|
Server : Apache/2.4.62 System : FreeBSD fbsdweb2.web.rcn.net 14.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 14.1-RELEASE releng/14.1-n267679-10e31f0946d8 GENERIC amd64 User : www ( 80) PHP Version : 8.3.8 Disable Function : NONE Directory : /domains/enrgy/articles/ |
Upload File : |
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<title>The Upcoming Renaissance of Nuclear Power </title>
<style>
<!--
span.MsoEndnoteReference
{vertical-align:super}
li.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
margin-left:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-top:0in}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body style="font-family: Arial" vlink="#808080">
<div align="center"><center>
<table border="0" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" width="98%" bgcolor="#000000">
<tr>
<td width="100%" valign="middle"><a name="top"></a>
<img src="../images/pmamagsm.gif" alt="PMA Online Magazine" border="0" align="right" width="229" height="100"></td>
</tr>
</table>
</center></div><div align="center"><center>
<table border="0" cellpadding="8" width="98%">
<tr>
<td width="25%" valign="top" align="center"><map name="FPMap0">
<area href="http://www.powermarketers.com/adrates.html" shape="rect" coords="14, 297, 97, 322">
<area href="http://www.powermarketers.com/pmajobs.htm" shape="rect" coords="11, 230, 95, 257">
<area href="http://www.powermarketers.com/main.htm" target="_parent" shape="rect" coords="12, 163, 96, 189">
<area href="http://www.powermarketers.com/power2.htm" target="_blank" shape="rect" coords="12, 95, 96, 121">
<area href="../pmamag.htm" shape="rect" coords="11, 29, 96, 54"></map>
<img rectangle="(12,163) (96,189) http://www.powermarketers.com/main.htm##_parent" rectangle="(12,95) (96,121) http://www.powermarketers.com/power2.htm##_blank" rectangle="(11,29) (96,54) ../pmamag.htm" src="../images/magmenu.gif" alt="PMA OnLine Magazine Menu" border="0" align="center" usemap="#FPMap0" width="110" height="350"><p><a href="../searchpma.htm">
<img src="../images/archives.gif" alt="Archives Search" border="0" align="center" width="70" height="40"></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="#top">
<img src="../images/b-t-top.gif" alt="Back To Top" border="0" width="71" height="35"></a><p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p><a href="#top">
<img src="../images/b-t-top.gif" alt="Back To Top" border="0" width="71" height="35"></a><p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> <p> </td>
<td width="75%" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center">
<span style="text-transform: uppercase"><font size="6"><b><br>
The Upcoming Renaissance <br>
of nuclear power</b></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial">
<strong style="font-weight: 400">By<b> </b></strong><a href="#sillin">John O. Sillin</a></font><span style="color: black"><font size="2"><br>
</font></span><font size="2">(<em>originally published by PMA OnLine Magazine:
04/02</em>)</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">Is nuclear power on the verge
of a full-fledged renaissance? Thought impossible only a few years ago by
most energy industry managers, regulators, and public policymakers,
commercial nuclear energy had been written off as hopelessly uneconomic,
too technically complex to operate efficiently, and financially risky. But
without much publicity, nuclear power has been resurrected from the
cemetery of dead and dying industries, and it has helped prevent a
complete financial collapse of the electric power industry.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">For example, U.S. nuclear
power plant energy production reached an all-time high for the fifth year
in a row in 2002 <i>(</i>see</span><span style="font-family:Arial;"> <b>Figure 1</b></span><span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">)<sup><a href="#1" name="ret1">1</a></sup>.
