Nuclear Power

Quick Facts

In 2008, nuclear power provided one fifth of total U.S. electricity and constituted nearly 70 percent of total U.S. low-carbon electricity generation.¹ The United States is the largest generator of nuclear power, accounting for about 30 percent of global nuclear generation.²
Globally, nuclear power provides roughly 15 percent of total electricity generation and more than 40 percent of global non-fossil fueled electric power generation.³ The United States, France, and Japan account for nearly 60 percent of global nuclear power generation.⁴
Under policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear power could be an important source of low-carbon electricity, for example, providing 40 percent of U.S. electricity and more than 20 percent of global electricity by mid-century.^5,6

Background

Electric power generation is a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, primarily carbon dioxide (CO₂) from fossil fuel combustion. In the United States, electricity generation is responsible for roughly one third of total GHG emissions (80 percent of which come from coal use).⁷ Globally, electricity generation accounts for more than 27 percent of total CO₂ emissions and more than one fifth of total GHG emissions.⁸ Given the magnitude of GHG emissions from the electricity sector, low-carbon electricity generation technologies are crucial for achieving the significant GHG emission reductions necessary to avoid dangerous climate change.

Nuclear power is one option in the portfolio of low-carbon electricity generation technologies, which also includes renewables (e.g., wind, solar, and biomass) and fossil fuels coupled with carbon capture and storage. Nuclear power emits no GHGs from electric power generation, and its overall lifecycle GHG emissions profile is low and similar to that of solar power.⁹ In addition, nuclear power is already a widely deployed technology and can—like coal-fueled generation—provide reliable baseload electric power.

Currently, nuclear power is by far the largest source of low-carbon electricity in the United States. In 2008, nuclear power provided one fifth of total U.S. electricity, which was more than twice as much as generated from all renewable sources (including conventional hydropower).¹⁰ The United States has 104 operating nuclear reactors at 65 plants in 31 states.¹¹ Globally, nuclear power generates roughly 15 percent of total electricity.¹²

Description

Current nuclear power technology harnesses the energy released by nuclear fission. Atomic nuclei consist of protons and neutrons held together by a strong energy bond. In nuclear fission, a neutron strikes the nucleus of a very heavy atom and splits it apart into lighter atoms, releasing additional neutrons and energy as well. These neutrons, in turn, can fission other atoms. Under precise, controlled conditions, this nuclear fission process can occur as a continuous chain reaction that releases heat in useful amounts.

