Center for Reactor Information

The Promise of Nuclear Power

By Brian Frost
September 1, 2005

Abstract

The promise of nuclear power for now and the future is bright. Solutions have been worked out for safe storage of nuclear waste. Environmentalists are reconsidering their opposition and nuclear protest is conspicuously absent. Nuclear is economically competitive with fossil fuel for power generation.

Fast breeder reactors reduce the decay time for used fuel from 250,000 years to 500 years, very much better utilize the uranium supply, can eliminate excess plutonium and make its diversion impossible. And pyroprocessing fast reactor fuel never produces plutonium pure enough for a bomb.

Nuclear power does not contribute to global warming nor release toxic chemicals. Operating improvement alone provides up to 25% more nuclear power annually and plants can operate for 60 years. Designs of advanced reactors are even safer and more efficient, can generate hydrogen for transportation use, and can desalinate water. Nuclear contribution to U.S. electricity supply steadily increases.

Nuclear power is thriving worldwide–new plants are being built. Electric utilities throughout the world are considering substantial orders of new nuclear plants to generate electricity.

World Energy Needs

The world population is growing steadily, particularly in the less developed countries which also demand improvements in their quality of life. There is a strong correlation between quality of life (and life expectancy) and energy consumption/supply. To illustrate this point: the United States is one of the highest consumers of energy and has a life expectancy of 77 years, while Chad in Africa is one of the lowest energy consumers and has a life expectancy of 48 years. In the past 100 years the major source of electric energy has been coal, with oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydro-power, wind and solar power supplying the balance. Of these all but nuclear, hydro, wind and solar involve combustion that releases carbon dioxide and a number of toxic elements into the atmosphere. Hydro-power is limited to specific locations, generally mountainous territory, while solar and wind power are intermittent and weather dependant and are, as yet, uneconomic. There is a growing, yet controversial, belief that the massive release of carbon dioxide is contributing to global warming and most of the world has agreed (in the Kyoto Protocol) that carbon dioxide releases must be reduced in order to avoid damaging climate change.

Nuclear Power

Nuclear reactors do not release carbon dioxide and, hence do not contribute to global warming. In fact, they release much less toxic chemicals to the atmosphere than do coal-fired stations. For the issue of safely storing radioactive waste, solutions have been worked out and it only remains for state and government approvals to proceed with this technology. Work is well along on the Yucca Mountain Waste Repository in Nevada , which could accommodate most of the needs of the U.S. nuclear industry. This site was chosen after 20 years of scientific studies and is expected to receive licensing approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and start receiving nuclear fuel in 2012.

Nuclear power is thriving around the world. France derives over 70% of its electricity from nuclear power, Belgium 58%, Sweden 45%, South Korea 40%, Switzerland 37%, Japan 31%, Spain 27%, the UK 23% and the USA 20%. Russia , the Ukraine , India and China have very active construction programs. India has just put into service two new heavy-water reactors (CANDU type), and has started construction of a demonstration fast breeder reactor. Russia and several former Soviet Union countries are restarting existing reactors and are planning new plants.

Opposition to Nuclear Power

One of the principal factors responsible for the hiatus in the ordering of new nuclear plants in the USA since 1976 has been the opposition of the Green environmental movement. However, this movement is beginning to reconsider its opposition. James Lovelock, a noted environmentalist, stated in "The Independent" newspaper issue of May 24, 2004 : “Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media. These fears are unjustified, and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources.” A recent issue of Forbes magazine discussed an apparent return to favor of nuclear power and a conspicuous absence of protesters. This view has been echoed in a number of leading financial journals.

A second major factor affecting orders for new plants has been economics. High interest rates in the late 1970s and 1980s together with overly stringent regulation by the NRC led to cost over-runs and longer construction times. Standardization of plant designs, cheaper money and accumulated experience in the industry have made nuclear plants economically competitive with fossil plants. Recently the Tokyo Electric Power Company built several boiling water reactors of General Electric design within tight budget and time constraints leading to very favorable economics.

A third factor is the fear of the proliferation of nuclear weapons by “rogue” nations. Burning nuclear fuel in a reactor inevitably produces plutonium which, in theory, could be used as the fissile material in a nuclear weapon. In normal operation, the plutonium produced by a power plant is very undesirable for weapons use. However, any reactor can be operated in a “production mode” to make weapons-grade plutonium. Even then, extracting the plutonium requires sophisticated chemical separation processes that are difficult to build undetected.

Moreover, production-mode operation is uneconomical and is easily detected by inspectors. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has instituted a rigorous inspection system for monitoring separation processes. Furthermore, plutonium based weapons are very tricky to construct, requiring a sophisticated technological infrastructure. The IAEA's rigorous inspection system provides assurance that enrichment plants are limited to a level that precludes use for weapons.

Present Situation

Currently there are 104 operating nuclear power plants in the USA providing 20% of the country's electricity needs. Although no new stations have been ordered since 1976 the 104 stations are now providing much more power to the grid than they did originally, thanks to a number of improvements.

The first of these is an overall increase in capacity factor: (the actual energy produced expressed as a fraction of the energy that would have been produced at 100% of its rated capacity). In 1992-94 the net capacity factor of the combined (then) 102 reactors was 77%; in 2003 it had risen to 89.66% due to improved operating procedures. This difference is equivalent to building 19 new 1000-megawatt power plants, or an annual increase from 610BkWh to 764BkWh. Further improvements are expected.

