William Johnson of Progress Energy
Image: COURTESY OF PROGRESS ENERGY
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?
The limitations on growth of nuclear power are not technical, at least for the current generation of advanced reactors. The real limitations on growth are more rooted in political and financial considerations and clarity of the nation's energy policy. One of the more contentious issues is the permanent storage of used fuel. The much-studied and long-planned national storage facility for high-level radioactive material at Yucca Mountain, Nev., has been significantly delayed. Currently, the Department of Energy (DOE) does not expect to open the repository until at least 2020, more than 20 years later than originally planned. [Editor's note: Since this survey was submitted, President Obama drafted a budget request for fiscal year 2010 that would essentially eliminate Yucca Mountain's funding.] This problem does not prevent the continued safe storage of used fuel. Companies have stored used fuel safely at their nuclear plants since the 1970s, and they will continue to do so until the federal government provides a permanent solution.
In addition, the federal government is considering advanced nuclear fuel recycling technologies that would reduce the volume, heat and toxicity of used fuel and recover the unused energy that remains in the fuel after one use in the reactor (approximately 90 percent of the original amount of energy in the fuel). Recycling facilities would include longer-term storage sites for used fuel. These sites would enable DOE to meet its obligation to move used fuel from operating nuclear plants before a permanent national repository opens. Used fuel from nuclear plants could remain at these interim storage sites until it is recycled or transported securely to the repository for disposal.
Any large capital investment, such as a new nuclear generation facility, faces significant financial challenges, particularly during this time of financial market volatility. Nuclear power plants are expensive to build but provide a low cost to operate over the life of the plant, once it is in service. Nuclear fuel is, by far, our lowest-cost fuel. And if public officials are serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear power is the best available technology in the utility industry and must be part of the equation.
Finally, the view of the new administration in Washington on the role of nuclear power as part of its energy policy has not been completely defined, but President Obama has recognized the great potential of nuclear power to help address global climate change. Political support and direction have a significant effect on any technology choice in the energy sector.
Are there obstacles to scaling up nuclear power to serve an even larger national or global customer base?
The same issues that confront the U.S. nuclear industry, including supply chain, workforce availability and financial capability, challenge the growth of nuclear power globally. These challenges also present us with significant and sustainable job creation opportunities. Growth of nuclear power worldwide will require expansion of manufacturing facilities to provide large forgings and specialty components. Similarly, there will be a demand for highly trained, skilled craftsmen and operators both nationally and worldwide. The solution to the energy challenges we face as a nation and world will require a balance of all available technologies, increased energy efficiency, investments in renewable energy sources and other emerging energy technologies and investment in a smarter grid.
Can the existing energy infrastructure handle growth in nuclear? Or does that, too, need further modification?
Transmission system enhancements are a continuous need, with or without new nuclear generation, due to the significant growth we experience over time and the ongoing need to enhance reliability and redundancy. As new plants are built, infrastructure (transmission lines and substations) issues will need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. In Florida, for example, where we are considering two 1,100-megawatt units, we are faced with adding more than 200 miles of transmission lines to get the electricity to the areas that need it.
Given the current economic crisis, can your industry get the necessary capital (from public or private sources) to adequately finance its growth?
Obtaining the necessary capital to meet the projected growth in the electric utility industry will be a major challenge for our industry. The demand for capital is increasing, as utilities are planning to meet the future energy needs of their customers by making large investments in alternative energy sources and new nuclear generating plants, as well as the required infrastructure expansion to support these new generation facilities. Meanwhile, the supply of capital is shrinking as a result of a reduction in the credit capacity available in the market due to bank consolidations and failures. In addition, the cost of capital is increasing due to this combination of increased demand and reduced supply. And this dynamic is taking place at a time when construction programs could be at a record peak in the energy industry. We are no longer simply making incremental investment in a system to serve growing demand or replace aging components. We have the task of reinventing and rebuilding the entire system, a much bigger challenge.
For utilities to provide a secure energy future for customers, it is critical that we continue to have constructive regulatory relationships at the state and federal levels. Regulatory clarity and support for infrastructure investments at the state and federal levels is the key to maintaining solid credit ratings and will help ensure that electric utility companies have access to the capital markets to adequately finance the growth planned in our industry.
From a strategic standpoint, which is the bigger competitor for nuclear: incumbent coal, oil and gas technologies or other alternative energy technologies?
Nuclear is the best technology available for producing reliable, carbon-free electricity at base-load scale. Coal faces significant environmental challenges with concerns about carbon, mercury, other emissions and ash disposal. We've also seen much more volatility in the price and supply of coal in recent years. These concerns will require us to find a way to utilize coal in a new, more environmentally-friendly way, possibly gasification with carbon sequestration. These technologies are currently in the early stages and may be limited in their application. Oil and gas typically complement rather than compete with nuclear, meeting customer needs during peak demand periods. Alternative energy sources, particularly renewables, will also play a part in the future energy mix, but do not replace nuclear because of their limited availability, high cost and intermittent nature. Realistically, meeting future energy needs will require a balanced strategy that includes efficiency, renewable energy and state-of-the-art generation of all types to maintain the level of service and reliability necessary to power communities. From a practical standpoint, especially over the next decade or so, natural gas will be the conventional technology and fuel of choice if nuclear plants cannot be built. This has important ramifications for our country in terms of energy security, source of supply and price.
