 |
|
« Small Biz Bullets: The Outlook | Main | The Big Ditch Gets a Lot Bigger »
June 5, 2007
A Nuclear Revival: Are We Ready, Willing and Able?
Attitudes vary widely when it comes to nuclear energy, yet as nations look to strengthen energy security, meet future electricity needs and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, increasingly more companies are announcing their intentions to build new nuclear power plants or restart old ones. And who exactly will operate these plants?
The Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Unit 1, the largest nuclear plant in the world when it began operations in Alabama, shut down for 22 years after a fire and management issues. Last month, after $1.6 billion in renovations and 15 million man-hours, the plant came back online. Producing energy through the fission, or splitting, of uranium atoms, the new plant will provide electricity to more than 600,000 homes and businesses, increasing the national supply by 1,100 megawatts, according to KIFI Channel 8 Local News in Idaho.
"Right now the predictions are that this unit can pay back its restart costs in four or five years," according to Browns Ferry spokesperson Craig Beasley.
This restart — which marks the first increase in United States nuclear generating capacity since 1996, when the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) activated Watts Bar Nuclear Plant — is an example of how U.S. utilities are showing interest in nuclear power as they search for "clean" energy sources.
More than 100 nuclear power plants operating in 31 states provide electricity to one of every five U.S. homes and businesses, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. Further, "they provide more than 70 percent of the electricity that comes from sources that do not emit greenhouse gases or other pollutants into the atmosphere, including renewable technologies and hydroelectric power plants."
And as the nation looks to strengthen its energy security, meet future electricity needs and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, 16 energy companies and consortia over the past 18 months have announced their intention to file license applications with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build as many as 30 new nuclear power plants.
Indeed, "the outlook for nuclear energy is bright and growing brighter," as recently noted by Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) board chairman John Rowe, chairman, president and CEO of Exelon Corp., the nation's largest operator of nuclear power plants.
"But that is not the whole story," NEI quoted Rowe as having said.
Challenges
The industry has proven its ability to operate nuclear power plants on a sustained basis at high levels of safety and efficiency at a time when demand for reliable electricity from clean-energy technologies is increasing. Since Three Mile Island in 1979, "we have had nearly 30 years of accident-free nuclear power," Dave Hill, deputy director of science and technology of the Idaho National Laboratory, told KIFI Local 8.
Despite this favorable situation, "significant regulatory, financial and infrastructure challenges stand between where we are and where we need to be," Rowe said.
He cited used nuclear fuel management, financing of capital-intensive projects, and future workforce needs as among the key challenges facing the industry. In separate remarks, NEI President and CEO Frank L. "Skip" Bowman identified a need for improved communications to solidify political and public support among people and entities who are increasingly — but sometimes tenuously — embracing nuclear energy.
"Yes, we see growing support for nuclear energy because it is a carbon-free technology, but it is not unqualified or unambiguous support," Bowman said.
Global Perceptions
The majority of the world may be against the development and use of nuclear weapons, but attitudes vary when it comes to the development and use of nuclear energy: proponents of nuclear energy tout it as a form of "clean" energy, as it releases virtually none of the harmful carbon dioxide emissions associated with fossil fuel; yet the health and environmental costs of nuclear energy can be horrific. The possibility of accidents such as that of Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, the threat of nuclear terrorism, the potential for horizontal nuclear proliferation, the damaging effects from the entire nuclear cycle, from uranium mining to nuclear waste — all indicate a scary balance between the risks of nuclear energy and the benefits.
Indeed, attitudes vary globally. According to the World Nuclear Association:
• Nuclear power supplies 16 percent of the world's electricity and 34 percent of the European Union's;
• Fifteen (15) of the EU's 27 members have nuclear power plants, with the percentage of electricity supplied ranging from 78 percent in France to just 3.5 percent in the Netherlands;
• France has committed to renewing its reactor fleet, Finland is building a new plant, Germany and Sweden have committed to phasing out nuclear power, and the Dutch have reversed a previous decision to phase it out;
• Italy used to have four nuclear power reactors, but it shut down the last two following the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986 (although consideration is being given to building of new nuclear capacity);
• Booming China gets only 1.9 percent of its electricity from 11 nuclear reactors, but four more are under construction, 23 are in the planning stages, and there are proposals for another 54; and
• Worldwide, there are 437 working reactors, with another 30 under construction, 74 planned and 162 proposed.
And late last month, spot uranium prices advanced to US$125 per pound, up 73.6 percent since late 2006, according to Scotiabank's Scotia Economics, which went on to report: "Global interest in nuclear power continues to grow, with 252 new reactors now under construction, scheduled or proposed."
