UC Berkeley Per F. Peterson Professor Department of Nuclear Engineering University of California, Berkeley California Science Center February 23, 2008 Overview of the Science and Technology

UC Berkeley Energy from Nuclear Fission Fission Fuel Energy Density: 8.2 x J/kg Fuel Consumed by 1000-MW e Plant: 3.2 kg/day Waste:

UC Berkeley Energy from Fossil Fuels Fossil Fuel (Coal) Energy Density: 2.9 x 10 7 J/kg Fuel Consumed by 1000-MW e Plant: 7,300,000 kg/day Waste: 2005 Global Coal Consumption: 5.4 billion tons

UC Berkeley Nuclear Waste A fuel assembly that will produce energy equivalent to burning 72,000 tons of coal

UC Berkeley Long-term international R&D has improved the current understanding of nuclear waste disposal Broad scientific consensus exists that deep geologic isolation can provide long-term, safe and reversible disposal for nuclear wastes 25 years of scientific and technical study led to a positive site suitability decision for Yucca Mountain in 2002

UC Berkeley Geologic Isolation Places Nuclear Wastes Deep Underground Nuclear energy produces small volumes of waste which makes it practical to isolate it from the environment.

UC Berkeley Long-term Safety Requirements are Stringent Compared to Those for Chemicals 28 miles 640 miles The potential long-term impact from geologic disposal is limited groundwater contamination, a problem that current public health systems already understand how to manage The potential incremental impact from Yucca Mountain in the next 1 million years is small

UC Berkeley Repository Licensing Involves A Detailed Technical Review The EPA has issued a draft one million year safety standard for Yucca Mountain –Maximum impact to an individual using ground water must be less than 15 mrem/year up to 10,000 years, less than 300 mrem/year up to 1 million years –Average natural background is 300 mrem/year DOE has committed to completing a license application in 2008 –Independent review will be performed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission –A decision on a construction license would be reached by 2011

UC Berkeley Construction and Operation of Nuclear Power Plants

UC Berkeley Operation: The Capacity Factor of U.S. Nuclear Plants Has Changed Greatly Since the 1980’s * 2005 Preliminary Source: Global Energy Decisions / Energy Information Administration Updated: 4/06

UC Berkeley Nuclear power now has the lowest production cost of any fuel Production Costs = Operations and Maintenance Costs + Fuel Costs Source: Global Energy Decisions Updated: 6/06 Cents per kwhr

UC Berkeley The near-term question is whether new designs and construction methods will lower construction costs McGuire Nuclear Station Reactor Building Models MW Reactor (Lianyungang Unit 1) 1978: Plastic models on roll-around carts 2000: 4-D computer aided design and virtual walk-throughs

UC Berkeley Generation III+: The new nuclear plant designs GE ESBWR Westinghouse AP-1000

UC Berkeley New licensing and construction plans call for a high degree of design standardization Current NRC Construction License Review Plan

UC Berkeley Conclusions A July, 2007 DOE Energy Information Agency study of the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship bill concluded that the largest single response would be the construction of 145 GW of new nuclear capacity by 2030, on top of the existing 100 GW As with climate change, solutions to nuclear waste involve technical and political challenges –Taking a few decades to effectively address nuclear waste causes no major problems –Not so for climate change The most important near-term question for nuclear energy will be whether reactor vendors can deliver new plants on schedule and on budget

UC Berkeley More slides….

UC Berkeley Life Cycle GHG Emissions Source: "Life-Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Systems and Applications for Climate Change Policy Analysis," Paul J. Meier, University of Wisconsin-Madison, August, 2002.

UC Berkeley Resource inputs will affect future capital costs and competition Nuclear: 1970’s vintage PWR, 90% capacity factor, 60 year life [1] –40 MT steel / MW(average) –190 m 3 concrete / MW(average) Wind: 1990’s vintage, 6.4 m/s average wind speed, 25% capacity factor, 15 year life [2] –460 MT steel / MW (average) –870 m 3 concrete / MW(average) Coal: 78% capacity factor, 30 year life [2] –98 MT steel / MW(average) –160 m 3 concrete / MW(average) Natural Gas Combined Cycle: 75% capacity factor, 30 year life [3] –3.3 MT steel / MW(average) –27 m 3 concrete / MW(average) 1. R.H. Bryan and I.T. Dudley, “Estimated Quantities of Materials Contained in a 1000-MW(e) PWR Power Plant,” Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TM-4515, June (1974) 2. S. Pacca and A. Horvath, Environ. Sci. Technol., 36, (2002). 3. P.J. Meier, “Life-Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Systems and Applications for Climate Change Policy Analysis,” U. WisconsinReport UWFDM-1181, August, Concrete + steel are >95% of construction inputs, and become more expensive in a carbon-constrained economy

UC Berkeley Spent Fuel Can Be Transported Safely and Securely Spent fuel assemblies consist of inert ceramic pellets inside corrosion resistant zirconium alloy tubes Shipment occurs in massive steel transport canisters weighing many tens of tons Thousands of shipments in the U.S., and tens of thousands in Europe (where most spent fuel is reprocessed) have occurred without harm to a single member of the public Spent fuel transport adds very small safety and security risks compared to the routine transport of much larger quantities of hazardous chemicals (diesel fuel, liquid chlorine)