Nuclear power looks for comeback in U.S.

A nuclear power plant hasn't been built in the U.S. in decades, but that appears to be changing, says the CEO of the nuclear industry's advocacy group.

Seventeen different organizations have expressed interest in building 31 new nuclear power plants in the U.S., Frank Bowman, CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and a retired admiral from the U.S. Navy, said in an interview with CNET News.com this week. Applications for four to seven nuclear plants will likely get filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this year, and eight more will probably follow next year, he said.

The planning and permit process for the first plants will take about three years, and construction should take four years or less, he said. Thus, the first of the new plants could start generating power by 2015 or 2016, he said.

As head of the NEI, Bowman is the spokesman for the nuclear industry, which went into a downturn after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. But in the past few years, global warming, rising gas prices and legislative ideas such as carbon taxation have forced governments to explore alternatives to coal, oil and gas. And mining tragedies, such as the recent accident in Utah, and news about coal-engendered pollution in China have further boosted interest in alternatives.

Credit: Nuclear
Energy Institute

Frank Bowman, CEO,
Nuclear Energy Institute

Although strong opposition to nuclear power remains, politically the subject has become less polarizing, Bowman said. Overall, the general reaction to the industry now is, "yes, but," he said. That is, people can see the benefits of it, but have strong reservations when it comes to safety, disposal, proliferation and other issues.

An MIT poll earlier this year reflects his comments. Thirty-five percent of those polled said they wanted to see nuclear technology increase, up from 28 percent in 2002. Nonetheless, 40 percent opposed storing nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. Only 28 percent thought nuclear waste could be stored safely for long periods of time.

To this end, the nuclear industry has worked to improve its own practices and technology over the preceding decades, he said. In the past, nuclear plant builders were often vertically integrated. Each made its own components and systems. Now, many have agreed to build according to accepted standards, which should lower prices and speed up the time to build plants.

Some of the standardization ideas come from the Navy, which has used modular manufacturing techniques for years to speed up the construction of nuclear subs. (By the way, there are 104 commercial nuclear reactors in the U.S., and 103 nuclear reactors in the Navy.)

Uptime has also improved, which reduces the financial risks. Fifteen years ago, nuclear plants might have been producing electricity 75 percent of the time. Since then, that figure has risen to 95 percent.

Additionally, safety procedures and practices have changed. Nuclear operators share safety data on a quarterly basis, he noted. The industry has also tried to become more open with the public and tone down some of the insularity and intellectual arrogance that was often part of its reputation.

After Three Mile Island, the industry adopted a "Let's dive into the foxhole' mentality," he said. "An accident anywhere is an accident everywhere."

New technologies for long-term disposal are also being devised. In one scenario, nuclear waste would be reprocessed and used again as fuel. Ultimately, reuse could dramatically cut down the amount of fuel that needs to be sequestered. The U.S. government is also floating supply agreements with emerging nations. In these agreements, emerging nations would get lowly enriched uranium from the developed world, but also agree to let the developed nations and suppliers become the custodian for the waste.

To prepare for an industry expansion, the NEI, in association with utility owners and several state governments, two years ago began to put in programs to train people for the industry, such as recruiting more college students and junior college students. Ideas that have been installed or are being contemplated are ROTC-like scholarship agreements: a utility gives a student a full-ride scholarship, and the student agrees to work at a utility for a set period after graduation.

The industry is also looking at incentives to retain older workers. "Why let 55-year-olds retire?" he said.

Bowman, however, added that he doesn't hold out a lot of hope for fusion. In fusion technology, energy is released by fusing lighter molecules. Nuclear waste and accidents are ostensibly eliminated. Start-ups have gained money to pursue their fusion ideas recently. But so far, no one has gone beyond the experimental stage.

"When I was at MIT in 1971, it was 25 years away," he said. "It is still 25 years away."

[nicmart]

It's about time

A crack in the Luddite wall? We shall see if the global warming
devotees are sincere by their response to this, and whether the
political will exists to finally implement the waste solutions that
exist.

[motorbelly]

Are we nuts?

No need to be an environmental nazi to see that the creation of nuclear waste that will haunt life for thousands of years is even worse than fossil fueling a global warming crisis right now.

Do we really need to use so much energy per human being to live the lives we want for ourselves and our children? I believe we are still blinding ourselves to solutions to our dilemmas that could still transport us, feed and power our needs without gargantuan power consumption per person.

