Alan Hanson of AREVA, Inc.
Image: AREVA
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?
In fact, no serious technical obstacles exist that would hamper the expansion of nuclear energy in the U.S. The newest generation of nuclear power plants builds on a foundation of excellence spanning decades and supported by significant improvement in plant efficiency. While the average U.S. nuclear plant in 1980 had a capacity factor of less than 60 percent, today's average is over 90 percent. Generation III+ reactors include safety and efficiency improvements over current models.
Despite the lack of technical obstacles to the expansion of nuclear power, some regulatory and political challenges exist. Allow me to cite two examples. First, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission likely will struggle to review all of the license applications and design certifications according to its current schedule. Second, the federal government still has not awarded any loan guarantees for proposed nuclear facilities, and the program is not funded adequately to provide guarantees to all of the proposed projects.
Although some have argued that current methods of managing nuclear waste present problems, I would affirm that safe, effective management of used fuel and other radioactive material have been consistently demonstrated over several decades. This includes the storage and transportation of used fuel and the recycling and reuse of nuclear fuel in some countries. There is no technical obstacle to managing nuclear waste—we do it safely and effectively today. In fact, the new energy secretary Steven Chu said during in his Senate confirmation hearing that he did not view used fuel management as an issue that should hamper the growth of nuclear power. Of course, there remain political obstacles to the siting and implementation of a repository.
Are there obstacles to scaling up nuclear power to serve an even larger national or global customer base?
In the U.S., the two principal challenges to scaling up production are a weak manufacturing base and the need for a trained workforce. AREVA is taking significant steps to address both challenges. We are investing in several new projects to rebuild the U.S. nuclear industry, including a multibillion-dollar uranium enrichment facility in Idaho. We are also building a facility in Newport News, Va., to manufacture heavy reactor components through a partnership with Northrop Grumman.
We know that finding the right workers to meet the growing demand will be a challenge. The industry predicts that we could face a shortage of qualified employees, especially among certain craft workers, in the coming years. AREVA hired some 600 new workers in the U.S. last year and expects to hire the same number this year. We are also training workers to meet our precise needs. For example, our Lynchburg, Va., facilities have formed a partnership with the Central Virginia Community College to train new technicians that will work at the facilities in the region.
Can the existing energy infrastructure handle growth in nuclear? Or does that, too, need further modification?
The U.S. electricity infrastructure is sorely in need of modernization; whatever our choice for generation, we must invest in a newer, more efficient electricity grid. In fact, AREVA's transmission and distribution (T&D) division produces much of the equipment and integrated solutions necessary for this modernization. The use of smart grids delivers electricity more efficiently and at the same time helps reduce the environmental impact of the system. Even based on the current grid, however, nuclear power plants are a good choice, because they provide reliable, dispatchable base-load electricity.
Given the current economic crisis, can your industry get the necessary capital (from public or private sources) to adequately finance its growth?
So far, the nuclear energy industry has been less affected by the economic crisis than most. Financing the construction of a capital-intensive nuclear facility such as a commercial reactor or enrichment plant, however, is a challenging enterprise even in good economic times. The current environment has made initiatives, such as the federal loan guarantee program, even more critical to the successful development of nuclear facilities.
We must bear in mind that nuclear energy is not the only industry that receives federal financial support. In reality, the government provides support for all energy sources, including coal, oil and gas, and all types of renewables, in addition to nuclear. As the nation considers investment in new electricity infrastructure, we should maintain a long-range perspective. Although nuclear power plants require large up-front investments, their operational and fuel costs are competitive and predictable.
From a strategic standpoint, which is the bigger competitor for nuclear: incumbent coal, oil and gas technologies or other alternative energy technologies?
Over the past two decades some 90 percent of the new plants built in the U.S. have been natural gas–fired power plants. Thus, natural gas has become the de facto competitor of nuclear energy; both now produce roughly 20 percent of the nation's electricity. However, one of nuclear power's strengths is its stable and predictable fuel costs. Once the construction costs of a nuclear plant are amortized, its operating costs are less than those of any fossil fuel–fired plant, including coal. Should the government impose a price on carbon emissions, whether it is a tax or cap-and-trade system, CO2-free sources, such as nuclear energy, will become even more competitive.
AREVA actively supports the expansion of alternative energy technologies. The company formed a joint venture with Duke Energy, ADAGE, to build and operate biomass power plants in the U.S. We manufacture offshore wind turbines in Europe. We recognize that, although we anticipate significant growth in this sector, these sources are complements to large-scale sources such as nuclear rather than competitors.
