There’s much discussion about reducing carbon dioxide-laden emissions contributing to global warming. There’s also discussion about finding reliable sources of electrical generation in view of increasing competition for the world’s finite oil supply. Either discussion leads to the need for the development of robust nuclear build-out. Nuclear power is a carbon free power generator that offers an unlimited power source.
For the public, nuclear power issues concern the long term management of radioactive waste streams, the safety of power plants, the threat of terrorist attacks on the power plants, and the secure transportation of nuclear materials. In listing the issues, it’s tempting to write off the building of nuclear plants as too risky, but that would be a mistake if sustainable power sources are to be developed for the future. The industry is in flux as it addresses the public’s concerns and a number of policy issues that will ensure plant safety, while encouraging innovation.
New Nuclear Power Era Begins
The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently approved a license for the construction of two new reactors to be located on the border of South Carolina and Georgia. Expected to be operating by the year 2017, the license for the building of nuclear reactors at the Vogtle nuclear power plant is the first approved since the 1979 Three Mile Island incident. Another license is expected to be granted in the near future for the construction of reactors in South Carolina.
The license approvals are surprising to nuclear power opponents who point to the Fukushima, Japan, disaster as proof these plants are inherently dangerous. Yet many of the lessons learned from that incident were already known or represented lessons ignored by the Japanese plant monitors. For example, rigid plant oversight by experts is absolutely necessary to ensure safety procedures are rigorously followed. After the Fukushima incident, it was learned that regular safety monitoring had not occurred. Some new lessons were learned also concerning technical defects in the Fukushima nuclear plant, and those defects will be eliminated in the new U.S. plant designs.
Perhaps one of the most important lessons learned is that accidents happen whether due to human factors or natural disasters like the tsunami that destroyed Fukushima. No one could have predicted a magnitude 9 earthquake and 14 meter high tsunami occurring near the nuclear plant, but some analysts suggest the experts should have at least considered this remote event. Two lessons for the U.S. are that it must build plants in the safest locations (not on fault lines for example) and should anticipate even the remotest of events.
It’s critical to identify precise intervention procedures for nuclear plant incidents. It’s equally important that existing nuclear plants be upgraded based on new knowledge and technology advances rather than letting plants age for decades, leading to increased risks of developing safety hazards. These safety upgrades must include post-shutdown cooling systems so that complete loss of primary and back-up power, like that occurring in Fukushima, can be managed.
The Right Response Brings Opportunities
Germany responded to Fukushima by shutting down eight nuclear reactors and intends on closing nine more plants by 2022. Many believe this is an overreaction and an indication of the political and emotional factors at play in the nuclear power industry. The decision to shut these plants down means Germany will now revert to using even more non-renewable resources and contributing more carbon emissions to the atmosphere. This seems like an odd direction to take in a country that says it’s committed to environmental sustainability.
It’s heartening to many to see the U.S. move ahead with nuclear power plant building. These plants are economic engines that will enable society to meet its ever increasing electrical demands, enabling robust economic development. For minority and women business enterprises (MWBEs) the new plants also offer benefits in terms of new job creation and new government contracts for construction and ongoing operations. The two reactors already approved will cost $14 billion, which is substantial by any measure. The contractors and the government have an ideal opportunity to incorporate supplier diversity in the nuclear industry, which is historically MWBE underrepresented.
The arguments for nuclear power stations would appear to far outweigh the concerns. The new designs have built-in safety features resulting from studies of the Fukushima events. There are currently 17 companies that have applied to build 30 reactors, and these plants can play a key role in the nation’s policy to achieve carbon free power production and to develop renewable power supplies. The plants would be built based on five standard designs approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) so infrastructure designs are not an issue.
Moving Ahead
There are other critical policy issues to be addressed such as licensing procedures. It’s understandable that the U.S. NRC wants to be deliberate in its licensing review, but the most recent license approved was applied for in 2008. Such a long licensing process limits competition and slows the development of nuclear power plants. It also has not done anything to limit financial risks overruns or poor plant technical performance. In addition, the current process results in plants being almost completely built before safety significant systems are analyzed and approved.
However, a new licensing strategy is in process of being implemented for next generation plants expected to be in operation by 2021. The new licensing process will require two stages with the first stage covering application for the site, and approval of the safety and environmental features and the implementation schedule. The second stage will include the detailed design and builder-NRC coordinated construction of the plant. The final license giving operational approval will not be granted until all contentions (if any) are settled. This process is expected to limit licensing and financial risks because safety systems are approved before any construction begins.
Another issue is the federal government loan guarantees in which the government underwrites nuclear power plant financing. There are inherent risks in these loans if the cost of plant construction exceeds estimates, which is quite possible based on the nuclear power industry’s history of construction overruns. Scientists have recommended that loan guarantees should be limited to a few plants built according to the new licensing and construction standards. In addition, it has been recommended that the Department of Energy (DOE) develop a more effective and stringent process for monitoring plant related financial activity. Currently, the DOE experiences a 50 percent default risk on loan guarantees, which means taxpayers assume responsibility for the costs. The issuance of the first nuclear power plant license in 30 years indicates the U.S. is ready to move ahead. The next generation plants will utilize cutting edge technology, employ additional safety systems and incorporate new materials. Some predict that hundreds of these power plants will be built over the next 20 years.