This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

10,098 Members

Post

Nuclear Energy Projects Play Vital Role in Meeting Growing Energy Demands

The U.S. Department of Energy projects that U.S. electricity demand will rise 28 percent by 2040. The nation will subsequently need hundreds of new power plants in order to provide electricity to Americans as well as to sustain economic growth.

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, maintaining nuclear energy’s current 20 percent share of generation will require building one new reactor each year starting in 2016, resulting in 20 to 26 new units by 2040. Currently, there are 16 companies nationwide studying, licensing, or building over 30 nuclear power reactors, with 5 new nuclear plants under construction.

In addition to large nuclear plant projects, the NEI also hopes to expand potential nuclear markets through the development of small-scale reactors, according to a briefing paper released by the organization in June 2013:

“Small reactors in scalable facilities can fill a broader spectrum of new energy demands as well as replace inefficient electricity facilities, provide process heat for diverse industrial applications and generate electricity for remote locations. Modules can be added as needed—built in controlled factory settings and easily transported to the site.”

“Together with large reactors and other low-carbon energy options, such as wind and solar, small reactors contribute to a full line of safe, secure carbon-free energy sources.”

“It’s an opportune moment to take step back and say, ‘Look. If we’re going to build the kind of low-carbon future we need, I don’t see how to get there without significant reliance on nuclear energy,’” Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman said in a statement to the OC Register. “For the first time in many, many years, we’re seeing a strong emerging consensus that it’s in the best interest of the country. We should take this opportunity to get it right, and do so with the stewardship of the environment, and preventing proliferation, uppermost in our minds.”

However, until the United States is able to find and approve a technology for the permanent disposal of nuclear waste — a process that is expected to take at least 35 years — California will not allow for any such development.

Since 1976, California has had a moratorium on building new nuclear plants. Although many attempts have been made over the years to challenge the ban — in both the courts and the legislature, as well as the initiative process — none have proven successful.

In February, California cleared a 2014 initiative that would shut down the Diablo Canyon and San Onofre plants until a disposal method is approved. However, the initiative’s sponsors did not gather enough signatures for its deadline and it will not appear on the 2014 ballot.

The initiative is sponsored by Ben Davis Jr., author of an initiative that prompted the 1989 closure of the Rancho Seco nuclear plant.

For the state to become accepting of nuclear power “we need to change the law to make it no more onerous to build a nuclear power plant than it is to build a natural gas power plant,” according to former California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore. He is “optimistic on the long term prospects because it makes such logical sense,” but “not optimistic on the short term prospects.”

This article was originally published by IVN a non-profit news platform for independent journalists.

Mia Shaw's picture

Thank Mia for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.

Discussions

Steve K9's picture
Steve K9 on September 11, 2013

Spent fuel is not really an emergency.  We can literally ‘do nothing’.  Just keep putting it in casks on site.  When we come to our senses and develop deep-burn reactors, it will all be fuel, sitting there, ready to use (along with the depelted Uranium tailings).

James Hopf's picture
James Hopf on September 11, 2013

Steve,

I’ve become convinced that the reason politicians have been shamelessly playing politics with the nuclear waste issue is that they know that it’s not urgent (i.e., it’s not a problem that really needs solving).  It’s not hurting anyone, and can be cheaply and safely stored, indefinitely.

The only real harm being created by the ongoing stalemate on nuclear waste is that it instills a false notion among the public that it is an intractable, technically unsolvable problem, which in turn creates opposition to nuclear power.  The resulting increased (or continuing) fossil fuel use does indeed have a major impact on public health and the environment.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »