DOCSLIB.ORG

Nuclear Renaissance” in the United States, Its Underlying Reasons, and Its Potential Pitfalls

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ENERGY LAW JOURNAL Volume 29, No. 2 2008 THE CURRENT “NUCLEAR RENAISSANCE” IN THE UNITED STATES, ITS UNDERLYING REASONS, AND ITS POTENTIAL PITFALLS Roland M. Frye, Jr.* Synopsis: The nuclear renaissance is indeed a reality within the United States today. This is apparent from the number of nuclear plant construction applications and new uranium mining applications filed with or expected by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as well as the major merger-and-acquisitions activity within the nuclear industry. This renaissance stems from such factors as concern over global warming, nuclear energy‘s advantages over competitor fuels, a significant increase in public and governmental support, major scientific and technological developments, and the financial community‘s increasing interest in nuclear energy. But, a number of factors could still undermine the success of nuclear energy – such as workforce and component manufacturing constraints, the recent ―Wall Street meltdown,‖ a catastrophe at a nuclear power facility anywhere in the world, a terrorist attack using nuclear material, blocked transportation of radioactive material, regulatory and adjudicatory delays, self-inflicted wounds by the industry, and concerns about proliferation and spent fuel management. The industry‘s success in the coming years will turn largely on money, attention to detail, and an ability to earn and retain the trust of all its stakeholders. Summary ............................................................................................................ 281 * Mr. Frye has practiced in the field of federal energy regulation for thirty-one years, in both the public and private sectors, and has served for the last sixteen years as the Senior Attorney in the Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). This article does not necessarily reflect the positions of either his office or the NRC. Mr. Frye, like all employees of the NRC, is a regulator and, as such, declines to be an advocate either for or against nuclear energy. This article is intended merely to set forth objective views on nuclear energy in the U.S., not to opine on the larger policy question whether nuclear energy is advisable. Finally, Mr. Frye would like particularly to thank David Matthews for his review of and helpful comments on numerous drafts of this article. 279 280 ENERGY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 29:279 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 281 I. Is There a Nuclear Renaissance in the United States? ................................... 282 II. Why the Nuclear Renaissance? .................................................................... 288 A. Global Warming and New-Found Sensitivity to the Environment ... 288 B. Nuclear Energy‘s Economic and Environmental Plusses ................ 293 1. Public Benefits ............................................................................ 293 a. Jobs ........................................................................................ 293 b. Collateral Benefits to Local Economy ............................... 295 c. Environmental Advantages ................................................ 297 2. Private Benefits ......................................................................... 301 a. Caveats ............................................................................... 301 b. Discussion ............................................................................. 304 C. Significant Scientific and Technological Developments ................... 323 1. New and Advanced Reactor Designs .......................................... 324 2. Developments in Nuclear Fuel .................................................... 326 a. Uranium Fuels ..................................................................... 326 b. Thorium Fuels ..................................................................... 327 3. Developments in Spent Fuel Disposal ........................................ 332 4. Significant Advances in Refueling Techniques, with Concomitant Cost Savings ......................................................... 334 5. Advances in Computer Science .................................................. 334 D. Strong Governmental Support ........................................................ 334 1. The Federal Government ........................................................... 335 2. State and Local Governments ................................................... 339 a. The South .............................................................................. 339 b. The Midwest ......................................................................... 341 c. The West ............................................................................... 343 d. The East ................................................................................. 344 E. Significant Increase in Public Support ............................................... 344 F. Budding Financial Support from the Financial Community .............. 347 III. What Could Derail this Nuclear Renaissance in the U.S.? ......................... 355 A. Political ............................................................................................. 356 1. Spent Fuel ................................................................................... 356 2. Regulatory and Adjudicatory Delays .......................................... 357 B. Economic ........................................................................................... 358 1. Workforce Constraints ................................................................ 358 2. Component Manufacturing Constraints ...................................... 364 3. Blocked Transportation of Radioactive Material ........................ 368 4. Effects of Recent Turmoil on Wall Street ................................ 369 C. Disasters ............................................................................................ 370 1. A Catastrophe at a Nuclear Power Facility Anywhere in the World ......................................................................................... 370 2. Terrorist Attack Using Nuclear Material, but Not Aimed at Destroying or Damaging a Nuclear Facility .............................. 375 D. Death by a Thousand Self-Inflicted Cuts .......................................... 377 IV. Conclusion .................................................................................................. 378 2008] NUCLEAR RENAISSANCE 281 SUMMARY The catch phrase ―nuclear renaissance‖ appears in most articles and speeches these days about nuclear energy. Indeed, nuclear energy is increasingly in the news and is being portrayed there in an increasingly positive light. Unfortunately, few writers or speakers have looked objectively, critically, and in depth at the questions: (i) whether the nuclear renaissance is a reality; (ii) if so, why; and (iii) what could derail it. I seek to do so here. In the first section of this article, I conclude that the nuclear renaissance is indeed a reality. I base this conclusion on factors such as the wave of nuclear plant construction applications filed with or expected by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the resurgence of interest in uranium mining, the major merger- and-acquisitions activity within the nuclear industry, and the increasing interest in nuclear energy elsewhere in the world. In the second section, I examine the reasons for this renaissance. Specifically, I discuss concern over global warming and the environment, nuclear energy‘s environmental and economic advantages over competitor fuels, the significant increase in public support, significant scientific and technological developments that enhance its attractiveness, nuclear energy‘s strong governmental support at the federal, state and local levels, and the financial community‘s increasing interest in and support of nuclear energy. And in the final section, I examine nine potential developments that could derail the nuclear renaissance – non-scientific problems with managing spent fuel, workforce constraints, component manufacturing constraints, a catastrophe at a nuclear power facility anywhere in the world, a terrorist attack using nuclear material, blocked transportation of radioactive material, regulatory and adjudicatory delays, increased difficulties in obtaining construction financing, and self-inflicted wounds by the industry. With money, dedication to detail, and an unwavering effort to earn and retain the trust of all the industry‘s stakeholders, the nuclear industry can take full advantage of the factors contributing to the current renaissance, and minimize the chances of its derailment. But, if that trust is lost, the renaissance will likely lose momentum and die aborning. INTRODUCTION The ―nuclear renaissance is here,‖ proclaims the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) Chairman Dale E. Klein.1 At a House of Representatives hearing in September 2007, Representative David Hobson (R- Ohio) observes that ―[n]uclear energy seems to be poised on the verge of a significant rebirth in this country and around the world.‖2 Even more effusive, 1. Elaine Hiruo, “Nuclear Renaissance is Here,” Klein Says After TVA Submits COL Application, NUCLEONICS WEEK, Nov. 1, 2007, at 1. 2. Keay Davidson, Fresno a Player in Debate Over Nuclear Power: Proposal for Plant in City faces Obstacles, but Technology is on Cusp of National Rebirth, S.F. CHRON., Apr. 8, 2007, at A15,
Recommended publications
  • Nuclear Renaissance by Jone-Lin Wang and Christopher J

