Sleight of hand

He hails nuclear as the answer to America’s carbon-emitting problem and the future of energy self-sufficiency, but without the legislation to back up his speeches, will President Obama’s nuclear policies be nothing more than smoke without fire?

“We’re seeing is an evolution of thinking regarding the value of nuclear as a contributor to the solution”
-Helen Howes

In recent years, nuclear has been dressed up and re-branded as the savior of the global energy crisis. Governments are finally taking notice of diminishing energy resources and beginning to feel the power of lobbying efforts calling for a reduction in carbon emissions. Public opinion is no longer as drowsy as it previously has been - the average energy consumer is now waking up to realize the effects of individual usage on global warming. Being 'green' is the new scene.

The previous stigmas of safety and reliability have been washed over and nuclear has re-emerged as America's answer to the fuel crisis. President Obama is carrying the torch for its revival and canvassing in its support, with Energy Secretary Steven Chu in tow, but the accumulation of this into policy never seems to appear. There is still so much to see of Obama's tenure, but so far his legislation for nuclear's dominance is nowhere to be seen. In fact, nuclear features as a side note in many of his energy speeches. Promises of funding and plant construction continue to be made, but it seems that the US government is shying away from actual legislation.

Public opinion
Global opinion has changed. The UN Climate Change Conference scheduled for Copenhagen in December 2009 is set to reorganize the framework for climate change mitigation and millions across the globe will be watching the outcome. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is regarded as the biggest nuclear lobbying group in the US: according to its website it "develops policy on key legislative and regulatory issues affecting the industry." The NEI board encompasses 27 nuclear utilities, plant designers and engineering firms in efforts to expand the nuclear industry, and for the entirety of 2007 spent $1.3 million lobbying the US federal government. It has targeted this public support, running ads to highlight the nuclear benefits.

Public opinion has not always leaned toward favouring climate change and nuclear energy. The creation of nuclear fission in the 1930s saw the first attempt to pave the way for nuclear to emerge as a primary energy source - Eisenhower's 'Atoms for Peace' speech, which he delivered in 1953, began the first waves of support for nuclear power, and the US Navy became one of the first organizations to develop nuclear power for its propelling submarines and aircraft carriers. The US launched its nuclear power program in 1954 and the SM-1 Nuclear Power Plant, at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, became the first reactor to deliver energy to the grid.

However, the work of the Manhattan Project resulted in the building of large reactors at the Hanford Site and the first nuclear weapons were created using the plutonium that had been developed there. Rising costs during the 1970s and 80s and falling fossil fuel prices made nuclear power less attractive and 63 nuclear units were cancelled in the US between 1975 and 1980. But it was less the economics than the general opinion that caused the reduction of nuclear as a primary energy source. Fears began to grown about the safety of nuclear - how likely could accidents occur, what were the chances of a radiation leak, and where exactly was the nuclear waste being disposed of? The 1979 accident at Three Mile Island and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster answered all these questions and set public opinion firmly against nuclear.

Nuclear power has had a very different history in Europe, however. Following the 1973 oil crisis, France had to move away from its dependence on fossil fuels and invest in nuclear power. Still, today, nuclear is its main source of electricity and supplies approximately 80 percent of the total. Elsewhere, developing countries such as China and India are showing a heavy interest in nuclear. To cope with its rising population and developing economy, China plans to build more than 100 plants. In March 2009 China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group, a major nuclear power corporation, set up the China Guangdong Nuclear Uranium Co. to be responsible for its uranium supply, ensuring that the country is self sufficient not only in power plant capacity, but also in the production of fuel.

The Obama Administration have understood public opinion for nuclear's comeback and have talked up its return, yet after months of promises they still lack the commitment to introduce any such legislation. Rather than the government, it is the utility companies that are acting on their faith and carrying the baton for nuclear implementation. Nuclear power is emerging as an economy-based supply-and-demand principle - utility companies across the US are reacting to the need for viable sources of renewable energy and investing in its future.

Federal policy
Since the Energy Policy Act of 2005, nuclear has become accepted as a viable form of renewable energy for the US. Despite being passed by George W. Bush and facing criticisms for favoring Texan companies and amounting to nothing more than a broad collection of subsidies for US energy companies, the legislation highlights nuclear as an "innovative technology" and authorizes cost-overrun support of up to $2 billion for six new power plants. Obama voted 'yes' on the bill and carried through his support into his own presidency, including nuclear as part of his energy policy. During his acceptance speech he announced, "As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology and find ways to safely harness nuclear power." However, implementing his promises into policy is quite a different story.