Also, nuclear power plant production rates (capacity factors) reached an
all-time high in 2002. This rate now exceeds 90 percent, significantly
higher than any other type of power plant in operation. The high capacity
factor for nuclear plants is a reflection of nuclear power�s low operating
costs, and the ability of power plant managers to operate these plants
efficiently and safely. Second, nuclear power plants have become
economically attractive assets. Significant nuclear consolidation has
occurred through the formation of nuclear generating companies and nuclear
operating companies <i>(</i></span><span style="font-family:Arial;">see <b>
A Reference: Recent Nuclear Consolidations</b> graphic</span><span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">).</span></p>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="894" id="table1">
<tr>
<td width="446">
<p align="center"><br>
<img border="0" src="../images/nuc_ren1.gif" width="296" height="208"><br>
</td>
<td width="446">
<p align="center"><br>
<img border="0" src="../images/nuc_ren2.gif" width="296" height="197"><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="892" colspan="2">
<p align="center"><br>
<img border="0" src="../images/nuc_ren3.gif" width="361" height="309"></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">Also, several operating
companies have been formed to manage nuclear reactor fleets. They include
Southern Nuclear Operating Co. (six reactors at three sites owned by
Southern Co. affiliates), and Nuclear Management Co. (nine reactors at six
sites owned by five different utilities).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">As nuclear ownership
consolidation and asset transfers have occurred, the value of the
transactions has increased. The earliest nuclear power plant asset
transfers occurred at a price of as little as $20 to $30 per kilowatt. The
latest transfers (for which information is available) indicate acquisition
prices of as much as $660 per kilowatt. Also, the earliest asset transfers
involved a single buyer. The most recent nuclear power plant sales
involved competitive bids. The obvious trend is that nuclear assets are
appreciating in value, and the financial, technical, and regulatory risks
associated with ownership are declining�the opposite of almost all other
generation forms.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><b>
<span style="font-family:Arial">The Near-Term Outlook</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family: Arial; color: black">The outlook for nuclear
power is upbeat, showing every sign of improvement. First, the nuclear
industry is gaining regulatory approval for extending the operating
licenses of existing reactors. Originally these reactors were licensed to
operate for 40 years, but after extensive safety analysis, testing, and
structural analysis, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is, on a
case-by-case basis, allowing the plants to operate for another 20 years.
To date, 10 reactors have received 20-year operating license extensions.
Also, 20 reactors have filed for the same operating license extensions,
and another 20 reactors are expected to file for operating license
extensions during the next six years. A growing consensus is that the
entire fleet of existing reactors will be relicensed</span><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; font-family: AGaramond-Regular; color: black">.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">Contrast this with the
situation 10 years ago, when the first plant to proceed with relicensing,
Yankee Rowe, was closed along with several other plants in the United
States. The consensus was that the existing fleet of nuclear reactors
would not operate their allowed 40 years, and by 2020, nuclear power would
be no more than a failed industrial artifact.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">Now, not only are nuclear
plants operating lives being extended, their capacity ratings are being
increased. Sophisticated analyses by plant owners and the NRC have
demonstrated that large safety margins were incorporated into plant
designs. Combined with improved instrumentation, new fuel designs, and
other plant improvements, the NRC is allowing some nuclear plants to
operate at higher power levels than those at which they were originally
licensed.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">Currently there are nearly
98,000 MW of nuclear generating capacity operating in the United States.
