Aris Candris of Westinghouse Electric Company
Image: COURTESY OF WESTINGHOUSE
More In This Article
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Editor's note: This Q&A is a part of a survey conducted by Scientific American of executives at companies engaged in developing and implementing non–fossil fuel energy technologies.
What technical obstacles currently most curtail the growth of nuclear fission? What are the prospects for overcoming them in the near future and the longer-term?
It's important to understand that nuclear fission is a mature technology and has been in commercial use for over 50 years. The technical challenge of safely splitting an atom, harnessing that energy and converting it to electricity is well-understood throughout the world.
For example, 440 operating nuclear power plants produce 16 percent of all of the electricity generated in the world. The 104 plants in the U.S. generate 20 percent. Elsewhere, France's 58 nuclear power plants generate approximately 85 percent of that country's electricity while other countries like Belgium, Lithuania and Slovakia derive more than half of their electric power from nuclear power plants.
Additionally, scores of new plants are either under construction or consideration throughout the world. In the last four years alone, Westinghouse has received inquiries from no less than 40 countries regarding possible new nuclear power plants. We have four of our AP1000 nuclear power plants under construction in China, and we have been identified as the technology of choice for no less than 14 new plants announced in the U.S., including six for which we have signed engineering, procurement and construction contracts.
Like all industries, though, we do face some challenges. Fortunately, we at Westinghouse, and others in our industry, are making great progress in overcoming them.
For example, there is a clear need to bring new, young talent into the industry, both to replace employees who have or will soon reach retirement eligibility and to prepare for the growth referenced above.
At Westinghouse, we began to address this issue in the mid-1990s when we rebuilt our college recruiting infrastructure. Our effort has been successful, as we have hired more than 4,000 new employees over the last few years, and we project to hire between 500 and 750 new employees each year for the foreseeable future.
We are also working to strengthen and enlarge the worldwide nuclear supply chain, and to establish partnerships with our suppliers and customers that will help ensure that we have not only the people but the high-quality products and technologies necessary for the nuclear renaissance to be both real and long-term.
Can the existing energy infrastructure handle growth in nuclear? Or does that, too, need further modification?
The U.S. electricity grid is large and well established, and clearly able to absorb the first new base-load plants, be they coal or nuclear, that will be coming online over the next decade. Longer term, the grid will certainly need to be expanded and strengthened both to meet long-term projected load growth and to improve the security, reliability and efficiency of our overall energy infrastructure. We should as a nation be proactive in this area, and we are encouraged that the Department of Energy, the private sector and a range of industry organizations are now developing ways to modernize the grid.
In other parts of the world, however, the requirements for distributing nuclear-powered electricity to end users is considerably different. If you look at where the future growth in global electricity demand is greatest, you'll find that many developing countries in Africa and Asia are in the greatest need and are already looking to nuclear power to meet their forecasted demand in the years ahead.
But many of these countries have localized population centers, defined by large cities and largely undeveloped rural land. In situations like this, a 300-400 megawatt (MW) nuclear generating station can supply the needs of a large population center with a dedicated transmission line, unlike that of the U.S. and parts of Europe, which require 1,000–1,200 MW plants and a vast transmission infrastructure to distribute power to densely populated and developed suburban areas.
Given the current economic crisis, can your industry get the necessary capital (from public or private sources) to adequately finance its growth?
The consensus opinion is that in order to meet growing demand, the U.S. electric power industry needs to invest between $750 billion and $1 trillion in new generating capacity, new transmission and distribution infrastructure, and environmental controls over the next decade.
Anticipating this problem and the huge financial burden it would place on the industry, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was amended to provide limited investment stimulus for construction of new base-load power plants, including tax credits, debt insurance, and federal loan guarantees for up to 80 percent of the total project cost.
Additionally, construction of new generating capacity in regulated states enables the utility to build the cost of construction into the rate base, further easing the debt burden in capital projects of this magnitude.
From a strategic standpoint, which is the bigger competitor for nuclear: incumbent coal, oil and gas technologies or other alternative energy technologies?
We're in a new era of energy production in the U.S.; it's no longer a question of which energy technology will prevail. The real question is: how quickly can the U.S. become energy independent and meet the needs of economic growth with the lowest possible environmental impact?
Consequently, the notion of a "competitor" for nuclear power is inconsequential. There's no longer any debate that America needs more energy from nuclear power. At the same time, however, there's also no debate that we need more energy from solar, wind, hydro, clean coal, natural gas and other domestic sources, along with realizing greater gains in energy conservation.
The fact is that coal and nuclear power are the only sources of base-load generating capacity in the U.S. today, and will continue to be for the near and intermediate term.
