Nuclear Power Today and in the Future Presented by H.L. Dodds, Ph.D., P.E. IBM Professor of Engineering and Head UT Department To UT Physics and Astronomy Department October 9, 2006
Overview of Presentation History of Nuclear Power Development Recent Developments National (U.S. Industry and Government) International Education U.S. Public Opinion Global Climate Change Renewable Energy Energy diversity Concluding Remarks
History of Nuclear Power Development Generation I Generation II Early Prototype Reactors Commercial Power Reactors Generation III Advanced LWRs Generation III+ Generation IV - Shippingport - Dresden, Fermi I - Magnox - LWR-PWR, BWR - CANDU - VVER/RBMK - AGR - ABWR - System 80+ - AP600 - EPR Generation III Evolutionary Designs Offering Improved Economics - AP1000 - ACR 700 - ESBWR 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 - Highly Economical - Enhanced Safety - Minimize Wastes - Proliferation Resistant Gen I Gen II Gen III Gen III+ Gen IV
US Nuclear Power Then and Now Parameter 1979 Today Commercial Reactors 69 103 Electricity Production (kw-hrs) 255 b. 789 b. Ave. Capacity Factor 56.3 % 90.5 % Unplanned Reactor Trips 7.3 0 per 7000 Reactor Hours Industrial Safety Accidents 2.1 0.25 per 200,000 hours worked
Today ~ 440 nuclear power reactors in 32 different countries producing ~ 20% of the world s electricity 103 power reactors in the U.S. producing ~ 20% of the electricity in U.S U.S. also has ~ 100 naval reactors in operation 5 power reactors in the Tennessee valley producing ~ 30% of electricity in the valley (seven states) Lithuania has 1 reactor producing ~ 90% France has 54 reactors producing ~ 75%
U.S. Industry Developments TVA re-start of Browns Ferry Unit 1 is on schedule and within budget (almost equivalent to a new order ~ $1.8 billion) TVA Watts Bar Plant Finishing construction of Unit 2 studied ($20 million study) Unit 1 producing tritium for national defense Power uprates and license renewals in U.S. are equivalent to 26 new 1000 MW plants Least expensive way to add generating capacity Several nuclear utilities seek Early Site Permits (ESPs) and Construction and Operating Licences (COLs) Davis-Besse incident (cavity created inside vessel head)
Nuclear Generated Electricity Costs At All-Time Low (cents per kilowatt-hour) Nuclear is the lowest cost generation
Industry Performance Is Excellent Capacity Factor (%) 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 89.6% in 2000 90.7% in 2001 91.9% in 2002 89.4% in 2003* 55 '80 '82 '84 '86 '88 '90 '92 '94 '96 '98 '00 '02 * Nuclear Energy Institute estimate
U.S. Capacity Factors by Fuel Type 2005 Fuel Type Nuclear Coal (Steam Turbine) Gas (Combined Cycle) Gas (Steam Turbine) Oil (Steam Turbine) Hydro Wind Solar Source: Global Energy Decisions / Energy Information Administration Updated: 4/06 Average Capacity Factors (%) 89.6 72.6 37.7 15.6 29.8 29.3 26.8 18.8
Virtually All Nuclear Plants Will Renew Their Licenses 47 Have Not Announced Intention 23 Granted 16 Intend to Renew 17 Under NRC Review License Renewal Status
U.S. Government Developments National Energy Policy is pro-nuclear Nuclear Power 2010 Initiative Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative $250 million requested in FY07 budget for GNEP (worldwide expansion of nuclear power while minimizing proliferation risks) One-step licensing process approved Early Site Permit (ESP) Construction and Operating License (COL) U.S. now has comprehensive energy legislation Nuclear power plant security increased since 9-11-01
National Energy Legislation Passed New law (July, 2005) supports existing nuclear plants and encourages construction of new nuclear plants Production tax credits and loan guarantees Protection from regulatory delays Price-Anderson Act extended for 20 years $2.7 billion for nuclear energy R&D $1.25 billion for advanced reactor at INL to produce electricity and hydrogen Assistant DOE Secretary for nuclear energy
The President and Congress Approved Yucca Mountain
Nuclear Power (NP) 2010 Initiative A joint government/industry cost-shared effort to: Identify sites for new nuclear plants Demonstrate new regulatory processes for operation of new nuclear plant designs in U.S. by 2010. NUSTART Consortium (Entergy) is considering two existing sites for COL ESBWR at Grand Gulf in MS AP1000 at Bellefonte in AL UNISTAR Consortium (Constellation) is considering two existing sites for an Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR) Duke Power plans to build two AP1000s in Carolinas (sites not yet determined) 10 consortia considering 20-27 new plants in U.S.
International Developments Finland has ordered a new nuclear plant. Japan has 4 ABWRs operating; planning two more. Taiwan has 2 ABWRs under construction. China plans to build 8-25 new nuclear plants. Europe plans to build 2 new nuclear plants (EPRs). South Africa is developing a Pebble Bed Reactor. Sweden is considering reversing its previous decision to shutdown its nuclear plants. Several prominent environmentalists now support nuclear power (e.g., James Lovelock, Patrick Moore). Germany is planning to shutdown its nuclear plants. They will have to purchase more power from France. Recent German elections may reverse this decision.
