Nuclear energy’s comeback in US holds lessons for India

Vogtle went on to become the chairman of Atlanta-based Southern Company,the parent of a conglomerate of power firms in southeastern United States. In his honour,Southern Company named a nuclear plant in Georgia after him.

Nuclear energy’s comeback in US holds lessons for India

It might seem sheer happenstance but almost two decades after his death in 1994,the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant is being seen as a symbol of the rebirth of nuclear energy in the US. Moreover,his adventures as a PoW seem to hold parallels to the roller-coaster ride of the nuclear energy sector in the US as well as the caged potential for nuclear commerce with India.

The US may be the pioneer and world leader in nuclear energy — accounting for about 25 per cent of the world’s 430 nuclear plants and 30 per cent of global nuclear power production — but the sector was hibernating since the 1979 Three Mile Island accident when a cooling malfunction caused a partial nuclear meltdown in the plant,in Pennsylvania. Although no one was said to have even been exposed to harmful radiation,the development of new projects took a backseat due to a combination of fear and financial and administrative issues.

However,the deregulation of state electricity markets that started in the 1990s,the subsequent clamour to cut greenhouse gas emissions,and a jump in the price of natural gas — the main rival of nuclear power as a production source — saw nuclear energy return to favour in the latter half of the last decade.

There is now an apparent bipartisan support for new nuclear projects in the US,with the Barack Obama administration announcing that building new nuclear reactors was a priority,the first such announcement by a Democratic administration in 30 years.

The result has been the launch of work to build units 3 and 4 at Vogtle at a cost of $14 billion in March 2012. The two 1,200-MW units are scheduled to begin commercial operations in 2017 and 2018. Two more units of the same capacity are being built in South Carolina and are expected to become operational in 2017 and 2019. A fifth unit in Tennessee,whose construction was suspended in 1985 before resuming in 2007,is set to go on line by 2015-end.

“We want to be on the leading edge of this nuclear rebirth,” says Mark Rauckhorst,vice president for construction at Southern Company,amid frenetic building activity at the 1,000-acre Vogtle site in Waynesboro. “The last active construction in the US ended in the mid- to late-1980s and there was no new construction for about 30 years. When completed,we will be the first four-unit site in the United States.”

The US,according to the World Nuclear Association,produced 4,344 billion kWh of electricity in 2011 and annual demand is projected to increase to 5,000 billion kWh in 2030.

Although coal (43 per cent) and natural gas (24 per cent) are ahead of nuclear (20 per cent) among preferred sources,Prof. Said Abdel-Khalik,head of the nuclear engineering program at Georgia Institute of Technology,feels nuclear is the way to go in the long term.

“The world is facing global warming issues and if you look at it from that perspective,regardless of the problems we are encountering,regardless of Fukushima,regardless of design deficiencies,in the long term,this is the way to go,” he says.

Diversity of energy sources leads to robustness in a critical commodity such as electricity,he says. “We just don’t want to put our eggs in one basket.”

Cheaper option

But two factors have made the nuclear basket heavy to lift: the price of natural gas and a fear of the N-word,especially after Fukushima.

Natural gas prices have traditionally been low in the US but shot up about five years ago to peak around $15 per thousand cubic foot before falling to its current levels of $3-$4,helped by the drilling technology of fracking — hydraulic fracturing of rocks and rock formations for gas.

While the peak in natural gas prices coincided with the renewed interest in nuclear energy and the commitment to build fresh plants,the subsequent fall in prices has come as a dampener for America’s price-sensitive,private-sector nuclear energy producers. The US is currently awash with natural gas due to export restrictions and prices are about a third of those in Europe and a fourth of those in Japan. And a natural gas-based power plant can be built in under three years compared to about five years for a nuclear one,and at a third of the cost.

“From being a source during high demand,natural gas has become a basic load fuel for electricity producers in the US and it is difficult for nuclear energy to compete,” says Joshua Freed,vice president for the clean energy program at Third Way,a Washington-based public policy think-tank.

In a decision that underlined that challenge,a 500-MW plant in Wisconsin shut down in May after 39 years of operation as it had become financially unviable. It is one of a record four being decommissioned in the US this year,the other three for technical reasons.

