Future of Nuclear Power in the United States

“Our work has changed the conditions in which men live, but the use made of these changes is the problem of governments, not of scientists.”


J. Robert Oppenheimer, nuclear physicist, 1904-1967

Nuclear energy, the peaceful descendant of the atomic bomb, has been a divisive issue among scientists, governments, and communities for several decades. This is especially true in the United States, home of nearly a quarter of the world’s nuclear power facilities. Oppenheimer, one of many midwives present at the birth of the atomic age, saw the hand-off of nuclear responsibility from scientists to the government. Would he have been pleased or dismayed to see that half a century later, new scientists would return to the now-adolescent industry on the brink between sustainable energy and political quagmire? This paper will summarize the past, explain the present, and assess the future potential of nuclear power in the United States.
How it works
Nuclear power is created from the splitting of atoms--usually a uranium isotope--resulting in the discharge of neutrons and heat. The heat is converted to steam, which then powers a turbine, converting the heat energy into electricity. The structure of a nuclear reactor can be simplified into the following elements: fuel to create the reaction (ceramic uranium pellets encased in zirconium alloy rods), coolant to keep the reaction from overheating (often just water), a moderator to slow or stabilize the release of neutrons and the speed of the reaction (again, plain old water), highly pressurized pipes to shuttle all the water and coolant, a steam generator (basically a heat exchanger) and a protective containment structure, usually three to four feet of concrete (Nuclear Energy Institute, 2016). A large nuclear power plant (think Homer Simpson’s fictional facility in Springfield) would consist of several reactors working side-by-side, and can generate up to 1,400 megawatts (MW) of power.


The majority of thermal nuclear reactors in the United States are light water reactors (LWRs), meaning they operate using normal water under high pressure as both a coolant and a moderator. Nearly 100 light water reactors provide 20% of US electricity and represent nearly ⅔ of ‘green’ or carbonless power. (Freed, Brinton, Burns, & Robson, 2015). The remainder of US reactors are boiling water reactors (BWRs) which use a similar structure but operate at much higher temperatures required for industrial uses.


A smaller proportion of reactors use heavy water, or water where the hydrogen is replaced with deuterium, a hydrogen isotope. Still others use liquid graphite or high pressure gas to moderate the reaction. These ‘advanced’ reactors will be discussed in the section describing opportunities for the nuclear industry.


History
In 1946, the Atomic Energy Act legislated that the remnants of the Manhattan Project were to be transferred from the Army to the the newly-formed, highly secretive Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (JCAE).  The AEC would formulate nuclear policy and oversee government nuclear facilities and materials. The JCAE would provide strict oversight. Research continued to focus on military applications, accurately assessing that the post-World War II US monopoly on nuclear weapons would not last forever. This atomic honeymoon came to an abrupt end in 1949 with a Soviet nuclear test explosion. In an effort to get in front of the wave of nuclear interest predicted to sweep western Europe, the US established the “Atoms for Peace” program (Duffy, 2004). Part proactive, anti-Russian foreign policy, part charm offensive for peaceful uses of nuclear power, and part economic opportunity, the program created relationships where European countries would license nuclear technology for domestic energy purposes from the AEC. This essentially put oversight of the global nuclear industry in the hands of the United States.


