|
Challenges to Enhancing
Electric Reliability By Patrick Meyer Tuesday, 12 July 2005 — To ensure the reliability of the American electricity industry, many experts have strongly advocated increasing the diversity of fuel sources from which electricity is produced. In an aim to diversify such fuel sources, IEEE-USA has long supported the increase in nuclear energy systems on a nationwide basis. In its “Advanced Nuclear Power Research and Development” position statement, IEEE-USA argues that increasing nuclear power research and development will ensure that America’s electricity sources are efficient, diverse, and reliable. However, the expansion of advanced nuclear power has many barriers that must be overcome. The lead barrier surrounds the large quantities of highly radioactive and toxic wastes that are produced from nuclear power plants. IEEE-USA has identified that public concerns about radiation and the transportation and storage of nuclear wastes must be addressed before major development can occur. Additionally, IEEE-USA acknowledges that there are many economic and environmental difficulties associated with managing nuclear spent fuel, including the possibilities of the production of materials that could be formed into nuclear weapons.
Dr. Richard Lester, Director of the Industrial Performance Center and Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering at MIT, began the hearing discussions by stating that “recycling nuclear fuel has long been a dream of the American nuclear industry”, but it is a dream that cannot be achieved today. He argued that any attempt to introduce fuel reprocessing in the immediate future would be highly detrimental to the overall expansion of the nuclear industry, adding 20 percent to the total nuclear generation cost, increasing the overall cost of nuclear electricity, and allowing coal-based electricity to increase in attractiveness. Lester insisted that the cost of reprocessing would have to fall to less than 25 percent of what it currently costs in order for it to be financially sound — a cost reduction that will not take place until new technologies are introduced in 20, 30, or even 40 years. Dr. Donald Jones, Vice President of Marketing and Senior Economist at RCF Economic and Financial Consulting, Inc., stated that the first advanced nuclear power plants would not be economically competitive whether or not they included advanced fuel reprocessing technology. He explained by stating that the new plants would not be economically competitive due to the overall massive cost of the facility, and that the costs of advanced reprocessing technologies would represent only 5 percent of the cost of the new plants. Because of the non-influence of the costs of reprocessing, Jones argued that if new nuclear plants are built, they should incorporate fuel reprocessing technologies. Dr. Steve Fetter, Dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, and co-author of a 2003 study entitled “The Economics of Reprocessing vs. Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel,” echoed Jones’ argument stating that an advance nuclear facility which incorporated nuclear fuel reprocessing technologies would be expensive to the point that there would be no commercial incentives to develop such a facility. Because of this, he argued that it would be necessary for the government to provide subsidies for the construction of the first plants.
All four experts are in agreement that advanced nuclear power facilities offer a solution to increasing domestic energy production and diversifying the American energy portfolio. However, considering the four testimonies, an obvious problem exists. On one hand, tackling issues of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing, transportation, and storage, are absolutely necessary for the further development of advanced nuclear power technologies. On the other hand, experts are in agreement that developing nuclear fuel reprocessing technologies today would be so massively expensive that, unless heavily subsidized by the government, would be detrimental to the industry as a whole. In other words, there is heavy support for the building of advanced nuclear facilities today, but advanced fuel reprocessing technologies — an essential component — will not be available for over 20 years. IEEE-USA argues that nuclear energy has been demonstrated to be environmentally sound and economically competitive, and that challenges, such as the difficulties associated with nuclear fuel reprocessing, can be addressed in a manner that will make nuclear energy an even more attractive energy option. IEEE-USA believes that the United States should accelerate the research, development and demonstration of next-generation nuclear energy systems today — including fuel reprocessing and the use of long-term sustainable fuel cycles. For more information on the IEEE-USA stance on nuclear fuel and other energy-related topics, see the IEEE-USA Energy and Environment position statements here. About the Author:
Patrick Meyer holds a Bachelors of Science degree in Public Policy with a concentration in Energy Policy from the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT). He is currently working as a summer 2005 intern with IEEE-USA's Energy Policy Committee. As part of the internship, he will be attending all energy-, electricity-, and resource-related hearings on Capitol Hill and will provide summaries of each hearing on this website. Patrick will be returning to RIT in September to obtain his Masters of Science in Science, Technology, and Public Policy. | Top of Page | Electric Reliability | Priority Issues | Policy | Legislative Action Center | IEEE-USA | Last Updated:
13 July 2005 Permission to copy granted for non-commercial uses with appropriate attribution. |
On
Tuesday, 12 July, the House Committee on Science Subcommittee on Energy held
a congressional hearing titled the “
Mr.
Marvin Fertel, Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer at the
Nuclear Energy Institute, insisted that nuclear fuel reprocessing will play
an important rule in the future. Although current technology offers only
limited fuel disposal, future technology will make it more cost effective.
However, Fertel also points out that cost effective fuel reprocessing will
not eliminate the need for a national fuel repository such as Yucca
Mountain. Fertel argued that the government should put in place long term
policies for developing reprocessing technologies. Emphasizing the long
term, he added that deployment of new reprocessing facilities would take
more than a decade after research and development was completed.