Information Papers

Nuclear Power in the USA

(30 December 2008)

Contents

The USA in 2006 generated 4260 billion kWh of electricity, half of it from coal-fired plant, 19% from nuclear, 19% from gas and 7% from hydro. Total capacity is 1076 GWe.  Annual per capita electricity consumption is 12,300 kWh.  In 2007 the 104 US nuclear power reactors generated a record 806.5 billion kWh and achieved an average 91.8% capacity factor.

US annual electricity demand is projected to increase from 4300 billion kWh today to 5000 billion kWh in 2030.

(NB:  US FY runs 1 Oct of previous calendar year to 30 Sept of that year.)


Background 

The USA was a pioneer of nuclear power development*. Westinghouse designed the first fully commercial pressurised water reactor (PWR) of 250 MWe, Yankee Rowe, which started up in 1960 and operated to 1992. Meanwhile the boiling water reactor (BWR) was developed by the Argonne National Laboratory, and the first commercial plant, Dresden-1 of 250 MWe designed by General Electric, was started up in 1960. A prototype BWR, Vallecitos, ran from 1957 to 1963.

* The first nuclear reactor in the world to produce electricity (albeit a trivial amount) was the small Experimental Breeder reactor (EBR-1) in Idaho, which started up in December 1951. In 1953 President Eisenhower proposed his "Atoms for Peace" program, which reoriented significant research effort towards electricity generation and set the course for civil nuclear energy development in the USA. The Mark 1 naval reactor of 1953 led to the US Atomic Energy Commission building the 60 MWe Shippingport demonstration PWR reactor in Pennsylvania, which started up in 1957 and operated until 1982. 

By the end of the 1960s, orders were being placed for PWR and BWR reactor units of more than 1000 MWe, and a major construction program got under way. These remain practically the only types built commercially in the USA*. Nuclear developments in USA suffered a major setback after the 1979 Three Mile Island accident, though that actually validated the very conservative design principles of western reactors, and no-one was injured or exposed to harmful radiation. Many orders and projects were cancelled or suspended, and the nuclear construction industry went into the doldrums for two decades. Nevertheless, by 1990 over one hundred commercial power reactors had been commissioned.

* Fort St Vrain was a 300 MWe high-temperature gas-cooled reactor operating 1976-89.

map: Nuclear Energy Institute

Operationally, from the 1970s the US nuclear industry dramatically improved its safety and operational performance, and by the start of this decade it was among world leaders, with average net capacity factor over 90% and all safety indicators exceeding targets. Nuclear share of total electricity was 781 billion kWh in 2005, just under 20% of total.

This performance was achieved as the US industry continued deregulation, begun with passage of the Energy Policy Act in 1992. Changes accelerated after 1998, including mergers and acquisitions affecting the ownership and management of nuclear power plants. Further industry consolidation is likely.

Today the importance of nuclear power in USA is geopolitical as much as economic, reducing dependency on imported oil and gas. The operational cost of nuclear power - 1.66 c/kWh in 2006 - is slightly lower than that from coal and much lower than from gas.

From 1992 to 2005 some 270,000 MWe of new gas-fired plant was built, and only 14,000 MWe of new nuclear and coal-fired capacity came on line. But coal and nuclear supply 70% of US electricity and provide price stability. While investment in these two technologies almost disappeared, unsustainable demands were placed on gas supplies and prices quadrupled, forcing large industrial users of it offshore and pushing gas-fired electricity costs towards 10c/kWh.

The reason for investment being predominantly in gas-fired plant was that it offered the lowest investment risk. Several uncertainties inhibited investment in capital-intensive new coal and nuclear technologies. One third of US generating capacity is over 30 years old, and major investment is also required in transmission infrastructure. This creates an energy investment crisis which was recognised in Washington, along with an increasing bipartisan consensus on the strategic importance and clean air benefits of nuclear power in the energy mix.

The Energy Policy Act 2005 then provided a much-needed stimulus for investment in electricity infrastructure including nuclear power. New reactor construction is expected to start about 2010, with operation in 2014.

In February 2007 the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) reported that it saw a need for 64 GWe of new nuclear generating capacity in the USA by 2030 - 24 GWe of it by 2020, with nuclear representing some 25.5% of output by 2030.

After 20 years of steady decline, government R&D funding for nuclear energy is being revived with the objective of rebuilding US leadership in nuclear technology. In 1997 nuclear fission R&D was, at US$ 37 million, lower than in France, South Korea, or Canada - only 2% of total energy R&D, which compared pathetically with 68% (US$ 2537 million) of a much larger budget in Japan. From the 1999 budget, this situation has been turned around with various programs including the flagship Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) and also Plant Optimisation. The first 45 NERI grants were awarded in 1999, signalling a reinvigoration of the federal role in nuclear research, following successful conclusion of the advanced reactor program in 1998.

For FY 2008 (from October 2007) the Department of Energy is seeking $875 million for its nuclear energy programs. . The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative for closing the fuel cycle and supporting the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership would receive $395 million of this and Generation-IV R&D would get $36 million, chiefly for the very high temperature reactor. The Nuclear Power 2010 program aimed at early deployment of advanced reactors would get $114 million.

For US nuclear plant data, see Nuclear Energy Institute web site, nuclear statistics section.

Contents

Nuclear Power Plant Capacity

There are now 104 operating nuclear power reactors in the USA.  Four more are partly built and have valid construction licenses. All US plants are either Pressurised Water or Boiling Water Reactors (PWR, BWR), generically: Light Water Reactors (LWR).

At the end of 1991 (prior to passage of the Energy Policy Act), there was 97,135 MWe of "operable" nuclear generating capacity in the United States. In March 2004 it was 97,452 MWe. The marginal increase conceals some major changes:

A general rule of thumb is that nuclear plants have to achieve total production costs below about 2.0 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in order to effectively compete in a deregulated environment. Only one of the eight units prematurely shut down had production costs significantly below 2.0 c/kWh.

The net increase of 3724 MWe in capacity 1991-2003 resulted from many reactors with increases - some substantial, offset by 19 with decreases.

As of December 2007 over 110 uprates had been approved, totalling 4900 MWe. A further seven uprates totalling about 750 MWe are pending with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and applications for a total of 1690 MWe are expected by 2011.

Contents

Increased Power Plant Utilisation

A significant achievement of the US nuclear power industry over the last twenty years has been the increase in operating efficiency with improved maintenance. This has resulted in greatly increased capacity factor (output proportion of their nominal full-power capacity). In 1980 the average for all US reactors was 54%, by 1991 it was 68%, in 2001 it had risen to 90.7% and in 2007 it was 91.8%.  Exelon's 17 reactors achieved a capacity factor of 94.4% in 2001.

A major component of this is the length of refuelling outage, which in 1990 averaged 107 days but dropped to 40 days by 2000. The record is now 15 days.

All this is reflected in increased output even since 1990, from 577 billion kilowatt hours to 807 billion kWh, a 40% improvement despite little increase in installed capacity, and equivalent to 29 new 1000 MWe reactors.

In addition, average thermal efficiency rose from 32.49% in 1980 to 33.40% in 1990 and 33.85% in 1999.

Contents

Ownership Consolidation

As of the end of 1991, a total of 101 individual utilities had some (including minority) ownership interest in operable nuclear power plants. At the end of 1999, that number had dropped to 87, and the largest 12 of them owned 54% of the capacity, slightly up on 1991. With deregulation of some states' electricity markets came a wave of mergers and acquisitions in 2000-1 and by late 2005 the top ten utilities had 68% of the capacity. Utilities are seeking to pay off or write off debt so that forward costs are largely cash.

However, new investment has occurred only in states which have deregulated their systems to rely on markets for pricing of electricity. There has been no sale of plants in states with traditional US cost-plus pricing.

Acquisitions have been skewed toward plants in regions with high electricity rates due to the potential for higher profit margins if the plants' production costs can be reduced. Of the 5,900 MWe involved to mid 2000, half was associated with plants having 1998 production costs above 2.0 cents per kWh. Sellers tended to consider the higher-cost plants as potential liabilities and were willing to get rid of them for a fraction of their book value, whereas the larger utility buyers considered the plants to be potential assets, depending only on their ability to lower the production costs. See Appendix 1: Power plant purchases.

In respect to the number of operators of nuclear plants, this has dropped from 45 in 1995 to 25 in 2007, showing a substantial consolidation of expertise.

Contents

Other Rationalisation 

Corporate Mergers

Most of the of nuclear generation capacity involved in consolidation announcements has been associated with mergers. 

The US$ 32 billion merger of Unicom and PECO Energy, the two largest owners of US nuclear generating capacity, to form Exelon has been the dominant one, involving 14 reactors, plus three AmerGen units, total 17.

The 2000 merger of Carolina Power & Light and Florida Progress Corporation involved five reactors at 4 sites.

The 2001 merger of GPU with FirstEnergy (US$ 8.5 billion) involved four units.

In 2004 PSEG and Exelon agreed to merge, and Exelon took over management of PSEG's three reactors at Salem and Hope Creek in January 2005. However in 2006 New Jersey regulators declined to allow the merger, leaving Exelon as manager of those plants. Some rationalisation of ownership is being considered so that Exelon will continue to run them.

In 2005 FPL and Constellation Energy agreed to merge (retaining the latter name), bringing together 11 reactors (over 8200 MWe) at seven sites. However, the merger was called off after ten months due to regulatory obstacles in Maryland.

In October 2008 Exelon bid $6.2 billion to take over NRG Energy, which owns 44% of South Texas 1 & 2, each 1413 MWe, and is planning two more units there.  A combined entity would have 47,000 MWe total, including 18,000 MWe nuclear.

Management contracts

The Nuclear Management Company, a joint venture formed in 1999 by four Midwest utilities, was approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a nuclear operating company. It took over operation, fuel procurement and maintenance of eight nuclear units (4500 MWe) at six sites, which continue to be owned by the utilities, each with 20% of NMC. These remain responsible for used fuel and decommissioning. As with mergers, the main drivers for NMC were cost reductions and streamlined operations.  However, with sales of plants achieving consolidation in that way, only two plants (3 reactors) - Monticello and Prairie Island - remained with NMC by October 2007 and these had the same owner.  Accordingly the operating licence is being transferred back to the owner and NMC will be incorporated into Xcel Energy, the parent company.

