- How America got stuck on nuclear stupid
- Is it facts and science or nuclear stupid?
- America’s decline and recovery from nuclear stupid (charts)
The nuclear energy polices and regulations implemented by our U.S. government over the past 30-40 years are nothing short of nuclear stupidity or stupidity on steroids. Examples of how those policies have squandered our nuclear power plant design and technology competitive advantage over the rest of the world were covered in part 2 of this series. We have a second chance at nuclear preeminence. The government regulation factory must be made to run in reverse and the free market released to develop small modular reactors (SMR). First some charts to illustrate how far we have fallen and then more about why SMRs are so important to our economic future.
In 1980s the U.S. was still the clear leader in the field of nuclear technology. When any country outside of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.) or countries aligned with the U.S.S.R. wanted to build a nuclear power plant in the 1960’s, the 70’s or 80’s more often than not the reactor was built by Westinghouse or GE or licensed from one of their designs. The knee jerk reaction to Three Mile Island, egged on by anti-nuclear groups [[1]] led to government regulatory ratcheting and turbulence [[2]]. All of the wind had not been taken out of our nuclear sails in the early 1980’s but by the end of the decade U.S. power industry abandoned plans to construct additional nuclear power plants because of onerous and costly government regulation and policy.
The U.S. generated 251 billion kilowatt hours of electricity from nuclear power in 1980. This was over three times the amount generated the next closest country; Japan. The U.S.S.R. produced just slightly less electricity from nuclear power than Japan; France which had committed to nuclear power as the primary source for its electricity needs back in the 1960’s was number four. South Korea was among the minor players near the back of the pack with only 3.28 billion kilowatt hours generated.
As can be seen in Chart 1-Electricity generated from nuclear power (Billion kilowatt hours) [[3]] by 2007 the U.S. was still generating more electricity from nuclear power than now second place
France but the gap between number one and number two had narrowed. [[4]] South Korea which had been number 18 out of 20 countries with a capability to generate electricity from a nuclear power source had moved all the way up to number 5 out of 31[[5]] nuclear capable countries.
The U.S. dropping from a 3:1 differential in nuclear power generated electricity to a just under 2:1 differential over a 27 year period is not necessarily cause for concern. What is cause for concern is the effect of a repressive regulatory environment in which no new nuclear power plants have been brought on line in the U.S. since 1996. The fact that the U.S. tripled the amount of electricity generated from nuclear power between 1980 and 2007 is interesting but could mislead one into thinking that there is no underlying problem here. Looking at the available data from other angles may help illustrate how far we have fallen from our nuclear dominance perch in the 1970’s. When the available data is viewed from the following three perspectives one can see a clearer picture of the effect of not having brought any additional nuclear power plants on line in the U.S. since 1996; (1) annual nuclear fuel source electricity generated, (2) nuclear as a percent of total electrical power generated (1980 versus 2006), and (3) kilowatt hours generated from nuclear power on a per person basis for populations in the comparison countries for the years 1980 and 2007.
Chart 2-Electricity generated from nuclear power (Billion kilowatt hours) [[6]] is a plot of annual production of electricity from nuclear power for the four comparison countries. Production in the U.S. continued to increase up until about 2001, five years after the last new nuclear power plant was brought on line. After 2001 there were some minor changes in output from one year to the next but not noticeable year to year increases that would be expected if additional power plants were being brought on line. France’s output appears to have leveled off a bit as well. However, since France is a net exporter of electrical power, the leveling may be more of a supply and demand equilibrium situation than a matter of maxed out capacity. South Korea continues on an impressive steady year to year increase. Japan has two additional plants under construction; the up and down pattern since 2001 may be demand, plant age, or maintenance related.