Global U.S. Leadership in Annual Nuclear Power Production 900 800 780.1 billion kilowatt-hours 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 415.5 313.8 162.3 130 113 81.1 0 US France Japan Germany Russia S. Korea UK Source: IAEA - Updated: 08/03
Educational Developments Enrollment in nuclear engineering is increasing nationwide Six new nuclear engineering programs U. of South Carolina, South Carolina State, U. of Nevada-Las Vegas, West Point Military Academy, Tuskegee Institute, Idaho State U. (new Ph.D. program) Distance Education is growing World Nuclear University has been created
UT Enrollment 250 NE Student Enrollment 200 150 100 50 57 Grad 119 UG 46 Grad 130 UG 63 Grad 140 UG 59 Grad 157 UG 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2006 NSPE Salary Survey Aerospace Agricultural Biomedical Chemical Civil Computer Electrical Environmental Industrial Materials Mechanical Nuclear $83,000 $78,700 $80,000 $91,600 $72,000 $90,000 $85,000 $75,000 $68,500 $65,998 $82,691 $109,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 $90,000 $100,000 $110,000 Median Annual Income
Public Supports Nuclear Energy 80 70% Favor 60 40 24% Oppose 20 May-05 Oct-04 Apr-04 Oct-03 May-03 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 Source: Bisconti Research Inc. Percent Favor/Oppose
Another Public Opinion Survey Survey of ~ 1100 people all across the U.S. who live within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant Survey released October 12, 2005 Margin of error is 3 % 83 % favor nuclear energy 76 % willing to have a new reactor built near them NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) does not apply at existing plant sites because close neighbors have a positive view of nuclear energy
Global Mean Surface Temperatures Are Increasing
Glaciers Are Retreating Globally In Switzerland In Alaska 1930 1950 2001 2001
Worldwide CO 2 emissions U.S. is by far the largest emitter of CO 2 1999 Data
The Reality of Renewables Method Needed for 1000 MW Electrical Land Area (square miles)) Photovoltaic 100 km 2 @ 10% efficiency 40 Wind 3,000 Wind Turbines @ 1 MW ea. 40-70 Biogas 60,000,000 pigs or 800,000,000 chickens 6,200 km 2 of sugar beets 2,400 Bioalcohol 7,400 km 2 of potatoes 2,800 16,100 km 2 of corn 6,200 272,000 km 2 of wheat 104,000 Bio-oil 24,000 km 2 of rapseed 9,000 Biomass 30,000 km 2 of wood 12,000 Nuclear <1 km 2 1/3
We Need Energy Diversity 80,000 New MWs by Fuel Type, 1950-2003 70,000 60,000 Other Petroleum Hydro Nuclear Gas Coal 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000-2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980 1978 1976 1974 1972 1970 1968 1966 1964 1962 1960 1958 1956 1954 1952 1950 Natural gas prices have almost tripled in the past three years. Name Plate Capacity MW
Concluding Remarks Need energy diversity (fossil, nuclear, & renewables) Global warming appears to be real; correlates well with increased burning of fossil fuels We are messing with our planet Increased use of nuclear power coupled with hydrogen production and use could help alleviate global warming, if it s not too late! Nuclear power is Green Power, both economically and environmentally
Thank You! Contact information Email: utne@utk.edu Phone: 865-974-2525 UTNE web page: http://www.engr.utk.edu/nuclear/ Weekly Colloquium webcast www.engr.utk.edu/nuclear/colloquia/ Archived colloquia www.engr.utk.edu/nuclear/colloquia/archive/
Extra Slides
Definition of Two Main Areas Traditional deals primarily with nuclear power Radiological Engineering deals with applications of radiation in industry and medicine Considerable overlap between the two areas
Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative Develop technologies that achieve safety performance, waste reduction, and proliferation resistance while providing the next-generation nuclear energy system that is economically competitive, reliable, sustainable, and ready for deployment before 2030. 25 20 24 $ (millions) 15 10 5 12.9 0 FY2003 enacted FY2004 E&WD Program Funding
Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative Develop new concepts to produce hydrogen using nuclear reactors Conduct laboratory testing of candidate hydrogen production processes Complete design and initiate construction of two hydrogen production pilot plants - (200 kw) high temperature electrolysis plant and (500 kw) thermochemical plant Begin operation of the initial pilot plants Begin system optimization and scaling of thermochemical pilot plant Complete process improvements and scaling of thermochemical pilot plant to MW class Complete designs and start construction of engineering scale hydrogen production systems 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2015 7 6 6.5 $ (millions) 5 4 3 2 1 0 2 FY2003 enacted FY2004 E&WD Program Funding The energy from one pound of nuclear fuel could provide the hydrogen equivalent of 250,000 gallons of gasoline without any carbon emissions.
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative Improve the understanding and performance of nuclear fuel and fuel cycles with respect to safety, waste production, proliferation resistance, and economics Selected topics include: - Concepts for material preparation and fuel production - Inherently safe fuel designs and core response - Understanding life-limiting phenomena for high burnup fuels - High-temperature fuel and material performance - Criticality safety and reactor physics data for advanced fuel designs 70 65 68 $ (millions) 60 55 50 45 57.5 40 FY2003 enacted FY2004 E&WD Program Funding
Emissions Avoided By Nuclear Power Plants SO 2 (million short tons) NO x (million short tons) Carbon (million metric tons of carbon equivalent) nuclear plant 3.38 1.39 1,441.5 emissions avoided 2002 fossil plant 5.5 2.3 NA emissions reduced 1990-2002 Source: Environmental Protection Agency