In September 2003 Entergy Nuclear signed an agreement to take over management of Nebraska's Cooper nuclear power plant, an 800 MWe boiling water reactor with a poor operating record. Entergy was paid a fee and is eligible for up to 50% more in incentive payments for improved safety and regulatory performance. It was reimbursed for all employee-related expenses. Nebraska Public Power District retained ownership, as the sole operator and licensee and takes all power produced. Entergy, the second largest US nuclear operator, sees such arrangements as a potential growth area.

Contents

Regulation & License Renewal

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is the government agency established in 1974 to be responsible for regulation of the nuclear industry, notably reactors, fuel cycle facilities, materials and wastes (as well as other civil uses of nuclear materials). Its focus is on safety.

In an historic move, the NRC in March 2000 renewed the operating licences of the two-unit Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant for an additional 20 years. The applications to NRC and procedures for such renewals, with public meetings and thorough safety review, are exhaustive. The original 40-year licences for the 1970s plants were due to expire before 2020, and the 20-year extension to these dates means that any major refurbishing, such as replacement of steam generators, can be undertaken with confidence.

As of December 2008 the NRC had extended the licences of 51 reactors, nearly half of the US total. The NRC is still considering other licence renewal applications, and they are expected eventually for some 85 of the 103 US nuclear power reactors.

Also the NRC has a new oversight and assessment process for nuclear plants. Having defined what is needed to ensure safety, it now has a tightly-structured process to achieve it, replacing complex and onerous procedures which had little bearing on safety. The new approach yields publicly-accessible information on the performance of plants in 19 key areas (14 indicators on plant safety, two on radiation safety and three on security). Performance against each indicator is reported quarterly on the NRC web site according to whether it is normal, attracting regulatory oversight, provoking regulatory action, or unacceptable (in which case the plant would probably be shut down).

On the industry side, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) was formed after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. A number of US industry leaders recognised that the industry must do a better job of policing itself to ensure that such an event should never happen again. INPO was formed to establish standards of performance against which individual plants could be regularly measured. An inspection of each member plant is typically performed every 18 to 24 months.

Contents

Advanced Reactors, Design Certification

Over the last two decades the industry has been working closely with the NRC on certification of advanced Generation-III reactor designs. There are now four which have final Design Certification so that they can be built anywhere in USA and attract only site-specific licensing procedures. These advanced designs are also being marketed actively overseas. Other designs are at various stages of the certification process, at pre-certification stage or pending.

Of those with design certification, one is the GE-Hitachi advanced boiling water reactor (ABWR) of 1300-1500 MWe, several examples of which are in commercial operation in Japan, with more under construction there and in Taiwan.  Some of these have had Toshiba involved in the construction, and it is now Toshiba that is promoting the design most strongly in the USA.

Another, the Westinghouse System 80+, is an advanced pressurised water reactor, ready for commercialization. Eight System 80 reactors in South Korea incorporate many design features of the System 80+, which is the basis of the Korean Next Generation Reactor program and the APR-1400 design which is expected to be operating soon after 2010.

The NRC gave final design certification for both in May 1997, noting that they exceeded NRC "safety goals by several orders of magnitude". The ABWR has also been certified as meeting European requirements for advanced reactors.

A third, more innovative US advanced reactor is smaller - 600 MWe - and has passive safety features (its projected core damage frequency is so low as to exceed today's NRC requirements by 1000 times). The Westinghouse AP-600 gained final design certification from the NRC in December 1999.

These NRC approvals were the first such generic certifications to be issued and are valid for 15 years. As a result of an exhaustive public process, safety issues within the scope of the certified designs have been fully resolved and hence will not be open to legal challenge during licensing for particular plants.

Separate from the NRC process and beyond its immediate requirements, the US nuclear industry selected one standardised design in each category - the large ABWR and the medium-sized AP-600, for detailed first-of-a-kind engineering (FOAKE) work. The US$ 200 million program, was half funded by the Department of Energy (DOE).

The Westinghouse AP-1000 gained final design certification by NRC as the first late Generation-III (Generation III+) type in 2005. It represents a scaling-up of the AP-600. Westinghouse said it was the result of a 1300 man-year and $440 million design and testing program. Capital costs of the 1100 MWe AP-1000 are expected to be competitive and modular design will reduce construction time to 36 months. It is under active consideration for building in the USA and the UK, has been selected for China and is capable of running on a core of mixed-oxide fuel if required.

Several more reactor designs are undergoing design certification or at pre-application stage:

General Electric - Hitachi's Economic & Simplified BWR (ESBWR) of 1550 MWe is developed from its ABWR and has passive safety systems. In submitting it to the NRC for design certification, GE said its 7500-page application represented a decade of work. Design approval is expected in 2009, with certification following a year later. It is favoured in several plans for US new build.

France's Areva NP has adapted its advanced EPR nuclear units for the USA, and the design is said to exceed US safety requirements. Much of the one million man-hours of work involved in developing this US EPR is making the necessary changes to output electricity at 60 Hz instead of the original design's 50 Hz. A design certification application was lodged at the end of 2007, and the first unit (with 80% US content) is expected to be grid connected in 2015. The main development of the type will be through UniStar Nuclear Energy, but other US proposals also involve it. The 1600 MWe Generation-III+ EPR is being built by Areva in Finland and by EdF in France and has been selected for Guangdong, China.

Japan's Mitsubishi US-APWR design was submitted for design certification in December 2007.  This is a 1700 MWe design developed from one which is about to be built in Japan and evolved from Westinghouse technology. The Japanese government is expected to provide financial support fort US licensing of both this and the ESBWR. The Washington Group International will be involved in US developments with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI). The US-APWR has been selected by TXU (now Luminant) for Comanche Peak, Texas, and when the COL application for the new reactors was lodged Luminant and MHI announced a joint venture to build and own the twin-unit plant - 88% Luminant, 12% MHI.

With inflation and the prospect of competition for engineering services and labour, US reactor vendors by mid 2006 had revised upwards their projected plant costs (overnight capital cost). Areva was then estimating US$ 1800-2000/kW capacity for US EPR, Westinghouse $1500-1800/kW for AP1000, and GE $1850/kW for ABWR and $1600/kW for ESBWR. At $2000/kW the cost of nuclear power would be likely to work out at 6 cents/kWh.  Since then, figures quoted by utilities planning to buy units have been much higher, due to a variety of factors.  Government incentives on offer for the first few GWe of new-generation plant could halve this however, and series construction would also reduce the cost.

Beyond these advances, the industry and DOE are starting to define "4th generation" reactor design criteria.

Contents

Preparing for new build

There are three regulatory initiatives which boost the prospects of building new plants in the next few years. As well as the Design Certification process described above, there is provision for Early Site Permits (ESP) and Combined Construction-Operating Licences (COL) - both with costs shared by DOE.

The 2001 ESP program has attracted four applicants: Exelon, Entergy, Dominion and Southern for Clinton, Grand Gulf, North Anna and Vogtle sites respectively - all with operating nuclear plants already but room for more. In March 2007 Exelon was awarded the first ESP for its Clinton plant in Illinois, after 41 months processing by the NRC and public review. The NRC then awarded ESPs to Entergy for its Grand Gulf site and Dominion for North Anna. Further ESP applications are pending. No plant type is specified with an ESP application, but the site is declared suitable on safety, environmental and related grounds for a new nuclear power plant.

In 2003 the DOE called for COL proposals under its Nuclear Power 2010 program on the basis that it would fund up to half the cost of any accepted. The COL program has two objectives: to encourage utilities to take the initiative in licence application, and to encourage reactor vendors to undertake detailed engineering and arrive at reliable cost estimates. For the first, DOE matching funds of up to about $50 million are available, and for the second, up to some $200 million per vendor, to be recouped from royalty.

In 2004 two utility-vendor consortia announced that they were seeking DOE funding for preparing COL applications for new reactors. A third utility-vendor partnership was formed in 2005 and rejigged in 2007.  A fourth partnership was formed early in 2008:

Other utilities have also announced plans to submit COL applications, and some utilities that are already part of the above consortia have plans to make submissions of their own. In total, the NRC expects more than 27 applications for licenses for new nuclear reactors over the next few years.

The COLs will be lodged with a particular design and site nominated, though the design certification need not be complete.  Dominion lodged its COL application in 2007, before full ESBWR design certification.  The NRC is expected to take at least three years to review each COL application, with decision anticipated in 2010 for the Dominion consortium and NuStart, since it originally intended to await design certification for both reactor types before choosing between them and lodging its COL application.  However, in 2007 NRC was estimating 42 months for processing the first few COL applications.

Neither ESP nor COL commits anyone to build anything, but they will expedite future plans for new build.

In September 2007 NRG Energy and South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company filed with the NRC the first full application for a COL for a new nuclear power plant.  It is for two 1358 MWe Advanced Boiling Water Reactors to  come on line in 2014-15 at the South Texas site, which already has two operating reactors.  With a revised COL to make Toshiba the contractor, the start-up dates are now 2015-16 and plans are firm.

A partial COL application was lodged by Unistar Nuclear Energy for a 1600 MWe US EPR at Calvert Cliffs, Maryland, in July 2007 and the final part of it followed in March 2008.  EdF expects construction to start in 2011, for commercial operation by 2016.

In October 2007 the Tennessee Valley Authority in conjunction with NuStart filed a COL application for two 1100 MWe AP1000 nuclear reactors at Bellefonte in Alabama. 

In November 2007 Dominion with GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy and Bechtel Corporation filed a COL application for one 1520 MWe ESBWR unit at North Anna, Virginia - the first COL for a site with ESP, which is expected to reduce approval time by eight months.  Dominion said that if NRC approves the COL in 2010-11, construction could begin in 2011 with commercial operation in 2016-17.

In December 2007 Duke Energy lodged a COL application for two AP1000 nuclear reactors at a greenfield site in South Carolina.  It is to be the William States Lee III plant and would come on line about 2016-18 if the company proceeds.

