Neighborhood Nukes: Great for America? Great for the Environment? Great for Al Qaeda?

Transcription

1 Neighborhood Nukes: Great for America? Great for the Environment? Great for Al Qaeda? Stephanie N. Lubiak June 2011 Advisor: Alain L. Kornhauser Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science and Engineering Department of Operations Research and Financial Engineering Princeton University

2 I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. I authorize Princeton University to lend this thesis to other institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research. Stephanie N. Lubiak I further authorize Princeton University to reproduce this thesis by photocopying or by other means, in total of in part, at the request of other institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research. Stephanie N. Lubiak

3 Acknowledgement I would like to thank my advisor Professor Alain Kornhauser for his support and guidance throughout the thesis process.

4 Abstract The United States demand for energy is growing but so is its environmental conscientiousness. Within the set of carbon-free energy options, nuclear is the only source proven to efficiently mass produce electrical energy. However, nuclear must redefine itself to overcome engineering and economic barriers. I propose that this can be done through neighborhood nukes - small (serving under 100,000 households), standardized nuclear reactors that can generate electric power for a concentrated area of end-users. By nature of their size, neighborhood nuke reactors significantly reduce and could potentially eliminate safety hazards of large reactors. Neighborhood nukes are also economically attractive because they have more opportunities for capital cost reductions and are small enough to be exported.

5 Table of Contents 1. Energy Overview 1. Recent Energy Trends 2. The Electric Car and Increased Electric Demand 3. Renewable Energy 4. We Need an Alternative to the Alternative 2. Nuclear Energy: Past, Present, and Future 1. Nuclear Energy Then 2. Nuclear Reactor Roll Call 3. Applications for Nuclear Energy Beyond Commercial Electricity 4. New Nuclear Construction 5. Country Outlook: Nuclear Reactor Innovation 3. Neighborhood Nukes Small as a Method for Safety 1. The Concept of the Neighborhood Nuke 2. Naval Nuclear Safety 3. How Neighborhood Nukes Increase Reactor Safety 4. Recent Nuclear Accident, Japan Cost Comparison 1. Scenario 1: Electricity Price, Large v. Small 2. Scenario 2: Electricity Price, Large v. Large Made up of Small 3. Scenario 3: Carbon Taxes 4. Limitations 5. Policy Implications 5. Risky Business 1. Arms Race 2. The Neighborhood Nuke Export Game 3. Transformation to Export Leader: A Lesson from Boeing 6. The Impact of Neighborhood Nukes 1. Will Anti-Nuclear Opposition Threaten the New Nuclear Industry? 2. The Nuclear Industry s Impact on Homeland Security 3. Hazard Comparison 7. Why Nuclear? Why Now? Appendix A: Progress of Small Nuclear Reactors over the Past Year B. Complete Tables

6 Chapter 1: Energy Overview 1.1 Recent Energy Trends The power grid has reached its maximum output level. In recent summers, heat waves spiked the demand for interior cooling and thus electric power, constraining the energy supply, forcing utility companies to scatter power outages in densely populated areas. In the summer of 2010, Con Edison found it necessary to reduce voltage by 5 to 8 percent to Brooklyn and Queens neighborhoods to maintain power use of just under the record levels. This not only affected the power in over 52,000 buildings but also threatened the operations of hospitals and public transportation in the area (Funk). The United States ranks the highest in electricity consumption worldwide, using 3,873,000 GWh in the year 2009 ( Country Comparison ). Money really is power since the U.S. also has the greatest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) value. Table 1.1 illustrates the correlation between wealth, electricity consumption, and CO 2 emissions among highly ranked countries. Table 1.1 Top Fifteen Countries Ranked by GDP, Electricity Consumption, and CO 2 Emissions Rank GDP Electricity Consumption CO 2 Emissions 1 United States United States China 2 China China United States 3 Japan Japan India 4 India Russia Russia 5 Germany India Japan 6 Russia Germany Germany 7 Brazil Canada Canada 8 United Kingdom France United Kingdom 9 France Brazil South Korea 10 Italy South Korea Iran 11 Mexico United Kingdom Mexico 12 South Korea Italy Italy 13 Spain Spain South Africa 14 Canada Taiwan Saudi Arabia 15 Indonesia Australia Indonesia Sources: CIA World Factbook, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center The driving force behind the quantity of electricity consumption is the household consumer. American households claim over one third of the total electricity consumed by the 1

7 nation, with a sum of 1,379,000 GWh ( Frequently Asked Questions ). The greatest amount of energy is used for heating and cooling. Figure 1.1 Distribution of Electricity Consumption in an American Household Source: Energy Information Administration For complete statistics, see Appendix B The average household in America pays $ a month and consumes 908kWh per month. This report will use the average of U.S. households to define a standardized comparison of households served. An average American household requires the equivalent of MWe, or 1 MWe serves a little over 800 households. While national wealth seems to predict levels of electricity consumption, a contrary relationship is observed in household electricity consumption levels within the U.S. As seen in Table 1.2, the census division with the highest monthly consumption, East South Central, also has the lowest median income. A better indicator of electricity consumption is actually electricity prices. While the East South Central states have the lowest median household income, they pay the second lowest regional retail price average for electricity. In the U.S., census divisions that pay above average prices for electricity tend to have lower consumption levels. A complete illustration of the effects of electricity price levels on consumption is illustrated by state in Figure 1.2. Cheap (or cheaper) electricity prices are also responsible for national consumption of electricity. The United States currently ranks 33 rd in world electricity prices, selling electricity at 2

