Future of Nuclear Energy

8/3/2019 Future of Nuclear Energy

1/7

PUBLIC INTEREST REPORT SPRING 2011Since the late 1970s, when safety fears andeconomic factors converged to haltconstruction of new nuclear power plants,the nuclear energy industry has stalled inthe United States. Meanwhile, othernations have made substantial investments

in new nuclear power plants and advancednuclear energy technologies. Today,however, the soaring cost of petroleum,in creas in g con cern s about carbonemissions, and the aging nuclear power

plant fleet have revived the nationalconversation on nuclear energy in America.

The Obama administration has signaled its willingness to support Americas nuclearenergy industry through additional loanguarantees for new plant construction. Inhis 2011 State of the Union address,

President Obama set a goal of generating80 percent of Americas electricity fromclean energy sources by 2035, and heincluded nuclear energy in his list of cleansources.

However, these positive signals from the White House must be balanced againstsome important hurdles: The events at theFukushima Daiichi plant have reopenedquestions about operating safety; therelatively low price of electricity makes thesubstantial upfront costs of new nuclear

power plant construction difficult to justifyin the short term; the availability of

plentiful, affordable natural gas reservesundercut the perceived future need forexpanded nuclear power generationcapacity; and last years decision to

withdraw the license application for a high-level nuclear waste repository at YuccaMountain leaves open the continuing

problem of providing safe, permanentdisposal for Americas legacy, current, andfuture nuclear wastes. Despite these short-term hurdles, the need to address thechallenges of energy security and climatechange, combined with continued robustsafety, security, and oversight of existing

plants and development and deployment ofnext-generation technologies, shouldstrengthen and expand the role of nuclearenergy in Americas 21st-century energy

portfolio.

NUCLEAR ENERGY SINCE

THE LATE 1970sAlthough the power of the peaceful atom

was initially welcomed as a generation sourcethat would provide electricity too cheap tometer, the economics of the industry wereupended after the oil crisis of 1973-74. Withthe national economy stagnant and interest

rates as high as 20 percent, the cost of

building new nuclear capacity spiked from anaverage of $161/kW in 1968-1971 to$1,373/kW in 1979-84.1 During the same

period, U.S. environmentalists and otheopponents of nuclear energy were galvanizedby the highly publicized partial coremeltdown at the Three Mile Island plant inPennsylvania, which caused the release of

1Nuclear Assessment, by Charles K. Ebinger and John P. Banks, the Energy Security Initiative at the Brookings Institution. April 30, 2010.http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2010/0430_nuclear_energy_banks_ebinger.aspx.

1
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2010/0430_nuclear_energy_banks_ebinger.aspxhttp://www.brookings.edu/articles/2010/0430_nuclear_energy_banks_ebinger.aspxhttp://www.brookings.edu/articles/2010/0430_nuclear_energy_banks_ebinger.aspxhttp://www.brookings.edu/articles/2010/0430_nuclear_energy_banks_ebinger.aspxhttp://www.brookings.edu/articles/2010/0430_nuclear_energy_banks_ebinger.aspxhttp://www.brookings.edu/articles/2010/0430_nuclear_energy_banks_ebinger.aspx


2/7

PUBLIC INTEREST REPORT SPRING 2011

small amounts of radioactive gases. The

combination of extraordinary costs and public opposition brought U.S. nuclear power plant construction to a halt. After1978, no new units were ordered for more

than 30 years,2 although power uprates and

license extensions for many existing plantshave been granted since then. (Work beganrecently on preparation for new reactors atthe Vogtle nuclear plant site in Georgia;

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) iexpected to issue the combined construction andoperating license for the new reactors by the end othis year.)