Domestically, the birth of the commercial nuclear power industry was in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Ceding secrecy for economic growth, the AEC opened its storehouse of nuclear knowledge. But private energy firms were wary; nuclear power had a high upfront cost, and potential for litigation in case of industrial accident was enormous. The 1954 legislation, and the 1957 Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, transferring liability for nuclear accidents to insurance companies and the US government, laid the foundation for the privatization of the US nuclear industry. Economic incentives sweetened the deal for potential investors. By the early 1960s the government had sunk more than 1.2 billion dollars into developing a nuclear power industry (Duffy, 2004).
Evolution & growth
The first nuclear power plant for domestic power consumption went online in December, 1957 In Shippingport, Pennsylvania. It was followed by a flurry of construction over the next two decades. The explosive growth would continue until March 1979, when the partial meltdown of a reactor at Three Mile Island shook the nation’s confidence in the nuclear industry. Although no one was injured and human health was never in immediate danger, the danger of nuclear power lingered in the American psyche for several years.
Reactors are grouped into generations based on their age and capacity. Generation I reactors, brought online in the 1950s and 1960s, have all been retired. Their more efficient replacements, the Generation II commercial reactor, were installed beginning in the late 1960s and are still the majority in use around the world. Generation III reactors are basically second generation reactors with improved designs for greater efficiency and safety, and have a 50% longer projected useful life of sixty years. (Goldberg & Rosner, 2011). Generation IV and beyond includes advanced reactors, which will be discussed in the opportunities section below.
There are 438 nuclear reactors functioning around the world, capable of producing approximately 376,000 MW of power. The United States generates the most power, followed by France, Russia, South Korea and China, as shown in the chart below. In 2014, nuclear power accounted for 11 % of the world’s energy production (World Nuclear Association, 2016b).
Top 10 Nuclear Energy Countries
Billion Kilowatt-Hours Generated in 2014
United States
798.6
Canada
98.6
France
418.0
Germany
91.8
Russian Federation
169.1
Ukraine
83.1
South Korea
149.2
Sweden
62.3
China
123.8
United Kingdom
57.9
(Nuclear Energy Institute, 2016b)
Oversight
In 1974, oversight of the nation’s nuclear power resources transferred from the AEC to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC is responsible for licensing new and existing nuclear facilities. Oversight of programs to promote nuclear power and encourage development of nuclear projects moved to the Department of Energy, removing a long-standing conflict of interest inherent in the original AEC structure.


As part of the licensing agreement with the NRC, operators have to apply for a permit from the NRC to decommission a reactor. Three options exist for decommissioning: DECON, the immediate dismantling and disposal of facility, materials and waste; SAFSTOR, a process by which nuclear material is allowed to decay onsite, under operator and NRC oversight; and the aptly named ENTOMB, where radioactive elements are encased in a protective shell, usually concrete, until natural decay reduces radioactivity enough for dismantling (US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2015). Regardless of the option selected, decommissioning must be completed within 60 years. Plant operators must also provide evidence of financial capability to maintain the decommissioning process every two years. Operator costs can range from $300-400 million.


Radioactive waste is stored in temporary storage pools, often on the site of nuclear power reactors, and after a year of ‘cooling’  in the pools, can be relegated to dry casks, leak-proof stainless steel tubes filled with inert gases.  Casks are stored either in a licensed, designated geological site deep in the earth or at a consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) at various locations across the country. There is currently only one licensed geological site, located in New Mexico, and it’s not accepting waste for storage at the moment. For more information, see the section “Human Error” below. Estimates put the cost of moving all existing waste from ‘temporary’ pools to dry cask storage at about $7 billion. Despite the fact that the the cooling pool was a critical source of radiation leakage during the Fukushima accident, the NRC has done little to encourage power companies to pursue safer storage for spent nuclear materials. (Goodell, 2012).
There are currently 100 NRC-licensed reactors operating in the United States. Since the inception of commercial nuclear power, eleven reactors have been decommissioned and another 18 are in the process of being decommissioned, with reactors in SAFSTOR and ENTOMB status. Many reactors are destined for early retirement, due to the deregulation of the energy market in the US, and the surplus of cheap coal and natural gas.  Adding to the difficulty of managing the aging nuclear power fleet is the fact that many are owned by international corporations with little to no accountability to the NRC or the communities surrounding and relying on the reactors.
Risks
The proliferation of nuclear materials, and the potential for terrorism and geopolitical issues as a result, come quickly to mind as a potential risk for nuclear power. Early Generation I and II reactors use enriched uranium, requiring the use of a centrifuge, which can be used for the creation of materials for nuclear weapons. This can and has created tensions among established nuclear power nations and other countries seeking to develop a domestic nuclear power program. A byproduct of uranium fuel is plutonium, which anyone who’s ever seen the film Back to the Future knows is a potential target for terrorist organizations seeking to create crude “dirty” bombs. Next generation “fast-breeder reactors” may provide a solution. These advanced reactors can use both spent uranium and excess plutonium much more efficiently, produce less waste and don’t require enriched uranium. This technology will be addressed later in this paper.


