U.S.: Left Behind in Nuclear

By Eric Wesoff

Is it Green?

Is nuclear power green energy?

That's a question I've been asking nuclear industry folks and enviros for the last few years.

But I've come to realize it's the wrong question. It doesn't matter if it's green - nuclear is here to stay as a global energy source. In fast the Electrical Power Research Institute's prism study shows the US obtaining 29 per cent of its energy from nuclear sources in 2030, up from 21 per cent today.

I guess the better questions are:

• How can we minimize the nuclear waste issue?
• How can we minimize the amount of water used for cooling?
• How can the US return to a leadership role in nuclear plant technology?

John Polcyn, the VP and Chief Nuclear Officer at Invensys knows nuclear. He has built and operated nuclear power plants while working at Bechtel - actually building nuclear plants on time and on budget (in China). And as you'd imagine - he's a supporter of the technology, saying, "it is the lowest cost generation in the US, save for hydro."

In Polcyn's words, "The US brought commercial nuclear power to the world. Now the world is bringing commercial nuclear power back to the US." Polcyn worries, "If we don't build nuclear plants in the US - we'll become a third world country."

His company Invensys, has provided control and process systems to the nuclear industry for 50 years and he spoke at a renewable energy event this weekend sponsored and organized by law firm, Pillsbury.

Nuclear Past

The first commercial nuclear plant came on-line in the 1950s in Pittsburgh, Pa. The US has not licensed a new nuclear plant since the incident at TMI. But that's going to change soon.

Nuclear Present

There are 104 operating nuke plants in the US. Many of those units are powered with nuclear fuel blended from Russian warheads. There are 439 commercial nuclear power units operating in 30 countries around the world. They generate 372 GW - about 17% of global energy.

Nuclear Future

More than forty new plants are being built in 13 countries. What's more - an additional 100 nuclear power units are planned with another 250 new units proposed.

There is increasing demand for nuclear in emerging countries - with nuclear plants planned for desalination in the UAE. China is targeting a 5 fold increase in nuclear capacity by 2020, India is targeting 20 to 30 new reactors by 2020 and the UK is building 9 nuclear plants - they want to lessen their dependence on Russia for natural gas.

According to Polcyn, the US is already building nuclear plants with one coming on-line in 2012. Civil work has begun at Southern Nuclear's Plant Vogtle site. He predicts that we'll be building and commissioning another 8 plants in the next ten years.

Workforce Issues and an Aging US Nuclear Fleet

For the rapidly aging US fleet, obsolescence is starting to become an issue on operating nuclear power units. Most nuclear plants in the US are more than thirty years old.

I hear from a lot of folks looking for work in the solar industry. I've yet to hear anybody ask me about a future in the nuclear industry. And that's a big problem for the field - the loss of intellectual capital through a graying workforce and the need to capture that "tribal knowledge."

Regarding the workforce, Polcyn said "Mexico graduates more engineers than the US, I hope we catch up to Mexico," adding, "It's a global competition for resources - we've got to get into that game and win that battle."

Environmental Concerns

According to Polcn, "What we're talking about putting in Yucca Mountian has 95% of its energy left in it. We need to start reprocessing and closing that fuel cycle."
Polcyn remarked that the size of Yucca Mountain was half the size of the hotel we were meeting in and that Yucca Mountain and nuclear waste disposal is, "Not a technology issue - its a political issue."

As for water, yes nuclear plants use lots of water - up to a million gallons a day. So do most energy generation technologies. And in some cases it's possible to use waste water or to actually cool the plants with air as in a mine-mouth air-cooled nuclear plant.

Nuclear provides cheap baseload power. Yes, it has a high up-front cost (in the neighborhood of $3,000 per kilowatt) and yes it goes over budget and yes it takes too long to permit and build.

New technologies are emerging and "small nuclear" is being discussed very seriously. (See Michael Kanellos' Guide to New Nuclear). VCs are seeking out opportunities in this new twist on nuclear power production.

I still have a knee-jerk negative response to nuclear. But I don't see us having an alternative - domestically or globally.

Comments

[epeon:]

I absolutely agree with you that we need to build nuclear plants. It is a real shame that no one in the Obama administration understands this and provides any leadership.

As far as the comment about graying engineers and the need to graduate new engineers, well as a graying engineer, I have a few comments. The problem is this: there is no economic base for hiring engineers in the US. I live in Houston and there are very few companies actually hiring eingineers. Most people with technical degrees don't even work in their field.

