SPONSORED BY:

Energy Dependence

What the rest of the world can teach America in its return to nuclear power.

 
Nuke Nations

Nations that have captured the power of the atomic bomb

 
 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

Wait, how do you build a nuclear-power plant? As the United States zeroes in on green energy, this is exactly the question new nuclear firms are scrambling to answer. It's a wonder, considering the U.S. invented nuclear power more than a half-century ago. But it died here in its adolescence as cost overruns marred the industry and opposition grew from anti-Cold War activists and local pols glad for the power but skittish about a meltdown in their backyard. The last successful order for a commercial nuclear plant was in 1973 (the most recently completed plant was in 1996), after which Americans ceded leadership to other nations. With the growing urgency over fossil fuels, nuke plants are back; thing is, savvier nations have done so much to advance the technology that we don't know how to make them anymore. In short, the U.S. has lost its nuclear edge.
 
The Department of Energy (DOE) developed the world's first electricity-producing reactor in 1951 in Idaho. (It initially lit four lightbulbs.) In 1960, Westinghouse put the first commercial pressurized-water reactor online at Yankee Rowe in Massachusetts. Then the construction boom began: over the next few decades, the country built more than 100 reactors, but in the 1980s, the boom fizzled in the wake of the Three Mile Island meltdown and a political backlash. "We Americans invented [nuclear] technology," Sen. Lamar Alexander said this week, calling for 100 new nuclear plants. "Isn't it time we got back into the game?" If so, policymakers must concede that, at least for a while, going nuclear means another kind of energy dependence. Alongside building new plants, there has to be a plan—until the country can wrangle the technology and know-how back for its own industry—to rely on allies to pave the new nuclear way.
 
At this point, 100 new plants is a pipe dream, but the U.S. is gearing up to build at least four by 2020. The DOE has committed $18.5 billion in loan guarantees to four different companies. But having never built the latest nuclear technology, they are at a loss as to what to build and how to build it on time. So they've called in help from places like France and Japan, which has kept building plants over the past three decades. With 59 reactors online, France supplies nearly 80 percent of its electrical grid with nuclear power and earns handsome profits from exporting not just electricity, but also nuclear technology. Japan has been making advances in closing the fuel cycle—that is, in reprocessing spent fuel rods and recycling nuclear waste.
 
Two companies receiving loan guarantees have already established partnerships overseas. UniStar Nuclear Energy, which is planning a new reactor at Calvert Cliffs in Maryland, is a joint venture of U.S.-based Constellation Energy and Électricité de France, that country's chief power company. "It's a boomerang," UniStar chairman Michael Wallace said in an interview. "In effect, the U.S. technology went to France in the 1970s, and now what we're doing is bringing back a larger and improved version." UniStar plans to employ technology from Areva, France's nuclear behemoth, to build a European pressurized reactor, which has increased safety while producing more power, making it more profitable, once it's running. 
 
Similarly, to build two nuclear reactors about 90 miles outside of Houston, NRG Energy teamed up with Toshiba in Japan to create Nuclear Innovation North America, or NINA. The idea was to avoid the kind of budgetary disasters that helped to shutter the industry in the 1980s when some 40 projects were canceled after nearly $80 billion in cost overruns. Toshiba offered NRG a track record to avoid the same kind of mismanagement. "Toshiba has had a plant in construction every year since about 1968," Steve Winn, NINA's CEO, said in June. NINA will use Toshiba's advanced boiling water reactor design, two of which Toshiba has recently completed on time and—more important—on budget in Japan. 
 
Even utility companies that have avoided explicit joint ventures overseas find themselves tapping resources abroad. In recent years, major reactor manufacturers in the U.S. have formed foreign partnerships of their own. General Electric went into business with Japan's Hitachi to capitalize on expanding markets—especially in China and India—for nuclear reactors. Likewise, Westinghouse is now principally owned by Toshiba. As reactors come online in South Carolina (by SCANA Corp.) and Georgia (by the Nuclear Operating Co.), each of them will tap Westinghouse to build their reactors, which means, in effect, they are calling on competency from Japan.
 