There is a bitter irony in the fact that one of the most serious threats to a nuclear reactor is a loss of power. Many Generation I, II and III reactors have safety and shutdown systems powered by electricity. In the event of an earthquake, hurricane, or other natural disaster, plants have backup generators to allow for the safe shutdown of the reactor. However, concerns linger about human access to nuclear facilities during times of natural disasters, the lack of redundancy in many emergency backup systems, and the potential for destruction and contamination. This became especially apparent after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami struck the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant in Japan. As a result, President Obama ordered the NRC to conduct a risk assessment of all nuclear reactors in earthquake zones. Five were identified: two in California, and one each in Texas, Louisiana and North Carolina. All have been evaluated by the NRC for potential earthquake and tsunami projections and emergency plans put in place. (Sternberg, 2011).
An additional, manmade risk that looms over all non-carbon power sources is the frailty of the haphazardly-maintained electrical grid in the US. The archaic system was designed to run on coal, and later natural gas, both of which pour consistent amounts of energy into the system, and can be adjusted to produce more or less energy as needed. While solar and wind are inconsistent and thus unreliable for sustained, long-term energy production, nuclear power has the opposite problem: in it’s current state, the nuclear plants can’t cycle down, at least not quickly enough to respond to abrupt changes in the grid, which could result in shorts which could damage the grid and cause local or regional blackouts.  
Human Error
Three Mile Island and many other nuclear accidents in US history, were the result of human error rather than technical malfunction. Frequently, the cause was something being dropped into or on the reactor. It is worth noting that the Chernobyl accident in Pripyat, Ukraine, was also a result of human error, although it was primarily in the form of poorly designed safety protocols and structures.


The Department of Energy’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), near Carlsbad, New Mexico, is the only underground geological repository in the US. The facility was shut down in February 2014 after workers mistakenly used the wrong brand of cat litter to mix with radioactive waste in a storage drum. The mix created a runaway chemical reaction resulting in a low-level radioactive spill that has shuttered the facility for more than two years (US Department of Energy, 2016).


On the topic of human role in nuclear power, a majority of the current nuclear workforce is composed of former Navy service members with experience working on the nuclear fleet. (Schneider, 2016). As the fleet has shrunk in size over the past few decades, so has the pool of potential workers with the experience and qualifications required to work in the nuclear energy field. There is a light at the end of the workforce tunnel-more students are pursuing nuclear engineering careers than ever before, motivated by a commitment to addressing challenges posed by climate change. Within the last five years, “a flood of young engineers has entered the field. More than 1,164 nuclear engineering degrees were awarded in 2013—a 160 percent increase over the number granted a decade ago.” (Freed 2014).
Benefits
Despite the immense startup costs, risks, and challenges, nuclear power outstrips both coal and natural gas when compared at cost per kilowatt hour (kWh), costing 1.82 cents, compared to coal (2.13 cents) and natural gas (3.69 cents). Additionally, nuclear power creates no carbon dioxide, a stark comparison to coal or oil-fueled plants which emit 996 and 809 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year (Ervin, 2009).