A total of 17 COL applications were lodged by the end of 2008, and are listed progressively below.  As well as the COLs, some utility companies have signed contracts with suppliers either for items of heavy equipment such as reactor pressure vessels and steam generators, or for full engineering procurement and construction (EPC), thus indicating a strong probability of actually building the plants concerned.

One COL application, lodged by Exelon in September 2008 for a new site in Victoria county, Texas, was put on hold three months later after Exelon announced that it had decided to change the reactor technology from GE-Hitachi ESBWR.  It is considering GE-Hitachi or Toshiba ABWR, or Mitsubishi US-APWR.

While the focus is on new technology, TVA undertook a $20 million feasibility study which led to its decision to complete unit 2 of its Watts Bar nuclear power plant in Tennessee.  The 1180 MWe reactor is expected to come on line in 2013 at a cost of $2.49 billion.  Construction was suspended in 1985 and will resume late in 2008 under a still-valid permit.  Its twin started operation in 1996.  Completing Watts Bar 2 will be the fastest and cheapest way of bringing new capacity on line, and will provide power at 4.4 c/kWh, 20-25% less than coal-fired or new nuclear alternatives and 43% less than natural gas.

In the meantime, TVA has rebuilt Browns Ferry-1 which was shut down in 1985.  The 5-year refurbishment program also increased its power to 1155 MWe, similar to the newer units 2 & 3.  It already has an operating licence and started up in May 2007.  It is expected back in full operation later in 2007.

As about 15 companies and consortia prepared to lodge combined construction and operation licence applications for up to 33 new reactors, the US Nuclear Energy Institute says that they would have invested at least $2 billion by the end of 2007.  This money is being spent on design and engineering work for new reactor types, on preparation of licence applications and in procurement of long-lead equipment such as reactor vessels and steam generators.  While not all the proposals are likely to go forward in the short term, some 40 GWe of new capacity is involved.  Financing will be a major challenge.

Committing to new build

Several projects have proceeded to engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contracts while the relevant COL applications are being processed:

The AP1000 consortium of Westinghouse and the Shaw Group in April 2008 signed an EPC contract with Georgia Power for two new 1100 MWe AP1000 nuclear units at the existing Vogtle site in Georgia.  It already has two 1215 MWe reactors on the site. The units are expected to enter commercial operation in 2016 and 2017.

Six weeks later Westinghouse and Shaw signed a second EPC contract with South Carolina Electricity & Gas and Santee Cooper to build two new 1117 MWe AP1000 reactors at their VC Summer, SC site, which already has one 966 MWe unit.  Total cost of $9.8 billion includes forecast inflation and owners' costs for site preparation, contingencies and project financing, all of which would approximately double the bare plant costs.  The units are expected to enter commercial operation in 2016 and 2019.

In 2007 Toshiba signed a project services agreement with NRG Energy and its 44% owned STP Nuclear for two 1358 MWe ABWR units at its South Texas site.  NRG ordered heavy components for the plant including a reactor pressure vessel and it subsequently referred to a "pre-negotiated" EPC contract for it, though it is not clear that an actual EPC contract has been signed.

Toshiba said that at mid May 2008 it had orders for six Westinghouse AP-1000 reactors and for two ABWR units in the USA.  The former appear to be Georgia Power/ Southern Nuclear: two Vogtle units, South Carolina Electricity & Gas: two Summer units, and Progress Energy: two Levy County units; or maybe for NuStart's Bellefonte plant for TVA.  The ABWR units would be for NRG's South Texas plant.

The table below lists current COL projects, and indicates where action has been taken actually to order or contract for aspects of their construction. For more details see NRC New Reactor Licensing and Appendix 2: Prospective COL applicants 

 

Announced COL Applications Pending 

Proponent(s) Technology MWe Site & utility -  licensee Lodgement Date Equipment contract
NRG Energy
ABWR x 2
2700
*South Texas, STP Nuclear
20/9/07

EPC? 8/07
NuStart
AP1000 x 2
2200
*Bellefonte, Alabama - TVA
30/10/07

Doosan?
Dominion
ESBWR
1520
North Anna, Virginia - Dominion
28/11/07

4/07
Duke Energy
AP1000 x 2
2200
Lee, South Carolina - Duke
13/12/07

Doosan?
Progress Energy
AP1000 x 2
2200
Harris, N Carolina - Progress
19/2/08
  
NuStart
ESBWR
1550
Grand Gulf, MS - Entergy
27/2/08

7/07
Unistar
US EPR
1600
* Calvert Cliffs MD - Unistar
7/07 and 13/3/08 

(Areva has ordered forgings)

Southern Nuclear Co
AP1000 x 2

2200
Vogtle, Georgia - Southern

24/7/08

EPC 4/08
South Carolina Elect & Gas

AP1000 x 2

2234
Summer, SC - South Carolina Elect & Gas
31/3/08

EPC 5/08
Unistar, AmerenUE

US EPR

1600

Callaway, Fulton, Missouri - AmerenUE

28/7/08

 (Areva has ordered forgings)
Progress Energy
AP1000 x 2
2200
Levy county, Florida - Progress
(greenfield site 15 km NE Crystal River)
30/708

LOI for EPC 4/08
Exelon
ESBWR x 2 (?)
3040
Victoria county, SE Texas, Exelon
3/9/08

12/07 MHI
Detroit Edison

ESBWR

 1550

Fermi, Michigan - DTE Energy

18/9/08

  
Luminant Corp
US-APWR x2
3400
*Comanche Peak Tx, Luminant
19/9/08
Entergy

ESBWR

 1550

River Bend LA - Entergy

25/9/08

  
Unistar

US EPR

 1600
Nine Mile Point-3 NY - Constellation

30/9/08
Unistar, PPL

US EPR

 1600
Bell Bend, near Susquehanna, PA - PPL

10/10/08

  
AEHI
US EPR
1600
Grand View, Idaho, Alternate Energy Holdings Inc.
early 2009
  
Florida Light & Power
AP1000 or ESBWR x 2
2200 to 3040
Turkey Point, Florida - FPL
early 2009

Amarillo Power

US EPR x 2

3200
Amarillo, Tx, Amarillo

late 2009

  
Blue Castle
 ? ? Utah 2010  
Total
32 units
41,000+


 

* reference COL for reactor type           EPC - Engineering, Procurement and Construction agreement

NB: WNA reactor table from June 08 lists Watts Bar (1180 MWe), South Texas x2, Vogtle x2, North Anna, Summer x2, Grand Gulf or River Bend, Callaway or Calvert Cliffs, & Levy county x2 - total 12 and 15,000 MWe as Planned, on the basis of various announced commitments.

The COLs are being lodged with a particular design and site nominated, though the design certification need not be complete. Dominion is expected to lodge its COL application in 2006, before full ESBWR design certification. The NRC was expected to take two years to review each COL application, with decision anticipated in 2008 for the Dominion consortium and 2010 for NuStart, since it originally intended to await design certification for both reactor types before choosing between them and lodging its COL application in 2008. However, in 2007 NRC was estimating 42 months for processing the first few COL applications.

Neither ESP nor COL commits anyone to build anything, but they will expedite future plans for new build.

While the focus is on new technology, TVA is funding a study on completing its half-built 1167 MWe Watts Bar-2 reactor, which could be on line about 2013.

In the meantime, TVA has rebuilt Browns Ferry-1 which was shut down in 1985. The 5-year refurbishment program also increased its power to 1155 MWe, similar to the newer units 2 & 3. It already has an operating licence and started up in May 2007. It is expected back in full operation later in 2007.

As about 15 companies and consortia prepare to lodge combined construction and operation licence applications for up to 33 new reactors, the US Nuclear Energy Institute says that they will have invested at least $2 billion by the end of 2007. This money is being spent on design and engineering work for new reactor types, on preparation of licence applications and in procurement of long-lead equipment such as reactor vessels and steam generators. While not all the proposals are likely to go forward in the short term, some 40 GWe of new capacity is involved. Financing will be a major challenge.

Contents

Energy Policy Act 2005

After much preliminary debate the Energy Policy Act 2005 comfortably passed both houses - 74-26 in the Senate and 275-156 in the House. It included incentives for the nuclear power industry including:

Also $1.25 billion was authorised for an advanced high-temperature reactor (Next Generation Nuclear Plant) at the Idaho National Laboratory, capable of cogenerating hydrogen. Overall more than $2 billion was provided for hydrogen demonstration projects.

In 2006 it was spelled out that the 6000 MWe eligible for production tax credits would be divided pro-rata among those applicants which filed COL applications by the end of 2008, which commence construction of advanced plants by 2014, and which enter service by 2021.

In October 2007 DOE announced that it would guarantee the full amount of loans covering up to 80% of the cost of new clean energy projects including advanced nuclear power plants under the 2005 Energy Policy Act.  The first round of loan guarantees will go to renewable energy and advanced gas (eg IGCC) projects, those for nuclear then still needed to be authorised by Congress.

The Act also addressed climate change, requiring action on a national strategy to address the issue by 2007. In 2005 the USA emitted 5.9 billion tonnes of CO2 from energy use.

Contents

 Federal Loan Guarantees for New Plants
In mid 2008 the DOE invited applications for loan guarantees

to support the construction of advanced nuclear power plants (up to $18.5 billion total) and uranium enrichment plants (up to $2 billion).  Loan guarantees are to encourage the commercial use of new or significantly improved energy technologies and "will enable project developers to bridge the financing gap between pilot and demonstration projects to full commercially viable projects that employ new or significantly improved energy technologies."  The loan guarantees are ultimately funded by the borrowers and are expected to act as a catalyst and reduce financing cost by demonstrating government support, without cost to the taxpayer. 
Any preliminary approvals issued in 2009 will be conditional upon the applicant receiving a COL from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the first of these are not expected before 2010.
Applications are due in 2008, with a fee of $200,000 for the first part and $600,000 for the second part (due 19/12/08 for reactors).

The DOE received 19 initial applications from 17 utilities to support the construction of 14 nuclear power plants involving 21 new reactors of five different designs.  Total capacity involved is 28,800 MWe.  The total requested comes to $122 billion, significantly more than the $18.5 billion offered.  The aggregate estimated construction cost involved the 14 projects is $188 billion.  DOE also received two applications for enrichment plants, total $4 billion, against $2 billion on offer. 
DOE will review the submissions and then rank them in order to guide applicants regarding whether to complete part 2 of their application in December.

