Nuclear power in the United States 4131402 223392613 2008-07-03T21:51:52Z Daniel.Cardenas 723158 /* External links */ deleted external link per [[wp:el]] . the el is also full of inaccuracies. {{dablink|For a comprehensive list of U.S. plants, see [[List_of_nuclear_reactors#United_States_of_America|List of nuclear reactors]].}} <!--{{FixBunching|mid}} --> [[Image:Nrc reactors map.gif|thumbnail|300px|NRC regions and location of nuclear reactors]] <!--{{FixBunching|mid}} --> [[Image:Shippingport Reactor.jpg|300px|thumb|The Shippingport reactor was the first full-scale PWR nuclear power plant in the United States.]] <!--{{FixBunching|mid}} --> As of [[2007]] in the United States, there are [[List of nuclear reactors#United States of America|104]] (69 [[pressurized water reactor]]s and 35 [[boiling water reactor]]s) commercial nuclear generating units licensed to operate, producing a total of 97,400 megawatts (electric), which is approximately 20% of the nation's total electric energy consumption. The United States is the world's largest supplier of commercial nuclear power. ==History== [[Image:Three Mile Island (color)-2.jpg|300px|thumb|The [[Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station|Three Mile Island NPP]] on Three Mile Island, circa 1979]] President [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] opened the [[Shippingport Atomic Power Station|Shippingport power plant]] [[nuclear power plant|atomic power station]] on [[May 26]], [[1958]] as part of his [[Atoms for Peace]] program. Shippingport was the first commercial nuclear power plant built in the [[United States]]. After the growth of nuclear power in the 1960s, the [[Atomic Energy Commission]] anticipated that more than 1,000 reactors would be operating in the United States by 2000. But by the end of the 1970s, it became clear that nuclear power would not grow nearly so dramatically, and more than 120 reactor orders were ultimately cancelled.<ref>[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33442.pdf Nuclear Power: Outlook for New U.S. Reactors] p. 3.</ref> The [[Three Mile Island accident]] has been the most serious accident experienced by the U.S. nuclear industry. Other accidents include those at the [[Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant]], which has been the source of two of the top five most dangerous nuclear incidents in the [[United States]] since 1979, according to the [[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]].<ref>{{cite_web | author=[[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]] | date=[[2004-09-16]] | title=Davis-Besse preliminary accident sequence precursor analysis | format=PDF | url=http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/vessel-head-degradation/news/2004/09-16-04-ml0426005320.pdf| accessdate=2006-06-14}} and {{cite_web | author=[[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]] | date=[[2004-09-20]] | title=NRC issues preliminary risk analysis of the combined safety issues at Davis-Besse | url=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2004/04-117.html | accessdate=2006-06-14}}</ref> A large number of plants have recently received 20-year extensions to their licensed lifetimes. Several US nuclear power plants closed well before their design lifetimes, including [[Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station|Rancho Seco]] in 1989 in California, [[San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station|San Onofre Unit 1]] in 1992 in California (units 2 and 3 are still operating), [[Zion Nuclear Power Station|Zion]] in 1998 in Illinois and [[Trojan Nuclear Power Plant|Trojan]] in 1992 in Oregon. [[Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant|Humboldt Bay]] in California closed in 1976, 13 years after geologists discovered it was built on a fault (the Little Salmon Fault). [[Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant]] never operated commercially as an authorized Emergency Evacuation Plan could not be agreed on due to the political climate after the Three Mile Island and [[Chernobyl accident|Chernobyl]] accidents. ==Resurgence== [[Image:Nuclear energy poll usa.png|thumbnail|left|Feb 2005 opinion poll regarding nuclear power in the USA.<br />Blue represents people in favor of nuclear power<br />Gray represents undecided<br />Yellow represents opposed to nuclear power]] In recent years, there has been a renewed interest in nuclear power in the US. This has been facilitated in part by the federal government with the [[Nuclear Power 2010 Program]], which coordinates efforts for building new nuclear power plants,<ref>"The Daily Sentinel." [http://www.thedailysentinel.com/story.lasso?ewcd=583b0a060f9c3f71/ Commission, City support NuStart]. Retrieved on [[December 1]], [[2006]]</ref> and the [[Energy Policy Act of 2005|Energy Policy Act]] which makes provisions for nuclear and oil industries.