Nuclear energy in USA: why only 19%

[Chestermiller]

Storage of the nuclear wastes is much more than just a cost issue. It is also a huge environmental safety issue. If the drums start to leak, big problem. Also, the wastes are still generating heat that, if not dealt with properly, can result in failure and leakage into the environment. Don't get me wrong; I am still a proponent of nuclear power generation. I feel that it is an important alternative to fossil fuels, which I believe pose their own long term global hazard to the environment.

Chet

 

[Astronuc]

Gas and coal plants do not require mass (many square miles, possibly multi-state) evacuation plans in case of accident. Gas and coal plants do not require detailed seismic analysis of the plant geology. These requirements may or may not be over zealous, but they are nonetheless not required of "all energy projects".

Power plants still have to do EISs. A gas plant has to tie into a gas pipeline and construct transmission lines. A new pipeline was very controversial in Dutchess County NY. Local residents don't want a gas pipeline through their property, particular after it was discovered that the new large pipeline was constructed with various violations. Folks also don't want power lines through their neighborhood - although they don't mind through someone else's neighborhood.
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/04/n...ss-county-woman-fought-utility-shamed-it.html

Coal plants have to deal with waste issues, including heavy metal emissions. And then there is the matter of dealing with sludge containing heavy metals. What can go wrong?
http://archive.tennessean.com/article/20131222/NEWS21/312220053/Kingston-coal-ash-spill-5-years-1-billion-cleanup-tab-no-regulations-later

As for new nuclear plants, if the supplier can demonstrate some level of inherent safety, the emergency evacuation zone can be decreased. With SMRs, which are derivatives of PWR/LWR technology, much of the existing regulatory framework applies, and 10 CFR 52. However, for other types, e.g., fast reactors, gas reactors, or SMRs, the necessary regulatory framework does not exist. The NRC can't do it without authorization and funding from Congress. I don't think it would necessarily take 20 years to develop a framework, but may be 10 years, because someone has to do R&D to determine the safety issues, including LOCA and reactivity excursions, as well as the performance issues.

One needs a standard review plan for each type of reactor, since each type has different technical issues.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0800/ (Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition: LWR Edition)

Existing plants are regulated according to 10 CFR 50. New LWR plants will be done under 10 CFR 52. Congress writes the laws, not the NRC.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part050/
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part052/
Note:
§ 52.47 Contents of applications; technical information,
§ 52.48 Standards for review of applications

Some at the NRC think existing regulatory framework can be extended to other technologies besides LWR, but for MSR, I think it requires more because of the onsite chemical processing.
http://www.uxc.com/smr/Library\Lice...actor Program - Overview of SMR Licensing.pdf

The NRC is responsible for regulatory guides - http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/power-reactors/rg/

 

[Astronuc]

In December 2014 the House subcommittee on Energy met, with testimony from DoE Assistant Sec for Nuclear Energy, Dr Lyons, and by the executives of some next gen nuclear companies, to include SMR maker NuScale and molten salt player Transatomic. Dr Lyons confirms the one billion and 39 months starting here. Dr Lewan of Transatomic makes it clear that development of advanced reactor technology is completely unfeasible in the US nuclear regulatory environment, with no predictable outcome and no approved test facility. She estimates 20 years of obtaining a regulatory pathway under the NRC. According to the discussion with Dr Lewan, Canada has made its nuclear approval process predictable, suggesting new technology approval will head there, similar to the move of drone development to Canada because of the FAA.

Except that Terrapower is developing a new reactor. They are however looking for cooperation with R&D in other countries.

I do think the regulatory infrastructure has a ways to go.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced/non-lwr-activities.html

 

[mheslep]

Power plants still have to do EISs. A gas plant... A new pipeline ...
Coal plants ...