The environmental and economic tradeoffs tha

have resulted from the national decision to halinvestment in new nuclear power plants in theUnited States were predicted with some accuracby a number of researchers, including nucleascientist Alvin M. Weinberg, then director of theInstitute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, TNand the former director of Oak Ridge NationaLaboratory. In his article Is Nuclear EnergyNecessary? published in The Bulletin of the

Atomic Scientists in March 1980, he cautioned thaa moratorium on new nuclear plants would placegreat pressure on coal or imported oil, or both,and would raise the specter of a carbon dioxid

catastrophe.3

Three decades later, the imminent risks of climatechange have become increasingly apparent. Thdeveloping understanding of the true cost ocarbon includes a better understanding of the

widespread if not immediately visible healthimpacts of greenhouse gas emissions. For examplecoal-fired generating plants emit large volumes o

particulates and fly ash; a 2009 report by the CleanAir Task Force estimated that 13,200 people in theUnited States would die prematurely in 2010 fromfine particle pollution emitted by coal plants

Those premature deaths represent huge financiacosts in terms of healthcare-related expenses andlost productivity. When we factor in the hiddensocial costs of carbon emissions, we gain a new

perspective on the economics of new nuclepower plant construction.

By 2030, most existing nuclear power plants in theUnited States will reach the end of their 60-yeaoperating licenses. At present, it is unlikely tharenewable energy sources, such as solar, wind

water, and geothermal energy, will be sufficient toreplace that reliable, base load capacity when thosnuclear plant licenses expire. The United Statesmust devise an economically viable plan for morenuclear power plants, which now produce nearly20 percent of U.S. electricity.4

2Nuclear Assessment, by Charles K. Ebinger and John P. Banks, the Energy Security Initiative at the Brookings Institution. April 30,2010. http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2010/0430_nuclear_energy_banks_ebinger.aspx.3 Is Nuclear Energy Necessary? by AlanWeinberg,Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, March 1980p. 34.4 A Lifetime of Service: Safely Operating Nuclear Power Plants for 60 Years or Longer, U.S. Department of Energy,Office of Nuclear Energy. (print brochure) http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/NE_Trifold_LifetimeofService_Web.pdf

19
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2010/0430_nuclear_energy_banks_ebinger.aspxhttp://www.brookings.edu/articles/2010/0430_nuclear_energy_banks_ebinger.aspxhttp://www.brookings.edu/articles/2010/0430_nuclear_energy_banks_ebinger.aspx


3/7


AMERICA AND THE NEXTGENERATION OF NUCLEARREACTORS

In looking at the possibility of a nuclearrenaissance in the United States, Americanscan build on the experience of other nations.Today, 14 percent of the worlds electricity isgenerated from nuclear energy, and 16 nationsrely on nuclear energy to generate more than20 percent of their electricity. France derivesmore than 75 percent of its electricity fromnuclear energy and is the worlds largest netexporter of electricity. In Asia, South Koreas21 reactors provide almost 40

p e r c e n t o f t h e c o u n t r y selectricity. Japan has relied onnuclear energy for 30 percent of

its electricity; however, the eventsat Fukushima Daiichi may changethe Japanese situation, as theaccident has taken at least fourreactors permanently off-line.China has completed nine newnuclear plants in the past decade,

with dozens more currently underconstruction.

Concerns about energy securityand carbon reduction havereduced opposition to nuclear

energy in a number of Europeancountries. Last year, the SwedishParliament voted to allow replacement ofreactors at 10 nuclear power plants, reversinga 1980 referendum that called for theireventual phase-out. In July 2010, the FinnishParliament approved construction of twonuclear power plants. Italy has ended a ban

passed in 1987 and is actively considering sitesfor new plants.5 Switzerland's citizens haveallowed its moratorium on new plants toexpire. In total, there are 195 nuclear power

plant units operating in Europe, with 19 more

units under construction.

Today, almost all currently operating nuclear power plants rely on light-water reactors

derived from research done at ArgonneNational Laboratory in the 1950s and 1960s.6These reactors rely on water to cool thereactor and transport its heat to large steamturbines that generate electricity. Light-waterreactors are fueled with uranium that has been

processed, or enriched, increasing theamount of the isotope uranium-235 itcontains to 4 percent of its total weight. Bycontrast, uranium straight from the minecontains about 0.7 percent U-235, weapons-grade uranium is defined as 20 percent U-235,and military weapons designs are based on aU-235 content of 90 percent or more.