Nuclear Fuel
Nuclear power plants predominantly use U-235, a fissile isotope of uranium, as their fuel. Uranium is a naturally occurring heavy metal whose most common isotope is the non-fissile U-238. To make reactor fuel, mined uranium must be enriched to a higher concentration of U-235.¹³ Some of the U-238 in nuclear fuel is transformed to fissile plutonium during the nuclear chain reaction, and some of this Pu-239 is, in turned, fissioned to produce useful energy.¹⁴ At regular intervals, nuclear reactors’ fuel must be replaced with fresh fuel when the fuel is spent—i.e., no longer capable of supporting an adequate chain reaction. This spent nuclear fuel consists mostly of uranium (up to 96 percent) mixed with certain highly radioactive elements—namely, fission products (e.g., cesium and strontium) and transuranics (e.g., plutonium and americium). The decay heat and radiotoxicity of spent nuclear fuel is dominated by the fission products for roughly the first hundred years and then by the transuranics for
subsequent millennia.¹⁵ Currently, in the United States, spent nuclear fuel is stored first in pools of water at nuclear plants to cool the waste and provide protection from its radiation for at last 10 years; subsequently, spent nuclear fuel can be housed onsite in dry casks made of steel and/or concrete while it awaits permanent disposal or reprocessing (see below).¹⁶
Nuclear Reactors
All operating U.S. nuclear power plants are light water reactors (LWRs)—so called because they use ordinary water to transfer heat generated by the reactor to a turbine-generator which produces electricity—and LWRs are the only type of reactors under consideration for the proposed new plants in the United States.^17,18There are two types of LWR, the boiling water reactor (BWR) and the pressurized water reactor (PWR).¹⁹ Roughly seventy percent of U.S. nuclear reactors are PWRs.²⁰ Nuclear reactors are often classified in terms of their reactor generation, or stage of reactor technology development:²¹
- Generation I
  These reactors were the prototypes and first commercial plants developed in the 1950s and ‘60s of which very few still operate
- Generation II
  These are the commercial reactors built around the world in the 1970s and ‘80s.
- Generation III/III+
  Gen III reactors were developed in the 1990s and feature advances in safety and cost compared to Gen II reactors. Gen III+ reactors are the most recently developed reactor designs and have additional evolutionary design improvements. Only a few Gen III/III+ reactors have been built, but currently planned reactors are of this type.
- Generation IV
  This refers to the advanced reactor designs anticipated for commercial deployment by 2030 and expected to have “revolutionary” improvements in safety, cost, and proliferation resistance as well as the ability to support a nuclear fuel cycle that produces less waste.²²
Nuclear Fuel Cycles
The conventional, once-through fuel cycle involves nuclear reactors that use enriched uranium as fuel and that discharge spent nuclear fuel for disposal. This is the current approach in the United States. There are two alternative fuel cycles—the current, single-pass recycle option and a fully closed fuel cycle that would use anticipated advanced technology. The single-pass recycle option involves “reprocessing” spent nuclear fuel to separate fissile uranium and plutonium from other nuclear waste. This uranium and plutonium can then be recycled as fuel in existing nuclear reactors. This fuel cycle reduces the volume of nuclear waste that requires disposal but not necessarily the decay heat and radiotoxicity of the waste.²³ A Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) study concludes that the cost of this single-pass recycle option is unfavorable compared to a once-through cycle and that the waste management benefits from a closed fuel cycle do not outweigh the attendant safety, environmental, and security considerations and economic costs.²⁴ In a proposed fully closed fuel cycle, spent nuclear fuel could be reprocessed with the separated uranium, plutonium, and other long-lived radioisotopes recycled as fuel. This could reduce the long-term burden on the final nuclear waste repositories by reducing long-term decay heat and radioactivity. However, it would not eliminate the need for long-term disposal because there are long-lived fission products and wastes from processing operations that will still require permanent geological disposal. A fully closed fuel cycle, however, requires advanced “fast” burner reactors that are not yet available. In theory, SNF from these “fast” reactors could be repeatedly reprocessed until all the useable fuel was fissioned while also converting nearly all the uranium in the fuel cycle to useful fuel.²⁵

Environmental Benefit/Emission Reduction Potential

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that under “business as usual” nuclear power in the United States will grow by roughly 10 percent between 2009 and 2030, which is an average annual growth rate of only 0.5 percent, half the projected rate of growth of overall electricity generation.²⁶

By contrast, EIA’s recent modeling analysis of the 2009 House GHG cap-and-trade bill (H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act) projected that nuclear generation would be nearly double current levels by 2030 under cap and trade.²⁷Similarly, analysis of H.R. 2454 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that nuclear power would grow nearly five times as fast under cap and trade as under “business as usual” and provide 30 percent of total U.S. electricity in 2030 and 40 percent in 2050.²⁸ In a sensitivity model run, EPA found that holding nuclear power to its “business-as-usual” level under cap and trade increased the projected GHG allowance price (a measure of the cost to society of achieving GHG emission reduction goals) by 15 percent.²⁹

As one indicator of the significant potential role for nuclear power in global GHG abatement, the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated that nuclear power could provide 6 percent of energy-related emission reductions compared to “business as usual” by 2050.³⁰ IEA projected that, in this scenario, global nuclear generation would more than triple from 2005 to 2050 (compared to growth of 41 percent in the “business-as-usual” scenario).

Cost

Nuclear power requires very large upfront capital investments in constructing the power plant (e.g., a new 1 gigawatt nuclear power plant might cost $6 billion including the cost of financing). For nuclear power, the capital cost of the plant constitutes roughly three fourths of the levelized cost of electricity, with fuel and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs making up the remainder of the cost in roughly equal proportions.^31,32 In contrast, capital costs account for roughly 40 percent of the levelized cost of electricity from a new coal power plant, and fuel costs account for about 80 percent of the levelized cost of electricity from a natural gas power plant.³³ In short, nuclear plants are relatively expensive to build but relatively inexpensive to operate.

