Keep America Powerful (Alan Waltar, Wanda Munn, Kenneth Kok, John Shanahan) USofA

KEEP AMERICA POWERFUL A message to the President about the importance of retaining and advancing nuclear power in America November 18, 2017

INTRODUCTION: Although not widely acknowledged, nuclear power is an essential ingredient in producing abundant, reliable, and low cost electricity vitally needed in America. Yet its very survival, let alone the advancements that offer such future promise, are severely threatened by key factors that require immediate attention. We must 1) remove the unjustified fear of low-level radiation, 2) keep the current fleet of nuclear power reactors on line, and 3) restructure the regulatory process to license new reactors on a timely and economically sound basis.

SURVIVE FACT: ENERGY is the key prerequisite to all life  

Requirement for food, clothing, shelter Most basic resources are finite

PROSPER FACT: SURPLUS ENERGY is a prerequisite to growth   

Accessible, economic energy makes expansion possible Assured, affordable, electrical availability is an absolute Only carbon-based fuels and nuclear power can provide the reliable density level for industrial energy requirements

EXCEL FACT: GLOBAL LEADERSHIP derives from a thriving economy, expanding technology, and well supported science inquiry  

U.S. global leadership in nuclear power is declining and being lost Major geopolitical challengers are accelerating their programs

1

PROBLEM: U. S. Energy leadership is shackled by  

Unrealistic standards and regulations Unrealistic fear in public and governing bodies

SOLUTION:   

Create an independent commission to bring reality to energy risk and regulations Assist DOE Secretary Perry in changes to FERC that support base-load power plants Restructure federal regulators to expedite licensing of new reactors, and permit new designs to be built, tested, and then licensed

BACKGROUND FOR THE PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE Why Electricity Matters So Much Electricity that is affordable, reliable, and sustainable for the long run is absolutely essential for modern, prosperous life. It is a fundamental ingredient in medicine, education, research, agriculture, industry, transportation, and every aspect of what provides a high quality of life. It is likely the most important factor in closing the gap between the haves and have-nots of our globe—thereby arguably being the primary ingredient in thwarting the rise of terrorism. Unfortunately, the magical thinking so frequent in popular attitudes promotes the idea that the improperly christened ‘alternative energy’ sources can replace current electricity suppliers. Although all forms of energy have a beneficial use and can be utilized where appropriate, in point of fact only carbonaceous fuels and nuclear power possess the energy density and control capability to supply industrial quantities of electricity.

Nuclear Power is a Proven Leading Supplier Nuclear power now supplies approximately 20% of the electricity in the US and about 7% of global production.

Its safety record is significantly better than all other known ways to generate electricity. No human life has been lost due to radiation exposure in the commercial nuclear power industry outside of Chernobyl (and even there, less than 50 deaths). Despite emotional behavior to the contrary, management of waste materials is fully achievable technically; only political will and social objectors successfully prevent that desirable finale.

2

The reliability factor in the U.S. exceeds all other sources – over 90% Sustainability: There is sufficient nuclear fuel available in the US to last for several millennia.

Environmental Compatibility: Essentially zero nitrogen, sulfur, or carbon oxides released to the atmosphere.

The cost of nuclear power generation is the lowest among base-load sources.

U.S. is Losing Global Leadership in Nuclear Power Production China currently has 37 nuclear power reactors in operation and about 20 more under construction.

China plans to increase its percentage of electrical production from nuclear power to 10% in 2030 and then to about 15% by 2050. It is worth noting that China now has more installed electrical capacity than another country in the world. Russia is building one new nuclear power reactor every year and plans to increase its percentage of electricity to 45-50% by 2050 and up to 70-80% by the end of the century. Russia is today the unquestioned leader in fast reactor technology. With the current anemic nuclear power program in the U.S., we may not warrant a significant place at the table when key international nuclear issues are debated. Further, the U.S. could well be in the untenable position of having to purchase new nuclear power reactors from suppliers abroad.

Reclaiming Our Former Role The irrational fear of radiation in most of the public and their policy-makers, even regarding the most laudable of power plants, has many origins. The prevalence of that fear in the face of massive documentation to the contrary has cost the U.S. incalculable influence on the world stage. Despite all truthful reassurances that nuclear power plants will not and cannot ‘explode’, the mushroom cloud imagery from the world’s introduction to nuclear technology often seems to override reality in favor of emotion, even in these cases of national interest.

There have been few nuclear accidents since the peaceful use of nuclear technology became a daily reality in the 1950’s. The most prominent are Three Mile Island in the U.S., Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union, and Fukushima in Japan. In the aftermath of Chernobyl thousands of abortions were performed, especially in Europe. In Japan years afterward, some 16,000 citizens were evacuated from their homes for several years due to the fear of radiation—yet there were ZERO deaths in civilian populations from that low potential exposure. All the nuclear plants in Japan were ordered to be shut down following the earthquake/tsunami in Fukushima and the ripple effect was felt throughout the world—all due to an unjustified public fear of low-level radiation.

3

Overcoming and reversing this trend in fear-driven policy decision is no simple undertaking. But if our nation is to prosper with the promise of economic, reliable, excess electricity availability, it must be done. A forceful first step is clearly necessary to impact the impasse. Nothing short of an empowered independent commission, with the authority to ensure reality in assessments of risk and regulation, has the real potential for success.

