DEPT. OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ENGINEER ING
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Prof. Neil E. Todreas
Room: 24-205
Email: todreas@mit.edu
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139-4307
(617) 253-5296
Fax (617) 258-8863
November 26, 2013
On November 17th, 2013, four internationally recognized climate scientists issued a plea
to fellow environmentalists that nuclear energy needs to be a part of the global climate
change solution. We join them and others who recognize the need to reduce CO2
emissions from fossil fuels. Although improved efficient use of energy (conservation),
solar and wind can play a role in supplying future energy needs, the intermittency of solar
and wind means they are not scalable to the level needed to meet the world’s energy
needs without significant gains in storage technology. However, as we elaborate below,
nuclear power can deliver electric power in a sufficiently safe, economical and secure
manner to supplement supply from other carbon-free sources.
Safety
Today there are over 100 nuclear power plants operating in the United States supplying
close to 20% of the electricity needs. Worldwide 432 reactors provide electricity to 32
nations (ref 1a). Sixteen nations receive over 25% of their electric energy needs from
nuclear power safely and reliably without CO2 emissions that threaten the planet. In total,
the nuclear industry has accumulated over 14,500 cumulative years (ref 1b) of civil
reactor operational experience since the first commercial nuclear plants were built over
60 years ago.
There have been three serious accidents that challenged the safety record of nuclear
power: the Three Mile Island (TMI) accident in 1979, the Chernobyl nuclear accident in
1986, and the tsunami-induced Fukushima accident in 2011. As reported by the
presidential commission ( the Kemeny commission) appointed to investigate and report
on the TMI accident,the major effect on heath fortunately short lived, was the stress on
people both evacuated and not evacuated. It is likely that stress has been, and will be
the principal health factor in all major accidents, whether nuclear or non nuclear.In all
these accidents there were no direct public fatalities and only at Chernobyl were there
workforce fatalities (28) arising from radiation exposure. The increased incidence of
thyroid cancer at Chernobyl had two major causes; the silencing of those advising
children not to drink milk and the authorities’ failure to themselves restrict distribution of
dairy products immediately after that accident But additional health effects, if any, from
all these accidents to either workers or the affected public are predicted to be a nondetectable increment (3-4%) above the normal background level of cancer mortality in
the general population (refs 2,3,4). These small effects should be compared with the
1
significant number of deaths from other energy generating technologies, such as natural
gas accidents or health impacts caused by air pollution from coal plants.
The operating and safety record of US operating plants has improved steadily since 1979.
Today the plants typically perform near 90% of their maximum potential. No serious
incidents have occurred in the US since that at Three Mile Island, due largely to applying
the lessons learned from that accident. The plants are continually upgraded to meet the
ever more stringent safety standards and expectations of the nuclear industry. As a result
of the terrorist attack on the US on September 11, 2001, the nuclear industry modified the
plants to handle terrorist attacks of all types, including aircraft impact. These
modifications have made the nuclear plants capable of providing electricity and cooling
water to important systems at the plant, regardless of the availability of traditional
sources of power and cooling water. This record of improvement continues today with
additional capabilities being installed to deal with extreme natural disasters such as the
one experienced at Fukushima.
The nuclear industry is one of the most highly regulated industries in the world. In the
United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has at least two resident inspectors at
each power reactor overseeing operations and maintenance. NRC staff monitor the
performance of the plants and provide the results in reports available to all at the NRC
website (www.nrc.gov). This oversight should provide the public with further assurance
of the safety of US operating plants.
Cost
A nuclear power plant is a long-term investment which can last from 40 to 60 years (the
license granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission). It is widely recognized that
nuclear plants are more costly to build than natural gas and coal plants due in large part to
the need to continuously address public opposition. However, because of the relative
insensitivity of the fuel cost to the price of electricity, the cost of power from nuclear
plants is more predictable over the long term than that of fossil fuels. This is the real
advantage of nuclear energy – namely, a predictable and nonvolatile cost of electricity for
consumers.
