Allen Jones: The New Nuclear “Renaissance”

In my home state of Georgia, the first new nuclear reactors in decades are currently under construction. Plant Vogtle, a Southern Company nuclear facility near Waynesboro, GA, will gain two state-of-the-art Westinghouse AP1000 reactors that will produce 1,100 megawatts of electricity.[1] When the additional reactors come online in 2017[2], this clean energy will help provide power to North Georgia’s burgeoning population and move the state in the right direction – away from coal fired plants. Despite rekindled fears of nuclear accidents following the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disaster, the United States should pursue energy policies to encourage the cost-effective development of new nuclear facilities, like the development in Georgia.[3]

 

Since the Three Mile Island disaster of 1979, US nuclear construction has remained at a standstill as existing plants provide about 20% of the nation’s energy with reactors in 30 states.[4] Today, the US does not have a comprehensive energy plan, relying primarily on fossil fuels to supply 70% of energy demand. Wind, hydroelectric, and other renewables make up a small portion of the market share at 11% of the total US electric grid capacity.[5] According to economic analysis by Mark Cooper in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, it was economic changes – not fear of Fukushima – that caused the end of Bush’s attempted “nuclear renaissance:”

 

First, the projected cost of a new reactor had tripled in less than a decade…Second, the great recession had slowed demand growth dramatically…Third, energy alternatives like efficiency, renewables, and natural gas were increasingly more attractive and offered more power in small increments at stable or declining prices…The failure of the United States to adopt climate change legislation meant that the cost of fossil fuels was not hit as harshly as the nuclear industry had hoped, thereby hurting the chance of making nuclear energy more attractive.[6]

Indeed, fears of nuclear disaster are not entirely to blame for America’s reluctance to embrace nuclear energy. A majority of Americans favored the expansion of American nuclear energy before the Fukushima disaster (and still do today), with support peaking at 62% in 2010. Polling from Gallup also indicates that the 24-hour coverage of Fukushima following the accident has not affected Americans beliefs about nuclear power in the long-term.[7] To overcome the influence of anti-nuclear interest groups, however, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission should welcome international efforts to standardize and enhance nuclear safety procedures worldwide.[8] The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) possesses the transnational backing and expertise to establish effective worldwide standards. As we learned from the aftermath of Fukushima and Chernobyl, nuclear accidents can have global ramifications. Public awareness campaigns can also assuage fears over the reliability of new technology and construction techniques.

 

In the 1970s, my grandfather’s construction company worked with Westinghouse to develop a modular, standardized method of construction for nuclear power plants that would bring down costs significantly and ensure increased safety through common designs. After the accident at Three Mile Island, however, the plan was scrapped as Americans shied away from nuclear power. Now, we have the opportunity again to develop affordable, safe and sustainable nuclear power with modern technology. Exelon CEO Chris Crane believes that small modular reactors (SMRs) are the future of viable nuclear power. He believes that they compete with natural gas if Washington is willing to pass tougher regulations on carbon emissions.[9] Furthermore, the Union of Concerned Scientists believes that SMRs have inherent safety benefits due to their relatively small fuel cores.[10]

 

Though gas-fired plants may seem to be an attractive alternative in the short-term due to the falling price of natural gas, the environmental dangers of fracking are largely unknown. Conversely, the environmental risks of nuclear power are known and can be mitigated. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission performed extensive safety and environmental research on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository and certified it to be safe for the long-term storage of spent fuel.[11]

 

We are at a crossroads when it comes to the future of sustainable energy in America. In the minds of the public and the energy industry, the degree of success at Vogtle could very well act as a litmus test for future nuclear projects. As Europe shies away from nuclear power and the US takes another stab at it, the next twenty years could either kill nuclear power expansion or bring about a new nuclear renaissance.

 

Sam comment:

Nuclear is a very intriguing non-fossil fuel source of energy.  Allen does an excellent job of outlining why nuclear energy production has not increased in recent years.  While many people are concerned with the risk of a nuclear disaster as Allen mentions, I think some people are more concerned with storage.  There are two ways to store spent nuclear fuel: large cooling casks or geological repositories.  For the option using large cooling casks, spent nuclear fuel is cooled in pools at nuclear reactor sites for 5-10 years.  After this period, the fuel is then placed in metal barrels, after which said barrels are stored in thick, underground concrete structures.  This is the only method of nuclear fuel storage currently utilized in the United States.  The primary environmental concern with this storage option is radioactivity leaching into the groundwater surrounding the containment structure.  In recent years, however, technology has been developed to send thermal pulses out around the containment structure, which serves to redirect groundwater approaching the spent nuclear fuel.  With technology such as this, the environmental risks of nuclear storage are considerably lower.  There have been talks for over a decade about using a geological repository, likely at Yucca Mountain as Allen discusses, but currently this storage option is not used in the United States, making the methods of storing in cooling casks even more important.