The Obama Administration has ramped up the move towards renewables, but this alone cannot produce the energy that the country needs. A recent study by the Nature Conservancy, a conservation organization encompassing more than one million members, shows that new energy production, specifically biofuels and wind power, is likely to consume a landmass larger than Nebraska. Nuclear sets itself apart as being a producer of low-carbon electricity without infringing upon the country's wildlife, but the federal policy to support this engagement with nuclear never materializes.

The Office of Nuclear Energy offers two program goals for nuclear advancement: the development of new nuclear generation technologies and the maintenance, enhancement and safeguarding of America's nuclear infrastructure. Its first goal, as stated on the Department of Energy's website, is to develop technologies that "foster the diversity of the domestic energy supply through public-private partnerships that are aimed in the near-term at the deployment of advanced, proliferation-resistant light water reactor and fuel cycle technologies and in the longer-term at the development and deployment of next-generation advanced reactors and fuel cycles."

On June 16 this year, Steven Chu followed up on the DOE's emphasis of development, announcing an available funding of $9 million for nuclear energy university program awards. The Nuclear Energy Universities Program will provide scholarships and fellowships to 86 US nuclear science and engineering students. The funding is being made available to support the country's energy research infrastructure, but what about the powering of the infrastructure itself?

On September 18, Chu flew the flag for nuclear once again and announced that $40 million in funding would be made available to support design and planning for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP): plants which will use high temperature, gas-cooled reactor technologies to integrate multiple industrial applications in one plant or facility, such as generating electricity while refining petroleum.

"Support for new developments in nuclear technologies will be critical to meeting our energy, climate and security goals for years to come," says Chu. "Next Generation Nuclear Plants hold the promise of safe, cost-effective, zero-emissions energy for major US industries that are some of the largest energy consumers in the country."

The NGNP project is expected to be comprised of two phases, with the construction of a demonstration plant expected in 2012. Applications are to be made to the DOE, with two awards being announced in February 2010 and both supporting a unique reactor concept. This follows an already long-standing agreement for the involvement of Idaho National Laboratory to build a full-scale, 300MW prototype. However, before anticipations run high, it is worth noting that the construction of the plant is not planned to begin until 2016.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published an NGNP licensing strategy in 2009 laying out a process, but includes no actual details regarding design for the reactors, and it is expected that it will be at least 2014 before the NGNP is ready with a reactor design for the NRC review. The Obama Administration hails itself as bringing the next generation of nuclear power, promising research funds and new developments, but when stripped back to the finer details, the likelihood of any progress being made during the current president's tenure seems exceptionally small.

It is not only the construction of nuclear power plants that the government is failing in its support. The catastrophic case of the Yucca Mountain Repository has also been a stop-start, before being completely rejected by the Obama Administration. Proposed as a storage facility for nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste, it was approved in 2002 under the Bush Administration but all funding was stopped earlier this year. Chu stated that it is "no longer an option for storing nuclear waste," prompting concerns over the ambiguity of nuclear waste disposal.

Obama's team do not want to lose face by ignoring public interest in nuclear, but are reluctant to implement a potentially damaging policy. His nuclear policy is proving to be nothing more than a brilliantly streamlined PR spin: extolling the benefits of nuclear but without feeling the effects should anything go wrong. Nuclear has certainly moved away from its previous stigmas, but not completely; for many it still remains a controversial policy.

Talking with John Keeley at the NEI confirms this viewpoint. He believes that although there may be a lot happening behind the scenes, it is unlikely we will see nuclear policy made into legislation any time soon. He notes the current federal focus on healthcare reform and the need for the Obama Administration to heavily hone in on the criticisms they are currently facing. "Healthcare is the driver now," says Keeley. He also notes the senator elections that are due to occur next year - in times of electoral campaigns it is very uncommon to see controversial legislation introduced, for fear of causing offence and losing votes.

Kerry-Boxer bill
Keeley also points to the shortfalls of nuclear energy in the Kerry-Boxer bill. The only promise Barbara Boxer seems to have kept in announcing new legislation on nuclear power is the announcement having 'nuclear' in the title. The bill actually does very little to address nuclear policy, opting to include it as a side note on the end of stipulations for natural gas, coal and renewable energy.

