Nuclear energy in USA: why only 19%

[tom8]

Fukushima disaster aside, the USA has only 19% of its energy needs from nuclear plants: see here. Being a free energy, I wonder whether there are reasons, other than safety concerns, that prevents the US from depending more on nuclear energy?

 

[phinds]

Fukushima disaster aside, the USA has only 19% of its energy needs from nuclear plants: see here. Being a free energy, I wonder whether there are reasons, other than safety concerns, that prevents the US from depending more on nuclear energy?

Not sure how you get that it is "free energy" but it most certainly is not. The cost of building a safe nuclear reactor is HUGE and running/maintaining it is not trivial. They DO pay for themselves in the very long run, but the startup cost is very off-putting.

The other reason is regulatory. I remember reading not too long ago that getting permission to build a nuclear power plant takes about 10 years, IF you can get it at all.

 

[tom8]

I guess I meant that it is cheaper than other forms of energy, like oil or gas. But perhaps this depends on the exact price of these two.

 

[russ_watters]

I guess I meant that it is cheaper than other forms of energy, like oil or gas.

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.

 

[wabbit]

How are the social costs estimated here ? Not that they are irrelevant, but it would seem they must have huge error bars, no (*)? This might not affect the comparison that much though, in any case nuclear power isn't really cheap once you include building and safe disposal of various waste, and to see it broadly in line with other sources doesn't seem too surprising.

On the other hand i am skeptical of the " new wind" position. At least where I live this is only viable because of heavy subsidies, and the most important factor in how much is built is the amount of subsidies (but then again I don't live in the US so different conditions).

(*) or is that defined here as the amount of tax/subsidies imposed on a given industry?

 

[russ_watters]

Here's the source article:
http://www.hamiltonproject.org/files/downloads_and_links/05_energy_greenstone_looney.pdf

I must admit I haven't read it yet and had similar questions about the social costs -- but the private costs alone get the point across for the OP.

 

[SteamKing]

Not sure how you get that it is "free energy" but it most certainly is not. The cost of building a safe nuclear reactor is HUGE and running/maintaining it is not trivial. They DO pay for themselves in the very long run, but the startup cost is very off-putting.

The other reason is regulatory. I remember reading not too long ago that getting permission to build a nuclear power plant takes about 10 years, IF you can get it at all.

Not only are the start up costs huge for a nuclear plant, but the operation of the reactors generates radioactive waste which must be stored long-term. There is no current central repository for the storage of this waste, primarily because no state or locality wants to host one.

Like all man-made devices, reactors have a finite useful life, after which they must be shut down and dismantled, which is expensive and which creates more radioactive scrap material which cannot be re-cycled and must be stored long-term.

 

[wabbit]

Here's the source article:
http://www.hamiltonproject.org/files/downloads_and_links/05_energy_greenstone_looney.pdf

Thanks. I also followed your image link to the brooking sites, and the debate they have over precise comparisons seems quite rich and complex... But yes, I agree for the order of magnitude one doesn't need to get there.

 

[Astronuc]

The percentage of electricity generation that is nuclear dropped somewhat since we had the shutdown of San Onofre Units 2 and 3. Some older plants, e.g., Kewaunee and Vermont Yankee are shutdown due to economics.

Startup costs for nuclear plants are quite high. O&M costs can be high as well, e.g., replacing steam generators that didn't last the life of the plant. Then there is the matter of spent fuel storage, which the government (DOE) was supposed to start taking in the 70s, then 80s, then . . . .

In the 1970s, there were plans for over 200 nuclear plants, but then TMI-2 had an accident, and about 100 plants were cancelled. There were major construction problems at places like Zimmer, and Shoreham was completed, but only operated for several EFPD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoreham_Nuclear_Power_Plant

 

[tom8]

Thanks for the discussions. I was under the impression that nuclear power is the cheapest, now I think I got my facts straight. I expect that after Fukushima disaster, the use of nuclear power is going to be diminished...

 

[SteamKing]

Thanks for the discussions. I was under the impression that nuclear power is the cheapest, now I think I got my facts straight. I expect that after Fukushima disaster, the use of nuclear power is going to be diminished...

At one time, it was claimed that nuclear energy would produce electricity that was "too cheap to meter", but after a while, reality set in from the day to day problems arising from constructing, running, and eventually decommissioning numbers of nuclear plants.

Although it takes teams of engineers and atomic scientists to design a nuke plant, the simple arithmetic of estimating whether a particular plant will generate a positive return on investment is probably the most difficult part of the project.

 

[phinds]

Thanks for the discussions. I was under the impression that nuclear power is the cheapest, now I think I got my facts straight. I expect that after Fukushima disaster, the use of nuclear power is going to be diminished...