Much of this could be accomplished with a change in thought, and that will require very little caloric energy.

[InAsia]

Kudos Michael

Thanks for the well written article. It seems that if the industry provided more detailed explanations outlining the improvements in control systems, overall safety, and waste disposal there could be more meaningful dialogs on the subject. There are plenty of technically adept readers on the net that surely could grasp the intricate details.

[Mallardd]

Something else that I've always wondered about

If enough nuclear plants were built, could they
not be used to generate hydrogen to fuel clean
hydrogen burning motor vehicles and reduce our
dependence on oil at the same time? It has also
been established that coal fired power plants
emit a significant amount of radioactive
contamination, so perhaps "clean" nuclear power
is the way to go?

[WJeansonne]

Liberal have to eat crow once again.

I love it. Every stupid cause that they take on ends up in the trash heap of history, now it's nuclear power. Now that they have latched on to Al Gore's ridiculous "Carbon Credits" band wagon, they are forced to re-consider nuclear energy. I wonder what the goofs will do next when we enter another mini ice age? One can only guess!

[gatornuke]

High-Temperature Gas-cooled Reactors (HTGR) for this

If you want hydrogen production, this can be achieved with a high temperature gas cooled reactor, such as the GT-MHR or General Electric's NGNP reactor. These technologies have already been devised, they just need to be finalized, licensed and built.

[K A Cheah]

Atomic Energy is cleaner, safer & more efficient than Nuclear Energy

Obviously they are those great scientists who have overlooked the fact....: reader comment from K A Cheah
Posted on: September 13, 2007, 5:46 PM PDT
Story: Getting fuel out of water

Obviously Water holds a better promise as the Alternative Fuel: reader comment from K A Cheah
Posted on: May 28, 2007, 12:36 AM PDT
Story: Alternative fuel for thought

In our school days we have learnt in Physics that it possible to split water into its basic atomic components with the application of electricity but even great scientists overlooked the fact that
Water by itself is the better, safer & more efficient storage of power, the promise water has as an alternative fuel has been unlimited using a simple process of using electrolysis to split water into hydrogen and oxygen atomic gases only when required, where the hydrogen & oxygen atomic gases HHO's power to drive a car engine will also recharge the battery(minimum 9 volts) that originally did the electrolysis splitting of water into hydrogen and oxygen atomic gases and also the hydrogen & oxygen gases will be only produced when needed just before starting the car engine and the electrolysis process will be switched-off when switching off the car engine at the same time. These HHO gases-run engines will run cars, SUVs, trucks, buses, trains and airplanes & power stations & even rockets so cheaply and successfully that no other alternative fuels would ever be needed but these technologies will be suppressed owing to big business money and political scams from Oil Producers and other vested interests. They might even commit murder to suppress these inventions from propagating and flourishing successfully.

Please watch related report of the Water Car Inventor who had been murdered:- Link:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6yRn4IAsrU&mode=related&search =
&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb8wIqECwGE&mode=related&search=

[crazynexus]

huh?

Last I knew, splitting water to it's base elements took HUGE amounts of energy.

Heck, just taking salt out of water takes huge amounts of energy. The O-H-H bond is one of the strongest known.

[riredale]

Here's the main issue in all this

I was walking through Notre Dame cathedral in Paris last summer and a friend lamented that people weren't just as religious as they were 100 years ago.

I replied that humans are always "religious" but that their church has changed. Listen carefully to many comments made about nuclear dangers, vegetarianism, windmills, or whatever. Many (make that most) people latch onto their belief system with a religious zeal, which shuts down logical, intelligent discussion. Same thing happens over in politics. Conservatives look at near-hysterical rants of the left and shake their heads at how those people have succumbed to BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). Liberals think conservatives are dolts. And so on.

[chris_d]

How much in subsidies for this?

For a long time, the true cost of nuclear has been hidden by subsidies, and as I recall, the last energy bill had huge subsidies for new nuclear plants.

Those talking about LMFBRs should look at France's Superphenix. It cost $12.5 BILLION US dollars.

Ratepayers and taxpayers have to pick up the cost when the nuke plants have cost overruns.

