Clean Energy Insight - Moving Energy Forward

[Approx. Read Time: 3 minutes]

Myth: As Nuclear Power Plants Age, They Become More “Risky”

A generality that the 104 commercial U.S. Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) commonly fall victim to is that as things age, they are at a greater risk for potential failure.  The more miles on your car, the more time you usually spend at the repair shop.  The longer you live in your house, the more trips you have to make to the nearby home improvement store.  Although this is common with most things that we encounter in our everyday lives, this is not the case for NPPs.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) initiated the Industry Trends Program (ITP) to monitor trends of industry performance indicators to ensure safety at NPPs is maintained.  If any adverse trends are detected in the performance indicators, the NRC will evaluate the issue and take appropriate regulatory action to address it.  Each year these performance indicators are reviewed by the NRC as part of the Agency Action Review Meeting (AARM).  Any statistically significant adverse trends are included in the NRC’s Performance and Accountability report to Congress.

“No statistically significant adverse trends have been identified through the end of fiscal year (FY) 2008, based on the ITP indicators and the Accident Sequence Precursor (ASP) program.” – NRC website, Industry Trends page

Full details of the trends monitored by the NRC as part of the ITP can be found in the current ITP report, SECY-09-0048.  Definitions and descriptions for performance indicators can be found in the NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0313, Appendix A.  Below you can find several of the Fiscal Year 2008 Long-Term Industry Trends Results from the most recent ITP report along with a brief description of the indicator.

Significant Events

Definition: Significant Events are defined as —

1. A Yellow or Red Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) finding or performance indicator
2. An event with a Conditional Core Damage Probability (CCDP) or increase in core damage probability (ΔCDP) of 1×10-5 or higher
3. An Abnormal Occurrence as defined by Management Directive 8.1, “Abnormal Occurrence Reporting Procedure”
4. An event rated two or higher on the International Nuclear Event Scale

Forced Outage Rate (FOR)

Definition: The forced outage rate is the number of forced outage hours divided by the sum of unit service hours and forced outage hours.

Safety System Actuations (SSA)

Definition: Safety system actuations are manual or automatic actuations of the logic or equipment of either certain Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) or, in response to an actual low voltage on a vital bus, the Emergency AC Power System.

Automatic Scrams While Critical

Definition: The number of unplanned automatic scrams that occurred while the affected reactor was critical.  A Scram is an emergency shutdown of a nuclear reactor.

Opponents to the industry trending rationale may state that NPPs are subject to negative aging effects, such as equipment failures.  My response to this claim is that you are exactly correct.  Every plant does experience some form of equipment aging or failure, but being realistic, nothing is made to last forever.  Equipment aging begins as soon as a piece of equipment is operated for the first time.  The important issue is how the utilities manage the aging effects and also how they identify and mitigate the risks associated with the operation of their plants.  NPPs are designed to sustain equipment aging and failures through redundancy and dedicated systems that are capable of and dedicated to maintaining public safety.

Along with the ITP, there are also measures to evaluate the ability of NPPs to maintain safety on an individual basis.  INPO routinely sends teams to evaluate plant operations, processes and personnel.  INPO then assigns a score to the plant based on observations during the assessment.  Negative ratings from the assessment generally warrant more demanding requirements to maintain safety by the NRC and can even lead to a NPP being shut down.

The information presented in the annual ITP report confirms that the safety of operating nuclear power plants is being maintained.  The decreasing trends can be attributed to the dedication of the individuals in the commercial nuclear power industry to deliver safe and reliable power to the public, as well as:

• Regulatory guidance (NRC)
• Industry organization involvement (INPO, EPRI, etc.)
• Improved processes and procedures
• Evaluation and incorporation of operating experience and lessons learned
• Advances in technology / Plant modifications
• Predictive and preventive maintenance capabilities
• Economic benefit to maintain a plant

Another intriguing subject that comes up when discussing the safety of NPPs is the potential for a plant to become a terrorist target.  Mike Bullard will be addressing this issue in two weeks.  Next Wednesday, Jonny Abendano will take on the myth that nuclear energy emits greenhouse gases.

[Approx. Read Time: 6 minutes]

Independent policy analyst Drew Thornley wrote a great article on the need for more nuclear power in the United States.  Drew offers an honest analysis of the current pros and cons of nuclear energy, and asks–despite all of the factual information available in favor of nuclear energy, why hasn’t the United States been more openly supportive of expanding nuclear power?