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=132&storyCode=2030325 |title=US energy bill favors new build reactors, new technology |publisher=Nuclear Engineering International |date=12 August 2005 |accessdate=2007-12-26}}</ref><ref> {{cite news |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/29/AR2005072901128.html |title=Energy Bill Raises Fears About Pollution, Fraud Critics Point to Perks for Industry |author=Michael Grunwald and Juliet Eilperin |publisher=''[[Washington Post]]'' |date=July 30, 2005 |accessdate=2007-12-26}}</ref> The most likely and receptive sites for new nuclear plant construction are in the Southeast and Midwest <ref>[http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/wallstreet/ Nuclear Energy Institute - Wall Street<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> which have the largest number of existing plants. [[As of 2005]], no nuclear plant had been ordered without subsequent cancellation for over twenty years. However, on [[September 22]], [[2005]] it was announced that two sites had been selected to receive new power reactors (exclusive of the new power reactor scheduled for [[Idaho National Laboratory]]) and two other utilities have plans for new reactors.<ref>Press Release."[http://www.nustartenergy.com/DisplayArticle.aspx?ID=20050922-1 NuStart Selects Grand Gulf, Bellefonte For Advanced Nuclear Plant Licenses]." ''NuStart Energy.'' Retrieved on [[December 1]], [[2006]].</ref> There has also been an application for an early site permit at [[Exelon Corporation|Exelon's]] [[Clinton Nuclear Generating Station|Clinton Nuclear]] in [[Clinton, Illinois]] to install another reactor as well as a reactor restart at the [[Tennessee Valley Authority]] [[Browns Ferry]] nuclear station.<ref>[http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/esp/clinton.html/ Exelon Generation Company, LLC Application for the Clinton ESP Site]." ''Nuclear Regulatory Commission.'' Retrieved on [[December 1]], [[2006]].</ref> On [[September 25]], [[2007]], [[South Texas Project]] filed the application for a [[Combined Construction and Operating License]] (COL). Two new GE-Hitachi [[ABWR]]s will be built adjacent to the existing [[Pressurized water reactor|PWR]]s.<ref name="COLapp">{{cite web| url = http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newNuclear/COL_application_filed_for_new_South_Texas_plant-250907.shtml | title = South Texas Project Files for COL | format=url | publisher = World Nuclear News | accessdate=2007-11-30}}</ref> This is the first application for a new nuclear plant in the US for nearly 30 years. {{Fact|date=December 2007}} This was followed in October, 2007 by [[Tennessee Valley Authority|TVA]] and [[NuStart]] filing for a COL for two [[Westinghouse Electric Company | Westinghouse]] [[AP1000]]s to be built at [[Bellefonte Nuclear Generating Station |Bellefonte]] in Hollywood, Alabama.<ref name="ap1000col">{{cite web| url = http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/pdf/NuStart103007.pdf | title = NuStart/TVA Submit 'Forward Looking' Reference Application | format=PDF | publisher = PR Newswire | accessdate=2007-11-30}}</ref> In 2007, the [[Nuclear Energy Institute]] even started an advertising campaign to increase public support of nuclear power.<ref> [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4280491657378693263 television ad on Google Video]</ref> As of April 2008, the [[Nuclear Regulatory Commission|NRC]] is expecting 23 COL applications for a total of 34 new plants.<ref> {{cite web | url= http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-applications.pdf | title= Expected New Nuclear Power Plant Applications | date= Updated April 23, 2008 | format= [[PDF]] | publisher= [[U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission]] | accessdate= 2008-05-15 }} </ref> However, [[MidAmerican Energy Company]] has decided to "end its pursuit of a nuclear power plant in Payette County, Idaho."<ref> {{cite web | url= http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idUSN2957446620080129 | title= MidAmerican drops Idaho nuclear project due to cost | date= Jan 29, 2008 | publisher= Reuters | accessdate= 2008-05-15 }} </ref> MidAmerican cited cost as the primary factor in their decision. In April 2008 [[Southern Company]] signed an engineering and procurement contract with [[Westinghouse Electric Company | Westinghouse]] and [[Shaw Group]] for two [[AP1000|AP1000s]] to be built at [[Vogtle Electric Generating Plant|Vogtle]] in Georgia.