Sure, any industrial endeavor has regulatory hurdles. I did not say otherwise. And I think the EIS, as currently implemented, is one that is still overly-political, not sufficiently based only on environmental harm. I said the non-nuclear endeavors don't have nearly the time and money required by the regulator as does nuclear, even for the same power scale. Even Keystone, Russ's counter example, was only tripped up for so long because it crossed an international border allowing the US DoS and the President to act arbitrarily. Otherwise, domestic pipelines and plants can and do meet EIS requirements routinely, and by routinely I mean not requiring a billion dollars up front (to the NRC), and the answer over given terrain is largely predictable.

 

[mheslep]

Storage of the nuclear wastes is much more than just a cost issue. It is also a huge environmental safety issue. If the drums start to leak, big problem. ...

Dry storage containers hardly qualify as "drums" with the thin gauge metal associate with them.

The [cask] assembly concrete is constructed from Type II Portland cement and is reinforced with A615 Grade 60 steel bars. The concrete has a density of 144 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 pounds per square inch (psi)...

The [cask] assembly has a 132.0-inch outside diameter, a 70.5-inch cavity diameter ... The internal cavity of the VCC assembly is lined by a 1.75-inch thick carbon steel shell and a 2-inch thick carbon steel bottom plate. A carbon steel shield ring assembly is provided at the top end of the VCC assembly to reduce radiation streaming from the VCC annulus. The top end of the VCC assembly is covered with a ¾-inch thick lid that is secured to the VCC assembly by bolts.

In addition, the canisters are primed with inert gas, sit on a rebar concrete slab, and the spent fuel must cool for year in a fuel pool by regulation prior to dry cask storage.

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1229/ML12290A139.pdf[/QUOTE]

 

[Astronuc]

and by routinely I mean not requiring a billion dollars up front (to the NRC),

The entire new reactor budget at the NRC for FY 2015 is about $237 million, and that's all the designs, and includes utility projects as well. I expect much of that has to do with new builds like the four units at Vogtle and Summer. For FY 2016, the budget will decrease to about $191 million.

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1503/ML15030A331.pdf

http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/organization/nrofuncdesc.html
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced/non-lwr-activities.html - not too much on advanced reactors since no one has done an application. A certification could probably done for about $200 million or so, but not necessarily $1 billion. Transatomic's MSR would probably require some kind of prototype, since what they propose is different from the only MSR constructed and operated in the US. They would probably need a private investor willing to take a big risk, or get funding through DOE.

It would take some digging to discover NRO's budgets and activities over the last decade - but here is some information on expected costs.

NRC estimates that its review of a reference COL would cost applicants about $26 million, assuming $258 per hour for reviewer time. The Nuclear Energy Institute estimates that COL applicants would spend about $100 million for preparing the application, paying NRC licensing fees, responding to NRC during the review process, and overhead. A reactor designer estimates that preparing a design certification application costs $200 million.

See page 10 (14/41) in http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071129.pdf

A DC requires a fair amount of engineering work. Preparing a DC doesn't mean the license fee, wouldn't necessarily equate to the cost of preparation. On the other hand, those numbers reflect 2007.

The new reactors budget for FY2010 was $264.7 million, or perhaps up to ~$267 million. Budgets can found in the files on the following page.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1100/

 

[russ_watters]

The entire new reactor budget at the NRC for FY 2015 is about $237 million, and that's all the designs, and includes utility projects as well. I expect much of that has to do with new builds like the four units at Vogtle and Summer. For FY 2016, the budget will decrease to about $191 million.

I was referring to - and I suspect he was too - the cost of complying with the regulations, not the cost of enforcing them:

Nuclear power plants are much more complex than homes or automobiles, leaving innumerable options for spending money to improve safety. In response to escalating public concern, the NRC began implementing some of these options in the early 1970s, and quickened the pace after the Three Mile Island accident.

