The Resurgence of Nuclear Power

Health Physics Society Baltimore-Washington Chapter Gaithersburg, MD Ralph L. Andersen, CHP Director – Health Physics & LLRW Nuclear Energy Institute May 15, 2008

2

Today’s Briefing

 Nuclear Power — Today and Tomorrow  Environmental Considerations  Outlook for Radiation Protection

Nuclear Power — Today and Tomorrow

Sources of U.S. Electricity

(2007) 1.6% Oil

Volatile fuel cost Capacity factor: 19.6% Emissions: SO 2 , NOx, CO 2

21.5% Natural Gas

Low construction cost Volatile fuel cost Combined cycle capacity factor: 43.3% Steam plant capacity factor: 16.0% Emissions: NOx, CO 2

19.4% Nuclear

High construction cost Stable fuel cost Capacity factor: 91.8% Emissions: None 4

48.6% Coal

High construction cost Capacity factor: 71.1% Emissions: SO 2 , NOx, CO metals 2, particulates, mercury, toxic Source: Global Energy Decisions / Energy Information Administration 4/08

5.8% Hydro

Large-scale opportunities gone No fuel cost Capacity factor: 27.8% Emissions: None

3.2% Renewables (and Other)

High construction cost No fuel cost Capacity factors: 30.4% (Wind), 19.8% (Solar) 75.0% (Geothermal) 70.9% (Biomass) Emissions: None

5

Nuclear Power in the United States —

Today

     104 operating commercial reactors (102 operating naval reactors) Stable and affordable production costs  1.76 cents/KWh  92% average capacity factor  Nearly 20% of US electricity supply with 10% of the installed capacity Used fuel safely stored on 64 sites Zero GHG emissions during electricity production Valuable business assets

12.0

10.0

8.0

U.S. Electricity Production Costs

1995-2007,

2007

In 2007 cents per kilowatt-hour

Coal - 2.47

Gas - 6.78

Nuclear - 1.76

Petroleum - 10.26

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Production Costs = Operations and Maintenance Costs + Fuel Costs Source: Global Energy Decisions Updated: 5/08

7

Renewal of Operating Licenses Continues

26 Intend to Renew 22 Unannounced 48 Granted 8 Under NRC Review 6 Filed in 2006

Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

8

What’s Driving the Interest in New Nuclear?

    Growing need for baseload generation   Near-term need for new generating capacity (e.g. Northeast, mid-Atlantic, Southeast, South, Texas) 25% increase in electricity demand by 2030 Increasing environmental concerns and potential controls on carbon emissions Chronic volatility in natural gas prices Nuclear power safety record

9

Today’s Scorecard

 Design certification (evolutionary designs)   2 certified (Westinghouse AP-1000, GE ABWR) 3 under NRC review (GE ESBWR, Areva EPR, Mitsubishi APWR)  Construction/operating licenses (COLs)  9 complete applications for 15 reactors

10

Short-Term Outlook

(to 2010)

  Expect 7 to 11 additional COLs by the end of 2008 First wave of plants (likely 4 to 8 plants)   2008: Start procurement of long-lead components (reactor pressure vessels, turbines, steam generators) Late 2008 - 2009: Start site preparation (land clearing, roads, grading, construction-support facilities, excavation)    Late 2009: Other procurement starts 2009 - 2010: Arrange financing Late 2010: COL approval, start safety-related construction

11

Long-Term Outlook

(to 2020)

   First wave (4 to 8 reactors) expected to start commercial operation beginning in 2016 Potential for 15 to 20 new nuclear reactor plants (up to 30 GW) coming on-line by 2020 — avoidance of 140 million metric tons of CO 2 per year Build rate and number of plants will depend on success of first wave (within cost and schedule estimates, without licensing mishaps)

Environmental Considerations

Emissions Produced by 1 Kilowatt hour of Electricity Based on Life Cycle Analysis

Generation Option Hydropower Nuclear Wind Solar photovoltaic Biomass forestry waste combustion Greenhouse gas emissions gram equiv. (in CO2/kWh) 2 – 48 2 – 59 7 – 124 13 – 731 15 – 101 Sulfur dioxide emissions (in milligrams/kWh) 5 – 60 3 – 50 21 – 87 24 – 490 12 – 140 Nitrogen oxide emissions (in milligrams/kWh) 3 – 42 2 – 100 14 – 50 16 – 340 701 – 1,950 NMVOC (in milligrams /kWh**) 0 0 0 70 0 Particulate matter (in milligrams /kWh) 5 2 5 – 35 12 – 190 217 – 320 Natural gas (combined cycle) Coal – modern plant 790 – 1,182 700 – 32,321 700 – 5,273 18 – 29 30 – 663 Source: “Hydropower-Internalized Costs and Externalized Benefits,” Frans H. Koch, International Energy Agency (IEA)-Implementing Agreement for Hydropower Technologies and Programs, Ottawa, Canada, 2000.

13 389 – 511 4 – 15,000[*] 13 – 1,500 72 – 164 1 – 10 Order of magnitude validation by University of Wisconsin study (August 2002) and WNA Energy Analysis of Power Systems (March 2006)

14

U.S. Electricity Sources Which Do Not Emit Greenhouse Gases

Wind 2.3% Nuclear 70.9% Hydro 25.4% Geothermal 1.3% Solar 0.0% Source: Global Energy Decisions / Energy Information Administration Updated: 4/07

U.S. Electric Power Industry CO

2

Avoided

681.2

Million Metric Tons

241.9

15 Nuclear Hydro 22.2

Geothermal 12.8

Wind 0.4

Solar Source: Emissions avoided are calculated using regional and national fossil fuel emissions rates from the Environmental Protection Agency and plant generation data from the Energy Information Administration. Updated: 4/07

Perspective on CO

2

Emissions Prevented By U.S. Nuclear Plants

709.3

681.2

equals CO 2 from 131 million cars 16 CO 2 emissions prevented by U.S. nuclear power plants (2006) CO 2 emitted by all 136 million U.S. passenger cars (2005) Source: Emissions avoided by nuclear power are calculated using regional fossil fuel emission rates from the Environmental Protection Agency and plant generation data from the Energy Information Administration. Car emissions from EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality Emissions Facts. Updated: 4/07

17

Environmentalists Support Nuclear Energy

“The important and overriding consideration is time; we have nuclear power now, and new nuclear building should be started immediately. All of the alternatives, including fusion energy, require decades of development before they can be employed on a scale that would significantly reduce emissions. In the next few years, renewables will add an increment of emission-free energy, mainly from wind, but it is quite small when compared with the nuclear potential.” — James Lovelock Author “The Revenge of Gaia: Earth's Climate Crisis and the Fate of Humanity” July 2006 “There were legitimate reasons to worry about nuclear power, but now that we know about the threat of climate change, we have to put the risks in perspective. Sure, nuclear waste is a problem, but the great thing about it is you know where it is and you can guard it.” — Stewart Brand Noted environmentalist and founder, publisher, and editor of The Whole Earth Catalog The New York Times February 27, 2007

18

Strong Public Support

Near Existing Plants 82% Favor nuclear energy 71% Willing to see new reactor built near them 86% Give nuclear high safety rating 86% Favorable impression of nearest plant 81% Utility protecting environment Source: Bisconti Research Inc.

August 2007 poll of 1,152 U.S. adults; margin of error is +/- 3%