Critics, such as Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, an energy think tank, counter that nuclear power is an overly complicated and dangerous solution to a relatively simple problem that cannot compete with safer, lower-emitting energy generation sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, small hydropower and cogeneration, without government subsidies.
But proponents insist that if the U.S. and other countries continue to rely on large power plants and the demand for energy continues to grow as anticipated, then coal burning and uranium fissioning are the most effective options for boiling large amounts of water to produce steam to turn turbines—and thereby produce the most electricity.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international body of scientists, economists and other experts, noted in a climate change report released earlier this year that "Nuclear energy … could make an increasing contribution to carbon-free electricity and heat in the future." But these experts only expect nuclear power to account for 18 percent of worldwide power generation in 2030 under emission-reduction scenarios, up from 16 percent today.
To reach even that slightly greater portion of world energy supply, however, will require the construction of at least 50 new nuclear power plants, not including replacements of existing reactors, in the next 23 years. NRG's application calls for the construction of two new reactors based on technology developed by General Electric and already operating in Japan and under construction in Taiwan. "We wanted a technology built by someone on time and on budget," Crane says. "There was only one design that satisfied that criteria and that was [the advanced boiling-water reactor.]"
The ABWR works by using the heat generated by the controlled splitting of uranium atoms in fuel rods to directly boil water into steam that then turns turbines to produce electricity. Improvements over previous designs include removing water circulation pipes that could rupture and accidentally drain water from the reactor, exposing the fuel rods to a potential meltdown, as well as fewer pumps to move the water through the system. "ABWR has digital primary controls [for the nuclear reactor] and analog backup. We think that's safer," notes Steve Winn, NRG's executive vice president for strategy, environment and nuclear development. "Planes are mostly digital by now but they also have fly-by-wire capability."
The new reactors will also have some modifications specific to the South Texas site, including floodproofing to protect the reactor from the adjacent 7,000-acre reservoir that provides its cooling water and updates to the pumps and fuel rods employed based on the Japanese experience of operating such reactors.
The company projects it will spend $6 billion constructing the two new reactors and hopes to have the first unit online by 2014, assuming the NRC completes its review by 2010. The NRC will first check to ensure the completeness of the voluminous application over the next two months, spokesman Scott Burnell says. "The staff's estimate is that the full technical review would take two and a half years," he adds.
The project, however, must overcome other hurdles, including a lack of technical and labor expertise as well as manufacturing capacity in the U.S., along with potential public opposition. "The stakes are high," Crane says, noting that the company has already spent $40 million on preparing the application and the price tag will be above $100 million when it orders the reactor vessel next year. "All it takes is one significant thing to go wrong and your project goes away." Nevertheless, the first step on the road to a nuclear revival in the U.S. has been taken.
See what we're tweeting about
14 Comments
Add CommentGlobalists/environmists, sponsored by oil and financial industry, can spare us. Nuclear is safest, cheapest energy source out there. Instead of spilling empty rhetoric about "unsafe" and "new hydrogen and CCS technologies" - which are much more costly and much less safe, U.S. should've been building more nuclear plants. Plenty of empty land to do that. Getting off oil hook should be #1 priority....somewhat maybe unattainable with oil, defense and financial industry in control of all major U.S. political forces, including the White House...It's a shame though
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"We wanted a technology built by someone on time and on budget," Crane says. "There was only one design that satisfied that criteria and that was [the advanced boiling-water reactor.]"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTypical that time and money are the two most important criteria. Digital controls with analog backup are supposed to increase safety. How about a design that is safe by design such as the CANDU reactor. Oh oh! That is foreign technology.
Also it is not cheap.
I am sure that the French and the Chinese would be able and (probably ) willing to assist with expertise in the design of Nuclear Power Station.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust remember to abstain from regularly insulting them.
However with George Bush due to depart, civility and civilised behaviour may return to your country.
The only reason any nuclear plant, has ever had a problem is the human effect. all you neeed is stock holders complaining about cost of running the plants and some pushover capitulating to them, then a matter time and stupidity, and WAM, you've got a deadly event. So if your a pro-lifer and have any moral integrity. nuclear power plants wouldn't even be on the table. so lets work on a safer source and stop being blind to the real issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you don't think these stock holders would do such a stupid thing, just look at the current meltdown at Wall-Street, There were a lot of high up board members against involving their institutions in the prime rate controversy, but the stock holders voted them off the board. These are the same people who hold major stock in all these plants, I for one am not that stupid.