The average production cost of electricity from existing nuclear plants (excluding the
capital cost which is paid off at this point for most reactors) is 2.4 cents/kWhr in 2012.
On average, this is less than the production cost of electricity from natural gas or coal (ref
5). Of course, some plants operate in regions with extraordinarily low gas prices.
Recently two nuclear plants have shutdown as a result. The low price of natural gas may
force other less competitive plants to shutdown based on local market conditions. But
overall, most of the fleet remains competitive even in a period of remarkably low gas
prices.
The anticipated capital cost of new advanced nuclear plants such as the US-developed AP
1000 pressurized water reactor is about $ 7 Billion (ref 6). Four such plants are currently
under construction in Georgia and South Carolina, which are due to start up in 2017–
2020. Despite this high capital cost, the long-term cost of power is estimated to be 8.4
cents/kWhr, which is competitive with natural gas prices of $ 9.5/MMBtu (ref 7a).
2
Although this break-even cost may be higher than the current price of natural gas, the
stability in the cost of nuclear electricity provides an important hedge against future price
increases in natural gas, as well as protection from supply interruptions. And, of course,
the cost of natural gas plants does not include any recognition of the carbon emissions
that they produce.
The cost of natural gas is very volatile. In 2009 before the shale gas findings it was about
$13/MMBtu (ref 7b) and gas in Europe today costs about three times the US price of
about $4/MMBtu (ref 7c). If the US becomes a major gas exporter, the price of gas in the
US will rise toward the world price, with the attendant rise in cost of gas generated
power. An important feature of nuclear power is that it will weather the price
vulnerability of fossil fuel plants and is considerably cheaper than highly subsidized wind
and solar power projects, which must overcome the vagaries of wind and the daily
unavailability of sunlight to make a major contribution to electrical supply.
Waste Management
Nuclear waste management or disposal is often cited as an objection to building more
new nuclear plants. The nuclear waste is classified into two main categories from
operating reactors – low-level materials, and used nuclear fuel often referred to as high
level waste. At present both are safely and effectively managed. Low-level nuclear waste
is disposed of at federally and state licensed disposal facilities in monitored land burial
sites. The activity of this waste typically lasts for less than 300 years due to radioactive
decay (a natural process that leads to non-radioactive materials).
The high-level waste in the form of used nuclear fuel is temporarily stored at reactor sites
in used fuel storage pools or in dry casks outside the plant in shielded concrete canisters.
Some believe that this used fuel is a resource that could be reprocessed in the future to
provide more fuel for reactors, since not all of the energy value is consumed in the initial
period of reactor operation. The French policy, as well as that of several other nations, is
to reprocess this fuel not only to produce more fuel and but also as a part of a high-level
waste management strategy to make its ultimate disposal much less challenging by
reducing its content of very long lived radioactive isotopes .
An early international consensus based on a US National Academy of Sciences report of
1957 (ref 8) is that geological disposal, regardless of waste form (used fuel or
reprocessed waste), is a final state for high-level waste. One properly designed
repository will be able to handle all the high-level waste for all US operating reactors for
their lifetime. The scientific studies for the US Yucca Mountain Repository Project did
not change this preference, But its political abandonment led to the formation of the
“Blue Ribbon Commission,” which to recommend a path forward for the disposition
recommended to proceed with centralized interim storage of spent fuel and a “consensus”
process to site a new repository(s) an approach being adopted by current bipartisan waste
legislation in the Senate Several other nations are already proceeding forward with their
geological repositories. The current leaders are Sweden and Finland, both of whom have
selected a site and are developing detailed designs for used fuel disposal. The site in the
salt deposits near Carlsbad,New Mexico is a functioning site for military waste. These
efforts while still uncompleted are well on track to a successful resolution.
