Nuclear Reaction

As the US strives to find solutions to meet future energy needs that will not compromise the environment, could nuclear energy be the answer? Power & Energy talks to Assistant Secretary Dennis Spurgeon of the Department of Energy to find out.

When Dennis Spurgeon was sworn in as Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy back in April 2006, he was the first person to serve in this position for more than a decade – a testament to how much nuclear energy had fallen out of favor. However, nuclear power is slowly growing in prominence again with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission currently expecting applications to build 32 new nuclear reactors over the next two years. Assistant Secretary Spurgeon, for one, believes the current climate is perfect for a “global renaissance” in nuclear power. In fact, a recent poll by Bisconti Research found that public opinion regarding nuclear energy has drastically improved in recent years, with 83 percent of those polled believing nuclear is set to play a much more important role in meeting future energy demands.

Spurgeon leads the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), a Department of Energy initiative that seeks to develop a worldwide consensus on enabling expanded use of economical, carbon-free nuclear energy to help meet growing electricity demand. As part of President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative, the major aim of the project is to ensure the increased use of nuclear power whilst ensuring that it is used safely and securely, without the risk of proliferation. Growing economies that would like to use nuclear energy can, by participating in GNEP, gain knowledge and expertise from nations with more advanced nuclear technologies. They, in turn, can then enjoy the benefits of clean, safe nuclear power while minimizing proliferation concerns and eliminating the need to invest in the complete fuel cycle.

In September 2007, a further 11 countries voluntarily signed into the partnership, joining the original membership of China, France, Japan, Russia and the United States; working together is now paramount for the success of the project. “We all need to collaborate and everybody needs the same voice to help develop the infrastructures of new countries that might want to enjoy the benefits of nuclear power,” explains Spurgeon. “So when they do enter the nuclear arena, they do it with the requisite capabilities from a human resource, regulatory, legal and technology standpoint. We have an obligation as a group to try and assure that everyone that relies on nuclear energy has a reliable supply of fuel. In addition, we should all have a reliable way of dispositioning a spent fuel in an easier and a more readily implementable way than we currently have. Therefore, the GNEP is banding together to say we need more nuclear power, but we want to ensure it is increased in a responsible way without increasing risk – in fact, by reducing risk.”

Spurgeon is also responsible for the DOE’s Nuclear Energy (NE) enterprise, including nuclear technology research and development, management of the department’s nuclear technology infrastructure, and support to nuclear education in the United States. NE’s nuclear technology infrastructure is comprised of hot cells, test reactors, accelerators and other highly specialized facilities that support nuclear research and development, materials testing, and production of isotopes for medicine and radioisotope power systems for space and national security users. He is responsible for execution of a $536 million annual federal budget (FY 2006).

Alternative ideas
Demand for energy will continue to grow over the next few decades, possibly reaching a 50 percent increase by 2025. The US desperately has to look to other sources besides fossil fuels to meet its energy needs, and while over 25 states have set targets for between 10-20 percent of their energy needs to be met by renewable energy by 2020, nuclear could also prove an attractive option. As Spurgeon explains, it is of paramount importance that energy companies seek to extend and vary their energy mix as much as possible. “As President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative notes, diversification of our electric power sector will ensure the availability of affordable electricity,” he suggests. “The global market for energy fuel supplies will continue to be subject to fluctuations, both predictable and unexpected, for the foreseeable future. It is crucial that the United States be able to rely on a diverse and robust energy portfolio to hedge against these market changes. Renewable sources, as well as nuclear and clean coal technologies, must all contribute to a varied supply.”

Although Spurgeon is supportive of the growth of renewable energy sources, he suggests that relying solely on them is unlikely to be the answer to the problem. “Some of those other sources of power – such as hydro, for instance – don’t have the ability to expand in the same way nuclear does,” he says. “We’re pretty much at the limits of our ability to produce additional hydropower. As for natural gas, supply and the pricing makes this source restrictive so the ability for this resource to be utilized by 50 percent is very questionable. Although we have lots of coal, the challenge is to develop technology to sequester the carbon so we can limit its impact on greenhouse gases. With this in mind, we’re looking for nuclear energy to not only play a larger role, but to play a substantially increased role in electric energy generation in the years to come.”

One of the major concerns about nuclear power is whether developing nuclear power on a safe and affordable basis – while at the same time protecting against proliferation – is even realistic. “I think it is achievable,” says Spurgeon, who points out that there is no direct connection between civilian nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. “It’s just that materials can be manipulated for a negative purpose. Some of the technology is similar, but as a world body we need to join together and increase nuclear energy without increasing the spread of the more sensitive technologies such as enrichment and reprocessing.

“After all,” he continues, “nothing is foolproof. There’s nothing to prevent a rogue state from using the right knowledge and taking fuel elements, separating them into their constituents and deriving from that materials that could potentially be used for non-peaceful purposes. North Korea is a good example. They have no commercial nuclear power business, but we’re still worried about them developing a weapons program.”