Although the basic designs for these light- water reactors are decades old, advances innuclear technologies have improved efficiencyand upgraded both equipment and fuel,enabling existing nuclear plants to increaseelectricity generation. In the United States,those technological improvements have madeit possible to increase existing plantselectricity generation by 178 billion kilowatthours (kWh)equivalent to the output of 23new power plants.

As we look to the future, new nuclear powerplants built from next-generation designs canoffer improved fuel technology, thermalefficiency and safety systems, longer

operational life, and reduced construction andmaintenance costs. The designs of these nextgeneration reactors, which are currently underconstruction worldwide, address many of theconcerns about safety, proliferation, and wastedisposal that have shaped public opposition to

nuclear energy over the years.

SAFETY

It is important to put safety concerns aboutnuclear power in perspective. Certainly, therecent events at Fukushima, along with theaccident at Three Mile Island and the

Chernobyl disaster, have raisedserious international concernabout nuclear plant safetyHow ev er, it sh ou ld beremembered that Three Mil

Island caused no deaths oinjuries to plant workers orresidents living nearby, and theincident led to tightenedregulatory oversight by theU.S. NRC, as well as sweepingchanges in worker trainingemergency response planningradiation protection, andmany other areas of nuclear

power plant operationUltimately, the accident led to

improved design and enhancedsafety in U.S. nuclear power plants.

The story of the Chernobyl disaster is, o

course, far more troubling. The accident

which was caused by a sudden surge of powe

on April 26, 1986, destroyed a reactor at the

nuclear power station at Chernobyl in the

former Soviet Union, now Ukraine. The

accident released massive amounts o

radioactive material into the environment and

claimed the lives of several dozen workers

The resultin g con tamin ation forcedevacuation of nearly 350,000 people living

within a 30-km radius of the plant. However

it must be noted that Chernobyl's reactor

5 Sweden Reverses Nuclear Phase-out Policy,Issue Brief, by Johan Bergens of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at theMonterey Institute for International Studies. November 11, 2009. http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_sweden_reverses_nuclear_phaseout_policy.html6 See PHOTO: http://www.flickr.com/photos/argonne/4460350224/ or http://www.flickr.com/photos/argonne/5039459604/ (historical).

2
http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/


4/7


7 U.S. Department of Energy, Department of Science. http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/reports/ files/ANES_rpt_print.pdf.8 AP1000 at a Glance, Westinghouse: http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_glance.html .

was based on a Soviet design using high- power, pressure-tube reactors, moderated with graphite and cooled with water thathas never been used in the United States.

United States. It also was operated without acontainment shield, a design that would notbe allowed anywhere in the world today.Although the Chernobyl experience wastragic, it also has helped the nuclear industryand its regulators to gain a fullerunderstanding of nuclear reactor safety. Andoverall, the worlds 400-plus commercialnuclear reactors have logged an excellentsafety record.

Recent events at the Fukushima Daiichi

nuclear power plant, due to the earthquakeand tsunami in Japan on March 11, 2011, are

very concerning. The nuclear power industryand regulatory authorities, both in Americaand internationally must respond to this byfurther improvements in reactor safetysystems, wet storage systems for spentnuclear fuel, and emergency response.(Note: At the time this article was submittedfor publication, the earthquake and tsunamiin Japan had only just occurred. Moreinformation will, of course, shed light onsafety issues for the future.)

In the nuclear plants currently operating inthe United States, reactor safety has beenbased on a defense-in-depth approach,using a diverse set of safety measures that

include many layers of reinforced physicalbarriers, including thick steel and concrete walls around the reactor that are built to withstan d torn ado- stren gth win ds ,earthquakes, and aerial aircraft assault.American nuclear plants also are protectedby control systems designed with multipleback-ups.7

The newer generations of advanced reactorsinclude additional fail-safe measures,including improvement in emergency corecooling systems. Areva, a French company, is

building the European Pressurized WaterReactor, which increases the number ofemergency core cooling systems from two tofour. The extra cooling systems provideincreased safety and also allow the plant tokeep running while one of the systems isdown for maintenance.

