Moment of Truth for U.S. Nuclear Energy

By Eric Wesoff

Greentech Media, as the name suggests, focuses on renewable energy and a green sustainable future. There is contention in the green culture at large and in the Greentech Media offices as to whether nuclear can be categorized as truly “green.” (See the comment thread in this blog piece to witness contention amongst our readers.) Nuclear plants do not produce greenhouse gases but they definitely present a radioactive material and security risk. And uranium is certainly not a renewable resource.

But the bottom line is - nuclear power is part of the energy mix in the US and around the world and the nuclear waste produced is not going anywhere. 438 nuclear plants are operating today, more are being built, and the issue has to be dealt with.

Ariel Levite, the former Principal Deputy Director General for Policy at the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission, spoke today at a talk sponsored by Stanford’s CISAC, the Center for International Security and Cooperation.

His talk addressed nuclear power and avoided nuclear weaponry and non-proliferation (another facet of CISAC’s studies).

Once at the forefront of the nuclear industry but now haunted by the legacy of Three Mile Island, the United States has fallen behind in nuclear science, engineering, and industry. Hamstrung by tight financing , a dismal record on meeting budget and schedule, a NIMBY mindset, and a timid political class - the US has been ambivalent about nuclear power’s comeback.

Despite having 108 nuclear plants in operation. 108.

But the rest of the world is hardly ambivalent about nuclear. And the US is no longer the role model.

Europe, specifically France, now sets the pace for nuclear power with 80% of their power produced from nukes in a closed fuel cycle process. China, Russia, Korea, India, and Japan have all entered what Mr. Levite referred to as, “a nuclear power reactor race,” and more than 50 countries are considering launching nuclear power programs. According to Levite, “There is real hype but real action might soon follow.” The installed base of nuclear power “might increase by a factor of 3-5 by 2050.” According to Levite - China has 11 plants under construction, and Russia, 8. He noted the recent Swedish decision to re-embark on an ambitious nuclear program after two decades of phasing out nukes, as well as nuclear power activity in Poland and the Baltic countries.

Some bullet points from his talk:

Factors driving this new nuclear zeal…

• Growing global energy demand
• Energy security concerns - in the aftermath of the most recent crisis, Europeans feel that they cannot rely on rationed gas from Russia
• Potentially substituting nuclear domestically to allow oil and gas exports
• Is there any way to meet carbon emission requirements without nuclear power?

Enhancing nuclear’s appeal…

• Western nuclear power and, to a lesser exent, Russian nuclear power has been proven reliable
• Better and bigger reactor designs
• There are only 7 major utilities operating nuclear power in the US - in this case consolidation is good
• Government incentives for low carbon emissions
• Potential for standardization

But…

• Industrial bottlenecks are serious. This is an industry that has built only 4 reactors a year for the last few years.
• There is a shortage of nuclear engineers
• Reliable construction cost calculations are less than reliable
• Utilities lack efficient and affordable mechanisms for funding new nuclear construction
• Carbon emission subsidies are not clearly defined
• A sophisticated waste disposal challenge lingers on
• A NIMBY attitude affects selection of new sites
• Prospects for trouble abroad are significant
• If one nuclear reactor goes wrong, if one entity uses nukes irresponsibly - the entire industry will suffer

If the US is to re-enter this market, time is of the essence because it takes 3-4 years to license and 7-10 years to build a reactor. And all of the US’s reactors are 25+ years old and exceeding their expected lifetime.

Regarding the US response to the nuclear waste issue, Levite said, “The US has the least intelligent solution - spending billions on interim storage.” The question of storing nuclear waste is still in front of the US, “The US has to deal with the issue of nuclear waste regardless of whether they build any more reactors,” and saying that, “Yucca Mountain ain’t going to work,” because of politics and sheer capacity.

I am a knee-jerk environmentalist and have a visceral response to the word “nuclear.” But the more I learn and read, the more experts I speak with, the more my mind is changed - nuclear is a necessary part of the energy mix albeit with enormous risk.

These risks need to be confronted head-on by sound technology, policy, diplomacy, and science.

But as for floating Russian nuclear plants: Not a good idea.

Comments

[Stone Fox C...:]

So whats the investment thesis on nuclear? Shaw Group (SGR) is the best option that I know of as they will hopefully benefit from the construction of the new plants in China.

Feb 19 10:03 AM

[Jolly_Rancher:]

Radioactive waste "disposal" is only a great problem in the US. Other countries have spent fuel recycling policies such that fuel is recycled until it has very little radioactive elements. Our government has decided that nuclear fuel should not be recycled because we're afraid that in the process, terrorists will steal some of the fuel and build a bomb. That is preposterous. The fuel should be recycled. The waste issue would disappear.