This process came to be known as "ratcheting." Like a ratchet wrench which is moved back and forth but always tightens and never loosens a bolt, the regulatory requirements were constantly tightened, requiring additional equipment and construction labor and materials. According to one study,4 between the early and late 1970s, regulatory requirements increased the quantity of steel needed in a power plant of equivalent electrical output by 41%, the amount of concrete by 27%, the lineal footage of piping by 50%, and the length of electrical cable by 36%. The NRC did not withdraw requirements made in the early days on the basis of minimal experience when later experience demonstrated that they were unnecessarily stringent. Regulations were only tightened, never loosened. The ratcheting policy was consistently followed...

In addition to increasing the quantity of materials and labor going into a plant, regulatory ratcheting increased costs by extending the time required for construction. According to the United Engineers estimates, the time from project initiation to ground breaking5 was 16 months in 1967, 32 months in 1972, and 54 months in 1980. These are the periods needed to do initial engineering and design; to develop a safety analysis and an environmental impact analysis supported by field data; to have these analyses reviewed by the NRC staff and its Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and to work out conflicts with these groups; to subject the analyzed to criticism in public hearings and to respond to that criticism (sometimes with design changes); and finally, to receive a construction permit. The time from ground breaking to operation testing was increased from 42 months in 1967, to 54 months in 1972, to 70 months in 1980.

The increase in total construction time, indicated in Fig. 2, from 7 years in 1971 to 12 years in 1980 roughly doubled the final cost of plants.

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html

So mheslep was wrong (I suspect it was just off-the-cuff): the cost of regulatory compliance isn't a billion dollars, it's five (typical guestimate per reactor $10 billion, but since none have been built recently...).

Don't get me wrong: safety is important. But nuclear power has been regulated out of existence as a source of new electric power. Most of the result of that is an increase in coal power. We've regulated out of existence something that theoretically might kill people and replaced it with something that does kill people (a lot of people). Note, that's changed over the past 5 years with the resurgence of natural gas, but the previous 30 years was dominated by coal.

 

[mheslep]

Thanks for the references.

The entire new reactor budget at the NRC for FY 2015 is about $237 million, and that's all the designs, and includes utility projects as well. I expect much of that has to do with new builds like the four units at Vogtle and Summer.

Right, out of total budget for new and existing for NRC of $1 billion, almost entirely paid for by industry. The one billion that's used a rule of thumb for new light water reactors is over several, as much as four years. Not all of that goes to the NRC of course, but the NRC requires the spending be done by applicant, indirectly or otherwise, on design work.

... A certification could probably done for about $200 million or so, but not necessarily $1 billion.

Your estimate is in conflict with testimony a couple months ago from the Energy Subcommittee. Also, to what end? The primary point of the spending is not to support the budget of the NRC, but to reach a predictable if not guaranteed outcome. That is, demonstrate safety and reliability metrics and the applicant gets a liscense. The experts that testified explained that the process has no predictability for reactors that are not light water, large, PWRs.

Transatomic's MSR would probably require some kind of prototype, since what they propose is different from the only MSR constructed and operated in the US. They would probably need a private investor willing to take a big risk, or get funding through DOE.

A large risk indeed, given the testimony I posted, in which the regulator stated that the US has always done light water reactors, and therefore is should stay that way. Moreover, the NRC is an "independent agency" and therefore the government and the people should leave them alone to decide what's best (for lightwater reactors).

 

[Astronuc]

Thanks for the references.

Right, out of total budget for new and existing for NRC of $1 billion, almost entirely paid for by industry. The one billion that's used a rule of thumb for new light water reactors is over several, as much as four years. Not all of that goes to the NRC of course, but the NRC requires the spending be done by applicant, indirectly or otherwise, on design work.

Certainly, a supplier or applicant has to do the engineering and design work, and that does take lots of money, for probably several hundred or thousand scientist and engineers depending on the size and complexity of the design. One could try to use off-the-shelf components, e.g., existing turbine/generator technology. In the case of Transatomic, they'll need detailed reactor and core design information and data, and probably new codes that do core simulation and fuel-coolant hydraulics.