8 almost a third less than the most expensive nation, Denmark (see Table 1.3). The ability to produce large amounts of electric power at low cost currently sets the U.S. apart from other nations. However, as electricity demand rises over time, the utility companies will struggle to maintain relatively low prices. Table 1.2 Geographic Breakdown of Electricity Consumption in the United States Average Average Retail Average Number of Monthly Price (cents per Monthly Consumers Consumption kwh) Bill (kwh) Census Division Median Household Income New England 6,136, $ $57,192 Middle Atlantic 15,582, $ $57,507 East North Central 19,531, $85.09 $48,006 West North Central 9,001, $86.10 $48,133 South Atlantic 25,669,340 1, $ $51,181 East South Central 7,972,331 1, $ $39,733 West South Central 14,390,523 1, $ $42,560 Mountain 8,867, $89.38 $49,447 Pacific Contiguous 17,342, $85.43 $54,645 Pacific Noncontiguous 682, $ $65,525 U.S. Total 125,177, $ $50,221 Sources: Energy Information Administration, U.S. Census Bureau For complete statistics, see Appendix B. Figure 1.2 Comparison of Average Electricity Prices vs. Monthly Electric Consumption by State Source: Energy Information Administration 3

9 Table 1.3 The Most Expensive Household Electricity Prices Worldwide 1 Rank Country Electricity Prices for Households ($US/kWh) 1 Denmark Italy Ireland Germany Netherlands United Kingdom Portugal Slovakia Spain Luxembourg Hungary Japan Austria Chile Poland Czech Republic Singapore Uruguay Finland Nicaragua Brazil France Panama Turkey New Zealand Norway Switzerland El Salvador Dominican Republic Colombia Haiti Peru United States Romania Greece Croatia Australia Israel Costa Rica Mexico Not all nations report prices Source: Energy Information Administration Total energy consumption in the United States is predicted to increase 0.5 percent per year until the year 2035, which is only a fifth of the forecasted growth for the nation s GDP. This 4

10 optimistically low estimate relies on the expectation that the energy intensity of the U.S economy (the ratio of the amount of energy consumed per dollar GDP) will decrease at a rate of almost 2 percent per year. Electricity consumption is expected to increase at a rate of 1 percent per year reaching 5,021 billion kilowatt hours by year 2035 (United States, DOE, EIA, Outlook 2). In order to supply the growing demand, the equivalent of 200 million average households served (250 GW) of new generating capacity needs to be added to the energy grid by the year The required amount of additional electricity does not include the 25 million households served (30.8 GW) of capacity that is currently generated by nuclear power plants that may no longer operate by The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issues 40-year operating licenses to commercial power plants and has the authority to grant 20-year renewals. If the NRC decides that a nuclear power plant is not safely operated or is no longer economically viable, a renewal license application will be denied (United States, DOE, EIA, Outlook 43). While it is still uncertain whether the plants will be retired at the end of their 60-year term, the electrical output would need to be replaced at the additional costs of new energy sources. As the global economy continues to expand, world energy demand is estimated to increase by 40 percent, which in return increases the amount of foreign competition for fuel sources. Prices for electricity are dependent on the strength of the economy, fuel prices, competition, and costs new of generation. The United States is soon expected to fall behind China in net maximum electrical capacity by China is then forecasted to reach almost double of the United States electrical capacity by 2020 ( World: Energy outlook ). The United States needs to establish a stronger domestic generation method for electricity to protect against dramatic increase in electricity prices as well as potential energy shortages. The United States will need a strategy to supply the increasing domestic demand and avoid the foreign competition for energy. However, a greater energy supply is not merely a question of quantity but also of quality. As political efforts and regulations increase to ensure new energy production is less harmful to the environment, energy companies will incur higher 5

11 costs for better technology. Abundant attention has been given to renewable energy sources that promise to increase domestic energy production and eliminate harmful by-products, most importantly carbon dioxide emissions. While these newer energy sources may offer a cleaner production method of energy, it is difficult to compete with fossil fuel because it is highly cost effective. The United States needs a breakthrough in energy production to compete in the global market, remain cost efficient, and also be environmentally friendly. 1.2 The Electric Car and Increased Electric Demand Environmentally conscientious consumers, concern over rising gasoline prices, and stricter emission standards all contribute to an increase in electric transportation vehicles on the roads. California dedicated state spending to subsidize over 5,000 charging stations to promote an increase in the number of all-electric and hybrid plug-in vehicles on the road by 2014 (Smith). Abroad, Germany has pledged to put one million electric vehicles on the road by the year 2020 ( Germany Wants 1 Million Electric Cars by 2020 ). Supporters within the automobile industry argue that by 2020, electric vehicles could account for as much as 10 percent of the demand for cars (Shirouzu). Charging an electric car will increase a household s electricity consumption by 60 percent (Hsu). This means that if one electric vehicle is added to the average U.S. household, charging the car battery electricity end use surpasses the heating and cooling by almost 75 percent. The abundance and growing number of electronic appliances has already readjusted the predicted value of electricity as a percentage of total residential energy consumption from current level of 41 percent to 48 percent by The electric powered vehicle will then create additional demand to charge its battery. To reduce strains on the grid, energy companies have thought of allocating electric vehicle charging to off-peak hours by offering significantly reduced prices as incentive or by creating smart outlets for the electric vehicles that would only transmit electrical power at certain hours (Motavalli). However, residents of high population density 6