Conceivably, all of this could happen without a hitch. After all, French and Japanese firms have proven track records of delivering. But considering the incendiary mix—fission, environmental concerns, and overseas companies taking hold in America's strategically crucial energy sector—Senator Alexander and his allies will have to guard against political spoilers. Gallup puts popular support for nuclear power at the highest point it has been in 15 years—nearly 60 percent of Americans favor it—so perhaps the tide is turning. But even so, Alexander will have to wait a while for his hundred nuclear plants, and, until then, Americans will need help learning how to split the atom again.

© 2009

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Visions of a Decade
Visions of a Decade

From 2000-2009, one photo per month.

The Failure of Copenhagen
The Failure of Copenhagen

Why there could be a silver lining in a failed climate treaty.

Sex Scandals of the 2000s
Sex Scandals of the 2000s

From John Edwards to Mark Sanford, the decade's memorable affairs.

118 Days in Hell
118 Days in Hell

A NEWSWEEK journalist recounts his captivity in Iran.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: mattnews @ 07/18/2009 2:57:52 PM

    many forgets that the Hitler´s III Reich was the first nuke nation ever and to have the nuclear bomb in theory.
    The German scientists had produced nuclear fission in the laboratory. They had also been looking at nuclear fusion and U-235 separations and were approaching criticality in a nuclear pile in a cave at Haigerloch.
    Heisenberg warned the German government in the fall of 1941 that the Americans were pursuing a nuclear explosive (plutonium) that could be made in a chain-reacting pile. The warning resulted in receiving the highest priority for his work from Albert Speer, Hitler's minister of munitions. Heisenberg calculated the critical mass for a bomb in a December 6, 1939 report for the German Army Weapons Department. His formula, with the nuclear parameter values assumed at that time, yielded a critical mass in the hundreds of tons of "nearly pure" uranium 235 (U235) required for an exploding reactor, Heisenberg's model for a bomb at that point. This was vastly beyond what Germany could hope to produce. With uranium out of the question, the Germans decided to go for plutonium, which meant building an atomic pile [a nuclear reactor] to convert natural uranium into plutonium. What Heisenberg did not know that to calculate it is
    enough to know size of the Uranium crystal form Laue X-ray exp, the size of the nucleus from Rutherford, and to
    assume uranium is a regular crystal which is not transparent after the neutron free path until it hits the nucleus
    of uranium and the reaction always occurs when it hits. This estimates the critical mass right.
    If he did not use the Quantum Mechanics at all but only data from experiments Germany would win
    the war !!!

  • Posted By: Zancudocom @ 07/18/2009 9:49:03 AM

    In 1967 the first pebble bed nuclear reactor began producing electricity in Germany and operated successfully for 21 years. Pebble bed nuclear reactors are inherently safer than conventional light water reactors???so safe they can???t overheat and melt down. The simple design provides for automatic on-line refueling so, unlike conventional reactors, they can produce power continuously. Their fuel is packaged in round graphite ???pebbles???, about the size of billiard balls, making it very difficult to extract for use in a weapon. Spent fuel can be safely encased, transported and stored.
    A study led by Dr. Andrew C. Kadak at MIT envisions the production of small, modular, pebble bed reactors. Built off site on an assembly line, trucked in, set-up and tested, these reactors could be fired up in less than 2 years (vs. 10-15 years for conventional reactors). The electricity from modular pebble bed nuclear plants would cost less than power from any other clean alterative. More importantly, the power from these pebbles would cost the same or less than power produced from carbon-spewing fuels like coal and natural ga. Power to the People! (@ 5 cents a kilowatt).

  • Posted By: nocolorblue @ 07/17/2009 10:58:15 PM

    The EPR design from AREVA France has three redundant systems. They have nuclear energy figured out. I can only hope we learn and maybe even improve their designs.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now