The cost of new U.S. nuclear power plants is uncertain due to a long hiatus in the construction of new nuclear plants in the United States and recent rapid escalation with subsequent signs of decline in all power plant capital costs.³⁴ During the 1980s and early ‘90s, new nuclear power plants experienced long delays in construction schedules and massive cost overruns, which makes potential lenders see new nuclear power plants as riskier than other power plant investments and thus makes new nuclear plant construction more expensive to finance. Given the capital-intensity of nuclear power, financing is challenging for new plants.

Recent studies estimate that electricity from a new nuclear power plants would be roughly one third more expensive than electricity from new coal or natural gas power plants—where the risk premium associated with financing a new nuclear plant is a primary driver of the cost difference.^35,36However, putting a price on GHG emissions can make nuclear power less costly than electricity from fossil fuel. For example, one study estimated that at a carbon price of $20 per metric ton of CO₂, new nuclear power is less expensive than power from new coal plants, and at a carbon price of about $45 per metric ton of CO₂, new nuclear power would be less expensive than electricity from existing coal-fired power plants.³⁷

The once-through nuclear fuel cycle is currently the least costly approach to nuclear power.³⁸

Current Status of Nuclear Power

No new nuclear plants have been ordered in the United States since 1978, and no U.S. plant has been completed that was ordered after 1973.³⁹

Today, there are more than 50 plants under construction around the world in a dozen countries, principally China, India, Korea, and Russia.^40,41 China, which currently has 11 operational reactors, has stated ambitious nuclear expansion plans for the next 20 years.⁴²

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 overhauled the nuclear licensing process, which used to require two licenses—one to build the plant and another to operate it. Under the new process the NRC can: 1) pre-approve a prospective site for a new nuclear plant, 2) certify a new reactor design, and 3) issue a single combined construction and operating license (COL).⁴³

Whereas the build-out of the existing U.S. nuclear fleet saw a large number of companies building a variety of idiosyncratic nuclear plant designs with a regulatory licensing process that allowed for significant delays, the new wave of potential new nuclear plants in the United States is foreseen to include a small number of firms with nuclear power experience building a limited number of standardized plant designs under a new licensing framework that front-loads much of the regulatory risk.

In the United States, 17 applications for COLs for 26 new reactors are under review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)—all submitted since 2007.⁴⁴ Preliminary work required before construction is underway for many of these plants such as design, licensing applications development, and procurement of long-lead items; however, most firms have yet to obtain financing and make firm commitments to construction.⁴⁵

The process of licensing and building the first few new nuclear plants is expected to take approximately 9-10 years, with the nuclear industry expecting 4-8 new plants to start commercial operation 2016.⁴⁶

Presently, the United States is pursuing a once-through nuclear fuel cycle. A fully closed fuel cycle would require not just advanced reprocessing and recycling technology but also the capability to manufacture a new type of reactor fuel from the reprocessing outputs.⁴⁷ According to the nuclear industry, the new generation of reactors necessary for a fully closed fuel cycle is decades away from commercial development.⁴⁸