Feb 19 10:09 AM

[Salty:]

The nuclear discussion is dominated by the know-nothing groups because of the fear generated over a 50's movie by Jane Fonda and jack Lemmon, The China Syndrome, and perpetuated by the media. The waste problem is almost entirely political. There was no radioactive release at Three Mile Island -- just media hysteria over the failure of operators to follow the procedures set up to prevent such release. Chernobyl was an engineering disaster with no containment. The disaster was caused by putting a politician in charge of the technicians and overriding the safety controls. The politician then went to his dacha over the weekend, and everyone feared to countermand his orders.

Our policy of allowing know-nothings to have equal vote is rapidly causing the demise of the country we are supposed to be stewards of.


We deride the French, but have failed to

Feb 19 11:20 AM

[random walking:]

Take a look at the controversy surrounding Progress Energy's plans to build new nuclear plants in Florida. The projected cost per constructed MW, the projected timeline to build, the projected needs for financing and rate impacts convince me these plans will never come to reality. Progress Energy is betting the company that improvements in energy efficiency and load balancing, improved power grid, decling costs for purchased power, increasingly competitive costs for implementing alternative energy, and elasticity of demand at higher rates, will not render such a long term capital intesive project to be uneconomic. The longer this folly persists, the more customers, shareholders, employees and the economic well being of the community will be hurt. Management should be replaced sooner than later.

Feb 19 11:24 AM

[longoil:]

There is a company in Australia called Silex that has developed a third generation (as opposed to old gas diffusion & centrifuge processes) uranium enrichment process using laser technology that can recycle up to 96% of spent uranium. Last time I read up on them, the US nuclear regulatory commission approved a license for test runs of the technology and GE was in the process of signing a contract for Silex services.

www.silex.com.au/

The stock is selling at the 20% of its peak value. I don't have any shares in this company myself, but I thought I would mention it for anyone who is interesting in an unusual nuclear play.

Feb 19 01:42 PM

[Coalpilejohnny:]

Haven't you folks ever heard of the Thorium fuel cycle?
Thorium Power (THPW) has the leading edge technology to stop proliferation, and solve most of the waste product. The UAE has hired them to set up a peaceful nuke program and the U.S.A. thinks it's great.
They are also going to work with Indian companies on their new nuke set up. They were the first US company to sign an agreement with an Indian company after the US passed the 123 bill last year. Do your DD but check it out.

Feb 19 04:22 PM

[john s. gordon:]

AECL can sell you a Th powered (D2O moderated) reactor right now if you want one.
> jack

Feb 20 08:31 AM

[YoYoMama:]

Um, Salty..."The China Syndrome" is a movie that was released in the 1970's, not the 1950's. Jane Fonda wasn't even in her first movie until the 1960's.

Feb 20 09:34 AM

[Jack Lifton:]

Please read my article "Is This The Dawning Of The Age Of Thorium?" on ResourceInvestor.com. It is still on the front page of their site in the section called "Pit Blog."

Feb 20 09:47 AM

[Ferdinand E...:]

People, Sweden has NOT been phasing out nuclear energy for two decades. What the ignorant previous prime minister did was to call nuclear obsolete, and close two relatively small reactors for political reasons. Economically this was pure nonsense. And, incidentally, due to upgrading the remaining ten reactors as much energy (in kWh) is being produced now as was produced with 12 reactors. As for thorium, it wasn't enough that Norway has all that oil and gas, they also have a tremendous amount of that resource.

Feb 20 10:34 AM

[AJW:]

The US has 104 nuclear reactors, not plants. Plants can have multiple reactors. The US actually has 65 nuclear plants.

Feb 20 12:17 PM

[TinyTim:]

Current reactor designs are too complex, requiring huge plants to make economical. Alternative designs, including thorium and intrinsically safe are out there. The Navy makes compact reactors that move ships the size of a small city. Where is this technology going?

The waste problem is lunacy. Interim storage means the most recently built plants are full of spent fuel from older plants. We missed the boat on fast breeder reactors due to lame excuses. Yucca Mtn is semi-permanent storage, but recycling is a better use of this resource.

Objections to the transport of nuclear materials is naive. Obviously, this stuff is moved all over now regularly with no publicity. Dismantled Russian weapons are fueling us now. How did it get here, processed and loaded?

Feb 20 04:18 PM

[Ferdinand E...:]

Where is this technology going, somebody asked. It's going toward closing the nuclear cycle. That will help settle this business about the supply of nuclear fuel and the disposal of nuclear waste.

Feb 21 04:34 AM

[Eric Wesoff:]

NLR.
You are right on this and I will change the original article at greenlight.greentechme.../
Thanks
Eric


On Feb 20 12:17 PM AJW wrote:

> The US has 104 nuclear reactors, not plants. Plants can have multiple
> reactors. The US actually has 65 nuclear plants.

Feb 21 03:28 PM