Future of Nuclear Energy - Reasons for Optimism

1. Future Nuclear Energy - Some Reasons for Optimism.Richard WilsonPresented at: University of New MexicoMarch 24th2005

2. Whereever I have traveled, when men have neither coal nor wood nor turf, they live in miserable hovels and have nothing comfortable about them. But when they have an adequate supply of fuel and the wit to use it wisely they are well supplied with necessaries and live comfortable livesBenjamin Franklin circa 1780(quotation from memory)

3. Hans Bethe, (at left) was always a strong supporter and optimist about nuclear power. (Zermatt 1981)

4. Oil wont last for ever • We don’t like the CO2 the burning of carbon produces • The world population is still increasing • We demand more per capita • Politicians only like “conservation” or “renewables” • Is that enough?

5. The options are: (i) Restraint in any energy use (ii) Efficiency in energy use (iii) Sequestering carbon (iv ) Switch to nuclear fission (v) Switch to nuclear fusion (vi) Switch to hydropwer (vii) Switch to windpower (viii)Switch to other “renewable” resources.

6. Energy Intensity 1000 BTU / $ GDP (1997 est.) 1977 2001 2025 pred Industrialized Countries (ICs) 13 8 5 Developing Countries (DCs) 23 22 14 East Europe / FSU 45 50 30 International Energy Office (IEO) 2004 Assumes considerable efficiency improvements and introduction of renewables.

7. Anticipated energy use in the next 20 years from the Energy Information Administration (WIA) International Energy Outlook 2004 (IEO 2004).

8. 1939Nuclear fission discovered (Hahn and Strassman)Neutron chain reactionpossibility shown! (Joliot, Halban and Kowarski) there was Euphoria!The "nuclear age" had come!

9. 1950s successful prototypesIndian Point 1 (PWR Combustion Engineering)Yankee Rowe (Westinghouse)Dresden (GE) Before 1970 50 new plants ordered!Public Hearings were not contestedMaine Yankee - construction permit 1968 6 hoursMaine Yankee operating license 1973 2 daysBUT About 1972 OPPOSITION BEGANSeabrook Construction permit 12 years.Three Mile Island (1979) and Chernobyl (1986) hardened an already worsening situation

10. Busbar Cost of Nuclear Energy 1971 (Benedict 1971 from Virginia Power & Light)Description 1971Unit investment cost of plant, dollars/kw. $255Annual capital charge rate per year 0.13Kilowatt-hours generated per year per kw. capacity 5,256Cost of electricity, cents/kwh.: Plant investment 0.63 Operation and Maintenance 0.04 Fuel 0.19 TOTAL 0.86

11. 1972 CONSTRUCTION COSTMaine Yankee $180 million$200 per MWeInflation Corrected to 2004 $600 per MWe1990 - $2000 per Mwe2004 - $1000-$1400 per Mwe1972 OPERATING COSTConnecticut Yankee: <0.4 cents/kWhe Yankee Rowe: <0.9 cents/kWheBenedict estimate: 0.3 cents/kWhInflation corrected to 2004: 1 cent/kWhe1992 greater than 2.5 cents/kwh2003 : 1.6 cents/kwh

12. By 1991 nuclear power was too expensive!Some plants cost $4000 per kweOperation costs were 3 cents per kwh

13. Several possible reasons have been suggested. (a) in 1970 manufacturers built turnkey plants or otherwise sold cheap reactors as loss leaders. But this can only account for a small proportion of the capital cost. (b) construction costs generally have risen since 1970 even when corrected for inflation. (c) it may be that in 1972 we had good management and good technical people. But why has management got worse when that has not been true for other technologies? (d) Operating costs rose rapidly in the 1970s because the rate of expansion of nuclear energy exceeded the rate of training of good personnel (e) a sudden rise in costs came in the late 1970s after the accident at Three Mile Island unit II. (f) although mandated retrofits have been blamed for cost increases, this applies to existing plants not to new construction.

14. UNDERSTANDING HISTORY“He who does not understand history is condemned to repeat it”Why did the construction costs go up faster than inflation?Can improvements bring costs back down?What is the role of public opinion?

15. Construction Costs generally rose faster than inflationLicensing delays (cause by public opposition)Prescriptive license requirements Increased interest during construction

16. Over-regulation(Towers and Perrin 1995)Prescriptive not PerformanceDresden-II staff 250 (1975) -> 1,300+ (1997)unnecessary safety-grade equipment

17. Is excessive regulation inevitable?1992 Chairman of NRC Shirley Jackson established authority by shutting down 4 plants of NE utilities for rule infractions which had little calculated effect on accident probability.Industry got the message and shut down several plants2004 Chairman Richard Meserve insisted on: “risk informed” regulation“Stick in the mud” engineers who rejected PRA have either died or changed.But can it change back? Yes“ The Power to Regulate is the Power to Destroy”There is no proof that people are sensible