Is there a cost target that you and others in your industry are aiming to achieve in, say, five years?
After completing a first-of-a-kind facility, such as the EPR reactor, we expect to achieve significant cost savings in building subsequent reactors in a series. Until we achieve series production, it is too early to predict what the actual cost will be. Our goal is to deliver nuclear power plants and fuel at costs that will make them competitive with other sources of electricity generation.
See what we're tweeting about
18 Comments
Add CommentThough I believe nuclear is probably the best alternative for energy grid generation that is in current wide use in the U.S., I think that we need intensified public clarity, demonstration and education regarding the risks of nuclear waste disposition under current technology protocols.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo be sure, nuclear has made promising strides in efficiency and presumably in safety during a period in which very few new nuclear grid generation facilities have actually come on line. That does not necessarily mean it's proven as the bee's knees of generation for the energy grid.
Mr. Hanson points up the political risks but is rather glibly dismissive of the scientific consensus (or lack of it) regarding nuclear waste disposition.
Did Dr. Chu actually testify to Congress that he regards nuclear, in its present iteration, as a preferable generation option? I don't believe that he did, and thus I don't think that advocacy of nuclear reflects a well-rounded, thoroughly-informed long-term view!
the fact that we can put nuclear waste somewhere for other generations to deal with is NOT getting rid of it safely, its there for a very long time. We are finding out about our safe storage of pcbs,mercury,lead,nano particles, the list goes on. We merely make it someone suffer later for our convenience now. To say that nuclear waste is green energy is ridiculous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe biggest obstacle to nuclear power expansion is the nearing end of the Megatons to Megawatts US Russian deal in 2013. Ex-weapons diluted HEU keeps half of the US nukes in fuel, while uranium production in neighbouring Canada has dropped 23% in 3 years. Meanwhile Russia plans to expand its nuclear sector and will need all its secondary supplies for itself, as its mining supply is in deficit and it imports from Kazakhstan.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscaosesvida -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with your point, but it will help us all to have decent regulation accompanied by truly independent studies regarding nuke waste. We should no longer be left with the opinions generated in the 70s and 80s, but lack of regulation and forthright reporting has left us with hardly any other options in post-Carter years.
We could have all of the electric power we could wish for from nuclear power and it would not help the Peak Oil energy crisis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter 80 years of searching, there is no way to store and use electric power for large tractors/combines, long distance trucks, ships, and the freight trains in use currently.
Time has run out for an electric economy, oil production limits credit and any changeover to an economy economy.
As the recession deepens into a permanent and ever worsening economic depression, we will have spare electric power as factories, commercial plazas, and offices close.
Documented here with scientific reports: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
http://survivingpeakoil.blogspot.com/
Nuclear reactors can produce emission free energy for electric mass transit and charge batteries for electric vehicles. It is even possible to imagine electrified highways for computer guided personal vehicles. We will soon need to replace methane as a source of hydrogen for anhydrous ammonia. When natural gas gets more expensive food supply will cost too much. The starvation which Erlich predicted will occur. High temperature reactors can save the day by splitting hydrogen from water at 50% efficiency. With hydrogen, synthetic hydrocarbon fuels may be produced cheaper than fossil fuel. The liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) looks promising. It may cost much less to build than the LWRs and it may have the potential to produce kwhs cheaper than dirty coal. Low proliferation risk and no long term waste are among its attractive characteristics. It also can fission the slightly used fuel from our LWRs. A small amount of fission products some of which have medical uses is all that needs storage for about 300 year. It has a negative reactivity coefficient and a freeze plug that makes it very safe. It can throttle up quickly to handle peak loads. Eugene Wigner and Alvin Weinberg had a couple of pilot reactors of the molten salt type operating in the 1950s and 1960s and they thought that to be a better design for domestic power. We need to move away from our LWR technology to generation IV technology. We seem paralyzed by fear, but for the good of future generations now is the time to take bold steps.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ tjostemj,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou discuss what is technically feasible, but not practical. Both National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers identify insurmountable problems with hydrogen. First, it is very unsafe for use in automobiles and trucks, as it leaks easily from metal tanks and is highly explosive. Second, there is no practical way to transport hydrogen, as it occupies much volume and can not be transported in existing pipelines. And third, the cost due to the first and second problems is prohibitive. In addition the change over would costs trillions of dollars in investment, and such capital is not available. This is documented with links in the latter sections of this report: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
If you reread his comment, you'll see that tjostemj didn't say anything about using hydrogen directly as a fuel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, nuclear energy is one of the the most green energies we have.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead Stewart Brand: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/science/earth/27tier.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost renewable energies yield electric energy, which is not practical in powering tractors, combines, long distance trucks, airplanes, ships, and most freight trains. The development of these renewables uses much liquid fuel and yields electric energy, which in not useful. And why develop more electric energy as factories, commercial center, and offices close and require less electric power?