    Nuclear Renaissance by Jone-Lin Wang and Christopher J

    Revisiting Nuclear Renaissance by Jone-Lin Wang and Christopher J. Hansen Critical milestones in the first wave of new nuclear development in the USA may prove decisive. overnments and businesses around the globe have countries — China, India, Japan, South Korea and the moved beyond talking to real action to renew USA. Gdevelopment of nuclear power, and have created good prospects for a major nuclear expansion over the com- In the USA, several dozen reactors are in various stages of ing decades. Over the past few years, high fossil fuel prices, proposal development, while international nuclear vendors energy security and climate change concerns and increas- and service providers are forming new alliances. Finally, ing urgency about reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emis- rising uranium prices have led to development of new sions have all converged to improve the position of nuclear mines. power relative to other options. However, critical milestones in the first wave of new In the USA, where no new reactor has been ordered in 28 nuclear development will provide insights into whether and years, these trends, plus excellent performance of the exist- how well new nuclear development is proceeding. Such key ing nuclear fleet and financial incentives in the Energy near-term milestones are: Policy Act of 2005, have led to a race to develop new nuclear power reactors. In Asia, where the building of new nuclear v Late 2007–2008 — Submission of construction and plants never stopped, several countries have recently upped operation license (COL) applications; their target for new nuclear capacity. In Western Europe, a new reactor is under construction for the first time in more v 2007-2008 — Ordering long lead-time items such as than a decade, and a second one is not far behind.
  • Scotland, Nuclear Energy Policy and Independence Raphael J. Heffron