In the light of the interest shown and the fact that the scheme is borrower-funded, the industry has called for the amount available for reactors to be increased to $100 billion.


Loan Guarantee Applications
 

  applicant Plant size MWe, type likely overnight cost first part second part
power plants Unistar Calvert Cliffs 3, MD 1600 EPR $9 Billion 31/7/08  
  Dominion North Anna 3, Va 1550 ESBWR
15/8/08  
  Exelon Victoria County, TX 1550 ESBWR x 2   26/9/08  
  Duke Energy Lee, SC 1100 AP1000 x 2   29/9/08  
  PPL Corp Bell Bend, Pa 1600 EPR
29/9/08  
  Progress Energy Levy County, FL 1100 AP1000 x 2   by 29/9/08  
  Ameren UE Callaway, Missouri 1600 EPR   by 29/9/08  
  Luminant Comanche Peak, TX 1700 APWR x 2   by 29/9/08  
  Unistar Nine Mile Point, NY 1600 EPR   by 29/9/08  
  Entergy Grand Gulf, MA 1550 ESBWR   by 29/9/08  
  Entergy River Bend, LA 1550 ESBWR   by 29/9/08  
  NRG & CPS South Texas Project 1350 ABWR x 2   by 29/9/08  
  Slouthern & Oglethorpe Vogtle, GA 1100 APR1000 x 2
by 29/9/08  
  SCEG & Santee Cooper Summer, SC 1100 APR1000 x 2
by 29/9/08  
fuel cycle USEC American centrifuge 3.8 M SWU $3.5 Billion 24/7/08 29/8/08
  Areva Eagle Rock enrichment 3.0 M SWU $2 billion 29/9/08 2/12/08

Contents

Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)

In February 2006 the US government announced a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) through which it "will work with other nations possessing advanced nuclear technologies to develop new proliferation-resistant recycling technologies in order to produce more energy, reduce waste and minimise proliferation concerns. Additionally, these partner nations will develop a fuel services program to provide nuclear fuel to developing nations allowing them to enjoy the benefits of abundant sources of clean, safe nuclear energy in a cost-effective manner in exchange for their commitment to forgo enrichment and reprocessing activities, also alleviating proliferation concerns." This is seen as a commercial and procedural complement to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1970, but which also addresses global warming concerns.

GNEP goals include reducing US dependence on imported fossil fuels, and building a new generation of nuclear power plants in the USA. Two significant new elements in the strategy are new reprocessing technologies which separate all transuranic elements together (and not plutonium on its own) Ð starting with the UREX+ process, and Advanced Burner (fast) Reactors to consume the result of this while generating power.

The US Department of Energy offered $20 million for siting studies for used fuel reprocessing facilities which will be built under GNEP and as of end of 2006 thirteen sites were under consideration.

In January 2007 the DOE announced a new strategic plan for GNEP initiatives, including preparation of an environmental impact statement. It will assess three facilities: a fuel recycling centre including reprocessing and fuel fabrication plants, a fast reactor which will burn the actinide-based fuel and transmute transuranic elements, and an advanced fuel cycle research facility. DOE envisages the first two being industry-led initiatives.

The international component of GNEP means that these first two facilities need to be operating by about 2020 so that fuel services can commence as an inducement for other countries not to build enrichment and reprocessing plants. There is a mid 2008 target for proceeding with these. GNEP involves fresh fuel supply and used fuel take-back by the USA, as well as by Japan and Russia. The plan also involves developing and deploying advanced proliferation-resistant reactors appropriate for the power grids of developing countries, together with enhanced safeguards.

Encouraged by the response to GNEP, DOE proposed a two phase development for fuel recycling. In the near term it will deploy Areva's COEX process on a commercial scale. Then, after further R&D, the Urex+ process which will collect all transuranic elements (including plutonium) together for burning in an advanced burner (fast neutron) reactor. Wastes from the latter process would comprise only fission products, and thus be shorter-lived and easier to accommodate in a repository. In particular, the Yucca Mountain repository could accommodate US high-level wastes for the rest of the century rather than filling up in a decade. (See also later section Reprocessing Used Fuel, and GNEP web site.

In October 2007 DOE awarded $16 million to four industry consortia for studies to progress GNEP.  The largest share of this, $5.6 million, went to the International Nuclear Recycling Alliance (INRA) led by Areva and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI), with Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd (JNFL), Battelle, BWX Technologies (now Babcock & Wilcox Company) and Washington Group International.  INRA was contracted to provide three major studies: technology development roadmaps analyzing the technology needed to achieve GNEP goals, business plans for the development and commercialization of the advanced GNEP technologies and facilities, and conceptual design studies for the fuel recycling centre and advanced recycling reactor.  Areva and JNFL will focus on the Consolidated Fuel Treatment Centre, a reprocessing plant (which will not separate pure plutonium), and MHI on the Advanced Recycling Reactor, a fast reactor which will burn actinides with uranium and plutonium.  These are the two main technological innovations involved with GNEP.  In this connection MHI has also set up Mitsubishi FBR Systems (MFBR).  INRA appears to have materialized out of a September 2007 agreement between Areva and JNFL to collaborate on reprocessing.  Its contract with DOE was extended in April 2008.

The nuclear power industry is keen to see a permanent geological repository in operation, but also supports complementary long-term interim storage of used fuel and also development of advanced fuel processing technologies to close the nuclear fuel cycle. The latter include commercial reprocessing using proliferation-resistant technologies and development of fast reactors to consume actinides arising from this.

Internationally, the countries identified by DOE as likely participants in GNEP at both enrichment and recycling ends are the USA, UK, France, Russia and Japan. The USA and Japan have agreed to develop by May 2007 a nuclear energy cooperation plan centered on GNEP and the construction of new nuclear power plants. (Japan also intends to participate in DOE's FutureGen clean coal project.) A US-French agreement centered on GNEP is being developed, and one with Russia is in place.

Contents

Uranium resources and mining

The USA ranks sixth in the world for known uranium resources in the category up to $130/kgU ($50/lb U3O8), with 339,000 tU (reasonably assured plus inferred resources, 2007).  Exploration expenditure more than doubled in 2007 from 2006 to $50.3 million.

In the 1950s, the USA had a great deal of uranium mining, promoted by federal subsidies. Peak production since 1970 was 16,800 tU in 1980, when there were over 250 mines in operation. This number abruptly dropped to 50 in 1984 when 5700 tU was produced, and then there was steady decline to 2003, with most US uranium requirements being imported. By 2003 there were only two small operations producing a total of under 1000 tU/yr.

Most US production has been from New Mexico and Wyoming. Known resources are 167,000 t U3O8 in Wyoming, 155,000 t in New Mexico, 2000 t in Texas and around 50,000 t in Utah, Colorado and Arizona, all to $50/lb. Production potential is about 45% in situ leach (ISL), 55% conventional mining.

There was a considerable legacy of pollution from abandoned uranium mines and treatment plants, most dating from the 1940s and 1950s, and which was addressed in the 1980s.  For instance, the Uravan mill site on the San Miguel River in Colorado was designated a Superfund site and was cleaned up between 1987 and 2007 at a cost of over $120 million.  Historic mining and milling at Uravan included the production of radium, vanadium and uranium, leaving radioactive residues from the early 1900s through to the mid-1980s.  From the time Uravan mill began operating in the 1920s until it was shut down, it processed over ten million tonnes of uranium-vanadium ore, giving rise to a similar amount of uncontained tailings, and 1440 megalitres of liquid wastes were treated in the site rehabilitation program.

Uranium production from one mill (White Mesa, Utah) and five ISL operations totalled 1583 tU (1866 t U3O8) in 2006, and 1748 tU (2061 t U3O8) in 2007 (EIA May 2008).

Cameco's US subsidiary Power Resources Inc operates the Smith Ranch-Highland mine in Wyoming and the Crow Butte mine in Nebraska, both of them ISL operations, and producing 786 and 281 tonnes U respectively in 2006 from total reserves of 12,000 tU (15,000 t U3O8). The US company is now known as Cameco Resources and is aiming to increase production from these mines and adjacent properties to 1770 tU/yr by 2011.

Uranium Resources Inc commenced production from its Vasquez ISL mine in 2004 at about 50 tU/yr and from Kingsville Dome in 2006 at 150 tU/yr, both in south Texas.  Vasquez peaked in 2006 and is now largely depleted (30 tU in 2007).  Rosita started production in 2008 with oxygen injection but was then closed as uneconomic after 3 tU was recovered.  Mestena Uranium's Alta Mesa ISL plant in southern Texas is also operational.  Uranium Energy Corp has been granted preliminary approval to mine its Goliard ISL project in south Texas.  It has 2100 tU measured and indicated resources which are NI 43-101 compliant.

Conventional (non-ISL) uranium mining in is set to resume after some years (though Cotter Corp. produced 38 tonnes U through its 400 t/day Canon City mill, Colorado in 2005). Denison Mines expects to produce up to 650 tU in 2008 through its 2000 t/day White Mesa mill in southeastern Utah, from its own and purchased ore, as well as doing some toll milling.

Denison is opening the first of its Uravan Mineral Belt mines on the Colorado Plateau containing 2100 tU in placer deposits plus vanadium co-product (Uravan = uranium + vanadium).  Its Henry Mountains mines in Utah including Tony M and Bullfrog have 9250 tU.  All these are within 160 km of White Mesa mill.  It has begun production from Colorado Plateau and Tony M mines, but late in 2008 temporarily closed the latter.  It is spending $13 million on mill refurbishment, $10 million on old mines and then $35 million on the adjacent new Bullfrog mine preparing for a late 2009 start.  It also plans to start reopening its four mines in the Arizona Strip in 2008, along with some new deposits there, though all these are some 500 km from White Mesa mill.