12 neighborhoods have already expressed concerns that the electric vehicles will contribute to the chances of power shortages during peak months of demand. Whenever significant consumer demands for electric or hybrid engines actually penetrate the automobile market, the energy grid s off peak charging strategy will not be sufficient to manage the flux of demand. 1.3 Renewable Energy The major consequence to increasing the production of electricity is also increasing the amount of released carbon dioxide, which has environmental and health consequences. According to the U.S. Department of Energy s report 20% Wind Energy by 2030, electricity production is responsible for 39% of CO 2 emissions in the United States (107). As the electric car becomes an increasingly popular consumer choice of vehicles, the reduction of CO 2 emissions from the transportation sector, which contribute 22.9% of total emissions, will be offset by newly increased emissions from electricity production. The atmospheric level of CO 2 is already dangerously high enough to alter the global climate, and reducing CO 2 emissions is a top concern for scientists, politicians, and governments worldwide. As of September 2010, the level of atmospheric CO 2 reached ppm, and some scientists claim that the target upper level for atmospheric CO 2 should be only 350ppm, already reached by 1988 (Hansen et al 226). The growth rate in the levels of atmospheric CO 2 must tail- off to protect against harmful climate change. However, the atmospheric levels continue to rise despite efforts to create greener energy. The United States, China, and India are continuing the production of new coalfired power plants, and natural gas and oil are approaching their peak production (MIT xv). The current developments in alternative energy just cannot compete with the efficiency of fossil fuels or generate enough power to meet the demands of a growing global industry. It order to maintain a growing world economy and maintain an atmospheric CO 2 level below 450ppm, approximately 30 terawatts (24 billion households served) of power must be generated by carbon-neutral sources by 2050 (New York University). Unfortunately, nations 7

13 collectively have not been able to succeed in producing even 1 TW (800 million households served) of carbon neutral energy. Some current energy alternative such as wind and solar power are highly variable and dependent on weather conditions that are difficult to predict, and they will not be able to achieve mass market penetration until they can sufficiently store excess energy and release it during peak hours. If the ultimate goal is to achieve a stable atmospheric CO 2 concentration, the efforts to develop carbon-free energy technology seem to be mis-directed. Wind Wind energy is a nice theory. Why not convert a free, naturally occurring force and use it to the energy consumer s advantage? Unfortunately, wind is highly volatile, difficult to model, and inefficient to store for later use. In July 2008, the United States Department of Energy released a new initiative, 20% Wind Energy by 2030, to increase the mix of clean, renewable energy and diversify the nation s energy portfolio. This would require the U.S to increase its wind power production to approximately 245 million households served (305 GWe) over the next twenty years. The 20% wind energy scenario would supposedly displace 50% of electric utility natural gas consumption and 18% of coal consumption once all the new wind turbines are installed to the energy grid (United States, DOE, Wind 12). In order to reach the 20% by 2030, about 225 million households served (280,000 MWe) of new wind power needs to be created. The advanced wind turbine designs have capacities up to 2,000 households (2.5 MWe) but typical capacity is approximately 1,600 households (2 MWe) for turbines recently installed (United States, DOE, Wind 27). This means that a minimum of 112,000 new turbines need to be manufactured, installed, and integrated into the energy grid by The cost of land based wind power is estimated to be over $2,165 per household ($1.74 million per megawatt) according to the European Wind Energy Association (13). At a constant price, this puts the 20% Wind Energy by 2030 at a cost of approximately $490 billion. 8

14 However, the expensive price tag only provides an industry average capacity factor (amount of time a power generator will produce power at 100 percent of their maximum output) of 22-28%. Improvements in technology might increase productivity to 35%, but this is still not an attractive trade-off. Another proposal to expand the amount of wind-generated energy is to move the wind turbines offshore where there is higher wind frequency. This would actually increase the productivity to 65%. The problem with offshore wind turbines is that they are much more difficult to engineer. It is estimated that the cost of offshore wind would be approximately $3,700 per household served ($3 million per megawatt) for shallow water installations (EWEA 15). For comparison, if the additional energy to meet the 20% by 2030 initiative was produced by offshore wind, the projected cost would be up to $830 billion. Additionally, the Department of Energy estimates that increasing the amount of wind energy would require 50,000 km 2 for land-based projects and 11,000 km 2 for offshore projects (10). The costs associated with the 20% by 2030 are high for the great amount of uncertainty about the technology and the low actual amount of useable energy that will be produced by this project. If 30 TW of carbon-free power is required globally by 2050 to keep climate change risks under control, the 305 GW of wind energy is only contributing 1.2% of that amount. Even this small contribution is unrealistic. According to Kent Hawkins, an electrical engineer, the frequency at which gas-fired generators must by cycled on and off in order to back up wind power results in more gas consumption than if there were no wind turbines. In Denmark, the leading country in wind energy development, coal consumption has not decreased since 1999 despite the fact that by 2007 wind power was responsible for 13.4% on the country s electricity production (Bryce ). There is no evidence that wind power has reduced carbon dioxide emissions thus far. 9