The total NRC budget is about $1 billion, but that includes existing reactors (~100), new reactors (4 + DCs), Yucca Mountain (suspended), . . . .

Activities also include:
Reviewing new applications for Medical Isotope Production facilities; and
Completing operating reactor decommissioning activities at Kewaunee, Crystal River 3, and San Onofre Units 1 and 2

From http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1407/ML14079A179.pdf (Slide 4 shows the total NRC budget since FY2003.)

Operating Reactors: $590.1 million (FY14), $577.3 million (FY15), Change ($12.8 million) - or about $6 million per reactor, which could include plant modifications, e.g., uprates, or large component replacement (e.g., steam generators, upper head, . . . ), . . . . (see slides 7 and 8)
There are 900 licensing actions (including 6 power uprates)!

New Reactors: $221.3 million (FY14), $237.9 million (FY15), Change $16.5 million - (slides 8 and 9)

Your estimate is in conflict with testimony a couple months ago from the Energy Subcommittee. Also, to what end? The primary point of the spending is not to support the budget of the NRC, but to reach a predictable if not guaranteed outcome. That is, demonstrate safety and reliability metrics and the applicant gets a license. The experts that testified explained that the process has no predictability for reactors that are not light water, large, PWRs.

The NRC is addressing that, but someone comes in with a new concept, for which there is no precedent, how can the NRC predict an outcome. The NRC does not design reactors and NPPs, they simply review designs with respect to safety criteria and existing statutes, which Congress creates. All that started under the AEC, which evolved into the NRC and ERDA => DOE, splitting the regulatory entity from the R&D/promotion entity.

However, there is Joint Initiative Regarding U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensing Strategy for Advanced (Non-Light Water) Reactor Technologies.
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1435/ML14353A224.html
http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/organization/resfuncdesc.html
http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/organization/nrofuncdesc.html#darr

A large risk indeed, given the testimony I posted, in which the regulator stated that the US has always done light water reactors, and therefore is should stay that way. Moreover, the NRC is an "independent agency" and therefore the government and the people should leave them alone to decide what's best (for lightwater reactors).

The NRC is independent, but subject to the laws established by Congress, include the Code of Federal Regulations and US Code, which contains various public laws, such as the Atomic Energy Act + various amendments.

Is the statement "given the testimony I posted, in which the regulator stated that . . ." related to Dr. Peter Lyons's testimony?

 

[mheslep]

Is the statement "given the testimony I posted, in which the regulator stated that . . ." related to Dr. Peter Lyons's testimony?

Yes

 

[Astronuc]

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html

That's a good review of what went wrong. There were some major problems back then, and there were A&E firms who got into nuclear plants, when they should not have done so, since they lacked experience and weren't qualified, especially when it came to first-of-a-kind systems. Then there was TMI-2 and the fire at Browns Ferry, and significant QC/QA problems at other sites.

 

[Astronuc]

Yes

Dr. Peter B. Lyons was confirmed as the Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy on April 14, 2011 after serving as the Acting Assistant Secretary since November 2010. Dr. Lyons was appointed to his previous role as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) in September 2009. Ref: http://energy.gov/contributors/peter-b-lyons

He was a regulator, but now he promotes nuclear energy on behalf of the DOE.

Lyons was a Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from January 25, 2005 until his term ended on June 30, 2009. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_B._Lyons

Some of the numbers, like the $1 billion number were not given in the proper context, as into what activities or to how many reactors they applied.

 

[inquisitivegeek]

All its merits aside, I think the difficulty with nuclear power, is that the cost of a disaster is not quantifiable and could sink any commercial venture that tries it and ends up with a Chernobyl.

Even the biggest companies in the world - say Citibank, Wal-Mart or Microsoft - none of them could afford the clean-up, damages and legal fees that would ensue if they end up radioactively polluting a large chunk of real estate. Put simply if Chernobyl was owned by the commercial company of arbitrary size it would be bankrupt.