In 2007, Denison operated four mines in the Colorado Plateau area: Topaz, Pandora, West Sunday and Sunday/St. Jude. The last three are mature operating mines with extensive underground workings, while the Topaz mine is relatively new.  Two further old mines reopened in 2008: Rim Canyon and Beaver Shaft, which required significant refurbishing to produce some 30 tU/yr. A third mine, Van 4, will be in production in early 2009.

Toronto-based Uranium One in 2007 bought US Energy's 1000 t/day Shootaring Canyon mill in southeast Utah and associated properties in four contiguous states for $50 million plus royalties. US Energy had been planning to bring the mill back into production at a cost of $31 million. Uranium One had also secured the right to buy Rio Tinto's 3000 t/day Sweetwater uranium mill and associated uranium properties in south-central Wyoming for $110 million, but in January 2007 Rio Tinto cancelled the deal.

Uranium One, through wholly-owned Energy Metals Corporation, has refurbished the small Hobson plant in southern Texas which has been shut since 1991. It produced about 130 tU/yr for previous owner Energy Metals Corporation but will have 380 t/yr capacity, recovered from loaded resin trucked there from the La Palangana ISL mine from 2009.

In Wyoming the company has plans for 900 tU/yr production from three mines in the Powder River basin from 2010 (Moore Ranch, Peterson Ranch, Nine Mile) and 900 tU/yr from Antelope in the Great Divide basin later. In 2007 it announced a toll "milling" arrangement with Cameco for recovery of up to 540 tU per year at Smith Ranch-Highland mill. This will be from loaded resin trucked to the plant, initially from Moore Ranch, starting 2010. It has some 4000 tU as measured resources (2235 t at Moore Ranch) and 23,000 tU as indicated resources in the state.

Energy Fuels Resources Corp (subsidiary of Energy Fuels Inc of Toronto) has applied to reopen former uranium-vanadium mines in the Uravan mineral belt in western Colorado.  Whirlwind (including Packrat, Bonanza and La Sal) is a near-term project following Bureau of Land management approval, but late in 2008 was put on standby.  Tenderfoot Mesa is adjacent.  Its Pinon Ridge mill is listed as developing, with commissioning possible in 2011.  EFRC's nearby Energy Queen mine in Utah has been refurbished for 2008 reopening.  In August 2008 EFRC announced NI 43-101 compliant indicated resources of 1480 tU and inferred resources of 1370 tU for its Colorado and Utah properties.

Areva's Cogema Mining Inc has applied to reopen the Christensen Ranch ISL mine in Wyoming, which will have 250 tU/yr capacity from about 2008.

American Uranium Co in joint venture with Strathmore Minerals based in Canada has announced a NI 43-101 measured and indicated resource of 2865 tU @ 0.065% for Reno Creek and 1360 tU @ 0.068% for Southwest Reno Creek in Wyoming, suitable for ISL.  This is 30 km southeast of Christiansen Ranch and 50 km north of Cameco's Smith Ranch.

Uranium Energy Corp in 2007 bought the New River Uranium Project in Arizona with a historic resource estimate of 5000 tU in shallow low-grade ore.

Ur-Energy expects NRC approval in 2009 for ISL mining at its Lost Creek, Wyoming deposit with 4200 tU indicated and inferred resources. 

Uranium Resources Inc (URI) in 2007 sought to buy Rio Algom Mining, with uranium properties and a licensed mill site at Ambrosia Lake in New  Mexico, where it planned to construct a new mill to serve the Grants mineral belt. However, the deal was aborted in mid 2008.  URI subsidiary Hydro Resources Inc was licensed in 1994 to mine the Crownpoint and Church Rock ISL deposits in New Mexico, and after years of opposition the licence was validated by NRC in 2006.  URI is moving these towards production.

Also in New Mexico, Uranium International Corp has announced 1180 tU measured and indicated resource at Dalton Pass, with ISL potential.  It also announced an 1160 tU measured and indicated resource at Nose Rock, deep in hard rock.  Both are NI 43-101 compliant, in the Grants mineral belt and owned by Strathmore Minerals.  UIC has the option of earning a 65% share of each.

Yellowcake Mining Corp reports 5000 tU reserves at its planned Beck mine in the Uravan area of Colorado and agreed in May 2008 to sell a 50% stake in it to Korea Electric Power Corp (KEPCO).  The company also has joint ventures with Strathmore Minerals for Juniper Ridge and a Gas Hills prospect in Wyoming.

Strathmore Minerals is working towards bringing its Gas Hills properties in Wyoming into production, though it has only historical resource figures for most of these. 

Strathmore also has projects in the Grants mineral district in New Mexico, including another Church Rock prospect with 4570 tU as NI 43-101 compliant measured and indicated resources.  Two other properties in the Grants mineral belt are Dalton Pass, with ISL potential and 1180 tU measured and indicated resource, and Nose Rock, deep in hard rock but with 1160 tU measured and indicated resource, both NI 43-101 compliant. Uranium International Corp had an agreement to earn a 65% share in both these, but terminated that in November 2008.

Powertech Uranium Corp is proposing to develop two ISL mines: Centennial in northern Colorado, and Dewey Burdock in South Dakota - in each case very close to the Wyoming border.  Centennial has 3750 tU and Dewey Burdock almost 3000 tU, both as NI 43-101 compliant inferred resources.

Bluerock Resources has shipped the first ore from development of the J-Bird mine in Colorado to Denison's White Mesa mill in Utah.

US Uranium Mines and other Production Facilities

 

 ISL mine Mill Status  Annual capacity
Cogema Mining Inc (Areva) Christiansen Ranch, Wy
Christiansen Ranch 250 tU
Power Resources Inc (Cameco) Smith Ranch - Highland, Wy
operating 2100 tU
Cameco Corporation
 Crow Butte, Neb
operating 385 tU
Uranium Resources Inc Vasquez, Tx
operating 310 tU

Kingsville Dome, Tx
operating 385 tU
Mestena Uranium Alta Mesa, Tx
operating 385 tU
Uranium Energy Corp

Goliard, Tx

   preliminary approval ?
Hydro Resources Inc Church Rock, NM
under const.* 385 tU

Crownpoint, NM
under const.* 385 tU
South Texas Mining La Palangana, Tx Hobson, Tx under const.* 385 tU
Cotter Corp
Canon City, Co standby
Denison
White Mesa, Ut operating
 
Sweetwater, Wy  standby  
Uranium One
Shootaring Canyon, Ut  operational in 2008?
Energy Fuels Resource Corp  

Pinon Ridge, Co

developing, maybe operate 2011

  

 

* partially permitted and licensed

See also EIA information 

Disposal of government stocks of uranium:
In 2008 the DOE announced plans to release a large part of its uranium holdings to the market. The excess totals some 59,000 tonnes of natural uranium equivalent, plus 4461 tonnes of off-spec material of dubious value and not included in disposal figures.  Stocks of Russian-origin are earmarked for the first cores of new US reactors.  The uranium would enter the market over the next decade in a range of forms: low-enriched uranium suitable for use as reactor fuel; depleted uranium (over 0.35% U-235) as uranium hexafluoride ready for enrichment; and natural uranium oxide or hexafluoride.  These materials arise respectively from: high-enriched uranium from unwanted US weapons; depleted uranium stocks left over from historic DoE enrichment work; and a stockpile of natural uranium exchanged under the 1993 agreement whereby Russian blended-down uranium is supplied to US utilities (see following section on military surplus) – effectively Russian-origin stocks.
The DOE plan shows a total of 22,700 tonnes of uranium entering global markets before the end of FY2017, but with no more than 10% of US annual requirements being delivered to the market in any one year - apart from an allocation for the first cores of newly built US reactors.  In line with this, the annual quantity coming from dismantled weapons and re-enriched depleted uranium increases steadily to reach 1920 tonnes U in 2013 and then continues at that level, totalling 15,000 tonnes U.  From 2010 to 2015, another 7700 tonnes U from Russian-origin stocks is allocated for the first cores of newly-built reactors in the USA.
The DoE will maintain a uranium reserve of 670 tonnes U - equivalent to about 20 power reactor reloads - for energy security reasons.  This will be kept as low-enriched uranium stored either at the DoE's Portsmouth or Paducah sites, or may be kept as part of a commercial entity's working inventory.

Contents 

Fuel Cycle

Enrichment and other front-end

There is now 14,000 tU/yr conversion capacity at the Honeywell-ConverDyn Metropolis plant.

For enrichment, the USA's 104 operating reactors require 12.7 million SWU per year, almost half of which currently comes from Russian high-enriched uranium. There is 8 million SWU/yr capacity at USEC's Paducah, Kentucky plant - the remaining one of two large diffusion plants commissioned in the mid 1950s. These represented the major US government involvement in the nuclear industry until USEC's privatisation in 1998. The Paducah plant has an electricity supply contract with TVA to 2012, and is likely to close then if its replacement at Piketon, Ohio is on schedule.

The National Enrichment Facility is a major centrifuge enrichment plant under construction at Eunice, New Mexico. It uses 6th generation Urenco technology from Europe, and was planned by the Louisiana Energy Services (LES) partnership - comprising Urenco, Exelon, Duke Power, Entergy, and Westinghouse. Construction of the $1.5 billion plant was licensed by NRC in mid 2006 and as agreed the three utilities then passed their share to Urenco which now wholly owns LES. Utility support for the venture - now amounting to $3.15 billion in orders - has been crucial in persuading NRC that further US enrichment capacity is required beyond that provided and envisaged by USEC.

First production is expected in 2009, with full capacity of 3 million SWU/yr being reached in 2013. The new plant will be a major step forward in underwriting new US nuclear generating capacity and in ensuring security of fuel supply, with flexibility of operation enabling more energy input to produce more fuel from the same natural uranium feed if required.  In November 2008 LES announced plans to increase the capacity to 5.9 million SWU/yr, with total investment reaching $3 billion and the plant supplying half of US enrichment needs from 2015.  The incremental capacity will require NRC approval.