Obstacles to Further Development or Deployment of Nuclear Power

Lack of a Price on Carbon or GHG Emission Performance Standards
In the absence of policies that place a financial cost on GHG emissions or policies that otherwise limit GHG emissions from electricity generators, estimates indicate that new nuclear power is more costly than electricity from new fossil fueled power plants.
Challenges to Financing Initial Nuclear Builds
The up-front capital investments required for nuclear power plants make financing difficult for U.S. electric power generators given their relatively small market capitalizations, especially in restructured electricity markets. Many of the existing nuclear plants proved to be far more expensive to build than expected and faced long delays in construction schedules.⁴⁹ Commercial lenders are thus reluctant to finance new nuclear plants on a project finance basis at a cost of capital comparable to other power generation technologies until first-mover firms demonstrate that new nuclear plants can be built on time and within budget.
Long-Term Nuclear Waste Policy
Experts have concluded that geological repositories can safely isolate nuclear waste over the long term; however, so far no country has successfully implemented such an approach for spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste.^50,51 Other countries (Sweden and Finland) have sited final geological waste disposal facilities with public acceptance, but these repositories are not yet fully licensed, constructed, and operational.⁵² The United States currently has over 60,000 tons of nuclear waste at more than 100 temporary sites (primarily nuclear power plants) around the country, and existing nuclear power plants generate approximately 2,000 tons each year.⁵³ Moreover, even the proposed fully closed fuel cycle will still necessitate long-term geological waste disposal.
Under the provisions of the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the federal government has responsibility for managing spent nuclear fuel produced by commercial reactors. In 1987, Congress designated Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the sole candidate for a federal long-term geological repository for nuclear waste. However, the site engendered intense political opposition from Nevadans and is not being actively developed by the Obama Administration.⁵⁴ Given current law, indefinite storage at reactor sites and other existing temporary facilities is the only alternative to Yucca Mountain absent additional Congressional action.⁵⁵ The U.S. Department of Energy has collected a fee of a $0.001 per kilowatt-hour from nuclear generators as part of contracts that required DOE to begin taking spent nuclear fuel for long-term disposal in 1998.⁵⁶ Given the challenges encountered in opening a long-term geological repository, DOE has not yet begun taking spent nuclear fuel from nuclear plants and is not expected to do so for several years. The NRC has determined that spent nuclear fuel can be safely stored at reactor sites for 30 years after a reactor shuts down, and NRC has proposed at least 60 years of storage after reactor shut-down as a safe period.⁵⁷ Several states—including California and Wisconsin—have laws that effectively ban the construction of new nuclear plants until a federal long-term waste disposal repository is operating.⁵⁸
Supply Chain and Workforce Constraints
The industrial resources and supply chains needed to build and operate nuclear plants may present challenges to a significant expansion.^59,60,61,62 Moreover, the current nuclear workforce is aging and retirements may exceed new entries resulting in a loss of experienced operator and maintenance personnel.⁶³
Safety and Security
The global nuclear power industry has experienced three serious nuclear reactor accidents—including at Windscale (1952) in the United Kingdom, Three Mile Island (1979) in the United States, and Chernobyl (1986) in the former Soviet Union—and several fuel cycle facility incidents.⁶⁴ In addition to accidents, intentional attacks on nuclear power plants by terrorists could theoretically lead to nuclear reactor damage. Nuclear reactor damage is a threat to public health as it can lead to release of radioactivity to the air and groundwater. To date, the United States has had no immediate radiological injuries or deaths among the public attributable to accidents involving commercial nuclear power reactors.⁶⁵ Since the Three Mile Island accident, improvements were made to plant safety equipment, procedures, and training in U.S. reactor operations which significantly increased the safety of the U.S. nuclear fleet.⁶⁶ Moreover, new reactor designs have projected risks—particularly vulnerability to loss-of-coolant accidents—that are one to two orders of magnitude less than those of operating LWRs.⁶⁷ Following the September 11th terrorist attacks, security at nuclear power plants came under increased scrutiny, and new regulations from the NRC increased the level of protection against terrorist attacks.
Nuclear Weapons Proliferation
The nuclear proliferation risk stems principally from the potential for countries to covertly use uranium enrichment or spent nuclear fuel reprocessing plants to generate materials for use in nuclear weapons, and theft of poorly secured nuclear materials could result in transfer to a dangerous state or terrorist group.⁶⁸ In particular, current commercial reprocessing technology generates separated plutonium that is directly usable in nuclear weapons.⁶⁹