The conclusion from this is that forays into nuclear power generation requires government support and guarantees of immunities.

 

[russ_watters]

All companies have a non-zero risk of bankruptcy and a great many companies that go bankrupt survive and live-on (GM, pretty much every major airline).

Perhaps more to the point, the government generally takes the liability for that risk anyway.

 

[inquisitivegeek]

The business model of companies like Wal-Mart is pretty conservative and does not take on large risk. Banks like Citibank - well let's not go there; the whole concept of fractional reserve banking is basically fraudulent.

When the stakes become high enough that national interest/pride gets involved - national airlines are an example - the government steps in and bails them out, in exchange for equity or even golden shares.

But my point is that why should corporate entities take on unquantifiable risk of a nuclear disaster for a slow and steady income? From a business point of view, it would be much better to invest in the devils you know such as cleaner coal/oil/gas power plants.

 

[mheslep]

Aviation has the same kind of liability caps in place as nuclear. Western reactors have safety risks, but they can no more go "Chernobyl" (graphite fire with no containment) than they can have a nuclear explosion.

 

[DrDu]

It would be interesting to have data from France, maybe the only country which sets on nuclear reactors as a basic pillar in energy generation.

 

[mheslep]

It would be interesting to have data from France, maybe the only country which sets on nuclear reactors as a basic pillar in energy generation.

WNA has most of the basics.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/France/

 

[jim hardy]

With a nuke one runs into the need for a huge support staff.. They perform the continuous review process on operating experience and "what if" scenarios, and exchange memoranda with regulatory agencies, .

When you have to employ a thousand extra folks just because it's a nuke, much of the fuel cost differential disappears.
Economy of scale kicks in if a utility can spread that cost over several plants. My old employer has bought several plants around the country.

 

[mheslep]

A "huge support staff" that spends its time communicating with regulatory agencies is by definition there by fiat, and dependent on a bureaucratic construction for its existence, wise or otherwise. Furthermore, now large corporations have built their business models upon this bureaucratic construction. An innovator in SMR or similarly lean technology that hopes to eliminate much of that staff by design is bound to have many, well funded opponents that would likely attempt to pull the levers of that bureaucracy. That's worrisome.

 

[Joshua McAnaney]

No, it isn't (and never has been):

http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2012/04/~/media/Research/Images/0/123/0426_chart2.png It once held promise to be cheap, but it has never been efficiently enough regulated to be cheap. A lot of that has to do with politics.

So the basic answer to your question is that nuclear power is limited due to a combination of unfavorable economics and politics.

WOW, just realized how much the energy companies are ripping us off. Not that I blame them, that's capitalism at it's finest, but seriously, that's a huge profit per kWh, especially when you consider just the baseline amount of energy required at any given time for, say, the US or the UK. That's a huge profit margin.

 

[mheslep]

The majority of the typical electric rate in the US (12¢/kWh) goes to creation and maintenance of a grid which is 99.999% available. Fuel costs for instance have long been a minority of the bill. Nuclear fuel costs are less than 1.2¢/kWh per EIA, coal fuel less than 3¢/kWh. The balance of the bill goes into maintaining existing power plants, including spare plants to absorb planned and unplanned outages, yes building some new plants, and especially the last mile of wiring and transformers to private residences which is typically repaired 24/7 within hours after the latest isolated fallen tree.

Given the above, one of the most outrageous subsidies at the moment is net metering for rooftop solar PV. PV owners can drive their net energy drawn from the utility to zero but pay nearly nothing for the grid connection to their home, given the traditional bill structure which is based on kWh usage at the residential level. Net metering as it exists can't continue much longer.

 

[QuantumPion]

WOW, just realized how much the energy companies are ripping us off. Not that I blame them, that's capitalism at it's finest, but seriously, that's a huge profit per kWh, especially when you consider just the baseline amount of energy required at any given time for, say, the US or the UK. That's a huge profit margin.