Then in April 2007 the NRC licensed construction and operation of USEC's American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio.  It is now expected to cost around $3.5 billion,excluding finance, and utilising existing infrastructure, though a firmer cost figure will be confirmed by mid 2008. The American Centrifuge technology has been developed over many years by USEC, based on  work by the Department of Energy in 1970s and 1980s.   The plant will be on the same Portsmouth site where the DOE's experimental plant operated in the 1980s, involving 1300 centrifuges as the culmination of a very major R&D program.  It is also the site of USEC's large Portsmouth diffusion plant which is now closed.  The prototype Lead Cascade producing uranium of the desired specification started operation in September 2007 and the test program with it will refine the design of the AC100 centrifuge machines (which are much larger than the Urenco centrifuges).  USEC expects to have the AC100 Lead Cascade with 40-50 machines in operation by the end of the first quarter 2009.  This AC100 Lead Cascade may later be integrated into a commercial cascade, but the machine design will be superseded in 2009 by the "value-engineered AC100 machine" which will be deployed in the commercial plant.

The full plant is expected to commence commercial operation by the end of first quarter 2010, reach 1 million SWU capacity a year later and achieve full 3.8 million SWU annual capacity at the end of 2012.  It will use only 5% of the power of the old diffusion plant it replaces.  The licence authorises 7 million SWU/yr enrichment up to 10% U-235, though normal levels today are only up to 5%, which is becoming a serious constraint as reactor fuel burnup increases.

In mid 2007 Areva Inc announced that it was also proposing to build a new 3 million SWU/yr $2 billion centrifuge plant in the USA to supply domestic enrichment services.  It submitted a licence application to NRC for this Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility in December 2008 with a view to operation in 2014, ramping up to full capacity in 2019.  It is to be a smaller version of Areva's new French plant and built at Idaho Falls, near DOE's Idaho National Laboratory.  It will be owned an operated by Areva Enrichment Services LLC.

Global Laser Enrichment: In 2006 Silex Systems in Australia and GE Energy received US government approval for development in the USA of the SILEX uranium enrichment process using laser technology. This approval clears the way for development and eventual full commercial production under a licence agreement signed in May. GE (now GE-Hitachi, GEH) will fund the development and has already paid US$ 20 million as the first of a series of payments. It will then pay a royalty on revenues from commercial production. GE said that "commercialisation of the SILEX enrichment technology is a crucial part of GE's long-term growth strategy for the nuclear business." SILEX has been rebadged as Global Laser Enrichment (GLE).

In October 2007 the two largest US nuclear utilities, Exelon and Entergy, signed letters of intent to contract for uranium enrichment services from GEH. The utilities may also provide GEH with facility licensing and public acceptance support if needed for development of a commercial-scale GLE plant, for which the NRC expects a licence application. GEH has begun preparing a GLE test loop at Global Nuclear Fuel's Wilmington, North Carolina fuel fabrication facility - GNF is a partnership of GE, Toshiba, and Hitachi. Before moving ahead with full-scale production plans, GEH will first evaluate results of the testing, select a location for the proposed commercial plant and obtain a license to build and operate it. Preparations for commercial licensing at Wilmington, North Carolina, are now under way with a view to start-up date of 2012, with capacity of 3.5 to 6 million separative work units (SWU).

New US Enrichment Capacity

 

  type status capacity (million SWU/yr) start-up full production
Urenco/ LES Urenco centrifuge construction 5.9 2009 2015
USEC American centrifuge construction 3.8 2010 2012
Areva Urenco centrifuge planned 3.0 2014 2019
GEH/ GLE laser planned 3.5 - 6.0 2012?  

Deconversion of UF6 DU tails from enrichment has not so far been undertaken on any large scale in the USA, but International Isotopes Inc (INIS) is planning a 6500 t/yr plant.  Four sites are under investigation. Some 1300 to 2300 tonnes of anhydrous hydrofluoric acid with 450 tonnes of fluoride gas will be produced per year and the depleted uranium will be stored as more stable U3O8.  Preceding this proposal an agreement was signed in 2005 between LES and Areva to make use of the latter's technology in deconverting LES' DU tails.  Areva NC has operated a small deconversion plant in association with its fuel fabrication plant in Washington state.  DOE envisages further deconversion plants at Portsmouth, Idaho and Paducah, Kentucky.

Fuel fabrication occurs at six plants operated by Westinghouse, Areva NC and GEH, with total capacity over 4000 t/yr.

In December 2007 the USA and Russia agreed to relax US import restrictions to the extent of specified quantities of low-enriched uranium.  These are trivial initially but jump to 485 tonnes enriched U representing some 3 million SWU per year in 2014 after the program importing blended-down Russian military material expires. This is enough to refuel nearly one fifth of present US nuclear plants.  By defining uranium enrichment as a service, not a good, a US court in 2006 opened the way to ending years of protection from Russian and EU imports.

Military surplus

The US government earlier declared 174 tonnes of military high-enriched uranium (HEU) to be surplus and available for civil power generation. A start has been made on downblending this by Nuclear Fuel Services in Tennessee, and the first fuel fabricated from it has been shipped to Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) power plants.

In 2008 DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA )was negotiating with TVA to release a further 21 tonnes of HEU under the program, which would yield about 250 tonnes of LEU, some of which might be sold to other utilities.

In June 2007 the NNSA awarded contracts to Wesdyne International and Nuclear Fuel Services to downblend 17.4 tonnes of HEU from dismantled warheads to be part of a new international Reliable Fuel Supply program.  NFS will dilute the material in Tennessee to yield some 290 tonnes of low-enriched uranium (4.95% U-235) by 2010. Wesdyne, the prime contractor, will then store the LEU at the Westinghouse fuel fabrication plant in South Carolina to be available for the Reliable Fuel Supply program - an international fuel reserve. It will be available for use in civilian reactors by nations in good standing with the International Atomic Energy Agency that have good nonproliferation credentials and are not pursuing uranium enrichment and reprocessing technologies. The fuel - worth some $1 billion at current prices - would be sold at the current market price. To cover the cost of the project, Wesdyne will sell a small part of the LEU on the market over a three to four year period. (The scheme is consistent with international concerns to limit the spread of enrichment technology to countries without well established nuclear fuel cycles. Russia has agreed to join the initiative.)

NNSA in 2005 announced that it was committing about 40 tonnes of off-specification HEU to the Blended Low-Enriched Uranium (BLEU) program.  This material would be used by TVA. 

 

  tonnes U   Natural U equivalent
US high-enriched U 67.6 HEU 12,485
US natural U 5156 Natural U as UF6 5156
Russian natural U 12,440 Natural U as UF6 12,440
Off-spec non UF6 4459 DU / Unat / LEU 2900
Depleted U > 0.35% U 73,500 DU 29,950
Total     58,931

While no details have been worked out, the general idea is to sell this progressively at up to 2000 tonnes natural U equivalent per year over 35 years until DOE is left with about 6000 t natural U equivalent as reserve.  DOE is already selling downblended HEU, and is considering enriching the high assay depleted uranium, which it expects will be hardest to find buyers for.

Almost half of the uranium used in US nuclear power plants currently comes from Russian weapons-grade military uranium, downblended in Russia.  Under this program so far (to early 2008) 325 tonnes of high-enriched uranium has become almost 10,000 tonnes of low-enriched uranium for reactor fuel, representing 60 million SWU of enrichment and about 13,000 warheads, at a cost of US$ 5.1 billion (paid by consumers).

The US government has also agreed to dispose of 34 tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium by 2014, incorporating it (with depleted uranium) into mixed-oxide fuel. Duke Energy has nominated its Catawba-1 nuclear power reactor for burning mixed oxide (MOX) fuel assemblies incorporating this weapons-grade plutonium, and the first four test assemblies (fabricated in France) are now generating power. If the trial is successful, use of MOX for 20-40% of the cores of Catawba and McGuire reactors could begin in about 2010, using fuel fabricated in the USA from surplus weapons plutonium. Construction of the new plant for this at the DOE Savannah River site in South Carolina was authorised by NRC early in 2005 but funding was not made available then. Construction started in August 2007. It is being built by Shaw Areva MOX Services under a $2.7 billion contract to the DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration, which will own the plant. (Most MOX plants use fresh reactor-grade plutonium comprising about one third non-fissile Pu isotopes.)

Weapons-grade plutonium in MOX test assemblies has been burned at the Saxton prototype reactor in the mid 1960s, and some MOX was burned in other US plants before 1977.

(see also paper on Military Warheads as a Source of Fuel)

Contents


Nuclear Wastes 

US policy since 1977 has been to forbid reprocessing of used fuel and to treat it all as high-level waste which the government is responsible for finally disposing of in a deep geological repository. Utilities have paid over $19 billion into the Nuclear Waste Fund for this mostly through a 0.1 cent/kWh levy towards final disposal, so that by September 2008 it had accumulated over $31 billion, including interest. The fund is growing by about $750 million per year from utility inputs and $900 million from interest.

It is the responsibility of utilities to store this used fuel on site until it is taken over by the federal Department of Energy for final disposal in a geological repository. Such a repository is not yet available and the DoE defaulted on its 1998 deadline to start accepting used fuel, which has put pressure on storage space at some power plants. Some are supplementing pool storage with dry cask storage.

Attempts have been made to remedy the situation legislatively. After several years of failure to get matching bills through both houses of Congress, early in 2000 the House of Representatives finally passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act 2000 by 253 votes to 167, matching the earlier Senate passage of the legislation by 64 to 34. However, the President then vetoed it.

The Bush Administration sought to make some urgent headway on the matter, and several reports in 2001 suggested no insurmountable scientific or technical problems with the proposed repository site in Nevada. The US Energy Secretary recommended that the site be approved as the nation's permanent repository. This was strongly supported by Congress and signed into law in July 2002.  The DOE submitted a licence application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in June 2008.

A 70,000 tonne high-level waste repository is planned at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, originally envisaged as operating from about 2010. This would take 63,000 t of used reactor fuel, 2333 t of naval and DOE used fuel and 4667 t of other high-level wastes, all from 126 sites in 39 US states. As of 2008, there was some 58,000 tonnes of civil used fuel awaiting disposal and about 12,800 tonnes of government used fuel and separated high-level wastes.  The total increases by about 2500 tonnes per year.  Recent studies by the Electric Power Research Institute show that the repository could hold at least 286,000 tonnes and possibly 628,000 tonnes of used fuel and high-level wastes, rather than the arbitrary 70,000 tonnes set by Congress in 1982.