Policy Options to Help Promote Nuclear Power

Putting a Price on Carbon
A policy, such as cap and trade (see Climate Change 101: Cap and Trade), that puts a price on GHG emissions would discourage investments in traditional fossil-fuel use and spur investments in a range of clean energy technologies, including nuclear power.
Mandating GHG Performance Standards
Policymakers could rely on performance standards to drive nuclear deployment by enacting new regulations that establish maximum allowable CO₂ emission rates for power plants (California, Washington, and Oregon have such standards) or a low-carbon portfolio standard (similar to the renewable portfolio standards that many states already have) that specifies a percentage of electricity that must come from low- or zero-carbon sources, like nuclear power.⁷⁰
Loan Guarantees and other Financial Incentives for Initial New Nuclear Projects
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included provisions for loan guarantees, production tax credits, and standby insurance for “first-mover” new nuclear power plants.⁷¹ Commercial lenders have indicated that the first wave of new nuclear plants built in the United States without assured cost recovery from electricity ratepayers would be difficult or impossible to finance without federal loan guarantees owing to the perceived high risk of such projects in light of the poor track record of constructing the existing U.S. nuclear fleet.⁷² With federal loan guarantees, “first-mover” nuclear plants could obtain financing and—if they demonstrate success in on-time, within-budget construction and operation—lower the perceived risk of investing in new nuclear power plants and make subsequent plants’ financing easier and less costly.
Defining a Long-Term Policy for Nuclear Waste
President Obama, Congressional leaders, and the nuclear industry support the creation of a “blue-ribbon” commission to undertake a reassessment of the federal government’s program to manage nuclear waste and produce a roadmap for a sustainable long-term program.^73,74
Research and Development
The report on nuclear power from MIT recommended several avenues for research, including: advanced LWRs and high temperature gas reactors; lab-scale research on reprocessing technologies with the potential for lower cost and greater proliferation resistance; establishment of a large nuclear system analysis, modeling, and simulation project; and a global uranium resource evaluation.⁷⁵ Several other expert reports have also suggested that efforts related to reprocessing focus on R&D rather than deployment, including reports by the National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP), the Government Accountability Office, the National Academy of Sciences, and the directors of the Department of Energy’s national laboratories.^76,77,78
Safety and Security
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and nuclear plant owners can continue to advance nuclear plant safety via adequate regulation and oversight, continuous improvement based on operating experience, and an emphasis on safety culture. Resistance to terrorist attack is likely to remain an area of focus for the regulators and plant owners. The MIT report recommended that new nuclear plant designs should include passive and active features to ensure the reliability of safety systems.
Non-Proliferation Policies
R&D investments in and international collaboration on technical safeguards—i.e., the technologies used to monitor and protect nuclear materials from proliferation threats domestically and under international agreements—and the inclusion of increased proliferation resistance in next-generation nuclear reactor designs can limit the risk of nuclear proliferation.⁷⁹ The MIT nuclear report, NCEP, and the directors of the national laboratories recommend that nuclear supplier states (e.g., the G-8) offer fuel cycle services to nations developing new nuclear capabilities on attractive terms in order to slow the process of additional nations, especially new users with only a few reactors, building enrichment and reprocessing facilities.^80,81,82The Obama administration reportedly plans to seek the creation of a first-ever international uranium fuel bank that would allow nations to obtain fuel for civilian nuclear reactors but limit their capacity to make bombs.⁸³
Supply Chain / Workforce
The federal government can foster a robust nuclear workforce via increased educational funding for relevant graduate and undergraduate university education and certification programs at community colleges.⁸⁴ Grants for job retraining could also help displaced workers transition into nuclear and other growing energy industries.

Related Business Environmental Leadership Council (BELC) Company Activities

Related Pew Center Resources

Climate Change 101: Technology, 2009.

A Performance Standards Approach to Reducing CO2 Emissions from Electric Power Plants, 2009.

The U.S. Electric Power Sector and Climate Change Mitigation, 2005.

Further Reading/Additional Resources

Battelle Memorial Institute, Nuclear Energy, 2007.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity, 2008.

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

Advanced Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycle Technologies: Outlook and Policy Options, 2008.
Nuclear Energy Policy, 2008.
Nuclear Waste Disposal: Alternatives to Yucca Mountain, 2009.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

International Energy Agency (IEA), Energy Technology Perspectives 2008: Scenarios and Strategies to 2050, 2008.

Keystone Center, Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding, 2007.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, Disposition of High-Level Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel: Continuing Societal and Technical Challenges, 2001.

Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA).

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI).