15 Solar Solar energy, similar to wind, is an attractive alternate energy option because the energy is free. The problem is that the current solar technology cannot reduce the cost of useable solar energy to generate electricity competitive with traditional methods of production. Commercial solar cells only have an efficiency of 10-20%. The low efficiency and high manufacturing costs generate electricity at prices 3 to 6 times higher that the market price for electricity, approximately $180 to $300 per MWh. The national average retail price is $115.1 per MWh. Another challenge facing solar energy is the lack of efficient storage. Solar cells are essentially useless at night and during cloudy weather so excess energy collected from the sun should ideally be stored and distributed when needed ( Make Solar Energy Economical ). Solar energy still demands significant improvements before it can contribute as an economical alternate energy source. Biofuels Converting crops into fuel theoretically helps reduce carbon emissions from car engines because the plants grown to supply fuel for the cars would remove some of the carbon they later produce. Ironically, the carbon life-cycle alternative has actually contributed to global warming rather than helping to prevent it. In his article The Clean Energy Scam, Michael Grunwald describes how the demand for biofuels has led to increasing deforestation. When American farmers switch their crops to grow more corn for biofuel production, the prices in soybean crops rise because the supply suddenly dropped. This creates incentive for farmers in South America to expand their soybean farms into the rainforest because there is increased opportunity in the market. These rainforests store large amounts of CO 2 that are released into the atmosphere when forests are converted into farms. Deforestation is responsible for 20% of current carbon emissions and must receive as much critical attention as the transportation sector and electricity production in efforts to curb the growth rate of atmospheric levels of CO 2. Assuming no more 10

16 land was cleared in the interest of growing crops for biofuel, it is estimated that it will take over 400 years of biodiesel use to compensate for the displaced carbon emitted by clearing peat lands for palm oil. It is also estimated that it will take 93 years of ethanol use to justify clearing the grasslands to grow corn, but it will take about 167 years to match total carbon emissions when one accounts for the deforestation (Grunwald 44). Unfortunately, just like most other alternate energy sources, biofuel is not efficient enough to have an impact on the energy market. Ethanol only has about two-thirds the energy density of gasoline and requires one ton of biomass to produce 100 gallons, or the equivalent of 67 gallons of gasoline (Bryce 183). If 100% of the soybean and corn crops produced by the United States were used to produce fuel, it would only offset 20% of on-road fuel consumption. Biofuels are also partly responsible for increases in world hunger due to the spike in crop prices it causes. The biofuel market is worth approximately $100 billion despite that fact that it produces more problems than it solves (Grunwald 40). This money is clearly wasted; biofuel will not be the clean energy of the future. Hydropower In the United States, electricity generation from hydropower accounts for about seven percent of the total electricity produced, whereas all other renewable energy sources combined only produced about three percent (Simon). Hydropower generates energy by pumping water into reservoirs when there is excess energy in the grid or during off peak hours. When additional power is demanded, the stored water is released and flows through turbines to generate electricity. Compared to other forms of renewable energy, hydropower wins in terms of efficiency. Approximately 90% of the water used is converted into electricity, which not only surpasses wind and solar energy but also beats the 50% efficiency of fossil fuels. Another advantage is that water flow can be modeled with greater precision than wind or solar power. 11

17 Since 2007, the U.S. Department of Energy has not allocated any funding to hydropower projects (Simon). Producing carbon-free energy from hydropower ironically created controversy with environmentalists. Despite that fact that hydropower is an efficient source of renewable energy, the large dams constructed to store water disrupt the natural flow of rivers. This prevents silt from flowing down the river and could destroy the aquatic ecosystems. Additionally, plant decay resulting from the downstream of large dams could produce enough greenhouse gases to negate the impact of reallocating energy production to hydropower ( Disadvantages ). Hydropower has recently been re-introduced as new developments in hydropower technology claims to correct the environmental by-products. However, the contribution of hydropower as a renewable energy source is limited. A report commissioned by the company E- Renewables predicts that there is only potential for about a 30 percent increase in hydropower capacity in the industrialized world (16). While hydropower might still be an attractive energy option for emerging countries, the United States will not be able to rely on hydropower to supply the growing demand for energy. Geothermal Geothermal energy is produced by extracting steam or hot water released after drilling into underground rock. The Department of Energy advocates that the domestic, 90% efficiency geothermal plants could produce energy for only $50 per MWh ( Geothermal FAQs ). This puts geothermal energy at a competitive price level with coal, which costs $55 per MWh, and natural gas, which costs $52 per MWh. Geothermal energy requires a more critical analysis. While in theory geothermal boasts 90% efficiency, the actual geothermal production in the U.S. runs around 62% capacity because the steam released is harsh on the physical plant. Another cost that is not included in the $50 per MWh price is exploration costs. Currently, there is no developed technology to help energy companies locate underground steam pockets. Geothermal drilling locations must be found by 12

