The Future of Nuclear Power
Student Pugwash
September 9, 2003
Andrew C. Kadak
Professor of the Practice
Nuclear Engineering Department
former CEO Yankee Atomic Electric Company
Calvert Cliffs - MD
Robinson - SC
Indian Point - NY
Diablo Canyon
Prairie Island - MN
Prairie Island site - MN
Surry - VA
What’s Happening Now ?
• Existing nuclear plants are valued assets by
utilities operating them
– low production costs
– no variability due to world events such as gas and
oil prices - stable prices
– operating very well - high capacity factors > 90%
– Making money for owners !
• Utility Consolidation
• Deregulation and Competition
US Nuclear Industry Is Achieving
Record Levels of Performance
(1980-2002)
95
91.7
85
80
75
70
65
60
02
00
98
96
94
92
90
88
86
84
82
55
80
Capacity Factor (%)
90
Relative Price Volatility of Energy Sources
Monthly Fuel Cost in $/MWh
120
100
COAL
NATURAL GAS
OIL (HEAVY)
URANIUM
80
60
40
20
02
J-
02
J-
01
J-
01
J-
00
J-
00
J-
99
J-
99
J-
98
J-
98
J-
97
J-
97
J-
96
J-
96
J-
95
J-
J-
95
0
Average Duration of Nuclear Refueling Outages in the US
(1990-2001)
120
105
100
100
88
80
82
80
days
66
68
64
60
51
41.5
39.9
37
1999
2000
2001
40
20
0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Source: Institute of Nuclear Power Operators (INPO)
Note: Average Values do not include data from shutdown units
1996
1997
1998
What About the Future ?
• No new orders in US for > 25 years
• Internationally plants still being built
(Japan, China, Taiwan, Korea, Russia)
• Excess Capacity - went gas crazy !
• 10 year or greater planning horizon
• Existing plant offerings judged to be too
expensive and high risk for capital given
past history.
Future looks pretty bleak too ?
It depends……….
On What ?
•
•
•
•
“Hot days in the Summertime” 
Middle East - Oil and Gas Prices
Snow Depth in Washington DC
More Blackouts
• A nuclear plant alternative that is
competitive and relatively low risk
to investors that can be built
quickly with regulatory stability.
Obstacles to New Nuclear Plants
• High up front capital costs
• Long construction time
• Nuclear Regulatory factors
– Situation today much improved
– Combined construction and operating license
– Pre-certified designs ready to build (already
licensed).
– Regulator using performance based
regulation - making the utility responsible for
safety.
Opportunities for Nuclear
• Credit for CO2 Avoidance - Global Warming
• Prospects for Nuclear Hydrogen Economy with
High Temperature Gas Reactors
• Generation IV Roadmap Study for next generation
of nuclear plants - 20 -30 time horizon.
(International effort)
• Yucca Mountain repository coming closer to
reality.
• Vendors becoming more interested in developing
competitive plants
• Public seems to be OK with nuclear as long as it is
not in their backyard.
How About the “Study” ?
• Take home messages for me:
– We will need nuclear energy on a worldwide
basis to deal with global environmental issues
and the US must take a leadership role for it to
happen.
– They don’t want the money spent on advanced
reprocessing technologies even if it improves
sustainability of nuclear energy both in terms of
fuel and waste disposal because they are
nervous of the fuel cycle for proliferation and
other reasons (cost and safety) - they prefer a
$ 100 M study for 5 years
– They prefer to spend this money on providing
the necessary incentives and resources to allow
for a rapid expansion of existing technology
plants that will be necessary to achieve even
their low growth scenario.
– They are not crazy about the idea of the DOE
building a “demonstration advanced gas plant”
because the costs and incentives would not be
that of the market place thus not being a true
test for commercialization.
– They don’t believe a single estimate of new
nuclear technology costs by vendors and
establish an artificial bogey of $ 2,000/kwe
from which to judge future nuclear economics.
– They have confidence in the safety of nuclear
plants.
– They would support giving federal and state
carbon emission credits to nuclear and that
nuclear be officially listed as a carbon free
source.
– They are willing to spend “big bucks” to make
this happen - over $ 400 million/year in first 5
years and $ 460 million/year after that.
– They also appear to support high temperature
gas reactors as a future possibility that may
make nuclear competitive for electricity
production.
Study Assumptions
• Plenty of Uranium around at reasonable
prices for 50 years.
• All reprocessing is generally bad and risky.
French and English have been doing it
“safely” for 30 years. (both from a
proliferation and safety point of view).
• Credits in the form of upfront money @
$ 200/kwe may make the difference to
utilities to purchase first new plants.
• Open fuel cycle is the way to go for the next
50 years
• To restart a recycling or fuel breeding cycle
will not take a lot of time and will be
available if needed.
• The government has little if any role in
demonstrating technologies - it is up to the
private sector.
• The government role should be limited to
R&D for the industry to pick up and make it
look like a power plant.
Overall Assessment
• They got most of it right !
– Need for nuclear is real !
– US Leadership role
– Reprocessing is too expensive now so why
burden nuclear with the extra cost.
– Existing designs are too expensive to build
– Government investment is required for R&D.
– Nuclear should be treated as all other non-Carbon
sources and given credits.
– High temperature gas reactors are the way to go.
Some Areas Need Some Help
• While a study to evaluate and perhaps some
small scale tests of fuel cycle options might
be helpful, it seems like a lot of money for
this part of the program. Need to
incorporate some more forward looking
R&D before calling for a drop in all such
efforts.
• Some credibility should be given to vendors
who are now trying to sell new reactors at
capital costs well below $ 2,000/kwe which
may change economic conclusions
• Regulatory obstacles were not addressed in the
report as major reasons for utilities hesitating to
go “nuclear” again. Recommendations should be
made to formalize regulatory stability.
• Consultation with nuclear utilities about the type
of incentives would be necessary to bring them
back to the table - long term power contracts, etc.
• Deep bore holes for waste disposal are not going
to be any easier to site than a high level waste
repository - maybe throwing this resource away
in these holes is not really such a good idea.
• The government must play a role in
demonstration of new reactor technologies since
no one else will. Up front investment and risk is
too high and the “industry” does not exist as we
once knew it.
• A demonstration project can be organized in
such a way that it can demonstrate commercial
viability if the DOE becomes the customer on a
contract basis like the utility is and let’s people
who know the business manage it. This will be a
big change for DOE to let go. Research and
demo costs can be segregated - what is key is
how well the plant operates !
Summary
• The report makes a strong case for the need for
nuclear energy.
• The issue of the need for recycling is a bit of a
disappointment but if a focused research
program comes out of this - good !
• To jump start the new order “bandwagon”, the
right incentives need to be established.
• A demonstration program with government
financial support is a prerequisite for any new
advanced nuclear plants such as the HTGR.
Essential Final Conditions
• To implement the “study” or any of the
future Generation IV Roadmap plans will
take political leadership and will. This can
not happen without the public and the
Congress behind it.
• This issue to too important to be left to an
election or a political campaign, the
security of the nation and perhaps the
health of the planet depends on making the
right decisions before it is too late.
Thanks Go to
• California for their colossal electricity
and energy mess !
• The Northeast Blackout !
– (except New England)
• The oil cartels that drive up the price of
gasoline !
• The Environment that is finally saying it
has had enough!