    Scotland, Nuclear Energy Policy and Independence Raphael J. Heffron

    Scotland, Nuclear Energy Policy and Independence EPRG Working Paper 1407 Cambridge Working Paper in Economics 1457 Raphael J. Heffron and William J. Nuttall Abstract This paper examines the role of nuclear energy in Scotland, and the concerns for Scotland as it votes for independence. The aim is to focus directly on current Scottish energy policy and its relationship to nuclear energy. The paper does not purport to advise on a vote for or against Scottish independence but aims to further the debate in an underexplored area of energy policy that will be of value whether Scotland secures independence or further devolution. There are four central parts to this paper: (1) consideration of the Scottish electricity mix; (2) an analysis of a statement about nuclear energy made by the Scottish energy minister; (3) examination of nuclear energy issues as presented in the Scottish Independence White Paper; and (4) the issue of nuclear waste is assessed. A recurrent theme in the analysis is that whether one is for, against, or indifferent to new nuclear energy development, it highlights a major gap in Scotland’s energy and environmental policy goals. Too often, the energy policy debate from the Scottish Government perspective has been reduced to a low-carbon energy development debate between nuclear energy and renewable energy. There is little reflection on how to reduce Scottish dependency on fossil fuels. For Scotland to aspire to being a low-carbon economy, to decarbonising its electricity market, and to being a leader within the climate change community, it needs to tackle the issue of how to stop the continuation of burning fossil fuels.
  • Nuclear Power and Harm to Animals, Wild and Domestic

    Nuclear Power and Harm to Animals, Wild and Domestic

    THE CASE AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER Nuclear power and harm to animals, wild and domestic A PUBLICATION OF BEYOND NUCLEAR Nuclear power and harm to animals, wild and domestic 1 Cover image: Gray Wolf, by Gunnar Ries, Creative Commons/Flickr Acknowledgements This booklet would not have been possible without all the incredible work that has already been done on this subject by our colleagues around the world. Many of our sources are acknowledged in the endnotes, but we would like to give special thanks to two scientists in particular. Dr. Timothy Mousseau and his colleagues have worked extensively in the radioactively contaminated zones around both the Chernobyl nuclear disas- ter site in Ukraine, and the stricken Fukushima reactors in Japan. Far from finding animals “thriving” in the absence of humans, Mousseau and his colleagues discovered birds suffering sterility and cataracts, small mammals with tumors, and generally reduced life expectancies. Dr. Bruno Chareyron, and his France-based laboratory, CRIIRAD, have sampled and analyzed wild habitats in Europe, North America, Siberia and Africa with alarming results. Dr. Chareyron found high levels of radioactive contamination in lakes, rivers, aquatic plants, desert sands and rocks and in the air. His conclusions about the negative impacts to human health apply to animals as well. In 2001, two of us now at Beyond Nuclear, but then at other organizations, published an in-depth study about the impact on marine animals from the routine operation of coastal US nuclear power plants. We have quoted our report — Licensed to Kill—extensively because sadly, since then, almost nothing has changed for the better.
  • AREVA and MHI Agree on Collaboration in Nuclear Energy - Memorandum of Understanding Signed in Tokyo

    AREVA and MHI Agree on Collaboration in Nuclear Energy - Memorandum of Understanding Signed in Tokyo

    AREVA and MHI Agree on Collaboration in Nuclear Energy - Memorandum of Understanding Signed in Tokyo - 2006-10-19 AREVA Group Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd Tokyo, October 19, 2006 -AREVA, the world's largest business group in the nuclear energy field, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI) have agreed to collaborate in the area of nuclear energy, according to a memorandum of understanding signed today in Tokyo by Anne Lauvergeon, CEO of AREVA, and Kazuo Tsukuda, President of MHI. The "nuclear renaissance" has brought about new challenges for the whole nuclear industry, as growth and new expectations of clients require significant mobilization of large financial and human resources. Facing the tremendous market changes, AREVA and MHI have decided to establish a powerful and ground-breaking alliance built on their historical successful relationship* and respective human and industrial capabilities. As a first step, the two companies have already agreed to develop a 3rd-generation 1,000 MWe nuclear power plant expected to attract great market demand. The agreement covers other fields of possible cooperation such as procurement, services, fuel cycle and new types of reactors. AREVA CEO Anne Lauvergeon noted, "This alliance has been worked out on the ground of mutual trust and common vision. Our technical innovation capabilities and our geographical complementarities will bring to our clients, in the field of nuclear power plants and services, unequalled solutions." MHI President Kazuo Tsukuda stated, "We at MHI are all excited about this collaboration with AREVA. It will enable to provide the nuclear power plant technologies and experience accumulated by the two companies around the world in nuclear power generation.
  • Waiting for the Nuclear Renaissance: Exploring the Nexus of Expansion and Disposal in Europe

