Nuclear Power: The Return John Stamos Office of Nuclear Energy United States Department of Energy Presentation to the California Council on Science and Technology October 31, 2006

CCST October 2006 (2) Nuclear EnergyA Quiet, Dependable Servant Electricity Production Source: EIA Gas 19% Hydro 7% Coal 50% Oil 3% Other 2% Nuclear 19% Columbia (1) Diablo Canyon (2) San Onofre (2) Palo Verde (3) Monticello (1) Prairie Island (2) Ft. Calhoun (1) Cooper (1) Wolf Creek (1) Duane Arnold (1) Callaway (1) ANO (2) Comanche Peak (2) South Texas (2) River Bend (1) Waterford (1) Turkey Point (2) St. Lucie (2) Farley (2) Hatch (2) Vogt le (2) Sequoyah (2) Oconee (3) Catawba (2) H. B. Robinson (1) Summer (1) McGuire (2) Harris (1) Brunswick (2) Surry (2) North Anna (2) Calvert Cliffs (2) Hope Creek (1) Salem (2) Oyster Creek (1) Millstone (2) Pilgrim (1) Seabrook (1) Vermont Yankee (1) FitzPatrick (1) Nine Mile Point (2) Ginna (1) Clinton (1) La Salle (2) Kewaunee (1) Point Beach (2) Palisades (1) Cook (2) Fermi (1) Davis - Bess e (1) Per ry (1) (2) Susquehanna Peach Bottom (2) Three Mile Island (1) Limerick (2) Indian Point (2) Quad-Cities (2) Byro n (2) Dresden (2) Braidwo od (2) Crystal River (1) Grand Gulf (1) Browns Ferry (3) Watts Bar (1) Beaver Valley (2) 103 Nuclear Power Plants Totaling 99 GWe Nearly 800 BkWh generated and saving 680 MMTCO 2 each year 6No new order has been placed for nearly 30 years. 6By staying on this path, nuclear power would provide about 1% of our electricity by 2050.

CCST October 2006 (3) President Eisenhower: Atoms for Peace 6Contributions of uranium and fissionable materials to an international Atomic Energy Agency 6That fissionable material would be allocated to serve the peaceful pursuits of mankind. Experts would be mobilized to apply atomic energy to the needs of agriculture, medicine, and other peaceful activities A special purpose would be to provide abundant electrical energy in the power-starved areas of the world to serve the needs rather than the fears of mankind December 8, 1953

CCST October 2006 (4) Fossil Fuels for Generation– 2/3 to 4/5 of the Mix 334 BkWh 550 BkWh, +65%

CCST October 2006 (5)

CCST October 2006 (6) Economy of Nuclear Power Late 1950s Nuclear Coal 6A nuclear plant vs. conventional coal where coal costs $0.35 per MMBtu.

CCST October 2006 (7) Cooperative Power Reactor Demonstration Program Demonstration and 1 st Round 6Shippingport (modified naval PWR-60 MWe), Fermi 1 (Na, breeder-61 MWe), Yankee Rowe (PWR-167 MWe), Hallam (Na-graphite-75 MWe), Dresden (BWR-200 MWe),1960 6Indian Point (PWR-257 MWe), 1963

CCST October 2006 (8) Electricity Consumption Kept Growing Between , 80 reactors were ordered, followed by another 115 in the four years 1970 – 1973

CCST October 2006 (9) Electricity Consumption Kept Growing (But Much More Slowly)

CCST October 2006 (10)... Leading to Second Thoughts 8 % annual growth 2.5% annual growth

CCST October 2006 (11) Environmentalism 6Dont pollute 6Save energy 6Small and decentralization are beautiful 6Nuclear power is too expensive and dangerous

CCST October 2006 (12) Nuclear Coal Natural Gas 6A nuclear plant vs. scrubbed, pulverized coal or natural gas combined cycle, where natural gas costs $3 per MMBtu. Economy of Nuclear Power

CCST October 2006 (13) Economy of Nuclear Power Nuclear Coal Natural Gas 6A nuclear plant vs. scrubbed, pulverized coal or natural gas combined cycle, where natural gas costs $3 per MMBtu. 6Absent capital recovery, nuclear power is the lowest cost baseload technology.

