PART 3

small STEPS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION

The government is slowly realizing the important role that nuclear power MUST play in our future, and is taking steps (albeit tentative baby steps) to undo the damage it has done. The article above mentions the 2005 Energy Policy Act: "The Energy Bill recently passed by the US Congress assumes this risk and provides production credits of 1.8 cents per KW-Hr for the first 3 years of operation. This subsidy is equivalent to what is paid to Wind Power companies and is designed to encourage new nuclear reactor construction in the USA. . Details of the 2005 EPAct can be found here.

While these incentives do not go nearly far enough to spur the rapid increase in nuclear power we need, it is instructive to see the effect that they have had:

Nuclear power surge coming
In the next 15 months, US regulators expect applications for up to 28 new plants.

With this week's application to build a new nuclear plant – the first such filing in nearly 30 years – the industry says the US is on the verge of a nuclear power renaissance.

Christian Science Monitor, 9/28 2007

As of 3-08 there had been 23 applications for a total of 34 new nuclear reactor units since 2007. How many of these will actually be built is another question, but it demonstrates a willingness in the industry to give nuclear power serious consideration for the first time in decades. If a government commitment of a few billion dollars can spur such a surge in interest, what could be accomplished if we made nuclear power the national priority that it should be, the national priority that it inevitably WILL be?

WHAT SHOULD OUR NATIONAL NUCLEAR ENERGY POLICY ENTAIL?

If our goal is to drastically cut CO2 emissions by a significant fraction then we should concentrate on a strategy that will lead to building SAFE nuclear reactors as quickly as possible, while at the same time avoiding the regulatory mess that destroyed the industry decades ago. In order to accomplish this it is imperative that a standardized design, and pre-set unchanging regulations for that design be developed as soon as possible. Given that we are addressing this problem several decades later than we should have, it is important that we act with focused urgency, not disorganized action for the sake of action.
Key components of our strategy should include:


1) Development of a standardized power plant design that emphasizes safety, ease of construction, and cost. Such a design should take maximal advantage of the economy of scale.

2) Development of a national infrastructure to support the building of these reactors.

3) Financial incentives, risk reduction, and performance rewards for industry. Similar to the 2005 EPAct, but much larger in scale.

4) Incentives (and or penalties) to encourage the abandoning of coal power.

5) Hold government financially liable for costs incurred due to changes made to the regulations after they have been agreed to by industry and the government.

6) Scrapping the existing tangled regulatory system and starting anew, with the view that nuclear power is now an essential national priority.

7) Set regulations for the design agreed upon by the industry and the government prior to construction.

8) An entirely NEW regulatory body that works in partnership with the industry and government, but is reasonably independant from both.

9) Rethinking the laws and regulations that allow power plant construction to be held up indefinitely by lawsuits. Environmental Impact Studies need to take into account the greater good of eliminating GHG production and give that priority.

10) Education of the public on nuclear power, and why it is needed.

11) No simplistic "10 point plans" just for the sake of feelgood soundbites- I hate those!


Points 1 and 2 above are required prerequisites for large scale construction of nuclear power. For instance, the only company in the world that is capable of casting a reactor's containment vessel in a single piece is Japan Steel Works. They can only cast four such vessels in a year, and while they plan to increase capacity, they have a backlog of orders years long. The specialized construction capability would likely need to be increased. Steps would need to be taken to ensure a supply of Uranium capable of meeting the growing demand. Opinions of the ability of future Uranium supply to meet demand vary.

Can Uranium Supplies Sustain the Global Nuclear Renaissance?
(September 2005)
Introduction
Uranium, a naturally occurring and abundant element, possesses characteristics that account for the unique virtues of nuclear power:
Emissions-free Energy. Because the splitting of the uranium atom releases energy without the combustion of carbon, there is virtually no production of greenhouse gases - which is the major waste product from fossil fuel.
Manageability of Waste. The small amount of uranium required to produce a huge amount of nuclear energy leaves a correspondingly small amount of solid waste, which can be safely contained and managed without environmental harm.
Energy Independence and Security. Because nuclear fuel supplies are relatively inexpensive and highly energy-intensive (and thus small in volume), they can readily be stockpiled, affording a major buffer against energy insecurity.
Power Price Stability. Because uranium fuel represents a small proportion of the generating costs of nuclear power, relative price stability for power is assured regardless of uranium price fluctuations. Meanwhile, as this paper discusses, such fluctuations serve the useful purpose of providing an adequate uranium supply.
At a time when a widespread recognition of these benefits has pointed energy planners toward a major worldwide expansion of nuclear power, it is sometimes asserted that limited uranium resources will seriously constrain any nuclear renaissance. This WNA Position Paper responds to that concern.
Essential Message
There is every reason to expect that the world supply of uranium, as of other metals, is sustainable, with adequate known resources being continuously replenished at least as fast as they are being used and at costs affordable to consumers.
Speculation to the contrary represents a misunderstanding of the nature of mineral resource estimates and reflects a short-term perspective that overlooks continuing advances in knowledge and technology and the dynamic economic processes that drive markets.