My son graduated with honors from Georgia Tech with degrees in electrical engineering and a masters in computer engineering. His wife graduated from yale with a finance degree. He makes $80,000 as an engineer, she makes $350,000 as a hedge fund analyst. And, yet, she asks him all the time to help her with the mathematical analysis of her accounts. So, which field do you want to go in to?

Oct 05 08:48 AM

[jerrydd:]

Nukes now cost in Fla $8.5k/kw so one can not say it's cheap.

If they can get below $4k/kw and get built in smaller sizes, far safer designs then yes nukes will be good.

But most RE is just simple machines that when really mass produced cost only $1-2k/kwhr for wind, solar CSP, kinetic hydro, CHPs, biomass, etc. Soon even PV will be $2/wt retail as they already sell to solar farms for under $1/wt or $1k/kw.

Storage with lead batteries is under $100kwhr.

EV's if built in composites and using forklift tech could get you 100 mile range, 80 mpg cool EV sportwagon for under $12k.

All the tech is here, just few building these. Though 1k/kw windgens are available, google axial flux windgenerators to build or buy one.

Home size units are best as they have no land, transmission lines, overhead or stockholder costs. Now add they get better savings, selling prices and they are 2-3x's as cost effective as solar/wind farms.

There is no shortage of energy, just a shortage of the equipment to catch, make, use it.

Oct 05 09:29 AM

[epeon:]

Be real careful when someone says that they can build wind powered capacity for $1 K to $2 K per kwhr. For example, that may be nameplate capacity, but availability of wind power is approximately 28% in West Texas. therefore, the cost is probably $4 to $8 per kwhr to get a kwhr at 100% utilization like a nuke. And, how do you get the power to the grid from West Texas? You need power lines which do not exist. If you include that cost, then the cost of wind power is more like $6 to $12 per kwhr.

Oct 05 09:40 AM

[Mike Keller:]

Might want to take a look at hybridpwr.com. Advanced technology that marries gas nuclear reactor with a combustion turbine. Dramatically reduces nuclear waste as well as water use and is significantly less costly than conventional nuclear plant. Would return US to lead in nuclear leadership role.

Oct 05 10:20 AM

[john s. gordon:]

the foundation for the US nuclear-electric industry was admiral rickover's naval reactors program. as a result the reactors in use today are uranium guzzlers. reprocessing of spent fuel was supposed to correct this defect, but the program was cancelled due to concern over terrorist diversion.
fission reactors operate without steam reheat, so fuel energy source to bus-bar efficiency is low. one way to increase cycle efficiency (or reduce heat rate) is to after one expansion stage, reheat the steam.
one plant with oil-fired reheater was built at indian point NY. as far as i am aware this system was never replicated.
some years ago (after the 1973-74 arab embargo) i filed a patent disclosure to use a coal-fired fluidized-bed reheater for this purpose. i was told to get lost. time to reevaluate/reexamine?
also in europe there has been interest in high-temperature gas-cooled reactors; don't forget these.
> jack

Oct 05 11:00 AM

[observer00:]

I find it interesting when folks compare nuclear to non-nuclear; they don't compare all the costs/impacts (e.g., decontamination/decomm... licensing; waste [fossil fuels also emit radioactive material {naturally occurring radioactive material that becomes concentrated} in their wastes]; use of land [scenic/visual pollution]; legal permits; efficiency of the facility; etc.). Not telling the whole story, doesn't add much to the veracity of the author.

Oct 05 11:39 AM

[jerrydd:]

While true on wind, kinetic hydro is baseline, solar happens at peak rate times and biomass it usable anytime. So between the 4 you have a balanced system though NG can be used too for peak power.

And I'm talking about home , small business systems which have far lower costs and higher prices, thus savings and selling price. No matter how you look at it some combo of RE depending on your location, can for under $10k give a home, EV the energy needed for 50 yrs. So for $200-400/yr you can have all the energy needed, maybe too much which you can sell for a profit. That is far lower than any other source like nuke, fossil fuels.

All it takes the the above equipment in real mass production.

On Oct 05 09:40 AM epeon wrote:

> Be real careful when someone says that they can build wind powered
> capacity for $1 K to $2 K per kwhr. For example, that may be nameplate
> capacity, but availability of wind power is approximately 28% in
> West Texas. therefore, the cost is probably $4 to $8 per kwhr to
> get a kwhr at 100% utilization like a nuke. And, how do you get
> the power to the grid from West Texas? You need power lines which
> do not exist. If you include that cost, then the cost of wind power
> is more like $6 to $12 per kwhr.