Challenges
The current fleet of thermal nuclear power plants and the workforce that has maintained them over the past 50 years are approaching the end of their working lives. There are no easy answers; municipalities and private energy companies will have to choose one or more unappealing, expensive and time consuming options. Old plants can be retired, but the process and costs of temporarily storing and later disposing of fuel waste is daunting. Repair and replacement of select parts, not including fuel, will need to be repeated every 15-20 years. The institutional knowledge regarding care and maintenance for older plants will have to be transferred consistently. Newer, safer plants require a formidable level of bureaucracy and a massive upfront investment.  Additionally, construction can take up to a decade from approval to getting a reactor online, although Hitachi and other international companies have recently been able to reduce the time to market to four years through modular construction (Goldberg & Rosner, 2011).
Current US policies and resources for developing, testing and research are cumbersome and expensive. Without policies in place that allow for public-private partnerships, streamlined approval systems and less upfront costs, many stakeholders interested in pursuing nuclear as a viable carbon-free energy source will begin to look at locations outside of the United States (Freed, Brinton, Burns, & Robson, 2015).
Additionally, some have cited inaction by NRC as a potential threat to both safety and the reliability of the nuclear power industry. President Obama has been critical of the agency, calling it “moribund” and a “captive” of the industry it was meant to regulate. Extensive amounts of federal lobbying have resulted in potentially dangerous conditions, including extending permits for damaged or deteriorating plants, and long-term postponement of the transfer of radioactive waste from cooling pools to dry cask storage (Goodell, 2012).


Following the tsunami-related damage to the Fukushima Dai-ichi power plant in 2011, Germany passed legislation to take all nuclear reactors offline by 2022. ( (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2012). Seen by some as a knee-jerk reaction, the legislation was the culmination of decades of anti-nuclear sentiment in the country. Germany also generates far less nuclear power than other countries-¼ the total kwh of France and approximately ⅛ the kwh generated in the United States. (Nuclear Energy Institute, 2016b).
Opportunities
The potential for growth of the nuclear power industry is high. US demand for energy is expected to grow by 24% by 2040.  (US Department of Energy, 2016a). Nuclear will be an increasingly important element of the energy mix for the US over the next fifty years. The Energy Act passed in 2005 provides incentives, including tax credits, federal loan guarantees, and extension of the Price Anderson act, for private companies interested in developing nuclear power facilities. As a result there are currently three new reactors under construction in Georgia, Maryland, and South Carolina.


The next generation of nuclear reactors, Generation IV and beyond, will include smaller more efficient versions of existing Generation III LWRs as well as alternative ‘fast-breeder’ reactors. Fast-breeder reactors create more fuel as the fission reactions progress, resulting in less waste and increased efficiency. Current designs for fast-breeder reactors include a variety of cooling and moderating mediums including molten salt, high pressure gas, and liquid lead. It is estimated the first Gen IV reactors will go online in the next 20-30 years in the United States (Goldberg & Rosner, 2011), although some incentives linger from 2005 for a more rapid deployment.  
Small modular reactors (SMRs) are an area of particular interest as they are 20% of the cost of full scale reactors, can be constructed in two years or less, and can be designed as LWRs or fast breeders. Additionally, SMRs can be built offsite and delivered by rail or truck to their destination. New designs feature built in passive safety mechanisms that would allow operators to “walk away” from plants in an emergency situation without risk of core meltdown.
Microreactors are being considered for small, remote communities and military installations. Among the designs are “plug and go” models that require less frequent refueling, and are designed to go two decades, rather than two years, between fuel rod replacement. Many can also run on plutonium or partially depleted uranium, reducing the risk of theft or responsibility for oversight.
Department of Energy programs like the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN) have recently been rolled out to create a more conducive environment for scientists and investors. GAIN serves as a single-point resource to connect companies, researchers, universities, financial resources and bureaucratic expertise to those interested in furthering US development of nuclear power capacity. (Energy Systems Strategic Assessment Institute, 2016).
While the future of nuclear power in the United States is not as bright and optimistic as the 1950s, nor is it as bleak and perilous as it seemed in the early 1980s. However, it appears the United States is in a precarious state of conflict between regulating and encouraging such a high-risk, high reward energy source. Much like nuclear fission itself, the evolution of nuclear power will continue to be a powerful resource if given the attention and respect required.
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2012, November 1). Bulletin: German  nuclear exit delivers economic, environmental benefits. Retrieved December 14, 2016, from Eurekalert, https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-11/sp-bgn110112.php
Bakke, G. (2015). The grid: The fraying wires between Americans and our energy future. New York, NY, United States: Bloomsbury Press.
Duffy, R. J. (2004). History of Nuclear Power. In C. Cleveland (Ed.), Encyclopedia of energy. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.rit.edu/login?url=http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/estenergy/nuclear_power_history_of/0
Energy Systems Strategic Assessment Institute. (2016, November). Economics and Market Challenges Facing the US Nuclear Commercial Fleet. Retrieved from https://gain.inl.gov/Shared%20Documents/Economics-Nuclear-Fleet.pdf