3
Proliferation Risk
Nuclear power does involve proliferation risk because of the possibility that enrichment
and spent fuel processing capabilities could be used for development of weapons
materials. This threat is currently managed through international treaties and the conduct
of inspection programs. The risk may be amenable to future reduction by technological
developments; research is ongoing to develop advanced reactors which can drastically
limit the enrichment capacity needed for civil nuclear power, as well to develop
reprocessing technology that will produce materials that are much less desirable for
weapons utilization. Current light water cooled power reactors, which are the type needed
for substantial expansion of civilian nuclear power, are not easily modified for production
of the plutonium most suitable for weapons.
While a commercial nuclear power program can be used to mask the initial stages of a
covert nuclear weapons program, weapons development by all countries including the
United States, France, United Kingdom, Russia, China, India, South Africa, Pakistan,
North Korea, and Israel, has been done independently of, and usually prior to, a
commercial nuclear power program. Additionally a rogue nation such as North Korea can
develop a nuclear weapon without developing nuclear power reactors for electricity
production. For these reasons we do not agree that proliferation risk is a compelling basis
upon which to oppose the deployment of civil nuclear power plants. The reality that
nuclear power is already widespread suggests that continuing efforts are appropriate to
strengthen the international regime to control proliferation.
Life Cycle Emissions Analysis
There have been numerous studies conducted about the life cycle impact of various
technologies in terms of CO2 emissions. When compared on an equal basis, nuclear
energy (including all aspects of mining, construction, operation and decommissioning of
power facilities) ranks as one of the lowest overall emitters of CO2 second only to
hydroelectric power. The figure below from the International Panel on Climate Change
(ref 9) provides this comparison which supports the claim that nuclear energy is indeed a
“green” source of power.
4
The Future
Today advanced nuclear power stations are being deployed worldwide based on proven
light water reactor technology. New light water reactor designs are under development
which will provide further enhanced safety and security features. Additionally, there are
new innovative reactors being developed. Most are small modular reactors employing not
only water coolants but also helium gas, molten salts, and liquid metals with improved
safety performance based on inherent design safety features. (One such design – the high
temperature pebble bed helium-cooled gas reactor – is now under construction in China
and is designed to produce 200 MWe of power (ref 10).)
Conclusion
The energy needs of the world are large and growing. The one billion people that do not
even have access to electricity cannot be denied the ability to improve their quality of
life. Nuclear energy provides a scalable, clean source of safe power which, with other
clean energy sources, can meet the world’s needs in a sustainable manner. We applaud
and support the efforts of the climate scientist authors of the originally cited letter, Drs.
Caldeira, Emanuel, Hansen, and Wigley, for bringing the issue of the need for nuclear
power to the world environmental community and policy leaders.
Sincerely,
PROPOSED SIGNATORIES AND TITLES
Andrew C. Kadak
5
Former President of the American Nuclear Society and Member of the US Nuclear Waste
Technology Review Board
Richard A. Meserve
President of the Carnegie Institution for Science and former Chairman of the US Nuclear
Regulatory Commission
Neil E. Todreas
Korea Electric Power Company Professor (emeritus) and former Chair of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering
Richard Wilson
Mallinckrodt Research Professor of Physics (emeritus) and a former Chairman of the
Harvard University Department of Physics
References:
1. World Nuclear Association, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Facts-andFigures/
2. TMI health study
3. World Health Organization, “Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident: An
Overview”, http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounder/en/
4. Fukushima Health study
5. Nuclear Energy Institute, from http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/NuclearStatistics/Costs-Fuel,-Operation,-Waste-Disposal-Life-Cycle/US-ElectricityProduction-Costs
6. cost of AP1000 and power cost
7a. Natural gas price competition point MIT Fuel cycle study – update on economics
7b. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3045us3m.htm
7c.http://ycharts.com/indicators/europe_natural_gas_price/chart/#/?series=type:indica
tor,id:europe_natural_gas_price,,&format=real&recessions=false&zoom=5&startDat
e=&endDate=&chartView=
8. NAS study on waste
9. IPCC
10. HTR-PM
6
7
8