Oct 05 02:08 PM

[sethmcs:]

Coal is absolutely the cheapest and best source for electricity. I live with 25 miles of three big coal plants in Pennsylvania. Homer City & New Florence plant each generate as much electricity as a nuclear power plant at half the cost. Cap and trade and environmental regulations threaten to at least double the cost of electricity. The irony is it takes years to permit and build any power plant yet for our economy to grow we need a lot more. Especially if electric cars become widely available. If the United States was serious about energy independence we should focus on using more coal. The appalachine mountains contain 25% of the world's proven reserves of coal.

Oct 06 12:01 AM

[wind4me:]

as a former Nuclear HP Tech/Engineer who left after 22 years of refueling reactors, I can honestly say nuclear is the safest form of energy but the most misunderstood since TMI malfunctioned .

With energy going to rise, we missed the boat on nationalized, centralized nuclear like France did where the government mandated one reactor design and all were exact copies of each other making interchangeable parts and the refueling traveling crews up to speed in seconds for all plants in France. All we need to do is copy what France has done and leads the world in nuclear safe power.

Oct 06 08:33 AM

[jerrydd:]

You mean like the last 2 reactors the French have started? Both are way over budget and schedule. The Finnish one is now at $7.8/kw and still not finished.

While I agree nukes can be part of the solution, they need new designs to lower costs. Smaller, more safe units are needed, mass produced instead of the huge fiasco's now being built.

RE costs less than $4k/kw for 24/7 availability including storage if needed. Until nukes can beat that then they are not viable.

They just jacked up Fla Progress Energy's customer's bills 29% to pay for the plant 10 yrs before they will get anything from it. Such a deal!! Yeah nuke is cheap!!


On Oct 06 08:33 AM wind4me wrote:

> as a former Nuclear HP Tech/Engineer who left after 22 years of refueling
> reactors, I can honestly say nuclear is the safest form of energy
> but the most misunderstood since TMI malfunctioned .
>
> With energy going to rise, we missed the boat on nationalized, centralized
> nuclear like France did where the government mandated one reactor
> design and all were exact copies of each other making interchangeable
> parts and the refueling traveling crews up to speed in seconds for
> all plants in France. All we need to do is copy what France has
> done and leads the world in nuclear safe power.

Oct 06 10:10 AM

[Longinvestor:]

"...Left Behind in Nuclear." That is because it is an obsolete technology for anything except its original purpose: making defense weapon material. The massive heat produced in the process is useful for generating electricity.

Oct 06 10:50 AM

[TinyTim:]

Interesting article and comments.

I live 60 miles downwind from the largest US reactor(s) and have laid in my stock of potassium iodide. I have no problem with the engineers, but the management gives me a "knee-jerk negative response." I also have a problem with the complexity, size and overall design. I agree we need to be looking at small reactors of the most modern design. Most importantly, the whole process, from design approval to siting and construction needs to be streamlined. If this takes a uniform design, so be it, but I doubt it will happen in the USA.
Ironically, the cooling water supply for this station is all reclaimed treated sewage.

For my part of the country, PV panels on home roofs would be an excellent supplement to local generators, providing both electricity and shade. I'm waiting for the price to come down and / or Obama to give me the money.


"What we're talking about putting in Yucca Mountain has 95% of its energy left in it. We need to start reprocessing and closing that fuel cycle."
This is a major problem with nuclear. I never bought that BS about nuclear proliferation precluding breeder reactors in the US. I buy it less now. There is some other reason. The holding pools at most reactors are now almost full of this 95% fuel. Sell Yucca Mtn to Goldman Sachs to use as another vault and start recycling the fuel.

Coal generation is going to be around for a long time in the US. I doubt the "developed" countries will do anything about CO2 considering the "developing" countries will rapidly exceed us in output. Plant a tree.
Another "problem" the media just picked up on with coal is the waste issue with coal ash. No, coal doesn't just disappear in the boiler. Apparently, besides all the mercury out the stacks that gets past the scrubbers, the ash contains a load of toxic heavy metals. This may be just fear mongering from Leslie Stahl, but it's something else to consider.

Oct 06 03:36 PM

[terravario:]

Epeon restates an often repeated view that wind turbines only generate a percentage of their nameplate capacity (28% in West Texas according to him). Therefore wind is unreliable, variable, not available 24/7 like nuclear. He also makes the point that the wind resource area of West Texas is distant from major load centers and that transmission capacity is lacking to wheel that power to those load centers. One is to draw the conclusion that wind power a poor bet to compete with nuclear.