The current international approach to regulating radiation levels for human exposure is based on the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model, which assumes that radiation at any level carries a health risk (mainly cancer) even down to zero exposure. There is now a plethora of highly credible scientific data that does not merely question the assumption of linearity at low dose levels of radiation. Instead, a mounting body of data is demonstrating beneficial effects of low level radiation—similar to the effects of low exposure levels of any kind of toxic substance (e.g. trace amounts of metals, vaccinations, etc.)-all of which are essential for good health. Our immune system is beneficially stimulated by low levels of such toxins, but breaks down when the dose is too high.

Because the LNT is so deeply imbedded in current regulations, we perceive the urgent need for a highly credible scientific blue-ribbon body to study current science and report its findings to policy makers at the highest levels throughout the world. This may be the only way of providing solid evidence to the public and their policy makers that the current, highly restrictive regulations for low-level radiation exposure can be lifted without detriment. Successfully providing the public with this fact-based assurance that their fears of harm from small amounts of radiation are unjustified would have far reaching policy effects and significantly reduce expenditures.

Problems Facing Currently Operating Plants Instead of increasing our fleet of demonstrably safe and reliable nuclear power facilities, the number of U.S. generating plants has decreased in recent years. Several capable, producing nuclear power plants have been shut down well short of their operating life due to economic pressures. The primary economic pressure has come from natural gas, where prices have been deeply depressed as a result of new fracking technology. Although this type of resource surplus is, by nature, temporary and unsustainable in the long term, the excess natural gas availability could extend far enough in the future to overrun the operator’s fiscal ability to maintain the short-term operational losses. More such plants are in the cross-hairs for early decommissioning because of these interim financial pressures.

The immediate result is that the U.S. is rapidly losing nuclear expertise, and potential students needed to replace the aging technical force do not perceive the future of the technology as challenging or as a place to prosper. Unless checked, the U.S. will lose a major source of base load electrical generating capacity that cannot be replaced for several decades.

4

In response to this situation, DOE Secretary Perry has taken a bold and necessary step to urge the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to allow base-load providers, mainly coal and nuclear, to build extra costs into their rate base because of the essential national need for base-load power.

Although considerable gains have been made in the technology undergirding renewable sources, they are all inherently intermittent (i.e., unreliable) and unable to meet the need of heavy industry. Base load providers remain critical to keeping the electrical grid stable in the face of expanding 21st century demands. The pressure needs to be vigorous on FERC and all other related authorities to allow baseload suppliers to compete consistently on a level playing field.

The Profound Need for Support of New Reactor Concepts The interest in achieving greater siting flexibility for nuclear generating facilities has stimulated considerable research and design activity in the professional community for several decades.

A great deal of excitement has been mounting around the development of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)—reactors of 300 Megawatts of electrical output or less. This excitement results from the possibility of being able to avoid the barriers that the immense construction costs of the large (>1000 MWe) plants have historically engendered. Utilities currently have to “bet the farm” to consider building such large plants. The SMRs can take advantage of factory fabrication, enhanced inherent safety, and load-following capability. In addition, the ability to add power in increments makes it possible to receive early revenue while adding new modules to the overall generating capacity of the plant. Despite these highly desirable attributes, in the U.S. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not have the technical staff available to provide a time-sensitive review for licensing. They are skilled only in water-cooling technology, and only for large reactors. Hence, SMR innovators are seeking licensing in foreign countries such as China and Canada.

Most of the funding for the NRC comes from utilities seeking the construction of a new power plant.

Although this works for standardized designs, it does NOT work for innovative new reactors. Utilities will not place an order for a new SMR if it cannot be licensed, and it cannot be licensed under the current funding rules without a prohibitively massive investment from the SMR designer. It is currently a “chicken-and-egg” dilemma. Congress could solve this problem by allocating a sizable fund to the NRC for staffing up to handle the licensing process for new designs. The U.S. has historically led the world with innovation. But such innovation will no longer happen in this unless the NRC is directed and funded by the Administration and Congress to staff up to the levels necessary to license new reactor designs on an expedited basis. True innovation in the licensing process could be displayed by the NRC by allowing new demonstration reactors to be built, tested, and then licensed—in a manner similar to the aircraft industry. This would save an astonishing amount of unnecessary time and expenditures.

5

Gaining approval for a new reactor in China or Russia takes as little as two years; it can take up to 25 years for such approvals in the U.S.

CONCLUSION The obstacles outlined above can only be overcome by strong, bold leadership at the highest levels of government. Nothing less is likely to avoid relinquishing U.S. leadership in this crucial area to China and Russia. Capable and credible members of the nuclear profession stand ready to help implement the solutions recommended in this short paper.

Alan Waltar, Nuclear Engineer, Past President of the American Nuclear Society; Retired Professor and Chair, Texas A&M Department of Nuclear Engineering, Corresponding author: e-mail: alan.waltar@gmail.com

Wanda Munn, Nuclear Engineer, Fast Flux Test Facility, Member of Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health; e-mail: WIMUNN@aol.com

Kenneth Kok, Nuclear Engineer, ASME Fellow, Research on many areas of nuclear power development; e-mail: kokk1@asme.org

John Shanahan, Civil Engineer (President, Environmentalists for Nuclear – USA); website: efn-usa.org e-mail: john.shanahan@efn-usa.org

6