Wherever possible, active systems that aredependent on pumps, valves, and humanoperators are replaced by passive systemsthat use natural forces, such as gravity andconvection, to respond to malfunction. For

example, in next-generation designs, the

reactor may be engineered so that, if coretemperature rises above normal levels, theefficiency of the fission reaction decreasesand it slows down automatically. Contro

rods that stop the nuclear reaction can besuspended above the reactor and held in place with electricity, so that aninterruption to the station's electrical power

will automatically insert the rods into threactor. Also, any closed loop with a heasource at the bottom and cooling on top wildevelop a flow that sends the heated streamrising to the top and the cooled stream to thebottom. Called "natural circulation", thiallows coolant to move in the core withoutthe aid of pumps. This means that if the

plant loses power, as happened at th

Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan, thereactor does not require electricity to coothe core after shutdown.

Westinghouses next-generation AP10design, which features a number of passivesafety systems, requires only half as manysafety-related valves, one-third fewer pumpsand 83 percent fewer safety-related pipethan the companys currently operatingreactors.8 The reduced need for pumps andcontrols means that next-generation reactorcan improve safety performance while

costing less to construct and operate.

21
http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/


5/7

PUBLIC INTEREST REPORT SPRING 2011PROLIFERATION

Advances in nuclear energy technology alsoare addressing concerns about proliferation the possibility that fuel for nuclear reactorscould be converted to weapons-gradematerials through enrichment or reprocessing.These concerns date back to 1974, whenIndia exploded a nuclear device using

plutonium produced in a research reactor.Canada had manufactured the heavy-waterresearch reactor, and the United States had

provided the heavy water. In addition toheavy-water reactors, fast reactors, which offera closed fuel cycle, have promptedmisgivings about the diversion of thattechnology for nuclear weaponry. Fastreactors so-called because they are cooled bya liquid metal, such as sodium, that slows themovement of neutrons in the reactors coreless than a moderator such as water actually

can produce more fuel than they consume.Theoretically, fast reactors and a closed fuelcycle (full recycling) could use nearly all ofthe energy available in uranium (seediscussion below).

Before it can be recycled, a reactors used fuelm u s t g o t h r o u g h a n a q u e o u s o relectrochemical process, which also could beused to separate out weapons-grade

plutonium from the spent nuclear fuel. Thedanger of nuclear weapons proliferation

prompted President Jimmy Carter to banreprocessing for commercial purposes in

1977, although it is still used in France, Japan,Great Britain, and other countries that rely onstringent security procedures to protect the

products of reprocessing. In 1981, PresidentRonald Reagan lifted the ban, but thebusiness case for commercial reprocessing nolonger existed in the United States. In 2001,the George W. Bush administration revisitedthe issue of developing forms of reprocessingthat would decrease proliferation risk by notseparating pure plutonium.

In exploring reprocessing methods forreducing proliferation risk, U.S. scientists and

engineers have developed new techniques,

including pyroprocessing, which uses electriccurrent to separate fission products from theheavier uranium, plutonium, and otheractinides.9 The fission products, whichremain radioactive for millennia, are removedfor permanent disposal. The remainingradioactive materials are recast into fresh fuelrods. Pure plutonium a critical component

of most nuclear weapons is never separatedout during pyroprocessing. The resulting fuelmaterials are highly radioactive and areextremely difficult to handle without

specialized equipment and facilities.Pyroprocessing facilities can be built directly

on fast reactor sites, reducing transportationof dangerous materials and the associated riskof diversion. Reprocessing of spent reactorfuel also could dramatically reduce the needfor uranium mining and enrichment,lessening the risk that militant groups orterrorists could acquire uranium enrichmenttechnology.10

THE CHALLENGE OFNUCLEAR WASTES

The challenge of nuclear waste management

has become more pressing in the UnitedStates, from a policy perspective, since the

