Ken Ball

Environmentalists are somewhat between a pebble bed reactor and a hard place with respect to nuclear power. The waste problem is far from solved and occasional plant problems bring back 3-Mile Island fears. Yet, replacing roughly 20% of the world's generating capacity with fossil fuels is just about as scary. A recent survey shows surprising public support gains for nuclear.

Three special forums covering environmental hot topics highlighted the AIChE's Spring Meeting in New Orleans over10-14 March. Expert panels discussed Global Climate Change; Alternative Energy Options; and The Viability of Nuclear Power. In addition to the Nuclear Power Panel, keynote speaker Robert Luft's address was pro-nuclear, making made a strong push for
revitalizing America's nuclear industry.

Even though there hasn't been a nuclear power plant built in the US for two decades, America is still the world leader in nuclear power generation. Out of 438 nuclear power plants worldwide, 103 are in the US; providing some 23 % of the nation's electricity. Globally, nuclear power supplies about 17 % of the world's electricity.

A major topic of discussion among several panel members was the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal site controversy. Panelist John Art Stall, senior nuclear VP for Florida Power and Light, urged a quick approval and go ahead with the storage since most plants are storing all the spent fuel that they can handle. Dr Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, was highly critical of the DoE for their minimal geological studies of the Yucca site. He does not believe Yucca Mountain to be a suitable site for long term storage.

Dr Gail Marcus, Deputy Director, DoE's Office of Nuclear Energy, allowed that the site may not be perfect but offers a much better option than having hundreds of storage sites throughout the country. Dr Marcus pointed out that American plants do not recycle their fuel, using only about 2 % of the fissionable uranium in a once through cycle. Europe and Japan reprocess their spent fuels and part of the Yucca storage plans are to have the fuel retrievable for a possible future recovery process.

Keynote speaker Robert Luft, Chairman of Entergy Corporation, believes that the Yucca Mountain controversy has been blown out of proportion. For perspective, he stated that all of America's spent fuel could be stored on a football field in containers stacked only 15 feet high. He believes the site should be activated as quickly as possible and that spent fuel rods should be eventually reprocessed.

The panel consensus was that Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn will reject the federal government's site plan (which he has since done); but that the congress will override his action and the DoE will go ahead with activating the Yucca Mountain site for nuclear waste storage. (As of this writing, the House approved the go-ahead by 306 to 117 vote. Senate action is pending).

The panel also largely agreed that the concerns expressed by anti-nuclear persons and groups regarding transport of the wastes are unfounded. Several alluded to the exemplary safety record already established in the transport of nuclear materials.

Public Opinion Survey Favors Nuclear

Several panel speakers emphasized the environmental advantages of nuclear plants; especially in light of recent concerns with greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear plants have no emissions and no daily energy consuming transport of fuels. Most panelists believe that American public opinion is changing regarding nuclear power plants.

Data was presented from a survey conducted by Bisconti Research Inc. regarding public attitudes towards nuclear power generation. Nearly two-thirds (64 %) of the population overall favor building new nuclear plants at existing nuclear plant sites. Most existing nuclear sites could accommodate additional reactor units and, of course, grid connections are already there.
Interestingly, approximately 71% of the people whose power comes from a nuclear plant–all or in part–favor new nuclear plants. For those persons living in the vicinity of a nuclear plant, over 80% are in favor of new nuclear plants. The implication is clear. The more familiar people are with existing nuclear plants, the more they favor increased use of nuclear power.

Entergy Betting on Nuclear

Entergy Chairman Robert Luft's keynote address covered the challenges and changes which deregulation brought to most electric utilities. Entergy's initial strategy of diversification did not work out as anticipated and the corporate strategy of the early 1990s was drastically revised in 1998. Since then, nuclear power generation has become a key part of Entergy's operations and, over the past three years, Entergy has:
• Purchased four nuclear plants in the
northeast; Pilgrim, James A. Fitzpatrick,
and Indian Point 2 & 3.
• Agreed to buy the Vermont Yankee Plant.
• Contracted to decommission the
Millstone Plant.
• Been named principal contractor for
the Maine Yankee decommissioning.
• Become a likely buyer for the Seabrook Plant.

Entergy has been a regional electrical utility serving parts of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississsippi, and Texas for nearly a century. They already had 15 nuclear plants and with the recent four acquisitions are now the nation's second largest nuclear operator with a total of 8870 MW. Luft anticipates that as much as 35,000 MW of nuclear power may be up for sale over the next few years, and that Entergy will continue to expand their nuclear operations.

According to Luft, the primary reason for the high Entergy interest in nuclear power is simply the business opportunities. Their staffs have increased average plant uptimes from about 80 % in 1995 to over 90 % at present. Average refueling downtimes have been reduced by about a factor of four–from roughly 3 months to about 3 weeks.

Entergy invested about $1.8 billion in the northeast plants and expected 2002 revenues are about $1 billion. Earnings are projected to be roughly $150 million or nearly 10 % ROI; and the returns are expected to improve over the next several years. Wall Street has noted and supported the Entergy performance.

Luft believes that by using new packaged plant designs and streamlined licensing procedures, nuclear plants can be installed for about $1000 per KWe. He estimates that the more efficient operations will allow nuclear plants to be less costly than gas when gas reaches $5 per mm btus. Gas is currently running about $3 per mm btus.

Current Trends

Pre-approved packaged nuclear plants have been installed in Japan, China and other Asian countries and are performing well. The pebble bed reactor concept is being pursued in South Africa and is being closely followed by nuclear proponents worldwide. This uses tennis ball sized spheres of encapsulated fuel as a reactor core and offers better reactor control, better heat transfer performance, and inherent safety features.

At present, there are 29 new nuclear generation units underway in 10 countries. However, plants are being closed in the US and in northern Europe except for France. It appears that the major stumbling block to new nuclear plants in the US will be congress–perhaps as much due to a preference to avoid the controversial topic as to a genuine anti-nuclear bias. But, without clear federal support, the utilities and financial community are not likely to undertake the risks.