Unit 1 may not help as much as proponents hope, either. The day after the restart, operators had to shut down the reactor manually following a leak in the control system, as The Knoxville News Sentinel reported. "It's an operating problem, it's unfortunate, but it was not a safety problem," NRC representative Ken Clark told Knox News. (TVA's nuclear power division is headquartered in Knoxville, Tenn.)
Nonetheless, more than two-thirds of the 103 nuclear plants operating in the U.S. today have requested license extensions, and four new plant proposals have been submitted. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, at least 25 more new plant proposals may be filed by 2013.
Constructing plants is one facet of the industry, but well-trained and alert people to operate them is another.
Staffing the Recharged Industry
Says Workforce Management:
It's a replay of the 1960s, except that in the 21st century, there's no pre-existing cohort of millions of baby boomers fresh out of college and raring to find jobs in the Next Big Thing. This time around, the industry will have to build its workforce, one recruit at a time.
By 2011, a wave of personnel could exit the industry — 27 percent through retirement and 13 percent for other reasons, according to NEI. "The average employee's age industry wide is 48," Workforce Management reports; a demographic survey completed last June revealed that 12 percent to 38 percent of Exelon's workforce alone could retire within 10 years.
"Not only is the industry heading toward a retirement cliff, but there's no safety net of new recruits or mid-career engineers behind them," writes Bridget Mintz Testa at Workforce Management.
As such, the industry has been recruiting and TVA's nuclear operation has identified about 50 "high criticals" out of a workforce of 2,700. Although knowledge is at risk, it's not the crisis TVA originally feared in 1998, when the nuclear power industry first began to enjoy its surprising and (still) little-publicized renaissance of plant re-licensing and new plant proposals.
The restart of Unit 1 is expected to require the addition of more than 100 employees on an ongoing basis, bringing the total number of Browns Ferry employees to 1,250. Its annual payroll: $73 million.
Resources
Perceptions of nuclear power starting to change
by Joel Hillan
Local News 8, May 24, 2007
Unit 1 up and running
by Eric Fleischauer
The Decatur Daily News, May 23, 2007
Browns Ferry reactor shut down
by Andrew Eder
The Knoxville News Sentinel, May 24, 2007
Nuclear industry leaders identify challenges on road to U.S. nuclear energy renaissance
Nuclear Energy Institute, May 24, 2007
Representing the people and organizations of the global nuclear profession
World Nuclear Association
Reaching Critical Will — Nuclear Energy Fact Sheet
Nuclear reaction: staffing the nuclear power renaissance
by Bridget Mintz Testa
Workforce Management, April 23, 2007
An industry recharged
by Bridget Mintz Testa
Workforce Management, April 23, 2007
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://news.thomasnet.com/mt41/mt-tb.cgi/1072
|
Advertisement
|
Comment
20 CommentsFrance has nuclear energy and that has served them well. You cannot continue to depend on Arab oil to keep your lighting systems running because the Arabe world is very unstable and the daily supply of oil from there is not guaranteed. I prefer nuclear powered generators because France has proved that they are safe and efficient.
June 5, 2007 3:51 PMWe must have nuclear power plants. It is insane not to have it.
Look to France, Russia etc. We already lost 15 to 20 years.
I can not forget OUR mistake to stop NUCLEAR POWER.
Sam
June 5, 2007 9:41 PMHow expensive will my electric bill be when nuclear power is used to generate additional power for the USA? My kilowatt rate will be raised to:
(a) build the plant,
(b) fix the plant since there will be construction flaws
(c) maintain and up-grade the plant over time
(d) manufacture the "fuel",
(e) dispose of the fuel {this cost will continue to rise since no one wants the site in their backyard}
(f) guard the waste from "dirty" bomb and other uses and
(g) prevent the waste from polluting since the containers will not last for 1,000 or more years.
I know all technology {old and new} has strengths and weaknesses, but wind, hydro, solar, ocean tides, ocean currents, to name some other alternatives, appear to be less detrimental to the environment and mankind over the long term.
I agree we need to decrease our dependance on oil {domestic and foreign} for the generation of electricity and to provide transportation needs, but I don't see nuclear as the first choice for the technology savvy USA.
June 6, 2007 3:30 PMSlogan:"Solar is allright, nuke works day and night".
If there is an industrial discipline, the nuke is very safe. Compare to that, the highway traffic is very unsafe, causing 40k+ US deaths. Surprisingly, the funny activists are not attacking the highway systems but the nukes, making the public ill-informed in the information age.