    Waiting for the Nuclear Renaissance: Exploring the Nexus of Expansion and Disposal in Europe

    Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy www.psocommons.org/rhcpp Vol. 1: Iss. 4, Article 3 (2010) Waiting for the Nuclear Renaissance: Exploring the Nexus of Expansion and Disposal in Europe Robert Darst, University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth Jane I. Dawson, Connecticut College Abstract This article focuses on the growing prospects for a nuclear power renaissance in Europe. While accepting the conventional wisdom that the incipient renaissance is being driven by climate change and energy security concerns, we argue that it would not be possible without the pioneering work of Sweden and Finland in providing a technological and sociopolitical solution to the industry’s longstanding “Achilles’ heel”: the safe, permanent, and locally acceptable disposal of high-level radioactive waste. In this article, we track the long decline and sudden resurgence of nuclear power in Europe, examining the correlation between the fortunes of the industry and the emergence of the Swedish model for addressing the nuclear waste problem. Through an in-depth exploration of the evolution of the siting model initiated in Sweden and adopted and successfully implemented in Finland, we emphasize the importance of transparency, trust, volunteerism, and “nuclear oases”: locations already host to substantial nuclear facilities. Climate change and concerns about energy independence and security have all opened the door for a revival of nuclear power in Europe and elsewhere, but we argue that without the solution to the nuclear waste quandary pioneered by Sweden and Finland, the industry would still be waiting for the nuclear renaissance. Keywords: high-level radioactive waste, permanent nuclear waste disposal, nuclear power in Europe, nuclear politics in Finland and Sweden © 2010 Policy Studies Organization Published by Berkeley Electronic Press - 49 - Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, Vol.
  • After Years of Stagnation, Nuclear Power Is On

    After Years of Stagnation, Nuclear Power Is On

    5 Vaunted hopes Climate Change and the Unlikely Nuclear Renaissance joshua William Busby ft er years oF s TaGNaTioN, Nucle ar P oWer is oN The atable again. Although the sector suffered a serious blow in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear meltdown that occurred in Japan in early 2011, a renewed global interest in nuclear power persists, driven in part by climate concerns and worries about soaring energy demand. As one of the few relatively carbon-free sources of energy, nuclear power is being reconsid- ered, even by some in the environmental community, as a possible option to combat climate change. As engineers and analysts have projected the poten- tial contribution of nuclear power to limiting global greenhouse gas emis- sions, they have been confronted by the limits in efficiency that wind, water, and solar power can provide to prevent greenhouse gas emissions from rising above twice pre-industrial levels. What would constitute a nuclear power renaissance? In 1979, at the peak of the nuclear power sector’s growth, 233 power reactors were simultaneously under construction. By 1987, that number had fallen to 120. As of February 2012, 435 nuclear reactors were operable globally, capable of producing roughly 372 gigawatts (GW) of electricity (WNA 2012). Some analysts suggest that, with the average age of current nuclear plants at twenty-four years, more than 170 reactors would need to be built just to maintain the current number in 2009 1 Copyright © 2013. Stanford University Press. All rights reserved. Press. All © 2013. Stanford University Copyright operation (Schneider et al. a).
  • Consent-Based Siting

    Consent-Based Siting

    Consent-Based Siting From: Karen Hadden [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 12:00 AM To: Consent Based Siting <[email protected]> Subject: Comments regarding Consent‐Based Siting 1 SEED Coalition and No Nuclear Waste Aqui Comments – July 31, 2016 In Response to DOE Invitation for Public Comment regarding Consent-Based Siting Dear U.S. Department of Energy, These comments are being submitted on behalf of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition, a non-profit environmental organization based in Texas, with 2500 members, and the No Nuclear Waste Aqui network, which includes individuals and organizations in Texas and New Mexico. Several of our members attended the Tempe meeting, at great expense. Everyone had to fly to the meeting since it was too far to drive. It’s 743 miles to Tempe from Andrews, Texas. Former State Rep. Lon Burnam from Ft. Worth, Humberto Acosta from Andrews, Rose Gardner from Eunice and Noel Marquez from Artesia, NM, and I joined others from New Mexico at the Tempe meeting. I was also able to attend the Minneapolis meeting and listened to several other meetings through internet. Our comments address the questions that you have asked as well as some that should have been asked. They include: 1) How can the Department ensure that the process for selecting a site is fair? 2) What models and experience should the Department use in designing the process? 3) Who should be involved in the process for selecting a site, and what is their role? 4) What information and
  • The Nuclear Renaissance and AREVA's Reactor Designs for the 21 Century: EPR and SWR-1000