The factors that led to increases in capacity factor include:

1. Lengthening the time between outages, which can now be as long as 15 months
2. Shortening the length of time of routine maintenance and refueling–these outages can be as short as 20 days
3. Reducing the number of unplanned shutdowns or outages
4. Reducing the number of automatic “scrams”–shutdowns caused by response to safety system signals
5. Modernizing equipment
6. Improving maintenance procedures and outage planning
7. Improving heat utilization
8. A more enlightened approach by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to improve both safety and efficiency.

A second important factor that will utilize nuclear power plants more effectively is the extension of their operating lifetimes from 40 years to 60; this is the equivalent of building another 25 or more plants that will operate to the middle of this century.

When commercial nuclear power plants were first built, an assessment of their safe operating lifetime was made based on current knowledge of those factors that would lead to the end of operations, principally the aging of key components including the pressure vessel, coolant piping and pumps, and the containment structure. The principal causes of aging are nuclear radiation and corrosion plus the concurrent stresses imposed on these components. The regulatory authorities in the U.S. and elsewhere agreed that 40 years was a reasonable life span for a plant. Operating experience, research on aging phenomena, and improved testing procedures have increased confidence in the ability of plants to operate beyond this limit. It is true that a number of plants have experienced corrosion problems but repairs and replacements have overcome these, e.g., a number of steam generators with leaking pipes have been completely replaced.

The procedure for re-licensing a plant by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been established: it is very similar to the original license applications but emphasizes aging factors. Each application for life extension is carefully reviewed and extensive dialog between the NRC, the plant operators and owners groups for the different plant manufacturers has been in process for several years. In a recent survey by the American Nuclear Society, 30 plants have been granted license extensions. 17 more are currently under review, and it is expected that a further 30 will be submitted for approval in the 2004-2007 time span, with applications for later plants to follow. In addition, the NRC has approved power up-rates in the range 1.4% to 6.0% for eleven reactors, with another eleven reactors under review. This means that the contribution of nuclear reactors to the nation's electricity supply is steadily increasing.

Future Reactor Designs

With renewed interest by the utility industry in building new nuclear plants, there have arisen new studies for improved plant designs. The major plant designers have produced designs for even safer and more efficient pressurized water and boiling water reactors and these will be standardized so that the NRC can give blanket approval for licenses to standard plants.

The Department of Energy is funding studies at the national laboratories and universities of new types of plant, including thermal reactors cooled by gases or non-aqueous liquids. These advanced reactors may be used to generate hydrogen as well as electrical energy and could be used for desalination of water to supply the world's ever growing needs for potable water.

Finally, there is the fast reactor, many of which have been successfully operated around the world. These are mainly cooled by liquid sodium, although liquid lead or lead-bismuth alloy has been used. Argonne National Laboratory has developed the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR), which can consume most of the Actinide waste from spent fuel from thermal and fast reactors. This would reduce the decay time for spent fuel from 250,000 years to 500 years while utilizing the world's supply of uranium very much more effectively.

A common focus of worry about fast reactors is their ability to convert uranium to plutonium, thus providing a potential source of nuclear weapon material. But this concern is misplaced: all reactors convert uranium into plutonium, which is accumulating at a rate of tens of tons per year. While it is true that fast reactors can be configured to produce plutonium even more rapidly, they can be configured to consume more plutonium than they produce–which cannot be said of today's reactors–and thus could eventually eliminate excess plutonium.

Another source of concern, also misdirected, is that using fast reactors would mean reprocessing the fuel, while current U.S. policy forbids reprocessing. The new generation of fast reactors, like the Integral Fast Reactor can use a new recycling technology called “pyroprocessing”, which never produces plutonium pure enough for a bomb. To get plutonium of the chemical purity needed for weapons, the fuel would have to undergo further chemical processing by the method currently for use in weapons programs, and in other countries for use in thermal reactors as the so-called MOX fuel. That process, called PUREX, is the one that the Carter administration had in mind when it banned reprocessing in the USA . With the IFR, PUREX would be unnecessary. Further, in the IFR, the fuel never sees the light of day: it is reprocessed in a highly radioactive facility coupled to the reactor, making diversion impossible.

Thus, the promise of nuclear power for the 21st century and beyond is bright. There have been a number of articles in the business press, including Forbes and the Financial Times, observing that nuclear power may be the principal answer to global warming and that electric utilities worldwide are seriously considering substantial orders of new nuclear generating plants.

The reader is referred to other Public Awareness Documents (PADS) on this Web site where details of many topics touched on in this PAD are discussed at greater length.

References:

Forbes, January 31, 2005 : “Nukes are Back. Where Are the Protesters?”

Financial Times, 8/10/04 : “The nuclear option: why atomic power is creeping back into political favour.”

Financial Times, 2/9/05 : “Fears of global warming boost comeback hopes for reactors.”

Financial Times, 4/25/05 : “ America must exorcise its nuclear demons.”

Nuclear News, May 2004 and March 2005: “ U.S. capacity factors: Still on the rise.”

Wall Street Journal, 11/9/04 : “Nuclear-Power Industry Sees Signs of a U.S. Revival.”

New York Times, 1/15/05 : “ China Promotes Another Boom: Nuclear Power.”

Independent News and Media (UK) Ltd., 2/15/05 : “Blair set to press nuclear button.”

American Scientist, Nov-Dec, 2004, Vol.92: “Heavy Metal Nuclear Power.”

Acknowledgments:

The author gratefully acknowledges critical reviews by Ray Crawford, George Stanford, Martin Steindler, Jan VanErp, Eugene Voiland, and the CFRI Document Review Committee.

Author: Brian Frost, Co-Chairman of the Center for Reactor Information (CFRI), retired after 50 years of experience in nuclear reactor materials research in the UK and the USA.

For additional information, please contact CFRI, an independent organization of retirees with extensive nuclear experience.