The bottom line for the U.S. is that we are years away from being able to add any significant nuclear power plant capacity. Only one new plant has been approved for construction (not under construction yet). Considering the age of existing plants and a worsening regulatory climate it seems likely that we will see annual production decreases before any new plants are operational. Worse yet Exelon recently announced it will shut down its New Jersey Oyster Creek nuclear power plant ten years earlier than planned. The “best available technology” being employed at that plant is no longer acceptable under a recently ratcheted up EPA regulation that affects power plant cooling water intake systems. [[7]]
The percentage of total electricity requirements filled by nuclear power plant output for each of the comparison countries is shown in Chart 3 – Percent of total electricity generated from nuclear power [[8]]. Although the U.S.
was in a respectable position as of 1980, the effect of not adding any nuclear power plants since 1996 can be seen when by looking at this from the standpoint of the percentage of total production coming from nuclear power plants. Given that the U.S. has the largest amount of recoverable coal in the world[[9]], the cost competiveness of coal as an electricity generation fuel source,[[10]] and the amount of existing power plant capacity designed for coal, it’s not realistic to expect that by 2006we would have approached France’s 79% of electrical power requirements satisfied by nuclear fueled plants .
Absent the absurdly restrictive and nuclear unfriendly regulatory policies of the U.S. government over the past 30 years, it’s not unreasonable to expect that the U.S. could be satisfying a percentage of our total electricity requirement from nuclear power somewhere between the 28% that Japan realizes and the 37% that South Korea achieves. Given the lower cost per kilowatt hour with nuclear [[11]] , aside from the cleaner energy production benefit of nuclear, the lower energy costs that would have resulted from a greater percentage of total electricity derived from a nuclear fuel source would have benefitted the U.S. economy (consumers and industry).
Another way to look at the utilization of cost effective electricity from nuclear power is to look at how many kilowatt hours of electricity are generated on a per person. Chart 4-Electricity generated from nuclear power (Kilowatt hours per person) [[12]] is a plot of kilowatt hours produced in 1980 and 2007 on a per person basis for the four comparison countries. Even though by 2007 the U.S. was generating 2.4 times more kilowatt hours per person from nuclear than in 1980, France’s 2007 per person output from nuclear power increased by a factor of 5.7 times what it was in 1980. The U.S. could and should have done much better than a paltry 2.4 increase over the 1980 per person figure.
By just about any way you want to measure it the U.S is not where it should be in terms of utilization of nuclear power to meet the electricity requirements of a thriving economy. There is no way to know for certain but it’s reasonable to speculate that absent nuclear grade stupid regulatory policies the U.S. economy would have benefitted significantly from continued development of nuclear power plants.
So what do we do about it?
In the U.S. it takes twice as long and costs twice as much to get through the approval process and then build a nuclear power plant as it does in Japan [[13]]. Even if we started right away untangling the complex web of U.S. government regulations and other policies that have created this problem, the U.S. would continue to fall farther behind the rest of the world in its use of nuclear power for electricity generation. To be certain that untangling should be commenced right away but there is another path that the U.S. can and should take to return to preeminence in the design and applications of commercial nuclear power.
Unleashing free market forces to develop and deploy small modular reactors (SMR) will put the U.S. on the road back to commercial nuclear power preeminence/market dominance (if you are not familiar with SMRs see this end note for a brief description [[14]]). There is a truly compelling business case for developing and deploying SMRs as soon as possible. To support the business case a complete reset to rational and reasonable regulatory requirements should be started right away. Although not exactly a clean slate approach, if done properly, it would likely take less time and result in a better end product than an attempt to untangle the current web of nuclear stupid regulations and policies and adapt them to cover SMR design and development.
The business case for SMRs, along with references on where to look for more information, will be reviewed in a separate article. For now a few charts from a recently published study on the impact on the economy and employment that would result from the introduction of the SMR should be sufficient to illustrate why this is a big deal.
Charts that follow are attributed to Economic and Employment Impacts of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors [[15]], June 2010, Energy Policy Institute (EPI), Boise State University.
Figure 1 below shows projected outcomes in terms of the amount of nuclear fuel source electrical power that could be generated in the U.S. from (a) a do nothing approach and (b) two possible scenarios referenced in the EPI study.
Table 10 below is a summary table of the economic impacts of the manufacture of a single SMR and ongoing operations once it becomes operational:
Figure 7.d is a chart showing the possible economic impact in terms of jobs associated with the manufacture and installation for several SMR technology adoption scenarios.
Figure 8.d shows the possible economic impact in terms of jobs associated with the operation of power plants for several SMR technology adoption scenarios.