Nuclear power is the only readily available energy technology that can meet America's growing demand for electricity in the near term, and at the same time release no carbon dioxide, greenhouse gases or other pollutants to the environment.
See what we're tweeting about
18 Comments
Add CommentUmmm...no question about what to do about the waste?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI had hoped there would be mention of a better way to handle the waste involved, by re-using it rather than just burying it for example. Not a sausage on this issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author - and the nuclear power industry in general - intentionally choose not to discuss nuclear's fatal flaw as an energy source: what to do with nuclear waste. After fifty years waste still has not been dealt with, and the cost of permanent waste storage is conveniently ignored by proponents.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe first time some terrorist uses a dirty bomb to contaminate a major city for a few thousand years suddenly the world may realize the huge ignored cost of nuclear waste non-disposal.
-Allen Wicks
I was under the impression that what is now called waste could be cycled and used some more, if you didn't mind generating weapon grade material in the process. That is, they "waste" more than they need to in fear of making material that could be used for terrorism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh you people who wonder about waste. Three things based on reality, i.e., facts, should help. First, all of the nuclear waste to date - 50 years worth- would barely fill a single football stadium. Therefore to date, 20% of the US power has been produced with ZERO greenhouse emissions and a small waste footprint.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTwo, if we would revise the sad Jimmy Carter policies (1979) to a place where they make sense, we could recycle the waste so that the football stadium would become a hockey arena. The technology has existed since the 70's and France uses it. Today, we are even better prepared to re-cycle nuclear fuel and make waste a minimal issue. It is a political issue and not a technical issue.
Third, if we continue the Jimmy Carter Policies, we can continue storing the fuel at all of the reactor sites for the next 1000 years. Does anyone really believe (meaning you don't know) that our society will not have a useful and productive way to recycle the partially-used fuel? It is not waste, it is fuel that has many more lifetimes to produce energy. True waste is approximately 5% of what is stored today.
Think about this: France (liberals & extreme environmentalists) produce 85% of their energy from Nuclear and they reject Jimmy Carter and they re-cycle; Finland (liberals & extreme environmentalists - I have been there so I know) are building another reactor that is the largest in the world; and Japan, which has every reason in the world to be ANTI-NUCLEAR is over 50% nuclear powered. What does that tell you about other cultures and how they view solving problems.
Nuclear power in the US is a political and social issue, not a technical issue. We need to pay attention to the facts and do the right thing. By the way, since the 70's, nuclear power has improved efficiency & availability so that the generation as compared to 1995 has actually increased overall production from 20 to 25% of US capacity - based on 1995 data. Therefore, we as US citizens have benefited immensely from improvements in the industry. Has CNN or NPR reported any of that? All of us have benefited from a robust and safe industry over 50 years old. When are our leaders going to stop worrying about getting re-elected and do the right thing. Go to Finland and see what a beautiful country it is. See what their leaders can do when they embrace reality, technology and the interests of their citizens above politics. See what the world can be when money and power do not rule the day. See what Thomas & Alexander dreamed.
Oh you people who wonder about waste. Three things based on reality, i.e., facts, should help. First, all of the nuclear waste to date - 50 years worth- would barely fill a single football stadium. Therefore to date, 20% of the US power has been produced with ZERO greenhouse emissions and a small waste footprint.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTwo, if we would revise the sad Jimmy Carter policies (1979) to a place where they make sense, we could recycle the waste so that the football stadium would become a hockey arena. The technology has existed since the 70's and France uses it. Today, we are even better prepared to re-cycle nuclear fuel and make waste a minimal issue. It is a political issue and not a technical issue.
Third, if we continue the Jimmy Carter Policies, we can continue storing the fuel at all of the reactor sites for the next 1000 years. Does anyone really believe (meaning you don't know) that our society will not have a useful and productive way to recycle the partially-used fuel? It is not waste, it is fuel that has many more lifetimes to produce energy. True waste is approximately 5% of what is stored today.
Think about this: France (liberals & extreme environmentalists) produce 85% of their energy from Nuclear and they reject Jimmy Carter and they re-cycle; Finland (liberals & extreme environmentalists - I have been there so I know) are building another reactor that is the largest in the world; and Japan, which has every reason in the world to be ANTI-NUCLEAR is over 50% nuclear powered. What does that tell you about other cultures and how they view solving problems.
Nuclear power in the US is a political and social issue, not a technical issue. We need to pay attention to the facts and do the right thing. By the way, since the 70's, nuclear power has improved efficiency & availability so that the generation as compared to 1995 has actually increased overall production from 20 to 25% of US capacity - based on 1995 data. Therefore, we as US citizens have benefited immensely from improvements in the industry. Has CNN or NPR reported any of that? All of us have benefited from a robust and safe industry over 50 years old. When are our leaders going to stop worrying about getting re-elected and do the right thing. Go to Finland and see what a beautiful country it is. See what their leaders can do when they embrace reality, technology and the interests of their citizens above politics. See what the world can be when money and power do not rule the day. See what Thomas & Alexander dreamed.