Former NRC Chairman Richard A. Meserve, in recent remarks to the American
Nuclear Society, said that during the last 30 years the NRC has approved
80 up-rates that added nearly 4,000 MW of generating capacity. Prospective
power up-rates, when combined, may result in the effective addition of
seven new nuclear power plants, amounting to nearly 7,000 MW. A recently
completed analysis done for the Energy Information Administration (EIA)
documented 1,060 MW of power up-rate applications before the NRC and 5,730
MW of additional up-rates likely to be submitted within the next seven
years.<sup><a href="#2" name="ret2">2</a></sup> The National Energy Policy prepared
under the direction of Vice President Dick Cheney estimates the nuclear
up-rate potential at 12,000 MW.<sup><a href="#3" name="ret3">3</a></sup></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">In addition, nuclear reactors
with operations or construction that were terminated are now being
investigated to determine whether they should be repaired, completed, and
restarted. The Tennessee Valley Authority, for example, is analyzing the
benefits and costs of repairing and restarting Browns Ferry 1. Other
partially constructed power plants that may be evaluated to determine
whether it is technically practical and cost-effective to complete them
include Watts Bar 2 in Tennessee, Atlantic Energy (Seabrook) 2 in New
Hampshire, and Washington Public Power System 1.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">Preliminary steps have been
taken that may result in the construction of new nuclear reactors. The NRC
has certified several new nuclear reactor designs, obviating the need for
review of any technical issues about those designs that were resolved
during the certification process. The NRC has certified three designs:
General Electric�s Advanced Boiling Water Reactor, Combustion
Engineering�s System 80+, and the Westinghouse AP600. A fourth design,
Westinghouse�s AP100, is currently being reviewed, and the NRC is engaged
in pre-certification discussions with vendors representing five other
designs, including gas reactor designs.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">The NRC also is proceeding
with early site permitting, or advanced approval of a potential site for a
nuclear power plant, which may then be banked for future use. Issues
resolved in the early site permit review are not reviewed again in the
combined license process. The combined license process folds into one
proceeding two separate reviews�construction permit and operating
license�required of currently operating plants. Once the license is issued
the plant may be constructed and proceed to operation after the NRC
determines the as-built plant conforms to the approved license. These
changes have reduced uncertainty and will result in regulatory decisions
as early in the process as practical.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><b>
<span style="font-family:Arial">The Longer Term Outlook � Environmental
Benefits</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">One of nuclear energy�s
primary environmental (and economic) advantages is its energy density. The
heat value of uranium used in a light water reactor is 500,000 megajoules
per kilogram. For high-Btu content coal, the value is 30 megajoules per
kilogram. Residual oil is about 50 megajoules per kilogram; natural gas
comes in at 40 megajoules. For wood (biomass), the heat content is on
average 16 megajoules per kilogram.<sup><a href="#4" name="ret4">4</a></sup></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">The extraordinary heat content
of uranium translates into significant environmental and economic
benefits. For example, a 1,000-MW power station will consume more than 3
million tons of coal each year. If it is a nuclear power plant, the
physical resource requirements are 24 tons of UO2 enriched to about 4
percent U235. This in turn requires 200 tons of natural uranium processed
from 25,000 to 100,000 tons of uranium ore.<sup><a href="#5" name="ret5">5</a></sup>
even at the high end of 100,000 tons, this translates into a resource
extraction ratio of 30 to 1 in favor of uranium. Similar statistical
ratios can be generated comparing uranium with oil, natural gas, and
biomass</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">In truth, the ratio is much
higher in uranium�s favor. Much uranium and nuclear fuel comes from
secondary sources, including other mineral mining operations and material
from dismantled Russian nuclear warheads. Also, most of the uranium ore
mined today comes from rich mines in Canada and Australia. Uranium is a
relatively abundant element, with only one commercially practical
application: generating electric power. Fossil fuels, possibly excepting
coal, can have multiple applications that in part explain their higher
price on a Btu basis, i.e., they have a larger potential market.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">Fuel density also results in a
smaller footprint for nuclear power plants and supporting facilities.
Nuclear power plant sites can be more compact than similar-sized fossil
stations. Also the transportation and supporting facilities to supply fuel
are much smaller for nuclear power plants; large connecting rail, barge,
and pipeline facilities are not necessary, and neither are fuel storage
yards or tanks. The reduced need for supporting facilities also increases
the flexibility to site nuclear power plants, including at more isolated
and secure locations. By contrast, renewable energy facilities such as
windmills and solar power plants require enormous chunks of real estate�an
inevitable result of their being extremely energy diffuse.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">While much is made of nuclear
waste, it is small and manageable compared to other fuel forms. The 24
tons of UO2 after it is irradiated is extracted and stored, and ultimately
will be encased in a repository. If processed, the amount of material that
would go to the repository would be less than 700 kilograms, a small
fraction. A coal-fired power plant would produce about 7 million tons of
CO2 each year, as much as 200,000 tons of SO2 and other emissions such as
NOx, and mercury.<sup><a href="#6" name="ret6">6</a></sup> While oil- and natural
gas-fired power plants produce less emissions than coal plants, they are
nevertheless significant.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">Air emissions bring up the
subject of global warming. Nuclear power plants are emission free. In 2001
nuclear power plants were the source of more than 76 percent of all
emission-free generation in the United States. Hydro accounted for 21.6
percent. Combined geothermal, solar, and wind accounted for 2 percent of
emission-free generation.<sup><a href="#7" name="ret7">7</a></sup> Currently, U.S.
