It's hard to believe, but it has been 28 years since the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania. For those of us over the age of 40, it's hard to think about nuclear energy without thinking about the accident which resulted from a partial reactor meltdown.
But, as I explain in my series "Energy Options: Nuclear" (which premieres October 29th), the nuclear energy industry wants to put that legacy behind it and make a big comeback. The timing couldn't be more perfect. The U.S. Department of Energy predicts electricity demand will increase 50 % over the next 20 years. At the same time the government is expected to tighten regulations for carbon emissions. Those two issues make nuclear a much better option for utilities than coal.
Actually, nuclear energy has been making a comeback over the past decade. Utilities have been steadily increasing capacity at existing plants. But, they've gotten to the point where capacity has been pushed to the limit at those facilities, so they must build new plants.
Progress Energy in Raleigh, North Carolina finds itself in that very dilemma. The Raleigh area has been growing two to three percent a year over the past several years. The one single reactor at its Harris Nuclear Plant has been running a near peak capacity. So, early next year the company will file a license with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build one or possibly two future reactors at the site within the next decade.
Still, the future for nuclear energy is murky. One of the biggest stumbling blocks is the lack of a federal repository or reprocessing facility for spent fuel. Exelon Corporation owns the largest fleet of reactors in the country. But, Chairman and CEO John Rowe told me he won't build a new reactor until that issue is resolved. The government hopes to file a license for a repository next summer, but it could be years before it opens.
Progress Energy's Chairman & CEO William Johnson is more concerned about what impact renewable fuels and conservation will have on electricity demand. If it reduces it too much, it could make building a $5 billion nuclear reactor a waste of money.
Despite those concerns, most of the utilities, analysts and government officials I spoke to think the U.S. will need to rely more on nuclear fuel in the future. Countries like Great Britain, France, and Japan have been relying heavily on nuclear for years.
What it may ultimately come down to is what the American public wants. If we continue to consume energy the way we have been, we will need sources other than fossil fuels. So, we'll have to ask ourselves if nuclear energy is the answer.
Comments
Bob Partlow indicated he was trying to contact me. If possible, request my e-mail address be provided to him. If e-mail address in not possible use 5232 Regatta Pointe Rd. Suffolk VA 23435. Thanks.
Diane,
I appreciate your response, but the fact is that they have a working Nuclear Reactor that works with used fuel rods already. It works. And it is safe in that if the cooling system stops working, the core cools off which shuts down the system. My question is, we have the technology now, why aren't we using it now?
Energy is not like a bowl of mashed potatoes
The public and the media talk about energy as though it were a big bowl of mashed potatoes, one Btu just like any other. Actually energy is more like a fruit salad, each source unique in its properties, advantages, disadvantages, and costs. Different sources of energy are not easily nor cheaply transferred from one application to another. Nuclear power is not suitable for transportation or domestic water heating, unless it’s first turned into electricity. EIA doesn’t even count electricity as a prime form of energy since it is manufactured from other energy sources. Coal is no longer suitable for home heating or for powering cars unless it is first expensively and messily converted to oil or gas. Using natural gas to make electricity is like washing your dishes in fine scotch.
Electric alternatives do not impact oil
Less than 2% of the country’s electricity is produced from less than 2% of the oil the country uses. This means that electric alternatives such as wind, nuclear, photovoltaics, appliance efficiency, compact fluorescent bulbs, etc. make no meaningful difference in our oil consumption, imports or dependence. (We import electronics, clothes, food, cars and don’t worry about dependence.)
Imports: We import no oil directly from Iran.
The US imports oil from, in order, Canada, Mexico/Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq, a plethora of non-OPEC sources like Spain, Russia, Northern Ireland and very little from elsewhere. 70% of our imports come from OPEC sources and Saudi Arabia, the balance from Venezuela, Nigeria, and Iraq. Over the past several years imports from Iraq have barely changed. Guess where all the real security is.