CCST October 2006 (14) Economy of Nuclear Power Nuclear Coal Natural Gas 6A nuclear plant vs. scrubbed, pulverized coal or natural gas combined cycle, where natural gas costs $3 per MMBtu.

CCST October 2006 (15) Time to Rethink? 6Besides too volatile natural gas prices, nuclear power has proven its economic productivity. 6The idea that all the electricity demand produced by fossil fuels and nuclear power could be met by reducing demand with increased energy efficiency and expanded renewables to provide the remainder became untenable. % Capacity Factor Nuclear Capacity Factor is at an All-Time High Source: Energy Information Administration data Performance improvement is equivalent to adding 17 more reactors since Watts Bar 1 in Concerns about reducing carbon-dioxide emissions continue to grow, while solutions devoid of expanded nuclear power seem less plausible.

CCST October 2006 (16) Example of A Reduced GHG Emissions Future GtC = Giga-Tonnes Carbon

CCST October 2006 (17) How Big is a Gigaton ? Todays TechnologyActions that Provide 1 Gigaton/Year of Mitigation Coal-Fired Power Plants Build 1,000 zero-emission 500-MW coal-fired power plants (in lieu of coal-fired plants without CO 2 capture and storage) Geologic Sequestration Install 3,700 sequestration sites like Norways Sliepner project (0.27 MtC/year) Nuclear Build 500 new nuclear power plants, each 1 GW in size (in lieu of new coal-fired power plants without CO 2 capture and storage) Efficiency Deploy 1 billion new cars at 40 miles per gallon (mpg) instead of 20 mpg Wind Energy Install capacity to produce 50 times the current global wind generation (in lieu of coal-fired power plants without CO 2 capture and storage) Solar Photovoltaics Install capacity to produce 1,000 times the current global solar PV generation (in lieu of coal-fired power plants without CO 2 capture and storage) Biomass fuels from plantations Convert a barren area about 15 times the size of Iowas farmland (about 30 million acres) to biomass crop production CO 2 Storage in New Forest. Convert a barren area about 30 times the size of Iowas farmland to new forest Actions That Can Reduce Emissions by 1 GtC/Year Using Todays Technology Using Todays Technology, These Actions Can Cut Emissions by 1 GtC/Year

CCST October 2006 (18) Environmentalism 6Dont pollute 6Save energy 6Small and decentralization are beautiful 6And maybe nuclear power can help

CCST October 2006 (19) Nuclear Coal Natural Gas Nuclear Coal Natural Gas 6A 1 st -of-a-Kind nuclear plant vs. scrubbed, pulverized coal or natural gas combined cycle, where natural gas costs $3 per MMBtu. 6An N th -of-a-Kind nuclear plant vs. IGCC with CO 2 sequestration or natural gas combined cycle, where natural gas costs $9 per MMBtu. Economy of Nuclear Power

CCST October 2006 (20) Nuclear Coal Natural Gas Nuclear Coal Natural Gas 6A 1 st -of-a-Kind nuclear plant vs. IGCC with CO 2 sequestration or natural gas combined cycle, where natural gas costs $9 per MMBtu. 6A N th -of-a-Kind nuclear plant vs. IGCC with CO 2 sequestration or natural gas combined cycle, where natural gas costs $9 per MMBtu. Economy of Nuclear Power

CCST October 2006 (21) Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) 6Signed into law on August 8, Provides 3 key incentives for construction and operation of new advanced nuclear power plants Section 638, Standby Support – Energy (Part of NP 2010) Section 1306, Production Credits – Treasury Section 1703, Loan Guarantees – Energy 6Designed to reduce regulatory and financial uncertainties for first movers.