Maybe we can use Sierra Dragon breath to generate power or perhaps Mr. Wicks has a candle factory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTim Walker
It is estimated that Obama's plan could benefit 8 to 9 million homeowners from the new modification procedures. So how do you know you qualify for the Mortgage Modification? Check the website <a href="http://obamamortgage2009.blogspot.com/">http://obamamortgage2009.blogspot.com/</a>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisto see if you qualify. I was also in trouble and I am glad I did check it before I talk to my mortgage company and it helped - John Mayer, California
Lorry69 has the right idea...look at the facts not the propaganda. Nuclear waste can be dealt with and is dealt with in other countries through reprocessing technologies that already exist. Yet, the current administration rejected a plan which would get the U.S Government investigating the best techniques for reprocessing. The real issue is to get the politics out of the picture and get the technologies in. We should all be pouncing on senators etc. to get on board with a proven technology. Not that we should ignor other sources of future potential power, just that most of those are many years away in development and we need to start gaining energy independence NOW!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that nuclear waste can be dealt with and reprocessing of fuels should be pursued as it is done in other countries. Another option for nuclear could be breeder reactors to produce additional fuel. Finally, why doesn't anyone raise the issue of coal "waste" in terms of the tons of flyash and carcinogenic materials resulting from the burning of coal?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll processes produce waste - natural, surreal, cosmic, human body, or man-made. There are no perpetual energy machines anywhere. Get over it. How we deal with waste is crucial to our survival. Carbon fuels pollute as do others. Even wind machines produce by-products such as affects on animals and scenery. Petrochemicals are also crucial other non-energy processes such as plastics and medical. Lack of science education as well as media hype perpetuate this ridiculous NIMBY selfishness that started in 1970's when oil was plentiful and big oil pockets were deep enough to fund many non-nuclear initiatives. The horizon for this end is not that far away. We better be ready for alternative energy for the sake of future generations and our security.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are solutions to how to handle the waste. Indeed the compactness of waste generated by nuclear power makes the management of the waste easy. Most of the obstacles to the waste issue are political and not technical. The risks to the public from radioactive materials from waste are minimal and understood.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suggest that you learn and explore the waste issue. This web site provides information how to manage the waste.
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/
You ask about the waste. I ask that when you do be sure that you educate yourself as well. The risks to the public from nuclear power and the waste are very small when compared to other acceptable risks that you take everyday.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTechnically solutions exists on how to properly manage and deal with the nuclear waste. Indeed, one could turn the waste around as a pro for nuclear power since the waste volume is so small. When you look at the waste generated by coal which is large and dispersed into the atmosphere then compare this to nuclear with small volumes in a compact space, then one could consider this a positive for nuclear.
I strongly recommend that you do some research on your own to inform yourself about the waste. My experience has been that old news, old media misinformation and hype, combined with ignorance has led to "knee jerk" reactions claiming nuclear waste is an unsolvable problem.
I also suggest that one do the proper research to put risk in perspective.
Here are a couple of sources to help someone along this journey of education:
This web site provide lots of information about how to safely manage nuclear waste:
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/
I guess I was not clear. Nuclear power SHOULD be in the mix for "alternative power" options for security reasons and I was citing all the slanted arguments used by non-nuclear advocates to refute their own position. Nader "absolutisms" feed media hype and are no basis for disciplined decisions. But, since large central station power plants are a huge undertaking, other methods that are more suitable to the local resources and population should be included for local control as well. Conservation is important also.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLorry69- In 1981, Ronald Reagan repealed the Executive Order banning reprocessing of nuclear fuel, however, the reprocessing facilities did not resume operation. It is soley an issue of building/operating a facility. I believe the limiting issue is transportation of 'spent' fuel. It can be transported safely, however, it is a complicated process, and therefore, scary!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, how do you safely store nuclear contaminants? I don't see that addressed here. Is there a reason it isn't addressed?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow would you solve the deteriorating situation of Chernobyl to make sure that 20,000 years down the line the containment concrete doesn't fail and poison an unsuspecting succeeding civilization or ecosystem? Does Westinghouse have a solution for this and other possible contamination scenarios?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrance buries their waste. "Out of sight, out of mind?" What happens if geologic conditions change and the containment area ruptures? (Geologic conditions will change over the decay time of the material, most likely, since its thousands of years.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this