Leslie Cockrell – Energy Law
The Role of Nuclear Power in Energy Sustainability
Current energy policy is driven by the need to reduce greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions and mitigate global warming. Scientists agree that roughly 50% of GHG emissions must be cut from 2005 levels by the year 2050 if the world wants to limit the average temperature increase to two to three degrees per year. Electricity supply is one of the leading producers of GHG emissions, but is also one of the sectors that can easily adapt to new standards reducing GHG emissions. One way to move towards low-carbon electricity is through an expansion of nuclear power. Nuclear power is an already-established, large-scale energy source that has the potential to rapidly expand in the coming years. It could produce 25% of the world’s electricity needs with virtually no carbon emissions. Although there are concerns with adopting nuclear energy programs, it is currently one of the cleanest ways to meet the world’s energy needs. [what about waste?]
Unlike fossil fuel energy sources, the process of nuclear fission does not create any GHG emissions. Although some emissions are attributed to nuclear power because of the use of fossil fuel-based energy sources in the steps of the nuclear fuel cycle, the amount of such fuels used varies from case-to-case. In the future, GHG emissions from nuclear energy technologies will be even lower. Trends in technology show that nuclear plants will require less electricity to operate, and show that new improvements mean that nuclear power plant lifetimes will be extended.
Currently, nuclear power generates 20% of electricity used in the United States. The 104 nuclear reactors across the country powers electricity in one out of every five homes and businesses across the U.S.
Nuclear Power Plant Sites
In 2007, nuclear energy produced around 14% of global electricity. Nuclear power is one of the largest sources of non-fossil fuel energy; only water power makes a similar contribution to non-fossil fuel energy. This means that without nuclear power, countries would emit as much as one-third more GHG emissions than they do now. [including transporation?] A move towards more nuclear power production could decrease GHG emissions by up to three gigatons per year (assuming that fossil fuels would otherwise produce electricity).
As of now, the United States has the world’s largest nuclear energy program. The nuclear power plants in the United States produce more electricity than most other countries, aside from China, Japan, and Russia. [two sentences consistent?] The use of nuclear power prevents more GHG emissions than all other power sources combined. The graph below demonstrates nuclear energy’s increasing value and importance to America’s energy supply.
Although the United States currently has the largest nuclear energy program, countries in Eastern Europe and Asia are planning to expand their nuclear capacity. Nuclear power has existed for over 50 years, and the new designs for nuclear power plants reflect the knowledge gained over that time period. Although nuclear technology will most certainly continue to develop, nuclear power is already a mature technology. Most nuclear reactors are built in under five years, with four years being considered state-of-the-art construction. [is this US experience? Does this include permitting?]
Currently, construction is underway for 60 nuclear power plants, with another 150 planned to be built in the next ten years. [where?] Additionally, there are over 200 plans for additional plants. Countries with already established nuclear power programs are planning to rebuild older plants, and another 25 countries have started promoting nuclear energy. China and India have plans to increase the number of nuclear reactors as a part of their national energy policies. Russia has plans to double its nuclear capacity by 2020. Multiple European countries are either re-modeling nuclear plants or have plans to expand the number of plants.
Forty-five countries are considering implementing nuclear power programs. Several countries undergoing political unrest are in the developing stages of establishing nuclear power programs. Most notably, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Kenya, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and North Korea, are in the beginning stages of such development. Despite the large number of countries beginning nuclear power programs, the main growth in nuclear energy will still come from the countries which already have established and well-developed programs.
The World Energy Council (“WEC”) recently released Policies for the future: 2011 Assessment of country energy and climate policies, which ranked country performance according to an energy sustainability index. The best performers were: Switzerland (40% nuclear for electricity), Sweden (40% nuclear), France (75% nuclear), Germany (30% nuclear prior to reactor shut down earlier this year) and Canada (15% nuclear). The WEC noted that these countries had the most coherent and robust energy policies, and each had programs that promoted energy efficiency. The same report concluded that nations “ensur(e) a stable regulatory regime that supports a large volume of capital investments while allowing policy updates and revisions as necessary …” It is perhaps most important to note that each of these countries has strong and well-developed nuclear power programs.