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

¹U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Energy Review 2008, 2009, see Table 8.2a.
²EIA, International Energy Annual 2006, 2008, see Table 2.7.
³EIA, International Energy Annual 2006, 2008, see Table 6.3.
⁴EIA, International Energy Annual 2006, 2008, see Table 2.7.
⁵U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Analysis of H.R. 2454 in the 111th Congress, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, June 2009, ADAGE Model Scenario 2.
⁶International Energy Agency (IEA), Energy Technology Perspectives 2008: Scenarios and Strategies to 2050, 2008, BLUE Map Scenario, see Table 2.5.
⁷EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007, Tables ES-7 and 2-13, 2009.
⁸Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "Introduction." In Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. ⁹Fthenakis, VM and HC Kim, “Greenhouse-Gas Emissions from Solar Electric- and Nuclear Power: A Life-Cycle Study,” Energy Policy 35: 2549-2557, 2007.
¹⁰EIA, Annual Energy Review 2008, Table 8.2a.
¹¹Holt, Mark, Advanced Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycle Technologies: Outlook and Policy Options, Congressional Research Service (CRS), Jul 2008. All of 104 U.S. nuclear reactors were ordered between 1963 and 1973.
¹²International Energy Agency (IEA), Key World Energy Statistics 2008.
¹³For a helpful overview of the basics of nuclear power, see EIA’s Introduction to Nuclear Power.
¹⁴Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), The Future of Nuclear Power, 2003. For a helpful overview of nuclear fuel and the nuclear fuel cycle, see “Appendix Chapter 1 – Nuclear Fuel Cycle Primer.”
¹⁵Government Accountability Office (GAO), Global Nuclear Energy Partnership: DOE Should Reassess Its Approach to Designing and Building Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling Facilities, April 2008.
¹⁶MIT, 2003.
¹⁷Holt, July 2008.
¹⁸Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), Nuclear Energy Outlook 2008. About 20 percent of current nuclear plants today use heavy water as a moderator and coolant (mostly in Canada and India), while the United Kingdom has 18 gas-cooled reactors.
¹⁹In a BWR, the water heated by the energy released during the nuclear fission chain reaction in the reactor core turns directly into steam to power the turbine-generator (for an explanation of a BWR, see EIA’s Boiling-Water Reactor). In a PWR, the water passing through the reactor core is kept under pressure so that it does not turn to steam but rather is used to exchange heat with a separate water loop to create steam and power a turbine-generator (an explanation of a PWR, see EIA’s Pressurized-Water Reactor and Reactor Vessel).
²⁰EIA, U.S. Nuclear Reactors.
²¹NEA, 2008.
²²Gen IV International Forum.
²³MIT, 2003.
²⁴MIT, Update of the MIT 2003 Future of Nuclear Power, May 2009.
²⁵Holt, July 2008.
²⁶EIA, An Updated Annual Energy Outlook 2009 Reference Case Reflecting Provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and Recent Changes in the Economic Outlook, April 2009. In the reference case EPAct05 tax incentives do incentivize some new nuclear units; an estimated seven new nuclear power plants are completed through 2030.
²⁷EIA, Energy Market and Economic Impacts of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, August 2009, “Basic” policy case.
²⁸EPA, Analysis of H.R. 2454 in the 111th Congress, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, June 2009, ADAGE Model Scenario 2. Note that EPA limited the growth in nuclear power to about 150 percent from 2005 to 2050, a limit that constrained the modeling results.
²⁹EPA, Analysis of H.R. 2454 in the 111th Congress, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, June 2009, ADAGE Model Scenarios 2 and 5.
³⁰IEA, 2008. IEA developed the BLUE Map roadmap for achieving a 50 percent reduction below current GHG emission levels in order to stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentration at 450ppm.
³¹The levelized cost of electricity is an economic assessment of the cost of electricity generation from a representative generating unit of a particular technology type (e.g. wind, coal) including all the costs over its lifetime: initial investment, operations and maintenance, cost of fuel, and cost of capital.
³²Du, Yangbo and John Parsons, Update on the Cost of Nuclear Power, MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, 2009, see Figure 1.