    The Nuclear Renaissance and AREVA's Reactor Designs for the 21 Century: EPR and SWR-1000

    The Nuclear Renaissance and AREVA’s Reactor Designs for the 21st Century: EPR and SWR-1000 Zoran V. STOSIC AREVA NP Koldestr. 16, 91052 Erlangen, Germany [email protected] ABSTRACT Hydro and nuclear energy are the most environmentally benign way of producing electricity on a large scale. Nuclear generated electricity releases 38 times fewer greenhouse gases than coal, 27 times fewer than oil and 15 times fewer than natural gas [9]. On a global scale nuclear power annually saves about 10% of the global CO2 emission. European nuclear power plants save amount of CO2 emissions corresponding with the annual emission of CO2 from all European passenger cars [16]. Also, that is approximately twice the total estimated quantity to be avoided in Europe under the Kyoto Protocol during the period 2008–2012. In respect to main drivers – such as concerns of the global warming effect, population growth, and future energy supply shortfall, low operating costs, reduced dependence on imported gas – it is clear that 30 new nuclear reactors currently being constructed in 11 countries and another 35 and more planed during next 10 years confirm the nuclear renaissance. Participation in the construction of 100 reactors out of 443 worldwide operated in January 2006 and supplying fuel to 148 of them AREVA helps meet the 21st century’s greatest challenges: making energy available to all, protecting the planet, and acting responsibly towards future generations. With EPR and SWR- 1000, AREVA NP has developed advanced design concepts of Generation III+ nuclear reactors which fully meet the most stringent requirements in terms of nuclear safety, operational reliability and economic performance.
  • April 30, 2012 Hon. Barbara Boxer Chair, Senate Environment And

    April 30, 2012 Hon. Barbara Boxer Chair, Senate Environment And

    April 30, 2012 Hon. Barbara Boxer Chair, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Hon. James Inhofe Ranking Member, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senators Boxer and Inhofe, We are writing to urge you to do everything in your power to oppose the confirmation of Kristine Svinicki to a second term as a Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The purpose of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is to regulate the nation’s nuclear power industry in order to protect the public health and safety. Yet during her first term as an NRC Commissioner, Ms. Svinicki uniformly voted for nuclear industry interests at the expense of public health and safety. The March 2011 nuclear disaster at the U.S.-designed reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi site has brought a new level of public attention and scrutiny to the manifest dangers of nuclear power. The ability of U.S. nuclear reactors—23 of which are virtually identical to those at Fukushima Daiichi with a dozen more using the same design concept—to withstand earthquakes, loss-of-power situations and other challenges both natural and man-made is of critical importance. Yet on March 9, 2012, Ms. Svinicki, alone among the five current NRC Commissioners, voted against the implementation of all of the first three post-Fukushima safety measures recommended by NRC staff through the use of a regulatory framework that concludes that they are necessary for the adequate protection of nuclear reactors. This follows a long pattern of similar votes that gives the appearance Ms.
  • Korean Ship Sinking After Hit by Iraqis