Safety record
With the news that a number of applications have been put to the US authorities regarding permission for new nuclear facilities to be built, there are many critics who will undoubtedly need reassurance that the safety of workers, residents around nuclear plants and the population in general will be guaranteed. “The nuclear industry has had one of the best safety records in the United States and, in fact, around the world,” says Spurgeon reassuringly. “I say this with Three Mile Island notwithstanding. However, we have to keep in mind that this happened 30 years ago and nothing has happened since. Even during the incident at Three Mile Island, no one was injured. This is a remarkable achievement when you think about the accidents that take place in other industries all the time. Interestingly, when we poll people about the acceptance of nuclear power, it is notable that the highest favorable numbers, almost 80 percent, occur in the areas immediately surrounding nuclear power plants.”

The high safety record of the nuclear energy industry is gradually beginning to be recognized in the US. Along with this changing acceptance for nuclear is the fact that the operating availability of US nuclear power plants exceed 90 percent on average – which, as Spurgeon points out, is an “extraordinarily high level for an energy producing facility”.

Supporters of nuclear power include Patrick Moore, a leading environmentalist, whose pro-nuclear stance is in sharp contrast to many of his peers. He is the first to admit that back in the 1970s when he helped found Greenpeace (the charity dedicated to environmental responsibility), he was strongly opposed to the technology, believing “nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust”. Since then, however, Moore’s views have changed. “The rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too,” he says. “Nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.”

Moore argues that the incident at Three Mile Island, which was primarily responsible for damaging the energy source’s reputation in the US, was in fact a testament to the safety of the country’s reactors. “The concrete containment structure did just what it was designed to do – prevent radiation from escaping into the environment,” he says. “And although the reactor itself was crippled, there was no injury or death among nuclear workers or nearby residents. Three Mile Island was the only serious accident in the history of nuclear energy generation in the United States, but it was enough to scare us away from further developing the technology.”

Other supporters of his view include James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, and the late British Bishop High Montefiore, founder of Friends of the Earth – all three well respected experts whose work has had the wellbeing of the planet and people at the center of their agendas. Their support is unsurprising; after all, nuclear energy produces no harmful emissions – including nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases.

Technological advances
On the technological front, there are many new innovations that are contributing to pushing nuclear power forward and will hopefully also push the cost of nuclear energy down even further – as cheap as coal and hydroelectric. Spurgeon highlights a number of new developments that will be making an impact, including a technology for separating pure plutonium rather than keeping uranium, plutonium and other minor actinides contained within the same mixture, thus reducing the attractiveness for terrorists to exploit these resources for non-peaceful purposes.

Spurgeon highlights how any new plants will be built to be even more amenable to safeguards and non-proliferation concerns than they are now. “Our new plants will be built and employ design concepts that are an improvement over those that have been built in the past,” he explains. “One of the major design concepts is to have natural circulation type plants, so there is no need for pumps. The emergency cooling systems are gravity operated so there is no need to rely on mechanical devices for some of these safety systems to work. These are gradual changes and represent a system of continuous improvement.”

Other developments include further research and development into ‘designer molecules’, which contribute to making the separation process more efficient.

High hopes
Spurgeon has many hopes for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership in the future. He is particularly keen for more countries to become members of the collaboration and believes more would have joined back in September had it not been for the fact that they were unable to get all of the necessary approvals through their governments before the deadline.

The GNEP has established an organizational structure with an executive committee consisting of ministers, a steering committee and working groups. “This will focus on infrastructure development, reliable fuel supply and potential safeguards,” explains Spurgeon. “There will be working level groups that can put together the ideas and positions that can then be passed up and hopefully ultimately approved by the steering committee and then the executive committee.”

Nuclear energy could have an impressive future in the US, although it is likely that there will always be some reservations from certain groups who are reluctant to accept it as a safe alternative. Weaning ourselves off fossil fuels is a desperate necessity; as Spurgeon puts it: “Investigating the potential of nuclear is a route we have a duty to take.”

Benefits of the GNEP

• Provide abundant energy without generating carbon emissions or greenhouse gases
• Recycle used nuclear fuel to minimize waste and reduce proliferation concerns
• Safely and securely allow developing nations to deploy nuclear power to meet energy needs
• Assure maximum energy recovery from still-valuable used nuclear fuel.-Reduce the number of required U.S. geologic waste repositories to one for the remainder of this century

How recycling of spent nuclear fuel would work
The US is pursuing the transition from a once-through fuel cycle to a new approach that includes recycling of spent nuclear fuel without separating out pure plutonium. Recycling would employ uranium extraction plus (UREX+). Research has shown that UREX+ can separate uranium from the spent fuel at a very high level of purification that would allow it to be recycled for re-enrichment, stored in an unshielded facility, or simply buried as a low-level waste. In addition, to uranium, UREX+ recycling can separate out:

• Long-lived fission products, technetium and iodine, which could be immobilized for disposal in Yucca Mountain
• Short-lived fission products, cesium and strontium, which could be prepared for decay storage until they meet the requirements for disposal as low-level waste
• Transuranic elements (plutonium, neptunium, americium and curium), which could be fabricated into fuel for an Advanced Burner Reactor, or advanced fast reactor

Fast reactors would consume or destroy the transuranics, reducing the need for disposal in Yucca Mountain. This approach would increase the effective capacity of the geologic repository by an estimated factor of 50 to 100. Residual waste fission products would be reconfigured for disposal at a single geologic repository.

With recycling and used fuel management, the planned geologic repository site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, has the potential capability to accommodate all the used US commercial nuclear fuel that has been or will be generated by US nuclear power plants over their lifetimes.