Current reserves of uranium ores will last at the most for 70 years. If we double the number of reactors in the world that will be reduced to 35 years, the current lifespan of plants. And after?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThorium seems to have great promise as a nuclear fuel, there is about 3 times as much Thorium as Uranium.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is also much more efficient - about 40 times the amount of energy per unit of mass than Uranium.
Sounds like an ideal solution to the energy problem.
Evaluate the cost of managing nuclear waste from one nuclear plant during its life cycle, say 50 years. Multiply that time delay by the coefficient required to allow the radioactive wastes to decay to safe levels, that is several hundred for most wastes, or several million for plutonium. Multiply that figure by the number of nuclear plants running in the US alone. It is clear that the final figure increases astronomically. So, for one generation of nuclear power, where is the cost-effectiveness?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI fully support the peaceful use of Nuclear Power as a means to generate electricity and satisfy the world's appetite for energy. It is also urgent to adopt it in order to reduce CO2 and combat Global Warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJoin my Cause to Support Nuclear Power to Combat Global Warming at:
http://apps.facebook.com/causes/98619?m=96aaaf39&recruiter_id=16262590
Gen IV nuclear reactors burn present nuclear waste, cleaning up the environment and extending out the energy supply to 50,000 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLooks like a winner to me.
The solution is to get EVERY HOUSEHOLD to be contributing to the power grid instead of just buying. In that way we would all be supporting each other in power production. It is true that the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine but they both are active some where all the time. The age of HUGE must pass. We have entered an age of micro works of all kinds, on a local scale. We can not keep transporting everything and depending on "others" to fulfill our every need. We must contribute also, as much as possible!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is clear that there is a lot of blind faith and innumeracy among the responders to this blog. Realize that the power issue does not stop at the power outlet, and there is a responsibility to come up with an alternative that is better once you've done the simple part of complaining. Wishing will not make solar and wind effective power sources. Do the math. The eco-nuts just want other people to stop breathing "their" air.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a wise British politician once said: "If you are not a socialist at twenty five, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative by the time you are forty, you have no brains."
Nuclear power is clean, safe, and proven effective. The smart detractors know that the defects of excessive cost and waste disposal are entirely creations of hysteria, fear, and politics. They just have their own agenda, and don't want the truth to be known. Keep following them blindly, or get smart and grow up. Your choice.
Gen IV are a great dream... but as yet just a dream. Until the technology can be proven, the choices must be made on what is actully available.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: French Connection for Nuclear Assistance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't trust that option whatsoever, from personal experience. Areva is the head honcho there and I saw them come over here, consume and destroy a 50 year old U.S. nuclear radiation instrument company. Expertise we had they "stole", to eliminate competition, I think.
RE: U.S. Nuclear Engineering
We, the U.S., have many transferable technologists and can quickly develop needed infrastructure support for nuclear, but NUCLEAR TRUST needs to be reestablished. We must get back on track.
RE: Clean Coal
I'd rather have a new nuclear plant nearby than a new coal plant trying to bury 20 million tons per year of CO2. Do the math: Complete combustion of 1 short ton (2,000 pounds) of & coal will generate about 5,720 pounds (2.86 short tons) of carbon dioxide. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html
Today in the U.S., Every man, woman and child burns 20 pounds of coal a day. Clean Coal, PBS
RENEWABLE SOURCES just CANNOT MEET the future electricity capacity NEEDS.
No other real good options to more nuclear powered electricity here folks!
As part of the work force that helped build some of the nuclear power plants in the mid 70's I would hope that we don't repeat past mistakes. On the plants being built in Washington state, notably Hanford WPPS units 1 & 2 the drawings were being updated on a daily basis while trying to build them. With all of the changes it's no surprise that the costs spiralled out of control.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we do get back on track and actually build these plants we need a solid plan, not one being updated during construction. P.S. Is this going to re-ignite the Yuca mountain storage all over again? What's being planned for the eventual waste products?
Don't get me wrong I believe Nuclear power is the way to meet our power needs but we also need somewhere for the dangerous by-products.