Meanwhile storage space at some operating nuclear reactors has run out and at 40 of the 65 nuclear sites pool storage is being supplemented with dry cask storage.  Of the total inventory of 58,000 tonnes of used fuel, 10,700 tonnes is in dry cask storage as of early 2008.  By 2017 it is anticipated that practically all nuclear power plant sites will need dry storage which will then hold 22,300 tonnes of used fuel.  Under new standard contracts with DOE, proponents of new reactor construction must undertake to store used fuel on site indefinitely, so that DOE does not become liable for delays.

The latest DOE estimate of when Yucca Mountain repository might be operational is about 2020-21, with some expansion of the original 70,000 tonne capacity.  The total cost in mid 2008 was put at about $96 billion (in 2007 dollars) for its construction, operation for 110 years, decommissioning from 2133 and the transport of used fuel to it.

The increased storage costs at nuclear plants due to the DOE defaulting on its obligation to start taking used fuel from utilities in 1998 have prompted legal action. In 2004 Exelon reached agreement with the US Justice Department on recovering up to $300 million in storage costs for its used fuel to 2010. The agreement covered all of Exelon's 17 nuclear reactors, and the cash came from tax monies, not the Nuclear Waste Fund. In 2006 the US Federal Court awarded $143 million in damages to three related New England utilities and $40 million to the Sacramento Utility District for the same reason - the former had had to build dry storage facilities. Then $43 million was awarded to Pacific Gas & Electric.  In 2007 Duke Energy negotiated $56 million on same basis for three plants, plus ongoing costs. Then Xcel Energy was awarded $116 million for costs associated with three reactors from 1998 to 2004 and Entergy Arkansas was awarded $48.6 million for costs to 2006.  Progress Energy was awarded $82.8 million in 2008.  Other utilities have been suing the federal government to achieve the same result and billions of dollars are involved.

As with as a coal-fired power station about two thirds of the heat is dumped, either to a large volume of water (from the sea or large river, heating it a few degrees) or to a relatively smaller volume of water in cooling towers, using evaporative cooling (latent heat of vapourisation).

As well as the DOE Yucca Mountain enterprise, Private Fuel Storage LLC (PFS) plans to store used fuel on a site in Utah for up to 40 years pending disposal. PFS is a consortium of eight utilities impatient with DOE. In February 2006 the NRC issued a 20-year licence for a 40,000 tonne centralised surface dry storage facility on land owned by the Skull Valley band of the Goshute Indians. Proceedings to then had dragged on eight years due mainly to state government opposition. PFS then offered the facility to the Department of Energy for use from 2008 pending Yucca Mountain repository opening, suggesting that it would be very much cheaper for DOE than leaving the used fuel at reactor sites. While fuel ownership was to remain with utility customers, the proposal to DOE is that it would take ownership at the reactor site (as was legally required by 1998) and be responsible for moving it to PFS, and ultimately to Yucca Mountain.  However, the Department of Interior then disapproved the Goshute-PFS lease and the use of public land as a transport corridor to the planned facility.  This decision is being appealed but the proposal is not proceeding.

In the light of this the Nuclear Energy Institute in 2007 started a search for communities willing to host interim storage sites for used fuel.  It received several offers and by mid 2008 had reduced the possibilities to two.  A commercially operated facility on a 400 ha site is envisaged for each.

In 2005 a National Academies' report on security of interim storage of used fuel at US reactors was released. It said that some pool storages at reactors may pose a risk due to possible high temperature combustion of fuel cladding in the event that water is drained due to terrorist attack, but that the likelihood of terrorists using spent fuel for a 'dirty bomb' is very low. The report strongly favoured dry cask storage on security grounds. The NRC and the industry said that the report exaggerates the risks and does not take full account of safety measures implemented since 2001.

In 2006 the National Academies reported on transport of high-level wastes, finding that there are "no fundamental technical barriers to the safe transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive wastes in the US". It said transport by road or rail was low-risk radiologically due to "rigorous international standards and US regulations" on packaging it.

For low-level wastes (LLW) there is a facility at Barnwell, South Carolina, for LLW from that state, New Jeresy and Connecticut and another run by EnergySolutions at Clive, Utah, which accepts class A LLW (about 99% of all LLW) from all over USA.  Otherwise storage is at reactors.

Reprocessing used fuel  

Despite US policy forbidding reprocessing, new energy bills in 2005 explicitly revived the prospect. In particular the report accompanying the $31 billion energy and water funding bill approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee in June 2005 emphasised the need for new nuclear energy technologies. DOE's Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) would receive $85 million to develop fuel cycle technologies for Generation IV reactors including reprocessing and using fast neutron reactors to destroy long-lived components of wastes.

Apart from military experience with metal fuel, the USA has some experience with reprocessing oxide fuels - the small West Valley NY plant operated 1966-72, and a 1500 t/yr plant at Barnwell SC was built but not commissioned due to changed government policy. It is now demolished.

The House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy, considering its version of the energy and water funding bill in 2005, looked closely at reprocessing options, with the emphasis on proliferation resistance. A major driver however is reduction in the volume of high-level wastes, possibly obviating the need for a stage 2 of the Yucca Mountain repository. The report here requires the DOE to develop an integrated used fuel recycling plan by 2007 and select a reprocessing technology soon after.

Part of the Senate's AFCI allocation was earmarked to study "deep burn-up of nuclear fuel" and related research. This is a General Atomics concept which involves incorporating separated actinides from reprocessing into refractory fuel particles which can be used in high-temperature reactors. (Fuel for these reactors is in the form of TRISO particles less than a millimetre in diameter. Each has a kernel of uranium oxycarbide, with the uranium enriched up to 14% U-235. This is surrounded by layers of carbon and silicon carbide, giving a containment for fission products which is stable to 1600¡C or more.) The long-lived actinides incorporated into such fuel would be turned into short-lived fission products. It is claimed that 95% of the plutonium-239 and 60% of the other actinides would be destroyed.

Under AFCI the Argonne National Laboratory is planning an engineering-scale demonstration of the UREX+ process for reprocessing used fuel. Several variations of this have been developed by DOE, but the idea is that it will separate out uranium, transuranic elements (plutonium, neptunium, americium & curium together), and fission products. From the last, technetium, cesium and strontium may be further separated for transmutation. The transuranics will be burned in fast neutron reactors. It is estimated that using this process, the effective capacity of the Yucca Mountain repository could be increased fivefold and much better utilisation of uranium achieved. (see also Processing Used Nuclear Fuel for Recycle paper)

Congruent with this the US Nuclear Energy Institute has said that the US nuclear industry needs to plan for recycling used fuel. This is to reduce the long-lived radioactivity arising from it so that in a relatively short time high-level wastes become no more toxic than the original uranium ore. This means recycling and burning all the long-lived actinides, which is most efficiently done in fast neutron reactors such as four of the six generation-IV designs.

In November 2005 the American Nuclear Society also released a position statement saying that it "believes that the development and deployment of advanced nuclear reactors based on fast-neutron fission technology is important to the sustainability, reliability and security of the world's long-term energy supply." This will enable "extending by a hundred-fold the amount of energy extracted from the same amount of mined uranium". The statement envisages on-site reprocessing of used fuel from fast reactors and says that "virtually all long-lived heavy elements are eliminated during fast reactor operation, leaving a small amount of fission product waste which requires assured isolation from the environment for less than 500 years." The time frame for implementation is about two decades.

In mid 2006 a report by the Boston Consulting Group for Areva and based on proprietary Areva information showed that reprocessing used fuel in the USA for recycle, using the Coex aqueous process, would be economically competitive with direct disposal of used fuel. The cost increment relative to direct disposal is offset by the value of recycled fuel. The COEX process has been developed by Areva from that used today in the four operating reprocessing plants in France, UK, Russia and Japan. A $12 billion, 2500 t/yr plant was considered, with total capital expenditure of $16 billion for all related aspects. This would have the benefit of greatly reducing demand on space at the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, and would extend its life considerably.

Under GNEP, an engineering-scale demonstration (ESD) plant for reprocessing is planned for operation from 2011. The 10-25 t/yr ESD is designed to prepare the way for a 2000 t/yr full scale plant.

A possible site for an initial reprocessing plant is at Morris, Illinois, which is the only licensed away-from-reactor wet used fuel storage facility in USA. It is adjacent to the Dresden nuclear power plant and currently stores about 700 tonnes. It was the site of GE's Midwest Fuel Recovery Plant, a small reprocessing plant built in the early 1970s but declared inoperable in 1974.

Contents

Decommissioning reactors

Nearly 30 civil prototype and commercial reactors are being or have been decommissioned in the USA. A few have been totally dismantled so that the site is released for unrestricted use, notably Fort St Vrain, Big Rock Point and Shoreham. The majority are in various stages of dismantling or safestore.

The Nuclear Energy Institute reports (2006) that of the total $32 billion estimated to decommission all eligible nuclear plants at an average cost of $300 million, about two-thirds has already been funded. The remainder will be funded over the next 20 years (the average nuclear plant is licensed for 40 or 60 years).

See NRC Fact Sheet.

Contents

Government R&D

Research and Development on nuclear energy has taken place at a number of Department of Energy laboratories, not to mention universities.

In 2005 a number of nuclear energy research programs moved to the Idaho National Laboratory, (INL) formed from two existing entities on the same site - the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) and Argonne National laboratory West (ANL-W). Over 6000 employees work at the INL site.

INL will focus on advanced, next-generation nuclear power systems for both electricity and hydrogen production on a very large scale. It will lead US participation in the Generation IV International Program, and develop the US Next-Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) in connection with that. In 2005, $1.25 billion was authorised for the NGNP, capable of cogenerating hydrogen.

INL will also play a major role with the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management in developing procedures for high-level waste disposal at Yucca Mountain.

INEEL was established in 1949 as the National Reactor Testing Station and for many years had the largest concentration of nuclear reactors in the world - 52 different reactors were designed and tested there. ANL-W has been the testing site for research by the University of Chicago, and has worked closely with INEEL. It also is developing spacecraft power systems for NASA. All this work is under DOE auspices.