The report cites nuclear's pivotal role, yet fails to make any serious commitments for the future: "Nuclear energy is the largest provider of clean, low-carbon, electricity, almost eight times larger than all renewable power production combined, excluding hydroelectric power." The bill includes a generic goal to expand the nuclear energy workforce and concentrate more research into nuclear safety and disposal, but none of this is partnered with a firm set of allocated funding. Chu has sided with this argument and stated that in response he will push for billions of dollars to secure funds to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The response to the bill has been overwhelming critical. The bill came as a result of the lobbying done by conservationist Lamar Alexander, who spoke on the importance of nuclear, not just for a greener future but also to secure more votes for the energy and climate bill. Fellow Republican John McCain also staunchly spoke out against the bill, saying, "I'm not going to be part of any agreement that I know is not going to succeed in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and that means it has to be nuclear power. We need to build 100 nuclear power plants in the next 20 years. We have to, otherwise we're not going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The principle of outside looking in springs to mind, however. Would Republicans introduce such a controversial policy if they were in power? Obama's Administration is quick to note the environmental benefits of nuclear but slow to implement it because of the fear of failure. The politics of introducing nuclear as a primary energy source continues to get in the way - the controversy surrounding the safety of it, the problems with storage and a possible electoral defeat should anything go wrong.

Facing increasing criticism for his lack of commitment, Obama may now have given up on glossing over the shortcomings of his nuclear legislation. During the UN climate summit on September 22 he failed to mention nuclear energy even once, an omission that was made more apparent by the Chinese president's discussion of nuclear as a primary energy source. Hu Jintao cited statistics and targets for his energy plan, committing to building 132 GW of new nuclear plants.

Utility policy
Instead of instigating nuclear legislation, the current administration seems to be warming the waters for the utilities to dive in and make the first move, be it successful or not. Its vague pledges for government funding for nuclear programs has got the utilities fired up and competing for the prize, each attempting to be at the cutting edge of nuclear technology.

One utility that has long established its support for nuclear technology is Exelon. It has the largest nuclear fleet in the US with 17 generating units, which produced a record 132.3 million net megawatt-hours of electricity in 2007. The company has done away with safety fears and gained public confidence in its operations with its unbeatable statistics - during the same year, as production increased, the fleet recorded its lowest industry safety accident rate.

In a previous interview with Power & Energy, Helen Howes, Exelon's VP of Environment, Health and Safety, said she believes the growing public demand to increase the supply of nuclear energy is proof enough that consumers no longer have the critical attitude towards nuclear that they once did.

"What we're seeing now is an evolution of thinking regarding the value of nuclear as a contributor to the solution," she says. There are still a number of those who are anti-nuclear, that's inevitable, but the value of nuclear as a climate change strategy is being more and more acknowledged. It's certainly not done so as the only option, but it's raised its status to be one of a number of options on the table."

American Electric Power (AEP) is another utility that is pushing nuclear. With a majority of its fleet being traditional coal-fired generation, the company understands the need to expand its resource mix and create a balanced portfolio to suit both the climate and changing consumer needs. Nick Akins, EVP of Generation, explains that nuclear is a huge focus for AEP, who are exploring other forms of base load technology. "It's a priority for us to be able to uprate our nuclear station: we have plans on uprating nuclear by 400- to 500-megawatts and that is a relatively small cost, at least a lesser cost than a new coal-fired station," he says.

However, Exelon and AEP are two of America's largest utility companies, with reported revenues in 2008 of $18.9 million and $13.3 million respectively. Yet despite these figures, the average cost of building a new nuclear power plant is approximately $7 billion, which is hugely unachievable without the help of government funding; maintaining the plant also brings high costs.

The only recent nuclear funding other than Chu's long-term applications for $40 million has been for the Idaho National Laboratory - thanks to Republican Mike Simpson, whose district stretches across Idaho and includes the lab, who recently announced an increase of $33 million in funding for research, equipment purchases and the advanced test reactor's operation as a national scientific user facility.

President Obama's energy policies contain promising nods to an American future where nuclear plays an important role in a dramatically reduced carbon emissions rate, but none of this is backed up by legislation. As the NEI's John Keeley suggests, while there may be much going on behind the scenes, nuclear's future, right now, does not seem concrete or certain.

This lack of federal commitment raises questions of government uncertainty and doubt. Perhaps they are concentrating on changing attitudes of anti-campaigners to avoid a bombardment of attacks and criticisms should anything go wrong, or perhaps they are copping out and waiting for a Republican government to storm full steam ahead and make their mistakes for them. Only time will tell - but for now, it appears that the shining future of nuclear generation outlined in Obama's speeches will be funded not by the government but by the utility companies themselves.

Kerry-Boxer Bill

Claimed by John Kerry to be a "pollution reduction bill", the issue of cap and trade is avoided, instead looking at nuclear worker training, federal procurement of water-efficient products, green jobs, climate change adaptation programs and flood control. The bill emphasizes the need for the Secrtaury of Health and Human Services to create a strategic plan for health issues caused by climate change - waterborne diseases, tropical diseases, pulmonary affects, cardiovascular effects, air pollution health effects, hazardous algal blooms, mental and behavioral health impacts of climat change, the health of refugees, the implications for communities vulnerable to climate change and local and community based health interventions.