I do not suggest that nuclear should be left totally out of the mix of power sources that we will have to employ to address energy independance and climate change. However, the argument that wind power is not a suitable replacement for baseload coal and nuclear is really a myth that is being propagated by "clean coal" and nuclear advocates.

If one looks at a single wind power project, intermittency or availability is an issue. For a large robust grid that includes wind power as the chief component, variability, not intermittency, is the issue. MISO and others now agree that wind power, deployed across a diverse north-south and east-west regional grid, can be characterized as baseload capacity. Variability can be addressed through the use of hydroelectric and pumped storage capacity (huge batteries that already exist in several major regions in North America).

For example, generating capacity in the Great Lakes region (Canada and US within the Great Lakes watershed) is currently 75+ gigawatts. This capacity serves a population of 42 million people in a relatively concentrated load center. The Great Lakes region is the third largest economy in the world (behind the US and Japan) and is responsible for roughly 10-15% of total greenhouse gas emissions. The regional wind resource, both onshore and offshore, is estimated to be 300+ gigawatts, one of the very best in the world. Under the DOE goal of 20% Wind by 2030, wind could, at a MINIMUM, replace 15-20 gigawatts of current base load capacity within the Great Lakes region. We also have available several gigawatts of hydroelectric and pumped storage capacity at Ludington (MI), Robert Moses (NY), and Sir Adam Beck (Ontario) within the Great Lakes watershed (plus Quebec) to balance out such a robust and diverse grid. No need to wheel wind power from the plains states and provinces. Power from West Texas and the Great Plains should be part of a regional grid that serves Denver, Dallas, Houston, Omaha, and Kansas City.

The movement away from coal in the Great Lakes is real. Ontario plans to replace all its coal capacity with wind and other renewables within two decades (with some minimal contribution from nuclear) and supports this development with a new feed in tariff law. The Michigan Public Service Commission has refused to issue certificates of convenience and necessity for any new coal plants in favor of wind and renewables. More megawatts of wind capacity are currently being built than coal capacity all across the Great Lakes. Add solar to the mix and it is all win-win.

For more information, see the DOE 20% Wind by 2030 report and the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative website at <www.glc.org/energy/win...;.

On Oct 05 09:40 AM epeon wrote:

> Be real careful when someone says that they can build wind powered
> capacity for $1 K to $2 K per kwhr. For example, that may be nameplate
> capacity, but availability of wind power is approximately 28% in
> West Texas. therefore, the cost is probably $4 to $8 per kwhr to
> get a kwhr at 100% utilization like a nuke. And, how do you get the
> power to the grid from West Texas? You need power lines which do
> not exist. If you include that cost, then the cost of wind power
> is more like $6 to $12 per kwhr.

Oct 06 05:32 PM

[fourjays:]

How about putting some pressure on the 'big binders" guys in the NRC to stop finding ways to say NO to anything nuclear. Because they are bureaucrats to the core, the NRC (with pressure from the fossil fuel lobby in Washington) makes ANY real innovation extremely difficult.
Check out Hyperion Power Generation (hyperionpowergenerati... for a look into the potential of safe, clean nuclear energy. Coal is killing our planet and wind/solar will only be "add-on" power on the grid (where there is one) for years to come.

Oct 06 07:06 PM

[Mrudula Shah:]

Epeon,

You took the words out of my mouth!! You've hit the nail on the head. If engineers are paid so poorly compared to dentists and even hospital nurses or therapists and if, in our society, movie actors, ball players, and MBAs are valued much more than engineers or scientists (that is, constructive workfields are looked down in favor of non-constructive ones), how is this country going to attract more students into engineering and science colleges. Even doctors and engineers now are seeking MBA degrees!! Nuclear power, without any lobby, will remain dead. My husband wrote two long letters to Obama, explaining why we should keep the nuclear plants as a major option in our energy plans. But, he is a lawyer and a politician (looking for votes) and, apparently, options that create more jobs (getting him and his party more votes) is his primary interest!! By the way, Obama never bothered to respond; and, my husband is a retired engineering consultant. Until we, as a society, shade our greed for money, I guess, we will remain tarred in our objective vision. Sadly, people who live for what is right for the society are fading in number. Thanks to 24-hour commercial TV (full of low-quality programs or commercial sports channels) in every homestead!!