Renewable energy is an elusive butterfly, as it is manufactured, transported, and maintained on fossil energy, which will soon become prohibitively expensive. When the power grid goes out, electric energy will not be available, except locally, until spare parts for the system are not available.
By chasing elusive butterflies, we don't see that we are running off a cliff.
Global oil production is declining now. As oil and natural gas production decline, more oil and natural gas energy is expended in extraction and refining processes, and less net oil and natural gas are actually produced. Because the net production curve toward depletion is steeper than the production curves that we see on most all charts, this is an important question. For much deep water oil and gas extraction, the point at which the amount of oil/gas expended equals the amount of oil/gas produced is reached quickly, especially when all of the oil/gas used for manufacturing all of the ships, pipelines, platforms, refineries, parts, their manufacture in factories that use energy, and all of the employee/stock owner salaries/dividends/pensions for all of the companies (salaries/dividends/pensions are spent and use oil/gas), and transportation for all of the above parts and employees. And, oil exports are in decline.
Other alternatives hold little or no promise. Coal liquefaction is possible, but global coal production is peaking, the capital for building plants is not available, and this oil production (made from coal)could not make up for much declining oil production. Time to read about the "quicksand effect" by metallurgist Chris Shaw: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5964
We are in the quicksand period of the oil age.
We are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel trucks for maintenance of bridges, cleaning culverts to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables, all from far away. With the highways out, there will be no food coming in from outside, and without the power grid virtually nothing works, including home heating, irrigation, water supply and waste water treatment, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, and automated systems.
It is time to face the music, and prepare for Peak Oil impacts.
Best regards,
Cliff Wirth
Clifford J. Wirth, Ph.D.
clifford.wirth@peakoilassociates.com
www.peakoilassociates.com
Telephone 603-668-4207
Dr. Edward Teller, the father of Fusion, after a lifetime of work on every aspect of nuclear technology had at the end of his life come to this conclusion in his final study: the LFTR is the best of all possible reactor types.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe LFTR is a very simple, efficient, and elegant type of reactor. It can start up on any kind of nuclear fuel, bomb material, or nuclear waste product to produce very high temperature heat and at the same time breed more fuel in the bargain. This thrifty approach to nuclear energy greatly appeals to me, but I became even more interested in the LFTR when the details of a new patent were revealed by Dr LeBlanc (see below @ minute 53). It opens up the possibility of building a very compact but powerful reactor that can run for 30 years without refueling. With no danger of a core meltdown or runaway reaction, it can be operated remotely in an unattended fully automated intrusion detecting mode and sited underground while it breeds self perpetuating new fuel within the thorium structure of the reactor itself.
At the end of the service life of the Lftr, the reactor vessel is sent back to the factory where it is reduced to liquid fluoride salts that become the feedstock of a next new Lftr. This feedstock can only be used by the new Lftr and not for bombs. A few handfuls of waste products are held at the factory for a few hundred years to cool down before they are mined for the many precious elements contained within like platinum and iridium. Now that is what I call a safe, efficient and thrifty mode of operation!