From the very Pro-nuclear World Nuclear Association

Oddly, a publication by the same organization from the same year states the following:

In conclusion, we now reconfirm our previous Market Report conclusion that the fuel supply is potentially short beyond 2015, unless the lower demand scenario occurs. In particular, future uranium supply is now a big issue. Actually, the uranium market has been concerned about it for some time and accordingly, the price has been increasing for the last couple of years. Primary uranium production now needs to rise sharply to meet market demand. One of our concerns is that uncertainties about fuel security in the future may depress possible investors’ confidence in the nuclear power industry. This could potentially delay or cancel the nuclear programmes, currently set. In order to mitigate such issues, in my personal opinion, I believe that more governmental inventory could be released and public support for additional uranium production capacity should be achieved.

A more detailed study of the issue concludes:

It is estimated that every tonne of
uranium used in lieu of burning coal avoids the emission
of approximately 40 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide, the
gas which accounts for about 55% of the greenhouse
gases from human activity. Table LVII shows the
projected cumulative reactor uranium demand for the
three demand cases and the amount of carbon dioxide
generation that would be saved relative to burning coal if
any one of these cases is implemented.

In Ref. [4, p. 103] the World Energy Council
reports that “Nuclear power is of fundamental importance
for most WEC members because it is the only energy
supply which already has very large and well-diversified
resources (and potentially unlimited resources if breeders
are used), is quasi-indigenous, does not emit greenhouse
gases, and has either favourable or at most slightly
unfavourable economics. In fact should the climate
change threat become a reality, nuclear is the only existing
power technology which could replace coal in baseload.
While it faces a public acceptance problem, the present
evolution of safety, waste disposal and regulatory
independence, should lower the existing concerns”.

From: ANALYSIS OF URANIUM SUPPLY TO 2050,INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, VIENNA, 2001, pg. 73

From the literature it would seem that uranium production needs to be stepped up to meet demand, but there is every reason to expect that the needed uranium resources exist.

Points 3-5 above are ways of encouraging industry to invest in nuclear power, the most effective way to spur building of nuclear power plants is to to make it profitable and have industry do it. The last 5 points are aimed at avoiding the problems that killed nuclear power for decades. I feel point 5- "Hold government financially liable for costs incurred due to changes made to the regulations after they have been agreed to by industry and the government. " - is extremely important in order to avoid the mistakes of the past. If government is held financially liable for imposing costly new regulations on an existing design, then it is less likely to impose costly regulations solely in response to irrational fears of the public.

CONCLUSION

Contrary to the article Energy Wedgists versus Technology Breakthroughists, reductions of US emissions CO2 by 1 gigaton per year are not impossible as the author claims. If we were to replace coal power with zero emission power today, we would cut CO2 emissions by ~1.8 gigatons per year, or %30. If we only consider nuclear as an option, then it would take 214 1-gigawatt plants. At the capital cost of $1,000 per kW given for the AP1000 a 1 gigaWatt plant would cost one billion dollars. But, lets be extremely pessimistic and assume that the actual costs will be FIVE TIMES that price, or five billion dollars per gigawatt nuclear power plant. The total capital cost to build nuclear power plants sufficient to displace all of US CO2 emissions from coal power (1.8 gigatons) at this pessimistic cost is a little over one trillion dollars, or one eleventh of our Gross National Product for one year. The bulk of this money would be invested in the US and would be going into building US infrastructure, and providing us with clean energy at a price that is likely to be a net savings over coal in the long term.

Of course such a project can't be done 'today' by waving a one trillion dollar magic wand , but in some respects that makes things easier, if we spread it out over 2 decades that is an investment of $50 billion a year invested within the united states to improve our future, and our security. If we do this and use zero emission power for the additional power requirements due to growth in demand, then in 20 years we could have emissions of CO2 %30 percent lower than today's.

This argument has only looked at nuclear power, but the fact is that there are other zero emission options that could also be used in conjunction with nuclear- Hydro-electric, wind power, and solar will only make the argument for the phase out of fossil fuel power even more convincing! This post has ignored the emission reductions that can be accomplished by increasing conservation, building more energy efficient houses, buildings and factories. I have also ignored the enormous reductions that can be achieved in the transportation sector- increasing vehicle mileage, alternative fuels, electric cars... given that we are looking at gas prices climbing towards $5 a gallon can there be any doubt that such steps are inevitable?

In short reducing CO2 emissions makes economic sense, and make no mistake about it: It is something we will HAVE to do eventually. The only question is how much longer will we delay? The longer we wait, the more painful it will be.

-R.L.

(To be continued...)