Institutional Issues will Constrain the Construction of New Nuclear Generation in the United States

Frank Clemente Ph.D.Senior Professor of Social Science & Energy PolicyPenn State Universityfac226@psu.edu

“Nuclear power is capital intensive with a long lead time. You wear a lot of risk to get through that” -James Rogers, CEO, Duke Energy, 2008

Five Basic Premises

● With the U.S. facing a 29% increase in electricity demand by 2030, we need all sources of generation- coal, nuclear, NG, wind, hydro, solar and biomass

● Clean coal generation will meet the bulk of new demand based on reliability, security and affordability

● New nuclear generation will be delayed in the U.S. by institutional and supply chain constraints relating to a moribund industry

● Nuclear power could meet as much as 15% of new demand if we immediately created a supportive environment for new nuclear units

● Nuclear power cannot replace significant amounts of either existing or projected coal generation

Projected New Electricity Generating Capacity in the U.S. Through 2030

Source: EIA, AEO, 2008

No Major Reference Case Forecast Suggests Major Nuclear Capacity Additions in the U.S. Through 2030

● EIA Projects 17 new gigawatts (7 % of total new GW)

● IEA projects a 15% increase in nuclear generation

● IAEA projects an 18% increase in nuclear generation

● CERA has indicated there is a “possibility” construction could start on 12 reactors by 2020

Could Nuclear Power Meet an Even Larger Percentage of Electricity Demand Than the Current 20% ?

Worldwide, there are 465 reactors operating or under

construction. The cost to build 500 reactors would approach $2

trillion

Number of Reactors U.S. Would Need to Meet Designated % of Electricity Demand in 2030

The Scale of Additional Nuclear Generation Capacity Needed to Replace Coal Through 2030

To Replace Projected Coal Additions

To Replace Projected Coal Additions Plus 25%

of Existing Capacity

To Replace Projected Coal Additions Plus 50%

of Existing Capacity

Based on CERA’s estimate of $3500/kw , the cost to build 250 nuclear reactors would exceed

$850 billion.

Four bottlenecks will significantly delay the construction of new nuclear power plants in the United States

1. High Level Waste management, transportation and storage

2. Entrenched Opposition at both national and local levels

3. Supply chain issues

(a) availability and cost of fuel,

(b) expertise

(c) global competition for nuclear grade components

4. Societal inertia, litigation and bureaucratic creep –we have not built a nuclear plant for decades.

Bottleneck : High Level Waste Storage

● States such as California, Oregon, Wisconsin and Maine have forbade new nuclear units until the waste issue is “resolved”.

● It took 20 years (1982-2002) to select the Yucca Mountain, NV site

● The Yucca schedule has continually slipped and, in 2006, DOE projected Director Ward Sproat said the facility would be delayed until at least 2020

● But in January 2008, DOE announced that it was laying off employees and all but stopping work at Yucca. “The tunnel is closed for all intents and purposes” said DOE official Allan Bensen

● Harry Reed (D-NV) is opposed to the Yucca Mountain site, as are numerous leading Nevada and nation policy makers

Bottleneck : The Entrenched Opposition-Literally hundreds of national, regional and local groups oppose nuclear power. Some of the most visible:

Sierra Club- “New nuclear power plants…will endanger communities and serve as potential terrorist targets.”

Friends of the Earth- “Nuclear Power is dangerous and expensive…we don’t need nuclear reactors…”

U.S.PIRG- “A nuclear renaissance would be a bad deal for American consumers, the environment, public safety and national security.”

NRDC- “…expanding nuclear power is not a sound strategy.”

Environmental Defense Fund- “…[we] cannot support an expansion of nuclear generating capacity.”

Bottleneck : Uranium Reserves and Production are limited- There are 465 nuclear plants and atleast another 30 are being constructed

● “ World wide production of uranium meets only 65% of current reactor requirements” (Thomas Neff, MIT, 2007)

● “The world’s total reserves of uranium could never be enough to make nuclear a primary source of power” (Chen Demang, China’s NRDC, 2007)

● “Buyers of uranium are forced to face the reality of a seller’s market” (Treva Klunglic, Nuclear Market Review, 2007)

● “Everybody’s going for nuclear programs” (King Abdullah II, Jordan, 2007)

Bottleneck: Physical and Expertise Constraints- The Price of Inertia

● Over 40% of the current nuclear workforce is eligible to retire by 2012. Only 8% are under age 32.

● Japan Steel Works is the only plant in the world capable of producing the central section of a reactor’s containment vessel in one piece. Japan Steel can produce four units per year

● Virtually all nuclear grade components for a new plant in the U.S. must now be imported. Only one U.S. company can manufacture large nuclear grade components (Power Engineering, 2007)

Bottleneck: Competition with the rest of the world for nuclear grade components, fuel and expertise –we are behind the curve and falling

Source: World Nuclear Association

New Reactors which will come online by 2015