The Growing Need for Nuclear Energy

By Drew Thornley

The energy debates continue to rage inside the beltway. Experts regularly weigh in with conflicting reports on the benefits and pitfalls of oil, coal, wind, and other energy sources. Yet, we already have an energy source so powerful that it is able to meet bulk-energy demands. We have abundant reserves of it, and minimal land is required to support it. Moreover, this energy source meets our needs without emissions of potentially harmful pollutants (like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides), and particulate matter, and without emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Indeed, we can meet much of America’s growing energy needs with a reliable, affordable, low-emission energy source. That source is nuclear energy.

One-Fifth of U.S. Electricity

Many Americans are unfamiliar with nuclear energy, perhaps because politicians and the media give it little attention. In many political and social circles, the mere mention of nuclear power is taboo. Unfounded fears and misinformation have led many to believe that nuclear power is inherently dangerous, or even evil.

Accordingly, Americans are often surprised to learn that, for years, nuclear power has safely and reliably met a large portion of our energy needs. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the U.S. is home to 104 commercial nuclear power reactors, which are licensed to operate at 65 sites in 31 states. In 2008, nuclear power generated 19.6 percent of our nation’s electricity. Through April, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) at the U.S. Department of Energy, nuclear power has generated just over 21 percent of total output in 2009.

In other words, nuclear power currently generates one-fifth of our nation’s electricity. By comparison, renewables like wind power and solar power have generated 7 and 3.67 percent, respectively, of our electricity supply through April.

A Baseload Resource

Unlike wind energy, solar energy, and other renewables, which provide only supplemental power generation, nuclear energy is a “baseload” resource—meaning it can meet bulk-power demands. Moreover, unlike wind and solar energy, nuclear reactors generate electricity regardless of whether the wind is blowing or the sun is shining.

Nuclear power is also an extremely efficient and productive energy source. The EIA has confirmed this by comparing nuclear power’s average capacity factor (ACF)—the amount of time an energy source produces power, as a percentage of the maximum output of the source—with other sources. In 2007, nuclear energy had the highest ACF, at 91.8 percent. Coal was the second highest at 73.6 percent, while non-hydropower renewables, hydroelectric power, and petroleum stood at ACFs of 40.1, 36.3, and 13.4 percent, respectively.

Efficiency translates to lower costs. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the percentage of operating costs attributable to fuel production is lower for nuclear-power generators than for plants using coal, natural gas, or petroleum. This, in turn, makes nuclear power less vulnerable to the price volatility of commodities.

The Carbon Question

Even while meeting large portions of our energy demand, nuclear power plants do not emit carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen oxides, helping to lower the overall emissions that result from power production. Indeed, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), from 1995 to 2008, nuclear power can be credited for the avoidance of 19.83 million short tons of nitrogen oxides, 49.84 million short tons of sulfur dioxide, and 9,406.93 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.

Again, wind and solar power have a hard time keeping up with nuclear power. Last year alone, nuclear power generated 72.3 percent of our nation’s carbon-free electricity, while hydropower and non-hydropower renewables accounted for 21.7 and 6.1 percent respectively.

Stumbling Blocks

As with all energy sources, it’s not all positive with nuclear power.

For one, most of the uranium that fuels America’s commercial nuclear-power plants is imported. In 2008, according to the EIA, U.S. civil nuclear power plants purchased 45.6 million pounds of U₃O₈ (a uranium-like material) from foreign suppliers, while just 7.7 million pounds of uranium purchased originated in the U.S. In addition to importing large amounts of uranium from Australia and Canada, the U.S. imports heavily from Russia and former Soviet republics, under a deal known as the U.S.-Russian Highly Enriched Uranium Purchase Agreement, signed in 1993.

But, with the HEU Purchase Agreement expiring in 2013, the U.S. will need to import and/or domestically mine new reserves in order to maintain current nuclear-power production levels. Fortunately, we will continue to have access to a global uranium market rich in supply and sizeable reserves right here at home. However, particularly in light of the Department of the Interior’s restrictions on mining, it remains to be seen whether we will tap more of our uranium reserves (for example, a great deal of uranium can be mined in the state of Virginia).

