Sustainable Nuclear Energy - Some Reasons for Optimism.

Richard WilsonPresented at:

Energy Permanent Monitoring Panel, Erice August 19th 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

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

Busbar Cost of Nuclear Energy 1971, 2002 and 2004 (Benedict 1971 from Virginia Power & Light)

Description 2004? 2002 1971Unit investment cost of plant, dollars/kw. $1,400 $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 1.2 1.50 0.38.19

TOTAL 3.6 4.68 0.86

Why has the construction cost gone up?

-demands by the public? Will public perception change?

- Heat exchanger failures?(Auto radiators a few% of cost per KW)

- increased real safety?(yet analysis is cheap)

-increased regulation?

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 inflationLicensing delays

(cause by public opposition)increase interest during

constructionPrescriptive license requirements

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

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 5 c/kwh

0.5 c/kwh difference in cost is negligibleAlso: 2002 better fuel utilization

probably more uranium out thereBREEDER REACTOR IS NOT URGENT

10

28

2222

2628

2020 20 19

2321 22 21

2625

1716

21222221

32

1412

151414

1619

2726

22 22

26 2523 22

1820

17 16

18

19

0

20

40

19

83

19

84

19

85

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

Ma

y-0

5Strongly Favor Strongly Oppose

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

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

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

Ap

r-04

Favor Oppose

Trend--Percent Strongly or Somewhat Agree More Nuclear Power Plants

We Should Definitely Build

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

Waste disposal remains a problem in public acceptance

Sucess of WIPP in Carlsbad NMYucca mountain:

National Academy commitee 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 sequestrationOnly for nuclear fission have all

steps been shown to work

I propose (as have others) that all incentives to reduce CO2 be the

same for all three.Then let the market decide

(extend subsidy for renewables tonuclear and sequestration)

I hope the 2004 Erice meeting will endorse this

Do you thaink the majority of people in your community support or oppose nuclear energy?

32

51

17

30

39

31

0 25 50 75

Don't know

Oppose

Favor

May-03 May-05

“Based on what you hear and read, do you think that public opinion about using nuclear energy has become more favorable in recent years, less favorable in recent years, or stayed about the same?” (Split sample)

5

51

19

25

0 25 50 75

Don't know

Stayed about thesame

Less favorable

More favorable

“Please tell me if you personally strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statements.

How about [READ LIST. ROTATE]…”

74

77

58

85

0 20 40 60 80 100

Definitely build more nuclear power plants

Keep the option to build more nuclear power plants

Electric utilities should prepare now so new plantscould be built if needed

Renew the license of nuclear power plants thatcontinue to meet federal safety standards

“If a new power plant were needed to supply electricity, would it be acceptable to you or not acceptable to you to add a nuclear power plant

next to the nearest nuclear power plant that is already operating?”

4

27

69

0 20 40 60 80

Don't know

Not acceptable

Acceptable

Trend by Region: Percent Saying Acceptable to Add a New Nuclear Power Plant Next to Nearest Operating

Nuclear Power Plant

56

55

67

46

42

50

56

63 64

6971

61

71

65

66

55

6260

64

63

6669

68

64

47

5960

5558

70

60

43

40

7068

52

57

68

56

55

6768 65

63

30

40

50

60

70

80

Mar-01 Jul-01 Oct-01 Feb-02 Jun-02 Oct-02 May-03 Oct-03 Apr-04 Oct-04 May-05

West Midwest Northeast South

Percent Saying Nuclear Energy Will Play Important Role/Not Important Role - Annual Averages

75 7379 80 77

838075757781

79

1914

19 2015 13161719181821

0

25

50

75

100

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1993 Nov-95

Nov-00

Oct-04

May-05

Important role Not important role