On Oct 05 08:48 AM epeon wrote:

> I absolutely agree with you that we need to build nuclear plants.
> It is a real shame that no one in the Obama administration understands
> this and provides any leadership.
>
> As far as the comment about graying engineers and the need to graduate
> new engineers, well as a graying engineer, I have a few comments.
> The problem is this: there is no economic base for hiring engineers
> in the US. I live in Houston and there are very few companies actually
> hiring eingineers. Most people with technical degrees don't even
> work in their field.
>
> My son graduated with honors from Georgia Tech with degrees in electrical
> engineering and a masters in computer engineering. His wife graduated
> from yale with a finance degree. He makes $80,000 as an engineer,
> she makes $350,000 as a hedge fund analyst. And, yet, she asks him
> all the time to help her with the mathematical analysis of her accounts.
> So, which field do you want to go in to?

Oct 07 12:01 AM

[epeon:]

I did not say you could not build windpower plants. I just said that with its availability of 28% you would have to build almost four times more in capacity then you actually needed. Thus, you need to factor that in the economics. I have seen way too many times someone will quote the cost of a 100 kilowatt nameplate capacity windmill farm and compare it to the equivalent 100 killowat coal or nuke power generation system. You really have to have about 400 kilowatt nameplate capacity to get 100 killowat constant and it needs to be spread out geographically.


On Oct 06 05:32 PM terravario wrote:

> Epeon restates an often repeated view that wind turbines only generate
> a percentage of their nameplate capacity (28% in West Texas according
> to him). Therefore wind is unreliable, variable, not available 24/7
> like nuclear. He also makes the point that the wind resource area
> of West Texas is distant from major load centers and that transmission
> capacity is lacking to wheel that power to those load centers. One
> is to draw the conclusion that wind power a poor bet to compete with
> nuclear.
>
> I do not suggest that nuclear should be left totally out of the mix
> of power sources that we will have to employ to address energy independance
> and climate change. However, the argument that wind power is not
> a suitable replacement for baseload coal and nuclear is really a
> myth that is being propagated by "clean coal" and nuclear advocates.
>
>
> If one looks at a single wind power project, intermittency or availability
> is an issue. For a large robust grid that includes wind power as
> the chief component, variability, not intermittency, is the issue.
> MISO and others now agree that wind power, deployed across a diverse
> north-south and east-west regional grid, can be characterized as
> baseload capacity. Variability can be addressed through the use of
> hydroelectric and pumped storage capacity (huge batteries that already
> exist in several major regions in North America).
>
> For example, generating capacity in the Great Lakes region (Canada
> and US within the Great Lakes watershed) is currently 75+ gigawatts.
> This capacity serves a population of 42 million people in a relatively
> concentrated load center. The Great Lakes region is the third largest
> economy in the world (behind the US and Japan) and is responsible
> for roughly 10-15% of total greenhouse gas emissions. The regional
> wind resource, both onshore and offshore, is estimated to be 300+
> gigawatts, one of the very best in the world. Under the DOE goal
> of 20% Wind by 2030, wind could, at a MINIMUM, replace 15-20 gigawatts
> of current base load capacity within the Great Lakes region. We also
> have available several gigawatts of hydroelectric and pumped storage
> capacity at Ludington (seekingalpha.com/symbo...), Robert
> Moses (seekingalpha.com/symbo...), and Sir Adam Beck (Ontario)
> within the Great Lakes watershed (plus Quebec) to balance out such
> a robust and diverse grid. No need to wheel wind power from the plains
> states and provinces. Power from West Texas and the Great Plains
> should be part of a regional grid that serves Denver, Dallas, Houston,
> Omaha, and Kansas City.
>
> The movement away from coal in the Great Lakes is real. Ontario plans
> to replace all its coal capacity with wind and other renewables within
> two decades (with some minimal contribution from nuclear) and supports
> this development with a new feed in tariff law. The Michigan Public
> Service Commission has refused to issue certificates of convenience
> and necessity for any new coal plants in favor of wind and renewables.
> More megawatts of wind capacity are currently being built than coal
> capacity all across the Great Lakes. Add solar to the mix and it
> is all win-win.
>
> For more information, see the DOE 20% Wind by 2030 report and the
> Great Lakes Wind Collaborative website at <www.glc.org/energy/win...;;.
>
>
> On Oct 05 09:40 AM epeon wrote:

Oct 07 08:41 AM