Nuclear energy, version 3.0 — time to revisit this low-carbon energy source

THE evidence is strong that the United States is experiencing something of a nuclear renaissance.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering license applications for 28 new nuclear power reactors. The United States already operates the largest fleet of nuclear power reactors in the world with 104 reactors producing almost 20 percent of U.S. electricity.

Worldwide, nuclear power accounts for 15 percent of electricity production. Global estimates for new nuclear generation vary, but 52 reactors are under construction worldwide with a total of 344 planned.

The main drivers among many reasons for this resurgence are:

• The need for low-carbon energy sources to limit the impact of climate change;

• Greater energy security with less dependence on oil and gas from unreliable suppliers; and

• Global population growth by 50 percent to more than 9 billion by 2050, particularly in the least-developed countries.

While maximum deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency and carbon-capture technologies is required to address these challenges, only nuclear energy is a proven low-carbon, base-load electricity generator capable of being expanded to meet future needs.

It seems we have been here before and skepticism is called for.

When I started my career at the Atomic Energy Commission more than 40 years ago, there were projections that up to 1,000 reactors would be operating in the U.S. by 2000, and that nuclear electricity would be too cheap to meter. Then we had the accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, the disaster at Chernobyl in what is now Ukraine and the financial bond catastrophe here in Washington state at the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS). The result was schedule delays, cost overruns and plant cancellations.

Have things really changed to warrant putting our faith back into nuclear power? Well, actually, yes. Quite a bit in fact.

The operating performance of existing reactors is truly outstanding. They operate longer between fuel reloading, resulting in less used fuel being generated. They are also 50 percent more efficient. In 1980, reactors operated at less than 60 percent efficiency while today it is over 90 percent. The power output of reactors has also been safely increased by more than 5 percent, the equivalent of 5 ½ new reactors, with another 3 ½ reactors worth of additions expected.

Reactor operating lifetimes are also being extended. Initially, reactors were licensed for 40 years of operation. As of the end of 2009, the NRC extended the operating license of 59 reactors by 20 years — another 50 percent improvement. In time, most of the existing plants will have their licenses extended to 60 years, with 80 years of operating life being considered.

The multiple reactor designs that were a contributing factor to the problems at WPPSS have been replaced by fewer standard designs. The NRC has established a Design Certification, Early Site Permit and Combined Construction and Operating licensing process that provides more-predictable licensing procedures with full public input and due process.

New reactor designs under review are referred to as Gen (for generation) III, reflecting that designs and features have evolved to incorporate lessons learned with improved technology and construction processes. In general, Gen III reactors have passive safety features, less-active systems, improved instrumentation and reduced construction times.

The capital cost of new nuclear power plants remains very high, possibly $5 billion to $7 billion per plant. Repayable loan guarantees will be required initially until a track record on cost and schedule is established. In recognition, President Obama's 2011 Budget requests $55 billion in loan guarantees for new nuclear plants. These loan guarantees would not take effect until the designs were approved and sites licensed.

Lifetime cost for nuclear power is very competitive because of low fuel costs, high operating efficiency and long operating life. Unlike other energy sources, the cost for waste disposal and plant decommissioning are included in the operating cost and paid for as you go.

One issue that hasn't changed is the lack of a repository for nuclear-waste disposal. I disagree with the decision to pull the plug on the Yucca Mountain License Application before the NRC could consider the application on its technical merits. We should prove a solution exists to safely dispose of high-level nuclear waste in a geologic formation, whether used fuel or glass from recycled fuel or military waste, such as at Hanford.

However the lack of a repository in the U.S. for commercial fuel should not prevent the use of nuclear energy. Used fuel can be safely stored and protected in dry casks indefinitely. It is hard to argue that a potential problem tens of thousands of years in the future should prevent the use of nuclear energy to solve problems of climate and security today.

Nuclear energy has progressed from its overly optimistic early years, through a turbulent adolescence, and is now a mature technology. It is a clean, secure and sustainable base-load source of electricity and an essential ingredient in meeting the world's increasing energy demand. Frankly, there is no solution without it.