Several of the DOE laboratory sites have legacy wastes requiring clean-up, and programs are in place to achieve this. At INEEL a major clean-up is underway and should be largely completes by 2012.

Under its Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative the Department of Energy has selected two teams to investigate the economic feasibility of producing hydrogen using power from existing reactors. A following phase will involve demonstration. One team led by GE Global Research will look at the alkaline electrolysis technique and another team led by Electric Transport Applications will pursue electrolysis using proton exchange membranes, based on a pilot plant in Arizona which produces 212 m3 per day.

Related to this, the University of Texas has approved a scheme to build a $500 million high-temperature reactor at Andrews campus, based on General Atomics Modular Helium Reactor (MHR) and involving DOE's Sandia National Laboratory. A 2012 completion date is envisaged for the High Temperature Teaching and Test Reactor Energy Research Facility.

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) published an analysis of US government energy subsidies and R&D support in 2007, totaling $16.6 billion - double the 1999 level.  Of this, $6.75 billion was related to electricity production, and $6.0 billion of this was split between R&D and subsidies.  Apart from transmission and distribution ($875 million), the balance was $1.55 billion for R&D in anticipation of future benefits and $3.55 billion in subsidies for present production.  The $1.55 billion for R&D comprised $922 million for nuclear, $522 million for coal and $108 million for renewables - which currently supply 19.4%, 49% and 2.5% (apart from hydro) of US power respectively.  Nuclear R&D comprised $319 million for new nuclear plant design and proliferation-resistant fuel cycle, $350 million for clean-up of nuclear energy and research sites and $253 million for Idaho facilities and related management.  Two thirds of coal R&D was for "clean coal" programs.
The $3.55 billion for subsidies was by way of tax credits, with the lion's share going to coal-based synthetic fuel which achieves some emission reduction.  Nuclear got $199 million and renewables $724 million (0.025 cents/kWh and 0.71 c/kWh respectively).  The nuclear subsidy was entirely due to a change in tax rules related to decommissioning, under the 2005 Energy Policy Act.  The renewables subsidy was mainly for wind, at 2.3 cents/kWh.

Contents

 

Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) 

In 2004 the DOE sought a partner to develop the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP), a Generation-IV high-temperature gas-cooled reactor, as its leading concept for developing advanced power systems both for electricity and hydrogen production on a very large scale. A $2 billion pilot plant demonstrating technical feasibility is envisaged by 2021 at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) but with international collaboration.

If successful, the NGNP "will be smaller, safer, more flexible and more cost-effective than any commercial nuclear plant in history. The NGNP will secure a major role for nuclear energy for the long-term future and also provide the US with a practical path toward replacing imported oil with domestically produced, clean, and economic hydrogen." The DOE goals for a commercial NGNP are: electricity at less than 1.5 c/kwh, hydrogen at less than 40 c/litre gasoline equivalent, overnight capital cost less than $1000/kw dropping to half that.

Three companies were awarded $8 million in contracts for preconceptual NGNP design: General Atomics, Areva, and Westinghouse/PBMR. In July 2007 DOE announced that it was seeking to move to the next stage of defining safety and functional requirements, cost estimates and schedules.

The NGNP licensing plan was submitted to Congress by the DoE and the NRC in August 2008.  It features a high temperature gas-cooled reactor configured to provide heat up to 950°C for a range of industrial uses particularly hydrogen production, or electricity generation.  It would be built at Idaho National Laboratory from 2017 and could operate in 2021.  Some regulatory changes would be needed to cope with the innovative design, along with different procedures for used fuel.  NRC expects to take five years to organize for the NGNP, allowing licence application in 2013.

Three reactor designs fit the NGNP specification: General Atomics' GT-MHR, Areva's similar Antares design, and the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR), backed by Westinghouse and  South Africa's PBMR Ltd,

Contents

 

Public opinion

Public opinion has generally been fairly positive, and has grown more so as people have had to think about security of energy supplies. A May 2005 poll showed continuing increase in public opinion favourable to nuclear power in the USA. Some 70% favoured continued use of nuclear energy, 58% said that new nuclear plants should definitely be built, and 74% wanted the option to build new plants to be kept open. More than three times as many strongly supported nuclear energy than strongly opposed it. Two thirds of self-described environmentalists favour it.

In March 2006 a national survey revealed that 68% of people favoured the use of nuclear energy, while 86% believed nuclear would be important to meeting electricity needs in the years ahead. Some 73% would find a new reactor at the nearest nuclear power plant acceptable.

In mid 2007 a survey of 1150 people living within 16 km of nuclear power plants in the USA, but without any personal involvement with them,  showed very strong support for new nuclear plants.  Over 90% thought nuclear energy was important for future supply, 82% favoured it now, 77% said that new plants should definitely be built and 71% said they would accept a new plant near them.  There was an overwhelmingly favourable view of local nuclear plants, notably their safety.  On nuclear waste, 71% said it was safe being stored at the plant and 78% said the federal government should get on with developing the Yucca Mountain repository.  Regarding reliable sources of information about nuclear energy, various nuclear plant sources were rated 68-74% compared with environmental groups 45% and anti-nuclear groups 22%.  The researcher concluded that "Nimby (not in my back yard) does not apply at existing plant sites because close neighbours have a positive view of nuclear energy, are familiar with the plant, and believe that the plant benefits the community."  

An August 2007 poll of 1000 people across the country showed opposition to any kind of new thermal power plant to be located in the local community: 65% against nuclear and 58% against fossil fuel plants.  However 76% would support new wind turbines.

An April 2008 survey (N=1000) found that overall 82% said nuclear power will be important in meeting the nation's electricity needs in the years ahead.  In a change since October 2007, most now put economic growth ahead of climate change and energy security as a prime concern, with air pollution trailing in a list of four. Public support for building new nuclear power plants strengthened three points to 78% since October.

The survey also showed clear public support for government incentives to reduce CO2 emissions - 79% approve of providing tax credits "as an incentive to companies to build solar, wind and advanced-design nuclear power plants," and 37% strongly approve.  Only 20% do not approve. When asked about providing federal loan guarantees to companies that build solar, wind, advanced-design nuclear power plants "or other energy technology that reduces greenhouse gases, to jump-start investment in these critical energy facilities" 77% approved.

A May 2008 survey (N=2925) by Zogby showed 67% of Americans favoured building new nuclear power plants, with 46% registering strong support; 23% were opposed.  Asked which kind of power plant they would prefer if it were sited in their community, 43% said nuclear, 26% gas, 8% coal.  Men (60%) were more than twice as likely as women (28%) to be supportive of a nuclear power plant.

A September 2008 Bisconti survey (N=1000) showed 74% in favour of nuclear energy, with four times as many strongly favouring as strongly opposing.  69% favoured definitely building new nuclear plants in the future and 75% thought that building new nuclear capacity at nuclear sites closest to where they live was acceptable.  72% gave nuclear plants a high safety rating, up from 54% a year earlier and 74% perceived nuclear as "clean air energy".  On used fuel management, three quarters supported development of the Yucca Mountain repository and even more supported recycling.

Contents

Non-proliferation

The USA is a nuclear weapons state, party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which it ratified in 1970 and under which a safeguards agreement has been in force since 1980.  The Additional Protocol in relation to this was signed in 1998 and ratified in 2004, though arrangements to bring it into force were not completed until the end of 2008.  While in weapons states the Additional Protocol is largely symbolic, the State Department noted that US ratification "gives us a stronger foundation from which to encourage other states to adopt the Protocol."  IAEA safeguards are applied on all civil nuclear activities.  (The USA undertook nuclear weapons tests from 1945 to 1992.)

Contents

 

Appendix 1. Power Plant Purchases

First, in mid 1999, the 670 MWe Pilgrim plant was sold to Entergy, by Boston Edison, for $14 million plus $67 million for fuel.

Then AmerGen, the joint venture of British Energy and PECO Energy (now Exelon), completed its purchase of the 930 MWe Clinton nuclear plant and the 790 MWe Three Mile Island plant in 1999. However, its plan to acquire control of the two-unit Nine Mile Point nuclear power station (614 & 1140 MWe) was derailed by a minor shareholder exercising its veto. Constellation later bid successfully for the units.

In 1999 AmerGen won the "Boldest Successful Investment Decision" award from the Financial Times in New York. AmerGen was cited as "a huge success ... with expected strong financial returns" and "a bold investment which has created new confidence in the US nuclear industry".

In March 2000, Entergy Corporation reached agreement to buy the New York Power Authority's Indian Point-3 (965 MWe) and Fitzpatrick (778 MWe) nuclear power plants for US$ 967 million, topping a bid by Dominion Resources. The complexity of the transaction is indicated by the sum including $636 million for the two mid 1970s units, nearly $171 million for the fuel, $92 million to reduce NYPA's decommissioning obligation, and other amounts related to power purchase. There are also provisions for further payments if licences for the 25 year old plants are extended. NYPA will retain the $630 million decommissioning funds and pay them when required, while Entergy will accept the $250 million risk of any adverse tax ruling on these. Up to 500 MWe of the combined output will be available to NYPA at 2.9 cents/kWh, the remainder at 3.2 or 3.6 cents/kWh. The sale closed in November 2000.

In November 2000 Entergy became the successful bidder for ConEd's 939 MWe Indian Point-2 unit (including the shut down unit 1 and 76 MWe of gas turbine capacity). The price was $502 million plus about $100 million for fuel. ConEd will purchase the output at an average of 3.9 cents/kWh.

The price per kilowatt is very much higher than earlier nuclear plant transactions. Entergy already operated six nuclear plants, total 5654 MWe, whose three-year capacity factor exceeds 90%, underlining NYPA's assessment of Entergy as "one of the nation's premier nuclear operators". Entergy had earlier announced plans to spend US$ 1.7 billion over the next five years to buy five to eight more nuclear plants, mostly in the Northeast and Midwest, as nuclear energy becomes central to its growth strategy, expressing its "commitment to environmental leadership".

In June 2000 AmerGen received approval to purchase the elderly 650 MWe Oyster Creek plant for US$ 10 million, and the 522 MWe Vermont Yankee plant for $61 million. However, the latter deal was vetoed by state reg