The nuclear industry in the United States has been at a standstill for several decades. After an extraordinary wave of construction in the 1960s and 1970s, the nuclear industry ground to a halt. A confluence of events killed off new construction, including high interest rates, cost overruns, delays, and the Three Mile Island incident that scared the public and turned it against nuclear power.
But despite the nuclear industry’s inability to build more than a handful of new nuclear power plants since the 1980s, nuclear power still accounts for about 19 percent of electricity generation in the United States, the third largest source of electricity behind coal and natural gas.
Yet the nation’s 99 reactors are mostly nearing their retirement age. Having originally been planned for 40-year lifespans, many of the reactors would have already been forced to shut down by now, with nearly all of the rest hitting their limits at some point within the next decade. Instead, more than three-quarters of them have already received a 20-year extension, putting off their retirements until the 2030s.
But in the nuclear sector, where everything takes a long time, the 2030s are rapidly approaching. With one-fifth of the country’s electricity fleet nearing retirement, and very few nuclear power plants under construction to replace what is expected to be lost, how will the U.S. cope with the lost capacity? Related: This Week In Energy: Oil Shows No Signs Of A Rebound Amid Ongoing Slump
“Four reactors are being built, but there’s absolutely no money and no desire to finance more plants than that. So in 20 or 30 years we’re going to have very few nuclear power plants in this country—that’s just a fact,” the former Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Gregory Jaczko, said in a 2013 interview.
To remedy the situation, power plant owners are simply proposing another 20-year extension, according to CNBC. If that were to happen, that would mean that many of the nation’s 99 reactors could operate for 80 years, 40 years longer than originally planned. Related: Mexico’s First Offshore Auction A Major Disappointment
Discussions of an 80-year lifespan have been going on for years, but CNBC reports that utilities are going to publicly unveil a push as soon as this summer to formally request a second 20-year extension to 80 years. The first candidates to get pushed to 80 years could be “Dominion Resources' Surry Plant in Virginia; Exelon's Peach Bottom plant near the Pennsylvania-Maryland border and Duke Energy's Oconee plant in South Carolina,” CNBC reported on July 16.
The nuclear industry argues that achieving dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in line with President Obama’s climate plan would only be achievable with low-carbon nuclear power. Wind and solar are making significant progress, sure, but can the U.S. achieve an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 without nuclear power? Nuclear offers large-scale baseload clean electricity, the industry argues, while the wind and sun are not always available.
The industry also argues that there is nothing inherently unsafe about operating plants to 80 years. According to a 2013 report from the American Physical Society, there are “no technical show stoppers to running some plants for 80 years.” Related: Obama’s Goals For Middle East Hinge On Putin
And there was nothing technically special about the original 40-year license. That timeframe was not chosen because plants were expected to become unsafe beyond that date, nuclear operators say. That timeframe was chosen more because of investment timeframes.
And when compared to carbon-spewing coal and natural gas plants, as well as the quickly approaching expiration of much of the nuclear fleet, APS concludes that looking at extending nuclear plants to 80 years is “both complex and urgent.”
Others are not so sure. “This is not a future technology. It’s an old technology, and it serves a useful purpose. But that purpose is running its course,” former NRC Chairman Jackzo said in 2013.
Operating nuclear reactors for 80 years may be feasible, but wear and tear cannot only raise safety questions, but constant maintenance can make them economically unviable. Cracks can form in plants as they age, forcing the plant offline. The cost of repairs have already forced some power plants offline for good. The San Onofre plant in California, for example, was shut down by Southern California Edison after the bill to repair leaks ballooned. Duke Energy closed a reactor at its Crystal River power plant in Florida as repair costs got out of hand.
ADVERTISEMENT
Such incidents could be more frequent in the years ahead. But if the industry gets its way, some plants could operate well beyond their current 60-year licenses.
By Nick Cunningham of Oilprice.com
More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:
- More Job Losses Coming to U.S. Shale
- The Biggest Energy Crooks
- Shale Industry May Need A Complete Rethink To Survive
San Onofre was shutdown not because the plant was old, but because Mitsubishi made a mistake on the design of the replacement steam generators and nobody caught it. The design flaw resulted in the new steam generators leaking within several months.
The fact is that there was no technical basis for the initial, 40-year license term (as the article does point out). NRC will clearly not allow the plants to continue to operate unless a solid technical case is made. Reactor vessel embrittlement will not be allowed, and clear demonstration of lack of embrittlement will be required. All components can and will be maintained, refurbished or replaced as necessary. The only structures that will need to last are the large passive structures (the buildings/walls, etc...). That is not an issue. Is the Hoover Dam or the Empire State Building unsafe?
Not only is it highly unlikely that the extended license term would be the cause of a "Fukushima" in the US, but operating the plants for another 20 years (largely in lieu of fossil fuels) will have a public health and environmental benefit that far exceeds any negative health or environmental impact that could occur from a worst-case meltdown event (in the small likelihood that one would occur).
As for San Onofre, even buying yet another set of brand new steam generators and operating that plant for another ~30 years would have been cheaper than any of the other energy options that will now be used instead. So why did they decide to close the plant? Because they got an increasing sense of the complete lack of *political* support for their plant in California (e.g., the CA congressional/senatorial delegation), and they knew that staying open would involve endless legal battles and other hassles. They just cried uncle. Also, they may think that closing the plant will cause market electricity price in the state to rise enough that it will actually increase their profits, despite higher generating costs.
Vessel fluence can be addressed through in-situ annealing. Not rocket science, just metallurgy. The reference to "another Fukushima" is hyperbole.
"Operating nuclear reactors for 80 years may be feasible, but wear and tear cannot only raise safety questions, but constant maintenance can make them economically unviable." Constant maintenance improves availability and reduces reactor trips which are at their best levels in history.
Concur with some of the others as to the biased tone of this piece.
Roughly 25% of US reactors are in financial trouble. Exelon has six reactors which have been losing money for over five years. With wind and solar prices continuing to drop it's going to be harder and harder for companies to sustain those losses and other reactors are likely to slip into the red.
As we've seen with multiple reactors, one big repair bill and it's "close the doors".
Push reactors designed for a 40 year lifespan out to 80 years? Maybe.
But do remember, one serious nuclear disaster in the US (or maybe in Western Europe) and the public will demand total shutdown of all reactors. Best be very careful. Very, very careful....
So can we survive without Nuclear power in the future? Monosilicon Solar PV theoretically is good for 100 years plus. Its only the breakdown of the sealants and encapsulate isolating the metal connections from moisture and salts which is the weak point in their design. Every solar farm installed could realistically run today for 50 years without issue. If a solar module or inverter does break down, it can simply be replaced usually increasing actual power output and the entire plant will keep on running. Cost of replacement would be less than $500 including labor even in the future. So in my opinion it will not be a technical issue but an economic reason why solar and wind will be preferred independent of the 24 hour on demand argument.