10 August 2010

U.S. Nuclear Power Expansion Gains Traction

The U.S. power industry wants to open a new chapter in its history at this site of two planned nuclear reactors in Georgia.

This is the first article in a series on U.S. nuclear power expansion plans.

By Andrzej Zwaniecki
Staff Writer

Washington — The next chapter in the history of the U.S. nuclear power industry will open around two giant pits about 40 kilometers south of Atlanta. More than 3 million cubic meters of dirt have been removed from the pits in preparation for the construction of Vogtle 3 and Vogtle 4, the first nuclear reactors to be ordered in the United States in 30 years.

The reactors — sitting next to an existing nuclear plant — are scheduled to begin producing electricity in 2016 and 2017 for Southern Company, a utility that is part of NuStart Energy, a consortium established to build new nuclear plants.  

Up to eight reactors can be built in the United States by 2020, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group, and a 2009 National Academy of Sciences report. “If everything goes well, we expect the pace of building [nuclear plants] to pick up beyond 2020,” said Steve Kerekes, an institute spokesman. Three to five new reactors could be constructed annually in 2020 to 2035, according to the report.

Major issues remain. The risk of proliferation and nuclear terrorism has increased in the past decade as more countries express interest in nuclear power. The plan for permanent nuclear-waste storage at Yucca Mountain in Nevada was abandoned by the Obama administration, dealing a blow to one important part of the industry’s long-term strategy.

In the medium term, nuclear companies do not see the waste-storage issue as a great obstacle to their expansion plans, as they say they can continue to store waste safely at nuclear plant sites.

But this isn’t the first time a significant number of nuclear power plants were in the works.

NOW AND THEN

In the 1960s and early 1970s, the U.S. power-generation industry had big plans for nuclear. The industry ordered more than 250 plants, and the U.S. Department of Energy projected that more than 1,000 commercial reactors would be operating by 2000. But those ambitious goals had to be scaled back as the combination of a cumbersome licensing process, bad planning and the public opposition to nuclear energy forced energy companies to abandon some projects.

A 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant doomed ambitious U.S. plans for nuclear power expansion in the 20th century.

Out of 132 plants that were eventually built, some closed before the end of their expected lifetime as a result of successful campaigns by anti-nuclear groups. The final nail in the coffin of would-be nuclear exuberance was a 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania, although no one was killed, injured or exposed to harmful radiation.

In the early 2000s, with U.S. electricity demand projected to increase 30 percent through 2035 (PDF, 89KB), George W. Bush’s administration decided to take another look at nuclear power.

In addition to the projections of growing demand, environmental concerns were behind the administration’s renewed interest. The United States generates electricity mostly from coal and natural gas, which when burnt produce, in varying degrees, air pollutants and carbon dioxide emissions. The emissions contribute to global warming. Nuclear power is clean on both accounts: It doesn’t create pollutants or contribute to global warming.

Therefore, the Bush administration decided to encourage new nuclear plants.

When the power-generation industry tries to develop the right mix of technologies for the future, it considers new nuclear plants “a viable part of the portfolio,” according to Christopher Hansen of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates. He said the industry shows a renewed interest in nuclear power not only because nuclear plants can help it address the climate-change issues, but also because it believes nuclear is an economically viable option.

“We happen to believe that nuclear is the cheapest and most reliable means to generate baseload,” or large-scale, continuous electricity production, said George Vanderheyden, president of the UniStar Nuclear Energy, which plans to build four nuclear plants in the United States. UniStar is a joint venture between a U.S. and a French energy company.

A few new plants will not make much difference. Just to maintain nuclear’s current share of U.S. electricity output — close to 20 percent — the power industry must build new nuclear plants and upgrade existing ones because many old reactors will reach the end of their lifetimes around 2030. To meet carbon-reduction targets set in the proposed climate-change legislation currently in Congress, more than 70 reactors would have to be built by 2030 and more than 150 by 2050. These are shocking numbers, experts say, considering the high costs and long lead times of new nuclear construction.  

NUCLEAR’S POLITICAL CLOUT

Nuclear energy expansion has won unequivocal support from President Obama and rare bipartisan backing from legislators. In addition, the majority of Americans, including some prominent environmental activists, have come around to accept that the United States cannot meet its future electricity demand and address air-quality and climate-change issues unless nuclear power plays a bigger role in the energy mix.

Public sentiment may be influenced by the fact that the industry’s safety record has improved dramatically. No serious accident comparable to the Three Mile Island mishap has happened in the past 30 years and the U.S. nuclear industry has the best safety record within the power-generation sector and one of the best worldwide. However, unless long-term solutions to nonproliferation and waste-storage challenges are found, public support for the nuclear expansion may decline, according to a 2007 IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates report.

Despite gaining traction in its effort to expand, the nuclear power industry is unlikely to move smoothly into a new era of prominence. In a briefing for Wall Street earlier this year, Martin Fertel, the head of the Nuclear Energy Institute, said the development of new nuclear power capacity will depend on many factors, including future electricity prices, construction costs, the cost of carbon emissions, natural gas prices, financing strategies, and federal and state regulations.

(This is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://www.america.gov)