18 blind drilling or by finding already leaking areas. The cost of geothermal energy produced by existing sources is actually closer to $65 per MWh, and this price does not include the $19 per MWh geothermal government subsidy (Mims). 1.4 We Need an Alternative to the Alternative Without the government pressuring companies to reduce CO 2 emissions and handing out grants and subsidies to any energy project with the word green in the title, there would be very little interest in wind, solar, biofuel, or geothermal power because they are not operationally efficient or cost competitive. The International Energy Agency (IAEA) predicts that $5.5 trillion will be dedicated to future renewable energy projects (Bryce 286). Additionally, the government needs to subsidize most renewable energy generators once operational. Solar energy has the highest subsidy rate of $24.34 per MWh and wind is close behind receiving $23.37 per MWh. Coal, natural gas, and nuclear power only receive $0.44, $0.25, and $1.59 per MWh respectively ( The Wind Subsidy Bubble ). Perhaps rather than spending countless dollars on alternate energies that will raise the prices of electricity for consumers, the United States should reevaluate the energy technologies that are already an integral part of the power grid. The country s current energy mix consists of coal, natural gas, crude oil, nuclear electric power, renewable energy, and imported petroleum (see Figure 1.3). Reliance on imported fuel needs to decrease as foreign competition increases. Coal, natural gas, and oil are more efficient than renewable energy, but produce substantial amounts of carbon dioxide. There is one source that has potential for further domestic development nuclear energy. As of 2010, nuclear power plants generate approximately 20 percent of US electricity (United States, DOE, EIA, Outlook 43). Why not increase nuclear s role? The technology is already developed, efficient, economical, and green. The cost to produce electricity with nuclear power is only $ per kwh (WNA, The Economics of Nuclear ). Nuclear energy has an efficiency level around 90%. 13

19 Figure 1.3 Total Energy Flow United States 2009, Quadrillion Btu Source: United States. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Review Washington D.C.: Energy Information Administration Nuclear production is also space efficient (see Figure 1.4). In his book Power Hungry, Robert Bryce compared the amount of land required by different fuel sources to produce the equivalent amount of energy as the South Texas Project Nuclear Plant that generates electricity for a little over 2,170,000 households (2,700 MWe). The South Texas Project example provides only one estimate of comparable power densities, but it is repeatedly estimated that solar power requires between 8-15 time as much land use as nuclear power plants, wind turbine energy requires between as much land, and corn ethanol requires anywhere from about times as much land (Bryce 84). Bryce s argument is that these supposed green alternative energy sources require a significant amount of land space that is also growing in demand. Continuing from the analysis started by Bryce, the South Texas Power Plant would require 1,350 wind turbines, assuming a size of 2MW, and 22,500,000 average size solar panel module producing 120W ( FAQ Regarding ). Production Unit Number of Households Served Table 1.4 Households Served by One Unit of Various Energy Sources Large Nuclear Small Nuclear Wind Turbine Reactor (1,200 Reactor (300 (2 MW) MW) MW) Solar Panel, dimensions 4 5 x2 2 (120W) 965, ,000 1,

20 Figure 1.4 Comparing the Power Densities of Established and Alternate Energy Sources Source: Bryce, Robert. Power Hungry. New York: Public Affairs, The first nuclear power plant to reach the end of its 40-year operating license was the Oyster Creek Generating Station in 2009 (United States, DOE, EIA, Outlook 43). With the industry already back on the table for review, this is the opportune time to re-examine nuclear energy s role in the future production of electricity and decide how to improve power plants before constructing more of them. 15

21 Chapter 2: Nuclear Energy: Past, Present, and Future 2.1 Nuclear Energy Then Early research of nuclear energy applications focused on converting a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction into an explosive weapon. The United States, Germany, and the Soviet Union raced to build such a weapon before their competitors, or in the context of World War II, enemies. Lead by the Manhattan Project, scientists in the U.S. developed the atomic bomb first in 1945, which was a major contribution to ending World War II. It also positioned the United States as the frontrunner of nuclear technology and its potential applications. In 1946, the United States Congress created the Atomic Energy Commission to encourage the development of nuclear energy for peaceful, civilian purposes. The new challenge for nuclear researchers was to use atomic power to produce steam and electricity. On December 20, 1951, the Experimental Breeder Reactor I was the first nuclear reactor to generate electricity. It was able to light four 200-watt light bulbs (United States, DOE, NE 9). The success of the Experimental Breeder Reactor I unveiled the potential to commercialize nuclear energy for means of electricity generation. Nuclear energy continued to develop through the U.S. Navy. Overseen by Admiral Hyman Rickover, the first Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) prototype for naval use, the Mark I, was completed in March The USS Nautilus was first nuclear powered submarine, launched in Five years later, the first nuclear powered surface vessels join the US fleet. Following the launch of the Mark I reactor, the Atomic Energy Commission ordered the construction of a PWR demonstration reactor in Shippingport, Pennsylvania. The U.S. Navy s project would become the first commercial electricity-generating nuclear power plant (Hore-Lacy 150). On August 19, 1960, nuclear energy became fully commercialized when Westinghouse s nuclear power plant, Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power Station, achieved a self-sustaining nuclear 16

