The recent announcement that made by the United States (US) about the multi-million dollar investments into university-led research initiatives designed to improve the prospects of the next generation of nuclear reactors, is indeed another example of the confidence that the Obama Administration has in nuclear energy. This announcement was the latest round of funding allocations of $38 million to 42 projects covering four research areas: Fuel Cycle Research and Development, Generation IV Reactor Research and Development, Light Water Reactor Sustainability, and Mission-Relevant Investigator-Initiated Research.

Strategic investments of this nature always have potential for coming up with ways to enhance the safety as well as price performance of nuclear technology, generating safer, cleaner, and cheaper electricity that will help reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to meet the reduction targets, create jobs in energy sector, and minimize energy dependence on other countries. Additionally, it expected that this research would help reduce waste and proliferation concerns associated with spent fuel, and improving the safety, economics and sustainability of nuclear power.

It was an enormous boost from the 2011 budget for a provision of $56.5 billion for loan guarantees that made available to support nuclear power projects that included an extra $36 billion in guarantees, on top of $18.5 billion that was announced with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and $2 billion that was subsequently added for fuel cycle facilities. Loan guarantees meant to help utilities that want new nuclear reactors obtain private finance, which is the most challenging and costly part of new nuclear build. Provided the US Department of Energy (DoE) has confidence in a project, it can guarantee up to 80% of the total debt. This security should entice more lenders and reduce the cost of the loan for the utility, while costing the DoE only for administration.

More than $8 billion in new federal loan guarantees to build two nuclear reactors in Georgia could be the first step toward a nuclear renaissance in the United States, three decades after the Three Mile Island nuclear accident halted all new reactor orders. With the nuclear industry poised to begin construction of at least a half dozen plants over the next decade, President Barack Obama announced recently the first loan guarantees, casting them as both economically essential and politically attractive. He called nuclear power a key part of comprehensive energy legislation that assigns a cost to the carbon pollution of fossil fuels, giving utility companies more incentive to turn to cleaner nuclear fuel.

Currently, nuclear energy produces electricity for one in five homes and businesses across the US, with 104 reactors in 31 states. The country’s largest source of carbon-free electricity (Figure 1) is nuclear energy, accounting for almost 70 percent of all emission-free generated electricity.

According to recent research, nuclear energy is the only large-scale, clean-air electricity source that can be expanded widely to produce large amounts of energy. U.S. nuclear power plants also prevented the emission of 1 million short tons of nitrogen oxides and 2.7 million short tons of sulfur dioxide—pollutants controlled under the Clean Air Act. The amount of nitrogen oxide emissions that nuclear plants prevent annually is the equivalent of taking more than 47 million passenger cars off the road.

Nuclear power plants generated 20.2 percent of U.S. electricity in 2009 (Figure 2). They do not burn hydrocarbons when producing electricity, so they do not produce any greenhouse gases or combustion by products. By substituting for fossil fuels in the electricity sector, nuclear energy has significantly reduced U.S. emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases.

Evaluation of any technology including nuclear technology will not be appropriate without considering the following four perspectives based on a document, Nuclear Energy: Just the Facts by Nuclear Energy Institute:

1. Environmental Perspective:
   

• Endangered species find sanctuaries at nuclear power plants:
  

  Nuclear power plants are so clean and safe that they provide excellent habitat for wildlife and plants. Some nuclear energy companies have developed environmentally rich wetlands, providing better nesting areas for waterfowl and other birds, new habitats for fish, and sanctuaries for other wildlife, flowers and grasses. “Residents” at nuclear power plant sites include many endangered and protected species, such as the American crocodile, manatee and shortnose sturgeon;
  

• Nuclear power plants have won praise for their environmental activities:
  

  Environmental programs conducted by companies operating nuclear plants have been recognized by the nation’s best-known environmental organizations, including the Audubon Society, Ducks Unlimited, the National Wildlife Federation, the Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, the Wildlife Habitat Council, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and
  

• Emissions prevented by nuclear power plants nearly equal those produced by all U.S. passenger cars:
  

  By using nuclear power instead of fossil fuel-based plants, the U.S. nuclear energy industry prevents millions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions every year. The volume of GHG emissions prevented at the nation’s 104 nuclear power plants is equivalent to taking nearly all passenger cars off America’s roadways.
  

1. Safety Perspective:
   

• The nation’s nuclear power plants are among the safest and most secure industrial facilities in the United States:
  

  Automated, multiple safety systems, the industry’s commitment to comprehensive safety procedures and stringent federal regulation keep nuclear power plants and their communities safe.
  

