The future of nuclear energy in the U.S. is up for debate.
Four nuclear reactors have closed this year, the most in the industry's history, and—as if that weren't enough—Entergy announced last week that its Vermont Yankee plant would close in 2014.
The reasons for the closings are clear—a preponderance of cheap natural gas and the rise of renewable energy—but the remaining 99 nuclear reactors' future is not.
With the U.S. power grid seemingly poised to leave nuclear generation behind, Utility Dive rounded up 10 perspectives from scientists, policymakers and utility executives on what lies ahead. From the lack of a positive business case for new builds to potential new models for nuclear plant projects, here are 10 insights on the future of U.S. nuclear energy:
(Source: Energy Information Administration)
1. NO ROOM FOR NUCLEAR
Who: Henri Proglio, Chairman and CEO at France's Electricite de France (EDF)
What they said: "We see no room for nuclear to expand in the U.S. at this time. So we are being realistic. U.S. nuclear is no longer a priority for us."
Context: Citing the hardship of competing with cheaper natural gas, EDF announced in July it will withdraw from the Constellation Energy Nuclear Group (CENG), which operates five nuclear reactors in the U.S. and is jointly owned with Exelon Corp.
2. A WICKED EXPENSIVE WASTE
Who: James Conca, environmental scientist and director of the Center for Laboratory Sciences
What they said: “The best thing to do with a nuclear power plant is to run it. Mothballing an active reactor ahead of its time is a wicked expensive waste.”
Context: In reaction to Entergy's plan to close Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant by the end of 2014, Conca wrote an article Forbes, "Who Told Vermont To Be Stupid?," arguing that decommissioning even aging plants is a waste of money and resources.
3. NO GUARANTEE NUCLEAR WILL PREVAIL
Who: Don Harker, energy specialist at Navigant Consulting
What they said: “[States] with deregulated electricity markets will not be attractive to merchant nuclear power plant developers. It is also apparent that there is no guarantee that existing nuclear plants will prevail over the market forces fostering the rapid expansion of natural gas.”
Context: Funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, Navigant Consulting released a report, "Assessment of the Nuclear Power Industry," suggesting that U.S. nuclear need to adapt in order to be cost-competitive "in the face of [a] resurgent natural gas industry and increased penetration of wind energy," according to PowerMag.
4. ADVANTAGES OF SMALL REACTORS UNPROVEN
Who: Edwin Lyman, senior scientist in the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists
What they said: "The history of nuclear power has driven reactors to get larger and larger [to take advantage of economies of scale]. If you're going to make small reactors competitive with large reactors, you have to reduce operating costs. You need to slash labor costs in a way which is irresponsible. It's unproven that it's safe to reduce the number of operators [and] security personnel and still maintain safety."
Context: As utilities face the challenge of building new generating capacity, some are suggesting smaller, modular nuclear reactors will be safer and easier to design. Lyman argues smaller reactors could be safer in theory, "but it's not going to happen automatically," according to an article, "The Unclear Fate of Nuclear Power," in Smithsonian Magazine.
5. NUCLEAR PLANTS VULNERABLE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS
Who: Alan J. Kuperman, associate professor of public affairs at the University of Texas and coordinator of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project
What they said: "More than 10 years have come and gone since the events of September 2001, and America's civilian nuclear facilities remain unprotected against a terrorist attack of that scale. Instead, our civilian reactors prepare only against a much smaller-scale attack."
Context: Kuperman co-authored a report, "Protecting U.S. Nuclear Facilities from Terrorist Attack: Re-assessing the Current 'Design Basis Threat' Approach," which concluded that all 107 U.S. nuclear reactors are vulnerable to terrorist attacks, according to CBS News.
6. NEW NUCLEAR PROJECTS NOT JUSTIFIED
Who: Philip Hayet, president at Hayet Power Systems Consulting
What they said: "If a decision had to be made today to build a new nuclear project, it would not be justified,"
Context: Hayet provided testimony to the Georgia Public Service Commission on Southern Company's Vogtle nuclear plant project, which is running nearly one billion dollars over budget and 18 months behind schedule, according to ENRSoutheast.
7. HARD TO SEE FUTURE FOR NUCLEAR
Who: Ernest Moniz, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy
What they said: "[T]here are four AP 1000 reactors being built in Georgia and South Carolina, the first in a long, long time. We have conditional loan guarantees out there for the Georgia plants. And a huge issue for nuclear power going forward in the U.S. is the cost and schedule performance of those reactors. Frankly, if they have cost overruns like some of the recent construction in Europe—Finland and France—if they have that kind of performance, I think it is very hard to see a future for nuclear power plants unless a new technology like small modular reactors becomes available in say, the next ten years."
Context: In an interview with ThinkProgress, Moniz touted President Obama's Climate Action Plan, noting that nuclear needs to perform well in terms of cost and schedule in order to remain a viable energy resource for the future.
8. NUCLEAR MATH DOESN'T ADD UP
Who: Daniel Eggers, utilities analyst with Credit Suisse
What they said: “In a competitive market, you can’t even come close to making the math work on building new nuclear plants. Natural gas is too cheap, demand is too flat, and the upfront costs are way too high.”
Context: An article in Bloomberg BusinessWeek, "The U.S. Nuclear Power Industry's Dim Future," analyzes the recent troubles facing U.S. nuclear generation, concluding, "[a]nalysts agree that nuclear plants generally need to sell their power at about 12¢ per kilowatt hour to stay profitable; gas-fired plants can get by selling power for 5¢ to 9¢ per kilowatt hour. Nuclear reactors can take the better part of a decade to get built and often cost tens of billions of dollars. Gas-fired plants can be built within two years, usually for less than a billion dollars."
9. LARGE-SCALE NUCLEAR DOESN'T MAKE SENSE ANYMORE
Who: John Rowe, former CEO at Exelon Corp.
What they said: "You don’t build a new plant for the sake of monument building. You only do it if it makes economic sense. Right now, it doesn’t. If it did, the capital would be readily available.”
Context: Rowe said the "era of building large-scale nuclear plants" may be over, according to an article in Bloomberg BusinessWeek. 24 applications for reactors were filed in 2008, but construction has only begun on four new reactors, the article said.
10. U.S. NUCLEAR FUTURE DEPENDS ON VOGTLE EXAMPLE
Who: Barry Moline, executive director of the Florida Municipal Electric Association (FMEA)
What they said: “Everybody’s watching the construction of that plant. If they can do it, that will be the model.”
Context: The Vogtle nuclear power plant is being touted as the model of the future with "a new plant design, a new construction method and a new system of nuclear regulation for what the industry says is a faster, better and cheaper system that will lead the way for a new generation of reactors," according to The New York Times. Moline said the FMEA is considering investing in a similarly designed plant to be built by Florida Power & Light.
Would you like to see more utility and energy news like this in your inbox on a daily basis? Subscribe to our Utility Dive email newsletter! You may also want to read Utility Dive's look at 4 challenges the utility business faces today.
