U.S. nuclear power stock needs replenishing

Evan Oxhorn, 2L, and Lisa Lowry, 2L are staff writers for the Law Weekly. Both are members of the Georgetown Environmental Law Society.

The Facts: How does Nuclear Energy Work?

Nuclear power plants generate electricity in much the same way a regular power plant does, except that nuclear power plants generate electricity by using uranium fission reactions that release energy to heat water to generate steam, which turns turbines and generates electricity.

A regular power plant burns coal or natural gas to generate the steam that turns turbines. Fission reactions start with atomic molecules. Atoms have a large amount of energy holding their nuclei together. When certain isotopes of some elements like uranium split, they release part of that energy as heat.

This process is called fission, and the heat released is used to help generate electricity in nuclear power plants. When fission occurs, the element splits into fission products, which may hit other atoms, causing more fission, and, under the right conditions, a self-sustaining chain reaction.

Nuclear Power: From Savior to Scapegoat

In 1942, a group of scientists met at the University of Chicago and created the world’s first self-sustaining chain reaction. By the 1960’s, nuclear energy was identified as an environmentally clean, economical, and safe way to generate electricity. While the nuclear power industry grew rapidly in the 1960’s in the U.S., concerns over reactor safety, waste disposal, and other environmental considerations began to slow demand for nuclear power plants.[1] The accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986 fueled anti-nuclear sentiments and contributed to a virtual halt to new construction of nuclear power plants in the U.S.

The stock of nuclear power plants in the United States is aging and there are only modest plans to build new nuclear power plants. Furthermore, the Energy Information Administration anticipates that no new nuclear power plants will become operable before 2025, but electricity demand in the U.S. is expected to increase 24% by 2035.[2] The upfront cost of building a new plant is high, and the entire process of applying and building a new power plant takes an estimated 9 years.[3] Concerns over effective waste disposal, liability insurance requirements, and public safety issues add additional barriers to new construction.

Relicensing Can Mitigate Energy Demand

One option in response to the looming increase in electricity demand and stagnant nuclear power stock is to relicense existing facilities. The Atomic Energy Act allows the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue licenses for new reactors for up to 40 years; those licenses can be renewed for another 20 years. Many plant owners are taking advantage of the renewal option and are applying to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for license extensions to continue operating existing facilities. Of the 104 reactors in the U.S., the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved license renewal for 61 reactors.[4]

Relicensing is attractive to owners because it avoids many of the hurdles that energy companies face when considering construction of new facilities. A new facility must deal with battles over site location, land rights, and public distaste for nuclear energy. The whole relicensing process can be completed within a period of about 30 months, compared with the estimated 9 years to license and construct a new facility. Litigation over placement of new power plants increases delay and uncertainty and drives up the cost of constructing a new plant. Project financing is hard to secure for new plants and the variability of costs extend the time horizon for investment recovery. 

New Nuclear Facilities are Necessary

However, although relicensing is clearly an attractive option for existing nuclear reactors, it has its drawbacks and limitations.  Many of these plants will soon reach the end of their design lifetimes and will need to be decommissioned. Regulatory incentives are needed to push for new nuclear power plants to meet future electricity demand. New nuclear power plants have the benefit of new construction and design technology that maximize safety and streamline plant operation. New safety features, such as passive cooling mechanisms that require no power, can be more effective when integrated during initial plant design than when added to existing plants. New facilities can be constructed in safer locations, taking into account enhanced engineering expertise and increased understanding of the risks. 

The Japanese nuclear power plants are an example of the importance of adequate assessment of risk and safety margins in new facilities. The failure of seawalls in Japan to withstand the tsunami allowed water to wash over walls built to protect the Daiichi and Daini nuclear power plants off the coast of Japan. The water disabled the diesel generators that sustained power to the reactor cooling systems during power outages, causing partial fuel meltdowns and the greatest nuclear accident in Japanese history. Generators in these plants should have been constructed on higher ground to avoid risks from flooding, more emergency battery power should have been available, and seawalls should have been built higher to reduce the risk that water could overwhelm the sea walls. New construction can take these lessons into account to improve the safety and efficiency of future nuclear facilities.

Incentives are needed to promote the construction of new nuclear reactors

Nuclear energy can be an important clean energy source utilized in combination with other clean energy sources like wind, geothermal and solar to reduce U.S. dependence on fossil fuel. There have been some efforts by the U.S. government to incentivize construction of new nuclear power plants. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has streamlined nuclear reactor licensing process to incentivize new plant construction. The Nuclear Energy Act of 2005 provided federal loan guarantees for clean-energy technology, including new nuclear power plants. In 2010, an $8.3 billion federal loan guarantee was granted to build two additional reactors at the Vogtle nuclear plant in Georgia. Future incentives need to include more financing options and continue to streamline the process for application and construction, while still adequately addressing public concerns about safety and environmental impacts. 

As Japan recovers from a nuclear accident, the U.S. procedures that incentivize construction of new nuclear plants to meet increasing energy demands should incorporate high standards of safety design in licensing new nuclear facilities. Newer, safer designs should be deployed. In the meantime, a thorough relicensing program represents a reasonable stopgap. Current nuclear power plants provide nearly 20% of America’s electricity. If decommissioned, these plants would almost surely be replaced by dirtier coal and natural gas plants. Once the lessons of the Japanese plants have been distilled, every American plant should be reviewed to prevent similar tragedies from occurring here.

---

[1] www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/History.pdf

[2] (http://www.nei.org/keyissues/newnuclearplants/needfornewnuclearplants/).

[3] (http://www.nei.org/keyissues/newnuclearplants/buildingnewnuclearplants/)

[4] (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs-reactor-license-renewal.html).