It already has, considerably. Japan and a couple of other countries have announced that they are going to eventually eliminate their nuclear power completely and in the US the regulatory hurtles have already made it pretty much a non-starter.

 

[Astronuc]

From my experience, there are no regulatory hurdles. The process is pretty straightforward, one develops a design, and submits a PSAR to the NRC. The NRC reviews it, particularly if a utility shows interest in procuring a plant.

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0113/ML011340072.pdf

And NUREG-0800, or the Standard Review Plan
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0800/It's not a matter of simply creating a concept, but one has to do detail designs with drawing and plenty of engineering analysis. That is not a hurdle, but a necessity.

 

[russ_watters]

From my experience, there are no regulatory hurdles. The process is pretty straightforward, one develops a design, and submits a PSAR to the NRC. The NRC reviews it, particularly if a utility shows interest in procuring a plant.

Sounds simple enough. So how long does it take from the time a company decides they want to build one, until they are allowed to break ground?

 

[Astronuc]

Sounds simple enough. How long does it take?

It could take a few years. One can see on the NRC site when suppliers meet with the NRC, and when they submit their Design Certification Documents (DCDs). Take a look at the AP1000s which are now under construction at Vogtle and Summer sites.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/new-nuc-plant-des-bg.html

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert.html

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/isg/col-app-design-cert.html

Nuclear plants are complex, as are aircraft and ships, but there are processes in place to introduce new concepts. Most new plants are Gen-3+, or SMRs, which are derivatives of existing technology (PWRs) with some innovations, e.g., natural convection. One needs to be able to demonstrate to the NRC that the plant and core performance is predictable, and that the plants can be properly cooled and controlled under normal operation, anticipated occurrences, or in the case of several postulated accidents, that the consequences, including exposure to plants personnel and off-site, will not be underpredicted or underestimated.

 

[russ_watters]

It could take a few years.

A few? Based on the timelines here, the process is expected to take 7-9 years for recently proposed plants (if one believes they won't be delayed by legal challenges and political wrangling...):
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/country-profiles/countries-T-Z/USA--Nuclear-Power/

To me, that's a problem.

[edit] Much of the problem has nothing, per se, to do with nuclear power. It's the laws and legal system that allow NIMBYs to mount nearly unlimited legal challenges to big, high-profile projects. Cape Wind, for example, was first proposed in 2001. It was first approved for construction by the state of Mass in 2005 and has been held-up mostly by legal and political challenges (including federal wrangling over who has approval authority) ever since. 14 years -- and because of all that, the project is now likely to die.

The longer it takes to execute a project, the worse the economics get.

 

[Astronuc]

There's two stages for a nuclear plant - one is the design and certification part that suppliers like Westinghouse, AREVA, GEH, and now SMR suppliers provide with the NRC certifying the design, then there is the siting and construction part in which a utility hires a A&E and a construction firm. The siting and permitting for a nuclear plant is usually where interveners challenge the plant.

The time for review and approval depends on where one starts, e.g., a modified design or a brand new design, with new technologies, e.g., liquid metal, or gas cooled, or major changes to safety systems.

 

[russ_watters]

There's two stages for a nuclear plant - one is the design and certification part that suppliers like Westinghouse, AREVA, GEH, and now SMR suppliers provide with the NRC certifying the design, then there is the siting and construction part in which a utility hires a A&E and a construction firm. The siting and permitting for a nuclear plant is usually where interveners challenge the plant.

The time for review and approval depends on where one starts, e.g., a modified design or a brand new design, with new technologies, e.g., liquid metal, or gas cooled, or major changes to safety systems.

Yes. Part of the problemw with the current state regarding the plant design is that there is no momentum from multiple plants being proposed/constructed simultaneously due to the decades-long gap between new plants. If multple (10-20) were under review/construction simultaneously, designs could be standardized and they could essentially always have an approved design ready to go, with little or no time required for design certification.

Also - and I'm not sure if it is or isn't now - site permitting and reactor design certification should be done in parallel instead of sequentially.

But yes, the major issue is the way legal challenges are allowed to drag-out the site approval process for decades. That needs to change.

 

[wabbit]

On the other hand, NIMBY is a fair concern, and a project should not proceed if the people located nearby aren't compensated to their satisaction. This may be extra cost, but it is legitimate.

 

[russ_watters]

On the other hand, NIMBY is a fair concern...

I've rarely seen a NIMBY concern I've considered reasonable.

...and a project should not proceed if the people located nearby aren't compensated to their satisaction. This may be extra cost, but it is legitimate.

You mean like with jobs and electricity? Not all NIMBYs are after money, most seem to me to be trying to kill projects. In general, I think the economic benefit itself from the project should be enough compensation, but there may be additional compensation warranted if a project reduces a previous utility of the space.