nuclear power plants annually avoid the release of 5.1 million tons of
SO2, 2.4 million tons of NOx, and 164 million tons of carbon to the
atmosphere. From 1973 to 2000, emissions avoided by nuclear energy totaled
66 million tons of SO2, 34 million tons of NOx, and 3 billion tons of
carbon.<sup><a href="#8" name="ret8">8</a></sup> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">While all of the above is
generally well known, only now is it beginning to affect power plant
investment decisions. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has only recently reversed its position on New Source Review.
But this decision holds little comfort for investors; if the EPA can
reverse itself once on this subject, then at some future date it may
reverse itself again.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">Another uncertainty is whether
older and new coal-fired power plants can stay within the emission caps
established in the 1992 Clean Air Act. Absolute limits were placed on SO2
and NOx emissions, but as electricity demand and production grow, there
will come a point where production from fossil power plants can�t be
increased without exceeding mandated caps. Also, several Northeast states
are suing large coal burning utilities in the Southeast and Midwest on the
grounds that they are the cause of acid rain, haze, and other degradations
in air quality.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">Irrespective of whether the
cases have merit, these and other events (including the controversy
surrounding the United States� refusal to adopt the Kyoto Protocol on
global warming) have introduced significant uncertainty into fossil-fueled
power plant investments, particularly coal. The result: Very few large
coal-fired power plants are either under construction or planned. There is
growing concern that new plants will not be allowed to operate at anything
close to capacity for their planned operating life.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><b>
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">Relative Economic Profile of
Nuclear Energy</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">Generating plant economics are
also trending in nuclear energy�s favor. Nuclear power plants at present
have significantly lower operating costs than coal, natural gas, or oil
plants. Nuclear power plant production costs have declined from a peak of
3.4 cents per kilowatt-hour in 1987 to 1.76 cents in 2000. This compares
with 1.79 cents per kilowatt-hour for coal-fired power plants, 5.28 cents
per kilowatt-hour for oil-fired capacity, and 5.69 cents for natural
gas-fired capacity.<sup><a href="#9" name="ret9">9</a></sup></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">Nuclear power plant capacity
factors continued to increase in 2001 and 2002�a strong indicator that
production cost declined further. Future power up-rates are likely to
further reduce nuclear per-unit production costs as increased output is
realized from existing facilities. Stable or declining operating costs are
assuredly not the case for coal, natural gas, and oil-fired power plants.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">For coal power plants,
operating costs are subject to increases as complying with current
emission limits becomes more expensive. In addition, regulatory ratcheting
on air emissions may continue. For example, the EPA just recently released
a report warning that emissions of mercury by coal-fired power plants (and
other industrial sources) pose an increasing health danger to young
children. Also, on Feb. 20, 2003, six Northeast states and the state of
Washington announced plans to sue the federal government to force the
regulation of CO2 from power plants. The states claim that the EPA hasn�t
updated an analysis of air pollutants from power plants in at least 20
years. What is clear is that the consequences of legislative or regulatory
actions will be to further increase coal power plant operating costs.<sup><a href="#10" name="ret10">10</a></sup></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">Also, oil and natural gas
prices have increased significantly in each of the past two years. Average
natural gas prices to utilities increased from under $2/Mcf in 1995 to
more than $4 in 2000. Prices rose to nearly $4.50 in 2001. At the end of
2002 natural gas prices to utilities were at $4.60/Mcf and in January of
this year rose to more than $5/Mcf. The EIA in its short-term projections
shows continued high prices for natural gas. There are also predictions by
industry that high natural gas prices are here to stay. Reasons for this
include refilling storage sites from their abnormally low levels and low
domestic production. Large industrial consumers have found it difficult to
switch to less expensive alternatives, due in part to the worker strike in
Venezuela and the unstable conditions in the Middle East.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><b>
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">The Longer Term Outlook�Need
for Power</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">Electricity demand has and
will continue to increase as the national economy expands. The strong
relation between economic and electricity demand has moderated in recent
years but has nevertheless continued. Also, while modernization will no
doubt bring about increases in energy usage efficiency, it will also
continue the longer-term trend toward electrification, particularly of
stationary applications.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">The National Energy Policy,
published in May 2001, and prepared by the National Energy Policy
Development Group stated at the outset in its section on electricity:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none; margin-left: .5in">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">�Electricity demand is
projected to grow sharply over the next twenty years. Based on current
estimates, the United States will need about 393,000 MW of new generating
capacity by 2020 to meet the growing demand. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none; margin-left: .5in">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">If the U.S. electricity demand
continues to grow at the high rate it has recently, we will need even more
generating capacity. To meet that future demand, the United States will
have to build between 1,300 and 1,900 new power plants; that averages to
more than 60 to 90 plants a year, or more than one a week.�</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">Furthermore, the EIA projects
in its <i>Annual Energy Outlook 2002 </i>that by 2020 electricity
consumption will increase by over 40 percent, increasing at a rate of 1.8
percent per year. This growth will result in the need for 355,000 MW of
new generating capacity. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">The electric industry also is
projecting significant electric demand growth and need for new capacity.
In its <i>Reliability Assessment 2002-2011</i>, the North American
Electric Reliability Council (NERC) projects significant new generating
capacity requirements. NERC electricity demand projection over the next 10
years is an annual average increase of 2 percent.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial">NERC and the EIA in their most recent <i>
Annual Energy Outlook </i>project that upward of 75 percent of all new
electric <span style="color:black">generating capacity will be natural
gas-fired. With natural gas futures hovering at $6/Mcf, with the
possibility of climbing further, the veracity of projections of large
numbers of natural gas power plants must be questioned. These projections
of natural gas capacity additions simply reflect today�s conventional
wisdom. And today�s conventional wisdom is of no value when natural gas
prices per million Btu have nearly tripled in the last five years, and
have at least briefly approached double-digit levels.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><b>
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">The Path Forward</span></b><span style="font-family:Arial;color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">Relicensing of the existing
plants and the up-rating of additional plants will continue commercial
nuclear power�s renaissance. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), in its <i>
Vision 2020 </i>publication, expects the industry to add 10,000 MW of
capacity through increased efficiency and improved performance of the
existing 103 reactors. But NEI also states that a cornerstone of the
nuclear industry�s vision is to add 50,000 MW of new generating capacity
by 2020.<sup><a href="#11" name="ret11">11</a></sup></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">Complementing the industry
vision is the DOE�s Nuclear Power 2010 initiative to bring a new U.S.
nuclear power plant online by the end of the decade.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">The DOE is providing modest
financial support to Exelon Nuclear, Entergy Nuclear, and Dominion
Resources in the preparation and submittal of early site permit
applications to the NRC. These applications will focus on sites that host
operating nuclear power plants, but which were originally licensed or
designed to host additional reactors. The department also has funded
�scoping� studies analyzing both private and federal sites as potential
locations of new nuclear plants. Identifying and obtaining NRC permits for
acceptable sites will answer the question of where to build the first new
nuclear plants and remove a major hurdle to building new nuclear plants.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">DOE also will offer to share
the cost of demonstrating the new regulatory process that enables
utilities to obtain combined construction-operating licenses. DOE states
that providing a one-step licensing process will remove a major risk in
investing in new nuclear plants. Other initiatives undertaken by the
department and Congress to support the renaissance of nuclear power are:</span></p>
<ul style="margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color: black; text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:
Arial">The affirmation of Yucca Mountain as the site of a permanent spent
nuclear fuel repository. This will allow nuclear plant owners to move
spent nuclear fuel from the more than 70 nuclear plant sites with
temporary storage facilities to a single site that is a permanent
storage facility.<br>
</span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color: black; text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:
Arial">Reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act, which limits the
liability of nuclear plant owners in a catastrophic nuclear event. While
the conditions of such an event occurring has not been formulated and
presented, its existence is a precondition for investment in new nuclear
power plants.</span></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">In addition to federal
government support for nuclear energy, there appears to be at least
lukewarm public support for the construction of new nuclear power plants.
According to NEI�s <i>Vision 202</i>0, two-thirds of those surveyed
support the continued and increased use of nuclear energy, with 27 percent
of those surveyed opposed. Also, the president, vice president, secretary
of energy and other members of the administration have issued strong
statements in support of nuclear energy, most prominently in the
president�s national energy policy.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">What is holding up new plant
construction? Except for timing new investments to coincide with the ups
and downs of the business cycle, there is nothing stopping a decision to
build new nuclear plants but the reticence of nuclear plant
owner-management, their boards of directors, and Wall Street. This
reticence is difficult to comprehend given the large financial returns
being earned on existing nuclear assets, and the billions of dollars that
have been lost on other ill-considered energy ventures.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family:Arial;color:black">Energy company managers and
their Wall Street advisors have been pursuing investment strategies that
couldn�t have had a higher risk profile, while they have all but ignored
new nuclear plants.</span></p>
<hr>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none"><i>
<span style="font-family: Arial; color: black"><a name="sillin"></a>John
Sillin is a director of Sillin & Associates and administrative officer for
Energy Strategists Consultancy Limited. He can be reached at
<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>.</span></i></p>
<hr>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: 700">Endnotes</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family: Arial; color: black"><a name="1">1</a>. U.S.
Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration Web site,
<a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov">http://www.eia.doe.gov</a>.
<font size="1"><a href="#ret1">(return)</a></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family: Arial; color: black"><a name="2">2</a>. U.S.
Commercial Nuclear Power Industry Assessment for Department of Energy,
Energy Information Administration, October 2001, Edward M. Quinn, MDM
Services Corp. <font size="1"><a href="#ret2">(return)</a></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family: Arial; color: black"><a name="3">3</a>. </span>
<i><span style="font-family: Arial; color: black">Reliable, Affordable,
and Environmentally Sound Energy for America�s Futur</span></i><span style="font-family: Arial; color: black">e;
Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group; May 17, 2001.
<font size="1"><a href="#ret3">(return)</a></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family: Arial; color: black"><a name="4">4</a>. World
Nuclear Association, <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov">
http://www.world-nuclear.org</a>. <font size="1"><a href="#ret4">(return)</a></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family: Arial; color: black"><a name="5">5</a>. Ibid.
<font size="1"><a href="#ret5">(return)</a></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family: Arial; color: black"><a name="6">6</a>. Ibid.
<font size="1"><a href="#ret6">(return)</a></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family: Arial; color: black"><a name="7">7</a>. Nuclear
Energy Institute, <a href="http://www.nei.org">http://www.nei.org</a>.
<font size="1"><a href="#ret7">(return)</a></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family: Arial; color: black"><a name="8">8</a>. Ibid.
<font size="1"><a href="#ret8">(return)</a></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family: Arial; color: black"><a name="9">9</a>. Ibid.
<font size="1"><a href="#ret9">(return)</a></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family: Arial; color: black"><a name="10">10</a>. </span>
<i><span style="font-family: Arial; color: black">The Wall Street Journa</span></i><span style="font-family: Arial; color: black">l;
May 16, 2003. <font size="1"><a href="#ret10">(return)</a></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none">
<span style="font-family: Arial; color: black"><a name="11">11</a>. </span>
<i><span style="font-family: Arial; color: black">Vision 202</span></i><span style="font-family: Arial; color: black">0,
</span><i><span style="font-family: Arial; color: black">Nuclear Energy
and the Nation�s Future Prosperit</span></i><span style="font-family: Arial; color: black">y;
Nuclear Energy Institute. <font size="1"><a href="#ret11">(return)</a></font></span></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font></td>
</tr>
</table>
</center></div>
<p align="center"><a href="#top">
<img src="../images/b-t-top.gif" alt="Back To Top" border="0" width="71" height="35"></a></p>
</body>
</html>