Nuclear renaissance in the United States

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search
George W. Bush signing the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which offered incentives for US nuclear reactor construction including cost-overrun support up to a total of $2 billion for six new nuclear plants.[1] Critics allege its primary purpose was to permit fossil fuel holding companies to monopolize utility generation.[2]

Between 2007 and 2009, 13 companies applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for construction and operating licenses to build 30 new nuclear power reactors in the United States. However, the case for widespread nuclear plant construction has been hampered due to inexpensive natural gas, slow electricity demand growth in a weak US economy, lack of financing, and uncertainty following the Fukushima nuclear disaster.[3]

Many license applications for proposed new reactors were suspended or cancelled.[4][5] Only a few new reactors will enter service by 2020.[3] In 2013, four reactors were permanently closed: San Onofre 2 and 3 in California, when antnuclear activists seized upon a maintenance shutdown to delay the facility's re-opening by filing expensive and time-consuming legal challenges, Crystal River 3 in Florida, and Kewaunee in Wisconsin.[6][7] Vermont Yankee, in Vernon, was closed on Dec. 29, 2014, following protests.

The Fukushima nuclear disaster delayed plans for the construction of new plants in the nation.[8]

Overview

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 offered the nuclear power industry financial incentives and economic subsidies that, according to economist John Quiggin, the "developers of wind and solar power could only dream of". The Act provides substantial loan guarantees, cost-overrun support of up to $2 billion total for multiple new nuclear power plants, and the extension of the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act through to 2025. The Act was promoted as a forerunner to a "nuclear renaissance" in the United States, with dozens of new plants being announced.[9]

Others saw the Act, which repealed the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA), as an attempt by oil and gas interests to monopolize utility generation through deregulation. Former Federal Energy Regulatory Commission administrator Lynn Hargis noted in 2005 that "PUHCA prohibits the re-creation of the huge holding companies (the Power Trusts) that grew up in the 1920s and ‘30s, when three utility holding companies owned nearly half of all the electric utilities in the country." She correctly predicted that repealing PUHCA would lead to "massive consolidation of utility ownership."[10][11] Within one year of PUHCA's August 2005 repeal the spot price of natural gas had dropped by 26%,[12] creating a financial incentive for utilities to abandon nuclear generation in favor of natural gas. Many license applications filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for proposed new reactors were suspended or cancelled.[4][5]

As of February 2014, plans for about 30 new reactors in the United States have translated into five reactors beginning construction. These include Virgil C. Summers Units 2 and 3, Vogtle units 3 and 4 and Watts Bar, in Tennessee, which was begun in 1973 and is now online (2016).[13][14] Matthew Wald from the New York Times has reported that "the nuclear renaissance is looking small and slow".[15]

In 2008, the Energy Information Administration projected almost 17 gigawatts of new nuclear power reactors by 2030, but in its 2011 projections, it "scaled back the 2030 projection to just five".[16] A survey conducted in April 2011 found that 64 percent of Americans opposed the construction of new nuclear reactors.[17] Yet five months later a survey sponsored by the Nuclear Energy Institute found that "62 percent of respondents said they favor the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States, with 35 percent opposed".[18]

As of December 2011, construction by Southern Company on two new nuclear units has begun, and they are expected to be delivering commercial power by 2016 and 2017.[19][20] In the wake of Fukushima, experts at the time saw continuing challenges that they felt would make it difficult for the nuclear power industry to expand beyond a small handful of reactor projects that "government agencies decide to subsidize by forcing taxpayers to assume the risk for the reactors and mandating that ratepayers pay for construction in advance".[21]

As of 2014, the U.S. nuclear industry began a new lobbying effort, hiring three former senators — Evan Bayh, a Democrat; Judd Gregg, a Republican; and Spencer Abraham, a Republican — as well as William M. Daley, a former staffer to President Obama. The initiative is called Nuclear Matters, and it has begun a newspaper advertising campaign.[22]