18. Before 1990sSafety Regulation by NRCEconomic Regulation of monopoly generatorsby Public Utility Commisions(who exceeded their authority)Now nuclear power not regulated economically (but have to compete)

19. LWRFUEL USE IMPROVEMENTS(1973) 20,000 MW days/ ton(1999) 40,000 MW days/ ton(New Designs) 100,000 MW days /tonThis SHOULD bring cost down lower fuel costs (per Kwh) fewer fuel outagesdelayed need for breeder reactorALSO fewer leaks mean less radioactivity in cooling water

20. 1998 operating cost1.4 cents/kWhe (S.Texas)1.5 cents/kWhe (Seabrook)1.7 cents/kWhe (Palo Verde)1.9 cents/kWhe (Av.USA) (McKoy) 2003 operating cost (av USA)1.6 cents/kWhe and coming down

21. US Nuclear Industry Is Achieving Record Levels of Performance (1980-2003) Source: NRC – Updated 02/04

22. Busbar Cost of Nuclear Energy 1971, 2002 and 2004 (Benedict 1971 from Virginia Power & Light)(2002,2004 my calculations)Description 2004? 2002 1971Unit investment cost of plant, dollars/kw. $1400 $1700$255Annual capital charge rate per year 0.13 0.13 0.13kilowatt-hours generated per year per kw. capacity 8,200 7,446 5,256Cost of electricity, cents/kwh.: Plant investment 2.22 2.97 0.63 Operation and Maintenance 1.3 1.50 0.04 Fuel 0.18 0.21 0.19 TOTAL 3.7 4.68 0.86

24. 1972 we foresaw an increase of fuel cost as low costs reserves used up and felt a breeder reactor was urgent2004 interpretation has changedBusbar cost is now 3- 5 c/kwh 0.5 c/kwh difference in cost is negligibleAlso: in 2002 better fuel utilizationprobably more uranium out thereBREEDER REACTOR IS NOT URGENT

28. Note that public in France and Italy perceive things similarlybut their governments act differently!Note also the high approval in Swedenwhose government voted to abolish all plants!!

29. Materials requirements for new Nuclear Plants are reduced(as for all technologies) (Still less than wind!)Overall CO2 emissions in the fuel chain in the next slide:Joe Spadaro IAEA report

32. In 1991 I was publicly pessimistic This change in my thinking since 1991 has been due to a number of factors: Improvement in public perception and reduction of public opposition Improvement in fuel behavior Risk Informed regulation Steady Safety Improvements Improved Plant Availability Improved designs.

33. Operating:440 NPP Capacity 362 Gwe:U/C 31 NPP Connected in 2003: Qinshan 3-2, a 665 MW(e) PHWR in ChinaUlchin 5, a 960 MW(e) PWR on S. KoreaReconnected in 2003: Pickering 4, a 515 MW(e) PHWR in Canada Bruce 4, a 790 MW(e) PHWR in CanadaConstruction started during 2003: Rajasthan 6, a 202 MW(e) PHWR in India Shutdown during 2003: Stade (KKS), PWR, 640 MW(e) (Germany) Calder Hall A,B,C,D, GCR, TOT 250 Mwe (UK) Fugen ATR, HWLWR, 148 MW(e)) Japan Connected 1st 1/2 2004 Qinshan 2-2, a 610 MW(e) PWR in China Hamaoka 5, a 1325 MW(e) ABWR in JapanReconnected 1st 1/2 2004 Bruce 3 NPP, Canada

34. Waste disposal remains a problem in public acceptanceSuccess of WIPP in Carlsbad NMYucca mountain:National Academy committee OKLicensing criterion risk (dose) basedCourt challenges rejectedNRC must do its job

35. I see three basic thrusts to combat global climate changeNuclear fissionRenewables (wind)Carbon sequestrationOnly for nuclear fission have all steps been shown to workat reasonable price

36. PR E A M B L Eto resolution in ERICE 2004Governments have fostered the promotion of energy efficiency and the deployment of renewable energy technologies as steps toward addressing global climate change concerns. These efforts have been supported by both subsidization of technology deployment and elimination of marketplace barriers that deter adoption of such technologies. The energy PMP has concluded that, while critically important, these steps alone are unlikely, by themselves, to achieve stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions at safe levels while also allowing world economic growth. The group is convinced that all non-carbon energy technologies are necessary to achieve these goals and must include nuclear energy and carbon sequestration (and possibly other alternatives) within the basket of solutions.

37. R E C O M M EN D A T I O Nof Erice 2004Therefore we recommend that governments and international agencies treat all non carbon energy technologies on a par with each other with access to similar subsidies and benefits of removal of financial market barriers so that improved versions of all these technologies can rapidly be utilised for achieving stabilisation of greenhouse gas emissions while meeting energy demandSimilar recommendations from MIT nuclear energy study and other studies. (extend subsidy for renewables to nuclear and sequestration)Then let the market decide