    Korean Ship Sinking After Hit by Iraqis

    PZC hearing tonight Jackson mulls Soviet trip Manchester wins on. Keeney subdiyislon to try to free Sakharov Rutland tourney ... page 3 ... page 4 page 11 Variable cloudiness Manchester, Conn. through Tuesday Monday. July 2, 1984 . — See page 2 iianrljratPr IrralJi Single copy: 25® Barbecue Korean ship features diplomacy ’■ ' i- sinking after WASHINGTON (UPI) ’-P resi­ dent Reagan, rebuffed by Moscow hit by iraqis in an attempt to begin talks on space-based weapons, pursued his J: election-year arms controls efforts m ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates (UPI) A at a White House barbecue and South Korean freighter hit by two Iraqi missiles../ found Soviet Ambassador Anatoly appeared to be sinking in the Persian Gulf today after Dobrynin a willing partner. ■ its 23 crew men abandoned the burning hulk, shipping A Western-style barbeque that officials said. 2 offered several hundred foreign The 10,205-ton Wonjin, owned by Joongang Shipping diplomats a taste of Americana Co. of Seoul, was the only vessel confirmed hit among afforded Reagan an opportunity a convoy of seven Iraq claimed to have struck Sunday. Sunday to spend 50 minutes with The freighter, chartered by the National Iranian Dobrynin at a time of continued Shipping Corp., was en route to Iran from Japan with testing between the superpowers. a cargo of 9,000 tons of iron plate.' The informal tete-a-tete, which M i Iran made no comment on the reported attacks, took place against a backdrop of although a Seoul official said the crew members, country music with Dobrynin including four who received burns, were evacuated to seated next to Reagan by virtue of Iran.
  • Nuclear Renaissance in Reverse

    Nuclear Renaissance in Reverse

    RENAISSANCE IN REVERSE: COMPETITION PUSHES AGING U.S. NUCLEAR REACTORS TO THE BRINK OF ECONOMIC ABANDONMENT MARK COOPER SENIOR FELLOW FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT VERMONT LAW SCHOOL JULY 18, 2013 EXHIBIT OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. THE CHALLENGE OF AN AGING FLEET B. THE IMPORTANCE OF UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEMPORARY DILEMMA AND ITS HISTORICAL ROOTS C. OUTLINE II. OLD REACTORS CONFRONT A NEW ECONOMIC REALITY 4 A. SUPPLY, DEMAND, QUANTITY AND PRICE The Economics of Aging Reactors The Margin Squeeze Old Reactors on the Edge B. CONTEMPORARY ECONOMICS OF THE “QUARK” SPREAD Declining Wholesale Prices Rising Costs The Intersection of Risk Factors III. OTHER FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE RETIREMENT CHOICE 13 A. RELIABILITY Outages Load Factor B. ASSET CHARACTERISTICS Asset Life Asset Size and Integration Regulated Reactors C. CAPEX WILDCARDS Uprates Safety, Spent Fuel and the Fukushima Effect D. REACTORS AT RISK IV. THE CURRENT ECONOMIC CRISIS IN PERSPECTIVE 27 A. THE HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE OF U.S. COMMERCIAL REACTORS Outages and Early Retirements Performance: Load Factors and Operating Costs B. FUTURE PROSPECTS FOR MARKET FORCES Natural Gas Cost History and Trends Renewables Demand C. CONCLUSION i LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT ES-1: RETIREMENT RISK FACTORS OF THE NUCLEAR FLEET iv EXHIBIT II-1: CONCEPTUALIZING THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR 4 MARKET CLEARING FOSSIL FUEL GENERATION EXHIBIT II-2: CONCEPTUALIZING THE MARGIN SQUEEZE ON 5 OLD REACTORS EXHIBIT II-3: SUPPLY INDUCED PRICE EFFECT OF WIND POWER,
  • Travis-Carless-Phd-Thesis-2018.Pdf

    Travis-Carless-Phd-Thesis-2018.Pdf

    Framing a New Nuclear Renaissance Through Environmental Competitiveness, Community Characteristics, and Cost Mitigation Through Passive Safety Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering and Public Policy Travis Seargeoh Emile Carless B.S., Computer and Systems Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute M.S., Industrial Engineering, University of Pittsburgh Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA May 2018 © Travis Seargeoh Emile Carless, 2018 All Rights Reserved For Angella Clarke, the strongest person I will ever know iv Acknowledgements First and foremost I would like to give all glory to God. I am truely blessed to be given the opportunity to pursue my dream. I would like to dedicate this work to my older cousin Angella Clarke and my friend Javon Jackson whose lives ended far too soon. Within my extended family, Angella was the first person to attend college and nurtured my intellectual curiosity for as long as I can remember. In 1996, I fondly remember attending her graduation from Cornell University. When she was on stage to receive her diploma, I turned to my mother and said to her, “Don’t worry mom, one day you will see me down there.” She was the person in my life that encouraged me to study engineering after recognizing my aptitude in the math and sciences. Quite simply, I would not be the person I am today without her in my life. When I was younger I would race behind you. I would stumble, I would fall. But as I got older, over time, your example has helped me accomplished wonders.