Is there a cost target that you and others in your industry are aiming to achieve in, say, five years?
Five years is not a very long time in the utility planning business, and we always seek to operate our plants as efficiently as possible and will continue to use the latest technology to keep our plants providing reliable power at the lowest possible cost. In addition to lowering our costs on an ongoing basis, we are focused on increasing safety, productivity and other performance measures. Projecting future costs at this point is exceptionally difficult because we do not know the specific requirements of carbon reduction or renewable portfolio standard programs that might be enacted. We are in a transition in our industry from a lowest-cost production model to a model based on least environmental impact. That change will be the driver of future prices.
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add CommentAs uranium ores will run out in seventy years time, there is little time left to consider building new plant. Under any scenario, the nuclear option will never reduce worldwide greenhouse gas production by more than 6%. And perhaps the huge investments required could be better spent elsewhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTh232 more than enough to last several thousound years. Chk out the company thpw. Also how about some references to match your statements. Then you could be known as fact on steve instead of crazzy eco steve.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are ways to use coal and nuclear while avoiding the problems. See www.hybridpwr.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this.Two hundred fifty nuclear reactors would replace the need for coal. There is no shortage of Uranium. Even if we stayed with the light water reactors which only slightly use the fuel, uranium would last well beyond this century. With IFRs or Molten salt reactors such as the LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) reactor nuclear fuel will last until the sun consumes the earth. In the long term nuclear power is the safest, cleanest and most cost effective way to generate electricity. Politically it is difficult to replace coal. Too many depend on coal for their livelihood. If we could put aside our fear of nuclear power and have the courage to develop generation IV nuclear reactors such as those mentioned above, there is a chance that the construction costs could be lowered to the point that nuclear power would be significantly cheaper than the dirtiest of coal power plants. We could have a world market for such a product and our labor force would have cleaner and safer jobs. Subsidies from the government would not be needed. If we couple development of nuclear power with a switch in Detroit to electrically powered transportation we can get out from under the economic burden of foreign oil and staggering health cost from air pollution that run into the hundreds of billions annually. The savings from not having to buy foreign oil, the health cost savings and the income from sales of exported nuclear power plants and electric vehicles would stimulate a robust economy. Let's take the risk.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes! Nuke plants are practical however; the NRC has messed up the process and the consistant design improvement, the NRC interp. as redesign. If we made cars the same way, your car would cost $1.5 mil . Three Mile Island was a text book on how not to handle a problem and make it a giant proplem. A NRC training program a muck. Government work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen ruling out coal I would recommend you go and visit a plant. No! Don't do that.
France has been doing Nuke plants for a long time.
There is a 400 year supply of cannistered UF6 gas sitting in a yard in Ohio, if we would only get off of our butts and start using BR technology. Our plants already burn the Plutonium that is created by the non-fission nuclear reaction of U-238. A person would have to be a complete moron to attempt to steal a spent fuel assembly (deadlier than ground zero at nagasaki in '45). Let's get it in gear, folks!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccording to the article:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Nuclear fuel is, by far, our lowest-cost fuel. And if public officials are serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear power is the best available technology in the utility industry and must be part of the equation."
Here is some information on nuclear power that contradicts the article:
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid467.php
A short quote:
"Isn’t it time we forgot about nuclear power? Informed capitalists have. Politicians and pundits should too. After more than half a century of devoted effort and a half-trillion dollars of public subsidies, nuclear power still can’t make its way in the market. If we accept that unequivocal verdict, we can at last get on with the best buys first: proven and ample ways to save more carbon per dollar, faster, more surely, more securely, and with wider consensus. As often before, the biggest key to a sound climate and security strategy is to take market economics seriously."
Dear Internet troll,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccording to folklore trolls are dirty, smell badly, are rarely seen, and when seen only out of the corner of the eye. They are above all deceitful liars. The reference which you cite is definitely one of your fellow trolls.
I am a retired biology professor with no ties to any single part of the energy industry. I have made a serious study of our energy situation and I conclude that we must abandon fossil fuels and change over to non-emitting energy sources. Nuclear happens to be the best available non-emitting energy technology. Diversity of clean energy sources should be our goal. We must not exclude any clean energy source including nuclear. Your reference is to one of the most biased of anti-nuke sites. It is not helpful in finding a solution to our energy problem to completely misrepresent the economics of domestic nuclear power as you have done. Amory Lovins' speaking engagements, writings and books which present a tirade against nuclear power, as well as his fees from work for the fossil fuel industry have supported him and RMI with significant resources to spread disinformation about nuclear power. Unfortunately much of the information which he puts out is not supported by credible sources and in fact is contradicted. While he has done some effective promotions in the area of energy conservation, I believe that overall he has set back our nations efforts to gain independence from foreign oil. The health of our citizens has also been harmed. Smoke from coal power plants is taking a huge toll in lives, and is adding billions of dollars to our annually in health costs. We should also mention the frighting effect of fossil fuel emissions on global climate. For the good of America please try to keep this Lovens troll out of sight.
Opposition to Yucca Mountain isn't a "political" consideration. The people of the State of Nevada have had a lot of nuclear activity in their state over the years and are probably tired of it, weary of the dangers posed and tired of being pushed around by the military and the government. That's less "political" than it is "survival instinct". Dismissing real concerns as political is disingenuous, insincere and perhaps sinister.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this