 

Josh comment:

Allen, I particularly identify with your post as I consider myself a fairly big proponent of nuclear energy development and believe that more research and funding needs to be put into the industry as a whole. It is fascinating that reactor costs have gone up so high over the past decades. Typically, as is the current trend with renewable technology, as the technology develops the cost have trended downward. Obviously, the financial barriers for nuclear have represented the largest barriers due to the enormous capital costs associated with constructing a standard size nuclear reactor. The idea for small reactors is a unique and promising one: I feel that smaller reactors overcome many obstacles inherent in larger nuclear plants. To begin with, as you mentioned in your post, several groups would point out the inherent safety benefits associated with smaller plants due to having smaller cores and thus a decreased potential for a catastrophic meltdown and efforts to contain any sort of disaster would be less than that for a larger reactor. Furthermore, one issue of concern with nuclear reactors is residents’ concerns with proximity: essentially, the whole “I don’t want it in my backyard” problem. Smaller reactors, by using less land, could occupy a more diverse number of spaces and be located further away from residential use.

 

Henry comment:

Allen, this is a very insightful look at the potential for a nuclear energy future in the United States.  You do a very good job of explaining how historical events such as Three Mile Island, Fukushima, and Chernobyl have affected the proliferation, or lack thereof, of nuclear power.  I agree with you that nuclear power is a much better option than continuing to use fossil fuels.  While we know the dangers of nuclear power, the dangers of technologies such as fracking and offshore drilling are either largely unknown are potentially equally as hazardous.  We know how to mitigate the problems associated with nuclear energy, and with improved technology and research these mitigation policies will only continue to progress.  We are also continually coming up with better reactor technologies such as salt reactors that can potentially supply massive amounts of energy at very low costs.  One potential pitfall of a nuclear renaissance will be the ability to store nuclear waste.  Yucca mountain in Nevada is obviously one great option, but for many areas the “not in my backyard” sentiments will be much stronger and harder to confront.

 

[1] Kristi E. Swartz, “Groups sue to stop Vogtle expansion project,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, February 16, 2012, http://www.ajc.com/news/business/groups-sue-to-stop-vogtle-expansion-project/nQRN3/

[2] Matthew L. Wald, “Atomic Power’s Green Light or Red Flag,’ New York Times, June 11, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/business/energy-environment/nuclear-powers-future-may-hinge-on-georgia-project.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[3] Jonathan Cohen, “Fukushima Illustrates Need for Nuclear Policy,” Jurist, April 10, 2011, http://jurist.org/forum/2011/04/fukushima-illustrates-need-for-policy.php

[4] Nuclear Energy Institute, “US Nuclear Power Plants,” http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/US-Nuclear-Power-Plants

[5] Jonathan Cohen, “Fukushima Illustrates Need for Nuclear Policy.”

[6] Mark Cooper, “The implications of Fukushima: The US perspective,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 67, no. 4 (2011): 8-13. http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/4/8.full.pdf+html.

[7] Frank Newport, “Americans Still Favor Nuclear Power a Year After Fukushima,” Gallup, March 26, 2012, http://www.gallup.com/poll/153452/americans-favor-nuclear-power-year-fukushima.aspx

[8] Jonathan Cohen, “Fukushima Illustrates Need for Nuclear Policy.”

[9] Jeff McMahon, “Exelon Pins Hopes on Small Modular Reactors,” Forbes, May 13, 2014, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2014/05/13/exelon-pins-nuclear-hopes-on-small-modular-reactors/

[10] Edwin Lyman, “Small Isn’t Always Beautiful: Safety, Security, and Cost Concerns about Small Modular Reactors,” Union of Concerned Scientists, September 2013, http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/nuclear_power/small-isnt-always-beautiful.pdf

[11] United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “NRC Publishes Final Two Volumes of Yucca Mountain Safety Evaluation,” Report 15, no. 5 (January 29, 2015): http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2015/15-005.pdf