Note: These ARE jobs that Americans would want… more to follow.
Note: This article is also available for download as a PDF document. Click to download PDF
Print This Post
Email This Post
End Notes
[1]The 1970’s anti nuclear crowd represented the next phase of the progressive movement and their solutions looking for problems. Anti-Viet Nam war radicals left over from the 1960’s and early 1970’s morphed into save the planet radicals which conveniently filled the ranks of an anti-nuclear movement. Never wanting to let a perfectly good solution (actually anywhere from useless to down right destructive solutions) go to waste, the save the planet crowd has morphed into today’s global warmists and champions of environmental and social justice; wealth redistributors all.
[2] Regulatory ratcheting is a form of regulatory piling on wherein regulations are applied on top of existing regulations without regard to the cumulative effect. Regulatory turbulence is applying regulatory changes to work in process resulting in costly rework or plan change/restart situations. For more about the detrimental affect of regulation on the nuclear industry see Regulatory nuclear options will be used to destroy the American energy industry http://www.ourfounderscompass.com/archives/1258
[3] Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Table 2.7 World Net Nuclear Electric Power Generation, 1980-2007. Note: A spreadsheet downloaded from the EIA had data for these years. Electric power generation data prior to 1980 is available but has no material affect on this analysis.
[4] France’s electricity generation from nuclear exceeded that of Japan by 1981. France has been the world’s number two producer of electricity from a nuclear fuel source since that time.
[5] The expansion of nuclear power capable countries from 20 in 1980 to 31 in 2007 was almost entirely the result of the breakup of the U.S.S.R. Eight of additional nuclear capable countries listed in 2007 were former satellites under the U.S.S.R.
[6] Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Table 2.7 World Net Nuclear Electric Power Generation, 1980-2007.
[7] Nuclear Power Industry News, EPA Regulations Killing Clean Energy, December 16, 2010 – http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2010/12/16/epa-regulations-killing-clean-energy-121602.aspx
[8] Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Table 6.1 World Net Conventional Thermal Electricity Generation, 1980-2006, Table 2.6 World Net Hydroelectric Power Generation, 1980-2006, Table 2.8 World Net Geothermal, Solar, Wind, and Wood and Waste Electric Power Generation, 1980-2006, and Table 2.7 World Net Nuclear Electric Power Generation, 1980-2007.
[9] Total Recoverable Coal (Million Short Tons) – U.S. Energy Information Administration – http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=7&aid=6
[10] Nuclear Energy Institute – U.S. Electricity Production Costs and Components – http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsandcharts/uselectricityproductioncostsandcomponents/
[11] Nuclear Energy Institute – U.S. Electricity Production Costs and Components – http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsandcharts/uselectricityproductioncostsandcomponents/
[12] Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Table 2.7 World Net Nuclear Electric Power Generation, 1980-2007.
Population 1980 – http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1352_population_by_country.html
Population 2007 – http://www.scribd.com/doc/326077/World-Population-Datasheet-2007
[13] Nuclear Renaissance Blossoms—Without the USA, William Tucker in The American Spectator, October 2010
“If the NRC ever issues a construction license, the builder will be second-guessed on every rivet until the project is years behind schedule and $5 billion over budget. That will prove, once again, that nuclear is “too expensive to be built in this country.” Meanwhile, China and Japan are building their reactors in less than four years for $5 billion. To the swift goes the race.”
[14] The small modular reactor (SMR) is defined by simplicity of design plus size and modularity characteristics which distinguish it from the traditional large scale commercial reactors. To be classified as a SMR it should be designed to provide power for an electric plant generating 300 MWe (Megawatt electric power capacity) as defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The SMR is designed to be a factory built system that can be shipped as modules and assembled in the field as opposed to a traditional stick built nuclear plant. Modularity reduces cost and simplifies site setup and construction. Capacity equal to or greater than a traditional power plant can be achieved by the installation of a number of individual units at a single site.
Desalination and heating are other potential applications of SMRs but producing electric power is by far the primary application of interest.
[15] Economic and Employment Impacts of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors http://epi.boisestate.edu/media/3494/economic%20and%20employment%20impacts%20of%20smrs.pdf