Freed, J. (2014, December 12). Back to the future. Retrieved December 13, 2016, from Essay, http://csweb.brookings.edu/content/research/essays/2014/backtothefuture.html
Freed, J., Brinton, S., Burns, E., & Robson, A. (2015, December 1). Advanced nuclear 101. Retrieved December 13, 2016, from Third Way, http://www.thirdway.org/report/advanced-nuclear-101
Goldberg, S. M., & Rosner, R. (2011). Nuclear reactors: Generation to generation. Retrieved from http://www.amacad.org/pdfs/nuclearreactors.pdf
Goodell, J. (2012). The Fire Next Time. In M. Kaku & J. Cohen (Eds.), The best American science writing, 2012 (pp. 125–133). New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
J. Robert Oppenheimer, atom bomb pioneer, dies (1967, February 19). New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0422.html
Mycio, M. (2005). Wormwood forest: A natural history of Chernobyl. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
Nuclear Energy Institute. (2016a). Strategic plan for advanced non-light water reactor development and commercialization. Retrieved from http://www.nei.org/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/Policy/Papers/AR-Strategic-Plan.pdf?ext=.pdf
Nuclear Energy Institute. (2016b). Fact sheets – nuclear energy in America – NIS 2016. Retrieved December 14, 2016, from Nuclear Industry Summit 2016, http://nis2016.org/press/fact-sheets/fact-sheets-nuclear-energy-in-america/
Ouellette, J., & Zivkovic, B. (Eds.). (2012). The best science writing online 2012. New York: Scientific American/Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Schneider, J. (2016, December 12). Future of Nuclear Power in the United States. Interview by K. Rex [In-person].
Sternberg, S. (2011, April 11). Five U.S. Nuclear reactors in earthquake zones - USATODAY.com. USA Today. Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-04-11-1Anukes11_ST_N.htm
Taylor, J. J. (1989). Improved and safer nuclear power. Science, 244(4902), 318–325. doi:10.1126/science.244.4902.318
US Department of Energy Technical Assessment Team. (2015). Investigation of incident at waste isolation pilot plant by technical assessment team. Retrieved from http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/03/f20/TAT_Fact_sheet%2032615%20FINAL.pdf


US Department of Energy. (2016a). Vision and strategy for the development and deployment of advanced reactors. Retrieved from http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/06/f32/Vision%20and%20Strategy%20for%20the%20Development%20and%20Deployment%20of%20Advanced%20Reactors.pdf


US Department of Energy. (2016b, February ). Waste isolation pilot plant recovery. Retrieved December 14, 2016, from Waste isolation pilot plant, http://www.wipp.energy.gov/wipprecovery/about.html


US Nuclear Regulatory Commision. (2013, February ). NRC: Backgrounder on the Three mile island accident. Retrieved December 14, 2016, from US Nuclear Regulatory Commision, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html


US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (2015, May ). NRC: Backgrounder on Decommissioning nuclear power plants. Retrieved December 14, 2016, from US NRC, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html


World Nuclear Association. (2016a). Nuclear reactor technology - world nuclear association. Retrieved December 11, 2016, from World Nuclear Association, http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/nuclear-power-reactors.aspx


World Nuclear Association. (2016b). Plans for new nuclear reactors worldwide - world nuclear association. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from Plans For New Reactors Worldwide, http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx

Labels: , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)