2009 decision to halt operations at YuccaMountain. Given advanced technologies thalimit the risk of proliferation, closing the fuecycle could offer a workable solution to thechallenge of nuclear waste management. Aclosed fuel cycle would greatly limit theamount of radioactive waste generated by agiven reactor: Where a commercial light

water reactor produces about 20 metric tonof waste per year, a fast reactor with the same

power output creates one metric ton of wasteThe resulting waste can be shaped into morestable forms, such as a solid vitrified glass, folong-term disposal. Because it is lesradioactive, this waste generates less heat andcan be stored more compactly than wastefrom light-water reactors. Ultimately, fasreactors could also allow reprocessing of wastefrom light-water reactors currently inoperation.

In contrast with fast reactors in a closed fuecycle, light-water reactors are highlyinefficient in their use of uranium, consumingonly about 5 percent of the available energybefore the fuel becomes contaminated withother isotopes and must be discarded. Thispent fuel, which is highly radioactive, icurrently stored on site at each nucleareactor. Two storage methods are used: Wastemust cool in a pool to reduce heat, and thencan be moved to dry-cask storage, sealed insteel and concrete tanks surrounded by inertgas. Spent nuclear fuel is currently stored in

pools and dry casks at sites across thecountry.11 Ultimately, these wastes wilrequire reprocessing or disposal in a geologicrepository for many thousands of years.

Despite the long-term advantages of thclosed fuel cycle, the extra cost it imposes haserved as a disincentive to widespreadadoption of fast reactor and advancedrecycl in g techn ologies . In Europereprocessing has generally added 5 to 6

percent to the cost of producing electricity.1

Given that fresh uranium remains plentifuand inexpensive -- the price of uraniumaccounts for only 2 to 4 percent of the price o

electricity the added cost of nuclear fuereprocessing has been viewed as prohibitive.

The challenge of nuclearwaste management has

become more pressing in theUnited States.

9 Argonne scientists conduct research on minimizing waste from reactors. PHOTO: http://www.flickr.com/photos/argonne/4074828015/.10 Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste, Scientific American, Hannum, Marsh and Stanford. Dec. 2005.11 Cooling cores at Idaho National Laboratory. PHOTO: http://www.flickr.com/photos/argonne/3954062594/ .12 Testimony by Dr. Alan Hanson, Areva, before the U.S. House Science & Technology Committee, June 17, 2009.

2
http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/


6/7


13Nuclear Energy Research & Development Roadmap, Report to Congress, U.S. Department of Energy. April 2010.http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/NuclearEnergy_Roadmap_Final.pdf, p.20

14 798.74 billion kilowatt-hours = 798 740 000 megawatt-hours * 1 metric ton CO2 saved per megawatt hr (figure from EnergyInformation Administration). http://www.eia.doe.gov/ask/electricity_faqs.asp#nuclear_generation)15 e Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, an Interdisciplinary MIT Study, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2010.http://web.mit.edu/mitei/docs/spotlights/nuclear-fuel-cycle.pdfp.1916 Obama Would Triple Guarantees for Building Nuclear Reactors,Bloomberg News , February 14, 2011: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-14/obama-would-triple-guarantees-for-building-nuclear-reactors.html17 Expected New Nuclear Power Plant Applications, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, April 13, 2011: http://www.nrc.gov/react ors/new-reactors/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-applications.pdf18 Administration to Push for Small Modular Reactors,New York Times, February 13, 2011: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/science/earth/13nuke.htm l19 Simulation of a nuclear reactor subassembly, created on Argonne's supercomputer, the Blue Gene. PHOTO: http://www.flickr.com/photos/argonne/4192798645/.

However, the combined effect of the costs forspent fuel management from light-waterreactors and need for sustainable use of uraniumresources could alter the financial equation andmake fuel reprocessing and closing the fuel cycle

viable.