<ref> {{cite web | url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/10/nuclear.nuclearpower | title= "Westinghouse wins first US nuclear deal in 30 years" | last= Terry | first= Macalister | date= April 10 2008 | publisher= ''[[The Guardian]]'' | accessdate= 2008-05-15 }} </ref> This is the first construction contract for a new nuclear power plant in the US to be signed since 1978. The prospect of a nuclear renaissance has also revived debate about the nuclear waste issue. It is widely agreed that burying spent nuclear fuel deep underground is the best option for waste disposal, but no such long-term waste repositories yet exist.<ref> {{cite web | url= http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-nuclear-renaissance&print=true | title= "A Nuclear Power Renaissance?" | date= April 28, 2008 |work= | publisher= ''[[Scientific American]]'' | accessdate= 2008-05-15 }} </ref><ref> {{cite web | url= http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-recycling | title= Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth | last= von Hippel | first= Frank N. | authorlink= Frank N. von Hippel | date= April 2008 |work= |publisher= ''Scientific American'' | accessdate= 2008-05-15 }} </ref><ref> {{cite web | url= http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKL2214163420080122 | title= "Nuclear power rebirth revives waste debate" | last= Motevalli | first= Golnar | date= Jan 22, 2008 | publisher= [[Reuters]] | accessdate= 2008-05-15 }} </ref> ==Safety== {{main|Nuclear safety in the U.S.}} ===Regulation=== Regulation of nuclear power plants in the United States is done by the [[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]], which divides the nation into 4 administrative divisions. ==Fuel Cycle== ===Uranium Mining=== {{main|Uranium mining in the United States}} The United States has the 4th greatest uranium reserves in the world. Domestic production increased until 1980, after which it declined sharply due to low uranium prices. In 2001 the [[United States]] mined only 5% of the [[uranium]] consumed by its nuclear power plants. The remainder was imported, principally from [[Canada]] and [[Australia]].<ref>Warren I Finch (2003) ''Uranium-fuel for nuclear energy 2002'', US Geological Survey, Bulletin 2179-A.</ref> After 2001, however, uranium prices steadily increased, which prompted increased production and revived mines. ===Uranium enrichment=== The [[United States Enrichment Corporation]] (USEC) performs all enrichment activities for U.S. commercial nuclear plants, using 11.3&nbsp;million [[enriched uranium#Separative work unit|SWUs]] per year at its [[Paducah, Kentucky]] site. The USEC plant still uses gaseous diffusion enrichment, which has now been proved to be inferior to centrifuge enrichment. However, the capital cost of such a plant is so high that the plant will go through a few more years of operation before being replaced by a modern centrifuge plant. Currently, demonstration activities are underway at [[Oak Ridge National Laboratory]] for a future centrifugal enrichment plant. The new plant will be called the '''American Centrifuge Plant''', which has an estimate cost of 2.3&nbsp;billion USD.<ref>{{cite web | url= http://www.usec.com/v2001_02/HTML/Aboutusec_Centrifuge.asp | title= Uranium Enrichment — The American Centrifuge | year= 2008 | publisher= [[United States Enrichment Corporation|USEC Inc.]] | accessdate= 2008-05-15 }} </ref> ===Reprocessing=== US policy that forbid reprocessing in the country was drafted under the [[Jimmy Carter|Carter]] administration. The official statement was "We will defer indefinitely the commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium produced in the U.S. nuclear power programs."<ref> {{cite web | url= http://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RS22542.pdf | title= Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing: U.S. Policy Development | last= Andrews | first= Anthony | date= November 29, 2006 | format= PDF |work= |publisher= [[Congressional Research Service]] | accessdate= 2008-05-15 }} </ref> However, since the [[Global Nuclear Energy Partnership|GNEP]] was proposed, several reprocessing proposals have also surfaced. ===Disposal=== {{seealso|Yucca Mountain}} In the United States, all power produced by nuclear energy pays a tax of 0.1&nbsp;cents per kWh sold, in exchange for which the United States government takes responsibility for the high level nuclear waste. This tax has been collected since the beginning of the industry, but action by the government towards creation of a national geological repository was not taken until the 1990s and 2000s since all spent fuel is immediately stored in the spent fuel pools on site. Recently, as plants