reawakening the u.s. nuclear renaissance
TRANSCRIPT
GUEST EDITORIAL
Reawakening the U.S. Nuclear Renaissance
Joshua Z. Rokach
I. Introduction
President Obama and Secretary
Chu reaffirmed the nation’s
commitment to nuclear power, in
the wake of the meltdowns in Japan.
For a nuclear renaissance to occur in
the U.S., though, policymakers
must resolve issues besides safety.
Before the meltdowns, voters in
one European country overturned
a decades-old ban on that form of
energy. By contrast, in the United
States, utilities are canceling plans
for new reactors en masse. It looks
like only two new expansions will
materialize.
Joshua Z. Rokach, a member of theEditorial Advisory Board of TheElectricity Journal, worked as a
partner in the energy and appellatepractice groups at Balch & Bingham
LLP from 2001 through 2009. Mr.Rokach currently consults on clean
energy and FERC-related electricityissues. Before entering private practice
he served for 27 years in the federalgovernment, 23 of them with the
Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission. At the Commission, he
served for nine years each as an adviserto two commissioners, as an attorneyin the Solicitor’s Office. He graduatedfrom Yale Law School and City College
of CUNY.
80 1040-6190/$–see front matter # 2011 El
Why has the growth of nuclear
power in the U.S. stalled? Can
policymakers do anything to
change the situation? Nuclear
plants emit no pollution. Coal, the
polluting fuel preponderant in U.S.
power plants, endangers public
health and the existence of the earth.
D ifferences in market forces
here and in Europe partially
help explain the situation. Policy-
makers here have paid a lot of
attention to setting the market cor-
rectly and their efforts show pro-
mise. However, substantive and
procedural reforms in less visible
areas must occur in industry and
government before nuclear power
can have the opportunity to play its
rightful role in a cleaner energy
future.
II. The Disparity inNuclear Power BetweenEurope and the UnitedStates
A recent survey from Nuclear
Power Europe painted a bright
picture for the industry. Currently,
utilities are constructing 19 power
plants in six countries. Meanwhile,
in Italy, voters overturned a ban on
nuclear power that had stood for
about 20 years. Overall, 63 percent
of the experts responding to the
sevier Inc. All rights reserved., doi:/10.1016/j.t
survey predicted further growth
this year.1
Here in the U.S., by early 2009,
utilities had asked the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) to
license 26 new plants. This year the
industry is moving ahead to build
only four reactors. Nuclear utilities,
including Exelon Corporation (the
largest operator of nuclear plants in
this country), Constellation
Energy, and Dominion Resources,
have scrapped previous plans for
new construction.2
On the surface, one might
conclude that we and our
transatlantic counterparts have
chosen opposite paths to the era of
new energy. Europe chose nuclear
and we chose wind and solar, with
natural gas as a backup. Indeed,
Exelon has begun to invest in wind
power, and will continue to
develop that business.
The facts, however, belie that
conclusion. Both nuclear power
and wind and solar energy are
expanding in Europe. In the U.S.,
not only has nuclear power
languished, but wind provides a
very small portion of our energy
needs and solar lags behind,
despite massive government aid
for its expansion. The nuclear
energy industry requires tax
credits and loan guarantees from
the Department of Energy, under
ej.2011.03.003 The Electricity Journal
in which utilities built custom-
several laws Congress enacted.
President Obama also has pushed
for more nuclear power and named
a commission to recommend
measures for ensuring the
construction of new plants.
III. Changes We MustPursue to Correct theImbalance
Three factors account for the
disparity in the prospects for
nuclear power in Europe and in the
U.S.:
1. Primarily, the economics of
the respective electric industries
point in opposite directions. The
European Union has made greater
strides in fighting against the
effects of climate change. Its
member nations have committed
themselves to significant reduc-
tions in greenhouse gas emissions.
That favors nuclear, wind, and
solar, which do not spew carbon
dioxide and other noxious chemi-
cals into the atmosphere.
I n addition, to accompany that
commitment, Europe has
increased the price of coal relative
to nuclear, wind, and solar energy
through its cap-and-trade scheme.
Consumers of coal pay for the
environmental damage that fuel
causes, while consumers of com-
peting fuels do not bear such a cost.
Despite intensive and prolonged
efforts from President Obama and
Democratic leaders, a similar plan
for the U.S. failed in the Senate,
despite having passed the House of
Representatives. With Republicans
controlling the House through the
next election, climate change
April 2011 1040-6190/$–see
legislation of any kind will go
nowhere. This assures that, for the
short term at least, coal plants –
cheaper to build and operate, but
more harmful to the planet and its
people – will have the upper hand.
Nuclear, wind, and solar power
plants, though cheap to operate,
suffer from high costs of
construction.
H owever, the states must fol-
low the lead of New York
and Massachusetts and establish
Europeans rely onthird-generationreactors and have begundesigning a fourthgeneration. In contrast,U.S. utilities operatesecond-generationreactors.
cap-and-trade programs to create
the economic basis for reducing
greenhouse gases. Policy changes
in the electricity markets, along the
lines I outlined in my article in
December’s issue of The Electricity
Journal, must come into force, in
order to counter the effect of con-
gressional gridlock.3
2. Technical issues surrounding
nuclear power in this country also
prevent the industry from grow-
ing. Questions on the design of
reactors remain unsettled and have
so far stymied the nuclear renais-
sance in the U.S.