Nuclear power has the lowest production costs of any energy source. Average electricity production costs at nuclear power plants has declined over 30% in the last ten years, and has an average price of 1.7 cents per kilowatt hour. That price includes the costs of operating and maintaining the plant, and purchasing and managing nuclear fuel. [what about construction? And what about federal liability cap?] Even better, the electricity generated from nuclear plants has price stability, because only one-quarter of production costs are fuel costs. The cost of fuel accounts for roughly 80% to 90% of the cost of electricity generated by fossil-fuel sources, leaving those sources highly susceptible to fluctuations in price.
The development of nuclear energy programs has raised safety, waste management, and nuclear proliferation concerns. In 1986, the first cries for public safety came with the Chernobyl disaster. Operators in the control room of the nuclear plant failed to properly perform a routine safety test, which resulted in an explosion and a fire that burned for ten days. The failed safety test, coupled with a flawed Soviet reactor design, resulted in a nuclear fallout that spread tens of thousands of miles, and forced over a quarter of a million people to permanently move from their homes.
While the failure at Chernobyl resulted in devastating consequences for the surrounding area, nuclear power developers have applied the lessons learned from the incident. Reactor safety models, especially ones in Eastern Europe, were redesigned and updated. Western countries began to update reactors after the Three Mile Island accident.[1] Although few Western countries were under the illusion that the Soviet-block countries applied strict safety standards to their nuclear power plants, they did take some of the improvements made after Chernobyl and applied them to their own nuclear reactor programs.
Modifications such as controlling power surges and adding neutron absorbers have made nuclear reactors much more stable than in the past. Plants now have automatic shut-down mechanisms which operate more quickly than in previous models. Other safety devices have also been improved, and a 1996 German report concluded that a repeat of Chernobyl is near impossible. Beginning in 1989, over 1,000 nuclear engineers from the former Soviet Union have visited Western countries nuclear power plants. Many engineers from Western countries began to visit former Soviet-block nuclear power plants, as well. The World Association of Nuclear Operators (“WANO”) fostered such visits after its creation in 1989, as it helped to connect 130 nuclear power plant operators in more than thirty countries.
After Chernobyl, the International Atomic Energy Agency (“IAEA”) began safety review projects, which brought together Soviet nuclear power plant operators and Western engineers. The collaboration resulted in safety improvements for both groups. Additionally, Western nations have given nearly $1 billion for more than 700 safety-related nuclear projects in the former Soviet block. In 1994, the Convention on Nuclear Safety was adopted in Vienna with the goal of committing nations operating nuclear power plants to maintain strict safety standards. Even after accidents like Chernobyl, the nuclear industry has the strongest safety record for any industry.
In early 2011, discussions of the safety of nuclear energy were brought up again. The earthquake and subsequent tsunami in Japan caused a nuclear meltdown at the Fukushimi-Daiichi nuclear power plant. The following June, the IAEA convened to make an assessment of the accident and identify the needed steps to make improvements in safety, emergency preparedness and response, and an overall global nuclear safety framework. Members states agreed to carry out “stress tests” in their nuclear plants to determine what safety actions would be appropriate for them to take.
Although work is still ongoing at the Fukushima-Daiichi plant, the accident did bring to light issues that needed improvement. Nuclear plants need protective measures to prevent damage in the event of a natural disaster. Power and cooling capabilities at plants need to be strengthened so they can perform in the event of such a disaster. The Fukushima-Daiichi plant did not have plans in place to manage a major accident, which contributed to the problem. Finally, the designs of each plant need to be created around the presumption that a natural disaster could occur in the area. While the accident did bring to attention the safety concerns with nuclear power plants, the IAEA believes that it should not and will not reverse the belief that nuclear energy is efficient and safe. The risks that come with exposure to radiation from a nuclear plant are minimal: even when a nuclear accident occurs, the radiation exposure people experience is far less than from other radiation sources.