To learn more see one of the following:
Aim High
http://rethinkingnuclearpower.googlepages.com/aimhigh
What Fusion Wanted To Be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8
Liquid Fluoride Reactors: A New Beginning for an Old Idea
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F0tUDJ35So
I agree with Dr. Wirth that trucks, combines, and airplanes are going to continue to depend on oil as a source of power. Trains can be made electric and ships should be equipped with reactors. Airplanes could be powered with an on-board reactors. One was built to power a plane for the air force in the 1950s. ICBMs came along so the unwise choice of a nuclear powered airplane never took off. The reactor withstood a 100 hour test operated at an 850 degree C temp. Molten salt reactors can throttle up rapidly and be built small enough to fit into a big airplane. To innovate our way past peak oil is certainly going to be a challenge with or without the complication of global warming. Necessity is said to be the mother of invention. We better start inventing before our credit with China runs out. I do believe that depending upon renewables without emission-free nuclear will break the bank and quickly turn us into becoming a third world country. I don't know if nuclear reactors can produce energy that costs less than dirty coal, but we better try to meet that challenge especially if much of global warming is caused by fossil fuel use . I am a biologist with a background in cell physiology and immunology. I know that low level radiation is not the hazard that we been conditioned to fear. In fact a somewhat large dose would actually improve our health.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJohn Tjostem
In this article, signed by then Director, LBNL Mr. Chu endorses the opinion that Nuclear power is "Essential". Perhaps Mr. Chu has become a little too political since last August?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"A Sustainable Energy Future:
The Essential Role of Nuclear Energy" - August 2008
With regard to disposal, let's not forget that countries that host the other 300 nuclear plants in the world, notably France, have solved the nuclear waste problem. Let's not confuse a political problem with a scientific one.
On a deaths per unit of energy produced Nulcear power is the safest power source we have, yes even safer than hydro-electric.
In this report produced by the DOE last August, Mr. Chu as Director of LBNL endorsed the opinion that Nuclear power is “Essential”. Maybe he is a little more political now, and a little less scientific?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“A Sustainable Energy Future:
The Essential Role of Nuclear Energy” - August 2008
Regarding waste disposal please don’t confuse politics with science. Egyptians successfully isolated human remains for thousands of years – aren’t we a little more advanced now? In my opinion we will reprocess (and significantly shrink) this waste within the next 500 years. Alternatively, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in NM seems to safely encapsulate Weapons-era waste in 200-million year old salt formations. The waste that worries me is the Cadmium, Lead, and Mercury we bury in every landfill across the world – will it be safe for 100,000 years? I doubt it. Will it be just as toxic in 100,000 years? Yes.
On a death per unit of energy produced Nuclear energy is the safest power source we have.
Kudos, tjostemj.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comments are "right on"!
We need to go Green immediately. Nuclear is the answer. We will still need gas (Natural Gas) for trucks and heavy vehicles but the majority of all cars can go hybrid or plug in hybrid immediately. Trains can go electric. High speed rail across the US; Canada, and Mexico, all run on electricity, can move goods and people. (for e.g; high speed electric rail in Los Angelos would save millions of dollars, reduce commuting time, reduce emmisions, and have an impact on global warming. All the electricity could come from nuclear power.)
Nuclear power could power desalination plants to provide the water the world desperately needs. Water is going to be the next big crisis. We need to solve it with existing nuclear technology before it happens.
Coal should be outlawed. Nuclear waste needs to be recycled and reused. The huge ships that transport goods and people all need to go nuclear.
The world needs universities teaching courses and offering degrees in practical nuclear theory and technology.
We need to develop R and D centres and mass production of "Power Centres" in unpopulated areas where we can have 10 nuclear power plants of the latest generation pumping out the juice. We need to build these "Power Centres" in conjunction with a waste recycling plant and also have an on site long term storage facility on site. It might cost a lot up front, but it would pay off long term.
Gov't needs to gaurantee funding. As a capitalist, I nevertheless believe that the present political systems in Noth America have the consistent weakness of only being able to look at things "short term" as in 4 to 8 years. The Chinese, on the other hand, are making long term choices that are already giving them a leg up. We inthe west really need to smarten up.
There is an introductory tutorial about thorium power at
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://rethinkingnuclearpower.googlepages.com/aimhigh
and more detailed information at
http://energyfromthorium.com
All sources of energy on earth that can be harnessed via technological means come with a series of tradeoffs, costs/benefits, that require an integrated approach to verifying their efficacy. I am a strong proponent of nuclear fission power, coming from the perspective of minimizing the overall environmental footprint of such a high power density option. The current economic considerations that compare sources of power to not properly account for all of the externalities and tim-dependent factors (future planning) that I feel would make nuclear the clear winner. I propose a crade-to-grave analysis of all generation options, so as to confirm my hypothesis. Does anyone know of a large scale effort to properly account for externalities and cradle-to-grave impacts of any of the proposed energy solutions? I would be greatly interesting in seeing this analysis. Thank you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI paid a surcharge on my electric bill for 10 years for the clean up of the "3 Mile Island Incident". If the nuclear industry has other highly improbable accidents, will I be asked to foot the bill for those as well? By the way, how much does it cost to bring a reactor online? Who pays for that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this