22 reaction (United States, DOE, NE 15). Utility companies rapidly increased their interest in nuclear reactors in the 1950s and 1960s. The growing levels of electricity consumption along with rising oil prices positioned nuclear energy as an attractive investment. Since 1955, 177 nuclear plant construction permits and 132 operating licenses have been issued in the United States. By 1971, nuclear power plants generated 2.4 percent of electricity and by 1979 nuclear energy was responsible for 12 percent of the nation s commercial electricity production (United States, DOE, EIA, Review ). However after 1980, the United States interest in nuclear power faded and so did the development of new nuclear applications. Other nations have since surpassed the U.S. in the civilian realm of nuclear as it became responsible for a larger percentage of their primary energy. Presently, as the global demand for energy rapidly increases, the country that invented the atomic bomb needs to resume its role as the leading innovator of uses for nuclear energy. 2.2 Nuclear Reactor Roll Call Today, there are 440 commercial nuclear power plants operation in 30 countries, and over half of these countries depend on nuclear energy for at least 25 percent of their electricity. These plants are responsible for producing about 15% of the world s electricity, powering the equivalent of almost 302 million average American households (376,000 MWe) in Additionally, there are approximately 250 operating research reactors among 56 countries. A further 180 reactors are dedicated to naval forces, generating power for ships and submarines (WNA, Nuclear Power in the World ). The United States has the greatest number of operating commercial reactors, but France has the highest dependence on nuclear energy (see Table 2.1). The majority of commercial reactors are pressurized water reactors (PWR), which use enriched UO 2 as fuel and water for coolant and a moderator. Other reactor types include boiling water reactors, pressurized heavy water reactors, gas-cooled reactors, light water graphite reactors, and fast neutron reactors (Hore-Lacy 42). 17

23 Table 2.1 World s Most Nuclear Dependent Countries and Reactor Count Country Percent Nuclear Energy Number of Primary Electricity Consumption (million Nuclear Energy: Nuclear Generation tons of oil equivalent) Reactors, 2009 (2009) France % 75.2% 58 Sweden % 34.7% 10 Lithuania % 76.2% 0 Switzerland % 39.5% 5 Slovakia % 53.5% 4 Finland % 32.9% 4 Bulgaria % 35.9% 2 Ukraine % 48.6% 15 Belgium % 51.7% 7 South Korea % 34.8% 21 Czech Republic % 33.8% 6 Hungary % 43.0% 4 Japan % 28.9% 55 Germany % 26.1% 17 Spain % 17.5% 8 United States % 20.2% 104 Taiwan % 19.5% 6 Canada % 14.8% 18 United Kingdom % 17.9% 19 Russia % 17.8% 32 Romania % 20.6% 2 South Africa % 4.8% 2 Argentina % 7.0% 2 Mexico % 4.8% 2 Brazil % 3.0% 2 Netherlands % 3.7% 1 India % 2.2% 18 Pakistan % 2.7% 2 China % 1.9% 14 Sources: Bryce, Robert. World Nuclear Association 2.3 Applications for Nuclear Energy Beyond Commercial Electricity Nuclear energy is predominantly used for the production of electricity. As seen in Figure 2.1, all the nuclear energy supply is dedicated to electric power in the United States. The primary interest in nuclear is to increase its contribution to electric power so that the dependence of petroleum, natural gas, and coal can be reduced. However, if the manufacturing of nuclear reactors rapidly improves, there are additional areas of interest for nuclear energy. 18

24 Figure 2.1 Distribution of Produced Energy by Demand Sector in the U.S. Source: United States. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Review Washington D.C.: Energy Information Administration Transportation There is currently no line connecting the nuclear power supply source to the transportation demand sector in Figure 2.1, but many countries, including the U.S., are promoting the expansion of electromobility. The advantages of electric cars, trains, or Personal Rapid Transit networks, are reduced greenhouse gases emissions and decreased dependency on imported petroleum. However, for the electric transportation transition to actually reduce emission, the extra electricity required to power transportation needs to be emission free. Under the current flow of energy sources in the United States, electromobility would still indirectly require power produced form petroleum, natural gas, and coal. The only effective method to achieve cleaner transportation is to supply the additional electrical power with nuclear energy. Hydrogen Production 70 million tons of hydrogen is already consumed per year worldwide as an alternative energy carrier and is growing at a rate of 7 percent per year. Hydrogen consumption is vital for oil refineries to convert low-grade crude oils into transport fuels and for chemical plants to make fertilizer products. There is also increasing interest in using hydrogen in the transportation sector 19

25 either to power fuel cells or to burn in an internal combustion engine replacing gasoline. However, 96% of hydrogen is generated by fossil fuels, so for every ton of hydrogen produced, 11 tons of carbon dioxide emissions are released. Nuclear energy can alternatively be used to produce hydrogen through the electrolysis of water during off-peak capacity hours. Eventually, high-temperature nuclear reactors could be used for thermochemical production of hydrogen, decomposing sulfuric acid, combining with iodine, and then dissociating into hydrogen gas and recyclable reagents (Hore-Lacy 96-97). This would in return support the argument in favor of nuclear reactors by increasing utilization of nuclear power plants. Desalination Nuclear desalination plants operate in Kazakhstan, Japan, and India. This encompasses only a small proportion of the 12,500 desalination plants worldwide. It is estimated that one fifth of the world s population does not have access to safe drinking water, which constrains development of these areas. Reverse osmosis requires 6 kwh of electricity per cubic meter of water, while multi-stage flash distillation and multi-effect distillation require 25 to 200 kwh per cubic meter of water. This energy intensive process is currently mostly powered by fossil fuel power plants, contributing to large quantities of greenhouse gas emissions. With the decreasing supply of portable water, desalination processes should to shift to nuclear power plants. The IAEA reports that nuclear desalination is cost competitive with gas and oil desalination prices, and nuclear energy provides clean water with clean energy (Hore-Lacy 100). Nuclear-Powered Ships There are about 150 ships worldwide, ranging from submarines, icebreakers, and aircraft carriers that are powered by 220 small nuclear reactors. This fleet is mostly the remains of the United States and the former Soviet Union navies weapons decommissioned at the end of the 20