 

[Astronuc]

The environmental issue (intervention) happens with all energy projects, not just nuclear. A 1-2 GWe plant was proposed for our area back in NY, but local residents didn't want it. Opposition was enough to kill the plan.

As for nuclear, the current regulations on a design are found in 10 CFR 52. Certified designs are then available to utilities.

Utilities can go for early site permit (ESP) or combined license (COL)
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/esp.html
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col.html

A number of current sites are already approved/licensed for multiple units, so they could host one or more additional units, depending on the site.

 

[wabbit]

I've rarely seen a NIMBY concern I've considered reasonable.
You mean like with jobs and electricity? Not all NIMBYs are after money, most seem to me to be trying to kill projects. In general, I think the economic benefit itself from the project should be enough compensation, but there may be additional compensation warranted if a project reduces a previous utility of the space.

Hmm... hot issue here. I'd rather not go into a political debate in this forum, so I'll just state that I do not agree with this and retreat from this thread: )

 

[russ_watters]

Fair enough. If you wish, we can discuss the challenges against Cape Wind in the politics forum, as an example?

 

[gmax137]

NIMBY...

I don't think NIMBYism is really the issue. Surveys show the local communities have strong support for nuclear power. See here, for links under "Plant Neighbors Voice ..." (note the survey linked here excludes the plant employees)

http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Public-Opinion

Anecdotally, every plant I've worked at had strong support from the local communities. The natives viewed the vocal critics as outsiders (at Maine Yankee they said "from away...").

 

[mheslep]

The environmental issue (intervention) happens with all energy projects, not just nuclear...

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".

 

[mheslep]

From my experience, there are no regulatory hurdles. The process is pretty straightforward, one develops a design, and submits a PSAR to the NRC. The NRC reviews it, particularly if a utility shows interest in procuring a plant.

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0113/ML011340072.pdf

And NUREG-0800, or the Standard Review Plan
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0800/It's not a matter of simply creating a concept, but one has to do detail designs with drawing and plenty of engineering analysis. That is not a hurdle, but a necessity.

There are no hurdles? That's an extraordinary claim. For a gas plant, one does not have to perform a one billion dollar complete engineering analysis before moving a spade of dirt, the standard figure for a light-water thermal spectrum reactor per congressional testimony, and *only* for a light-water reactor, submit it to the federal regulator, and wait 39 months (minimum) for an answer.

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.

 

[mheslep]

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

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

True, for *new* nuclear power as indicated on that chart, with total cost around 10 cents/kWh as shown. But given nuclear plants last a long time, say 60 years, the operating cost alone long after its paid off should also be compared. The "variable O&M" cost for nuclear is 1.2 cents per kWh, which no other thermal generation method can touch (except geothermal).

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think NIMBYism is really the issue. Surveys show the local communities have strong support for nuclear power. See here, for links under "Plant Neighbors Voice ..." (note the survey linked here excludes the plant employees)

http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Public-Opinion

Anecdotally, every plant I've worked at had strong support from the local communities. The natives viewed the vocal critics as outsiders (at Maine Yankee they said "from away...").

You are right, but I don't think there's a word for what you describe. It's like a "NIMBY Doughnut": in the hole in the center are where the people close to the plant who benefit from it live. Further away are people close enough to complain but not close enough to receive much economic benefit. Nevada is that way with the Yucca Mountain repository: the locals are in favor, the rest of the state against.

 

[russ_watters]

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".

If that's true, can you explain Cape Wind? The Keystone Pipeline?

Otherwise, we're in agreement on the ridiculous regulatory process for nuclear: It's not that I don't think nuclear has it rough, it's just that I think others have it pretty rough too.

 

[mheslep]

In the case of offshore wind in US waters, Cape Wind or otherwise, I think there is fairly serious technical impediment by way of Atlantic hurricanes. As of couple years ago, the US produced over a quarter of global wind generation, with every single turbine on land. Currently there still is not a single commercial turbine in US waters. I think the threat of hurricanes and the resulting forces on towers and blades make finance difficult with the existing European offshore designs (see abstract below). The offshore design load could be increased with a more robust design, but that means more expense and offshore wind cost is already double that of new nuclear per the EIA.

This is not to deny political problems, but I conclude given the extent of US onshore capacity that political problems are not fundamental in the case of US offshore wind.

...Turbine tower buckling has been observed in typhoons, but no offshore wind turbines have yet been built in the United States. We present a probabilistic model to estimate the number of turbines that would be destroyed by hurricanes in an offshore wind farm. We apply this model to estimate the risk to offshore wind farms in four representative locations in the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal waters of the United States. In the most vulnerable areas now being actively considered by developers, nearly half the turbines in a farm are likely to be destroyed in a 20-y period.

"Quantifying the hurricane risk to offshore wind turbines", PNAS, 2014.