June 6, 2007 9:12 PMToshiba has developed a nuclear reactor that is self-contained, comes with a 30-year supply of fuel, and can supply thermal energy to generate about 10 MW of electrical power.
http://www.atomicinsights.com/AI_03-20-05.html
This seems to be a much simpler approach to nuclear power generation - I wonder if it could work...
June 7, 2007 1:23 AMYes, we should encourage nuclear generation. But, we should settle on a basic design, and stop re-inventing each plant. A good common design will cut costs and time to get on line.
Del
June 7, 2007 11:12 AMWhy is it bad to leave debt to our children but not radioactive waste?
June 7, 2007 1:52 PMI believe that Nuclear is definitely the way of the future. Other writers pose questions of security -- I agree that until we get a world where terrorists are controlled by EVERY country, and big powers are in agreement not to supply materials and technology to rogue countries for self serving monetary and political gain, perhaps its is wise not to encourage its proliferation.
On the issue of being 15 to 20 years behind the technology of Russia and France? I wouldn't worry. The US pioneered computing and auto manufacturing, but are now lagging far behind relative latecomers. Why? Because these late comers didn't have to pay for the hard and expensive developmental work and could start at a later stage with most of the problems worked out. Now the US has to make the very painful decisions to scrap inefficient plants and build new ones with "their own" latest technology.
June 11, 2007 3:38 PMNuclear is clearly the only viable way out of the dependance on fossil fuel generation of power with all its pollution problems and the waste that fossil combustion generates. Others have mentioned wind...but no one wants the unsightly farms in their area...the associated problems relative to bird population, visual pollution of coastal sights where wind is somewhat consistent and several others makes it a lunatic fringe feel good solution. Coastal tides seems a good idea, but we are back to the impact on sea life...costs to produce the facility =vs= return of dependable power and again visual pollution to scenic coastal areas.
Solar is not a wide area solutiion, it is a personal solution...but nearly all who have chosen it for their homes and/or businesses will quickly tell you of their grid back-up.
Chuck worries about his "bill". When did you ever get anything worth having for nothing? Are you somehow deserving of cheap electricity regardless of its consequences? Your worry about cost could be reduced by simple conservation measurers within your own home and business. Your environmental concerns are worth noting, but those solutions you propose are far from without impact. Some items of impact sure to appear are unknown and will remain unknown until some wide spread use is experienced. Coal generation was a well established means years and years before we realized the effects of acid rain. What is out there with the "feel good" power schemes that are unknown?
Broad conservation of electricity could be realized if commercial signage was controlled. How much power is used in Times Square and Las Vegas alone! If a nation-wide review was made of traffic signals and their actual need and the time frame in which they needed to be active was made, what savings? The 24/7 lighting of commercial building in major cities when there is no one present is astounding. The mandatory use of compact flourscent and better yet LED bulb configurations could result in giant reductions. But alas, we want to bitch about how we get it, not how we can go about using less REGARDLESS of how we get it.
June 15, 2007 5:34 PMForget Nuclear. The real solution is on-site HYDROGEN electricity plants. New Australian reactor technology, and its coming next year!
The cheapest form of alternative energy on earth. No pollution. Completely safe. At last, in 2008 - the Hydrogen Age will be ushered in. A time to remember.
June 21, 2007 1:03 PMWith out a doubt the best way to go. I have read that the next round of reactors will use the "spent" fuel rods from the old reactors. Free fuel, does it get better? Build lots of small reactors every where. Will not have to rely on a grid.
June 21, 2007 1:41 PMThis sounds just like the original pro-nuke propaganda. clean, cheap, no emissions, etc. Bull! Mining and processing uranium uses much fossil fuel. What about "safe" waste disposal? No nukes is good nukes. We need huge investment in conservation (led lighting is good), distributed small solar and wind, biomass, tidal, etc. Imagine what a few months of Bush's war could pay for!
June 21, 2007 2:38 PMAs a Clevelander, I live about ninety miles downstream from the Davis-Besse Nuclear power Plant. A few years ago, according to the NRC, that plant could have been a little as sixty days (a number that I suspect was arrived at by NRC managers bargaining their analysts up from sixty seconds) from rupturing the reactor vessel. In essence, not much besides dumb luck saved us from that event.
They also found out that years of poor maintenance in the containment building left conditions that would have caused the back-up pumps to fail. When all the failures were looked at together, the likelihood is that a reactor vessel failure would have resulted in a significant release of radioactive material into the environment. (In fairness, this would have been a disaster, but a far smaller disaster that the Chernobil failure.)
It has been known since the time of Three Mile Island that management was the single most important variable in nuclear plant safety. Had the NRC yanked First Energy's operating license, I might think there is an argument for more nukes. As it is, in order to avoid a story that would alarm the public, they have failed to do the one thing that would convince me they are serious about reactor safety.