continue to age, many of these pools have come near capacity, prompting creation of dry cask storage facilities as well. Several lawsuits between utilities and the government have also transpired over the cost of these facilities, because by law the government is required to foot the bill for actions that go beyond the spent fuel pool. Yucca became the front runner for the selection of a site for a national repository and then was decided to be the site by the government. Funding has been increasing in recent years and research is ongoing, but a date for receiving spent fuel is still a number of years off and the plan remains a political battleground. ==Nuclear Organizations== ===Fuel Vendors=== The following companies are those which have active [[Nuclear fuel]] fabrication facilities in the United States.<ref> {{cite web | url= http://www.wise-uranium.org/efac.html | title= World Nuclear Fuel Facilities | date= last updated 14 May 2008 |work= | publisher= WISE Uranium Project | accessdate= 2008-05-15 }} </ref> These are all light water fuel fabrication facilities because only LWRs are operating in the US. The US currently has no [[MOX fuel]] fabrication facilities, though [[Duke Energy]] has expressed intent of building one of a relatively small capacity.<ref> {{cite web | url= http://www.duke-energy.com/newsarchives/2005/Mar/2005030301.asp | title= Duke Power Granted License Amendment by Nuclear Regulatory Commission To Use MOX Fuel | date= March 03, 2005 |work= | publisher= [[Duke Energy]] | accessdate= 2008-05-15 }} </ref> *[[Areva]] ::Areva (formerly Areva NP) runs fabrication facilities in [[Lynchburg, Virginia]] and [[Richland, Washington]]. It also has a Generation III+ plant design, the [[Evolutionary Power Reactor]], which it plans to market in the US.<ref> {{cite web | url= http://www.areva-np.com/us/liblocal/docs/epr/epr_genIII_performanceFactSheet090607.pdf | title= EPR: Generation III+ Performance | date= 06 September 2007 | format= PDF |work= |publisher= | accessdate= 2008-05-15 }} </ref> *[[Westinghouse Electric Company]] ::Westinghouse operates a fuel fabrication facility in [[Columbia, South Carolina]]<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmens/is_200408/ai_n6868183 Uranium Ash at Westinghouse Nuclear Fuel Plant Draws Fine | Environment News Service | Find Articles at BNET.com<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>, which processes 1,600 metric tons Uranium (MTU) per year. It previously operated a nuclear fuel plant in [[Hematite, Missouri]] but has since closed it down. *[[General Electric]] ::GE pioneered the [[boiling water reactor|BWR]] technology that has become widely used throughout the world. It formed the ''Global Nuclear Fuel'' joint venture in 1999 with [[Hitachi, Ltd.|Hitachi]] and [[Toshiba]] and later restructured into ''GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy''. It operates the fuel fabrication facility in [[Wilmington, North Carolina]], with a capacity of 1,200 MTU per year. ===Industry and Academic=== The [[American Nuclear Society]] (ANS) scientific and educational organization that has academic and industry members. The organization publishes a large amount of literature on nuclear technology in several journals. The ANS also has some offshoot organizations such as [[North American Young Generation in Nuclear]] (NA-YGN). The [[Nuclear Energy Institute]] (NEI) is an industry group whose activities include lobbying, experience sharing between companies and plants, and provides data on the industry to a number of outfits. == References == {{reflist}} == See also == {{EnergyPortal}} * [[Atoms for Peace]] * [[Exelon]] * [[List of nuclear reactors]] * [[Nuclear Power 2010 Program]] * [[Nuclear power]] * [[Nuclear energy policy]] * [[Anti-nuclear movement in the United States]] * [[Energy policy of the United States]] ;Bilateral nuclear power agreements * [[United States-Japan Joint Nuclear Energy Action Plan]] * [[United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act]] == External links == * [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.htm World-nuclear.org] * [http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/usnuclearpowerplants/ U.S. Nuclear Power Plant Statistical Information] * [http://www.uic.com.au/nip07.htm Uranium information center: Nuclear energy in the world] * [http://www.nei.org/ The Nuclear Energy Institute]: The policy organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industry {{Nuclear power by country}} {{Energy in the USA}} [[Category:Politics of the United States]] [[Category:National electric power policy]] [[Category:Nuclear energy in the United States]] [[fr:Liste des réacteurs nucléaires des États-Unis]]