The NRC, an independent federal agency, strictly regulates the commercial and institutional uses of nuclear energy, including nuclear power plants. The agency regulates plant performance according to three strategic areas: Reactor Safety,

Radiation Safety and Security. Independent NRC inspectors at each plant provide oversight of plant operation, maintenance, equipment replacement and training; and

• The nuclear energy industry has an impeccable safety record:
  

  Quality plant construction, continuous preventive maintenance and ongoing reactor operator training all have contributed to the nuclear energy industry’s excellent safety record. Levels of safety in the nuclear energy industry exceed those of the overall electricity industry and of the manufacturing sector.
  

1. Nuclear Waste Perspective:
   

• Used nuclear fuel is managed through an integrated program:
  

  Deep geologic disposal is the best method of managing used reactor fuel absent a recycling program, according to the National Academy of Sciences. A long-term objective for managing used fuel or by products from recycling is the construction of a repository 1,000 feet under Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The highest level of public safety and environmental protection would be provided by an integrated program that includes the development of recycling technologies, temporary storage of used fuel, and its safe packaging and transportation before permanent disposal; and
  

• The government will build an underground repository for permanent disposal.
  

  Scientists began studying Yucca Mountain, Nevada, in the early 1980s as a possible site for a repository for used fuel, as well as high-level radioactive waste from the nation’s defence programs. The president and Congress approved the site
  in 2002. DOE will build and operate the repository if the NRC approves the license application. Thirteen other nations plan to dispose of used nuclear fuel in underground repositories.
  

1. Economic Perspective:
   

• Operation of a U.S. nuclear plant generates 400 to 700 permanent jobs:
  

  The 400 to 700 permanent jobs at a nuclear plant pay 36 percent more than average salaries in the local area. The plant also creates an equivalent number of additional jobs in the local area to provide the goods and services necessary to support the nuclear plant work force.
  

• Nuclear plants provide economic benefits to their local communities:
  

  Each year, the average nuclear plant generates approximately $430 million in sales of goods and services in the local community and nearly $40 million in total labour income. These figures include both direct and secondary effects. The direct effects reflect the plant’s expenditures for goods, services and labour. The secondary effects include subsequent spending attributable to the presence of the plant and its employees as plant expenditures filter through the local economy (such as restaurants and shops buying goods and hiring employees). The average nuclear plant generates total state and local tax revenue of almost $20 million each year. These tax dollars benefit schools, roads and other state and local infrastructure. Each nuclear plant generates federal tax payments of roughly $75 million each year.
  

Furthermore, the average capacity factor for nuclear plants—a measure of reliability—has remained at an electric industry-leading 90.5 percent since 2000. More importantly, nuclear plants are among the lowest-cost electricity providers, producing electricity for about 2.03 cents per kilowatt-hour (Figure 3).

Economic growth in the world’s developing nations will drive world energy consumption up by 49% over the next quarter of a century, according to the latest projections from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). The Department of Energy projects that US electricity demands will rise 45 percent by 2030. The nation will need hundreds of new power plants from a diverse portfolio of fuel sources to supply electricity for a thriving economy and high standard of living. A diverse portfolio avoids relying too much on any one source of electricity.

It is critical to understand that regardless of the positive attributes of any technology, public opinion about the technology plays an important role. Incidentally, a national survey conducted by Bisconti Research Inc. in March 2009 found a high level of support for nuclear energy among the public, with 70 percent saying they favour nuclear energy as one way to generate electricity and 84 percent saying they believe nuclear energy will play an important role in meeting U.S. electricity needs in the years ahead.

At the same time, the US commitment to the Copenhagen Accord represents in the range of 17 percent GHG reduction targets, in conformity with anticipated US energy and climate legislation, recognizing that the final target to be reported to the Secretariat in light of enacted legislation. The base year for this commitment is 2005 and it is expected that the pathway set forth in pending legislation would entail a 30% reduction in 2025 and a 42% reduction in 2030, in line with the goal to reduce emissions 83% by 2050. Consequently, the emphasis is on the proposed legislation, Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.

It is obvious from the proposed legislation that the US is counting on nuclear energy to be the main source of clean electricity, multiplying the current capacity to several levels in order not only to meet the increasing electricity demand in the US but also to follow the committed GHG reduction targets under the Copenhagen Accord. While this sounds ambitious but it could be an achievable strategic goal.

mirali@aimamc.com