Future Nuclear Energy - Some Reasons for Optimism.

Richard WilsonPresented at:

University of New MexicoMarch 24th 2005

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 lives

Benjamin Franklin circa 1780(quotation from memory)

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

• 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?

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.

Energy Intensity 1000 BTU / $ GDP (1997 est.)

1977 2001 2025 pred

Industrialized Countries (ICs) 13 8 5Developing Countries (DCs) 23 22 14East Europe / FSU 45 50 30

International Energy Office (IEO) 2004 Assumes considerable efficiency improvements and

introduction of renewables.

Anticipated energy use in the next 20 years from the Energy Information Administration (WIA)

International Energy Outlook 2004 (IEO 2004).

1939Nuclear fission discovered

(Hahn and Strassman)

Neutron chain reactionpossibility shown!

(Joliot, Halban and Kowarski)

there was Euphoria!The "nuclear age" had come!

1950s successful prototypesIndian Point 1 (PWR Combustion Engineering)

Yankee Rowe (Westinghouse)Dresden (GE)

Before 1970 50 new plants ordered!Public Hearings were not contested

Maine Yankee - construction permit 1968 6 hoursMaine Yankee operating license 1973 2 days

BUT About 1972 OPPOSITION BEGANSeabrook Construction permit 12 years.

Three Mile Island (1979) and Chernobyl (1986) hardened an already worsening situation

Busbar Cost of Nuclear Energy 1971

(Benedict 1971 from Virginia Power & Light)

Description 1971

Unit investment cost of plant, dollars/kw. $255Annual capital charge rate per year 0.13

Kilowatt-hours generated per year per kw. capacity 5,256

Cost of electricity, cents/kwh.:Plant investment 0.63

Operation and Maintenance 0.04Fuel 0.19

TOTAL 0.86

1972 CONSTRUCTION COSTMaine Yankee $180 million

$200 per MWeInflation Corrected to 2004 $600 per MWe

1990 - $2000 per Mwe2004 - $1000-$1400 per Mwe

1972 OPERATING COSTConnecticut Yankee: <0.4 cents/kWhe

Yankee Rowe: <0.9 cents/kWheBenedict estimate: 0.3 cents/kWh

Inflation corrected to 2004: 1 cent/kWhe1992 greater than 2.5 cents/kwh

2003 : 1.6 cents/kwh

By 1991 nuclear power was too expensive!

Some plants cost $4000 per kwe

Operation costs were 3 cents per kwh

Several possiblereasons 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.

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?

Construction Costs generally rose faster than inflation

Licensing delays (cause by public opposition)

Prescriptive license requirements

Increased interest during construction

Over-regulation (Towers and Perrin 1995)

Prescriptive not Performance

Dresden-II staff 250 (1975) -> 1,300+ (1997)

unnecessary safety-grade equipment

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 plants

2004 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

Before 1990s Safety Regulation by NRC

Economic Regulation of monopoly generators

by Public Utility Commisions(who exceeded their authority)

Now nuclear power not regulated

economically (but have to compete)

LWRFUEL USE IMPROVEMENTS

(1973) 20,000 MW days/ ton(1999) 40,000 MW days/ ton

(New Designs) 100,000 MW days /ton

This SHOULD bring cost down lower fuel costs (per Kwh)

fewer fuel outagesdelayed need for breeder reactor

ALSO fewer leaks mean less radioactivity in cooling water

1998 operating cost 1.4 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

US Nuclear Industry Is Achieving Record Levels of Performance

(1980-2003)

89.6

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Cap

acit

y F

acto

r (%

)

Source: NRC – Updated 02/04

Busbar Cost of Nuclear Energy 1971, 2002 and 2004

(Benedict 1971 from Virginia Power & Light)(2002,2004 my calculations)

Description 2004? 2002 1971

Unit investment cost of plant, dollars/kw. $1400 $1700 $255Annual capital charge rate per year 0.13 0.13 0.13

kilowatt-hours generated per year per kw. capacity 8,200 7,446 5,256

Cost of electricity, cents/kwh.:Plant investment 2.22 2.97 0.63Operation and Maintenance 1.3 1.50 0.04Fuel 0.18 0.21 0.19

TOTAL 3.7 4.68 0.86

1972 we foresaw an increase of fuel cost as low costs reserves used up and

felt a breeder reactor was urgent

2004 interpretation has changedBusbar cost is now 3- 5 c/kwh 0.5 c/kwh difference in cost is negligible

Also: in 2002 better fuel utilizationprobably more uranium out there

BREEDER REACTOR IS NOT URGENT

29

65

54 52 54 55

4649

61 62

515149

50

4748

51 52

58

6563 64

60

39383536

4139444445

50

434246

49

34

36

2931 31

3630

20

40

60

80

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

May-03

Oct-03

Apr-04

Favor Oppose

Percent Strongly or Somewhat Agree thatwe should build more Nuclear Power Plants

U.S. Department of Energy and electric companies should work together

to develop state-of-the-art nuclear power plants that can be built to meet new electricity demand.”

5

11

10

37

21

74

37

0 20 40 60 80

Not sure

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

DISAGREE

AGREE

Note that public in France and Italy perceive things similarly

but their governments act differently!

Note also the high approval in Sweden

whose government voted to abolish all plants!!

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

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.

Operating:440 NPP Capacity 362 Gwe:U/C 31 NPP Connected in 2003: Qinshan 3-2, a 665 MW(e) PHWR in China Ulchin 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 Canada Construction 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

Waste disposal remains a problem in public acceptance

Success of WIPP in Carlsbad NMYucca mountain:

National Academy committee OKLicensing criterion risk (dose) based

Court challenges rejectedNRC must do its job

I see three basic thrusts to combat global climate change

Nuclear fissionRenewables (wind)

Carbon sequestration

Only for nuclear fission have all steps been shown to work

at reasonable price

PR E A M B L Eto resolution in ERICE 2004

Governments 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.

R E C O M M EN D A T I O Nof Erice 2004

Therefore 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 demand

Similar recommendations from MIT nuclear energy study and other studies.

(extend subsidy for renewables to nuclear and

sequestration) Then let the market decide