Expanding Nuclear Power in the United States
ASME Position Statement

This position statement represents the considered views of ASME's Nuclear Engineering Division and of the Energy Committee of ASME's Council on Engineering. It does not necessarily represent the views of ASME as a whole.

The 120,000-member American Society of Mechanical Engineers is a professional organization focused on technical, educational and research issues of the engineering & technology community. The Energy Committee of ASME's Council on Engineering, comprised of mechanical engineers from industry, government, and academia, represents the breadth of knowledge in energy technologies in the United States. The ASME Nuclear Engineering Division comprises ASME members with expertise in cutting-edge nuclear engineering technologies. This position statement represents the consensus of those two ASME groups.

Executive Summary

Current State of the Technology
Nuclear power has proven safe, reliable, and relatively inexpensive. It is now a mature technology. In 2002, the 103 U.S. nuclear power plants averaged 91.2 percent capacity factor, and a record achievement of reliability. Nuclear plants are base-load units (i.e. units that provide power continuously, day and night), with off-peak power costs between 1 and 2 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh). Applications to extend the operating licenses of specific nuclear units for 20 years beyond the initial 40-year operating licenses are currently being processed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). To date, 19 units have received license renewals and 32 more are expected to have their licenses renewed shortly. Eventually, virtually all U.S. nuclear plants are expected to apply for license renewal. A 2003 national survey taken for the Nuclear Energy Institute indicated public support for continued use of nuclear power plants in the U.S. at 64 percent, with 31 percent opposed.

Nuclear's Role in the Power Mix
In 2002, 98 percent of the U.S. electric system power generation came from: coal-fired (50 percent), nuclear (20 percent), oil and natural gas-fired (21 percent), and hydroelectric (7 percent). Additional large industrial electricity was generated for use on-site. Base loaded electricity (24-7) was produced from these four energy resources (plus some geothermal electricity). Off-peak electric generation from these sources costs: hydroelectric (0-1 cents/kwh), nuclear (1-2 cents/kwh), coal-fired (1-2 cents/kwh), oil and natural gas-fired (variable, but higher).

In the next decade, new base-load generating capacity will be needed to support U.S. economic growth and to replace older, obsolete plants. All new hydroelectric, nuclear, and coal-fired power plants must overcome formidable and often unpredictable regulatory and permitting obstacles. These risks make normal capital investment and financing more expensive. Engineering and construction lead-times for these large power units is typically 5-6 years after permits are obtained. Large natural-gas-fired, combined cycle units carry the financial risk of volatile natural gas prices.

Promises and Challenges
Pre-certified nuclear plant designs constructed on existing pre-approved nuclear plant sites with local public acceptance are a promising economic option for new base-load electric power generation. In the future, low-cost off-peak nuclear power may economically support hydrogen fuels production, water desalination, and other energy-intensive industrial processes that require cheap energy. Competitive nuclear power plant suppliers are available in the U.S. and abroad. The uranium fuel supply for new nuclear power plants is available from experienced vendors. Nuclear waste disposal is nearing resolution, and nuclear power plants do not emit pollutants to the atmosphere.

Regulatory and permitting stability is a major obstacle to be addressed by federal, state and local agencies before new nuclear power plants can be financed. Untoward legal intervention has in the past delayed construction and operation - with consumers and shareholders forced to absorb the attendant huge costs. Legal intervention can be minimized by pre-approved licenses and by imposing cost penalties for lawsuits determined to be frivolous. Federal loan guarantees would reduce the financial risks of these obstacles.

Public Acceptance
Public and mass media support - or at least acceptance -- is essential for the construction of new nuclear plants. Recent surveys have shown strong public support for maintaining (64 percent), and even increasing (50 percent), the current level of nuclear power in the United States. However, NIMBY, the "not-in-my-back-yard," philosophy is prevalent for all new energy production facilities, regardless of fuel. It is expected that the construction of several new nuclear units at existing nuclear plant sites would be acceptable in communities that already have clean, safe nuclear power plants as benign neighbors. Anti-nuclear critics will not readily disappear, and they are unlikely to be persuaded by nuclear power's record of safety and performance. In addition to transparency in public education, the general news media must be given reliable information they can use to offset the more sensational scare scenarios of the vocal anti-nuclear activists.

Safety
Nuclear power technology has matured after more than 30 years of commercial reactor operating experience and fine-tuning. The original defense-in-depth design philosophy provides multiple layers of safety against nuclear accidents to protect the public and plant employees. The injury safety accident rate at U.S. nuclear power plants in 2002 set a record low of 0.22 per 200,000 worker-hours, compared to all U.S. manufacturing industry of 4.0 per 200,000 worker-hours. The 1979 Three Mile Island accident proved the safety of this design as, despite the media furor, no person was exposed to injurious radioactivity in that accident. Additional lessons-learned have been applied for new reactor designs. New nuclear fuel has been processed, fabricated, and safely shipped across the U.S. for nearly 50 years.

Spent Fuel Disposal
Spent reactor fuel is currently stored on-site in the U.S. at power plants until it can be shipped to a centralized site for storage. In other nations, spent fuel is shipped to commercial reprocessing plants. Spent fuel from U.S. nuclear ships is routinely and safely shipped to storage sites. Plutonium has been reprocessed from spent fuel and recycled into nuclear power plants as MOX fuel to recover its energy without incident. International safeguards have worked effectively to prevent the diversion of plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.

Many U.S. nuclear plant sites were originally planned for more nuclear units than they currently house. In the 1960s, many communities competed to get a nuclear power plant built nearby - but fear of nuclear power led to a NIMBY attitude in the late 1970s that continues to some degree to this day. The next generation of nuclear units can be built on several existing sites, but new plant sites must be approved for the long term.

Accident Insurance
The extension of Price-Anderson umbrella insurance coverage is essential for new nuclear plant construction. Legislation to reauthorize the law is included in the Energy Policy Act of 2003, currently pending in Congress. There has not been a claim on this secondary insurance since its inception, but it provides a public safeguard.