Price of gasoline
It’s all about the price of gasoline and what it does to our economy. Our parliament of whores pays off their election/re-election debts by manipulating, commanding and controlling the economy to make their masters rich. Real estate, the money markets, wages, transportation, energy, etc. You can’t command and control the price of gasoline if you can’t command and control the price of oil and you can’t command and control the price of oil if you can’t command and control the Middle East (and Venezuela and Nigeria and Canada and Mexico and Saudi Arabia.)
Drive too big, too fast, too much
I.'m a weekly commuter. Twice a week I drive up or down I-25. I drive a 1995 Neon w/ over 100,000 miles on it. I set the cruise control at 60 to 65 mph and get 36 mpg. Honkin' monster trucks and suvs go blowin' by at 75 or 80, glares and stares, bearing down from behind and just missing my rear quarter. Maybe $5.00 a gallon will make folks slow down. I've thought of posting a sign on my rear window, "Slow down, save a soldier." Naw, that would just start fights. Americans think they have a right to drive anything they want as fast as they want and somebody else should bear the cost, even their own children's blood. After all we're "special."
Fossil Fuels
Suddenly the buzz words are fossil fuels, I guess because of their connection to global warming. Usually people who say fossil fuel really mean evil coal and oil. But fossil fuel is more than just coal & oil, it is also propane and natural gas. Oil is not a major player in heating and cooling. Heating and cooling is predominantly natural gas and electricity (not oil). Carbon dioxide and water vapor are produced when burning any hydrocarbon type fuels. That includes ethanol, wood, paper, et. al. And anything, even hydrogen, when burned in air produces smog forming, eye burning, NOx.
Ethanol produces as much CO2 per Btu as gasoline.
All of these fuels are hydrocarbons, molecules made up of carbon and hydrogen. Breaking those molecular bonds and reforming them as water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) releases extra energy for process use.
Ethanol: (1.922 # CO2/#) / (13,161 gross Btu/#) = 146.038 # CO2 / E6 Btu
n-Hexane (gasoline): (3.064 # CO2/#) / (20,940 gross Btu/#) = 146.323 # CO2 / E6 Btu
Methane: (2.744 # CO2/#) / (23,879 gross Btu/#) = 114.913 # CO2 / E6 Btu
Coal: (3.664 # CO2/# carbon) / (14,093 gross Btu/#) * 50% carbon = 129.994 # CO2 / E6 Btu
Donald,
There is still active research in using spent fuel as a power source. However, there is no current commercial implementation of this technology. Experts at Argonne Labs tell me that France and Russia are also working to advance that technology.
In regard to passive safety, that technology is under development and should be ready for commercial use when utilities begin building new reactors within the next decade.
I found your discussion about Nuclear Power and its need to be fascinating. I just have a few minor questions for you to ponder and research. About 20 years ago there was a Public Television special about Nuclear Power and how to make it safe. What ever happened to the breeder reactor that uses "Spent fuel" to power the nuclear reaction and cools off by itself when the coolant system is shut off? Should you get the answer to these questions and find out why these reactors have not been put into general use to produce power, I think that the public would really like to know about it.
Thanks for your thought provoking programs. Please keep up the good work.
Would like to make contact with Ben Wachendorf.
Bob Partlow Capt. USN Ret
Your series was very welcome. Your respondent Jack Miller is right on, except that it is certain we will run out of oil. Long before we do the nations that have oil will hoard it, and prices will go crazy, maybe $500 a barrel in curent dollars before the world economy can't handle it and collapses.
As he said wind and solar are useful in certain circumstances, but these are limited by the massive amount of materials needed; e.g., the cement needed for wind turbine tower footings. Coal burning is an abomination that may kill us all much quicker than the decline of oil. Fusion energy may be the savior, but since the start of the nuclear age, fusion has always appeared to be 50 years in the future.
Diane: I viewed all four segments in your series online. I appreciate the Internet access to your series and the blogs, as I missed the live broadcasts.
I am an investor in both Progress and Exelon. The promise by carmakers to produce plug-in hybrid cars will likely increase electricity demand. Once we rely on cheap electricity to, in part, power our cars, the demand for electricity will increase beyond our current estimates.