But supporters of nuclear energy argue that opting for natural gas is being shortsighted,environmentally as well as financially. Vogtle officials say they make forecasts for fuel prices every six months,taking into account where natural gas is headed in the long term,and claim their nuclear plant will still beat the lowest-priced natural gas project to the benefit of customers by $4 billion. Gas projects have a life of 20-30 years while nuclear can last 60 years,they add.

FEAR FACTOR

The arguments for and against nuclear energy in the US,as in most other countries,would have remained largely in the financial realm but for the March 2011 nuclear disaster at Fukushima.

Scott Peterson,senior vice president for communications at the Washington-based Nuclear Energy Institute,says most people in the US embrace the idea of having diverse sources of energy and public opinion has been favourable to nuclear energy,more so as it produces two-thirds of all carbon-free power in the country.

However,there was a drop in favourability to 46 per cent from 69 per cent following Fukushima,until it returned to 71 per cent in June 2013 in polls conducted by the think-tank. The negativity trickled down to even the demand for pursuing nuclear engineering at premier institutes such as Georgia Tech. But the fall has not been as drastic as in Germany and,as the NEI poll figures show,America has pulled back and the credit for this is given to the widely publicised steps taken in the US after Fukushima and earlier.

“Three Mile Island was a significant learning experience for the NRC,” says Victor McCree,head of region II of the autonomous US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “It showed us how we engaged the public,how transparent we are,how we organised emergency preparedness and response. Nuclear safety is a public business and Three Mile Island taught us that.”

The NRC did an elaborate re-evaluation of safety procedures at all US nuclear facilities,including new earthquake and flooding evaluations and emergency preparedness. The NEI’s Peterson said the US had undertaken a similar exercise after the 9/11 attacks,too. “We had done the same after the 2001 attacks,” he said. “What if a terror strike hit a nuclear plant? It is all about adding additional power and additional cooling,no matter what the threat is. So we had a head start…”

Incidentally,months after Fukushima,the two-unit 1,790 MW North Anna nuclear plant in Virginia was hit by a earthquake in August 2011 that measured 5.9 on the Richter scale — and the plants survived with hardly any trouble. Although the actual movement from the tremors was twice what the plant was designed for,the worst damage was some cracks and cement chipping at non-safety related structures. This,analysts and industry experts said,showed that the safety measures already inbuilt had high redundancy levels and these were further augmented after Fukushima.

For instance,the AP1000 reactors at Vogtle — the same ones India’s NPCIL proposes to buy for the Mithivirdi plant in Gujarat — have what are called passive safety features. These allow for large amounts of water to be stored above the reactor and valves open mechanically,even if all power systems fail,to allow the water to cool the reactor in the event of an accident.

EYE ON INDIA

It is this history and track record,the US nuclear sector says,that partners such as India should keep in mind as the two sides take baby steps towards nuclear commerce and hope for a rich harvest in the aftermath of the landmark civilian nuclear agreement.

S K Jain,the previous chairman of NPCIL,says India too needs a judicious mix of all energy sources for energy security as that would insulate the country from any disruptions in the fuel supply chain,whether domestic or international. It would also help the country deal with the volatility in the price of fuel due to market factors or exploitation by the supplier. Besides,this would also help build fuel reserves.

“Even though a majority of the nuclear power plants in the world are based on PWR (pressurised water reactor) technology developed by the US,India went for PHWR (pressurised heavy-water reactor) technology as it suited us to meet our long-term objectives,” Jain says. “Now that we have decided to accelerate capacity addition through light water reactor technology,we can gain significantly through India-US cooperation.”

Jain says it does not matter that nuclear energy in the US is under the private sector and concerns that govern it could vary for those in India’s public-sector nuclear industry. “Ownership is a non-issue,” he says. “Suitable time-tested arrangements could be worked out for a win-win scenario.”

But he agrees that the Nuclear Liability Act,which has posed a hurdle to nuclear commerce between India and the US,has to be tackled as it has made foreign suppliers apprehensive and also impacts indigenous suppliers. “However,the issue can be addressed by creating a pool of suppliers,both Indian and foreign,and the operator taking over responsibility beyond the liability period as defined in the Liability Act rules,” Jain suggests.

The reporter was in the US as a guest of the State Department