There are other issues, too. Regardless of the means of extracting natural resources, there will always be economic, environmental, and even geopolitical consequences. This is a fundamental reality, and nuclear energy is not immune from it. From the large initial capital costs required to get a nuclear power plant operational, to the question of what to do about the long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel, to the political challenges that stem from commonly-held misconceptions about the safety of nuclear power, many roadblocks stand in the way of a swift expansion of nuclear energy.

No Plans to Expand

But even taking into account these concerns, why is nuclear power still so low on the radar? If we have an energy source that can meet bulk-power demands without emitting carbon and harmful pollutants, then why aren’t we talking about it more? Why is large-scale expansion of nuclear power not on the table?

Since taking office, the Barack Obama Administration has been nearly silent on plans for more nuclear power. Meanwhile, it pulled the plug on plans for a long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, after years of effort and billions of dollars invested in the project. To the chagrin of nuclear power advocates, the Administration did not offer a single, substantive alternative. The Administration has also made one million acres of land in the areas surrounding the Grand Canyon off limits to uranium miners, putting the future of our natural uranium reserves in doubt.

The Obama Administration is not singularly to blame, however. The U.S. has not added a single new nuclear reactor to our commercial nuclear-power fleet for three decades. One plant is under construction in Tennessee, with a planned capacity of 1,165 megawatts, though the permit for the plant was issued in January 1973. There has not been a construction permit issued for a new reactor since January 1978.

All the while, our government has dawdled with fanciful notions of windmills and compact fluorescent light bulbs to save the planet and secure our energy future.

Global Nuclear Power

While we waste valuable time and treasure, other countries are moving full-speed ahead, ramping up nuclear power production.

China and India have ambitious plans for harnessing nuclear power. European nations like Italy are reversing course after banning nuclear energy. France has no plans to back away from the energy source that generates roughly 80 percent of its electricity. (France also safely reprocesses nuclear fuel, something the U.S. has not done since President Ford suspended reprocessing in 1976 and President Carter outlawed the practice in 1977.) Even the United Arab Emirates, a country flush with oil, is preparing to spend $41 billion in an effort to get 25 percent of its electricity from nuclear power.

As of February 2009, 436 nuclear reactors generated electricity in 30 countries. And according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, there are currently another 45 new nuclear plants under construction in 14 countries.

Worldwide, nuclear power plants generated about 14 percent of all electricity produced in 2007, while in 16 countries, nuclear energy accounted for at least 25 percent of all electricity generated. The following chart, generated by the NEI, provides a snapshot of the countries generating the largest percentage of their electricity from nuclear energy in 2007:

Country	Percent
France	76.8
Lithuania	64.4
Slovakia	54.3
Belgium	54.0
Ukraine	48.1
Sweden	46.1
Armenia	43.5
Slovenia	41.6
Switzerland	40.0
Hungary	36.8
S. Korea	35.3
Bulgaria	32.1

One Question Remains

In terms of sheer volume, the United States is far and away the largest nuclear power generator. In 2008, the United States generated 806.2 billion kilowatt hours, easily ahead of France, the world’s second largest generator, at 418.3 billion kilowatt hours (Japan is third, at 240.5 billion kwh).

As the developing world increasingly embraces nuclear power to meet its growing energy needs, will the United States accelerate, maintain, or scale back production? If we intend to meet our growing energy needs—and do so with environmental protection in mind—then nuclear power has to be part of the answer.

[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

We need to solve the problem with nuclear waste.  As we all know nuclear fuel is recyclable with only 4% of each fuel assembly being actual waste that can’t be re-used and the other 96% can be recycled and used again.  As the government technically owns the fuel it also owns the problem of disposal, and the government must provide the solution.  The problem is that we know who runs the government and their ability to make a coherent, timely, or realistic solution.  I’m not sure how many blue ribbon panels will be formed to study this issue before they come to a recommended solution that will likely not be followed.

In brief, here is the real solution:

One, we recycle the fuel at one centralized or two regional locations.  The fuel is re-used and then re-cycled again as many times as technology allows.

Two, we store the unusable waste at the Yucca Mountain site that has been selected and is in the process of being licensed.  The design of the facility would not need to be modified nor would the license require any serious amendment.  The capacity problem that would have previously come up with Yucca Mountain would go away with fuel recycling, as the amount of waste would be much less.  The site could be used to store the waste for many decades or even centuries before it would be filled up.  Also, with the current construction schedule, the first batch of waste would probably be ready a little after Yucca would be ready to receive it.

And that’s it.  Any blue ribbon panel members out there feel free to copy this solution.