A better understanding of nuclear power in our society could possibly save the world. You did a fantastic job of interviewing important players in industry and government. Thanks for doing your part!
The potential for atomic power to help save the world is greater than generally realized. Pebble bed reactors can duplicate the fire of fossil fuels while conventional reactors cannot. This is of critical importance when thinking about how we can replace fossil fuels with atomic fuels.
Ben is very wrong. The earth will never run out of oil. Just like the stone age did not end because we ran out of stone and just like the industrial age did not end because we ran out of coal, we will not ever run out of oil. The law of substitution will take care of our needs for ever. In 1980, it cost an average of $450 per megawatt of wind energy. Today it cost only $40 and wind turbines are now competitive in certain situations. The solar numbers are similar. The cost of solar has fallen by an average of about 5% per year for the past 30 years. It is now competitive in certain situations. Nuclear energy is the big gorilla on the block. New plant designs are much more efficient than prior designs. Nuclear is clean. There will be a few hundred nuclear plants built over the next few decades and economies of scale will bring the price down dramatically. China will build 30 plants in the next 15 years. We all need this to happen because China will add an average of one coal fired plant per week for the next 10 years. The growth in coal is staggering. The prevention of drilling oil off the coast of the USA is part of the reason the USA will add about 150 coal fired plants in the next 10 years. We need to drill and we need to add nukes. We don't need to starve the poor by raising the price of corn.
Diane:
I have just watched all four segments of your special report on nuclear energy. I appreciate the care and research with which you approached the subject.
One quibble I have, however, is that you focused completely on nuclear power's contribution to electrical power generation without mentioning how it can also be used for other energy needs. For example, the US Navy has been using nuclear fission to replace the need to burn oil on submarines and aircraft carriers for nearly 50 years. Though there have been only a few commercial examples of nuclear powered ships, there are a number of projects being discussed. With oil prices in excess of $90 per barrel nuclear power has a big economic advantage as long as it can get past the first of a kind costs.
Diane, Thanks for the feedback. I have been on active duty in the U.S. Navy for 37 years. Every time I take or administer the military oath of office to defend the Constitution of the United States, I think of the freedoms we have and the Bill of Rights. In my view, freedom of the press is the most important of those freedoms. Thank you and your colleges for your public service.
Ben Wachendorf
Ben--We mentioned in the story that nuclear energy is clean and doesn't emit greenhouse gases. That white stuff coming out of cooling towers is steam. Hopefully, this exchange will clear up any confusion other viewers might have.
The Nightly Business Report segment nn nuclear power 29 October was very good, but failed to mention what I view as the most important fact that shoul determine future energy policy. That fact is while more oil and gas may be discovered, not a single drop is being made. Our consumption rates of petro energy are increasing at an increasing rate. Analysis of that data may differ as to when fossile fuel energy supplies will be exhausted, but there is no denying that will happen. We need energy alternatives. Of those alternatives, nuclear fission energy is best able to provide near term energy supply in quantities that we know will be required. In my view, the best long term solution is nuclear fussion which uses the most abundant element in the world, hydrogen, which produces an inert gas, helium in the fussion process. Global warming and air polution are other important factors to consider in this analysis. Both argue strongly in favor of nuclear power. One final comment is the video clips shown last night on Nightly Business Report unfairly portrayed nuclear plants as spewing visible gases out of very large structures. In fact, that is just water vapor from cooling towers which has no toxic effect, much different that emisions from oil, gas and coal fired energy plants.
Even under the best conservation scenarios, new nuclear plants and renewables energy sources coming on line will hardly make a dent in our fossil fuel consumption.
As our world's oil supply gets inevitably tighter due to depletion and Chinese competition for those same reserves, our transportation energy sources must shift from oil to hydrgogen and plug-in, hybrid-electric vehicles.
In order to produce the hydrogen and electricity to meet these emerging needs, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and replace the already aging fleet of coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear facilities, it will require vast amounts of new, cleaner energy sources coming on line.
Let's face it: There is plenty of room for conservation, clean renewables, and advanced nuclear power.