ECONOMICS

Currently, the estimated cost of construction ofa twin-unit nuclear po wer plant is uncertain,but is several billion dollars to as much as $10billion. By any measure, those costs aresubstantial, and it can take a decade for a new

plant to be designed, approved, built, permitted,and brought online. Due to delays and costoverruns on nuclear plants in the 1980s and1990s, many private U.S. investors have beenreluctant to invest in new power plants.Although 2007 saw a resurgence of interest inthe private sector, the discovery of vast newreserves of natural gas in the United States has

made less-expensive gas-fired power plants moreattractive to investors.

However, most cost comparisons betweennatural gas and nuclear energy fail to address thefull environmental cost of carbon emissions.Although natural gas burns more cleanly thancoal, it is not carbon-neutral. The U.S.Department of Energy estimates that everymegawatt-hour of electricity produced byconventional coal-fired technology produces 1metric ton of CO2; generating a megawatt-hourof electricity through natural gas produces 0.6metric tons of CO2.13 (This means that, each

year, American nuclear plants avert the release of

almost 800 million tons of CO2 into theatmosphere.14) The imposition of a clean energystandard, carbon taxes, or cap-and-tradeincentives could substantially reduce theeconomic advantage of natural gas over nuclear

power.15

Over the past two years, the Obamaadministration has shown strong support fornuclear energy. Last year, the White Houseannounced $8 billion in federal loan guaranteesfor construction of two new conventionalreactors at the Vogtle site in Georgia, and

President Obama's proposed 2012 budget would triple the amount available for nuclear power plant construction loan guarantees.16The NRC also is reviewing applications forabout 30 new reactors.17

There are a number of technological andprocedural options that could reduce the cost of

nuclear power plant construction. For example,upfront capital costs could be reduced byadoption of general design standards, which

would allow utilities to choose from an array ofpre-approved,s t a n d a r d i z e d

pl ant designs.Such an initia-tive is currentlyunder-way in theUnited Statesand should makeit possible fornewer, advancedreactor designs tocome online laterthis decade.

Costs could alsobe reduced byu s i n g s m a l lmodular reactors(SMRs) as analternative toc o n v e n t i o n a ll i g h t - w a t e rr e a c t o r s .Components forthese scaled-down reactors, which are about

one-third the size of current power plants,could be built on assembly lines in advancedfactories instead of more expensive on-siteconstruction. President Obama's proposed2012 budget would invest $500 million inSMR research and technology over the nextfive years. These small reactors could replaceaging coal-fired power plants that already areserved by grid connections, reducing costs evenfurther. Estimates of the cost of building anSMR have ranged from several hundredmillion dollars to as much as $2 billion. Theunits could benefit initially from a built-in

initial market at federal sites facing an executiveorder to reduce carbon footprints by 28

percent by 2020.18 However, the cost per KWof SMRs will be higher than larger plants in theearly stages of deployment. Nonetheless, giventheir lower initial costs, SMRs could provemore attractive to private investors, with time,than full-sized nuclear power plants. The

combination of regulatory reform, federal loanguarantees, and lower upfront costs for smallerreactors could help to make nuclear powercost-competitive with gas and coal.

Going forwardfederal investmenin fundamentanuclear science ande n gi n e e r i n gresearch could helpto bring improvedreactors and bettef u e l r e c y c l i n gtechnologies to themarket. Given oulong track record oe x p e r t i s e a n dsuccess in nucleae n g i n e e r i n gArgonne and ous i s ter n at ion alaboratories are

well positioned tlead basic scientificr e s e a r c ht r a n s l a t i o n ar e s e a r c h , a n d

applied engineering in nuclear energy

generation and advanced nuclear fuel cyclesAlready, we are using our experimental andsupercomputing capabilities to enable improvedoperation of existing reactor plants,19 and createaffordable and efficient designs of futuregeneration nuclear energy systems. We also arusing the expertise derived from our broadenuclear energy capabilities to develop new non

proliferation strategies and tools, includinconversion of research reactors to lowenrichment fuels, technology export controlrisk and vulnerability assessments, andinformation systems.