26 Cold War. The United States Navy maintains a perfect safety record for operating nuclear powered vessels, which has contributed to renewed interest in marine nuclear propulsion. While nuclear merchant ships were first developed in the 1950 s, they have not had a successful past. Despite that fact that in Russia nuclear powered ships have been proven essential for icebreaking, the U.S. failed to construct an economically viable design and Japan s nuclear vessel was shut down after technical problems. Marine application of nuclear power has since been revisited because it is favorable for ships that need to be at sea for extended periods of time without refueling. Other marine applications of interest include large bulk carriers that have routes with large distances between ports, commercial cruise liners, nuclear tugs to take smaller conventional across the ocean, and bulk shipping where speed is essential (WNA, Nuclear Powered Ships ). Nuclear Rocket Program Nuclear fission reactors can power propulsion once the spacecraft is launched. Russia leads the development of nuclear power for space, using over 30 fission reactors over past space missions. The United States has only flown one nuclear fission reactor back in New developments of nuclear energy for space missions involve nuclear electric systems that generate heat to accelerate and expel plasma to generate thrust. This technology could significantly extend the length of a space mission and decrease travel time with more powerful propulsion. NASA is working on a space fission nuclear reactor system that has a lifetime of 7 to 10 years and will be powerful enough for a manned mission to Mars. Last year, the Russian government granted funds to design a nuclear propulsion and generation installation system that would have capacity in the megawatt range (current space reactors are only in the kilowatt range) that could also power space mission trips to Mars or the moon. Project directors in Russia believe that these space integrated nuclear energy applications will be the differentiating technology factor for the near future of the space race (Hore-Lacy ). 21

27 2.4 New Nuclear Construction There are a total of 155 new power reactors under construction. These new reactors will add new electricity capacity of 140,700,000 American households served (175,000 MWe). Over 45 countries plan to begin a nuclear power program including Kazakhstan, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Turkey, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand. However since most of these countries have small grid capacities (5-10 GWe), the majority of added nuclear energy will be developed in countries with established nuclear programs (WNA, Emerging Nuclear ). China, Russia, and India have the most reactors under construction. The United States is in the process of building only one new reactor (WNA, Plans ). The WNA s Nuclear Century Outlook predicts that the lower boundary of future nuclear capacity by the end of the century will still be over five times the capacity of today while their high boundary expects about twenty times the capacity (2). The expansion in countries with established nuclear energy programs is expected to maintain the proportion of approximately four times the capacity compared to countries with emerging nuclear energy programs. The latest reactors installed are Generation III or III+ technology. Most reactors in operation (expect in the United Kingdom) are Generation II reactors. The significant difference between Generation II and Generation III reactors are passive safety features. The designs use gravity or natural convection to its advantage so that no operational intervention is needed if there is a malfunction. Other features of the new reactors include standardized design to expedite licensing and decrease construction time, simplified operational mechanisms, extended operating life, and reduced fuel use and waste (Hore-Lacy 66). 2.5 Country Outlook: Nuclear Reactor Innovation If the nuclear renaissance is in the near future, the key factor behind the movement is innovation. The new reactors must prove to be not only a correction, but a dissociation, 22

28 compared to the historical nuclear industry in order to reignite the advantages to nuclear as a source of energy production. Several different countries have already pursued interest in companies with small (<242,000 households served, < 300 MWe) nuclear reactor designs. Features of some of the new designs include further increased operational safety of the nuclear reaction, manufacturing efficiency, and recycling spent fuel to reduce nuclear waste. Table 2.2 summarizes the nuclear develops among different countries. A more detailed description of the new reactors can be found on pages Table 2.2 Summary and Comparison of New Nuclear Reactor Projects Country/Reactor Type 1 Served (MWe) Cycle (years) by Year Households Capacity Re-fueling Operational United States NuScale Power PWR 36, mpower LWR 100, Hyperion Power Module FNR 20, op. life 2015 PRISM ALMR 240, Russia KLT - 40S PWR 28, VK-300 BWR 201, BREST FNR 242, SVBR-100 FNR 80, China HTR-PM MHTGR 84, op. life 2015 France Flex Blue 40,200/201,000 50/250 op. life 2016 South Korea SMART PWR 80, Argentina CAREM PWR 21, South Africa PBMR PBMR 64, delayed International IRIS LWR 80, GT-MHR MHTGR 230, Fuji MSR MSR 80, op. life PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor), LWR (Light Water Reactor), FNR (Fast Neutron Reactor), ALMR (Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor), BWR (Boiling Water Reactor), MHTGR (Modular High Temperature Gas Reactor), PBMR (Pebble Bed Modular Reactor), MSR (Molten Salt Reactor) 23