What you are talking about? The profit margin on electricity generation is quite slim, only a few percent. The reason why it is economical is that it is stable, predictable market for the most part.

 

[Joshua McAnaney]

What you are talking about? The profit margin on electricity generation is quite slim, only a few percent. The reason why it is economical is that it is stable, predictable market for the most part.

Yes, but bearing in mind that the current power demand in the UK alone is 30.57GW right now, spread out over that amount, that's a huge amount of money.

 

[QuantumPion]

Yes, but bearing in mind that the current power demand in the UK alone is 30.57GW right now, spread out over that amount, that's a huge amount of money.

If power companies operated at zero profit, then no one would invest in the company and they would not have any money to expand to meet increasing demand, upgrade, or maintain facilities. They would instead have to borrow the money and pay the banks interest, which would be passed down to the customer. Or, if the government ran the power companies at zero profit, then the money would come from taxes. So profit, interest, or taxes, you're paying for it one way or another. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

 

[gmax137]

Yes, but bearing in mind that the current power demand in the UK alone is 30.57GW right now, spread out over that amount, that's a huge amount of money.

Yes, it is huge amount of money, but it is also a huge amount of electricity.

I'm not sure where that 30.57 GW value comes from, is it the average grid load in the UK?

Assuming that's what it is, go ahead and figure out the annual profit being made by selling that 30.57 GW

Not sure what you pay in the UK say 0.15 GBP per kw-hr? And if the power company is making 10% profit (certainly it is less than that), then they'd be making
30.57E6 * 0.15 * 0.1 * 24 * 365 = 4 E9 GBP/yr. sounds like a lot (it is!)
But compare to, say, annual profits of Exxon Mobil at 32 Billion USD = 22 Billion GBP -- now who is doing the rip off?

If you still think the power companies are treasure troves, buy some of their stock, and get your share of the riches.

 

[DEvens]

http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2012/04/~/media/Research/Images/0/123/0426_chart2.png

[snips]

This graph is clearly not accurate. When required to pay their property tax on the cost of their installations, solar in Ontario loses money at 40 cents/kWhr. Clearly they are doing some kind of jim-jam average on solar and natural gas.

 

[mheslep]

At 50deg N Ontario might not be a good representative of solar costs

 

[russ_watters]

WOW, just realized how much the energy companies are ripping us off. Not that I blame them, that's capitalism at it's finest, but seriously, that's a huge profit per kWh, especially when you consider just the baseline amount of energy required at any given time for, say, the US or the UK. That's a huge profit margin.

No, those numbers tell you nothing at all about profit margin because they do not include the cost of distributing the electricity, only the cost of making it.

 

[Joshua McAnaney]

Yes, it is huge amount of money, but it is also a huge amount of electricity.

I'm not sure where that 30.57 GW value comes from, is it the average grid load in the UK?

Assuming that's what it is, go ahead and figure out the annual profit being made by selling that 30.57 GW

Not sure what you pay in the UK say 0.15 GBP per kw-hr? And if the power company is making 10% profit (certainly it is less than that), then they'd be making
30.57E6 * 0.15 * 0.1 * 24 * 365 = 4 E9 GBP/yr. sounds like a lot (it is!)
But compare to, say, annual profits of Exxon Mobil at 32 Billion USD = 22 Billion GBP -- now who is doing the rip off?

If you still think the power companies are treasure troves, buy some of their stock, and get your share of the riches.

Yeah, that's the average baseline according to the National Grid. I do of course understand that you'd have to factor in distribution and maintenance costs, etc. on top of that but it's still a very lucrative sector (at least until fusion comes along and puts them all out of business). As an afterthought on money, though, we have a 3kWh solar panel system and sell the excess back to the grid. We've made around £43 so far this week, although I'm not sure how much power we generated. I'll take a look sometime and find out how much the scheme pays as a feed in tariff.