Readers know the story of the
first phase of nuclear construction,
front matter # 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights r
made reactors, and how that
business model nearly brought the
industry to its knees. Reinventing
the wheel resulted in delays and
cost overruns, which contributed to
a 30-year long halt in new plants.
Europeans, who never stopped
building, rely on third-generation
reactors and have begun designing
a fourth generation. In contrast,
U.S. utilities operate second-
generation reactors. Third-
generation reactors use standard
designs. Plants currently under
construction will bring significant
economies, in the way of improved
safety, simpler operation, more
efficient use of fuel, and longer life.
Remarkably, new designs will
enable reactors to increase their
output quickly, from 25 percent of
capacity to 100 percent within
30 minutes.4 This will allow
utilities to use nuclear power to
meet unexpected demand.
The NRC has recognized the
need for standard designs and has
undertaken proceedings to
approve a number of them.
However, the industry and the
NRC have a long way to go in order
to catch up to Europe. The NRC is
processing multiple amendments
to several designs the agency
already certified.5 The alterations
show the necessity of adapting
European models to domestic
conditions.
Nevertheless, the industry needs
quickly to settle on standard
designs that will not require
frequent changes. Similarly, during
the current surge in license
applications, at least two major
utilities with experience operating
nuclear plants changed the type of
eserved., doi:/10.1016/j.tej.2011.03.003 81
reactor they sought to build, after
applying to the NRC for licenses.
Though they may have had good
reasons, in the future utilities
should make that decision in
advance of their approaching the
NRC.
O utdated notions in adminis-
trative law also impede
development of nuclear power,
though to a lesser extent than the
economic and technical issues dis-
cussed above. The NRC promised
that, once it approved a standard
design, safety issues would remain
off limits in individual licensing
cases. Previously, these questions
would consume a large part of the
hearing. The NRC correctly under-
stands that expediting licensing can
coexist with due process.
That same thinking has
not carried over into the
consideration of environmental
issues, the major remaining aspect
of licensing proceedings. (The
other involves evacuation plans.)
Licensing boards must allow
challengers to raise these issues in
individual cases, given the
geography and topography
specific to the sites of proposed
plants.
However, hearings should result
only if genuine questions of fact
exist. Boards should dispose of
challenges summarily to the
greatest possible extent. The
traditional idea in administrative
law that good outcomes result
from setting as much as possible for
hearing and from lenient rules of
evidence has the opposite effect in
nuclear licensing cases.
I use as an example the Vogtle
early site permit case, Docket No.
82 1040-6190/$–see front matter # 2011 Els
52-011 ESP, which I worked
on while in private practice.
The utility proposed to locate
the plants on the Savannah
River and to use a reactor
that the NRC had approved
as a standard design. Power
plants using coal, gas, and nuclear
fuel require cooling in order to
keep generators intact. The
particular cooling system relied on
recycled water, as did the standard
design.
Opponents argued that the law
required a more expensive air
cooling system. The utility then
moved for summary disposition.
The moving party argued that
environmental regulations for
cooling systems permitted those
using recycled water in areas with
adequate water supply, such as the
Savannah River. In addition, no
nuclear plant had ever used that
system. The challengers answered
that smaller, gas-fired plants used
air cooling.
The board, which ultimately
issued the early site permit with the
‘‘wet’’ cooling system, should have
taken notice of the water flow of the
Savannah River and ruled that air
Outdatednotions in
administrativelaw also
impededevelopment
of nuclearpower.
evier Inc. All rights reserved., doi:/10.1016/j.te
cooling would not work in a
nuclear reactor as opposed to
smaller gas plants. Instead, the
board set the issue for hearing. The
utility had to conduct expensive
analyses to explain that air cooling
would adversely affect the safety,
efficacy, and operation of a reactor
and the environment at the site.
The experts also had to compare
the engineering at the multiple gas
plants with that at Vogtle to prove
why the nuclear plant needed
water.
IV. Conclusion
A clean energy future requires
that the United States turn away
from coal and other polluting
power plants. To do so, we need to
allow nuclear energy to find its
proper role, alongside wind and
solar. Policymakers and those
implement it, as well as
executives in the industry, must
adopt new strategies to make that
happen.&
Endnotes:
1. At http://www.energycentral.com/generationstorage/nuclear/news/vpr/10261/Europe-s-Nuclear-Renaissance-Gains-Credence (Jan. 17, 2011).
2. At http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/nuclear-builders-keep-their-options-open/ (Dec. 27, 2010).
3. J.Z. Rokach, Combating GlobalWarming While the Senate Fiddles, ELEC. J.,Dec. 2010, at 51.
4. Advanced Nuclear Reactors, at http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html.
5. At http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert.html.
j.2011.03.003 The Electricity Journal