29 A Survey of Worldwide Nuclear Projects United States NuScale Power: The NuScale Power nuclear reactor is 36,000 households served (45 MWe), but it is modularly designed to link up so that additional units can be added to generate more power. The individual 60 by 14 cylindrical reactor unit allows for volume manufacturing at a production site and can be easily transported by freight trains. The reactor features a passive cooling system, which the company claims is safer than traditional large nuclear plants. The size allows the reactor to operate underground, submerged in a pool of water, which decreases the risk of external attacks on the system and increases resistance to earthquake damages. The NuScale module is expected to operate at greater than 90 percent capacity, and the module reactor would need to be re-fueled every 24 months ( Changing the Face 8). It is estimated that a twelve unit NuScale plant will generate power at a comparable cost to the large power plants and will have an overnight construction cost of $4,000 per kw (WNA, Small Nuclear ). NuScale plans to submit an application for design certification to the NRC in Babcock & Wilcox: In a business partnership with the Tennessee Valley Authority, Babcock & Wilcox have announced their modular mpower reactor as a solution to reducing emissions of energy production. The mpower has a capacity of 100,500 households served (125 MWe) but can reach as high as 109,000 households (136 MWe) with a cold water source for condensers. The Generation III++ technology that Babcock & Wilcox implement in the design of the mpower includes passive safety systems, a four and a half year fuel cycle, five percent enriched fuel, secure underground containment, and spent fuel pool with life capacity. The mpower reactors are small enough (23 m by 4.5 m diameter) to be built centrally then transported. This allows Babcock & Wilcox to streamline production operations and increase cost efficiencies. Construction time is expected to be three years. While up to ten units can be integrated producing greater amounts of energy, the expected plant size would consist of four module nuclear reactors 24

30 to produce 400,000 households (500MWe) of electricity. Babcock & Wilcox targets to submit a design certification application to the NRC mid to late 2012 (WNA, Small Nuclear ). Hyperion Power: Hyperion Power proposes one of the smallest nuclear reactors at slightly over 20,000 households served (25 MWe) of capacity. The Hyperion Power Module (HPM) is compact (1.5m by 2.5 m) and easily transportable. Its targeted market is remote locations that are difficult or expensive to power through the energy grid. The HPM would run for eight to ten years but cannot be refueled onsite since it is self-contained. The HPM can operate as a teamed group, but in smaller numbers than the NuScale or the mpower models. The HPM s safety is the result of the simplistic model; the less moving parts, the less that can go wrong ( A Paradigm ). GE Hitachi: The PRISM (Power Reactor Innovative Small Module) is a 240,380 households served (299 MWe) nuclear reactor designed on Generation IV technology. The differentiating factor in technology level is that the PRISM can generate additional electricity from recycling spent nuclear fuel. The PRISM is also built with a liquid metal coolant, sodium, rather than a water based cooling system. It would need to be re-fueled every one to two years. If spent nuclear fuel can be reduced, the negative implications of nuclear energy would significantly decrease, thus making nuclear energy a much more desirable emission free energy option. GE Hitachi plans to submit their application for design certification in 2012 (WNA, Small Nuclear ). Russia OKBM Afrikantov: The KLT-40S is a 28,140 households served (35MWe) reactor designed to operate afloat barges. The primary use of the KLT-40S technology is powering the Russian icebreaker fleet but will be expanded to desalination and providing power supply to remote areas. The reactor needs to be re-fueled every three to four years and has a total operational life of 12 years. The KLT-40S is cooled by forced circulation, but the design relies on convection if emergency cooling is needed. The capacity factor for these small-scale reactors is 70%. The 25

31 design is expected to be operational by 2011, but OKBM Afrikantov plans to develop a new line of nuclear reactors, RITM-200, to replace the KLT-40S models (WNA, Small Nuclear ). Atomenergoproekt: Russian project VK-300 is a 201,000 households served (250 MWe) boiling water reactor being designed for district heating and desalination. The VK-300 design was constructed from other Russian technology to reduce the amount of R&D. The boiling water reactor model enhances plant safety because it has a natural circulation coolant. Russia has already announced that they will begin the construction of the VK-300 reactors in two locations and expects the plants to be operational between year 2017 and 2020 (Gabaraev 2). NIKIET: The Russian company NIKIET has proposed a design for a fast neutron reactor, BREST, that supplies up to 242,000 households served (300 MWe) of electric power. The model is adapted from nuclear submarine reactors and uses lead as a primary coolant. The BREST model enhances reactor safety because no weapons-grade plutonium is produced and used fuel can be recycled. The plant requires re-fueling every year for an estimated thirty-year operating life. However, the small scale reactor is not intended for widespread use in Russia but is merely a model for a 965,000 households served (1200MWe) reactor that will use the same technology (Adamov, Filin, and Orlov 4). Rosatom and En+: In a joint venture between Rosatom and En+, the companies have designed a newer and smaller Lead-Bismuth Fast Reactor, the SVBR-100. The SVBR-100 reactor is 4.5m in diameter and 7.5m in height, which allows the manufactures to ship units from a central factory. The units are modular and plan to operate in groups of sixteen, 80,4000 households served (100 MWe) reactors. The SVBR-100 reactors are designed with lead based cooling technology and the ability to use a variety of fuels. The re-fueling interval is estimated to be every 7 to 8 years. Of the emerging energy technology in Russia, the SVBR-100 is estimated to supply electricity at the lowest cost once operational. Rosatom believes the success of the Generation IV reactor will give Russia the status of the leading country in world atomic energy industry and a competitive market advantage to export SVBR-100 modules to developing countries ( SVBR-100 ). 26