Nukes are toys for grownups. There are too many American managers acting like teenagers for me to want to hand out more sets of keys.
June 21, 2007 8:08 PMHard to argue with John (comment on June 15, 2007) re: common sense efforts at conservation. Americans have a history of waiting until our backs are to the wall before pursuing wide-scale cooperation. Are we close to the energy wall yet? I would imagine that the families and friends of more than 3500 Americans killed in Iraq might think so.
July 2, 2007 2:06 PMThere are no silver bullets to energy issues, never have been. Alternatives to whale oil came from fossil fuels, coal, and electricity produced through various means.
The alternatives that people are throwing out as panaceas, are not panaceas at all. I can't tell you how many times I've heard that ethanol is THE answer. But we'd have to plant 90% of the US in corn, and we can see the effect already on food prices.
Why do we think there is only one solution and rule out all others? Nuclear energy can certainly be a valuable piece to the energy puzzle.
nukes have to be the most undemocratic scheme ever dreamed up by man... you use the power and then strap the generations that follow with the resonsibility to figure out what to do with the waste... some of which has a half life of nearly a quarter of a million years... and still half left!
let's see..the oldest civilization ever discovered may be 5-10 thousand years
what hubris!
July 3, 2007 7:20 PMNuclear waste does pose a problem. We should come up with our own solutions to dispose of nuclear waste instead of passing the burden to future generations.
Call me a crank if you like, but my solution is to send nuclear waste to the Sun. I am pursuing a career in aerospace engineering, and I will attempt to develop spacecraft capable of doing this.
If anyone has other solutions to dispose of nuclear waste, please do so. Be creative! :-)
July 6, 2007 11:23 AMThe idea of sending nuclear waste into the sun's gravitational path is one that I also thought of 30 years ago, but quickly disbanded when weighed against the less that 100 percent certainty of successfully leaving Earth's gravitational field.
We could alleviate the mass of waste to be managed and controlled if we reversed President Carter's ban on reprocessing of spent fuel - as adopted by France and others.
July 7, 2007 12:10 PMI concur with Bill's note (07July2007) regarding the unacceptable, although very slight, risk in disposing waste to the Sun or elsewhere in space.
I disagree with constructing reprocessing or breeder plants. The plutonium created in the spent rods has to be extracted by milling off the contaminated outer cladding and this process is imperfect and radiologically hazardous. The reprocessing of fuel in France has led to the environmental damage in terms of increased mutation of nearby aquatic life. Mismanagement of radionuclides by Kerr McGee (sp?) in the Silkwood case is infamous but Bill Bruml pointed out can we trust any profit-driven manager? Certainly the cost cutting by Metropolitan Edison in technical staffing, training and instrumentation was a factor in aggravating the 1979 TMI accident. The behavior of the US Govt in hazardous material disposal and risk management has been as bad or worse than corporate because, as I have seen it, ultimately the bureaucrats have very little economic or legal responsibility.
So I don't see a risk-free path to staffing or managing these plants and the public simply won't buy anything less than risk-free plants because the public has been misled so often before. Technical professionals can complain about the pathetic ignorance and comic-book misinformation of the public but in the final balance, the public was inadvertantly correct about avoiding nuclear power in the 20th century. Just look at the small, obsolete plants which have to be disassembled now and the waste pits that have to be cleaned at several sites.
With respect to the itemized costs by Chuck and Gordon, I would like to add that the early days of the nuclear power industry were subsidized by reduced fuel prices which arose from DoD efforts to conceal the amount of U-235 being produced for their weapon programs. It is unlikely that these low processing prices will be seen again. Adding in the increasing costs of hard rock mining (ref Jarrett Diamond) means that we will "never" see "power too cheap to meter." It is amusing that most of the issues in the comments were subjects of class discussion and a resource book for a college course that I took in 1972.
July 19, 2007 4:41 PMBill, even simple ideas can be the sign of genius. By reprocessing spent uranium (uranium can be recycled into fresh fuel and reused), we could reduce the amount of waste disposed and cut down on mining for uranium, as mining for uranium poses a risk for wetlands.
As for you Imhotep, I respect your opinion. Reprocessing of spent plutonium poses many consequences, but 97% of spent uranium is capable of being recycled into fresh fuel and reused.
If you think sending nuclear waste is unacceptable, you are entitled to your opinions, but give me 20 years and I can prove your opinions wrong. I will build spacecraft capable of sending NW into space. Watch me.
"Very nice"
July 20, 2007 9:47 PM