[Daryl Jones]

Still too many problems

The current problem with nuclear power is waste. By the 1960s, the nuclear power cycle had been derived and it starting with the Uranium reactors. Next would be the fast breeder reactors that would take the processed spent fuel rods from the Uranium reactors as its fuel and convert with Uranium 238 to make Plutonium 239. The last stage is creating Plutonium reactors. At the end of this nuclear power cycle, there would hardly any nuclear waste left to be processed. However, in the 1970s, Nelson Rockefeller commission recommended against completing the cycle because of the lack of inventory control of the nuclear materials currently on hand. Since it would only take a few kilograms of Plutonium to create a nuclear bomb or a dirty nuclear bomb, the commission felt it would be prudent not to recommend the building of the fast breeder reactors and then the Plutonium reactors. Thus brings us back to the current problem with nuclear power, its waste. Furthermore, I haven?t talk about the mothballing of the nuclear power plant.

Although the article states the building of a nuclear power would be cheaper due to standards and modular construction, I would like to see the cost estimates of a 1200 Megawatt power plant and where cost-plus contracts aren?t included. Then due a net present value analysis of the project to see if would make sense.

I believe the US Navy builds mostly low pressure reactors and what is needed for nuclear power is high pressure and temperature steam system that would use a two stage high-low pressure steam turbines that would provide 70% + conversion of heat to electricity.

Although I would like to see nuclear power succeed, I see to many problems to make it feasible.

[GEBERWEIN]

Simple solution

In all the verbal battles that have raged about the disposal of the spent nuclear junk, not one person has sought a simple solution. First, isn't the area where this stuff came from polluted with it naturally?
Why not give it back?
It came from mines in the ground so make one of them into a disposal facility? There can't be much objection to it's doing what what comes naturally in the place where we found it.
I know this can never work because it's simple.

[wtortorici]

I guess we can launch the nuclear waste...

into the nearest blackhole. Of course, that means we 'll have to add that expense on your next electric bill. I all adds up to that there is no low cost energy, there is a price to be paid, if not today it will be tomorrow. Biofuel is a classic example, in our rush to become oil independent, we raised the the price of every thing down the line, feed cost, transportation, and the rest of the food industry.

[jerries kid]

nuclear

there is no way we should support nuclear energy, have we forgotton all the protest about waiste dispossal? have we given up on this planets future? the cost of making energy from renewable resources is so prommissing, i cannot believe so many countries on this planet are looking at the qick remedy for there energy problem

[jerries kid]

nuclear power

i am 46, i will be dead in ten years. ciggartes, lead paint, cellular telephones, pcb's in my water, in my land in my air. does radio activity in my world really matter? yes it does, but hell, i'm already polluted. a micro wave tower on top of my building, what-ever. starving and drowning bears in th north pole,???? who gives a rats ass. after all, i am an american't. i don't have time to save myself, i'm too busy trying to get the rest of the world to catch up to my ineptitude. ban cigarettes inb this country first, then i'll consider your stupid thoughts of war. and nuclear power? that is just the dumbest thing since toilet paper.or storm windows. i got rotted walls, hemeroids, and a hefty dose of cancer. and that is a good thing.

[Dango517]

I lived near a nuke facility for years, no way!!!

You must be an idiots to promote Nuclear Technology and an idiot to listen to someone who does. Wonder how the people down wind of chernobyl feel about it. Ask someone in the city of Hiroshima what the think about nuclear power. Didn't Japan just have a reactor leak just a week or so ago? NNN and forever.

[Ardose]

There is a way

A few decades ago, scientists at a university worked out a way to safely dispose of nuclear waste using a dilution method. They proposed that nuclear waste can be broken down and diluted with water until it is extremely weakened. This water is then introduced into the food chain through public drinking water systems, food processors and so on. The dilution weakens the radioactivity to point that individuals would receive less than they do from the environment.

Human beings and most animals have the capability of breaking down and destroying small amounts of radioactive isotopes without a cumulative effect. It would pose no risk and eliminate the radioactive waste altogether. Because the population is so huge, this disposal method could go on indefinitely. There will always be plenty of people to eat the nuclear waste.

Sometimes, you have to think outside of the box;)

[smvans7]

Billions

Yeah, they still want billions of our tax dollars to build them and then to send us a bill at the end of the month.

Why you think these companies want to build the plants, to fight global warming? No way.

They don't care about putting their nuclear waste all over the planet, as long as they get our tax dollars and can send us a bill at the end of the month.