23

The combined effect of thecosts for spent fuelmanagement from light-

water reactors and need for

sustainable use of uraniumresources could alter thefinancial equation andmake fuel reprocessing andclosing the fuel cycle

viable.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/argonne/4192798645/http://www.flickr.com/photos/argonne/4192798645/http://www.flickr.com/photos/argonne/4192798645/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://www.flickr.com/photos/argonne/4192798645/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://www.flickr.com/photos/argonne/4192798645/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://www.flickr.com/photos/argonne/4192798645/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://www.flickr.com/photos/argonne/4192798645/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://www.flickr.com/photos/argonne/4192798645/http://www.flickr.com/photos/argonne/4192798645/http://www.flickr.com/photos/argonne/4192798645/http://www.flickr.com/photos/argonne/4192798645/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/


7/7

PUBLIC INTEREST REPORT SPRING 2011CONCLUSION

In July 2011, the Department of EnergysBlue Ribbon Commission on America'sNuclear Future is scheduled to deliver itsdraft conclusions on the best strategies forU.S. nuclear waste management. Thisreport, along with the proposal by the

Obama administration to create a cleanenergy standard, should serve as theopening for a new national conversation onnuclear energy and nuclear wastemanagement policy. Certainly, there aremany concerns that must be addressed.However, advances in nuclear technologyhave significantly altered the cost-benefitequation that led the United States tointerrupt its significant investment innuclear power three decades ago.

National consumption of electricity is largeand growing, and the majority of usage in

homes, schools, hospitals, and businessesrequires a steady, reliable, around-the-clockpower supply.20 At present, solar and windenergy provide intermittent energy, and wemust rely on nuclear- or coal-generated

power to provide base load electricity whenthe sun isn't shining and the wind isn'tblowing. Although widespread use ofelectricity generated by renewable sourcesremains an important goal, it may take upto 20 years to develop cost-effective,scalable energy storage and grid technologythat would make that goal a reality.

U.S. Energy Secretary Chu has stated:

"Nuclear energy provides clean, safe,reliable power and has an important role to

play as we build a low-carbon future. Asthe nations current and future energyoptions come under review, a newgeneration of nuclear power technologiescan restart Americas nuclear industry andassure an adequate, environmentally soundsource of electricity for the decades tocome.

Mark T. Peters is the deputylaboratory director for programs at

Argonne National Laboratory.

20 Myths and Facts About Nuclear Energy

Supply, Nuclear Energy Institute:

http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/nei-

backgrounders/myths--facts-about-nuclear-

energy/myths--facts-about-energy-supply

e Evolution ofFederally FundedResearch &Development Centers BY JILL M. HRUBY, DAWN K. MANLEY, RONALD E.STOLTZ, ERIK K. WEBB and JOAN B. WOODARD

INTRODUCTION

Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) have thrived, struggled, andevolved to tackle national security missions for more than 70 years. FFRDCs were instituted in thearly 1940s to mobilize the country's scientific and engineering talent. They came into nationa

prominence during World War II and again during the Cold War as a mechanism to focus scientifiand engineering expertise on pressing national security challenges that demanded intensesophisticated, and sustained technical talent. Because of the urgency and complexity of theimissions, creating and maintaining this body of top technical capability required flexibility and

practices not available in the government.

Over the decades since their inception, FFRDCs have become more diverse both individually andcollectively in response to expanding national security needs. The

government has examined and reexamined their existence, charters, and mission. Today, the FFRDCsystem finds itself at a crossroad. The national security environment is more dynamic than ever

while simultaneously the budgetary pressures, government accountability, and federal workforcinitiatives are forcing reviews of government contracting including FFRDCs.

This article reviews the characteristics of FFRDCS and describes how they have adapted to shiftingnational security needs and during intense periods of government scrutiny. Two recent incidents, theattempted airline bombing on Christmas Day 2009 and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill in 2010, serve aexamples of challenges that relied on the technical expertise of the nations FFRDCs. Each FFRDCshould be held to high standards, and the collection of FFRDCs should be considered systemicallyin order for the nation to be prepared to meet 21st century security challenges.

2
http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/http://%22/

Documents

Future of Nuclear Energy