³³Du and Parsons, 2009.
³⁴IHS CERA, “IHS CERA Power Capital Costs Index Shows Construction Costs Falling for All Types of New Power Plants,” Press Release, 23 June 2009.
³⁵Du and Parsons, 2009.
³⁶Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Nuclear Power’s Role in Generating Electricity, 2008.
³⁷CBO, 2008.
³⁸MIT, 2009.
³⁹National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP), Ending the Energy Stalemate: A Bipartisan Strategy to Meet America’s Energy Challenges, Dec 2004.
⁴⁰MIT, 2009. The MIT update notes that in the United States since 2003 one shutdown reactor (Browns Ferry I) has been refurbished and restarted and one partly complete reactor (Watts Bar 2) is now being completed. The 52 nuclear plants under construction around the world are distributed as follows: China (16), Russia (9), India (6), Korea (5), Bulgaria (2), Taiwan (2), Ukraine (2), Japan (2), Argentina (1), Finland (1) France (1), Iran (1), Pakistan (1), Slovak Republic (1), and the United States (1).
⁴¹International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Power Reactor Information System (PRIS).
⁴²Xu, Wan, “China to Erect Nuclear Reactors to Match U.S.,” Wall Street Journal, 27 May 2009.
⁴³Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), Status and Outlook for Nuclear Energy in the United States, May 2009.
⁴⁴NEI, May 2009.
⁴⁵MIT, 2009.
⁴⁶NEI, May 2009. NEI reports that this 9-10 year process breaks down as follows: approximately two years to prepare an application to the NRC for a COL, approximately three and a half years for NRC review and approval of the COL, and 4-5 years for construction.
⁴⁷NEI, Advanced Fuel-Cycle Technologies Hold Promise for Used Fuel Management Program, Jan 2009.
⁴⁸NEI, Jan 2009.
⁴⁹MIT, 2009.
⁵⁰MIT, 2003.
⁵¹The United States has built and operates the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, a geological repository for defense-related transuranic waste.
⁵²NEI, “Sweden Picks Location for Its Used Fuel Repository,” Nuclear Energy Insight, July 2009.
⁵³Vogel, Steve, “Controversy Over Yucca Mountain May Be Ending,” Washington Post, 4 Mar 2009.
⁵⁴Vogel, 2009.
⁵⁵Holt, Mark, Nuclear Waste Disposal: Alternatives to Yucca Mountain, CRS, Feb 2009.
⁵⁶Wald, Matthew, “As Nuclear Waste Languishes, Expense to U.S. Rises,” New York Times, 17 Feb 2008.
⁵⁷Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), “Final Update of the Commissions Waste Confidence Decision,” June 2009.
⁵⁸NEI, “State Bills Promote New Nuclear Plants,” May 2008.
⁵⁹Directors of DOE National Laboratories, A Sustainable Energy Future: The Essential Role of Nuclear Energy, Aug 2008.
⁶⁰Klein, Dale, “Perspectives and Challenges of the Nuclear Renaissance,” Address by NRC Chairman to the American Nuclear Society, Raleigh, NC, 31 January 2008.
⁶¹NEI, “New Nuclear Plants Create Opportunities for Expanding US Manufacturing,” August 2008.
⁶²U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), DOE NP2010 Nuclear Power Plant Construction Infrastructure Assessment, 2005.
⁶³Keystone Center, Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding, 2007.
⁶⁴MIT, 2003. See the MIT report for examples of fuel cycle facility incidents.
⁶⁵Keystone, 2007.
⁶⁶Keystone, 2007.
⁶⁷Holt, July 2008.
⁶⁸Nuclear Energy Study Group of the American Physical Society (APS) Panel on Public Affairs, Nuclear Power and Proliferation Resistance: Securing Benefits, Limiting Risk, 2005.
⁶⁹APS, 2005.
⁷⁰For more information on CO2 emission performance standards for electric power plants, see Rubin, Edward, A Performance Standards Approach to Reducing CO2 Emissions from Electric Power Plants, prepared for the Pew Center, June 2009.
⁷¹NEI, May 2009.
⁷²Roy, Rukmini et al., Loan Guarantees for Advanced Nuclear Energy Facilities: Bankers' Viewpoints on DOE Implementing Regulations, Letter to DOE Secretary Bodman, March 2007.
⁷³NEI, May 2009.
⁷⁴Chu, Steven, Testimony before the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, FY 2010 Appropriations Hearing, 3 Jun 2009.
⁷⁵MIT, 2003.
⁷⁶NCEP, 2004.
⁷⁷Holt, July 2008.
⁷⁸Directors of DOE National Laboratories, 2008.
⁷⁹APS, 2005.
⁸⁰MIT, 2003.
⁸¹NCEP, 2004.
⁸² Directors of DOE National Laboratories, 2008.
⁸³ Bender, Bryan, “Obama Seeks Global Uranium Fuel Bank,” Boston Globe, 8 June 2009.
⁸⁴ APS, Readiness of the U.S. Nuclear Workforce for 21st Century Challenges, 2008.

Sign up for E-Newsletter