obama is seeking to cut CO₂ emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, with a further 80% reduction by 2050. Many energy analysts argue that to achieve these aggressive goals while simultaneously increasing the overall energy supply, the U.S. energy sector must advance all non- and low-emitting generating technologies, including nuclear.

In an effort to increase public awareness about this issue, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and Idaho National Laboratory have coauthored a new report that details how nuclear energy research, development, demonstration, and deployment can help reduce U.S. carbon emissions and promote energy security. The report, "A Strategy for Nuclear Energy Research and Development," describes the research needed to create options for using nuclear energy in the decades ahead. The full report is available at www.my.epri.com.

The report spells out how the development and deployment of nuclear energy can, in fact, help the U.S. meet several key challenges:

Increase the amount of electricity generated by non-emitting sources to mitigate climate change.
Foster the safe and proliferation-resistant use of nuclear energy throughout the world.
Reduce the transportation sector’s dependence on imported fossil fuels.
Reduce the demand on natural gas for process heat and hydrogen production.

However, because of the scale, cost, and time horizons involved, increasing nuclear energy’s share will require a coordinated research effort, which involves combining the efforts of industry and government supported by innovation from the research community.

The nuclear energy research and development (R&D) strategy described in this report adopts the following vision: "Safe and economical nuclear energy in the United States will expand to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enable economic growth, while providing leadership for responsible expansion of nuclear energy internationally."

Six goals are defined to achieve this vision:

Maintain today’s nuclear fleet of light water reactors.
Significantly expand the fleet with advanced light water reactors.
Develop non-electric applications for high-temperature reactors.
Ensure safe, long-term used fuel management.
Ensure long-term nuclear sustainability.
Strengthen U.S. leadership internationally.

Specific objectives are developed for each goal, and R&D to support them is summarized in three technology areas:

Light water reactor and advanced light water reactor R&D.
High-temperature reactor R&D.
Fast reactor, advanced fuel cycle, and waste management R&D.

Total funding needs from government and industry for the proposed research agenda covering the initial 2010 – 2015 period are estimated at $3.5 billion. This includes R&D needed to support the successful deployment of light water reactors through mid-century as well as to create options for non-electric applications and the long-term sustainability of nuclear energy. The immediate priority is ensuring the longevity of existing and new light water reactors, followed by the development of non-electric applications. Though sustainability is a longer-term issue, funding must be provided in the near term due to the long lead time involved.

Another 2008 EPRI study, "The Power to Reduce CO₂ Emissions: The Full Portfolio: 2008 Economic Sensitivity Studies" (EPRI 1018431), calculates the economically optimal technology mix within the electricity sector that would help achieve significant carbon dioxide emission reductions over a range of scenarios. For a scenario that represents a favorable case for both nuclear and coal-fired generation, nuclear generation rises from 750 TWh in 2,000 to 940 TWh in 2020 (a 25% increase) and to 2,200 TWh in 2050 (a nearly 200% increase from the year 2000). This particular scenario is based on nuclear electricity production costs of $64/MWh, the commercial availability of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology by 2020, and storage and transportation costs for carbon dioxide of $10/metric ton. Other analyzed scenarios result in generation mixes with different proportions of nuclear generation; notably, however, in all scenarios evaluated, nuclear and coal with CCS consistently account for 45% to 65% of total generation by 2050.

— By Angela Neville, JD

Pages: 1 2 3