Many are concerned with the removal process for nuclear waste from the plants. However, nuclear plants have developed multiple technologies for the removal of such waste, and have already begun to implement those processes. {aren’t plants all at capacity?] The remaining issue is ensuring that those solutions are agreeable with public opinion.
There are three levels of nuclear waste: low-level waste (“LLW”), intermediate-level waste (“ILW”) and high-level waste (“HLW”). Most nuclear waste is made up of the first two categories. Those waste products are disposed of in repositories close to the plant. This type of practice has been carried out for decades, and is a prominent practice in nations using nuclear power plants. HLW is currently contained and managed in interim storage facilities near the plant. HLW produced by nuclear plants accounts for only roughly 3% of nuclear waste; 97% of nuclear waste comes from LLW and ILW. For now, the interim structures containing HLW can provide a safe environment to store such waste. [source?] These structures also allow for the HLW to lose some of its radioactive nature, making it easier to dispose of later. After only 40 years of storage, there is one one-thousanth as much radioactivity in the material as compared to its initial amount when originally stored.
The long-term storage of HLW still requires further study. Currently, nuclear plants are developing nuclear disposal solutions that meet both environmental standards and public approval. The most accepted solution is deep geological disposal, which has already begun in several countries, including Finland, Sweden, and here in the United States. The United States already has such a waste repository in New Mexico, named the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. It is in operation and used for the disposal of ILW that is contaminated with plutonium. There are also plans for a disposal repository in Nevada, located at Yucca Mountain. However, public acceptance for nuclear waste disposal at Yucca Mountain is low; thus, plans have not been able to progress as quickly as possible.
Leaders in the nuclear power industry are striving to establish the most safe and effective means for waste removal. [Is this an apologia for industry?] In the meantime, it is imperative that these leaders continue to research the methods for removal used in other countries, in addition to educating the public about the details of such removal. Because multiple technologies are already available, and many more are in the works, it makes sense that plans for new nuclear plants should be developed.
Not only must nuclear power be safe, it is necessary to ensure that it will be used for peaceful purposes. As opposed to other energy sources, nuclear power was first used for military purposes. The civil use of nuclear power, used in energy plants, came after the military uses. The IAEA was established to help nations pursue peaceful developments of nuclear power. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons aimed to limit the diversion of nuclear materials from civil use to military use. The purpose of this safeguard system was to reassure nations that nuclear development was only for peaceful use. Over 170 nations have safeguard agreements with the IAEA, which discourages proliferation. The IAEA requires member states to have an open-door policy and to inform the other member states of new developments. The organization monitors the storage and disposal of nuclear material, which prevents material from being used inappropriately or sold for military or terrorist use.
Although safety, waste management, and proliferation concerns are important factors to weigh in choosing to pursue nuclear power, the solutions to those concerns are nearly, if not already, complete. [This is an amazing statement] Nuclear power is one of the leading ways to strengthen both America’s and other nations energy security. The best way to strengthen energy security is through diversifying sources. By increasing the number of nuclear plants, each country would also increase the diversity of energy and electricity supplies. Nuclear power has the capability to fuel other energy needs besides electricity, which includes district heating and saltwater desalination. The availability of freshwater is a serious concern for many nations; as climate change creates droughts and water shortages, nations will need new and efficient ways to provide water to the masses. Several countries already use nuclear desalination as a way to provide freshwater. The desalination process is energy intensive, and when fossil fuels are used in the process, the number of GHG emissions produced is startling.
1
[1] The Three Mile Island incident occurred in 1979 in Pennsylvania. Although the reactor in that plant was also destroyed, all radioactive material was contained, and there were no deaths or injuries.