Searching For The Truth: In Support of The Nuclear Power 2010 Initiative

The Bush Administration's Nuclear Power 2010 Initiative is in my opinion the most important element of its National Energy Policy, and the President deserves accolades for having the political courage to promote it.

Twenty-six years after the near-disastrous accident and partial meltdown at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island nuclear power plant that released small amounts of radioactivity into the atmosphere, and two decades since the much more serious accident at Chernobyl, nuclear power remains an object of great public consternation and fear. Despite an otherwise flawless record for safety and reliability, no new nuclear power plant has been ordered in the United States since the Three Mile Island incident. In the former Soviet Union, reactor safety remains a concern among experts, where fifteen RBMK-1000 reactors of the type that failed at Chernobyl are still in service. The crude design that was employed used in those reactors dates back to the mid 1950s and was considered obsolete and unsafe by western standards even prior to the Chernobyl tragedy.

Existing US commercial reactors are based on technology that, while it is several decades old, is inherently much safer than the Chernobyl design. All operating US commercial power reactors are either of the pressurized water (PWR) or boiling water (BWR) designs. Because both PWR and BWR reactors are cooled and moderated with ordinary "light" water, the two designs can be grouped into the generic category of light water reactors (LWR). Aside from the way they produce heat, the energy recovery and electricity generating technology used in these designs is not very different than those used in conventional power plants that are fired by coal or natural gas. These plants currently generate about 20% of the electricity that is used in the US.

While the US commercial nuclear power industry has been slumbering, other countries continued to improve reactor designs and build new capacity. France, for example, has built 58 plants since the late 1970s and currently generates more than 78 percent of its electricity from nuclear power.

As I have written earlier, the nuclear power plant operators in the United States have, with the blessing of the NRC, been steadily increasing their generating capacity by stealth through the process of uprating. In many cases, the uprating has been done at the expense of the original safety factors that were built into the facility when it was constructed. I have received comments based on my earlier article to the effect that the uprated plants still operate within a margin of safety that is more than adequate, and that decades of experience in operating the plants has taught engineers more about what adequate safety margins really are. No doubt these comments have merit, but I still think it is preferable to invest in new plant capacity built with the most modern technology than to continue pushing the envelope uprating plants that are decades old. Which brings us back to the Nuclear Power 2010 Initiative.

According to the DOE, the Nuclear Power 2010 Initiative is focused on the development and deployment of a new generation of advanced light water reactor (ALWR) designs:

The technology focus of the Nuclear Power 2010 program is on Generation III+ advanced light water reactor designs which offer advancements in safety and economics over the Generation III designs certified by NRC in the 1990’s. To enable the deployment of new Generation III+ nuclear power plants in the United States in the relatively near-term, it is essential to demonstrate the untested Federal regulatory and licensing processes for the siting, construction, and operation of new nuclear plants. The Department utilizes competitive procurement processes and conducts program activities in cost-share cooperation with industry to address such issues. The Department has initiated cooperative projects with industry to obtain NRC approval of three sites for construction of new nuclear power plants under the Early Site Permit (ESP) process, and to develop application preparation guidance for the combined Construction and Operating License (COL) and to resolve generic COL regulatory issues. The COL process is a “one-step” licensing process by which nuclear plant public health and safety concerns are resolved prior to commencement of construction, and NRC approves and issues a license to build and operate a new nuclear power plant.

The Bush Administration is also targeting regulatory and liability issues that have deterred utilities from proposing new nuclear plants for the past quarter century. According to the President:

To do so, I've asked the Department of Energy to work on changes to existing law that will reduce uncertainty in the nuclear plant licensing process, and also provide federal risk insurance that will protect those building the first four new nuclear plants against delays that are beyond their control. A secure energy future for America must include more nuclear power.

The reason that development of additional nuclear electricity generating capacity is so urgently needed in the United States relates most immediately to the natural gas supply crisis that has been developing on the North American continent the past several years. A secondary reason is that the United States is likely to be relying increasingly on electricity to power transportation, particularly personal transportation, within the next decade.

In the early 1980s, with the nuclear option off the table, the US Government with the support of environmental groups encouraged utilities to add additional generating capacity by building plants that were fueled by clean-burning natural gas, which was felt to be plentiful at the time. This time of plenty has ended, and by the summer of 2003 the natural gas pipeline system in North America came within a whisker of losing pressure. A decision was nearly made at the time to cut off supply to industrial users, in order that power generating plants and residential customers could continue to be supplied. Having seen the writing on the wall, a number of industrial natural gas users such as fertilizer manufacturers (most of the world is kept fed by fertilizers made from natural gas; we are literally relying on fossil fuels to feed ourselves) have since closed their North American operations. The President's National Energy Plan also anticipates a wholesale expansion of US facilities for receiving shipments of liquified natural gas (LNG), which must be obtained from generally the same countries that sell us oil, and for regasification of the LNG in order to maintain pressurization of the natural gas distribution pipeline. Clearly, natural gas is not the vehicle through which the United States is going to enhance its energy independence. As the DOE states:

The Department believes that an over reliance on a single fuel source, like natural gas, is a potential vulnerability to the long-term security of our Nation’s energy supply and new nuclear plants must be built in the next decade to address increasing concerns over air quality and to ease the pressures on natural gas supply.

The long term future of personal transportation in the United States lies with hybrid automobiles, and more specifically with "plug-in" hybrids of the type that is being pioneered by the outstanding CalCars initiative program. A plug-in hybrid differs from a self-contained hybrid car such as the popular Toyota Prius in that its batteries are designed to be recharged either by a small internal combustion engine in the car (as the Prius does) or by plugging the vehicle into a conventional 110 volt (or 220 volt) home electrical socket. CalCars, by modifying an ordinary Prius by adding additional battery capacity and a plug-in cord has achieved fuel mileage of over 100mpg. For short commutes, such a car would use no fossil fuel at all, running entirely on battery power that is obtained from the grid. While replacing conventional automobiles with plug-in hybrids will require an enormous investment, I believe the process to do just that will be well advanced by 2015.

If I'm right, the US will cut its crude oil consumption considerably over the next decade, but at a cost of placing a much greater burden on the electrical generation and distribution network. Other energy needs currently being filled by fossil fuels, such as home heating, could also be forced onto the grid. There is no environmental-friendly way to meet this burden without adding significant nuclear generating capacity. I think it will happen, and I commend the administration's foresight in proposing it.

Discuss this issue at Strategytalk.org