Detailed history

  • In August 2009, the Tennessee Valley Authority, faced with "falling electric sales and rising costs from cleaning up a massive coal ash spill in Tennessee", trimmed plans for the potential four-unit Bellefonte nuclear plant to one reactor.[25]
  • As of September 2010, ground has been broken the Vogtle project and one other reactor in South Carolina. Two other reactors in Texas, four in Florida and one in Missouri have all been "moved to the back burner, mostly because of uncertain economics".[26]
  • On October 8, 2010, Constellation Energy Vice President and CEO Michael J. Wallace informed the US Department of Energy that it was abandoning its partnership with Electricite de France (EDF) to build the Calvert Cliffs #3 nuclear plant due primarily to the high cost and "burdensome conditions" that the loan guarantee conditions, which the United States government would place on the project. Wallace, in his letter, stated that any next steps in the further pursuit of the loan guarantee and the overall project were "for EDF to determine".[27]
  • On Oct 29, 2010 Dominion president Tom Farrell told investors that Dominion had decided to slow its development of a proposed third reactor at North Anna Nuclear Generating Station and wait until the combined construction permit-operating license (COL) was approved by the NRC before deciding to complete the project. This approval is expected in early 2013.[28]
  • Generation III reactors are safer than older reactors like the GE MAC 1 at Fukushima, Vermont Yankee and other plants around the world. But after a decade in which the federal government policy promoted this new version of nuclear power, only one Generation III+ reactor project has been approved in the United States. Work on it has just begun in Georgia, and already "there are conflicts between the utility, Southern Company and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission".[29] Moreover, this project is going forward only because it is in one of the few regions of the United States (the Southeast) where electricity markets were not deregulated. That means "the utility, operating on cost-plus basis, can pass on to rate-payers all its expense over-runs".[29]
  • Following the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, NRG Energy has decided to abandon already started construction on two new nuclear power plants in Texas. Analysts attributed the abandonment of the South Texas Nuclear Generating Station project to the financial situation of the plant-partner TEPCO, the inability to raise other construction financing, the current low cost of electricity in Texas, and expected additional permitting delays.[30] NRG has written off its investment of $331 million in the project.[31]
  • A survey conducted in April 2011 found that 64 percent of Americans opposed the construction of new nuclear reactors.[17] A survey sponsored by the Nuclear Energy Institute, conducted in September 2011, found that "62 percent of respondents said they favor the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States, with 35 percent opposed".[18]
  • As of January 2012, Progress Energy plans to cancel the main development and construction contract for its proposed Levy County Nuclear Power Plant, and documents show that the utility won't bring the plant online until at least 2027 — if at all. But if the state continues to allow the utility to collect money for the project, customers will have to keep paying the so-called advance fee for years.[32]
  • The Victoria County Station was a proposed two-unit nuclear power plant, in Victoria County, Texas, until the project was canceled in August 2012.[33] Exelon had previously bought John Deere Renewables and is moving into wind power.[34]
  • In 2013, four aging reactors were permanently closed: San Onofre 2 and 3 in California, Crystal River 3 in Florida, and Kewaunee in Wisconsin.[6][7] The state of Vermont is trying to close Vermont Yankee, in Vernon.
  • On November 3, 2013, climate scientists Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel, James Hansen, and Tom Wigley wrote an open letter "to those influencing environmental policy but opposed to nuclear power", arguing "there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power."[35]
  • In March 2013, the construction of the reactors Virgil C. Summer 2 and Vogtle 3 had begun, following the start of the construction of Virgil C. Summer 3 and Vogtle 4 in November 2013
  • In June 2013 the documentary film Pandora's Promise is released with a central argument that "nuclear power..is a relatively safe and clean energy source which can help mitigate the serious problem of anthropogenic global warming".
  • As of July 2013, economist Mark Cooper (academic) has identified some US nuclear power plants that face particularly significant challenges to their continued operation.[36] These are Palisades, Fort Calhoun, Nine Mile Point, Fitzpatrick, Ginna, Oyster Creek, Vermont Yankee, Millstone, Clinton, Indian Point. Cooper says the lesson here for policy makers and economists is clear: "nuclear reactors are simply not competitive".[36]
  • On August 1, 2013 as part of a comprehensive settlement with Florida consumers, Duke Energy announced termination of the engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) agreement for the Levy County Nuclear Power Plant project.[37] Research published in May 2013 by The Tampa Bay Times showed that a plant fueled by natural gas was nearly certain to be cheaper than a nuclear-fueled plant over the next 6 decades.[38] About $1 billion had been spent on the preparatory work for the Levy nuclear project.[39]
  • Unistar Nuclear announced in late 2008 that it had notified the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of its plan to submit a combined construction and operating licence (COL) application for an Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR) at Constellation Energy's Nine Mile Point site.[40] Less than a year later however, Unistar requested a temporary suspension of the application review, and in 2013, citing a lack of federal loan guarantees, withdrew the application completely.[41]
  • On Dec., 29th 2014, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant in Vernon, VT was permanently shut down.
  • In March 2015, a Gallup poll showed that a majority (51%) of Americans supported nuclear power.[42]
  • In May 2015, the NRC approved a construction permission for a third reactor at Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station. Exelon announced that there were no construction plans by that time.
  • In October 2015, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted an operating license for Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station Unit 2. Scheduled to come online in Spring 2016, the unit will lower Tennessee Valley Authority's CO2 emissions by between six and eight million tons annually.[43] Unit 2 has an expected service lifetime of 60 years. At 90% capacity factor, it will generate 700 billion kilowatthours of electricity at a projected cost of 6¢/kWh.[44]
  • In November 2015 the Obama administration announced actions "to ensure that nuclear energy remains a vibrant component of the United States’ clean energy strategy",[45] including:
    - establishment of The Gateway for Accelerated Innovation (GAIN), "to provide the nuclear energy community with access to the technical, regulatory, and financial support necessary to move new or advanced nuclear reactor designs"
    - the Second Advanced Non-Light Water Reactors Workshops would be held by the United States Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in June 2016
    - supplementation of the Dept. of Energy's $12.5 billion in loan guarantees available to support innovative nuclear energy projects
    - establishment of the Light Water Reactor (LWR) Research, Development, and Deployment (RDD) Working Group
    - an agreement with NuScale Power to establish new cost-shared modeling and simulation tools