CCST October 2006 (22) Nuclear Coal Natural Gas Nuclear Coal Natural Gas 6A 1 st -of-a-Kind nuclear plant vs. IGCC with CO 2 sequestration or natural gas combined cycle, where natural gas costs $9 per MMBtu. 6A 1 st -of-a-Kind nuclear plant with economic incentives vs. IGCC with CO 2 sequestration or natural gas combined cycle, where natural gas costs $9 per MMBtu. Economy of Nuclear Power

CCST October 2006 (23) Nuclear Coal Natural Gas Nuclear Coal Natural Gas 6A 1 st -of-a-Kind nuclear plant with incentives vs. IGCC with CO 2 sequestration or natural gas combined cycle, where natural gas costs $9 per MMBtu. 6A Nth-of-a-Kind nuclear plant vs. IGCC with CO 2 sequestration or natural gas combined cycle, where natural gas costs $9 per MMBtu. Economy of Nuclear Power

CCST October 2006 (24) World Nuclear Expansion 6Nearly 250 reactors are being built, planned, or under consideration world-wide 68

CCST October 2006 (25) Uranium Resources Source: World Nuclear Association

CCST October 2006 (26) Economy of Nuclear Power Nuclear Coal Natural Gas Nuclear Coal Natural Gas 6A N th -of-a-Kind nuclear plant vs. IGCC with CO 2 sequestration or natural gas combined cycle, where natural gas costs $9 per MMBtu 6A N th -of-a-Kind nuclear plant with uranium prices at $100/lb U 3 O 8 vs. IGCC with CO 2 sequestration or natural gas combined cycle, where natural gas costs $9 per MMBtu.

CCST October 2006 (27) Historical and Projected Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Discharges Sources: * Based on actual discharge data as reported on RW-859s through 12/31/02, and projected discharges, in this case, based on 104 license renewals. ** Based on pool capacities provided in 2002 RW-859 (less FCR) and supplemented by utility storage plans. Actual Discharges*, all reactors (operating & shutdown) Projected discharges, all reactors, 44 license renewals Projected discharges*, all reactors, 104 license renewals Actual discharges, shutdown reactors only Actual MTHM in dry storage, all reactors There are 104 operating reactors and 14 shutdown reactors ~ 9,000 MTHM in dry storage (as of 8/28/06) ~ 3,800 MTHM from 14 shutdown reactors Current Inventory: ~ 53,500 MTHM from 118 reactors (as of 12/05) Current pool capacity ~ 61,000 MTHM** Nuclear Waste Policy Act of ~109,000 MTHM total ~130,000 MTHM total

CCST October 2006 (28) Reliable Fuel Service Model 6Expand nuclear energy while preventing spread of sensitive fuel cycle technology 6Fuel Cycle Nations – Operate both nuclear power plants and fuel cycle facilities 6Reactor Nations – Operate only reactors, lease and return fuel

CCST October 2006 (29) Energy Consumption by Resource Source: Annual Energy Review 2004, DOE/EIA-0384(2004), August 2005, p. xx

CCST October 2006 (30) President Eisenhower: Atoms for Peace 6Contributions of uranium and fissionable materials to an international Atomic Energy Agency 6That fissionable material would be allocated to serve the peaceful pursuits of mankind. Experts would be mobilized to apply atomic energy to the needs of agriculture, medicine, and other peaceful activities A special purpose would be to provide abundant electrical energy in the power-starved areas of the world to serve the needs rather than the fears of mankind December 8, 1953

CCST October 2006 (31) President Bush: Global Nuclear Energy Partnership 6America will work with nations that have advanced civilian nuclear energy programs, such as France, Japan, and Russia. Together, we will develop and deploy innovative, advanced reactors and new methods to recycle spent nuclear fuel. This will allow us to produce more energy, while dramatically reducing the amount of nuclear waste and eliminating the nuclear byproducts that unstable regimes or terrorists could use to make weapons. 6We will also ensure that... developing nations have a reliable nuclear fuel supply. In exchange, these countries would agree to use nuclear power only for civilian purposes and forego uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities that can be used to develop nuclear weapons. February 18, 2006