See also

References

  1. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  2. ↑ https://www.citizen.org/documents/puhcafordummies.pdf
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Eileen O'Grady. Entergy says nuclear remains costly Reuters, May 25, 2010.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Terry Ganey. AmerenUE pulls plug on project Columbia Daily Tribune, April 23, 2009.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  8. ↑ Sovacool, BK and SV Valentine. The National Politics of Nuclear Power: Economics, Security, and Governance (London: Routledge, 2012), p. 82.
  9. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  10. ↑ http://www.citizen.org/documents/PUHCArepealfordummies.pdf
  11. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  12. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  13. ↑ Matthew L. Wald (December 7, 2010). Nuclear ‘Renaissance’ Is Short on Largess The New York Times.
  14. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  15. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  16. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  19. ↑ http://www.southerncompany.com/nuclearenergy/construction.aspx
  20. ↑ http://www.southerncompany.com/nuclearenergy/southern_nuclear.aspx
  21. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  22. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  23. ↑ http://www.richmond.com/business/local/article_7a8900ad-9969-538a-a272-b3e794edc9a4.html
  24. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  25. ↑ TVA plan for Ala. nuclear plant drops to 1 reactor
  26. ↑ Matthew L. Wald. Aid Sought for Nuclear Plants Green, September 23, 2010.
  27. ↑ Letter from Michael J. Wallace, Constellation Energy, to US Department of Energy Deputy Secretary Dan Poneman, October 8, 2010. [1].
  28. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  30. ↑ NRG ends project to build new nuclear reactors
  31. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  32. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  33. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  34. ↑ Matthew L. Wald. A Nuclear Giant Moves Into Wind The New York Times, August 31, 2010.
  35. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  37. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  38. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  39. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  40. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  41. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  42. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  43. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  44. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  45. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.

External links

Retrieved from "https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_renaissance_in_the_United_States&oldid=714848696"